text
stringlengths 512
504k
| summary
stringlengths 503
2k
|
|---|---|
A Cabarrus County man died Monday night at Carolinas Medical Center Northeast. Larry Upright, 81, made one final request in his obituary -- written by his family.
“Also, the family respectfully asks that you do not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. R.I.P. Grandaddy,” it read.
Click here to read his obituary.
As the family wrote Upright’s obituary at the funeral home they thought it would be an appropriate message. Some people may find the message silly, but family members said Upright enjoyed politics.
“He was very passionate about politics and probably passed a little of that on, so it was natural for me to think about that,” daughter Jill McLain said of putting the sentence about Clinton in Upright’s obituary.
Upright was politically informed his whole life, but never involved in public office, according to family members.
“We have got some very sweet responses and some pretty nasty responses,” Colleen Upright, his wife, told Channel 9.
“We did this for him,” son Mike Upright said. “He had nothing to do with it other than voicing his opinion time after time after time.”
Upright, who enjoyed golfing, fishing and spending time with his family, was a diehard Republican.
“We know he’s up there giggling right now. Just laughing out loud,” Mike Upright said. ||||| A North Carolina man may influence the 2016 presidential election from beyond the grave if his family gets their way.
Larry Darrell Upright, an “avid golfer” who loved his family, died Monday in Concord, North Carolina. He was 81.
Upright didn't, however, apparently share that love for Hillary Clinton.
"The family respectfully asks that you do not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016," read the obituary, which ran in the local newspaper. "R.I.P. Grandaddy.”
His family described Upright as a diehard Republican, according to ABC affiliate WSOC-TV in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Whitleys Funeral Home
“He was very passionate about politics and probably passed a little of that on, so it was natural for me to think about that,” his daughter, Jill McLain, said of adding the unconventional line at the last minute.
Upright may get his final wish. Over a dozen well-wishers posting their condolences on a Kannapolis, N.C., funeral home’s website, which also carried the obituary, made it clear they would steer clear of Clinton, the former secretary of state who announced last Sunday that she was running for president.
"Our deepest sympathies to the Upright family,” wrote one. “Rest assured we will NOT vote for Hillary in 2016."
"I am a stranger and I do not know you or your departed,” another wrote. “However, I saw the obit and wanted to express my condolences and to let you know that your sense of humor is wonderful. Please know that we will not be voting for Hillary.”
Not everyone was swayed, though.
"Sorry for your loss,” wrote one poster, “but I'm voting for Hillary anyway." ||||| Larry Darrell Upright, 81, passed away Monday, April 13, 2015 at CMC-NorthEast. Darrell was born August 15, 1933 in Cabarrus County to the late Arthur and Mary Ruth Upright. He was also preceded in death by his son, Joel Allen Upright. He is survived by his beloved wife and devoted caregiver Colleen McDonald Upright; son Michael D. Upright; daughter Jill Upright McLain and husband, Phil; granddaughters McKenzie Upright Brady and husband, Logan, Lindsay McLain Leece and husband, Jason, and Laura McLain. He was a member and past Master of Allen-Graham #695 Masonic Lodge and a former Shriner of the Year at Cabarrus Shrine Club. He retired from the Building Automation Industry and in his retirement was an avid golfer and member of The Club at Irish Creek. Darrell's greatest joy was his family and he will forever be remembered as a loving husband, father, and Grandaddy. The family will receive friends from 6-8 p.m. Wednesday at Whitley's Funeral Home. Services will be held at 2:00 PM Thursday, April 16, 2015 at Whitley's Funeral Home Chapel officiated by Mr. Bill Jolley. Burial will follow at Carolina Memorial Park with Masonic rites. In lieu of flowers, memorials may be sent to Shriners Hospital for Children at 2900 Rocky Point Drive, Tampa, FL 33607. Also, the family respectfully asks that you do not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. R.I.P. Grandaddy.
From: Debbie McLain
"I am so sorry for your loss. You all are in my thoughts and prayers. I love you all. Your dad, father, husband and granddaddy was a great man. May God give you all peace during this very hard time. Love you, Debbie McLain" From: Dennis White
"I am so sorry to hear about Darrell's passing. It was such a surprise! Mike and I were just discussing his parents a few days earlier. Mike and I have been friends since high school and some of my best memories are of spending time at the Upright home. Darrell and Colleen always made me feel like a memory of the family. My prayers go out to Colleen, Mike, Jill, and the rest of the family." From: Nolan & Barbara Moss
"Our Thoughts and Prayers Mike!! We will conform to your family request." From: Ed and Elaine Akerman
"Our deepest sympathy to the Upright family, we are so sorry for your loss." From: Mike & Carolyn Lambeth
"We are very sorry about your dad. They are very special to all of us in their own ways. May your memories keep him close." From: Rosie
"Dear Mike and family, I am so sorry for your loss. I've been praying for you all. May God strengthen you, provide understanding and give you peace." From: Randy Wilson
"So sorry for your loss Mike, condolence to you and all the family.... PS will not vote for Hillary" From: Daniel and Debby Fike
"Our deepest sympathy to the entire family. We promise not to vote for Hillary. May your dad rest in peace Mike." From: Sid & Carolyn Hartley
"We are so sorry for your loss.We will be praying for the family." From: Bob and Barbara Bowles
"Our thoughts and prayers are for you and your family. We did not know your father but I bet he was a wonderful and kind man. Knowing you Mike he had to be, because that sort of thing rubs off on children. God Bless......we would not vote for Hillary if she was the only one running....Love you Mike" From: Byrd & Susan Smith
"Thinking of you all with Love & Prayer. Treasure the precious memories & Smile knowing that there is a "WELCOME HOME PARTY" in Heaven today." From: Terry Hair
"My condolence goes out to the family, may God bless each one of you, I am so sorry Jill." From: Geoff and Lesa Jones
"Our heart felt thoughts and prayers are with the family during this sad and trying time." From: Bill & Melissa Mason
"Our deepest sympathies to the Upright family. Rest assured we will NOT vote for Hillary in 2016." From: James and Linda Statham & Family
"To Colleen, Mike and Jill and all the Grandchildren, Our Hearts are broken. Darrell was such a great friend and though we didn't get to see each other often, he was always considered family. Our prayers are with each of you and may you find comfort in the memories that you share. From James to Darrell, Gonna miss you my Brother...Rest in Peace Love to All, James and Linda, Kathy and Robin" From: Donna Moss and Carmen Lentz
"Mike, McKenzie and family, We are so very sorry for the loss of your Dad and Granddad. May the love and support of family and friends give you strength at this time. May God wrap his loving arms around all of you." From: Susan Love
"To the Upright and McLain family - I am so sorry for your loss. May God's strength and blessings carry you throughout the upcoming days." From: Joel Hill
"Darrell was my 1st cousin, although I have not seen him since my brothers passed away. Living in another state, I have not had a chance to be close, but I remember Darrell fondly. May God bless the family and provide comfort in this time of loss." From: Kim Carter Sellers
"So sorry Mike. My thoughts are with you and your family." From: Charl McLeod
"Condolences to the Upright family, especially the grandchildren! Your request not to vote for Hillary Clinton will certainly be honored by our family! Blessings to each of you!" From: Patrick D.M. Patch
"To the Upright Family: I am so sorry for your loss. Phil McLain is one of my business partners and a close friend. Jill you and your Mom and family are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. Please know that I will abide by Larry's wishes and Mrs. Clinton will not be getting my vote in the upcoming 2016 election. My Best, Patrick D.M. Patch Paramount Marketing Group" From: Jon
"My condolences on your loss. And thank you for helping me make up my mind so early in the Presidential race. I know you support the electoral process and the right of every American to vote for the candidate of their choosing. Assuming Ms. Clinton gets her party's nomination, she gets my vote. Blessings to all." From: Crystal Hill Combs
"I am truly sorry for your loss. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers." From: M Teague
"So sorry for your family's loss. Thoughts and prayers go out to each of you. P.S. Your wish is granted.....will Not vote for Hillary Clinton" From: Sherrie Lynn
"I am a stranger and I do not know you or your departed. However, I saw the obit and wanted to express my condolences and to let you know that your sense of humor is wonderful. Please know that we will not be voting for Hillary. Blessings to you and your family" From: Sarah Holmes
"Prayers for you and your family at this most difficult time. I too promise to uphold the request and will not vote for Mrs. Clinton. Ever." From: WV Funeral Director
"Don't know you, but I will respectfully honor your request. RIP Mr. Upright!" From: Paula Celino
"I am sorry for the loss of your loved one, and will be praying for your family. We do not know each other, but after reading the obituary, we share a common goal. My family and I will not be voting for Hillary. In case you did not know the obit was posted on facebook" From: Anonymous
"First let me say I am truly sorry for your loss. I saw this unique obituary on the news and wanted to let you know that I will gladly honor Mr. Upright's memory by not voting for Hillary in 2016 or any other year for that matter. Again, my condolences go to you all." From: Mike Spenser
"This obituary has helped me make up my mind as to who to vote for POTUS in 2016. Hilary Rodham Clinton for president. Thanks for helping me to choose who to vote for Larry." From: Elizabeth Campbell
"I promise not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Praying for the family. God bless." From: Thom Owens
"Sorry for your loss, my condolences to you all, I will indeed along with my family respect and will follow your request, God Bless you all.." From: Mark and Penny Ragan
"I just now read and seen your fathers name in the paper. I am so sorry that you have lost your father. Even when our loved ones are older and even when they have been sick it is still hard to let them go. But just carrying him with you day by day until the time you will always be together." From: S. Duck
"I did not know Mr. Upright, although I can tell by reading the obituary that he was a fine gentleman with high personal values who always wanted the best for his family, friends and nation. May he rest in peace knowing that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Michelle Cousins, Mechanicsville, VA
"I am so very sorry for your loss. I will definitely NOT be voting for Hillary! Didn't vote for Bill or Obama either! Prayers for peace and comfort for your family. May Jesus be close to your hearts and may his memory be a blessing" From: Sandy
"So sorry for your loss. I also appreciate the humor of your dearly departed and I too will not be voting for Hillary." From: William May
"To the the family, sorry for you loss, and I will honor Larry's memory by not voting Hillary." From: No one in particular
"My sympathies to your family, but...WOW! What a horrible and hateful obituary!!! You really think that you should mix politics with death? That's pretty low and distasteful. Oh, btw, I WILL vote for Hillary!!!! And so are a lot of people!!!" From: Joe Voter
"Sorry for your loss, but I'm voting for Hillary anyway." From: R. David from Louisiana
"Please accept this condolence from a stranger who didn't have the privilege of knowing your loved one. I can tell he will be greatly missed, and I wish for peace for his family and friends. The voting request will be strictly honored in my household." From: Luke
"I'm so very sorry for your loss-we've never met, but after seeing this on Facebook I thought I'd send my condolences. I will honor your departed by also not voting for Clinton & donating to a quality conservative candidate in his honor." From: The McBriarty family
"Our deepest condolences. The entire McBriarty family will be voting for Hillary Clinton ." From: Jim Trebowski
"My condolences to the family. In honor of the family request, I will be making donations to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders." From: Mrs. Pam Lamker
"My deepest sympathies to family and friends of Larry Upright. I don't know any of you nor knew him .. but you count on my not voting for H. Clinton. Never! God Bless" From: a California admirer
"Mr. Upright, obviously nothing could daunt your courage and good humor as well as your principles. Your family was lucky to have you. I promise to honor your election request." From: Janis & Bill
"Our family's thoughts and prayers are with you and Mr. Upright. We will indeed honor his wishes not to vote for Hillary. And for those who had the need to post political defiance of the family's request, a simple condolence would have been the classy thing to do. Unfortunately too much to hope for from some." From: Joe Potter
"Condolences on your loss. I hope you find peace before Hilary's inauguration, which will surely be a traumatic and challenging time for you." From: Proud Voter
"May Larry Rest in Peace at least until November 2016 when I'm sure he'll be rolling in his grave because Hillary Clinton has been elected President of the United States!!!!!" From: Mukesh Contractor
"My prayer for your brave soul in peace with God. Your service to mankind will always be rewarded by the lord and blessing from all souls you have touched through out your life. I also salute you to be bod enough to speak out against most lawless, corrupted, deceiving and breaking all laws of lord on this earth and power hungry Clinton !!! I AM SURE WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER OR ANY DEMOCRATS in coming election !!!! God Bless you and your family members !!!!" From: Matthew B. Tepper
"I truly hope that Mr. Upright is in a better place now, as I am deeply saddened that his last days were transfigured by hate and spite. If I were among his friends, I would now be faced with a moral dilemma, because I swear upon my life, my soul, my departed mother, and Almighty God Himself that I will vote for the Democratic candidate for president, whoever that might be. Rest well in the peace of Heaven, Mr. Upright, and I hope that you will by now have learned that human beings are not yours to enslave to your will." From: Lyn
"Sorry for your loss but Hillary GETS MY VOTE!" From: Sharyn Bass
"Condolences to the family in their great loss. Your last name says it all, Mr. Upright! I most definitely will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016!" From: Michael
"My condolences for you and your family. I am honoring your personal, last wish by signing up to be on Hillary Clinton's staff. I have been, and always shall be, your friend." From: Ms. Helen Green, Jacksonville, Florida
"To the family of Larry Darrell Upright, I am so sorry for your loss. I hope the memories that you have of your dad, granddad...will carry you throughout the years. I wanted to let you know that I agree with Mr. Larry D. Upright - I will not vote for Hillary Clinton! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! God will carry you through this difficult time. Ms. Helen Green" From: Shirl Petruzzi , Port Orange FL
"R.I.P. I will honor your wishes." From: Baron Frazier
"RIP, and Hillary For President." From: Ed Wood
"May God comfort you in this time of need, and may you find peace with God during the Hillary Clinton Presidency from 2017-2025." From: Priscilla Morales
"Dear Family and Loved Ones of Larry, I didn't know Larry, but his passing has made headlines. Prayers for you all thorough the coming days and weeks as losing a loved one leaves an empty place. Lean on the Lord for comfort, he will see you trough. Also it gives me great pleasure NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton. With Sympathy, Priscilla Morales" From: Thomas Willis
"I did not know Mr. Upright or any family member but I would like to extend my sincere condolences. Be known by all that I will honor the family's wished and not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Mary Dawson
"May you rest in peace Mr. Upright. I can assure you that my family will never ever vote for a Clinton for anything! Sending my sincere condolences to the family..." From: Paige Morgan Foy Winston Salem, NC
"I am so sorry for your loss. I will honor your Grandfathers wish by not voting for Hillary! I am so very sorry he wont be here to cast his vote! I think we are going to need it!!!!! Prayers for your family! <3 <3 <3" From: Barack Obama
"Thank you for your service to this country, and so sorry for your loss. No, I will NOT be voting for HiLIARy Clinton." From: Monica
"I am so, Sorry, for your loss, They say it gets easier.i am sorry i just can not, grant that wish I Will be voting for Hillary, GOD BLESS" From: Jerry
"I'm sorry for you loss, but to assume your loved one wanted you to spoil his respectful memory by publishing a political statement is stupid and presumptuous. I will be voting for Hilary Clinton and advise everyone I know to do the same. Sorry but she is going to win and continue the growth streak that President Obama has perpetuated for this country even with all the obstructions thrown at him by the elephants." From: @PatriotCzar
"Sending Prayers for your family; I am saddened to hear of your loss, yet thankful the news was made available to me. It is so refreshing and a comfort to know there are other families across America who cherish the memories of "OUR LOVED ONE'S" that made America a GREAT place for us! What a Blessing it must be, to have known such a loving and giving CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN PATRIOT - May God continue to Bless You All, and comfort your hearts with the joys of HIS Promises - AMEN" From: A sympathetic Yankee
"We will comply with your wishes. I hope this makes your family feel better." From: Anonymous
"Condolences on the death of your loved one. I will be thinking of you when I vote with pleasure for Mrs. Clinton in 2016." From: John Galt
"In Sympathy in your time of loss... It is a pity the family has chosen to use politicize this event and utilize it as a device to attempt to further divide the citizens of this wonderful country. Perhaps you should consider these words: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged" From: Bobby Morris
"Sorry for your loss. Apparently he was an honest man and believed in the morals of our nation. I will not vote for Hillary." From: MiddleUSTaxpayer
"SORRY ABOUT YOUR LOSS! Thanks. It's sad the RICH DONOT pay taxes;the POOR CANNOT PAY; THE MIDDLE CLASS PAYS ALL. THANKS TO MR UPRIGHT FAMILY, HELPED ME MAKE UP MY MIND AND GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE FOR MRS. CLINTON. AGAIN, THANK YOU" From: Mrs. C
"Rest in peace, fellow patriot. Thank you for leaving what appears to be a beautiful legacy. I will honor your memory by definitely NOT voting for Hillary Clinton. Hugs and condolences to your loving family." From: MS Voter
"I plan to vote for Hillary. RIP or not?" From: James
"Sorry for your loss and sorry you chose to politicize your family members death. I and all true Americans, will be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (and 2020)" From: Wes Atkinson
"So sorry for your loss but I will happily comply with your wishes!" From: Flint
"You will be missed. And I promise to turn down the volume when she gives her eight state of the union addresses." From: Linda in Joplin, MO
"What an honor it would have been to know this man! An obituary only tells part of a story, but with one line, I know that he was a man who held his family dear, had a great since of humor, and holds the same values as I hold. May he get his final wish in 2016." From: Barbara
"I'm so sorry for your loss. It's so hard to lose a loved one. My own mother-in-law will soon be joining the afterlife and we will miss her as much as you miss your loved one. So, in both their honors, I will vote for Hillary to protect our basic rights as humans." From: Kathy
"Will honor Mr. Uprights wishes." From: Joe
"RIP but still voting Hillary in 2016" From: Paul
"Sorry for your loss, I will be making a memorial donation to Hillary's campaign in Larry's honor." From: Denise Smith
"Sorry for your loss. Your family will be in my thoughts and prayers! I'm voting for Clinton! in 2016!" From: Gaye Hill
"To the family of Mr. Larry Darrell Upright, may God Bless you in all things and keep fresh your precious memories of such a fine man, Husband, Father and Grandaddy. It is my honor to help to make his last request come true." From: Kevin Smith
"I am very sorry for your family's loss, however I do not feel that using his obituary to make a negative political statement was appropriate." From: Stacey
"May he rest in peace always and may you all sleep well knowing he isn't suffering. Rest assured, for I will not be voting for Hillary." From: Wendy
"My entire family had no intention of voting for Hillary, but now we will happily think, "This is for you, Larry!!!"" From: An American Citizen
"May your cherished memories give you strength and comfort during this grievous time in your lives. You have many reasons to be proud of Mr. Upright, but above all you can stand proud that he was a great American Citizen, not only taking care of you, but taking care of his country, even after death, by asking everyone to not vote for Hillary Clinton. He knew that if she is successful, it will be the last death blow to completely destroy the Republic. We will not vote for Hillary. God bless you all." From: A Military Wife
"My Condolences to the family and I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton" From: Suzanne Speights
"My thoughts and prayers to entire Upright family.... "WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR HILLARY."" From: Zone 134
"Sorry for your loss, your father died with hatred in his heart, so what that say about him? Our God will always defeat you all." From: Jean Kerry
"God bless Larry. Thanks for trying to save our country from Hillary. I appreciate your effort and will honor your request." From: Mitt Romney
"You were a fine man. And I can assure you I will heed your words when I am at the ballot box." From: Susan Stoker
"So very sorry for your family loss. I have no doubt Mr Upright was a very upstanding fellow. My family will also honor his request, NO Hillary 2016! May Mr Upright rest in peace and may God provide the comfort and peace in the days ahead for the family." From: Lisa Mitchell
"I did not know Larry, but read his obit on FB. My mom died almost 2 years ago and she would have loved this Obit It made me smile! She too had a complete and utter dislike of Hillary. Prayers to your family." From: Chuck Johnson
"Loved your obit. I wouldn't vote for Hellary if she were running for dogcatcher. Say "Hi" to my friend Paul who passed away Thursday." From: Alva
"I'm so sorry for your loss, wish granted, will not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Jerry
"R.I.P. Larry #Hillary2016" From: J. Costello
"Very sorry for your loss, may you take comfort in your memories. I did not know Mr. Upright, but my thoughts and prayers are with you at this time. I read about the obituary on a news website...I am a Democrat and even I will not be voting for Hillary. RIP Mr. Upright" From: Br. Michael Horton
"R.I.P. Brother! Rest assured that I'll NOT be voting for Hillary Clinton! :) Enjoy the Celestial Lodge Above where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides! Until we meet again Brother! Br. Michael Horton F&A.M; of Alaska!" From: Mary and Fred
"May your good memories of your dad and granddad always fill your heart with love. Sorry he was full of hate for Hillary. We will definitely be voting for her since there is no one else running who can even come close to her intelligence and experience." From: A Sister OES
"My condolences for your family. Please don't worry Bro. Upright, we wouldn't vote for Hillary even if she was the only candidate running! God Bless!" From: James Pyon
"Sorry for your loss. I won't vote for that lying liberal Hilary in your honor." From: Ben
"Sorry for your loss but Hillary will win regardless. She doesn't need NC, but you know that now so it's all good." From: David Pennsylvania
"My Thoughts and Prayers are with your family. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Mike Powell
"I'm very sorry to hear of your loss. I feel that the political comment was a bit strange and lacked a bit of class, but I do sincerely wish your entire family well. I'm sure he was a wonderful man." From: LWM
"It is my prayer that the hand of God will be on your family during this difficult time. I do believe however that this obituary will give you an idea just how many stupid people there are. I will certainly not be voting for Hillary in 2016 and I will encourage as many people as I can to not do the same thing. May Larry RIP. It sure seems he was a smart man" From: Paul H Bortz Sr.
"To the Family of Brother Larry Upright, I can only pray that Brother Larry Upright is resting in peace with his Lord and Master, and being a good and faithful servant be granted his last wish on earth. I want to let you know that I will cast my vote in memory of Larry, knowing he cared so much for this Great Country we call America. God Bless. Paul H.Bortz Sr." From: Donnertparty
"an honorable man I am sure. Not so sure about whoever wrote the obit." From: Renee Villani
"Mr. Upright sure seemed to be an "upright" man! May he rest in eternal peace and know that this is one who will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton!" From: Ann
"I am so sorry for the loss of your husband and father. He seemed to be a fine man. I will honor his memory by not casting my vote for Hillary in 2016." From: A Caring Stranger
"So sorry for your loss. However, your relative is no longer living, so he won't have to suffer through the pain the Rethuglikkkan party has put this nation through. Unless you all are in the 1% that got tax breaks last week, you will be suffering to. I will be voting for Mrs. Hilary Clinton, and urging all of my friend, family and frienemies to do so. May your loved one rest in peace. Maybe he will see the accomplishments of his nation under Hilary Clinton from the great beyond." From: Sam
"Out of respect for your family I will NOT be voting for Hillary !" From: Sam
"Out of respect for your family I will NOT be voting for Hillary !" From: Lee
"May you rest in peace knowing my family and I would not waste a vote on a Clinton" From: Stephanie
"My deepest condolences to the family and may this good man RIP. He apparently did have class and also knows the dangers of what's to come should we not take back our country from these frauds! I will not be voting for Hillary..no way!! God bless" From: Andy Oldham
"I am so sorry for your loss. RIP Grandaddy, I will NOT be voting for Hillary!!!" From: Tim
"This is such a great obituary. It has motivated me to donate 500 to Hillary Clinton's campaign in Mr Uprights name." From: Bill Maine
"Didn't know Larry, but understand and agree with his position. No vote for Hillary or any other Democrat in '16" From: Betsy Reeve Middletown Oh
"My condolences on your loss. What a wonderful way to use your right to have a voice in government until the very end. My family and I will be very happy to respect this last wish. May God bless your family." From: Paul Gleason
"I am sorry for your loss. With that said, it's a shame that you have turned your grandfathers death into a political stunt. I WILL be voting for Hillary, despite your wishes." From: Chiara
"I do not know you but I love you:) RIP. Your final wish is my command." From: Pam P. in East Texas
"My condolences to your family on the passing of your Grandpa Larry. He sounds like an awesome man and just to let you know that this house will not Vote for Hillary2016 either." From: Voter in NH
"My suspicions are that your beloved Larry had more beautiful thoughts and concerns than an election as he passed into the next life. May he rest in Peace knowing that he doesn't have to concern himself with politics. May he rest in peace knowing that he can love each individual though they be different than himself. You did him an injustice to make such comments on his obituary." From: Frank
"Sorry for your loss. However, I WILL be voting for Hillary. Thank you for helping me make up my mind." From: Kevin
"So sorry for your loss. Just buried my father three weeks ago. He was hoping to live long enough to see Hilary elected. Too bad my dad didn't live long enough, he would have been very pleased with her election next year." From: Nöelle Lorraine
"Rest in peace. Sounds to me like you were a true American. I assure you, my family and I will NOT be voting for that evil woman." From: Joseph Allen Cavin
"My condolences to the family and friends on your loss. But... Hillary gets my vote or Bernie." From: NOPE
"RIP Larry. I'm sorry your family hijacked your obituary to play politics. I'll be voting for Hillary anyway." From: Debra Gregston in Texas
"There's nothing like a grandfather who knows what's good for this country. He didn't have to ask me not to vote for Hillary. I'm already on his side. Blessings and prayers for your family for such a great loss." From: Suz Voter
"R.I.P Mr. Upright. This obituary lacked any class and so sorry but I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016." From: Jim and Tammy Faye
"Sorry to hear of Larrys passing he will be missed. Vote Hillary 2016." From: [email protected]
"I'm so sorry about your family's loss, but I am voting for Hillary" From: Dremar
"RIP Mr Upright. I am sorry that your loved ones chose to make a mockery of your obituary." From: Seth Perry
"My condolences to the family. We think of you even up here in PA and I appreciate that you are all making donations to shriners as well. Don't worry, I'm not voting for Hillary. :)" From: Michele Pignatore
"So very sorry to hear about your loss. He sounds like he was a great man. Please tell the family that I will not be voting for Hillary." From: Marcia B.
"Sorry for your loss. However, I'll be voting for the candidate who'll promote policies that actually help working folks here in NC. Now, if I were a millionaire, I'd vote for the other party." From: Petroleum V. Nasby
"I wish you many fond memories of your departed loved one, and I will be voting for the candidate who will do the most for the people of the Carolinas, and that will be the Democrat, whether Hillary or someone else. When Larry is up at the right hand of God, he will probably recognize the error of his ways here on earth." From: Tim R
"Rest in Peace, Mr. Upright. I'll honor your request and not vote for Hillary Clinton" From: David Mohr
"I never knew Larry, but I am sure we would have been friends. I too am not voting for Hillary." From: Janice Wilson
"R.I.P. Sir. My sincerest Condolences to the Family. I did not know you Sir, but I will adhere to your final request." From: Anonymous
"My heartfelt condolences to the upright family. May your loved one rest in peace. Seemed like a good man that I never knew, but in that I would like to respectfully decline saying that I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign, and I think those who are only voting against to fulfill this man's wish is only doing a disservice to themselves and our country. I do however respect Mr. Upright and his family and hope that they can find peace in this heartbreaking time." From: Chuck H.
"My wife and I are sorry for your loss...Our Country needs More people like Mr.Upright,... As for his request, My vote will NOT be for Hillary Clinton! Republican for 2016!" From: V.F. Clinten
"RIP Mr. Upright and condolences to the family. Mrs. Clinton will make a fine President." From: William Cole (Windsor Locks, Connecticut)
"While we are total strangers please allow me to applaud your entire family for the courage to carry on Larry's firm standing and belief. You can rest assured that this Red Blooded New England Yankee will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 or any election ever. May Larry rest in peace and may you all take comfort in knowing he is in a better place. God bless you all!!!" From: Sharron Neal
"Your Husband and , Father and Grandfather It is plaiin to see he was a wonderful Man... and may he rest in peace ! For I will respect his wishes .... And Not Vote For Hillary Clinton !!" From: Bruce Bowers
"The Great Architect has called you home as your Earthly duties are done. Godspeed, WB Larry. My deepest condolences to the family." From: Katy
"RIP !! Prayers to this family . I will not vote for that woman! Can you please tell God to wrap this nation in his loving arms too? And for any sickos coming on here to say they vote for her . Stop just stop your typical looney left lobotomy success selves!" From: California
"From the West Coast, myself and my family send our deepest condolences to the Upright family. Even in California, of all places, I don't know a soul who will vote for Hillary... And I plan to keep it that way! Anyone who would vote for her really isn't worth knowin' anyway. Thank you for your patriotism and for continuing the legacy of a legendary man." From: Rosemary Dougherty
"I am very sorry for your loss. Larry's obituary paints a picture of a wonderful man. I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton....thanks for the tip, Larry. RIP" From: A firend
"Sorry for your loss and my condolences. But, I will have to say this I am voting for Hillary hope that doesn't upset you to much in the after life." From: Marlene Storey; New York
"With deepest sympathy to the family of Mr. Upright. May his soul rest in peace. And, in his honor, it is with great pleasure that I will NOT be voting for HC. God bless you all and may God bless the United States of America." From: Evelyn
"Did not know Mr Upright but I want his family to know that I will do my part to help him rest in peace. Not voting for Hillary!" From: Treeva Wills
"My deepest sympathy on the loss of your beloved family member. P.S. Hillary couldn't pay me enough to vote for her." From: Kim Raper
"Another note from a stranger, who say the post on facebook. I think this man had an awesome sense of humor and wanted to share my sympathies with his family on the loss of what is obviously a light in their lives. I am sorry for the diatribe a few folks have left who are very anxious to vote for Hillary. Rest assured my family is not part of that group either. But all that aside, my sympathies to you on the loss of a great man. Kim Raper" From: Anonymous
"Sorry for your loss. I don't plan on voting for Hilary Clinton." From: David
"RIP Mr. Upright and your wisdom is acknowledged and respected with a Big Thank you. A big NO Way I would vote for that woman. Prayers for the Upright family at this time." From: James Rzepka
""I am a stranger and I do not know you or your departed. However, I saw the obit and wanted to express my condolences and to let you know that your sense of humor is wonderful. Please know that we will not be voting for Hillary. Blessings to you and your family"" From: Maureen Heath - TX
"So sorry for your loss. Praying for your family. Rest assured, we will not be voting for Hillary in 2016 or any other year. RIP, sir." From: Richard
"My condolences to all the family. Rest in peace Larry....I will think of you when I step into that voting booth in Nov. 2016 and I can promise you I will not be voting for Hillary !" From: Winston Wallace
"I am sorry for your loss.I'm sure Mr Upright was a good man. I did not know him but I will honor his request not to vote for Hillary Clinton." From: John Gazarkiewicz
"N.W. Indiana is my location, I don't know you or your family Larry, but I wish you & your family prayers and RIP to you as well, and to tell you & your family y'all are very wise, I loved your obit and I also will not be voting for Hillary." From: Mary L
"I'm so sorry for your loss." From: R Brant
"RIP Sir.....She will not have my vote..." From: Diana in Wisconsin
"Loved your Obit, Mr. Upright. In YOUR honor, I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. May God Bless and Keep You Through Eternity! XXOO" From: Victoria Johnson
"I didn't know the Upright family, this little item just came across one of my news feeds regarding the 'do not vote for Clinton in 2016'. I thought it was great! Rest assured I will NOT be voting for Hilary. Best wishes for your family at this difficult time." From: Beverly Ballard
"God bless you I lost my dad and I did not know your dad I agree with him no Hilary Clinton" From: Samantha Davenport
"Please accept my condolences on the loss of your Husband, Father and grandfather...He sounds like a remarkable man. I am pleased to say that I will honor his wish and not vote for Hillary in 2016 or any other year. R.I.P.Mr Upright" From: Mike Goodson
"I just read an article about your Grandfather. Please accept my condolences. Based on his final wishes, I know he was a smart man who loved his country. God be with you all at this time." From: abston66
"So sorry for your loss. I definitely will not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Jackie Singler Weber
"Dear Grandpappy Please rest in peace knowing that I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton. Peace, prayers and blessings to your family Jackie Singler Weber Elk Rapids, Michigan" From: rex m
"Rest in peace, and condolences to the famiy. I will not vote for Hillary or that RINO Jeb Bush." From: David Jones
"My condolences for your loss. I will not be voting for Hillary." From: Gregory Pennington
"I'm sorry for your loss. I do find it odd though to use the death of a family member to further your politics. I will not be following your advice in 2016." From: Reva Ball
"so sorry for your loss. It sounds like he lived in honor of his good name; "upright". I will honor the request and not vote for Hillary." From: Alice Maggio
"I read this obituary on facebook and just wanted to say that I am so sorry for your loss. May God comfort you and bless you always. I also wanted to reassure you that I will NOT be voting for Hillary EVER!!!" From: Mr Murphy
"Sorry for you loss. I was pleased to send 50 dollars in your grandfathers name to Ready for Hillary '16." From: Steve and Rhonda
"We are sorry for your loss. We know that he has left behind a great legacy for his family to follow and many memories to be treasured. We will have to decline your request to not vote for Hillary as we have been waiting patiently for her to make her announcement public. Go Hillary!" From: Rev. RR Jones
"My sincerce condolences to this family in their time of grief. And may each person feel free to vote their conscience and for the best candidate without pressure or emotional manipulation from their family members." From: melinda jahn
"RIP Sir I will not vote for HRC in 2016. Respectfully, Melinda Jahn" From: Dana
"Rest in peace, fine patriot." From: Jan
"It is shameful that some people have chosen to be disrespectful to the memory of your father.I did not know him but as for me and my family ... all 4 of us, we will NOT vote for Hilary ever!! May God Bless you." From: Michele Decker
"My condolences to your family for your loss. Reading this makes me think of my own father who by the way would most definitely say the same thing about Hilary! Rest assured no one in this family will EVER vote for her. This world can use more strong value minded people just like Mr. Upright!" From: Sharon Zaborowski
"Condolences to the Upright family. Your request not to vote for Hillary Clinton will certainly be honored by our family! Blessings to each of you!" From: S.WMS
"My prayers and thoughts are with the Upright family during this difficult time. But I have to vote for Hillary in 2016." From: Steve
"I did not know Mr Upright but he was obviously a very wise and good man. He passed away on my birthday and I said a prayer on his behalf. I will honor his request and not vote for Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, I will ask others to not vote for her as well. May he RIP." From: Marlaina Lalonde
"I am truly sorry for your loss. I saw the obituary on my news feed and wanted to let you know that I will gladly honor Mr. Upright's memory by not voting for Hillary in 2016" From: Douglas Corneil
"While I was not acquainted with the deceased, it was heartwarming to read of the tribute to this man as a husband, father, and grandfather from his family. I especially enjoyed reading about the family's request that anyone acquainted with Mr. Upright or anyone reading his obituary please refrain from voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016! Clearly this man had a very clear point-of-view on America's politics. I hope he rests in peace." From: Leroy B.
"I am so sorry for your loss. May you rest in peace. I will vote for Hillary is I could vote. Family making a weird request in honor of your death? Humm? Has me thinking." From: Donna W Gustafson
"Greetings, condolences - your grand dad is a smart man. You will be able to carry on his wishes. HappyTrails" From: Lannon & Jo
"Our deapest sympathy for the Upright family. Your last name say's it all,you're An Upright family & Larry(Colleen) raised a great American loving family! Even in heaven he's still looking out for America,Thank you & rest in peace. Aloha!" From: Gail S. from Missouri
"I wish I would have had the opportunity to know Mr. Upright. My sympathy is extended to your family. You can be assured that I will honor his political views and will NOT vote for Mrs. Clinton." From: Robert Kuta
"Sorry for your loss of a great father, husband and grandfather. Rest assured Larry, you request not to vote for Hillary (who?) will be on top of my list this voting season. regards Robert Kuta" From: An open minded voter
"I am sorry for your loss and will pray that the family knows peace in this difficult time however I will not allow a dead man or any man to tell me who to vote for.The men have done enough damage to this country a woman cannot do any worse. If the party picks her in 2016 I am team Hilary all the way......" From: Stella Johnson
"So sorry for you loss. No words can heal you pain at this time. Mr. Upright you have my promise I will NOT be voting for Mrs. Clinton. RIP sir!" From: Me in Tennessee
"I will grant Mr. Upright's last request as well as my Wife whom will be voting for the first time in her life at 57. She and I wish with all our hearts the those that Mr. Upright would gather all those in Heaven that have gone before him and Call Billary home as well. Our Condolences." From: George
"Rest in peace and rest assured that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Selena
"My deepest condolences for your loss. I don't know you, but admire your family's convictions to include a political statement in the testament of his memory. I'll admit, when I saw the new trending about the Hillary Clinton comment, it made me smile. It is a rare thing to be able to make people smile from something so sad. However, I believe that by making his political convictions part of his final memory, he will be remembered by more. What a blessing to make a stranger smile as his last memory! I hope you find this as a comfort. He will be remembered. God bless you and I pray you find peace in your loss. P.S. I also will not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016." From: rosemary allen-duncan
"sorry for the family loss sounds like he was a GREAT MAN and i will be honored to go by his request and will share his request I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON" From: Sharon Turner
"A wise man. I promise not to vote for Hillary Clinton in his honor." From: Anthony
"Sorry for your loss. I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton. Semper Fi" From: Richard Wilder (MI)
"Sorry for the loss of your loved one. I am looking forward to casting a vote for the first female President of the US. !! Hillary Clinton for President 2016 !!" From: Bob
"So for your loss but the dead knoweth nothing.So for the living and this great country if I am alive I will vote for Hillary." From: Xavier
"Sorry for your loss. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Can't wait till she wins the election and becomes our next president." From: Linda Ulrich
"May you have everlasting Peace in your heavenly home. Our prayers are for you and your family~~~and, rest in good Faith that I would never vote for Hillary Clinton! Rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ!" From: Debra in Connecticut
"May Larry R.I.P. He sounds like a great man!! I will NOT vote for Hillary in 2016 or any other year!" From: Dennis Case
"Condolences to the Upright family and friends...Mr.Upright's last wish to not vote for Hillary will be honored by myself.." From: Dr. Driscoll
"I will honor your last request. There isn't a chance in hell I'll vote for that scum ball Clinton. :)" From: Andrew
"Sorry he's gone, but don't not vote for Hillary just because it's his dying wish. Whoever wins will affect US not him. WE are the ones WE are voting for. The election will not affect him. Don't vote a dying wish while making a decision affecting your future life.Sorry about the loss, but I could never respect such a wish, Democrat or Republican." From: Anonymous
"Sorry for your loss...... GO HILLARY 2016" From: Patti Catlin
"So very sorry for your loss. I will gladly honor Your GrandPappy's final request. This election, next election.........any election. Your grandpapp was looking out for what was in the best interest of this country till the time of his passing. Thank you sir." From: Magdalene Ruzza
"Condolences to your family. I am a democrat but I do not want hillary Clinton to be the next president. It would be very, very hard for me to cast a vote for her....any a,ternative would have to be really, really awful to do so." From: Tyler Combs
"I don't know y'all's family, but I will keep your request and won't vote for Hillary. Sorry for your loss." From: Carolyn Boyd
"So sorry for your loss. I will respect his wishes and NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON." From: Brent Dancy
"Mike and Jill, Sorry to hear the news of your dad. Wish I could have come by but did not get the news until late. He will always be the "Big Kahuna". NO to Hillary!" From: Br. David McKenna
"May the Great Architect welcome you with open arms into the celestial house built not by human hands.Travel in peace on your continued journey my dear Brother. Your 2016 request will gladly be honored without hesitation. Golden Ark #595 Taylor, Michigan" From: NC Girl
"I'm so sorry for this families loss. It's great to see that they are trying to alleviate the loss with a little humor. I feel like it's a shame that some people feel the need to make rude remarks towards a man they did not know because his voting preference was made known. Prays for healing in this time of loss." From: DJR
"VOTE REPUBLICAN!! I AM!" From: East NC
"My condolences and rest assured my vote will NOT go way of Hillary in 2016" From: Larry Snyder
"Thoughts and prayers for you and your family and I will honor your request not to vote for Hillary. Obama damaged America as he defined he would in his books by Downsizing America and Defeating Colonialism Once and for all. Hillary would continue on Obama's destructive path and continue to make America a joke in the world. America needs another Reagan - a strong leader with global respect which America hasn't had in 8 years. Unfortunately, today's majority are uneducated and illiterate and feel they are entitled by the government and these are the people who are responsible for what America has become." From: Someone from San Antonio
"Rest in Peace Mr. Upright. You are with the angels now, no need to worry about who will be president. That is saved for the folks that are still on Gods Green Earth. ;)" From: Anonymous
"So sorry for your loss. Though I did not know Larry personally I see he was a wise voter. RIP" From: Deborah Bova
"I did not have the pleasure of knowing this gentleman, but his sentiments at the end of the page are a cautionary tale that all should heed..."Don't vote for Hillary." From: the Wright's in Maryland
"So sorry to hear of your loss. My Dad was a mason and Shriner. We will not be voting for Clinton in honor of you Dad' Granddad and Shriner. Keeping you all in our prayers" From: S. James
"Sorry for your loss. I promise to not vote for Hillary, just to offset the votes of deceased persons that somehow can still vote Democrat." From: James A. Muncy, Jr.
"I know a man that your father met in Heavan my father; So funny not a fan of Hillary myself. Will not support her eather. Vote Republican it the only way out of this mess. Sorry for the families loss seems like a great guy. Things will get better he will not be forgotten." From: John Kerner
"Mr. Upright, Rest in Peace knowing you have done your duty even after death! God Bless your families courage!" From: Paula
"Our Condolences, I WILL NOT Vote For Hillary My Father Passed Away In 1987 And As Your Father, He Was A Hardcore Republican. God Bless And Ot Would Have Been An Honor To Have Met Your Father. I Am Sure He Is In Heaven Along With Mine." From: Sandi - Orange Park, FL
"God Bless you Mr. Upright. May your family know that you are in heaven smiling down on them. I will remember your advise when I go to the polls and vote. No vote from me for Hillary Clinton." From: Diane Gagner
"I am so sorry to see that your loved one passed away.....I promise, I will NOT vote for Hillary or ANY Democrat as their views go against my Christian faith. I wish I could have met you Larry Upright, what a sense of humor!! God bless you and see you in heaven." From: Richard - Naples, FL
"To Larry Upright, may you rest in peace. Don't worry about the country, there are many good folks like yourself that yell at the TV too and will do something to save it for you. To the family, our thoughts and prayers are with you." From: Joyce Belford
"My condolences to the family. I am with you on Hillary." From: Diane Fox
"Wish the world was full of men like your granddad! I am a facebooker and came across your grandfather's wish not to vote for Clinton. In his honor I give my word I won't. God Bless you and yours now and always!" From: Gerri White Hofius
"Larry had his head screwed on straight. Obama put this country in the toilet and voting Hillary will allow her to pull the handle on the toilet. Larry clearly knew this. Vote who you will, its still a free country. Jesus is my hope. RIP Larry RIP" From: Gwen
"I don't know you, but am sorry for your loss. I am an OES member and will keep your family in my prayers. Definitely am NOT voting for Clinton!" From: Rob Liszi
"Amen brother, I will gladly honor your last request!" From: Theodore Nugent
"Omg. I'm so sad to hear of Larrys passing. His last wishes will of course be honored each of the the ten times I vote." From: Tom and Steve
"Our family is sending your family it's condolences during this sad time. We wish we had known Lawrence better. Lots of love from Tom and Steve and our kids." From: Richard Linn
"As Past Master of Eulalia Lodge 342, Coudersport, PA, I respectfully send my condolences to your family. And a firm promise that I will also NOT be voting for Hilary Clinton." From: larry in south carolina.
"I absolutely promise to honer your voting request :) , and pray you land in the warm lap of the Lord." From: Anonymous
"My deepest condolences on your husband/father/grandfather/friend. I did not know him but he sounds like a wonderful kind-hearted man who truly looked out for his family & country. I hope he is getting a good laugh in Heaven. I hope you also find comfort in knowing his legacy has sparked family conversations around the nation. Politics is so often taboo, even amongst family. Regardless of position Mr. Upright has clearly broken through that barrier in life and now in death. Good heartfelt conversation is what this country needs and it is very fitting that it came courtesy of Mr. Upright. God works in mysterious ways. Many children were helped by this kind, charitable man in his work with Shriners. Many more will be helped with his legacy, if none other than to voice your opinions. Rest in peace Mr. Upright. Rest in peace." From: Debra Daniel
"Please accept my condolences for the loss of you Husband, Father and Grandfather...I will NOT vote for Hillary!!!" From: Gene & Sandy Johnston, Anacortes, WA
"R.I.P., Larry, you were a good man. We will not vote for Hillary, ever, under any circumstances, in any year, in your honor." From: Julie Duffy
"You do not know me. I live in Virginia and saw this on the internet. Mr. Upright sounds like he was a great man and I am deeply sorry for your loss. A loss such as this will always live a hole, but your memories will be your help in accepting his passing. Love your families' request and just wanted you to know that I will definitely NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON. Hopefully, this poison will go away!!" From: GMan
"RIP - I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton." From: James
"Mr. Upright was the kind of gentleman I would have enjoyed knowing. I read obituaries daily and find the most interesting facts about the deceased, even those I thought I knew well. What a great final request! Please rest in peace, and know there is one more person NOT voting for Hillary." From: brenda roberson
"as i have also lost my father, i understand the hurt you are going through..my condolences..as i am a democratic i wanted your family to know i will be voting republican in 2016..your father sounds like a very wise man..too bad i didn't have his advice in 2008..." From: Jocelyn Hartwell Dipley
"I want to offer my deepest condolences. and we are not voting for her either" From: Fred Wood
"Amen, Larry.....Amen!" From: Richard
"I'm sorry for your passing. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton and out of respect for your families wishes I will work to make sure as many people I can reach do not vote for Hillary but a well qualified Conservative." From: Staci T.
"Thoughts and prayers for the Upright family and friends during this time of loss. Mr. Upright sounds like he was a remarkable man. No worries, my family will not be voting for any Clinton or Bush. Hoping for Walker, Rubio, or Rand for 2016. God Bless you all and thank you for the chuckle." From: Tanya Palmer
"I will definitely NOT vote for Hillary in 2016. May God Bless your entire family during this difficult time and may He give you the strength." From: Pete & Brenda
"We would not vote for the lying, Hillary Clinton for Dog Catcher. We will honor your request Mr.Larry. RIP" From: Ed Plain, West Haven, CT
"Larry, in your honor, I will not vote for Hillary (though I'd rather die myself before I do anyway)" From: Dianne
"I'm so sorry you lost your father but thanks for the comment "dont vote for Hillary"! love, love love it and God Bless you all, I'm praying for you- Good People! Dianne" From: Konstantinos
"Sorry for your loss! She WILL NOT get my vote not another Obama in" From: Glenda Dillard,Nash,Tenn.
"THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS FOR THE UPRIGHT FAMILY.I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON" From: Corey C.
"RIP Larry. Also, RIP Hillary 2016" From: Lark Wartenberg
"Sir, You can be reassured I will not vote for Hilary Clinton that is an easy last wish to fulfill. Peace and Prayers to your family. I also pray auto correct has not changed anything I have written as I can not see whole post." From: Marty & Carrie Walker (Borger, TX)
"Our deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss. As for this house we will serve the Lord!!! No Hillary!!!!" From: Paula J
"I am so sorry for your loss and I will NOT vote for Hillary!" From: Cathy
"Sorry for your loss...Love the Obit! no Hillary for me!!!" From: Mickey and Patty Tidwell, Lakeland, FL
"We are sorry for your loss. Both Mickey and I have lost our dads and it is hard, no matter how old, or how ill. May God comfort you with His peace, and warm memories. We enjoyed reading Mr. Upright's obituary online and want you to know we will not be voting for Hilary." From: Paul Wilhelm
"So sorry for your loss, it is a tough season to go through. Wish I would have known your dad, it looks like he raised a great family. Our family will be honoring his request come election day; one Clinton President was hard enough on this country." From: Leslie
"I didn't know your loved one, but after reading his obituary I am certain that I would have liked him. I will happily honor the family's request NOT to vote for Hilary in 2016. R.I.P. Mr. Upright!" From: anonymous in Pittsburgh, PA
"I am deeply sorry for your loss. I too will honor your request in November and not vote for Clinton." From: An Iowa Voter
"Your husband, father, and grandfather sounds like a good solid man. Keep your memories of him close to your heart and what a wonderful way to honor his last wishes. Good for you for carrying them out. I will NOT be voting for Hilary Clinton in 2016!" From: Rick n Theresa Kelly Big Stone Gap VA
"Sorry for your loss. I have to say I love your Obit and with respect for your loss we will NOT vote for Hillary in 16." From: James Crawford
"RIP Larry, my prayers for the family. I will never vote democrat!" From: Apple Valley Patricia
"My condolences for the loss of a very smart man. No, we will NOT for for another Clinton." From: W & E Baxter
"We offer our sympathy to the family. Although we do not live in North Carolina but Florida we will honor his request and give to charity and NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. God Bless and my he be in Heaven already." From: Frank Plant
"In honor of Larry, I definitely will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Regards, Frank Plant" From: Waco, Texas
"So sorry for your loss and Praying for your family. It is my pleasure to honor this family's request and not vote for Hillary in 2016. God speed from Texas." From: Shannon S. from Illinois
"Rest in Peace, Patriot. NOT VOTING FOR HILLARY! Rubio/Fiorina 2016" From: Mike Jacks, Cedar Park, TX
"I am sorry for your loss. Your Dad reminds me of my father and sounds like the kind of man that makes me proud to be a Southerner. May God bless him and your family... PS: No Hillary votes in this conservative Texas family! :)" From: Angela Osborne
"I am so very sorry for your loss! I did not know Mr. Upright, but I was very touched by his obituary. I will honor his wishes, and will not vote for Hillary in 2016 or ever. You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers. I would also like to apologize for the imbeciles that posted on here not to memorialize Mr. Upright, but Ms. Clinton instead. My sincerest apologies." From: Donald Purciful
"I wish to convey my respectful regrets for the passing of your loved one Mr. Larry Darrel Upright. I was hoping to know if he had made a decision for Jesus Christ as I would be please to tell him in person someday on his voting request as to me his salvation and departure into eternity is much more important. May you as a family strongly recognize that little ole me is a very conservative right wing Bible thumping saved Baptist that has no intentions ever to vote for a liberal at this never even a democratic. Although I regret I am a Yankee by birth a southern gentleman at heart and for sure I claim Texas as my citizenship renouncing my home state of Indiana. Thanks Y'all and yes in most sincerity. I truly am sadden by the loss of Mr. Upright he sounds like a great man to have coffee with." From: GSCT
"My condolences to your family. If it is of any consolation Larry will be keeping good company in Heaven with the Heroes, that Hillary Clinton abandoned in Libya. I am sure he won't have any awkward meetings with her in the future." From: Philly John
"Rest in Peace, good patriot. Sorry your final years had to be during this administration. In your honor and memory, my family will most certainly NOT be voting for That Woman." From: Bill and Barbara Alsbury
"Our deepest sympathy, please know that we nor any of our friends will be voting for Hillary Clinton!!" From: Airman First Class Cutliff J.
"I wanted to pass on my condolences and say how much it made me laugh to read Mr.Upright's obituary." From: Marcia Tanno
"Rest in peace, dear Larry, and know that my husband and I will NOT vote for Hilliary Clinton!" From: Sympathy
"Regrets from Rochester, NY. and your Obit is making national headlines! Had no intention of voting for Hillary anyway, but now it's a matter of honoring the death of what appears to have been a great guy!" From: [email protected]
"Rest assured, Hillary Clinton will NOT get my vote. Jackie in Ohio" From: viola chronister
"That was great what you did for him.I agree with him.sorry for your loss." From: Cynthia, From: Katy, Texas
"Mr. Upright sounds like someone I would have enjoyed as a neighbor. Blessings of peace to you during this very difficult time. Surely, you will cherish many fond memories. I can only imagine, that among these great memories, you will recall a multitude of stories filled with his keen whit and sharp political mind. God bless your family." From: Debbie in Texas
"Your dad taught you well...I think it's awesome that you honored his beliefs this way and will share!" From: Mike
"We miss you, Larry, and of course we would never vote for Hillary." From: Long Island, New York
"So sorry for your loss. LOVE the don't vote for Hillary in 2016. I will gladly fulfill your father's wishes!" From: Annie Jones
"So sorry for your loss. Praying for comfort. Rest in peace knowing this one will not be voting for Hillary :)" From: Michele Bern
"So sorry for the loss of your father... just watching FOX news and hearing you talk of you dad with a smile in your eyes pays tribute to what a wonderful man he must of been. "Dont vote for Hillary" must of been important to him it seems, and I bet he is looking down with the same smile in his eyes for you and your family... Best to you your family... (and I am not voting for Hillary either)" From: Andrea-- Onawa Ia
"Sorry for your loss. I know you don't know me, but I was watching Fox & Friends this morning and saw this story. My brother died a few years ago and had the same thoughts towards Obama and in seeing this story, I wish we would have included this in his obituary also. My family and I will most definately not vote for Hillary!!! When the elections comes around I will think of your family.. Prayers to you and yours." From: Mark from Michigan
"My deepest sympathy for your loss. I wish I could have met Larry because I know I would be better for the experience. I've been a staunch Republican my whole life so I will certainly honor Larry's wishes." From: James Miles
"My Condolences on the loss of your father, sounds like he was a great man. I saw the article on Fox News your dad can rest in peace as I will not be voting for Hillary. James Miles Ontonagon, Michigan" From: Marcia Jennings
"I am very sorry for your loss and your family will be in my thoughts and prayers. Unfortunately, I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Upright. However, I will gladly respect his wishes and not vote for Hilary Clinton." From: Nancy Lund
"I did not know Mr. upright, but I just saw his daughter on FOX News in NY and I thought what they did was brilliant! Asking folks not to vote for H.C. is a wonderful tribute to your dad. May he rest in peace and may the Lord be with you all in your time of sorrow. God bless America." From: Annie Dull
"My condolences to your family on the recent loss of your father and grandfather. I grew up spending my summers in Concord and Kannapolis visiting my grandparents and cousins. I saw your fathers story on Fox News and I wish I had know your Dad. He sounds like he was very passionate about his family, country and politics....and had a great sense of humor! You have honored your father very well, and our family will honor the request and not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016!! or in any election!" From: Joe Hawkins
"RIP Mr. Upright. I will vote against Hillary to honor your wishes and also to counter her using your name as a vote now." From: Fox & Friends Viewer Jana
"Sorry for your family's loss. Thanks for the refreshing humor, rest in peace this household Will Not vote for the Hillary regime! God Bless" From: Susan Mills - Tennessee
"I wish I had known Mr. Upright, he sounds like a wonderful man. He had to be a great husband and father for his family to have such a great sense of humor. My family and I will happily honor his wish in 2016 and any year thereafter that a member of the Clinton family is on the ballot." From: John Wetzel
"My Heartfelt Condolences go out to the family of this great man and patriot Rest In Peace Mr. Upright. I in honor of you WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY!" From: Bill and Linda Parke
"Thank you for sharing your father's message. I am also a Shriner and have the same message. You can rest assure my family will honor your fathers request. NO VOTE FOR HC" From: Kim and Art (Baltimore), MD
"Our condolences. Prayers to you and your family during this time (and always). It is truly beautiful how your family remembers to celebrate Larrys life during this difficult time. He sounds like a awesome man! We will surely honor Larry (and our country) on voting day! God bless!" From: Donna Huiet
"Praying for this family and promising to abide by Larry's wishes. I will NOT vote for Hillary (or any other democrat)." From: Joy G from Pennsylvania
""I am sorry for your loss as your family is a testament to his life. Please know that many are standing with your fathers wish and know that those who have mean speech is the only thing they have. Stay strong and May God Bless your family!"" From: Penny M, Pennsylvania
"I'm so sorry for the loss of your father and grandfather. Please be assured that I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton!" From: Roger & Pam Burton
"Mr Upright can rest knowing that there will be ZERO votes for Hill in 2016 coming from our home in Chattanooga, and our sons home in Knoxville. Could we request he speak with God and see if anything can de done to bring our country back to God and it senses?" From: Victoria Lyle
"My deepest sympathy for the family. Although I did not know him, and I do not know the family, I do promise that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILARY CLINTON. Victoria Lyle Talbott, Tennessee" From: Jim Meacham
"RIP, I did not plan to vote for Hillary; I will now not vote for her in your honor." From: Andre Soto (LA,CA) of all places
"God bless the Upright family during this difficult time. My condolences to the Upright family and yes, my family and I will honor the request and not vote for Hillary, the elitist snob!" From: Marc Myers
"Deepest sympathies and prayers - We will honor his last request! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!" From: Stranger in Indiana
"Sorry for your loss. Our family will NOT vote for Billary!" From: frank williamson richmond, va
"I didn't know your Father, but sounds as if he was a true family man, a patriot and knew our amazing political ramblings in this gone crazy world that we are trying to diminish due to lack of leadership. My wife and I will conform to the family's wishes. God bless Larry Upright and his family members and God bless the USA" From: Lisa - North Texas
"My sincerest condolences for your entire family. I am also passionate about politics, and I will honor Larry's wishes - I will NOT vote for Hillary. By the way - Great idea!!!" From: Billy & Donna McNees -Huntington , Arkansas
"Although we never had the honor of meeting this dear man or any of your family. After hearing your story on Fox News this morning we wanted to extend our sympathy to all of you & let you know we too will be two of the MANY of those who will NOT be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016. May God Bless & comfort each of you." From: B Squre
"My deepest condolences to your family. My family and I will definitely not vote for Hillary. She will ruin this country even further than the current president. Thank you for your obituary!" From: Kim & Cindy Wiles of NH
"May Larry rest in peace .May God bless you all. We will not vote for Hillary." From: Roland Hall
"It is sad when a loved one is lost. A true patriot from what I have read. I was not fortunate to know Mr. Upright but I am sure he is in a much better place and we will all rejoice together sometime in the future. God bless you and this wonderful man." From: NC voter
"I will be proudly voting for Hillary Clinton as well as campaigning for her in the state of NC." From: TjD jr
"My sincerest condolences to all the upright family and God Bless Larry and each of you. I don't know anyone that is foolish enough to vote for Hillary but if I run across someone I'll ask them in honor of Mr Upright to reconsider that foolish choice for a logical one. God's Blessings as you grieve peacefully........." From: Audrey Fennell Mitchell
"Dear Family, You don't know me but I'm from Concord, now living in Texas. I saw Mr Upright's memorial on Facebook that was shared via Fox News. I shared this with some of my staunch Republican friends here with the hope that his wishes reach farther than you imagined...and I hope that this gives you a smile. My deepest condolences to each of you." From: Wayne Doland
"Sorry for your loss. Larry must have been a very smart man. I'm not voting for Hillary but there's still a lot of stupid people in this world that will." From: Lorraine duBouchet
"So very sorry for the Upright family's loss. I and my husband will certainly comply with your request and not vote for Hilary. I woundn't vote for her if she were the only candidate running which, the way this country will be run if she and her ilk have their way, is how it will be in the future. Again, so sorry for the loss of a good man." From: HB
"My thoughts and prayers are with all the family for your loss. The Lord will see you through this time. I felt as if I knew Mr. Upright because he shared my thoughts as well. We can't afford her so Don't vote for Hillary Clinton and I don't plan on voting for her." From: Bob Amell
"Many condolences for the loss. Sounds like Larry was a good man, and that his surname fit him well. May God bring you peace and comfort. As far as your request, I will be voting for Dr. Ben Carson; or someone like him. God Bless!" From: Bob
"Thanks we will not vote for Hillary." From: Jeane Adams
"I am so very sorry for your loss. He must have been a fine man. His last wish will certainly be honored by me and my family. Thank you for including that in the obituary. If only more would. May God give you his deepest peace and greatest blessings." From: Tim Twedt in Colorado
"My deepest sympathy on the passing of your Dad. I know by His wishes that he truly loved America. Keep His ideals alive. Nothing on this eath could make me vote for hillary clinton!" From: Debbie Stenten
"I did not know Mr. Upright or any family member but I would like to extend my sincere condolences and let you all know that it will be my pleasure to honor the family's wished and not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Missy- NMB, SC
"Very sorry for your loss. He is now at peace and will be honored to know that I will KEEP his last request by NOT voting for HillBilly!!! Prayers for the family." From: Sean from Long Island
"Wishing Larry's family and friends my heartfelt condolences. He sounds like one heck of a man who lived a full and satisfying life. Larry can rest assured, I will not be voting for Hillary in 2016. Some day, (hopfully down the road a ways)I will look him up, shake his hand and share a good laugh!" From: Roger H
"Larry was a fine gentleman and will be missed by all.I have sent flowers to the childrens hospital and I will not vote for Hillary.I also did not vote for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.....R.I.P.Larry" From: David Hill
"Will be praying for all family and friends.....would never vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Florida
"Our family knows what it's like to lose a loved Grandfather. In respect for Mr. Upright and good common sense, we have 3 generations of family here that will never elect a democrat to office. May Mr. Upright Rest In Peace in Heaven." From: Cookie
"My deepest condolences to the entire Upright family. I did not know Larry, but he sounds like an honest, upstanding American who wants only the best for our country. I will certainly be honoring his wish. I will never vote for Hilary. One Clinton in the White House was more than enough. I don't think that the U.S. should have to handle another embarrassment like the Clintons. RIP Larry!" From: a fellow American
"My dad had strong political thoughts as well. When Clinton took office he took down his American flag and did not put it out again until he was out of office. If he were alive today, we too would not vote for Mrs. Clinton, nor am I. God bless you and your family, may we hope that enough other fellow Americans feel the same way as your dad." From: Cheryl price
"Sry for your dads passing you will sure miss his humor I wish I would have known him we sure had one thing in common no Hillary Clinton for sure God Bless to all" From: Dawn
"I am so sorry for the loss of your love one. He sounds like a wonderful man. In honor of him I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. God bless!" From: Yankee in Virginia
"To the family of Mr. Upright, Wow. You were very fortunate to know such a wise and "upright" man, to say the least. His wisdom will be acknowledged and heeded by this yankee. Sorry about 1861, that was a mistake. Hopefully, things will improve as Mr. Upright most definitely hoped and maybe we will at least get a president that was actually born in America and loves America. Anyone but Hillary. Amen. Godspeed to Mr. Upright and I look forward to meeting him someday." From: Kay Davis
"Condolences from Florida...so very sorry for your loss! We will gladly honor your wish to not vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Adrienne Madrid
"My deepest sympathy for your family. I will keep you in my prayers. Even though this is the first time we've "met, Mr. Upright, I am quite sure you are with Jesus and trying to ease the pain your family is experiencing. It's an honor to be invited to leave you a message. It's an honor to know a true patriot. Compassionately, A complete stranger to you and any of your family and friends." From: Bro. Arthur Thomm II, P.M.
"Bro Upright, I heard of your passing through social media, and although I didn't personally know you, I am sorry to hear of your passing. May your family have peace that you are with our God, the Great Architect of the Universe and in his loving arms. Thank you for your service to the fraternity, and to the Shriners! I am also a Past President of the Shriners and a Past Master of our blue lodge. Also - You gave me one more reason not to vote for Hillary! I promise to honor your wishes Brother! SMIB, Art Thomm, P.M. Equality Lodge #44 Martinsburg, WV" From: Tauheed Epps
"Dammm. Larry, I cant believe you kicked it. ME and Larry used to chill at the Course hollerin at all tha shawtys. Ima miss you thug. Keep it breazy Larry, so word to our boy Nemo up there. Keep it froggy fresh. Don't worry, Hillary isn't getting my vote, Rest in Pepperonis Larry." From: Kathy Rosenberg
"Idid not know him nor your family but may he rest in peace and may you all be assured I will not vote for Hilary. Sincerely, Kathy Rosenberg" From: Nina
"As an individual that cherishes family, freedom, honesty and truth, sounds like Mr. Upright held these cloI am so sorry by this great loss experienced by Mr. Upright's loved ones. Sadly humility, integrity and morality are sorely lacking today at the cost of our families and our children, whom are left with no role models of good character here is where his absence will be greatly missed. Our country is in dire need of more men and women of good character. Clearly an honest, hardworking man that placed love of family, honour and integrity first. Your request Mr. Upright illustrates your intention, to protect your family and America from a very greedy and dishonest women. Dear Mr. Upright, I too will honour your request by not voting for Mrs. Clinton, she is not for the people she is a cruel human being, greedy, arrogant and twisted. Btw, this comment comes from a democrat. Rest in peace Mr. Upright, may God be with you." From: Laura Fennell-Trimble
"My condolences to your family. Thank you for giving me one more reason not to vote for H.R.C. I do it(or not as the case may be) gladly and will think of your dearly departed as I enter the voting booth." From: connie sisco
"I am sorry the family's loss. I am so glad to be able to reply I will not vote for Hillary. Bengasi does make a difference." From: Bob Martin
"My condolences to family members, may Larry rest in peace knowing his message reached so many people. I assure you I will not vote for HC. RIP my Brother till we meet again in the big lodge. Bob Martin, ALTAMONT, NY. A brother Mason and Shriner." From: Jerry Martin
"My pride in NC (was born in Monroe, raised in Charlotte, grad. in '56 from UNC, now live IN DE since '56)has greatly increased since reading the Upright obituary. I will promise right now that I will NOT vote for Hilary Clinton! I love the way politics have shifted to the GOP in NC! I'm DEEPLY sorry for your loss. God rest his soul. Jerry" From: Victoria Lieb
"May the magic of his light shine upon you now and through 2016. God bless, and thank you for the levity of passions in your granddaddy's life." From: John Stigall
"Sorry Larry, you are a cool guy but our whole family will vote for Hillary. We promised Grandma." From: Carl Welter
"My deepest sympathy about your grandfather. I just made a donation to Hillary PAC in his name." From: President Obama
"My deepest sympathy to your family. Hillary Clinton was an excellent Senator, Secretary of State, and friend and I can assure you I will be voting for her." From: Kelsey
"So very sorry for your loss. Mr. upright sounds like he was a wonderful man. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton." From: Greg Jordan
"So sorry for your loss. I will actually be voting for Hillary because I think she espouses a true Christian spirit of standing by her man, and she is well qualified. But so glad you wanted this in your obit. If everyone was so concerned as you then we would be a lot better off. RIP fellow NC'er and blessings to your family." From: Clyde Jones
"So sorry for your loss,I agree with Mr. Larry D. Upright - I will not vote for Hillary Clinton!" From: REP
"I'm so sorry for your loss, BUT I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. Thank you for living in the USA...." From: Heywood Jablome
"How sad to see you go." From: Ben Dover
"Sad to see you go Larry and remembering the good times." From: Anita Dump
"Sadly it was time to go." From: Ima Hoare
"My heartfelt sympaties to the family. He was always so generous." From: William Jefferson Clinton
"Sorry for your loss, PS I'm not voting for Hillary." From: Deanie Jacobi
"I did not know Larry, but guarantee I will not vote for Hillary. My husband is Potentate at Sahib Shrine, Sarasota, Florida and his condolences too! Larry must have been a great person and we would love to have known him. God Bless You and all the Family. Connie & Deanie Jacobi Sarasota, Florida" From: Bret Boozer
"This path as seen its end, but as the lights go out here they came on at the start of your next path. See you on the other side! Rest well!" From: Voting American
"Well, since I'm still Upright,and expect to be on Election Day. I will vote for Secretary Clinton. My sincere condolences on your loss. A loving Grandaddy can't be replaced." From: dwayne vargeson
"DEAR UPRIGHT FAMILY, MY CONDOLENCES FOR THE PASSING OF LARRY. I AM RESPECTFULLY HONORING LARRY'S WISH AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY ROTHAM CLINTON JUST AS I NEVER VOTED FOR BARAK OBUMA !!! RIP LARRY. WE ALL LOVE YOU. DWAYNE & FAMILY, ELMIRA,NY" From: Joe Fachet
"Sorry for your loss. I know that your dad, grandfather is in heaven with my dad watching For news. Our family respects his opinion and will honor his request. God bless you and your family. Maybe my dad and your dad (and grand daddy can have a good influence ftom up above. God Bless. Joe and Family ftom Pennsylvania" From: Jamal Jackson
"I will honor your request NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Your selfless service and generosity is appreciated. Some day we'll meet in heaven again. May God bless you, your family and other loved ones." From: Charles Farley
"I am sorry for your loss but I will do as you ask will not vote for clinton" From: ARKANSAS Stranger
"To the family my prayers go out to you and this is the best obituary I have ever read. Mr. Upright with your keen since humor even in the end I must say is priceless and as for me and mine we respectfully will never vote for Hillary for anything. RIP" From: Anonymous
"I have no intention of voting for Hilary. Bernie gets my vote. Now there's an upright man." From: Vicki
"Sorry for your loss. My husband and I are doing the best we can to send videos and statements to everyone we know, to let them know not to vote for Clinton. We are not going to vote for Clinton. We are asking everyone to pray that Donald Trump gets in. Again Sorry for your loss" From: Cloie, Steve and Vicki Lynn
"We are sorry for your loss and Heaven's gain. Considering Hillary was - at best - substandard in her governmental positions, and - at worst - criminal, we will not join the less committed United States citizens in voting for her come November. "Upright"; your name says it all! Perhaps we should search for an obituary for a "Mr Mistaken"; there we would find his final wish: "Please don't vote for Donald!" God bless your family, Mr Upright. Love, Cloie, Vicki and Steve" From: Lol
"Well, Grandpa got his wish!" From: Terry Messina
"Mr. Upright was a wise man. For all those who heeded his advice, you certainly got what you wished for and you certainly deserve it. Rest in blissful peace for ever, Mr. Upright, you certainly got the last laugh." | Larry Upright may be dead, but he's still Republican and he still doesn't want you voting for Hillary Clinton—at least according to his obituary. "The family respectfully asks that you do not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016," reads his obit in the Independent Tribune in Concord, NC. "R.I.P. Grandaddy." His family says that Upright, an "avid golfer" and Masonic Lodge member who died last Monday at 81, never shied away from talking politics, ABC News reports. "He was very passionate about politics and probably passed a little of that on, so it was natural for me to think about that," says his daughter Jill McLain, who wrote the last-minute addition to his obit. Much of the reaction on a funeral home website that ran the obit was in agreement with Upright: "We did not know your father but I bet he was a wonderful and kind man," reads one comment. "God Bless ... we would not vote for Hillary if she was the only one running." But not everyone is persuaded, it seems: "Sorry for your loss," reads another post, "but I'm voting for Hillary anyway." Larry's son, Mike Upright, says his family approved the obit because Larry consistently voiced pro-GOP opinions, WSOC reports. "We know he’s up there giggling right now," Mike says. "Just laughing out loud." (Other obituaries have been used to take shots at the Seahawks, the Kardashians, Obama, and the New York Times.) |
The Occupational Safety and Health Act states that it is congressional policy to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions . . .” In fiscal year 2002, OSHA pursued this mandate with about $443 million and 2,316 employees, including 1,123 inspectors. Despite this broad mandate, OSHA does not have complete authority over all worksites in this country. For example, through the appropriations process, Congress has placed restrictions on OSHA’s enforcement activities regarding small farming operations and small employers in low hazard industries. Also, pursuant to the act, OSHA has delegated federal enforcement responsibility to 23 state and territorial governments that carry out their own programs. OSHA has provided half the funding for these programs to state-plan states, which must have program standards that are “at least as effective” as the federal program. In other cases, federal agencies other than OSHA have jurisdiction over particular workplaces or hazards. For example, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration is responsible for ensuring the safety of mining worksites, while transportation-related hazards are generally within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. OSHA also relies on BLS to provide it with data on injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Since 1992, BLS has surveyed a sample of approximately 180,000 employers and asked them to report information on the number of work- related injuries and illnesses occurring at their worksites. This information comes from injury and illness records that private industry employers are required to maintain. From this information, BLS calculates injury and illness rates. BLS identifies fatalities from a census of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City, which report on all work-related fatalities within their jurisdictions. BLS requires the reporting entities to corroborate reports on fatalities by obtaining multiple sources of information, such as OSHA fatality information, death certificates, medical examiners’ reports, media reports, and workers’ compensation documents. BLS makes injury, illness, and fatality data available at the national as well as at the state level. To ensure that it makes the best use of its resources, OSHA, like other federal agencies, established strategic goals that drive agency efforts and has begun to measure the attainment of those goals. In OSHA’s 1997-2002 strategic plan, it identified an overarching goal to “mprove workplace safety and health for all workers, as evidenced by fewer hazards, reduced exposures, and fewer injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.” OSHA characterized this overarching goal as the cornerstone of its enforcement program. According to OSHA, it planned on “focusing . . . gency resources on the most prevalent types of workplace injuries and illnesses, the most hazardous industries, and the most hazardous workplaces.” OSHA identified specific areas that it believed were the most hazardous and by which OSHA would measure its progress. These specific areas, as shown in table 1, focused on three hazards and five industries or industry sectors (which are subsets of larger industries), and are known as OSHA’s “3-by-5 goals.” OSHA also identified a goal to reduce fatalities in the construction industry by 15 percent and reduce injuries and illnesses by 20 percent in 100,000 workplaces where OSHA initiates an intervention. Because GPRA applies only to federal agencies, the 23 state-plan states are not required to adopt these goals. OSHA asked these states to establish industry and hazard goals similar to OSHA’s 3-by-5 goals relevant to the worksites in their respective states. In some cases, the state-plan states selected hazards or industries that mirrored the federal ones; in other cases, they did not. Recognizing that its 3-by-5 goals would probably not include every hazard and industry that would prove dangerous to workers over the 5-year duration of the strategic plan, OSHA established various other mechanisms through which it could identify areas that pose hazards to workers. Through national emphasis programs (NEP), OSHA headquarters has identified industries or hazards deserving priority attention from its area offices. In the last several years, OSHA has averaged about 10 NEPs annually. Some NEPs have reflected areas selected in the strategic plan, while others have focused on other areas (e.g., the petrochemical industry) not in the strategic plan. While OSHA provides direction to its area offices for implementing NEPs, the area offices have considerable flexibility in selecting actual worksites. In addition, area offices can also use local emphasis programs (LEP) to highlight industries or hazards within their jurisdictions that they believe are hazardous. (See table 2.) OSHA also has two national targeting programs that are aimed at identifying worksites for priority inspection. First, as shown in table 2, OSHA has a targeting program that relies on data from the F.W. Dodge Report for identifying worksites in the construction industry. Second, OSHA has a site-specific targeting program (SST), which identifies a list of high-hazard worksites in other industries through its OSHA data initiative. OSHA’s targeting efforts must be carried out on a neutral and objective basis, in accordance with legal requirements. As another way to help ensure that its resources are well used, OSHA has restructured local office operations. Before fiscal year 1997, area offices were organized in single-discipline teams that responded to worker complaints and conducted planned inspections. Starting in fiscal year 1997, OSHA reorganized its local offices into multidisciplinary teams comprised of both safety inspectors and health inspectors. These teams specialized in either responsive activities (i.e., responding to worker complaints, accidents, or serious injuries; or acting on referrals from other agencies) or planned activities, such as conducting planned inspections and providing employers with compliance assistance (i.e., various efforts to help employers who voluntarily seek to comply with OSHA regulations). To assist these teams, OSHA placed a compliance assistance specialist at each area office who provides services such as helping employers correct hazards identified during inspections. OSHA also instituted new procedures that permitted area offices to expedite the process for responding to informal worker complaints by allowing inspectors to resolve complaints by phone or fax without visiting the worksite. OSHA has also improved training opportunities for its inspection workforce. The agency has expanded course offerings available to inspectors at the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) and through satellite delivered and web-based training. In addition, OTI is revising its curriculum to prepare new inspectors both for their new jobs and for professional certification in either safety, health, or as an engineer. The agency has also developed a plan to assist experienced inspectors to obtain professional certification, should they choose to do so, and to retain professional certifications already achieved. The curriculum for professional certification will vary considerably depending on the type of certification sought by the inspector and the inspector’s current experience and level of training. OSHA’s certification assistance also includes paying for preparation materials and certification examination fees and making time available at work for staff to study. Concurrently, OSHA managers are using an individual development plan (IDP) process to help inspectors identify training needs and select appropriate training opportunities. The targeting processes that OSHA used have not fully ensured that the agency effectively identifies hazardous worksites for priority inspection. Specifically, when targeting the construction industry, OSHA relied on a database that did not adequately identify the smaller, potentially more hazardous worksites. In the meantime, however, OSHA area offices have taken actions on their own to target small construction sites. Also, the efficiency of OSHA’s efforts to target high-hazard worksites across other industries through its SST program may be limited by faulty information that caused OSHA to send inspectors to worksites that were either not hazardous or that had hazards that were outside of OSHA’s control. OSHA’s current construction industry targeting procedure has not provided local offices with adequate information on smaller construction worksites. OSHA relies on information from the F.W. Dodge Report database, provided by the University of Tennessee, to identify construction worksites for potential inspection. This database provides selected information on each construction site, including the projected start and completion dates. However, the start and completion dates, which are added to the database at the University of Tennessee, are often erroneous for small construction sites. Since they had more confidence in the information the database provided on larger worksites, OSHA’s area offices generally selected larger construction worksites to inspect. About half of the area office directors we interviewed said they do not request information on smaller construction sites through the F.W. Dodge Report process. Several local office directors told us that, when relying on the database to identify small construction worksites, they would only send inspectors to areas where there were multiple worksites in close proximity in the hope of finding at least one that would be available for inspection. Knowledgeable experts and officials within and outside OSHA, including area office officials, saw this as problematic because larger construction worksites are generally safer than smaller ones, although they acknowledge that conclusive data to demonstrate this are unavailable. OSHA officials acknowledge that the F.W. Dodge process can be improved to better identify high-hazard construction worksites and are undertaking efforts to identify ways to improve the construction targeting process. OSHA has asked the University of Tennessee to study all factors, including size, that may lead to injuries and illnesses in construction in order to determine the relative level of hazard represented by individual construction worksites. As of July 2002, the University of Tennessee had yet to initiate work on this study. This effort should help OSHA use more sophisticated criteria to select the most hazardous construction worksites for priority inspection, but it does not aim to address the immediate bias toward targeting larger construction worksites. To address current problems, we found that several of the local offices were using various methods to supplement the F.W. Dodge Report data to better target smaller construction worksites. Eight of the 17 area office directors we interviewed stated that they relied on more informal criteria and LEP initiatives to target smaller construction workplaces. For example, in 1999-2000, four area offices developed LEPs for residential construction worksites because office personnel were seeing increasing numbers of fatalities or injuries occurring at these sites. These local offices believed their efforts were successful in locating the smaller, more hazardous worksites. However, not all area offices had established local emphasis programs for smaller construction worksites. The SST program is limited in its ability to effectively identify hazardous worksites. Our review of OSHA’s own IMIS inspection database found that for about half the worksites identified through this process, inspectors were unable to do an inspection or, if they did, cited no serious violations. While OSHA headquarters officials have not analyzed why this occurs, our review of IMIS as well as interviews with area office directors indicate that these outcomes could result from faulty information that caused OSHA to send inspectors to worksites that were either not hazardous or that had hazards that were outside of OSHA’s control. In some cases, OSHA received outdated or incorrect information about the establishment itself (i.e., name, location, nature of business, or number of employees). As a result, inspectors may have been unable to conduct an inspection. In other cases, OSHA received miscalculated information about the employer’s injury and illness rate. In these situations, inspectors visiting worksites determined from an inspection of its records that the actual injury and illness rate was not high enough for the employer to qualify for an inspection. We found, based on inspection data from OSHA’s IMIS database, that inspectors performed no inspection or just a records inspection (i.e., a review of the employer’s injury and illness records) for about 17 percent of the worksites identified on the original SST list. In other cases where the information on the worksite injury or illness rates was correct, the data collected may still have been otherwise unsuitable for efficiently targeting those high-hazard worksites where OSHA can have an effect. In collecting information for this program, OSHA asked employers for only 1 year of injury and illness data. Area office officials we interviewed said that in some cases, this 1-year rate was an outlier that did not reflect general worksite operations. Moreover, the data OSHA collected were generally 2 years old before inspectors conducted the inspection. As a result, employers might have taken actions, such as using OSHA’s consultation program, to improve working conditions by the time the inspector arrived. Also, the injuries and illnesses may have been caused by workplace hazards OSHA does not address. Again, using IMIS, we found that for about 17 percent of worksites on the SST list, inspectors found no violations. In another 14 percent, inspectors found no serious violations. Generally, officials from OSHA’s regional and area offices we interviewed expressed concern about the ability of the SST program to reach those worksites with hazards that inspectors can address. Over half stated that the program did not identify a sufficient number of employers with serious violations to warrant their participation. For example, at one local office, we were told that 35 percent of worksites on the list were not cited for a violation. They noted that OSHA spends significant time and energy to develop the SST list. They also noted that significantly fewer resources are spent identifying worksites under national or local emphasis programs, yet they appear to be more successful in identifying serious violations. Our review of IMIS data on the results of LEP inspections found that over 60 percent of inspections had serious violations. Also, our review of reports from area offices on the results of their LEP efforts identified anecdotal information about the success of LEP investigations for reaching the most hazardous worksites. In contrast to the views expressed by regional and area officials, OSHA headquarters officials noted that a 50 percent serious violation rate could be acceptable if it meant that employers had actually improved working conditions between the time they were notified of a possible inspection and the time the inspection actually took place. However, there is insufficient information to determine whether this violation rate should be interpreted as a positive sign that employers are taking action, or rather an indication that OSHA has not reached the most hazardous worksites. Additionally, there is insufficient information available to know what impact the SST program has on reducing injuries and illnesses. First, OSHA has little data on injury and illness rates for the period after the SST inspections occurred. Having this information could help OSHA identify changes that happened after an inspection took place. Such an analysis would be imperfect since other intervening factors may have influenced injury and illness rates, but the results might still be useful. Moreover, OSHA did not establish a comparison group of employers whose worksites were equally hazardous, but were not selected for inspections. Developing such a comparison group has potential to help OSHA address the problem presented by intervening factors. There are several possibilities for a comparison group, including employers from the original ODI list that were not selected to be on the SST list, or similar types of employers located in state-plan states. We acknowledge that there are many factors to be considered in developing a comparison group. One expert we interviewed suggested that it might be difficult to use the ODI database for both targeting and evaluation and suggested that OSHA develop a similar database of establishments to be used purely for evaluating SST’s effectiveness. Several weaknesses in OSHA’s measurement efforts affected its ability to accurately demonstrate its impact on workplace safety. To measure progress toward its strategic plan goals, OSHA relied on national injury and illness statistics rather than on data specific to those states covered by OSHA’s strategic plan. Moreover, the methods OSHA used to measure its progress may have misstated its accomplishments. Finally, when assessing its impact, OSHA did not account for many relevant factors outside its control that may have affected changes in the number of work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. By using national data, OSHA lost the opportunity to understand what is happening with regard to injuries and illnesses in the states covered by its strategic plan. According to OSHA officials, available data did not allow them to measure changes in injury and illness rates for all federal OSHA states combined. In about 10 federal OSHA states, the amount of data BLS collects about injuries and illnesses is insufficient to allow the information to be generalized to the entire state. However, BLS uses the information from these 10 states in calculating its national estimate of workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA officials told us that the lack of data from these states precluded BLS from making injury and illness estimates for all federal OSHA states combined. Nonetheless, according to BLS officials, available data from these 10 states could be combined with data from the other federal OSHA states to provide an overall estimate of injury and illness rates for the combined federal OSHA states. They said that this could be done at little or no additional cost to OSHA, but it may take up to a year to fully generate and test the program needed to produce this estimate, although some information could be made available sooner. OSHA used methods to measure its progress in reducing injury and illness rates in the industries and hazards highlighted in its strategic plan that may have misstated its accomplishments. More specifically, to measure its progress in achieving its strategic plan goals, OSHA compares the most recent injury and illness data to a 1993 through 1995 baseline. For example, in its 2001 annual report, OSHA compared calendar year 2000 injury and illness data (the latest information available from BLS) with the same data for 1993 through 1995. Based on this comparison, OSHA reported that injury and illness rates declined by 26 percent in shipyards; 18 percent in food processing; 9 percent in nursing homes; 36 percent in logging; and 23 percent in the construction industry. Yet, as shown in figure 1, based on data reported by BLS, a portion of these declines occurred before 1997, the first year of the strategic plan’s implementation. While the agency may well have contributed to improvements before 1997, those downward trends in illness and injury cannot be characterized as an indication of the plan’s effectiveness. Further, even using the 1993-95 point of comparison, two of the five industries highlighted in OSHA’s strategic plan did not have changes that were statistically significant, according to an OSHA official. Comparing changes between 1996 (the year before the strategic plan went into effect) and 2000, we estimated that three of the five industries highlighted in OSHA’s strategic plan did not have changes that were statistically significant. Additionally, OSHA itself has acknowledged that it misstated its progress in achieving its goals for two of the three hazards highlighted in its strategic plan, those pertaining to reducing exposure to silica and lead. Initially, OSHA took reductions in silica and lead exposure at worksites it inspected and generalized them to the nation as a whole. In its fiscal year 2001 annual report, however, OSHA acknowledged that this was inappropriate and that the data and process did not satisfactorily measure progress on this goal. OSHA added that its methodology did not measure the average exposure severity for lead and silica in all workplaces; instead it measured the average exposure severity at workplaces that OSHA inspected, which have been specially targeted as potentially hazardous. When assessing its impact, OSHA did not consider many of the factors outside its control that may have influenced changes in the level or type of injuries, illnesses, or fatalities. There is general agreement among those we interviewed within and outside of OSHA that other factors, such as workers’ compensation programs, have an effect on workplace safety and health. However, in presenting its evaluation of progress toward strategic goals, OSHA did not account for the potential effects of these other influences in its annual reports. Also, in some cases, OSHA did not account for hazards causing injuries, illnesses, or fatalities not under its full control. For example, while OSHA reported that it exceeded its goals for reducing fatalities in the construction industry, it did not report that some portion of this reduction might have occurred because of declines in transportation-related accidents under the authority of the Department of Transportation. For example, in 2001, about half of the fatalities in the construction industry that resulted from transportation accidents were likely under the authority of the Department of Transportation. OSHA’s initial efforts to enhance inspector quality are encouraging, but the anticipated outcomes could be jeopardized. First, although OSHA’s restructuring efforts, which included the use of multidisciplinary inspection teams, have had some positive results, the effort may have also led to insufficient internal controls in the supervisory review process that could adversely affect the consistency of enforcement. Additionally, OSHA’s efforts to increase training opportunities for inspection staff hold promise but face two obstacles that, if not addressed, may undermine the long-term success of the resources invested in training. OSHA’s local office restructuring appears to have strengthened inspectors’ ability to enforce workplace safety and health standards. First, OSHA’s effort to develop multidisciplinary teams has resulted in increased opportunities for cross-training among safety and health inspectors. Indeed, two of the local office directors we interviewed said that inspectors are better able to detect violations, even if the violations are outside of their disciplines. Second, having a compliance assistance specialist at each area office has provided inspectors with a much needed in-house resource for identifying techniques to make workplaces safer. Eleven of the 17 area office directors we interviewed said the compliance assistance specialist position has greatly enhanced inspector quality, helping inspectors provide cutting-edge information to employers about how to abate identified hazards. Third, OSHA’s new flexible process for responding to complaints by phone or fax rather than actual visits has made inspectors more efficient and able to focus on priority areas. Some of the 17 area office directors we spoke with stated that this more flexible complaint process freed up inspectors’ time by as much as 30 percent or more, allowing them to focus on planned inspections and compliance assistance rather than respond to complaints. However, the move to multidisciplinary teams may have undermined the internal control process for supervisory review of inspectors’ case files. Some area office directors we interviewed said that some team leaders (who generally have backgrounds in safety) do not have the expertise needed to review the health inspectors’ case files that accompany and support proposed violations. About half of the 26 regional administrators and area directors we interviewed expressed concern about this issue. These officials explained that when team leaders are unable to review case files, they generally ask someone else in the local office with the appropriate expertise to review them, thus resulting in additional review time and a greater potential for mistakes because of the additional individuals involved in the process. Area office officials we interviewed have attempted to address this problem with varying degrees of success. Some have sought to resolve this issue working within the multidisciplinary team structure. For example, those offices that were large enough to establish multiple teams for carrying out planned activities selected team leaders from both the safety and health disciplines. They can support each other and provide technical guidance to inspectors regarding both safety and health issues. Other area offices did not follow headquarters directives and chose not to restructure into multidisciplinary teams. Instead, they maintained separate teams of safety inspectors and health inspectors. These area office directors told us that they essentially attain the goals of a multidisciplinary team approach by creating temporary multidisciplinary teams whenever the need arises. They stated that, in this way, their offices obtain the benefits of multidisciplinary teams while minimizing the problems other offices have had with team leaders lacking necessary expertise. Two area office directors we spoke with expressed a desire to go back to separate teams of safety inspectors and health inspectors but believed they needed permission from OSHA headquarters to do so. OSHA has yet to address these concerns at the national level. OSHA’s plans to upgrade inspector training have the potential to improve the professionalism and capabilities of the inspection staff. OSHA officials we interviewed stated that they are upgrading the curriculum of the OSHA Training Institute (OTI), which will provide inspectors with training opportunities that give them a broader understanding of the issues surrounding worker safety and health and will improve their skills to conduct inspections. Furthermore, the officials added that OSHA’s individual development plan process should help ensure that all inspectors and their managers identify the kind of training they need to maintain skills and expand expertise. A majority of area office officials we interviewed were encouraged by OSHA’s plan to offer inspectors opportunities to become professionally certified. Eight of the 17 area directors we interviewed stated that inspectors with professional certifications would appear more credible to employers and be better able to assist these employers to correct hazards. Over three-quarters of area office directors we spoke with said they saw value in promoting professional certifications among the inspector staff. Professional association officials we spoke with supported continuing education and/or certification training for OSHA inspectors, which they believed would enhance inspector quality. However, OSHA’s training plans face obstacles that may jeopardize long-term success. First, OSHA’s official training directive fails to reflect OSHA’s new commitment to training. It states, “at a minimum, each [OSHA inspector] is required to attend a safety and health related course once every 3 years.” This directive is inconsistent with current training practices and the planned training for professional certification. Two of the area office directors we spoke with said that they could not rely on the directive as leverage to encourage those inspectors that may be unwilling to take needed training to improve their skills. Moreover, without having a formal directive that reflects what OSHA is trying to accomplish, area office directors expressed concern that current management focus and initiatives with regard to training could be lost in the event of a budget cut. This is especially important given that OSHA does not plan on finalizing its assessment of the level and type of resources that will be necessary to carry out this training until February 2003. The second obstacle that may affect OSHA’s long-term success is the lack of a comprehensive database that tracks training or skills obtained by inspectors. With regard to training, OSHA’s local offices currently access or maintain 18 incompatible national, regional, and local (including formal and informal) databases for inspector training information. For example, 7 of the 9 regional offices we contacted each maintain their own training database and 2 regional offices use a human capital database operated by the Department of Labor. Of the 17 area offices we interviewed, 8 of them use the relevant regional database, while 4 area offices developed their own database system and 5 used paper files. (See table 3 in app. I.) In addition, the OTI operates a separate database that tracks only the training that it provides. None of these databases track OSHA inspectors’ work- related skills. Area office directors we interviewed stated that OSHA often hires inspectors due to expertise in a particular area (e.g. crane safety) that they obtained prior to joining OSHA. This expertise is not reflected in any of these databases. As a result, OSHA managers would be unable to easily identify an inspector hired from the construction industry who has experience with crane safety developed from another job. Because OSHA managers do not have reliable information on training and skills, they cannot readily identify inspectors with expertise in key hazards. In addition, OSHA managers seeking to determine whether the agency can meet certain future contingencies have no formal mechanism for identifying the skills of inspectors but must rely instead on personal knowledge or informal paper records held by individuals within the organization. Furthermore, we have reported that, without reliable data to assess the level and type of training and skills available, an agency cannot assess the extent to which training contributed to agency performance. OSHA has taken important steps toward targeting its enforcement resources on high-hazard worksites, measuring its impact, and enhancing the professionalism and quality of its personnel. However, OSHA’s enforcement efforts could be strengthened by better information and procedures that would make targeting efforts more efficient, measurement more precise, and training efforts more effective. OSHA may not be getting the most out of its targeting programs because of data problems that limit OSHA’s ability to inspect high hazard worksites. For example, the current process for targeting construction worksites may not allow OSHA to systematically identify potentially more hazardous construction worksites. OSHA’s long-term research may ultimately address this problem. However, in the meantime, there is little assurance that area offices are inspecting smaller worksites. Data problems also limit the effectiveness of OSHA’s site-specific targeting program. Without improving the suitability of these data, OSHA will continue to expend significant resources on this program with little certainty that it is identifying the most hazardous worksites and making the best use of its inspection resources. Moreover, OSHA did not set up the site-specific targeting database in a manner that would allow it to evaluate the program’s impact on reducing injury and illness rates. As a result, it lacks sufficient information to determine whether program outcomes justify the resources expended. The data and methodologies OSHA has used to measure its progress toward achieving strategic goals do not offer sufficient assurance that its efforts to measure its accomplishments produce a true picture of the agency’s impact on workplace safety and health or that they offer an appropriate assessment of agency progress in meeting its own goals. OSHA, as the federal agency responsible for overall workplace safety and health, understandably has an interest in tracking national trends in workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. However, these data and methodologies may not reflect what is happening in those states or for those hazards that OSHA is responsible for under its strategic plan. As a result, OSHA lacks valuable management oversight information concerning the impact of those inspection activities for which it is most directly accountable. Finally, OSHA has taken significant actions and plans to improve the quality of its inspection staff. However, unless area offices can share best practices regarding supervisory review, OSHA may not be able to ensure that the move to multidisciplinary teams does not adversely affect internal controls. Moreover, unless its training directive is updated to reflect OSHA’s current training strategy, the agency cannot ensure that its current strategy becomes institutionalized and implemented. And, OSHA currently lacks reliable information on the training and skills of its inspection workforce. This information is fundamental to improving the quality of OSHA’s workforce. To better ensure that OSHA gets the greatest benefit out of its targeting programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to encourage area offices to supplement inspections of large construction worksites with locally planned efforts to inspect smaller worksites, strengthen the validity of the data used to identify worksites in the site-specific targeting program by addressing the data weaknesses identified in this report, and assess the site-specific targeting program’s impact on workplace injuries and illnesses in light of the resources expended. To enhance OSHA’s ability to more precisely measure its impact from the strategic planning process, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor encourage OSHA and BLS to work together to obtain the necessary data to understand those injuries, illnesses, and fatalities occurring in areas covered by the strategic plan or under OSHA’s authority. This could include exploring additional ways of analyzing existing BLS data or exploring the costs of collecting additional information that would allow state-level estimates. To help ensure that OSHA’s efforts to improve inspector quality achieve their potential outcomes, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to review area office efforts to develop alternative supervisory review procedures in order to identify promising practices and disseminate results to other offices, update OSHA’s training directive to reflect its current training strategy, work with Labor’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management to develop an information system to track and assess training and skills obtained by the inspection staff. This could include developing a new system or adapting existing systems. We provided a draft of this report to Labor for comment. Overall, OSHA said that our report provides useful recommendations to consider as it moves forward in its efforts to improve the working conditions throughout the nation. The agency also pointed out a 30-year decline in occupational- related fatalities that took place despite huge increases in the U.S. workforce. Further, OSHA highlighted its belief that its enforcement system has achieved striking results, noting recent declines in injury and illness rates. Although OSHA generally agreed to take action on the report’s recommendations, it expressed a number of concerns about material presented in the report. More specifically, OSHA raised questions about certain aspects of our analysis of the construction worksite targeting program. For example, it noted that we had recommended the use of local emphasis programs to help target small construction sites while acknowledging an absence of definitive data showing that smaller worksites are more hazardous than larger sites. We made this recommendation because (1) knowledgeable experts—including some at OSHA—told us that smaller sites were more hazardous and (2) the current construction targeting system does not adequately encompass these sites. We continue to believe that supplementing inspections of larger worksites with inspections of smaller ones is a prudent approach to take until OSHA completes its study of factors to help identify better ways to identify the most hazardous construction worksites. OSHA also expressed several concerns about our analysis of the SST program. For example, it pointed out that, in apparent contrast to our findings, the agency’s quality control reviews indicated a high level of accuracy regarding the employer-submitted injury and illness data the program uses for targeting inspections. In our view, there is not necessarily an inconsistency between the quality review findings and ours. For example, the data may have been accurate at the time an employer submitted it to OSHA but out of date by the time it was used for targeting purposes. Additionally, OSHA noted that interventions, other than from the SST program (e.g., consultation visits), could have caused an employer to correct unsafe conditions and help explain the lack of citations during the SST visits. We agree. However, the fact remains that there are insufficient data to determine the validity of this explanation versus other possible explanations. In the meantime, the SST program—a targeting program intended to identify high-hazard worksites—continues to direct inspection resources to large numbers of sites that have no serious violations. Finally, OSHA made several comments on our examination of the agency’s ability to demonstrate impact on workplace safety and health. For example, it reaffirmed its use of 1993 through 1995 data as a reasonable baseline from which to measure its strategic plan’s accomplishments, noting, among other things, that a baseline is by definition arbitrary. We continue to believe that, by selecting the baseline it did, OSHA took credit for declines that occurred before 1997, the year when the strategic plan was implemented. Labor’s comments in their entirety as well as our responses to their comments are shown in appendix II. Additionally, both OSHA and BLS offered technical comments, which we incorporated throughout the report. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-7215. Major contributors are listed in appendix III. Table 3 identifies the various databases and paper files that track work-related training taken by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspectors that were maintained by the regional and area offices we contacted. The following are GAO’s comments on the OSHA letter dated November 14, 2002. 1. We clarified the language in the report to better highlight recent improvements in work-related fatality and injury rates. 2. Our draft report acknowledged there are no definitive data showing that smaller worksites are more hazardous than larger worksites. However, knowledgeable experts—including some at OSHA—believe that the smaller sites are indeed more dangerous than the larger ones. Furthermore, OSHA’s current construction targeting efforts do not include these smaller sites. Accordingly, we continue to believe that supplementing inspections of larger worksites with inspections of smaller ones is a prudent approach to take until OSHA completes its study of factors that will help it better identify the most hazardous construction worksites. 3. While OSHA provided data to show that medium-sized employers may be more hazardous than smaller ones, employer size and construction worksite size are two different measures. As a result, these statistics may not reflect the level of hazards at small construction sites. 4. We believe that using the rate of serious violations cited is a valid measure of a worksite’s hazardousness, although we acknowledge it is not the only one. This approach has been used by researchers and OSHA itself to identify whether OSHA is focusing its inspection resources in the right places. Additionally, we agree with OSHA that interventions, other than from the site-specific targeting (SST) program (e.g., consultation visits), could have caused an employer to correct unsafe conditions and help explain the lack of citations during the SST visits. However, the fact remains that there are insufficient data to determine the validity of this explanation versus other possible explanations. In the meantime, the SST program—a targeting program intended to identify high-hazard workplaces—continues to direct inspection resources to large numbers of sites that have no serious violations. 5. We did not assess the results of OSHA’s efforts to verify the accuracy of employer-submitted injury and illness data. However, even if the data are as accurate as OSHA suggests, our report points out other data limitations that hinder its usefulness in targeting inspections. For example, the data collected only reflects what happened during a single year at a particular employer and that data may have been an outlier that did not reflect general worksite operations. Additionally, the data may not be current—it may be 2 years old before an SST inspection is conducted. 6. Our earlier report, U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000) did not independently assess the quality of OSHA’s recordkeeping audit program. Instead, we discussed the role of the program in helping OSHA evaluate its performance. 7. We anticipate that, when implementing our recommendation to encourage local offices to supplement inspections of larger construction worksites with inspections of smaller construction worksites, OSHA will ensure that these inspections are conducted in accordance with all legal constraints. 8. We believe that the report adequately distinguished general industry from construction targeting. We reported that the SST program to date has focused on general industry worksites while the Dodge system focuses on construction worksites. Nonetheless, we do believe they both have data limitations that affect their ability to effectively identify hazardous worksites. 9. We understand, based on OSHA’s comments, that more current data would have been available at the time when OSHA began to evaluate progress toward the plan’s strategic goals. We continue to believe that OSHA’s selection of a 1993-95 baseline allowed it to take credit for declines that occurred prior to the implementation of the strategic plan. As we note in the report, while OSHA may have had some effect on these changes, the changes cannot be seen as an indication of the plan’s success. 10. Our report did not conclude that declines between 1993 and 1995 would have continued without OSHA’s efforts. We agree that it would be difficult to determine what would have happened in the absence of OSHA’s strategic plan efforts. 11. We changed the language in our report to clarify that OSHA, in presenting its evaluation of its progress toward strategic goals, did not account for the influence of other factors that affect workplace safety and health. 12. We altered the language of the recommendation to include Labor’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. We believe that both OSHA and the Assistant Secretary’s office have a role in developing the kind of data system necessary to accurately track and assess inspectors’ training and skills. Dennis Gehley, Kris Trueblood, H. Brandon Haller, and Catherine Hurley made significant contributions to this report. In addition, Richard Burkard and Julian Klazkin provided legal support, while Patrick DiBattista, Barbara W. Alsip, and Susan Bernstein provided writing assistance. | The United States has made great progress in improving working conditions since the construction of the Empire State Building. Yet, since the early 1990s, over 50,000 workers have died from work-related accidents and millions experience work-related injuries or illnesses each year. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the primary federal agency responsible for protecting workplace safety and health. GAO was asked to assess how well OSHA was able to target its enforcement resources on hazardous worksites, measure its accomplishments, and ensure inspection staff quality. OSHA has taken important steps toward targeting its enforcement resources on hazardous worksites, measure its accomplishments, and enhance the professionalism of its staff. However, these systems could be strengthened by better information and mechanisms that would make targeting efforts more efficient, measurement more precise, and training efforts more effective. OSHA's targeting processes have not fully ensured that it identifies hazardous worksites for priority inspection because its worksite-targeting programs lack the necessary data to effectively identify high-hazard worksites or those with hazards under OSHA's jurisdiction. Also, OSHA's measurement efforts did not accurately demonstrate its impact on workplace safety and health because, for example, it used national data on injuries and illnesses to measure its progress in achieving strategic goals even though only 31 states are covered by these goals. Finally, OSHA's efforts to enhance the quality of its inspection workforce have the potential to improve enforcement, but the anticipated outcomes could be jeopardized by a lack of necessary mechanisms, such as a training directive that reflects current plans, or a comprehensive database that tracks training or skills obtained by inspection staff. |
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. ||||| Published on Jan 16, 2009
Sarah Silverman reveals that she is f*@#ing Matt Damon to Jimmy Kimmel
SUBSCRIBE to get the latest #KIMMEL: http://bit.ly/JKLSubscribe
Watch the latest Mean Tweets: http://bit.ly/MeanTweets8
Connect with Jimmy Kimmel Live Online:
Visit the Jimmy Kimmel Live WEBSITE: http://bit.ly/JKLWebsite
Like Jimmy Kimmel Live on FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/JKLFacebook
Follow Jimmy Kimmel Live on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/JKLTwitter
Follow Jimmy Kimmel Live on INSTAGRAM: http://bit.ly/JKLInstagram
About Jimmy Kimmel Live:
Jimmy Kimmel serves as host and executive producer of Emmy nominated "Jimmy Kimmel Live," ABC's late-night talk show.
"Jimmy Kimmel Live" is well known for its huge viral video successes with 1.5 billion views on YouTube alone. Some of Kimmel's most popular comedy bits include - Mean Tweets, Lie Witness News, Jimmy's Twerk Fail Prank, Unnecessary Censorship, YouTube Challenge, The Baby Bachelor, Movie: The Movie, Handsome Men's Club, Jimmy Kimmel Lie Detective and music videos like "I (Wanna) Channing All Over Your Tatum" and a Blurred Lines parody with Robin Thicke, Pharrell, Jimmy and his security guard Guillermo.
Now in its eleventh season, Kimmel's guests have included: Johnny Depp, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Halle Berry, Harrison Ford, Jennifer Aniston, Will Ferrell, Katy Perry, Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, George Clooney, Larry David, Charlize Theron, Mark Wahlberg, Kobe Bryant, Steve Carell, Hugh Jackman, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Bridges, Jennifer Garner, Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Jamie Foxx, Amy Poehler, Ben Affleck, Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gyllenhaal, Oprah, and unfortunately Matt Damon.
F*@#ing Matt Damon
http://www.youtube.com/user/JimmyKimm... ||||| "The Bachelor" <strong>"The Bachelor," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> You really think we've seen the last rose handed out? Not in a million years. ABC has already tapped their next "Bachelorette," and we know they'll have their eyes peeled for a hot rejected man from that spinoff to be the next "Bachelor."
"The Bachelorette" <strong>"The Bachelorette," ABC</strong> <br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Likely to be renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "Bachelor" Brad's also-ran Emily Maynard is getting her turn as the rose giver for the seventh season of "The Bachelorette" this summer. As long as there are people willing to look for love on reality TV, this show will keep on trucking.
"Body of Proof" <strong>"Body of Proof," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "Body of Proof" has been falling below its timeslot competitor, CBS's "Unforgettable," but it still draws a decent audience and its fans are very vocal. ABC has decided it deserves a third season.
"Castle" <strong>"Castle," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This show's ratings have definitely suffered without "Dancing With the Stars" airing beforehand, but it is a consistent performer. And now that Castle and Beckett's relationship is evolving, a fifth season of "oh yes they will" is a no-brainer.
"Charlie's Angels" <strong>"Charlie's Angels," ABC</strong> <br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Not really a shock for anybody, but "Charlie's Angels" is cooked. Flimsy story, bad remake, questionable casting.
"Cougar Town" <strong>"Cougar Town," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed -- for TBS!<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> The Season 3 ratings weren't boosted much by holding this show until midseason, but ABC's wonky air schedule also didn't help ... which is why the news that TBS has picked up the show for a fourth season is huge. Cheers with your Big Carl!
"Dancing With the Stars" <strong>"Dancing With the Stars," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "DWTS" may have lost its luster in the ratings, but if the viewers are still coming.
"Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23" <strong>"Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> ABC's new bleep-worthy comedy starring Krysten Ritter, Dreama Walker and James Van Der Beek is a funny one, and definitely embraces the quirk (Beek Jeans!), so we're excited to see what they do with a second season.
"Desperate Housewives" <strong>"Desperate Housewives," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> After countless deaths, murders, betrayals and natural disasters on Wisteria Lane over the show's eight seasons, the ladies of "Desperate Housewives" will say goodbye forever this May.
"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" <strong>"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled <br /> <strong>Why:</strong> After a whopping nine seasons, the do-gooding show came to an end in January. But worry not, it will continue to have a few specials to make viewers cry tears of joy.
"GCB" <strong>"GCB," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This "Desperate Housewives"-esque dramedy premiered to less than 8 million viewers, and the phenomenal cast (Kristin Chenoweth, Annie Potts, Leslie Bibb) couldn't bring in a Texas-sized audience, so ABC canceled it.
"Grey's Anatomy" <strong>"Grey's Anatomy," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Shonda Rhimes' medical drama is a ratings juggernaut, even in its eighth season, and with most of her <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/greys-anatomy-ellen-pompeo_n_1506113.html?ref=tv" target="_hplink">big stars signed on for more</a>, ABC gave the go-ahead for a ninth season.
"Happy Endings" <strong>"Happy Endings," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This show is way too "ca-yute" to bubble it, and obviously someone high up at ABC agrees. After its first season was moved around and aired all out of order, the network still gave it another chance to find its audience in Season 2 ... and it has, and hopefully will continue to in Season 3.
"Last Man Standing" <strong>"Last Man Standing," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status: </strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Ratings for Tim Allen's return to sitcoms have been very strong, making it Tuesday's most-watched comedy. If you can beat "Glee" and "The Biggest Loser," a second season is a given.
"Man Up!" <strong>"Man Up!," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> ABC pulled the show after eight episodes.
"The Middle" <strong>"The Middle," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Now in its third season, "The Middle" is still holding onto its middle position in the ratings on Wednesday nights, and that seems just about right. It doesn't do "American Idol" or "Survivor" numbers, of course, but with over 7 million viewers, it's a strong comedy for the network that easily beats anything NBC is offering.
"Missing" <strong>"Missing," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Ashley Judd lead this drama about a former CIA agent whose son goes missing, kicking her back into action to find him. The series was only set to air 10 episodes, miniseries-style, with the potential for more, but a cancellation means that's all they're getting.
"Modern Family" <strong>"Modern Family," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "Modern Family" remains ABC's biggest sitcom success story of the last decade, both in ratings and awards love. This critical darling is getting a fourth season of hijinks with the hilarious Pritchett-Dunphy clan.
"Once Upon A Time" <strong>"Once Upon A Time," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "Once Upon a Time" has gotten praise for being one of the more family-friendly dramas on TV, and it's been pulling in close to 10 million viewers each week because of it. We're excited by the almost endless possibilities for new fairy tale-inspired stories to tackle in Season 2.
"Pan Am" <strong>"Pan Am," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Poor "Pan Am" just never quite took off. The series' vintage look actually worked against it, much like NBC's swiftly canceled "Playboy Club" -- guess when you're being compared to award-winning shows like "Mad Men," it makes it more than a little tough to live up to the hype.
"Private Practice" <strong>"Private Practice," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "Private Practice" has never gotten "Grey's Anatomy"-level ratings, and things got shakier when ABC bumped it to Tuesday nights to make room for creator Shonda Rhimes' <em>other</em> new show, "Scandal," but they've given the show a sixth season order.
"Revenge" <strong>"Revenge," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> With a clever mix of drama, mystery and serious revenge-ing, this is hands down one of the most addictive new shows on TV, and we can't wait to see where they take things in Season 2.
"The River" <strong>"The River," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> The promise of "Paranormal Activity"-like scares each week quickly fizzled after this show premiered, along with the ratings. The first season's eight episodes came and went, and ABC has nixed any plans for more.
"Scandal" <strong>"Scandal," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Shonda Rhimes' latest show isn't about doctors at all -- and that's why we're glad it's sticking around. Kerry Washington is amazing as Olivia Pope, a Washington, D.C. fixer with a crack team of specialists helping make bad headlines vanish before they're ever written. Here's hoping for more than seven episodes in its second season.
"Shark Tank" <strong>"Shark Tank," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Now in its third season, this reality competition show is unlike any other on network TV and ABC is keeping it around for more for that very reason.
"Suburgatory" <strong>"Suburgatory," ABC</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> It's smart, quick and not too cute -- "Suburgatory" is consistently named the sitcom you should be watching, but probably aren't. The great cast makes this one a no-brainer, and the ratings have stayed pretty consistent, too. We're thrilled it's getting a second season to shine!
"Work It" <strong>"Work It," ABC</strong> <br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled <br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Let us count the ways ...
"2 Broke Girls" <strong>"2 Broke Girls," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why: </strong>At first, people balked at the racist supporting characters, but now it seems that audiences are all over "2 Broke Girls" -- it's ratings have seen a steady increase, and it won the People's Choice Award for Favorite New Comedy.
"A Gifted Man" <strong>"A Gifted Man," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why: </strong>"A Gifted Man's" total viewer numbers were OK for a Friday night, but a 1.3 rating in the 18-49 demographic is especially bad for CBS. Another bad sign: star Patrick Wilson tweeted about the end: "I had a great time. Thanks to my fans. So happy it's done." And done it is.
"The Amazing Race" <strong>"The Amazing Race," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status: </strong>Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Voted the best reality show on TV several times (albeit years ago), "The Amazing Race" isn't going anywhere. Ratings have dropped a bit, but are still solid.
"The Big Bang Theory" <strong>"The Big Bang Theory," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Nothing seems to be able to make a dent in this show. With fantastic ratings (it beat "Idol"!) and a rabid following, we'll be seeing plenty more "Big Bang" before its run is over.
"Blue Bloods" <strong>"Blue Bloods," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed <br /> <strong>Why:</strong> The anchor of Friday nights on CBS, "Blue Bloods" has performed well, pulling in around 11 million viewers an episode. The show might not have the youngest audience, but it's still enough for CBS to keep it on the schedule.
"Criminal Minds" <strong>"Criminal Minds," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Paget Brewster might be checking out, but "Criminal Minds" is here to stay. In Season 7, the procedural is still a consistently strong ratings performer for CBS.
"CSI" <strong>"CSI," CBS</strong> <br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Whenever the time comes, the "CSI" mothership will end with a lot of fanfare, but not this year. With new faces Ted Danson and Elisabeth Shue around, there is going to be at least one more season.<br />
"CSI: Miami" <strong>"CSI: Miami," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Out of the three (!) "CSI" programs on the air, "CSI: Miami" is the one to say goodbye first. The one-time ratings giant has been affected by football overruns (just as "The Good Wife" has) and "CSI: NY" has the edge in terms of total viewers, meaning a "Miami" sunset was inevitable. <br />
"CSI: NY" <strong>"CSI: NY," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Of the two "CSI" spinoffs, "CSI: NY" is the stronger -- pulling in more than 10 million viewers on a Friday night is no easy task -- and with "CSI: Miami" canceled, "CSI: NY's" renewal was a no-brainer.
"The Good Wife" <strong>"The Good Wife," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This critical darling suffered after its move from Tuesdays to Sundays thanks to sports overruns. The viewers are frustrated, but given its strong cast and Emmy love, the show is still coming back for more.
"Hawaii Five-0" <strong>"Hawaii Five-0," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Despite the scheduling setback as Alex O'Loughlin seeks treatment, Season 2 is still doing well for CBS in a very competitive timeslot.<br />
"How To Be a Gentleman" <strong>"How To Be A Gentleman," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Not even having "The Big Bang Theory" as a lead-in could save this David Hornsby project, which only lasted three episodes.
"How I Met Your Mother" <strong>"How I Met Your Mother," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> CBS renewed "How I Met Your Mother" for two more seasons in March 2011, so fans can look forward to being strung along about the titular mother's identity for a bit longer.<br />
"The Mentalist" <strong>"The Mentalist," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Although the show hit a season ratings low in the middle of February, its fanbase and overall ratings were enough to have it return for another season.
"Mike & Molly" <strong>"Mike & Molly," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Thanks to an Emmy win and Oscar nomination, Melissa McCarthy is a Hollywood power player and CBS is keen to keep her around. Just look at the multiple pilots she has in the works as a behind the scenes player! "Mike & Molly" will be back for a third season.
"NCIS" <strong>"NCIS," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> The long-running procedural has become a ratings juggernaut at a time when most shows start shedding viewers. Season 10 is now happening.
"NCIS: Los Angeles" <strong>"NCIS: Los Angeles," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong>Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This show has gone up in the ratings over the last couple of years, and people can't get enough of L.L. Cool J and Chris O'Donnell.
"NYC 22" <strong>"NYC 22," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This "Rookie Blue" clone from executive producer Robert DeNiro didn't really move the needle when it premiered midseason; CBS officially axed it with three episodes left to air.
"Person of Interest" <strong>"Person of Interest," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> With ratings matching juggernauts like "Grey's Anatomy" and fans popping up everywhere, we'll be seeing another season of "Person of Interest."
"Rob" <strong>"Rob," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Canceled<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> "Rob's" spot after ratings juggernaut "The Big Bang Theory" probably went a long way in helping it survive to see the end of its first season, but that's as far as it'll get.
"Rules of Engagement" <strong>"Rules of Engagement," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> This show has moved around so much it's hard to remember when it's on, and with six seasons under its belt it's had quite a nice run. Despite slipping ratings and the aforementioned constant switcheroos, there's still a future for "Rules of Engagement."
"Survivor" <strong>"Survivor," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status: </strong>Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Of <em>course</em> we have "Survivor" coming back for another season. Where else are we going to see petty squabbles and insane behavior on some of the most beautiful beaches in the world?
"Two and a Half Men" <strong>"Two and a Half Men," CBS</strong><br /> <strong>Status:</strong> Renewed<br /> <strong>Why:</strong> Despite a less-than-favorable critical response, the revamped "Two and a Half Men" keeps pulling in respectable numbers every week. Ashton Kutcher, Jon Cryer and Angus T. Jones will all return for a Season 10. | The "feud" between Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel has gone on for years: Many have been the nights when Kimmel has ended his show by apologizing for having to "bump" a supposed Damon interview, saying "we ran out of time." And of course, there was that time when Sarah Silverman, Kimmel's then-girlfriend, was "Fucking Matt Damon." Last night, Damon took matters into his own hands by kidnapping the host ... and proceeding to take over Kimmel's entire show, which he renamed "Jimmy Kimmel Sucks." The kidnapping couldn't come at a better time for Kimmel's ratings as he takes on the Leno-Letterman timeslot. The host was bound and gagged at the hands of the actor throughout the show, as Damon replaced Kimmel's normal crew with much more famous faces (including Robin Williams and Ben Affleck) and snagged a seemingly never-ending list of VIP guests including Demi Moore, Reese Witherspoon, and Nicole Kidman, the Huffington Post reports. "Acts you could never get, my friend," said Damon. The pièce de résistance: when Silverman herself showed up. Watch the full episode here. |
Civilians comprise a significant portion of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) personnel strength; civilian employees alone account for one-third of DOD’s full-time work force. These civilians provide important support to military combat forces in peacetime and in war. Some deploy and provide needed support within theaters of operation. With the transition to an all-volunteer active-duty military force, DOD adopted the “Total Force” policy in 1973, which recognized that the reserves, retired military members, civilian government workers, and private contractor personnel could add to the active forces in ensuring the national defense. The objectives of DOD force management policies are to (1) maintain, during peacetime, as small an active-duty military force as possible and (2) use civilian employees and contractor personnel wherever possible, to free the military forces to perform military-specific functions. In 1990, DOD reported to the Congress that in implementing the Total Force policy, it had, among other things, improved use of the DOD civilian employee, contractor, and host nation support communities. In fiscal year 1994, DOD’s programmed civilian end strength was estimated at 923,000 personnel, with an estimated cost of about $42 billion in salaries and benefits. These civilians work for each of the military services; in Defense agencies, such as the Defense Logistics Agency or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service; and in other organizations, such as the Offices of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) or the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Civilian employees currently represent over one-third of DOD’s total full-time equivalent force. This ratio has remained relatively constant since 1987, as table 1.1 shows. (App. I shows the same information by service and the Defense agencies.) As table 1.1 also shows, both military and civilian personnel end strengths have declined since 1987, when DOD was at its peak strength. Based on its fiscal year 1995 budget, DOD estimates that, by 1999, it will achieve a 33-percent reduction in its military end strength and a 30-percent reduction in civilian end strength since 1987. While most civilians support the military forces both at home and abroad in peacetime and at home during times of war, some civilians historically have deployed with and supported the military forces within theaters of operations. As far back as the American Revolution, civilians served as wagoneers and drivers to tow artillery and move supplies. During the Persian Gulf War, DOD used over 14,000 civilian employees and contractor personnel to support its military forces. According to DOD’s April 1992, final report to the Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, civilian expertise contributed directly to the success achieved. DOD and service officials also generally recognize that during peacetime civilians cost less than military members of comparable pay grades. Responding to various legislative provisions over the past 20 years requiring the use of the least costly form of personnel consistent with military requirements, DOD has gone through periods of concentrated efforts to replace military positions with civilian ones. For example, in the 1970s, the services replaced nearly 48,000 military personnel in support positions with 40,000 civilian employees. As shown in table 1.2, the services, in recent years, targeted nearly 20,000 military positions for conversion to civilian ones. The services, however, did not maintain adequate records to substantiate the achievement of the intended conversions or validate the savings. Significant differences exist in the way military and civilian positions are managed. These differences affect DOD’s costs and control over its forces. The military personnel system is often described as a centrally managed, “closed” system, meaning that persons recruited with no prior military service are generally brought in at entry-level positions and progress through the ranks, whether in the enlisted pay grades or the officer corps. Decisions pertaining to assignment, promotion, rotation, and retention are centrally controlled at service headquarters. The military personnel management system operates totally under policies and guidance established by DOD, which helps ensure that military leaders have control over their personnel. The civilian personnel system, on the other hand, is often described as a more “open,” or decentralized, system. Such a system allows new hires to enter an organization at various levels, depending on each person’s qualifications and experience. Although most civilians begin their government service at lower, entry-level pay grades, managers are not restricted to hiring them at lower-graded entry levels. Civilian employees are also subject to the federal civilian personnel regulatory framework that governs such issues as hiring procedures, working hours, overtime, and job retention rights. Unlike their military counterparts, who are employed “globally” and can be transferred anywhere, civilian employees are generally employed at the local installation level. Career opportunities are generally identified at the local level. While civilian personnel management is described as being decentralized, local managers view their control over civilian force management as limited because budget guidance and downsizing goals, established at higher organizational levels, can mandate reductions in end-strength levels and constrain their hiring authority. Unlike funding for military personnel, funding for civilian personnel is not aggregated into a single account that permits close monitoring. Rather, funding for civilian personnel is spread among several accounts within the DOD budget. For example, funding for most civilian personnel is included in the operation and maintenance appropriation in the DOD budget—an account that also includes spare parts, fuel for equipment, and military training. DOD’s policy is to establish its total personnel requirements at (1) the minimum level and least cost necessary to carry out assigned peacetime missions aimed at deterring aggression and (2) a level sufficient to retain capability to quickly respond to any combat needs that develop. The first priority is major combat forces such as fighter pilots, tank crews, sailors, and submariners. Combat forces are exclusively military, whether active-duty or reserve. After combat forces are determined, remaining forces are to be established to adequately support the combat forces. Support forces may include active-duty military, reserve military, civilian employees, contractor employees, and host nation personnel. Each service has implemented its own procedures for determining peacetime personnel requirements in support positions. These procedures—labeled by the different services as efficiency reviews, manpower surveys, or engineering studies—are intended to identify the most efficient personnel mix for performing assigned missions and tasks. Although some variations exist in service procedures, decisions on peacetime personnel resources generally should include two major considerations. First, service officials are to identify a task to be performed and establish the number of personnel needed, by specific skill, to perform the task. Second, they are to determine whether civilian employees, contractor personnel, or military members are the most appropriate source of the required skills, based upon DOD and services policies. These policies generally state that civilians are to be used in support positions that do not require military incumbency for reasons of law, training, security, discipline, rotation, or combat readiness, or that do not require military background for successful performance of the duties involved. When military incumbency is not essential, yet the work must be done by government personnel, civilian employees are to be used. If the workload is not military essential and not required to be done by government workers, contractor personnel may be used; however, decisions to use contractor personnel must be supported by cost comparisons. The execution of military operations may require the use of additional military and civilian personnel to bring the peacetime force structure to required wartime levels. The buildup of forces to sustain a contingency operation is called mobilization; contingency planning, or mobilization planning, is the broad umbrella under which the services determine their wartime personnel and materiel requirements. Military requirements are determined through analyses of numerous strategies and assumptions about how to fight a war and the need for a range of phased, incremental increases in force capability. Military forces needed immediately are programmed into the peacetime active-duty military. Other military forces needed for later deployment can be programmed into the reserves. Requirements for civilians in theaters of operations will depend on the nature of the contingency and the types of military units involved. To ensure that DOD civilian employees would perform critical support functions in-theater during a conflict, DOD established the emergency-essential civilian employee program in 1985. One objective of this program is to obtain written statements from combat-essential employees affirming that they understand the commitments of their positions and that they will continue to perform their functions while other civilians are being evacuated from combat areas. In 1990, after criticism from our office and the DOD Inspector General, DOD required the services to implement procedures to ensure that contractor personnel who perform combat-essential support functions will continue their services in-theater during conflicts. Concerned about the extent to which DOD is addressing civilian personnel requirements as it downsizes and restructures its total force, the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness asked us to review the decision-making processes the services use to determine whether a position should be military or civilian. In response to this request we examined (1) DOD and service efforts to replace military personnel in peacetime support positions with DOD civilian employees and (2) the adequacy of planning for the future use of DOD civilian employees and contractor personnel to support military forces in theaters of contingency operations. We were also asked to follow up on actions taken to correct problems identified by DOD and the services that were associated with the deployment of civilians to the Persian Gulf War. To identify trends and opportunities for replacing military personnel in support positions with civilian employees, we reviewed DOD and service criteria for determining when a position should be military or civilian. We obtained perspectives from personnel management officials on efforts to identify functions that civilians can perform. We also obtained available data on the number and types of military positions converted to civilian under a 1989 Defense Management Review Decision and interviewed DOD officials to identify reasons for not achieving the intended conversions. In addition, we obtained data from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) on the number of military personnel in support positions and identified potential opportunities to replace military personnel in such positions with civilians. We validated the potential for significant cost savings by reviewing (1) several studies comparing the cost of military and civilian personnel and (2) the differences in ranks or pay grades for previously made conversions, when data were available. We did not identify the full range of military positions that might be candidates for conversion to civilian, or the specific pay grades of the civilian replacements. Our analysis with respect to this issue was limited to comparisons between military personnel and DOD civilian employees. We did not evaluate potential cost savings that might result from replacing military members with contractor personnel. To determine the extent to which DOD and the services are identifying the need and properly planning for the use of civilian employees and contractor personnel in future operational contingencies, we reviewed DOD and service regulations. We interviewed officials in service headquarters’ requirements and operations directorates, comparable officials at various installations we visited, and officials of the Joint Staff. We obtained statistical information from DMDC on the number and occupational series of emergency-essential civilians in each of the services for the last 5 years. We compared these data across the services to identify patterns and followed up with officials at the locations we visited to validate the data. To determine the number of DOD civilian employees and contractor personnel who deployed to the Gulf War, the functions they performed, and problems associated with their deployment, we reviewed DOD’s April 1992 final report to the Congress, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, with a particular focus on the “Civilian Support” appendix. We also reviewed “lessons learned” reports prepared by various service components and special studies performed by outside organizations under contract to the services. We conducted a group interview with representatives of several defense contractors who provided civilian support in the Persian Gulf. We also interviewed officials in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). We performed our work at the following service headquarters, major commands, and installations: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Office of the DOD Comptroller, Washington, D.C.; Joint Staff Directorates for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessments; Operational Plans and Interoperability; and Manpower and Personnel, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H. M. Smith, Hawaii; U.S. Transportation Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; Army Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Personnel and Logistics, Washington, D.C.; Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia; Headquarters Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia; Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia; Army Combined Arms Support Command, Fort Lee, Virginia; Army Combined Arms Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Army Pacific Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado; and Headquarters U.S. Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; Air Force Headquarters Directorates for Civilian Personnel, Programs and Evaluations, and Plans and Operations, Washington, D.C.; Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii; and Offices of the Assistant Chief of Naval Operations and Bureau of Personnel, Washington, D.C.; Navy Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia; Navy Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and subordinate commands in San Diego, California. We conducted our review between January 1993 and June 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained DOD comments on a draft of this report. The comments have been summarized in chapters 2 and 3 and are presented in their entirety in appendix V. Although DOD policy is to use civilians wherever possible, large numbers of military personnel perform technical, management, administrative, and other functions that civilians typically do. The services vary in the degree to which they use military or civilian personnel to perform similar functions. Opportunities exist for DOD to replace thousands of military personnel with civilian employees and, in so doing, save personnel costs and achieve operational benefits. In some instances, valid reasons exist for not replacing military support personnel with civilians. In other instances, replacements that should be made are impeded by a variety of factors. Some factors, such as current practice or broad directives and regulations, permit the continued use of military personnel. Other factors, such as downsizing and funding, limit the number of civilian replacements. The 1994 DOD Manpower Requirements Report indicated that more than 245,000 military personnel throughout the services and defense agencies were serving in noncombat program areas such as service management headquarters, training and personnel, research and development, central logistics, and support activities. Appendix II defines each of the program areas and shows the percentage of civilians in each area for fiscal years 1987 and 1994. Many job categories, such as finance, administration, data processing, and personnel, within broad DOD programming areas, generally do not require knowledge or experience acquired through military service; skills to perform such functions are available in the civilian labor sector. Some DOD and service officials believe that a great majority of such positions should be civilian. Yet, DMDC data indicate that many of these job categories are filled more by military members than civilian employees. Table 2.1 shows, for example, that enlisted personnel and civilian employees of equivalent pay grades occupy 66 percent and 34 percent of the positions in data processing, respectively. DMDC also maintains data on officer personnel, but the data do not clearly reveal the extent to which officers perform civilian functions. Many officers assigned to headquarters organizations and staff offices are classified as operational, even though they might primarily perform administrative functions. For example, an aircraft pilot assigned to manage personnel requirements functions at a local command would still be classified as a pilot in the DMDC database. However, our analysis of other data in DOD’s 1994 Manpower Requirements Report indicates that nearly 48,000 active-duty military officers, about 20 percent of the services’ total officers, were allocated to organizations outside of the services to perform a wide range of noncombat functions. Service officials stated that many officer positions are needed in DOD-wide activities because of career progression requirements. For officers to be promoted to senior levels, they need experience in a “joint” activity. In many instances, however, these joint experiences may not occur within the officer’s military specialty and may have limited applicability to developing joint battle staff experience. Further, such assignments often last only 2 years, which may not provide enough time to develop the expertise to perform the duties proficiently. These frequent reassignments may also disrupt the continuity of key operations. At one joint command we visited, for example, about one-third of the management staff, including all of the directorate chiefs, rotated in 1 year alone. A command official said stability of the workforce and continuity of operations are important reasons for them to use more civilians. According to DMDC data, the services vary significantly in the degree to which they use military and civilian personnel to perform similar functions. For example, the services collectively employ more than 21,000 enlisted military and civilian equivalent personnel whose primary occupational specialty is computer operator. Only 17 percent of computer operators in the Air Force are civilian, whereas in the Navy more than 53 percent are civilian, and in the Army about 68 percent are civilian. Table 2.2 shows the occupational specialties with the greatest variations. Some service officials attribute much of the variations to the unique missions of each service that require them to use personnel differently. For example, some Air Force officials explained that they have broad responsibilities to safeguard U.S. nuclear weapons and believe military security guards are more appropriate for this mission. Other DOD and service officials in the civilian personnel and manpower requirements offices attribute the differences to the existing military culture, in which officials prefer to use military personnel instead of civilians. These officials state that there is no reason why the services cannot be more consistent. Some DOD and service manpower officials explained that some of the military positions, which otherwise could be civilian, are needed to provide adequate time in the continental United States (CONUS) for service members rotating from tours abroad. They said that, as the United States continues to reduce it forces overseas, the need to maintain large numbers of rotation positions will also decline. Requirements officials said the Army and the Air Force are reducing their number of positions held for rotation purposes. They said the Navy is also adjusting, to some extent, the number of positions held for rotation downward. We also observed differences within the services. For example, the Navy uses civilians in the Pacific Fleet to perform its shore personnel staffing analyses (called efficiency reviews), while the Atlantic Fleet uses many military personnel for the same function. According to service officials, the Atlantic Fleet is substantially behind the Pacific Fleet in reviewing all of its shore facilities. Atlantic Fleet officials attribute the delays to the frequent turnover of military personnel. Such turnover, the officials said, prevents military members from developing the level of expertise needed to efficiently perform the reviews. Atlantic Fleet officials explained that they currently do not have adequate funds to hire civilians to do their efficiency reviews and are forced to rely on available military personnel, who are always going through a learning curve. The Pacific Fleet, on the other hand, uses civilians who, because of longer tenures, have become more proficient in completing the studies. Significant differences exist between the compensation costs for comparable military and civilian pay grades; replacing the thousands of military personnel who perform civilian functions with civilian employees of comparable ranks can offer significant potential to save personnel costs. Using civilians in certain support positions also provides operational advantages for DOD because a greater proportion of military strength can be devoted more directly to combat-related functions. Some civilians already have technical expertise that would require additional training for military personnel to acquire, especially in areas such as high-technology communications. Civilians also provide continuity in their positions and provide institutional memory, since they are less subject to the frequent assignment rotations associated with military personnel. Increasing the percentage of civilians in specific occupations will free up military positions to be used for other purposes. If, for example, all the services adopted a 50-to-50 ratio between military members and civilians in personnel management—a function DOD officials describe as primarily civilian—about 5,200 military positions would be available for conversion to civilian ones. Similar patterns exist in the areas of data processing and disbursing. Using the 50-to-50 ratio, table 2.3 shows over 14,000 positions within four occupational specialties where large numbers of military personnel perform functions that civilians potentially could do. Some of our reports and other DOD-sponsored studies show that civilian employees generally cost the government less than military personnel. The differences vary by pay grade, but, as table 2.4 shows, the average difference is about $15,000 per person per year for peacetime support functions performed in CONUS. (App. III provides more detail on the components of military and civilian compensation by pay grade.) Savings to be achieved from military-to-civilian conversions will depend on whether DOD eliminates a position from its military end strength or retains the position and reassigns the military member to another unfilled military-specific position. The savings may be even greater than they first appear from table 2.4 because civilian replacements, in the past, have sometimes been made at lower grades than the comparability table suggests. For example, at one command we visited, two supply management officers at the O-3 level were replaced with GS-9 civilians, even though comparison studies show that the comparable civilian pay grade for an O-3 officer is GS-11. On average, the replacement of just two military O-3 personnel with two civilian GS-9 personnel would result in a potential cost savings to the government of more than $46,000 in 1 year alone, if the military positions were eliminated from the service’s end strength. (Even if the two military O-3 personnel were replaced with civilian GS-11 personnel, the government would still save more than $30,000.) DOD officials said civilian employees can be paid at grades lower than their military counterparts because civilians either enter government service with specific expertise or they develop more expertise at an earlier stage in their careers since they do not rotate as frequently. DOD officials also told us that, for similar reasons, there have been cases where one civilian replaced more than one military member, thus resulting in greater savings than a one-for-one replacement would suggest. DOD and service officials recognize that opportunities exist to replace military personnel with civilian employees. In fact, DOD requirements officials have recently initiated a study that will, in part, examine the potential for replacing military personnel with civilians within OSD, JCS, and all defense agencies and field activities. This study, to be completed in late 1994, was initiated after a DOD task force determined that the “military essentiality” of some positions was not always apparent. The Air Force has recently initiated an internal study that will examine, among other things, opportunities to replace officers with civilians. During our review, data were not available to suggest how many positions might be affected, and a time frame for completing the study was not provided. However, we believe that making these replacements will be difficult without special attention by DOD officials to overcome existing barriers, such as military culture, downsizing, and funding. Although DOD’s and the services’ general policies call for the use of civilian personnel where possible, they also allow service managers wide latitude in filling positions with military personnel. No single directive explains how DOD’s “Total Force” policy should be implemented or the specific criteria to use in determining the appropriate mix of personnel. Therefore, because of the broad nature of the guidance, tradition, and cultural preferences, DOD and the services often merely maintain the status quo on military incumbency. Guidance on the mix of personnel needed to perform DOD functions is contained in several DOD directives—some dating back to 1954—and in service regulations. For example, DOD Directive 1100.4, “Guidance for Manpower Programs,” August 20, 1954, states that civilian employees shall be used in positions that do not require military incumbency for reasons of law, training, security, discipline, rotation, or combat readiness, or that do not require military background for successful performance of the duties involved and that do not entail unusual hours not normally associated or compatible with civilian employment. DOD Directive 1400.5, “DOD Policy for Civilian Personnel,” March 21, 1983, provides little specificity on civilian functions or positions. Service implementing regulations expand the requirements for military incumbency outlined in the DOD directive. These regulations clearly define personnel requirements for combat functions, since only military personnel are expected to perform such roles. For example, the Manual of Navy Total Force Manpower Policies and Procedures, June 11, 1990, requires military members if the person must engage in or be prepared to engage in combat. In the case of support positions, which may be appropriate for civilians to fill, the service regulations still tend to give greater emphasis to military incumbency. Army Regulation 570-4, “Manpower Management,” September 25, 1989, for example, states that all support positions will be military if they have tasks that, if not performed, could cause direct impairment of combat capability. However, this does not reflect current Army operations, since civilians routinely perform equipment maintenance functions that are important to maintaining combat capability. Service regulations enable officials to use military members in certain administrative, security, and supply personnel positions simply because they have traditionally done so. In addition, a preference for using military personnel has often existed because the military personnel system provides a high degree of management control. Informally, DOD and service officials have often cited probable deployability to theaters of operations in wartime as a basis for maintaining military incumbency. However, this position does not reflect current practice, since thousands of civilians were deployed to the Persian Gulf War. DOD and service officials told us they are in the process of updating and consolidating some of these policies. They did not, however, have firm dates for completing the updates. Due to changes in the world security environment and budget constraints, DOD is reducing the size of its military and civilian workforces. By fiscal year 1999, active-duty military end strengths are to be reduced by 33 percent from the 1987 peak strength. Approximately 73,000 active-duty military personnel reductions are currently planned in the end strength between the beginning of fiscal year 1995 and the end of fiscal year 1999, based on DOD’s 1995 budget. In theory, DOD could achieve many of its military reductions by replacing military personnel with civilian employees. However, the simultaneous downsizing of civilian employees works against such replacements. Civilian end strengths, by fiscal year 1999, are to be reduced by 30 percent from the 1987 peak strength. Over 79,000 civilians are programmed for reduction from the DOD workforce between fiscal years 1995 and 1999, based on DOD’s 1995 budget. In addition, executive branch efforts to reduce the number of high-graded (GS-14 equivalent and above) civilian positions throughout the federal government impairs attempts to reduce or replace officers. Many officer positions, if converted, may likely be replaced with high-graded civilians. DOD officials explained that, especially during this period of downsizing, their civilian personnel end strengths have been driven more by available dollars than by requirements. Local officials said they have little, if any, incentive to identify military-to-civilian replacements during the drawdown. Officials see little opportunity to obtain the necessary funding to support new civilian positions, particularly in the wake of what they sometimes view as arbitrary cuts in end strengths and budgets. Likewise, they expressed concern that while funding might be provided at one point, this would not preclude subsequent reductions as part of broad guidance to meet other reduction targets. Many DOD and service personnel managers identified the inadequate integration between the process for determining civilian requirements and the budget process that funds these requirements as a barrier against replacing military personnel with civilians. Although local commanders determine their civilian requirements based on estimated workloads and request budgets to cover the costs of such requirements, budgets are allocated from higher levels and often do not support the identified requirements. According to some DOD and service officials, constant pressures to reduce the defense budget and personnel strengths compel them to allocate anticipated reductions across all defense programs on a proportional basis. According to local officials, the reductions are perceived as having been made arbitrarily, without fully considering civilian requirements. As a result, local officials have become reluctant to identify military positions for conversion to civilian ones because they fear they will ultimately lose both positions. From a commander’s perspective, the military position will be deleted from the installation’s military end strength because this process is centrally managed. Before civilians can be hired, the budget may be reduced by service headquarters and the installation will be unable to hire the civilians. For example, at one command we visited, 2,200 military members were identified in 1991 for replacement with civilian personnel. These replacements were to be achieved in stages between 1991 and 1995. A command official told us that they lost approximately 2,000 military members, but gained no more than 800 civilians even though the command had no change in workload. This result was attributed to the fact that higher command levels significantly reduced this installation’s budget before the civilian positions could be filled. This official said hiring civilians often takes 6 months because of the required lengthy processes of advertising vacancies and reviewing applications. Even when funds are allocated to replace military personnel in support positions with civilians, the services may not be required to use the funds for that purpose. Funds for civilian personnel are derived from several accounts that may be used for a variety of purposes. For example, the operation and maintenance appropriation funds the purchase of fuel, supplies, and repair parts for weapons and equipment, and training of military personnel, in addition to civilian personnel. Although DOD and the military services have general policies requiring them to use civilian personnel where possible, the services currently vary in the extent to which they use thousands of military personnel in support positions that, according to DOD and service officials, could be civilian. No single answer is apt to be found to precisely identify the appropriate mix of military and civilian personnel. However, achieving greater consistency among the services by increasing the proportion of civilians performing data processing, personnel management, and other similar functions could free up thousands of military personnel for reassignment. Eliminating military positions and replacing them with civilians can save significant personnel costs, since some cost analyses estimate that, during peacetime, each civilian costs about $15,000 per year less than a military person of comparable pay grade. The high degree of variation among the services in how they use military or civilian personnel to perform similar functions suggests a need for high-level oversight by OSD and/or the JCS to ensure balanced consideration of personnel requirements across the services. However, various interrelated factors discourage commanders from pursuing military-to-civilian conversions or replacements. These factors range from a traditional preference for military personnel where possible, to concerns over retaining civilian positions in the current downsizing environment. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense establish a joint review board and provide it with a mandate to work with the services to ensure a thorough and consistent review of military support positions that may have potential for conversion to civilian. We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the services to identify military positions that should be replaced with civilians and eliminate, to the extent possible, existing impediments to using civilians when they would be less costly. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our findings and recommendations. DOD stated that it will review the military essentiality of positions in its support structure and report its results to the Congress by April 30, 1995, in accordance with requirements of the fiscal year 1995 National Defense Authorization Act. This review will entail recommendations by the military services for converting military positions to civilian. DOD is also aware that various cost analyses acknowledge a less costly civilian substitute for military personnel performing similar type work. However, DOD policies governing military versus civilian manpower mix are not predicated upon the comparative cost factor alone, nor modified based on a single conflict experience. Thousands of civilians deployed to the theater of operation in support of U.S. military forces during the Persian Gulf War. Civilian deployments for that operation revealed important administrative weaknesses related to the use of civilians in such circumstances; many of those weaknesses are now being addressed by DOD or one or more of the services. That deployment also demonstrated up-front operational planning problems with the deployment of civilians that have not been completely resolved. During the Gulf War, the United States deployed over 14,000 civilians, both government employees and contractor personnel, to the theater of operations. (About 500,000 military personnel deployed to the Persian Gulf War.) According to DOD’s April 1992 report to the Congress on the Persian Gulf War, civilians worked aboard Navy ships, at Air Force bases, and with virtually every Army unit. Only the Marine Corps did not employ significant numbers of civilians in-theater. Civilians served in a wide variety of support positions, including transportation, maintenance and repair, and other weapon system support roles. (App. IV provides a more detailed account of the types of civilian specialists deployed in support of the Gulf War.) DOD’s April 1992 report to the Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War acknowledges that civilian expertise was invaluable and contributed directly to the success achieved. The services acknowledge that they did not have good data systems to track civilians in-theater during the Gulf War, particularly for contractor personnel. Given these limitations, table 3.1 shows how the numbers break down among the services and between DOD civilian employees and contractor personnel. Historically, DOD civilians and contractor personnel have served in theaters of operations during wartime; however, the Persian Gulf War deployment was somewhat different from scenarios expected during the Cold War. U.S. defense planning for the threat of war in Europe during the Cold War era relied upon host nation support, augmented by U.S. reserve forces, to help meet support requirements. Defense planning also relied partly on the assumption that some civilians working for DOD in Europe would continue to perform their functions in time of conflict. These employees were designated as emergency essential; as such, they were expected to remain in the area when combat began. U.S. military leaders now expect that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, future conflicts will more likely occur against regional powers, similar to the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. U.S. forces will be expected to operate in areas that have little or no military support infrastructure. Therefore, DOD officials expect that they will have to deploy more support capability from the United States, some of which will be provided by civilian employees and contractor personnel. DOD and service officials acknowledge that they were not adequately prepared to process, deploy, or support civilians in the Persian Gulf theater of operations, although a 1990 DOD directive required that emergency-essential civilians be identified and prepared for potential deployment. Specifically, this directive required emergency-essential employees to sign agreements stating that they accept certain conditions of employment, including relocating to foreign areas during crisis situations to perform their duties. The directive also required the services to provide emergency-essential civilians with protective equipment and work-related training. According to the services’ after-action reports on the Persian Gulf War, a number of problems arose in deploying civilians to the Gulf War and caring for them in the theater. Some problems, including those described below, could have had serious consequences. Many of these problems were attributed to poor planning. Most of the civilian employees had not been previously designated as emergency essential. Many civilians were not screened to ensure that they were medically fit to serve in desert conditions. Some arrived in the desert with medical and physical limitations, such as severe heart problems and kidney disorders, that precluded them from effectively performing their duties. Some deploying civilians did not initially receive protective gear, such as gas masks, because civilians were not included on military equipment and supply lists. Nor were adequate efforts made to ensure that civilians were trained in the use of such equipment. Dental records, which are an important source of identification, were not available for deploying civilians because dental screenings had not been done. Some civilians did not receive identification cards, provided under terms of the Geneva Convention, to identify them as noncombatants. Other problems, while not as grave, also indicated a lack of preparation for civilians in-theater. Clear procedures did not exist to ensure that civilians received medical care, housing, or transportation comparable to that received by military members. Procedures were not in place to provide for overtime or danger pay in this environment. Questions existed concerning whether civilian life insurance policies contained war exclusion clauses that would have precluded their survivors from receiving accidental death benefits had the civilians been killed while there. Unlike military personnel, civilians were not entitled to free mailing privileges. Our discussion with representatives of several contractors who deployed personnel to the Persian Gulf War indicated they were delayed in getting personnel and equipment to the theater of operations. They reported having to arrange for their own transportation. They also reported receiving little assistance from DOD in helping them prepare their employees for deployment. Each service has modified some of its regulations to respond to the problems identified during the Persian Gulf War. The definition of emergency-essential civilian employees has been clarified, and requirements for training, identification cards, and medical evaluations, among other things, have been defined. However, these changes have not yet been fully implemented. The Army, in particular, has responded very extensively. For example, the Army issued an extensive annex to the Army Mobilization and Operations Planning and Execution System and revised its civilian mobilization planning regulations. The Army Materiel Command has published a guide for deploying and processing its civilians. The guide addresses the key problems identified during the Gulf War. DOD officials indicate that they would like to use the Army’s deployment guide as a prototype for the other services. Some problems identified during the Gulf War are only partially solvable by DOD and will require coordinated action with other agencies. For example, DOD officials acknowledge that civilians should be entitled to danger pay when serving in hostile areas; however, specific designation of foreign areas subject to danger pay requires a formal determination by the Secretary of State. The Army’s Civilian Deployment Guide outlines how such pay is to be provided and its relationship to other pay and allowances. Similarly, rules governing overtime pay limits are controlled by the Office of Personnel Management. Waivers to the pay caps may be granted by the Office of Personnel Management when appropriate forms are completed by the civilian employees. According to DOD and service civilian mobilization officials, steps will be taken during future civilian deployment processing to ensure that DOD employees are aware of the forms and waiver request procedures. The above actions are oriented to DOD civilians, not civilian contractor personnel. Some officials said they believe contractor companies should be responsible for ensuring that their employees are ready for potential deployment, as well as caring for them while in-theater. These officials believe, however, that DOD should be responsible for ensuring the noncombatant status of civilian contractor personnel by issuing them Geneva Convention identity cards. DOD and the services have not fully integrated into their wartime planning systems requirements for essential wartime support that civilian employees and contractor personnel will perform in-theater during future conflicts. Such planning includes identifying civilian personnel requirements, designating emergency-essential employees, and ensuring the availability of contractor personnel for potential deployments. Officials in DOD, JCS, and service contingency planning offices acknowledge the importance of DOD civilian employees and civilian contractor support to war-fighting efforts. To some extent, each also acknowledged that adequate planning is not currently being done, and sometimes pointed to each other’s office to take the lead in this area. For example, DOD and some service personnel officials told us that requirements for wartime civilian support should be identified during the service-level operational planning for potential contingencies. During such planning, the services examine the requirements outlined by regional war-fighting commanders in chief in their various contingency plans, and develop time-phased force deployment plans for meeting the regional commanders’ needs. Service operational planners told us that civilians were not included in prior operational plans or force deployment plans, nor are they anticipated to be in the future, in part, because service policies for these functions deal only with military personnel. Moreover, these officials believe civilian deployment issues are the responsibility of civilian mobilization planners, not operational planners. On the other hand, some service civilian mobilization planners told us that civilian requirements should be included in the operational and deployment plans to ensure that civilians will have the proper equipment, such as gas masks. According to these officials, the major barrier to effective planning for civilian support in military operations is a hesitation by military leaders to fully accept (1) civilian wartime roles and (2) their responsibility for such civilians in the combat area. DOD mobilization officials expressed the view that civilian requirements should be integrated in joint staff and service contingency planning processes. They do not believe civilians should be included in the military-oriented deployment plans because these plans cover units, rather than individuals. These officials believe that civilians should be handled like some reservists who deploy as individuals rather than with units. They also believe current mobilization and contingency planning policies do not adequately address civilian deployment issues. These officials told us they plan to consolidate DOD mobilization policies into a single directive, rather than continuing with multiple directives that address only certain aspects of the issue. These officials would like to assign responsibility to the Chairman, JCS, to ensure that war-fighting commanders in chief recognize civilian wartime support functions in their planning processes, but provided no time frame to complete this action. Two military exercises, one before the Persian Gulf War and one more recently completed, have pointed out civilian deployment problems and the need for improved planning. The military exercise Proud Eagle 90 was the first major DOD-wide exercise to recognize civilian mobilization as a significant element. The exercise was designed to include all command levels in testing how well plans, policies, and procedures would work in responding to a world crisis. Many of the problems that subsequently surfaced in the Persian Gulf War were identified during this exercise, including vagueness in defining what constitutes an emergency-essential civilian, absence of an accurate civilian personnel data system, lack of clear understanding of civilian entitlements, and inadequate processing procedures. According to DOD officials, no DOD-wide exercise with a specific objective of evaluating mobilization issues has been held since Proud Eagle 90, due to the constraints of ongoing contingency operations. However, civilian deployment-related issues did surface in a recent U.S. military exercise in Egypt. An after-action report noted that emergency-essential civilian employees were not trained in accordance with DOD directives. Once requirements for potential civilian deployments to theaters of operations have been identified, action is then required to formally designate such personnel as emergency essential, to better facilitate deployment action, if and when it is required. The services have varied in the extent to which they have identified emergency-essential personnel and the extent to which such designations pertained either to the potential for overseas deployments or to peacetime contingencies in the United States. Data available from DMDC shows fluctuations over time in the numbers of civilian employees designated as emergency essential by the services. During fiscal year 1987, for example, over 1,100 civilians were designated as emergency essential. This number rose to about 2,700 emergency-essential civilians in 1990 and declined to nearly 1,900 in fiscal year 1993. The Army has consistently maintained the largest number of such designations and the Navy the least. The data do not show any emergency-essential designations for the Navy until 1991. Our review of the data showed that many administrative personnel were designated as emergency essential, despite policy guidance stipulating that such designations include only those civilians who perform critical combat-support functions. Many secretaries, clerks, and other administrative personnel were designated emergency essential because they were stationed in overseas areas and had a key role in base operations. Service officials told us they realize these types of personnel generally will not remain in an area during a conflict or deploy elsewhere to a combat area to support military forces. Other variations in emergency-essential designations also reveal some confusion over the definition. For example, the services designated as emergency essential many employees who were required to work in the United States during emergencies with no likelihood of deployment. In other cases, emergency-essential designations were given to employees who were required to report to work in the United States when other personnel were excused for such reasons as snowstorms. According to DOD and DMDC officials, the emergency-essential designations in their database are understated because many commands are still implementing the 1992 guidance for identifying and reporting emergency-essential information. Although these officials did not provide a time frame for updating the database, they said they are working with the services to ensure that personnel not expected to deploy to combat areas are removed from the lists. We believe such data are likely to remain understated until DOD and the services fully assess civilian deployment requirements as part of contingency planning efforts. Various DOD and service officials, and published studies, recognize a growing dependence on contractor personnel to support high-technology military systems. In November 1990, DOD issued a policy instruction intended to ensure the continuation of essential contractor services during hostilities. Yet, little has been done to develop data on persons who perform combat-essential functions under contracts or to ensure the continuity of such contracts. Disagreement exists among DOD, the services, and contractors as to who should be responsible for the readiness and safety of contractor personnel performing essential wartime support. The 1990 instruction directs the services to develop and implement plans and procedures that would reasonably assure the continuation of essential services during crisis situations. Requirements of the directive include, among other things, the following: The services must review all contracts annually to determine which functions will be essential during crisis situations. The services must maintain a current, generic description of the essential contractor service, the number of contractor employees, and equivalent staff years required to perform the essential services. The directive does not specify what assistance contractors can expect to receive from DOD, other than the issuance of Geneva Convention identity cards. Representatives of several contractors that deployed personnel to the Persian Gulf War said they received little assistance from DOD to help them prepare their employees for deployment, and said such assistance might have prevented deployment delays. One mechanism the services use to ensure continuation of services has been the inclusion of a “crisis clause” in contracts. At some locations we visited, boilerplate language had been included in some of the contracts related to essential functions. In general, this language states that the contractor shall be responsible for performing all requirements of the contract notwithstanding the existence of any state of war or emergency and states that failure to perform may subject the contractor to a termination of the contract for default. However, mobilization and operational planners at local commands could not tell us whether all of the command’s contracts had been reviewed for their wartime essentiality. Neither local commands, service headquarters, nor DOD officials could provide summary data on contractor employees performing essential combat-support functions as required by DOD, or verify whether all contracts had been reviewed. Some officials said they did not need to know the number of personnel because contractor companies are responsible for deploying and protecting their employees. The DOD Inspector General reported in 1988 and 1991 that no major command could provide data concerning all contracts vital to combat or crisis operations. According to the reports, a contributing factor was the absence of a central DOD activity with oversight over contractors with wartime essential functions. During our review, officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who must monitor the implementation of the DOD directive, said that oversight is still decentralized, and, while several organizations have some responsibility, no single headquarters organization wants to assume full control. For example, contracting for logistics support of major weapon systems is delegated to the managers of individual weapon programs in the systems acquisition chain, while war planning associated with using these systems rests with operational support personnel. According to the Personnel and Readiness officials, such decentralization slows efforts to address contractor deployability. Although DOD officials have informally cited potential deployment to theaters of operations as reasons for retaining military incumbents in selected support positions, civilians have historically deployed to combat areas to support the military forces. The recent Persian Gulf War showed that, to the extent civilians are to be used in combat areas, improved up-front contingency planning is needed. The services are making progress in developing and implementing policies to prevent problems that arose during the deployment of civilian employees and contractor personnel to the Persian Gulf War. However, they still have not adequately addressed civilian support requirements in their existing war-planning processes. They have not fully identified civilian employees or contractor personnel who perform combat essential functions and who might be called to deploy. Some confusion exists among organizations involved with contractor support for military operations on what assistance DOD should provide and who should be responsible for the readiness and safety of these personnel. Proper identification of civilian employees and contractors would help ensure that deploying individuals are properly trained and prepared to enter combat areas. Many personnel officials believe recognition of wartime requirements for civilians must come from the JCS before service planners will include civilians in their operational plans. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, JCS clarify organizational responsibility for ensuring that civilian support to military operations is considered during contingency planning processes. These officials should direct operational planners to integrate civilian requirements for DOD civilian employees and contractor personnel into appropriate plans for deploying forces to combat areas. We also recommend that the service secretaries direct commanders of major support organizations to establish time frames for reassessing their needs for emergency-essential civilian employees. The commanders should expeditiously purge existing lists of administrative persons to prevent unnecessary spending on training for persons who will not deploy to theaters of operation. The commanders should ensure that emergency-essential civilians (1) receive appropriate training, including basic survival skills; (2) participate in job-related DOD-wide training exercises; and (3) are otherwise prepared to deploy to combat areas when needed. We further recommend that the Secretary of Defense clarify the type of assistance, such as deployment processing, training, transportation, housing, or care in-theater, that DOD will provide to contractors who perform essential, combat-support functions. The Secretary should also direct the service secretaries to establish time frames for identifying contractors and the personnel who provide essential combat-support services, and initiate actions to ensure that such personnel will be prepared to deploy to combat areas, if needed. DOD concurred with our recommendations and agreed to pursue, in fiscal year 1995, initiatives to ensure that military operational planning includes necessary civilian support. DOD also agreed to request all subordinate organizations to validate their requirements for emergency-essential civilian employees and contractor personnel and provide for required training. DOD noted, however, that deployment-related issues affecting contractors are complex and will probably not be resolved over the next fiscal year. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) guidance and decisionmaking processes for determining when and whether to use civilian or military personnel in support positions, focusing on: (1) DOD and the military services' efforts to replace military personnel in support positions; (2) whether the services have adequately planned for the future use of civilian employees and contractor personnel to support military operations in combat areas; and (3) the actions taken to correct problems concerning civilian deployments to the Persian Gulf War. GAO found that: (1) although DOD and the services have attempted to convert military positions to civilian positions, the extent of these changes appears limited, since the ratio of military personnel to civilian personnel has not changed significantly; (2) replacing military personnel with civilian employees could reduce military personnel costs and release military members for use in combat-specific duties; (3) some DOD-sponsored studies have determined that civilian employees in peacetime support functions cost the government about $15,000 less per year than military employees in comparable pay grades; (4) service officials are reluctant to replace military personnel with civilian employees because the military is downsizing, they believe they can exert greater control over military personnel, they often do not receive sufficient funds or information to support civilian replacements, and budget allocation and civilian personnel requirement decisions are often made separately; and (5) the services have made efforts to correct some of the problems identified during the Persian Gulf deployment, but they have not identified their future potential wartime requirements for DOD civilian employees or contractor personnel or taken adequate steps to ensure that these personnel remain in the services for future crises. |
On October 5, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Golan v. Holde r, a case considering whether Congress had the power under the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution to grant copyright protection to creative works that have already entered the public domain. In 1994, Congress enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994; Section 514 of the URAA "restored" copyright protection to certain foreign works that had been in the U.S. public domain, in order to bring the United States into compliance with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886, which the United States had joined in 1989. These foreign works had lost or never obtained copyright protection in the United States because their creators failed to comply with certain mandatory statutory formalities that were required by the federal Copyright Act at that time, such as filing registrations with the U.S. Copyright Office or affixing copyright notice to them (identifying the copyright owner and date of publication). In 2001, a group of artists, performers, businesses, teachers, publishers, archivists, and movie distributors who had depended on artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods, filed a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the URAA. They argued that (1) the law's restoration of copyrights in foreign works that had been in the public domain interfered with their First Amendment rights to use, perform, and distribute them, and (2) the law exceeded the Congress's authority under the Copyright Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected these constitutional arguments in two separate rulings, holding that § 514 of the URAA was a valid exercise of Congress's power and that it did not violate the plaintiffs' free speech rights because the law is a content-neutral regulation of speech that was narrowly tailored to serve a substantial or important governmental interest—securing copyright protection for American works in foreign countries, as many of the United States' trading partners (who were signatories to the Berne Convention) had made clear that they would restore American copyrights that were in their public domain only if the United States restored foreign copyrights. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari on March 7, 2011, in order to consider the following questions: 1. Does the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the public domain? 2. Does Section 514 of the URAA violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? The source of federal copyright law originates with the Copyright Clause (also referred to as the Progress Clause) of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for limited Times to Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings." Therefore, this constitutional provision indicates that the rights conferred by a copyright cannot last forever; rather, a copyright holder may exercise his/her exclusive rights only for "limited Times." At the expiration of that period of time, the copyrighted work becomes part of the public domain, available for anyone to use without payment of royalties or permission. The U.S. Supreme Court has opined that "[t]he primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'" The Copyright Act grants legal protection to the creator or owner of certain original works of creative expression, including books, movies, photography, art, and music. The Copyright Act refers to the creator of such works as an "author"; ownership of a copyright initially vests in the author, but the author may transfer ownership of the copyright to another person or company. Copyright protection does not extend to any underlying abstract idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, but rather it only protects the manner in which those ideas are expressed. A copyright holder possesses several exclusive legal entitlements under the Copyright Act, including the rights of reproduction, distribution, public performance, and public display of the protected material, that provide the holder with the power to determine whether and under what circumstances the protected work may be used by third parties. If a copyright holder chooses to allow a third party to exercise one of the exclusive rights provided by the copyright, such permission is often granted in the form of a license, which is usually expressed in a written contract. The terms of a licensing agreement may include certain limitations on using the copyrighted work and may require payment of a royalty fee. The Copyright Act contains several statutory limitations on the copyright monopoly. These include the "first sale doctrine" that limits the copyright owner's exclusive control over distribution of the material objects in which a work is expressed. The "first sale doctrine" permits the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work to sell or dispose of that copy without the copyright owner's permission. Other limitations involve allowing certain reproductions by libraries and archives, limited performances and displays for educational purposes or in the course of services at a place of worship, and certain performances for non-profit, charitable causes. The doctrine of "fair use" in copyright law recognizes the right of the public to make reasonable use of copyrighted material, under particular circumstances, without the copyright holder's consent. For example, a teacher may be able to use reasonable excerpts of copyrighted works in preparing a scholarly lecture or commentary, without obtaining permission to do so. The Copyright Act mentions fair use "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." However, a determination of fair use requires a federal court to engage in "case-by-case" analysis that applies several statutory factors to the factual circumstances of the use. Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work by a third party in a manner that implicates one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights constitutes infringement. The copyright holder may file a lawsuit against an alleged infringer for a violation of any of the exclusive rights conferred by copyright. The Copyright Act provides several civil remedies to the copyright holder that is harmed by infringement, including the possibility of obtaining injunctive relief, actual damages suffered by the copyright owner due to the infringement, statutory damages, and costs and attorney fees. As noted above, the rights conferred on a copyright holder do not last forever. In general, an author of a creative work may enjoy copyright protection for the work for a term lasting the entirety of his/her life plus 70 additional years. At the expiration of a term, the copyrighted work becomes part of the public domain. Materials that are in the public domain are available for anyone to reproduce, display, adapt, distribute, or publicly perform, without needing to obtain prior permission of the author or creator of such work. A widely cited author of a copyright treatise, David Nimmer, has explained that "[f]or decades, the outstanding feature distinguishing United States copyright law from that of the rest of the world has been its emphasis on formalities." Historically, federal copyright law required creators of works to satisfy certain statutory formalities in order to obtain and maintain copyright protection, including providing notice on the published work (affixing to the work the © symbol, the word "Copyright," and the name of the owner of the copyright and the first year of the work's publication), depositing copies of the work with the U.S. Copyright Office (thus expanding the collection of the Library of Congress), and filing a registration form with the Copyright Office. If a creator of a work failed to meet the formalities, it could result in either a loss of copyright (the work thus falling into the public domain), preclude copyright protection, or restrict certain remedies under the copyright. In 1989, the United States became signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886. The Berne Convention sets certain minimum standards for copyright protection in member countries and requires each signatory country to afford the same copyright protections to authors in other member countries that it provides to its own authors. Article 5(2) of the Convention prohibits signatory countries from subjecting the "enjoyment and exercise" of copyright rights "to any formality." In order to satisfy this requirement, the United States eliminated all the formalities in the Copyright Act that acted as conditions to copyright protection by enacting the Berne Convention Implementation Act (BCIA) of 1988. In addition, article 18 of the Berne Convention specifies that "[t]his Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection." Thus, the United States appeared to be obliged by Berne to provide copyright protection for works authored by nationals of signatory countries that were in the U.S. public domain not on account of their expired copyright term, but because they had not satisfied the procedural formalities to secure copyright protection that the Copyright Act had required at that time. However, the BCIA did not extend copyrights to any of these foreign works. In April 1994, the United States and 123 other countries negotiated various agreements in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, that concluded with the signing of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). One of the agreements included in the Uruguay Round was the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement"), which establishes minimum standards of protection for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets that each WTO signatory state must give to the intellectual property of fellow WTO members. Article 9(1) of TRIPS specifies that "Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention" which includes article 18, the requirement to restore copyright protection for certain foreign works. Unlike the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement provides for dispute resolution proceedings before the WTO, meaning that a WTO member found not to be in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement could be subject to trade sanctions. To implement the agreements that the United States signed in the Uruguay Round, Congress enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) in 1994. Section 514 of URAA satisfies the United States' treaty obligations under article 18 of Berne and article 9(1) of TRIPS by granting copyright protection to foreign works that were formerly in the U.S. public domain because, among other things, their creators never obtained copyright protection in the United States or they lost such protection due to a failure to comply with statutory formalities. However, § 514 of URAA did not restore copyrights in foreign works that entered the public domain due to an expiration of their term of protection. The restored copyrights "subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted ... if the work never entered the public domain." According to the former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, the effect of § 514 of the URAA was to remove millions of foreign works from the public domain. In 1998, Congress passed the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) that added 20 years to the term of copyright for both subsisting and future copyrights, in order to bring U.S. copyright terms more closely into conformance with those governed by the European Union. Hence, the law currently provides that an author of a creative work may enjoy copyright protection for the work for a term lasting the entirety of his/her life plus 70 additional years. Plaintiffs representing individuals and businesses that rely upon and utilize materials in the public domain filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General to obtain a declaration that the CTEA was unconstitutional. Among other things, the plaintiffs argued that in extending the term of subsisting copyrights, the CTEA violated the "limited Times" requirement of the Copyright Clause. The lower court held in favor of the Attorney General, finding no constitutional problems. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft , in which the Court upheld the CTEA by a vote of 7-2. She stated that "[h]istory reveals an unbroken congressional practice of granting to authors the benefit of term extensions so that all under copyright protection will be governed evenhandedly under the same regime." She rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the "limited Times" requirement requires a forever "fixed" or "inalterable" copyright term. Ultimately, the Court found that the unbroken congressional practice for over two centuries of applying adjustments to copyright term to both existing and future works "is almost conclusive." However, the Eldred Court appeared to leave open the door to a future First Amendment challenge brought against an act of Congress that "alter[s] the traditional contours of copyright protection": The First Amendment securely protects the freedom to make—or decline to make – one's own speech; it bears less heavily when speakers assert the right to make other people's speeches. To the extent such assertions raise First Amendment concerns, copyright's built-in free speech safeguards are generally adequate to address them. We recognize that the D. C. Circuit spoke too broadly when it declared copyrights "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment." But when, as in this case, Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright protection, further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary. Similar to the plaintiffs in Eldred, the plaintiffs in Golan v. Holder are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers, film archivists, and motion picture distributors who rely on the free availability of artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods. One of the plaintiffs, Lawrence Golan, performs and teaches works by foreign composers including Dmitri Shostakovich and Igor Stravinsky. Prior to the enactment of the URAA, the plaintiffs used or performed works by foreign artists in the public domain such as Sergei Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf." Because § 514 of the URAA restored copyright protection to these foreign works and many others that had previously been in the public domain, the "plaintiffs are either prevented from using these works or are required to pay licensing fees to the copyright holders—fees that are often cost-prohibitive for plaintiffs." In 2001, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of § 514 of the URAA as well as the Copyright Term Extension Act, arguing that both exceed Congress's powers under the Copyright Clause and that both violate the First Amendment. In March 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the government's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' challenge to the CTEA as it had been subsequently foreclosed by the Supreme Court's opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft. The district court also granted summary judgment to the government on the plaintiffs' two URAA claims, ruling that Congress had the power to enact § 514 of the URAA under the Copyright Clause and that the plaintiffs "had no protected interest in the now-copyrighted works." In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the CTEA claims and upheld the district court's conclusion that § 514 of the URAA did not exceed Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs "have shown sufficient free expression interests in works removed from the public domain to require First Amendment scrutiny of § 514." The appellate court explained that "[b]ased on the Eldred Court's analysis, we examine the bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain there and conclude that § 514 alters the traditional contours of copyright protection by deviating from this principle." The appellate court then remanded the case to the district court to conduct a First Amendment review of the CTEA, to determine "whether § 514 is content-based or content-neutral," and to apply the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. On remand, the government and plaintiffs agreed that § 514 is a content-neutral regulation of speech that should be subject to intermediate scrutiny. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that "to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government's interest" in complying with the terms of the Berne Convention and is thus unconstitutional. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, finding that § 514 does not violate the First Amendment because it advances an important governmental interest and that it is not substantially broader than necessary to advance that interest. The court explained that in order for an act of Congress to survive intermediate scrutiny, "the statute must be directed at an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression." The important governmental interest that the federal appellate court identified in this case was "protecting American copyright holders' interests abroad." The court cited congressional testimony that described how "billions of dollars were being lost each year because foreign countries were not providing copyright protections to American works that were in the public domain abroad." As the appellate court noted, § 514 of the URAA would alleviate these economic harms to U.S. copyright holders because, according to congressional testimony, "the United States' trading partners had represented that they would restore American copyrights only if the United States restored foreign copyrights." The appellate court also ruled that § 514 is narrowly tailored to further this legitimate government interest. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Golan v. Holder on October 5, 2011. Justice Kagan has recused herself from Golan . Her recusal means that only eight justices will consider the case; thus, it raises the possibility of a 4-4 tie vote, in which event the Tenth Circuit's three rulings regarding the constitutionality of § 514 would stand—(1) § 514 of the URAA did not exceed Congress's power under the Copyright Clause, (2) § 514 "alters the traditional contours of copyright protection" to require First Amendment scrutiny, and (3) § 514 does not violate the First Amendment because it advances an important governmental interest in securing greater protections for American authors abroad. The petitioners (the plaintiffs in the case) argue that "[f]or two hundred years, copyright legislation was consistent with a simple command: what enters the public domain remains in the public domain," and that Congress, in enacting the Berne Convention Implementation Act, followed this tradition. However, when Congress enacted the URAA, it "marked a startling and dramatic departure from the traditions of U.S. copyright law." According to the petitioners, by removing works from the public domain, the URAA has violated the "limited Times" restriction of the Copyright Clause "by turning a fixed and predictable period into one that can be reset or resurrected at any time, even after it expires." Furthermore, the URAA violates the First Amendment, the petitioners argue, because it "places substantial burdens on core speech and expression rights that once belonged to petitioners and other members of the American public." Such burdens on the petitioners' speech rights are not justified by any important government interest, the petitioners assert. The U.S. Solicitor General submitted the government brief on the merits defending the constitutionality of § 514 of the URAA, arguing that Congress had the power to restore copyright protection to certain foreign works in the public domain and that the statute did not violate the First Amendment. The government brief claims that § 514 is consistent with the text of the Copyright Clause that required copyrights to be issued for "limited times" because the term of protection for restored copyrights is limited. In addition, the government asserts that historically, Congress has "granted copyright protection to a substantial range of pre-existing works that had previously been open to public exploitation, citing, for example, the first federal copyright statute enacted by the First Congress in 1790 that had conferred copyright protection to "any map, chart, book or books already printed within these United States." The government also defends § 514 as consistent with the First Amendment and argues that § 514 "should be reviewed under the deferential rational-basis standard that generally applies to Copyright Clause legislation." On this point, the government refutes the Tenth Circuit's holding (in its ruling on the initial appeal of this case) that the statute alters the "traditional contours of copyright protection" and thus deserves heightened First Amendment scrutiny: [T]he Tenth Circuit misread that statement [by the Supreme Court in Eldred ] to mandate a freestanding inquiry into whether particular copyright legislation alters any "traditional contour[]" or "timehonored tradition" of copyright protection. It also misread the historical record to find that "one of these traditional contours is the principle that once a work enters the public domain, no individual—not even the creator—may copyright it." That reading is inconsistent with Eldred , irreconcilable with established First Amendment doctrine, and unworkable in practice. The government brief claims that "[b]ecause Section 514 is a rational exercise of authority conferred on Congress by the Copyright Clause, and because the restrictions of which petitioners complain are simply inherent and traditional features of copyright protection, 'further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary.'" Even if the Supreme Court finds that intermediate scrutiny is warranted for § 514, however, the government argues that § 514 furthers "at least three" important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech: (1) it ensures compliance with international obligations; (2) it secures greater protections for American authors abroad; and (3) it remedies historical inequalities in the copyright system. A decision in Golan v. Holder is expected by the end of the Supreme Court's October 2011 term. | Golan v. Holder is a case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 5, 2011. The Court will consider whether Congress has the power to grant copyright protection to creative works that have already entered the public domain. At issue in Golan is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 that Congress passed in order to bring the United States into compliance with international agreements on intellectual property (IP). Section 514 of the URAA "restored" copyrights in certain foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the United States. After these works became protected by copyright as a result of URAA, anyone wishing to use them needs to seek prior permission from the copyright holders and also likely pay licensing fees. Although it is difficult to determine the exact number of foreign works that the URAA removed from the public domain, the former Register of Copyrights estimated that it may be in the millions. A group of orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists, and motion picture distributors, who had relied on the free and unrestricted availability of these artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods, filed a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the URAA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that § 514 of the URAA was within Congress's power under the Copyright Clause and that it did not violate the free speech and expression rights of the plaintiffs who had enjoyed freely using the foreign works that were in the U.S. public domain before the restoration of their copyright protection. The Supreme Court's anticipated ruling in Golan v. Holder is expected to provide definitive answers to the following significant questions in copyright law: whether Congress is prohibited by the Copyright Clause from taking works out of the public domain, and whether § 514 of the URAA violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. |
An election is the act or process by which citizens cast a vote to select an individual for an office. Although an election is a single event, an election system involves the integration of the people, processes, and technology that are generally associated with the preparation and administration of an election. The basic goals of election systems in the United States are to enable every eligible citizen who wishes to vote to cast a single ballot in private and have the votes on that ballot counted accurately. Administering an election is a year-round activity that generally consists of the following: Voter registration--This includes local election officials registering eligible voters and maintaining voter registration lists to include updates to registrants’ information and deletions of the names of registrants who are no longer eligible to vote. Absentee and early voting--This type of voting allows eligible persons to vote in-person or by mail before election day. The conduct of an election--This aspect of election administration includes preparation before election day, such as local election officials arranging for polling places, recruiting and training poll workers, designing ballots, and preparing voting equipment for use in casting and tabulating votes; and election day activities, such as opening and closing polling places and assisting voters to cast votes. Vote counting--This includes election officials tabulating the cast ballots; determining whether and how to count ballots that cannot be read by the vote counting equipment; certifying the final vote counts; and performing recounts, if required. As shown in figure 3, each stage of an election involves people and technology. Under its various constitutional authorities, Congress has passed legislation regarding the administration of both federal and state elections, including voter registration, absentee voting, accessibility provisions for the elderly and handicapped, and prohibitions against discriminatory practices. Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) commonly known as the “Motor Voter” Act, to establish registration procedures designed to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” without compromising “the integrity of the electoral process” or the maintenance of “accurate and current voter registration rolls.” NVRA expanded the number of locations and opportunities for citizens to apply to register. For example, under NVRA, citizens are to be able to apply to register (1) when applying for or renewing a driver’s license; (2) at various state agencies, such as public assistance centers; or (3) by mailing a national voter registration application to a designated election official. NVRA also establishes requirements to ensure that state programs to identify and remove from voter registration rolls the names of individuals who are no longer eligible to vote are uniform, nondiscriminatory, and do not exclude a voter from the rolls solely because of his or her failure to vote. Finally, NVRA requires that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) submit to Congress a biennial report with recommendations assessing the impact of the NVRA on the administration of elections for federal office during the preceding 2-year period. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) requires that states permit the following categories of citizens to apply to register and vote by absentee voting in federal elections: (1) members of the uniformed services living overseas, (2) all other citizens living overseas, and (3) uniformed services voters and their dependents in the United States who are living outside of their voting jurisdiction. In addition, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 requires, with some exceptions, election jurisdictions to provide alternate means of casting a ballot (e.g., absentee and early voting) for all elections in which election day polling places are not accessible to people with disabilities. Congress, however, has been most active with respect to enacting prohibitions against discriminatory voting practices. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 codifies and effectuates the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee that no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. Subsequent amendments to the Act expanded it to include protections for members of language minority groups, as well as other matters regarding voting registration and procedures. States regulate the election process, including, for example, ballot access, registration procedures, absentee voting requirements, establishment of voting places, provision of election day workers, and counting and certification of the vote. As described by the Supreme Court, “the tates have evolved comprehensive, and in many respects complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and general elections, the registration of voters, and the selection and qualification of candidates.” In fact, the U.S. election system comprises 51 somewhat distinct election systems—those of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. However, although election policy and procedures are legislated primarily at the state level, states typically have decentralized this process so that the details of administering elections are carried out at the city or county levels, and voting is done at the local level. At the federal level, no agency bears direct responsibility for election administration. However, in 1975, Congress created FEC to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act. To carry out this role, FEC discloses campaign finance information; enforces provisions of the law, such as limits and prohibitions on contributions; and oversees the public funding of presidential elections. FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a national clearinghouse for information regarding the administration of federal elections. As such, OEA assists state and local election officials by developing voluntary voting system standards, responding to inquiries, publishing research on election issues, and conducting workshops on matters related to election administration. The administrative structure and authority given to those responsible for elections vary from state to state. The majority of states vest election authority in a secretary of state (or other state cabinet-level official) who is elected for a term of 2 to 4 years. The approval of voting equipment for use in a state may be a responsibility of the secretary of state or another entity, such as a State Board of Elections. State officials usually provide information services and technical support to local election jurisdictions but seldom participate in the day-to-day administration of an election. Local election jurisdictions, such as counties, cities, townships, and villages, conduct elections, including federal and state contests. Although some states bear some election costs, it is local jurisdictions that pay for elections and provide the officials who conduct the elections. Local election administration officials may be elected, appointed, or be professional employees. State or local regulations determine who functions as the chief elections official. Elections may be conducted by county or town clerks, registrars, election boards, bureaus, or commissions, or some combination thereof. The election administration official may have extensive or little experience and training in running elections. Local jurisdictions administer elections within the framework of state laws and regulations that provide for differing degrees of local control over how elections are conducted, including voting equipment to be used, ballot design, and voter identification requirements at polling places. One of the responsibilities of state and/or local election officials is to recruit, train, assign, and compensate permanent and temporary personnel. These personnel may include: voting equipment operators, voter registrars, absentee ballot clerks, polling place workers, and election day phone bank operators. Depending on the jurisdiction, these workers could be part-time or full-time, appointed or elected, paid or unpaid volunteers. Some election workers support election administration activities during the year, and others work only on election day. For the November 2000 election, about 1.4 million poll workers staffed precincts across the country on election day. The size of local election jurisdictions varies enormously, from a few hundred voters in some rural counties to Los Angeles County, whose total of registered voters exceeds that of 41 states. For the purposes of voting, election authorities subdivide local election jurisdictions into precincts, which range in size from a few hundred to more than a thousand people. Voters are assigned to a specific precinct where they are to vote on election day. All voters in a precinct vote at one place, such as a school or other public facility. For the November 2000 election, there were more than about 186,000 precincts in about 10,000 local election jurisdictions. However, precincts may be combined in a single polling place. For example, voters from a few precincts in a small jurisdiction may vote in a single location, such as the town high school. Voting technologies are tools for accommodating the millions of voters in our nation’s approximately 10,000 local election jurisdictions. These tools can be as simple as a pencil, paper, and a box, or as sophisticated as computer-based touchscreens—and one day, perhaps, Web-based applications running on personal computers. To be fully understood, all these technologies need to be examined in relation to the people who participate in elections (both voters and election workers) and the processes that govern their interaction with each other and with the technologies. To integrate the functions associated with readying vote casting and tallying equipment for a given election with other election management functions, jurisdictions can use election management systems. The methods by which votes are cast and counted in the United States today can be placed into five categories; the latter four methods employ varying degrees of technology. The five methods are paper ballot, lever machine, punch card, optical scan, and direct recording electronic (DRE). Table 1 shows the percentage of jurisdictions, precincts, and registered voters who used the different voting methods. The paper ballot and lever machines have been used in the United States for more than a century, and versions of the other three methods have been used for 20 to 40 years. For paper ballots, the vote count is done by hand; lever machines keep a mechanical count. The three newer methods (punch card, optical scan, and DRE) depend on computers to tally votes. In three of the five methods (paper ballot, punch card, and optical scan), voters use paper to cast their votes. In the other two methods (lever machine and DRE), voters manipulate the equipment. Each method possesses a unique history and set of characteristics. When these are overlaid with the evolution and composition of the more than 10,000 local election jurisdictions in the United States, the result is much diversity across the nation in the technology used to conduct elections and how it is used. The paper ballot, sometimes referred to as the Australian ballot, was first used in the United States in 1889 and is still used in some jurisdictions today. Paper ballots, which are generally uniform in size, thickness, and color, list the names of the candidates and the issues to be voted on. Voters generally complete their ballots in the privacy of a voting booth, recording their choices by placing marks in boxes corresponding to the candidates’ names and the issues. After making their choices, voters drop the ballots into sealed ballot boxes. Election officials gather the sealed boxes and transfer them to a central location, where the ballots are manually counted and tabulated. Figure 4 shows an example of a paper ballot. In 1892, the lever voting machine, known then as the Myer Automatic Booth, was first used in the United States. By 1930, lever machines were used in almost all major cities, and by the 1960s, over half the nation’s votes were cast and counted on lever machines. During this time, lever machines helped alleviate concerns about vote fraud and manipulation that were common with paper ballots. Unlike paper ballots, however, lever machines do not provide individual records of each vote. Lever machines are mechanical, with a “ballot” composed of a rectangular array of levers, which can be physically arranged either horizontally or vertically. Adjacent levers in each row are placed about one inch apart, and the rows of levers are spaced 2 to 3 inches apart. Printed strips listing the candidates and issues are placed next to each lever. Because the ballot is limited to the size of the front of the lever machine, it is difficult to accommodate multiple languages. When using a lever machine, voters first close a privacy curtain, using a long handle attached to the machine. They vote by pulling down those levers next to the candidates or issues of their choice. Making a particular selection prevents any other selection in that contest (unless it is a vote-for- no-more-than-N contest, in which case no more than N levers would be selectable). Overvoting is prevented by the interlocking of the appropriate mechanical levers in the machine before the election. Write-in votes are recorded on a paper roll within the lever machine. The voter opens the write-in slot by moving the lever to the appropriate position and then writes in his or her choice on the exposed paper above the office name. Once this occurs, the machine locks and will no longer allow the voter to vote for another candidate listed on the ballot for that particular contest. After voting, the voter once again moves the handle, which simultaneously opens the privacy curtain, records the vote, and resets the levers. Figure 5 shows a lever machine. Votes are tallied by mechanical counters, which are attached to each lever. These counters rotate after the voter moves the handle to open the privacy curtain. The counters are composed of three gears—units, tens, and hundreds. Each vote causes a gear to make one tenth of a turn. After 10 turns, the units gear turns to 0, and the tens gear turns to 1, equaling 10 votes. Similarly, after 100 turns, the tens gear turns to 0, and the hundreds gear turns to 1, equaling 100 votes. At the close of the election, election officials tally the votes by reading the counting mechanism totals on each lever voting machine. Some machines can also print a paper copy of the totals. The design of the lever machine does not allow for a recount of individual voter records. Therefore, if the machine malfunctions and a gear fails to turn, no record exists from which a proper tally can be determined. Mechanical lever machines are no longer manufactured. As a result, maintaining lever machines is becoming more challenging, and some jurisdictions have turned to “cannibalizing” machines to get needed parts. The punch card was invented by Herman Hollerith to help perform statistical computations analyzing data from the 1880 U.S. Census. In the 1960s, this technology was first applied to vote casting and tallying. In 1964, Fulton and De Kalb counties in Georgia, Lane county in Oregon, and San Joaquin and Monterey counties in California were the first jurisdictions to use punch cards and computer tally machines in a federal election. Punch card voting equipment is generally comprised of a ballot, a vote recording device (this device holds the ballot in place and allows the voter to punch holes in it), a privacy booth, and a computerized tabulation device. There are two basic types of punch card devices: Votomatic and Datavote. The Votomatic relies on machine-readable cards that contain 228, 312, or 456 prescored numbered boxes representing ballot choices. The corresponding ballot choices are indicated to the voter in a booklet attached to the vote recording device, with the appropriate places to punch indicated for each candidate and ballot choice. To vote, the voter inserts the ballot into the vote-recording device and uses a stylus to punch out the appropriate prescored boxes. Votomatic punch card voting offers certain challenges because the ballot must be properly aligned in the vote-recording device for the holes in the ballot card to be punched all the way through. Incomplete punches are not uncommon, so that the rectangular scrap (the “chad”) punched by the stylus may cling to the hole in the card and create what is referred to as a “hanging chad.” Hanging chads can cause tabulation machines to read votes incorrectly and can make it difficult to determine voter intent in a recount or contested election. Voters cannot easily review a completed ballot, because the ballot lacks candidate or issue information, having only hole numbers. In addition, voters must use a separate piece of paper and attach it to the ballot with the names of write-in candidates. Figure 6 shows a Votomatic vote recording device and a Votomatic ballot. The Datavote also relies on a machine-readable card, but unlike the Votomatic, the names of the candidates and issues are printed on the card itself, eliminating the need for a ballot booklet. The ballots are not prescored, except for those used for absentee voting. The voter uses a stapler-like punching device to punch a hole corresponding to each candidate and issue. Spaces for write-in candidates are generally placed on the ballot. Because the candidates' names are printed on Datavote punch card ballots, each voter may require multiple ballot cards in elections that have a large number of candidates and issues. (Figure 7 shows a Datavote ballot.) For both the Votomatic and Datavote, software is used to program each vote tabulation machine to correctly assign each vote read into the computer to the proper contest and candidate or issue. Generally, the software is used to identify the particular contests in each precinct, assign punch card positions to each candidate, and configure any special options, such as straight party voting and vote-for-no-more-than-N contests. In addition, vote-tally software is often used to tally the vote totals from one or more vote tabulation machines. For both types of punch cards, jurisdictions can count the ballots either at the polling place or at a central location. In a polling place count, either the voters or election officials put their ballot cards into the vote tabulators. In a central count, voters drop ballots into sealed boxes, and the sealed boxes are transferred to a central location after the polls close. At the central location, ballots are run through the vote tabulators. In either case, the tabulator counts the ballots by reading the holes in the ballots. Generally, central-count tabulators are higher speed machines, allowing more ballots to be counted in less time than do precinct-based machines. Both precinct- count and central-count tabulators store votes on electronic storage media. These media can be removed manually or transferred via cable communication. Figure 8 shows punch card tabulation machines. Optical scan technology has been used for decades for such tasks as scoring standardized tests, but it was not applied to voting until the 1980s. An optical scan voting system is comprised of computer-readable ballots, appropriate marking devices, privacy booths, and a computerized tabulation machine. The ballot can vary in size and lists the names of the candidates and the issues. Voters record their choices using an appropriate writing instrument to fill in boxes or ovals, or to complete an arrow next to the candidate’s name or the issue. The ballot includes a space for write-ins to be placed directly on the ballot. Figure 9 shows an optical scan ballot. Like punch card software, the software for optical scan equipment is used to program the tabulation equipment to correctly assign each vote read into the computer to the proper contest and candidate or issue (i.e., to assign the location of valid marks on the ballot to the proper candidate or issue). In addition to identifying the particular contests and the candidates in each contest, the software is also used to configure any special options, such as straight party voting and vote-for-no-more-than-N contests. Precinct-based optical scanners can also be programmed to detect and/or reject overvotes and undervotes (where the voter does not vote for all contests and/or issues on the ballot). In addition, similar to punch cards, optical scan systems often use vote-tally software to tally the vote totals from one or more vote tabulation machines. Like punch cards, optical scan ballots are counted by being run through computerized tabulation equipment, in this case, optical-mark-recognition equipment. This equipment counts the ballots by sensing or reading the marks on the ballot. Ballots can be counted in the polling place or in a central location. If ballots are counted at the polling place, voters or election officials put the ballots into the tabulation equipment. In this case, either vote tallies can be captured in removable storage media that can be taken from the voting equipment and transported to a central tally location, or they can be electronically transmitted from the polling place to the central tally location. If ballots are centrally counted, voters drop ballots into sealed boxes, and election officials transfer the sealed boxes to the central location after the polls close, at which time election officials run the ballots through the tabulation equipment. Election officials can program precinct-based optical scan equipment to detect and reject overvotes and undervotes, which allows voters to fix their mistakes before leaving the polling place. However, if voters are unwilling or unable to correct their ballots, a poll worker can manually override the program and accept the ballot, even though it has been overvoted or undervoted. If ballots are tabulated centrally, voters do not have the opportunity to correct mistakes that may have been made. Precinct-count optical scan equipment sits on a ballot box with two compartments for scanned ballots—one for accepted ballots (i.e., those that are properly filled out) and one for rejected ballots (i.e., blank ballots, ballots with write-ins, or those accepted because of a forced override). In addition, an auxiliary compartment in the ballot box is used for storing ballots if an emergency arises (e.g., loss of power or machine failure) that prevents the ballots from being scanned. Figure 10 shows precinct- and central-count optical scan tabulators. First introduced in the 1970s, DRE equipment is an electronic implementation of the old lever machines. DREs come in two basic types, pushbutton or touchscreen, the pushbutton being the older and more widely used of the two. The two types of DREs vary considerably in appearance. Pushbutton DREs are larger and heavier than touchscreens. Figure 11 shows DRE pushbutton and touchscreen voting machines. Pushbutton and touchscreen DREs also differ significantly in the way they present ballots to the voter. With the DRE pushbutton, all ballot information is presented on a single “full-face” ballot. For example, a ballot may have 50 buttons on a 3 by 3 foot ballot, with a candidate or issue next to each button. In contrast, touchscreen DREs display the ballot information on an electronic display screen. For both pushbutton and touchscreen DREs, the ballot information is programmed onto an electronic storage medium, which is then uploaded to the machine. For touchscreens, ballot information can be displayed in color and can incorporate pictures of the candidates. Because the ballot space is much smaller than the pushbuttons, voters who use touchscreens must page through the ballot information. Both touchscreen and pushbutton DREs can accommodate multilingual ballots; however, because the ballot is limited to the size of the screen, pushbutton machines can generally display no more than two languages. Despite the differences, the two types of DREs have some similarities, such as how the voter interacts with the voting equipment. For pushbuttons, voters press a button next to the candidate or issue, which then lights up to indicate the selection. Similarly, voters using touchscreen DREs make their selections by touching the screen next to the candidate or issue, which is then highlighted. When voters are finished making their selections on a touchscreen or a pushbutton DRE, they cast their votes by pressing a final “vote” button or screen. Both types of DREs allow voters to write in candidates. While most DREs allow voters to type write-ins on a keyboard, some pushbutton DREs require voters to write the name on paper tape that is part of the voting equipment. Unlike punch card and optical scan voting equipment, DREs do not use paper ballots. However, they do retain permanent electronic images of all the ballots, which can be stored on various media, including internal hard- disk drives, flash cards, or memory cartridges. These ballot images, which can be printed, can be used for auditing and recounts. Like punch card and optical scan devices, DREs require the use of software to program the various ballot styles and tally the votes, which is generally done through the use of memory cartridges or other media. The software is used to generate ballots for each precinct within the voting jurisdiction, which includes defining the ballot layout, identifying the contests in each precinct, and assigning candidates to contests. The software is also used to configure any special options, such as straight party voting and vote-for-no- more-than-N contests. In addition, for pushbutton DREs, the software assigns the buttons to particular candidates and, for touchscreens, the software defines the size and location on the screen where the voter makes the selection. Vote-tally software is often used to tally the vote totals from one or more DREs. DREs also offer various configurations for tallying the votes. Some contain removable storage media that can be taken from the voting equipment and transported to a central location to be tallied. Others can be configured to electronically transmit the vote totals from the polling place to a central tally location. Because all DREs are programmable, they offer various options that are not as easily supplied by other voting methods. For example, they do not allow overvotes. In addition, voters can change their selections before hitting the final button to cast their votes. DRE touchscreens offer the most flexibility because they can present numerous screens of data; for example, they allow unlimited multilingual ballots, unlike pushbutton DREs. They can also offer a “review” feature (i.e., requiring voters to review each page of the ballot before pressing the button to cast the vote) and various visual enhancements (such as color highlighting of ballot choices, candidate pictures, etc.). Each type of voting equipment performs critical vote casting and tallying functions. However, before the equipment can be used in any given election to perform these functions, election officials must program the equipment to accommodate the unique characteristics of that election. For example, regardless of the voting equipment used, election officials must prepare a ballot that is unique to that election and, depending on the voting equipment, program the equipment to present the ballot to the voter and/or read the ballot as voted. Election management systems integrate the functions associated with readying vote casting and tallying equipment for a given election with other election management functions. Election management systems run on jurisdictions’ existing personal computers or vendor-provided election management system computer platforms. In brief, election management systems (hardware and software) generally consist of one or more interactive databases containing information about a jurisdiction’s precincts, the election contest, the candidates, and the issues being decided. These election management systems can be used to design and generate various ballots. Election management systems also allow jurisdictions to program their vote casting and tallying equipment to properly assign each vote to the proper contest and candidate. These systems also can centrally tally and generate reports on election progress and results. Some election management systems offer more sophisticated capabilities, such as managing the absentee ballot process. For example, some systems have the capability to automate the massive ballot mailings and recording of returns and support barcoding and imaging for ballot application signature verification. To describe elections in the United States, we reviewed reports by FEC and others, including the reports of the various national and state election reform commissions as they were completed. To obtain examples of the various stages of an election and any associated challenges, we had to get information from the level of government responsible for administering elections-that is, from the local election jurisdictions, which in most states involved counties. To get this information about the November 2000 election, we used a mail survey that is generalizable to 90 percent of the U.S. population, and a telephone survey that is generalizable nationwide. We also interviewed local election officials. To describe selected statutory requirements in the 50 states and the District of Columbia for voter registration, absentee and provisional balloting, and recounts, we reviewed state and D.C. statutes. We also conducted a survey of D.C. and state election directors, and reviewed information from the National Conference of State Legislatures on state election requirements and recent amendments to those requirements. To identify the types of voting methods used on November 7, 2000, and the distribution of these methods among local election jurisdictions and their precincts, we used several sources of information, including two databases—one for counties and one for subcounty minor civil divisions (MCDs) in the New England states—from Election Data Services, Inc., a private company that collects election-related data from state and local jurisdictions. We then used several methods to validate the data in the databases. We also checked state Web sites, such as those of the Secretaries of State, and compared any data on voting methods from these sources to those in Election Data Services, Inc.’s database for the respective states. To assess the characteristics of different types of voting equipment, we reviewed available studies, interviewed voting equipment vendors, reviewed vendor documentation on their equipment, used data from our mail survey of local election jurisdictions and data from our survey of state election directors, and interviewed election officials from our 27 judgmentally selected local election jurisdictions. Two of these jurisdictions had recently used new voting equipment in the November 2000 election, and one had purchased new equipment for delivery in 2001. To identify new voting equipment, we surveyed vendors and reviewed vendor publications, attended vendor marketing events and conferences, and researched periodicals and vendor Web sites. To estimate the potential cost of replacing existing voting equipment in the United States, we developed data on the distribution of voting equipment in the United States—among the states, counties within the states, and precincts within each county. For the cost of purchasing optical scan or DRE equipment, we used data obtained from voting equipment vendors. Our estimates generally include only the cost to purchase the equipment and do not contain software costs associated with the equipment to support a specific election and to perform related election management functions, which generally varied by the size of the jurisdiction that purchased the equipment. Because of the wide variation in the ways jurisdictions handle operation and maintenance (e.g., in-house or by a contract), our estimates do not include operations and maintenance costs. The cost of software and other items could substantially increase the actual cost of purchasing new voting equipment. To identify and describe issues associated with the use of the Internet for vote casting and tabulation, we interviewed vendors, reviewed vendor publications, attended vendor marketing events, and researched periodicals and vendor Web sites. We did not independently validate vendor-provided information. To identify Internet voting options and issues, we reviewed relevant recent studies, researched publications and material, and assessed preliminary Internet voting pilot reports. We also interviewed recognized experts from various institutions—academia, professional associations, and voting industry—that are familiar with issues surrounding Internet voting. In addition, we interviewed Internet voting equipment vendors that were involved in conducting these Internet voting pilots. We did our work between March 2001 and September 2001 in Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; Los Angeles; Dallas; Norfolk; San Francisco; and 27 local election jurisdictions in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains additional detail on our objectives, scope, and methodology. The November 2000 election resulted in widespread concerns about voter registration in the United States. Headlines and reports have questioned the mechanics and effectiveness of voter registration by highlighting accounts of individuals who thought they were registered being turned away from polling places on election day, the fraudulent use of the names of dead people to cast additional votes, and jurisdictions incorrectly removing the names of eligible voters from voter registration lists. For purposes of this report, voter registration includes the processes, people, and technology involved in registering eligible voters and in compiling and maintaining accurate and complete voter registration lists. List maintenance is performed by election officials and consists of updating registrants’ information and deleting the names of registrants who are no longer eligible to vote. This chapter discusses (1) state requirements to vote, (2) applying to register to vote, (3) compiling voter registration lists, and (4) voter registration list maintenance. Voter Eligibility Requirements Varied From State to State Registration Was a Prerequisite to Vote in All States but One Although the federal government has enacted legislation that affects registration procedures, registering to vote is not a federal requirement. Instead, registration is one of several potential requirements, in addition to citizenship, age, and residency, that states may require citizens to meet to be eligible to vote. Although voter eligibility requirements varied from state to state, registration was a prerequisite to vote in nearly all jurisdictions in the United States. However, because of differences in state voter eligibility requirements, citizens with the same qualifications were eligible to vote in some states but not in others. The 50 states and the District of Columbia are empowered by the U.S. Constitution to establish voter eligibility requirements within their jurisdictions. At a minimum, every state and the District of Columbia required that a voter be at least 18 years of age, a U.S. citizen, and a resident of the state or the District. In addition, most states limited voter eligibility on the basis of criminal status and mental competency, although the specifics of these limitations varied. Based on our review of information developed by the Justice Department, 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibited individuals from voting while incarcerated for a felony conviction but varied in their provisions for restoring voting rights after the incarceration period. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia provided for automatic restoration of voting rights. In 12 of these states and the District of Columbia, restoration occurred after the individual's release from incarceration. In the other 26 states, restoration occurred after the individual completed his or her sentence, including any term of probation or parole. Ten states did not provide for automatic restoration of voting rights. In these states, individuals could seek restoration of voting rights through pardon procedures established by the state (e.g., gubernatorial pardons). In a few states, individuals convicted of specific offenses permanently lost the right to vote. Maryland, Missouri, and Tennessee permanently disenfranchised those convicted of certain voting-related crimes, such as buying or selling votes. Tennessee also permanently disenfranchised those convicted of treason, rape or murder. In Delaware, individuals convicted of murder, manslaughter, felony sexual offenses, or certain public corruption offenses permanently lost the right to vote. The majority of states and the District of Columbia also prohibited individuals who were mentally incompetent from voting. Nearly all of these states and the District of Columbia required a judicial determination of incompetence to disqualify a citizen from voting. For example, in Texas, those who were judged by a court to be mentally incompetent were ineligible to vote. In Oklahoma, individuals judged to be incapacitated could not vote, and those judged to be partially incapacitated also could not vote, if so stated in the court order. A few states, such as Delaware, did not require a judicial determination of incompetence, but simply disqualified individuals who were mentally incompetent from voting. Registration was a prerequisite to vote in nearly all jurisdictions. In the United States, citizens were responsible for applying to register to vote. For the November 2000 election, FEC reported that nearly 168 million people, or about 82 percent of the voting age population, were registered to vote. All states, except North Dakota with 53 counties, required citizens to apply to register and be registered with the appropriate local election official before they could vote in an election. Because of North Dakota’s rural character, voting occurred in numerous relatively small precincts, which are the areas covered by a polling place. According to North Dakota officials, the establishment of small precincts was intended to ensure that election boards knew the voters who came to the polls and could easily determine if an individual should not be voting in the precinct. In the November 2000 election, North Dakota voters in 696 precincts cast 292,249 ballots, representing about 62 percent of the voting age population. Citizens Could Apply to Register to Vote in Many Ways Citizens Learned About the Registration Process Through Different Officials Faced Challenges in Processing Applications Officials Had Concerns About Applications Submitted at Motor Registering to vote appeared to be a simple step in the election system- generally, a qualified citizen provided basic personal information, such as name and address, to an election official and was able to vote in all subsequent elections. But applying to register and being registered were not synonymous. A citizen became a registered voter only after his or her application was received, processed, and confirmed by an election official. We found that citizens could apply to register to vote and could learn about the registration process in numerous ways, and that election officials faced challenges in processing these applications, especially in processing applications received from motor vehicle authorities. Citizens had numerous opportunities to apply to register to vote. Figure 12 shows several of these opportunities, such as applying at a local election office or at a motor vehicle authority, or obtaining and mailing an application to a local election official. These and other examples of how citizens were able to apply to register are illustrated by the situations we found in our visits to local election jurisdictions-cities, counties, and townships. In most of the jurisdictions we visited, individuals were able to apply in person to register at (1) their local election office, (2) a motor vehicle authority, and (3) various other agencies such as public assistance agencies, or via voter registration drives through political parties or other organizations. Applying Through Local Election Offices To apply at a local election office, individuals completed an accepted state registration application and submitted it to their local election official. Some local election officials we visited also provided registration services outside of their offices, such as at schools or other community events. For example, officials at some jurisdictions told us they visited high schools to provide eligible students with voter education, registration forms, and assistance. Officials in some jurisdictions said they held registration events at local malls, county open houses, libraries, county fairs, and at other community programs. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, 600 deputy registrars were trained to register citizens at various events and within their communities and civic organizations. Finally, citizens in one large jurisdiction we visited were able to apply to register at a mobile voter registration van (shown in figure 13). Applying at a Motor Vehicle Authority In most states, citizens could apply to register to vote at a motor vehicle authority under NVRA, which is widely known as the Motor Voter Act. There were variations in how NVRA was implemented and how citizens were able to apply to register at motor vehicle authorities in the jurisdictions we visited. National data from FEC and the Census Bureau indicated that the use of motor voter programs increased over the past 4 years. The percentage of all applications received through motor vehicle authorities in states covered by NVRA increased to 38 percent of the total number of registration applications received from 1999 through 2000, from 33 percent from 1995 through 1996. Similarly, we estimate that at least one-third of people in 2000 reported registering to vote when obtaining or renewing a driver’s license, up from 1996 levels. The jurisdictions we visited varied in their implementation of motor voter programs. In many of these jurisdictions, election officials told us that motor vehicle authority staff were to offer to assist individuals obtaining or renewing a driver’s license or other form of identification, in applying to register to vote. In other jurisdictions, we were told that the voter registration assistance provided by the motor vehicle authority consisted of making voter registration applications available on a table. However, in one small jurisdiction we visited, an election office employee was available at the motor vehicle authority to provide individuals with registration information and assistance. The procedure for applying to register to vote at motor vehicle authorities also varied across the jurisdictions we visited. For example, at some jurisdictions, a citizen applied to register by completing a voter registration section of the driver’s license application. In others, we were told that the voter registration application was printed using information from the motor vehicle authority database and was provided to the applicant for verification, confirmation of citizenship, and signature. Two jurisdictions in the same state provided voter registration terminals at motor vehicle authorities where applicants could complete their voter registration form and obtain a copy of the transaction. Applying at Other Agencies and Locations Finally, citizens could apply in person to register to vote at several state agencies and locations, or through other organizations. NVRA requires states to provide citizens with the opportunity to apply to register at public assistance agencies; state-funded disability service offices; armed forces recruitment offices; and state-designated agencies, such as public libraries, public schools, or marriage license bureaus. The number of voter registration applications submitted at NVRA- designated agencies decreased during the past 4 years. According to FEC, from 1999 through 2000, voter registration applications received at these agencies and locations accounted for less than 8 percent of the total, a decrease from 1995 through 1996, when 11 percent of applications had been submitted at these agencies. In a very large jurisdiction we visited, local election officials reported a substantial decline in the number of registration applications received from social service agencies from 24,878 applications in 1996 to 1,309 in 2000. Officials in that jurisdiction noted that “when the program was initially instituted, there was widespread interest both from potential voters as well as from agency personnel.” The officials suggested possible reasons for the decline in applications, including that the majority of social service clients were repeat clients, and thus already registered, or that some clients were no longer using social services because they had been placed in jobs. Citizens could also apply to register to vote in person through other organizations. We estimate that in November 2000, at least 16 percent of respondents completed an application at a registration drive, which included political rallies, someone coming to their door, or registration drives at a mall, market, fair, or public library. Officials in some jurisdictions we visited noted that political parties were a major source of voter registration applications in their jurisdiction. In addition to applying to register in person, citizens could apply by obtaining, completing, and mailing a voter registration application to the appropriate election official. According to FEC, during 1999-2000, 31 percent of total registration applications submitted in the states covered by NVRA were submitted by mail. In the jurisdictions we visited, we found a variety of ways for citizens to obtain applications and multiple forms for citizens to use. Sources for Voter Registration Applications Within most jurisdictions we visited, registration applications generally were available at many places, including at state and local election offices, public libraries, post offices, and schools. In one very large jurisdiction, registration applications were available at over 1,200 locations. Other jurisdictions we visited included registration information and applications in the local telephone book or in state tax packets. Some states and jurisdictions provided citizens the opportunity to download or request registration application forms over the Internet. Many of the states and jurisdictions we visited included on their Web sites registration application forms that could be downloaded and used for registering, while others included a form for requesting a registration application. Still others allowed citizens to complete and electronically submit an application form on the state’s Web site. The state election office then mailed the applicant the completed application form to be signed and then mailed back to the office. The applicant would not be officially registered until election officials accepted the signed form. In November 2000, U.S. citizens could use over 50 different forms to apply to register to vote. For example, some states used more than one form, having a standard state application as well as a separate form for NVRA- designated agencies. In addition, citizens could apply to register using the National Mail Voter Registration Form and the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA). The National Mail Voter Registration Form was developed by FEC to allow citizens to register to vote from anywhere in the United States. NVRA required states to accept and use the National Mail Voter Registration Form in addition to their own state application form. According to FEC, as of June 2001, 26 states accepted paper reproductions of the form. U.S. citizens serving with the military or working overseas and their dependents were allowed to register to vote by mail using the FPCA (shown in figure 14). This form allowed an applicant to simultaneously register to vote and request an absentee ballot. In some states, those who used the FPCA were not placed on the state’s permanent registration list. Instead, their registrations were valid for only 1 year, after which they were required to reregister in order to be eligible to vote. We found variation in the application forms available to apply to register to vote. At the jurisdictions we visited, the most common information requested on applications was full name, address, and signature. Most jurisdictions also requested date of birth, while others requested social security number, gender, race, and/or place of birth. Some registration applications requested more or less information from an applicant than was required to register to vote within the particular jurisdiction. On some forms, information not required to register to vote was clearly indicated as optional; on other forms it was not. As a result, one completed application might be accepted in some states but not in others. Examples of differences in the applications included the following: According to FEC, as of June 2001, seven states required applicants to provide their full social security number, and two required the last four digits of the number. Twenty others only requested that applicants provide the number (17 full and 3 the last four digits). The National Mail Voter Registration Form did not provide a specific space for applicants to provide their social security number, but the FPCA did. The application forms in several of the jurisdictions we visited requested that the applicant provide more information than was required to register, such as gender and telephone number. Application forms in some of these jurisdictions stated that identifying gender or providing a telephone number was optional; others did not. The FPCA had spaces for applicants to indicate their gender, but not telephone number. The National Mail Voter Registration Form did not include a space for applicants to provide gender, and indicated that providing a telephone number was optional. The application forms for some states and jurisdictions asked for applicants to identify their race or ethnic group and their place of birth. Both the FPCA and the National Mail Voter Registration Form had spaces for an applicant to use to identify race, but neither form had a space to indicate place of birth. Figures 15 and 16 show voter registration forms from jurisdictions we visited. Informing citizens about the registration process was important, given the various ways people could apply to register, the numerous forms they could complete, and different information required for completing the applications. On the basis of our mail survey, we estimated that 14 percent (plus or minus 4 percent) of jurisdictions nationwide actively sought comments or suggestions from voters about voter registration. The jurisdictions we visited differed in the emphasis they placed on voter education. Officials at some jurisdictions told us they offered little in the way of registration education. A few jurisdictions said that they relied on external organizations, such as the League of Women Voters and/or political groups, to educate voters. However, most of the jurisdictions we visited educated voters about registration in a variety of ways. Many of the jurisdictions we visited printed registration deadlines, locations, and procedures in at least one newspaper. Some used television and others used radio to publicize registration information. In some states and jurisdictions we visited, Web sites offered voter registration information, including deadlines, qualifications to register, and where to submit an application. Some of these jurisdictions offered interactive Web sites where individuals could determine their registration status and locate their voting precinct. Other registration education efforts included mailing each household a voter guide with registration information; speaking to civic groups, churches, unions, high schools, and other providing handouts and registration applications at naturalization distributing flyers and newsletters. The results of our nationwide surveys and meetings with election officials indicated that election officials faced challenges, such as implementing state requirements, handling applicant errors, and coordinating with multiple agencies, in processing applications. Local election officials described how they processed applications, including (1) receiving applications, (2) obtaining information from registrants who submit incomplete applications, (3) verifying information on the application, and (4) confirming registration status. Citizens were required to submit registration applications to local election officials by certain deadlines, specified by state statutes, to be eligible to vote in an upcoming election. These deadlines varied, allowing citizens in different states different amounts of time to submit applications. Local election officials expressed concerns about processing applications in the allotted time before election day and varied in how they handled late applications. In 30 states, registration applications were to be received by the local election office about 1 month before the election. Six states–Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming--allowed same-day registration where their residents could register to vote on election day. In Maine, for same-day registration, citizens were to register at the voter registrar’s office or the board of elections instead of at the polls as in the 5 other states that allowed same-day registration. Figure 17 shows the registration deadlines across the United States, and appendix IV contains information about these deadlines. Deadlines closer to election day, or election day itself, provide citizens more time to apply to register. However, some local election officials expressed concerns about not having enough time to process applications if deadlines for their submission were shortened or eliminated. California recently passed legislation that shortened its registration deadline from 29 days before an election to 15 days. A local election official in a very large jurisdiction in California said that processing the registration applications, sending out the sample ballots, and processing registrants absentee ballot requests within 15 days, instead of 29 days, would be “impossible for a major election.” A few local election officials raised concerns about the possibility of voter fraud, as there may not be time to verify an applicant’s eligibility. All of the states that allowed same-day registration required citizens to sign a registration oath or to show some proof of identification or residency when applying to register. For example, Minnesota allowed citizens to register on election day by completing the registration card under oath and by providing proof of residence, such as a Minnesota driver’s license. However, one local election official from a state that allowed same-day registration said that she “didn’t believe same-day voter registration should be allowed as there is little regulation, nor proper time to verify voters.” The official noted that in the last election they averaged one a minute. In contrast, officials in another jurisdiction that allowed same-day registration said that they did not have concerns about fraud, nor did they have concerns about verifying applications on election day. In those states that had registration deadlines, local election officials in jurisdictions we visited differed in how they dealt with applications received after the deadline. In some jurisdictions, registrants were informed via mail that their application was received late and that they were not eligible to vote in the upcoming election. Officials in one large jurisdiction said that applications were officially accepted for 5 working days after the close of the registration period if the date on the form was before the 30-day deadline. However, they said that in practice they accepted registration applications at any time before the day of the election. Local election officials we visited reviewed applications for completeness. However, they varied in how they processed applications missing any of the required or requested information. The variations included how strict they were in accepting applications with missing information and how they attempted to obtain missing information. In addition, even within the same jurisdiction, applicants who submitted different types of forms lacking the same piece of information were treated differently. At one medium-sized jurisdiction we visited, election officials said that if someone applying in person refused to provide his or her birth date, he or she was registered if “it was clear” the individual was 18 or older. Officials at some other jurisdictions said they called (if a phone number was provided) or sent written notification to the applicant to get the missing information. For example, in one large jurisdiction, officials told us if there was not enough time for the applicant to provide the birth date before the registration deadline, they registered him or her anyway and tried to get the information at the polling precinct. The official at one small jurisdiction said that when a birth date was missing from the application, she registered the applicant and entered the birth date as January 1, 1850. She told us that people were usually more than willing to correct that date at the polls. Differences in Processing Applications Within the Same Jurisdiction Even within the same jurisdiction, there were differences in how applications missing the same piece of information were treated. Officials at these jurisdictions told us these differences were the result of accepting different types of application forms for registration. For example, in one large jurisdiction we visited where the last four digits of the social security number were required by the state, applicants who did not provide the information were treated differently, depending on the form they used to apply. Officials at that jurisdiction told us that some motor vehicle authorities were still using an old voter registration form that did not request the social security information. In order not to disadvantage these applicants, they were registered without having to provide the information and were able to vote in the November 2000 election. Other applicants in the same jurisdiction downloaded and used the National Mail Voter Registration Form from the Internet. That form also did not ask for the social security number, although the state-specific directions for the form noted that the information was required and instructed applicants to provide it. Notices were sent to any applicants who used the National Mail Voter Registration Form and did not provide the social security information. Unless they reapplied with the social security information, they were not registered or allowed to vote in the November 2000 election. In another very large jurisdiction, election officials told us that the standard state voter registration form asked for information on place of birth and that applicants who mailed the standard state form but did not provide their place of birth, were put in a “pending” status and were notified by mail that they would not be registered until the information was provided. However, when applicants used the National Mail Voter Registration Form or the FPCA, which did not request the applicant’s place of birth, the officials told us they registered the applicant and then tried to obtain the information by sending the registrant a letter requesting the place of birth. At one medium-sized jurisdiction we visited, the officials told us that if an applicant registered in person, he or she had to use a state form and present identification, but if the same applicant registered by mail, the National Mail Voter Registration Form could be used and no identification was required. When jurisdictions received completed applications, the degree to which they verified the information on the forms to ensure the applicant was truly eligible to vote, based on statutory requirements, varied. Some local officials in jurisdictions we visited said they considered the registration application process to be an honor system and they simply relied on the applicant to tell the truth. All registration applications in the jurisdictions we visited required the applicant to sign an oath declaring that they were citizens and were eligible to vote. In other cases, an applicant may have had to present identification at the time of application. Officials at one very large jurisdiction told us they verified application information for a random 1 percent of all applicants. A form letter and a copy of the registration application were mailed to these applicants, who were asked to complete and return the form as verification of the application. We found varying degrees of checks on citizenship, residency, and multiple registrations to ensure that the applicant was qualified to register. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 34 percent (plus or minus 11 percent) of jurisdictions nationwide checked for U.S. citizenship to determine initial and/or continued eligibility for voter registration. Some election officials said that they checked that the affirmation on the application was signed or that the applicant had marked the box on the application indicating that he or she was a citizen. Other election officials told us they used jury lists to compare with voter registration records, since some people identified themselves as noncitizens as a reason for declining to perform jury duty. However, some local election officials we met with indicated that they had no way to verify that an applicant was indeed a citizen. We estimate that nearly all (96 percent) jurisdictions nationwide checked whether an individual’s address was outside of their jurisdiction to determine eligibility for voter registration. GAO Telephone Survey of Jurisdictions On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 96 percent of jurisdictions nationwide checked whether an individual’s address was outside of their jurisdiction. Some local election officials we visited used street maps or city planning files to confirm whether an address was a valid location within their jurisdiction. Others said that they used information such as property tax appraisal and building permit files to verify addresses within their jurisdictions. “You can ask any county clerk in the state and they will tell you that the biggest problem is motor voter. Residents can register at the welfare office, the health department, the motor vehicle authorities, and they do, time and again. This results in tons of registrations which are costly and time-consuming to sort through and check against records.” We estimate that nearly all (99 percent) jurisdictions nationwide checked whether an individual was already registered within their jurisdiction to determine eligibility for voter registration. GAO Telephone Survey of Jurisdictions On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 99 percent of jurisdictions nationwide checked whether an individual was already registered in their jurisdiction. Jurisdictions we visited varied in the processes they used to check for multiple registrants. For example, in a medium-sized jurisdiction we were told that the state provided the election officials with a report identifying possible duplicate registrants. The officials investigated these and canceled any they found to be duplicates. In many jurisdictions we visited, however, officials checked new registration applications against records of registered citizens. Officials in several jurisdictions noted that names alone were not a sufficient identification source. For example, after the November 2000 election, the Illinois State Board of Elections completed a brief analysis of multiple registrations by looking at voter registration records submitted by local election officials in all but 2 counties in the state. Using data collected between December 15, 2000 and February 28, 2001, the study found that of 7,197,838 voters registered in Illinois, 143,080, or 2 percent, were multiple instances of the same voter. The study also found that there were 283 people registered as “Maria Rodriguez” in Chicago and 159 as “Jose Hernandez.” There were also 919 “Robert Smiths” registered in Illinois. The study noted that “additional criteria are needed to differentiate these voters, as they are obviously not all multiple registrations of the same person.” According to some local election officials, using social security numbers to identify registered voters helped to avoid multiple registrations of the same person. One small jurisdiction we visited used the first three letters of the last name and date of birth to identify any registrants who may already be registered. “…We were even on 60 Minutes in 1998 with our 16,000 fraudulent voter registrations….However, we did track those. We did not have a single one of those people vote.” After accepting a registration application, election officials informed the applicant that he or she had been registered. In all of the jurisdictions that we visited, officials informed citizens that they had been registered by mailing a voter registration card or letter (an example of which is shown in figure 18). Registration confirmation was also an important step in the verification process. Local election officials told us that registration confirmations were mailed as nonforwardable mail and thus also served as a check on the registrant actually living at the address provided. In addition, the confirmation allowed registrants to review and correct any information about their registration status before election day. Some jurisdictions varied in how they confirmed individuals’ registration status close to the date of elections. A few local election officials said that closer to election day they might not have been sufficiently staffed to confirm all applicants’ registrations. We estimate that about 46 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had problems with NVRA during the November 2000 election. GAO Telephone Survey of Jurisdictions NVRA expanded the opportunities for citizens to apply for registration to include submitting applications at motor vehicle authorities, and in the recent election cycle, such applications have increased. Local election officials around the country expressed concerns about processing applications submitted at motor vehicle authorities. At most of the jurisdictions we visited, applications submitted by citizens at motor vehicle authorities were hand delivered, mailed, or electronically transmitted to a state or local election office. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 46 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had problems, in general, with NVRA registrations during the November 2000 election. Officials most frequently noted challenges with processing incomplete or illegible applications, applications that arrived late at the local election office, and applications that never arrived. According to local election officials, each of these three situations could result in individuals showing up at the polls to vote and discovering that they were never registered. Local election officials offered suggestions to address these problems, such as using technology, expanding voter education, and increasing training at motor vehicle authorities. Local election officials at the jurisdictions we visited described instances in which they received incomplete or illegible applications from the state motor vehicles authorities that had incomplete or incorrect addresses; were missing signatures; were missing required information, such as date of birth or social had signatures that were illegible or did not match the typed name on the application. In particular, one challenge that local election officials noted involved state statutory requirements for an original signature on the registration application. Local election officials in jurisdictions that received applications via electronic transmission also had to receive a separate paper application that contained the applicant’s original signature. Officials in a large jurisdiction we visited noted problems because the mailed signature cards did not arrive at the same time as the electronically submitted applications and, in some instances, took up to 3 months to arrive. Processing late applications submitted at motor vehicle authorities was a challenge in some of the jurisdictions that we visited. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, applications dated in July were received at the election office with October transmittal dates from the motor vehicle authority. For the November 2000 election, to speed up the process of mailing applications, one large jurisdiction arranged to send elections staff to the offices of the motor vehicle authority on the last day citizens could apply to register to pick up and deliver the applications directly to the county elections office. When election offices failed to receive applications, citizens could show up to vote on election day to find that they were not registered. Local election officials we met with described the following accounts of citizens not included on registration lists showing up at polling precincts on election day claiming that they had registered to vote at a motor vehicle authority. In one very large jurisdiction we visited, between September 15, 2000, and November 28, 2000, a total of 688 calls were received from potential voters who claimed they had either registered or changed their address through the motor vehicle authority. Upon investigation of these cases, 39 percent needed to either register or reregister at their current address. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, 22 percent of citizens who were not on registration lists, but who claimed that they had registered, said they did so at a motor vehicle authority. However, the local election official believed that most of these citizens were not registered to vote. Election officials suggested ways for addressing the occurrence of a citizen showing up at the polls on election day after incorrectly assuming that he or she had registered to vote at a motor vehicle authority. These fixes included implementing technology options, such as electronically submitting applications, increasing voter education efforts, and providing training opportunities for motor vehicle authority employees. Local election officials relied on available technology and suggested changes to current systems they believed could address problems with registration applications. Some local election officials suggested that voter registration information be transmitted electronically to election offices. Officials in two small jurisdictions in the same state described how registration information was sent electronically from the motor vehicle authority to the statewide voter registration system, which then sent the information to the jurisdiction in which the applicant wished to be registered. In addition, local election officials in a medium-sized jurisdiction said they would like to redesign the application used to apply at motor vehicle authorities to allow a user to input registration information into a computer and have an application print out for the applicant to sign and submit. However, electronic transmission of registration applications in states that required an original signature on an application would still require that a paper copy be transferred to local election officials. Increased public education may reduce the number of people who come to vote on election day believing they are registered when they are not. The public should be educated about the importance of receiving the confirmation card in the mail after registering and the importance of saving the receipt given to voters who register at the motor vehicle authority until the confirmation card is received. “The biggest problem is that voters are not educated on motor voter procedures. New voters misunderstand that a driver license card is not a voter registration card… that they are applying to register to vote, not actually registering to vote… Motor voter has helped registration activities in the latest election because it has provided a steadier stream of new voters. But, the enactment of motor voter makes it easier for applicants to place the blame for registration problems on others instead of themselves.” Training Opportunities for Motor Vehicle Authority Employees As a result of NVRA, election officials were to share some of the responsibility of administering voter registration with motor vehicle authorities, whose primary purpose is unrelated to election administration. Some local election officials felt that, as a result, the registration process was more difficult to manage, and that motor vehicle authority staff had too much responsibility for registering voters. Others we surveyed and met with agreed that for motor voter programs to successfully function, motor vehicle authority staff needed to be trained about registering voters. In one very large jurisdiction we visited, local election officials coordinated with motor vehicle staff to provide training sessions and information about registering voters. In one small jurisdiction, a local election official was situated in the lobby of the motor vehicle authority. The election official provided voter registration services to reduce the number of citizens who mistakenly believed that they had registered and to reduce the number of applications denied due to missing or incomplete information. Lists Had Multiple Uses and Helped Ensure That Only Qualified Officials Used Different Methods, Providing Varying Capabilities, to Election officials compiled confirmed registration applications into lists of registered voters for use throughout the election process. Officials used different technologies and systems to compile the lists, and each system had different capabilities and limitations. Election officials used lists of registered voters for several purposes. A citizen’s access to voting was based primarily on the appearance of his or her name on such a list. For example, for both absentee and election day voting, election officials typically verified an individual’s eligibility using a list of registered voters or a poll book before allowing him or her to vote. In some jurisdictions, officials also used registration lists for defining who in the jurisdiction received election-related information like sample ballots or voter information guides. The registration lists also provided election officials with a basis for determining the quantity of supplies, such as ballots and voting machines and the numbers of personnel needed on election day. States and local election jurisdictions used different systems to compile registration applications into a list of registered voters. Some officials compiled voter registration lists manually or, as most did, through an automated system. All of the local election jurisdictions we visited used automated systems to compile registration lists. Some jurisdictions used a local computerized system for maintaining registration lists, and others were linked to a statewide automated voter registration system. The various systems provided different capabilities, such as those for processing applicants’ signatures, generating reports and notifications for registrants, and sharing information with other jurisdictions. Many of the local election jurisdictions we visited used local automated voter registration systems. Local election officials told us that, in comparison to manual systems, their automated systems saved time and effort by allowing them to more easily perform a number of routine tasks. Some jurisdictions operated their own local voter registration system, and others shared a jurisdiction-wide system with other government offices in the jurisdiction. We estimate that 61 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had their own computerized voter registration system. GAO Telephone Survey of Jurisdictions On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 61 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had their own computerized voter registration system. Local election officials we visited noted that their systems allowed them to retain possession and control of their voter registration lists at all times, and to perform several functions, such as checking for duplicate registrations within their jurisdiction, updating registration records, generating forms and letters to send to registrants, and compiling and producing reports. Some automated systems provided additional capabilities and features. Several local election jurisdictions used systems that scanned an applicant’s signature from the application into the voter registration system. The automated system used by one very large jurisdiction interfaced with the jurisdiction’s system for election tallying, and with geographic street reference files, which were used for assigning registrants to a precinct. Some jurisdictions used an automated system that was part of the central computer system that ran applications in support of other county functions. Officials at one medium-sized jurisdiction told us that with their automated system they could perform all of the routine election-related tasks. However, jurisdictions that shared with the county system could have problems based on the capacity limits of the county’s servers, and the need for extra security to maintain the integrity of the election-related functions of the system. We visited one medium-sized jurisdiction that was in the process of implementing its own voter registration system. A local election official in that jurisdiction said that they were “being kicked off the county’s system” because their computer needs had outgrown the system. Sharing Information With States and Other Jurisdictions On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 75 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used or shared information with a statewide computerized voter registration system. Of the jurisdictions we visited that had automated systems, many shared registration information with the state election office. Some shared information electronically, providing registration lists to the state periodically. For example, one medium-sized jurisdiction we visited provided the state a computerized file of their registration list every 6 months. Some local election officials in the jurisdictions that we visited noted that there were limitations in their capacity to share information on a real-time basis. Officials in one medium-sized jurisdiction said that while they provided the state a computerized file of their registration list, the jurisdiction had no automated method for checking the registration list against those of other jurisdictions to identify potential duplicates. In May 2001, their state conducted a study of multiple registrations by matching computerized voter registration files using registrants’ names and dates of birth. The study identified as many as 10 percent of the people on that jurisdiction’s registration list that might also have been registered to vote in another jurisdiction in the state. In two very large jurisdictions in one state we visited, the state operated a statewide database that contained information provided by all of the state’s jurisdictions, its motor vehicle authority, and its Bureau of Vital Statistics. The state system provided the jurisdictions with query capability. Local election officials said that, through queries, they could identify registrants on their list, who might also be on the registration list of another jurisdiction in the state, who were officially reported to have died, or who had moved. However, officials there noted that the jurisdictions were not directly on-line with the system. We visited several jurisdictions that were linked to a statewide voter registration system. In most of these jurisdictions, states had provided software allowing on-line access to a central voter database. The local officials told us of a number of advantages the statewide system provided them. Specifically, they noted the reduced potential for duplicate registrations in the state and the ability to electronically receive applications submitted at motor vehicle authorities. Reducing Multiple Registrations Within the State In one state with a statewide voter registration system, we met with local officials who said that their system significantly reduced the potential for multiple registrations in the state. When a citizen reregistered in a new jurisdiction in the state, his or her registration was automatically cancelled in the former jurisdiction of residence. Local election officials in another state said their statewide system automatically flagged potential multiple registrations before transmitting applications to the appropriate local election official. These officials also noted that their statewide voter registration system was linked to the motor vehicle authority and flagged potential multiple registration applications submitted from that source. Coordination With Motor Vehicle Authorities Some of the statewide systems in jurisdictions that we visited were linked to motor vehicle authorities. Such a linkage decreased the potential for losing application information in the process of transferring it from the application site to the local election office. Local election officials in one small jurisdiction told us the motor vehicle authority transmitted the application to the state office, which then transmitted the application to the jurisdiction in which the applicant lived. At another small jurisdiction the officials told us that, for each application, the motor vehicle authority created a record in the state-operated voter registration database and the local election officials retrieved the application information that applied to their residents. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 74 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used information from local jurisdictions in other states to help maintain their registration lists. Some local election officials we visited told us that they shared voter registration information with other states and jurisdictions from time to time. For example, in a large jurisdiction we visited, of the 5,299 voters removed from the registration list in 2000, 1,571 were as a result of notifications from other states about the individuals moving to a new state. Officials in the jurisdiction showed us notices from a Florida and a Utah jurisdiction informing them about voters who had recently moved and should be removed from their registration list. Some agreements to share information were established by neighboring states or jurisdictions. For example, a local election official in the District of Columbia told us that they were beginning to exchange voter registration lists with surrounding states, after having compared registration lists with several nearby counties in 1997. In contrast, states could also choose not to share information. For example, election officials in one state we visited were statutorily prohibited from providing voter registration lists to other states, since only candidates and certain other designated individuals were allowed to view lists of registered voters. NVRA and State Election Codes Provided for Registration Officials Relied on Information From Numerous Sources to Maintain Officials Had Varying Degrees of Confidence in Their Lists Statewide Systems Provided Benefits, but Required Resources and Coordination to Develop and Maintain In addition to processing new applications, election officials maintained lists of registered voters, which involved the continual updating and deleting of information from the registration list, using information from numerous sources to keep voter registration lists accurate and current. Election officials reported difficulties in obtaining accurate and timely information from these sources and expressed varying degrees of confidence in the accuracy and currency of their registration lists. Statewide voter registration systems offered the potential to assist election officials with establishing and maintaining registration lists. In passing NVRA, the federal government attempted to establish uniformity in certain list maintenance processes. NVRA required states to conduct a uniform and nondiscriminatory “general program” that makes a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters from the list. NVRA permitted removing the names of individuals upon written confirmation of a change of address outside the election a change of address along with failure to respond to confirmation mailings and failure to vote in any election within two subsequent general federal elections, the request of the registrant, death, mental incapacity as provided for in state law, and criminal conviction as provided for in state law. One of the purposes of NVRA was to ensure that once an individual was registered to vote, he or she remained on the voting list as long as he or she remained eligible to vote in the same jurisdiction. NVRA’s list maintenance provisions specifically prohibited removing a name from the voter registration list solely for failure to vote or for a change of address to another location within the same election jurisdiction. The state election codes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia specifically provided for registration list maintenance and required cancellation of registrations under certain circumstances. An examination of the state statutes cited in our nationwide survey of state election officials showed that “purge” or registration cancellation requirements varied from state to state but were primarily based upon change of residency, death, criminal conviction, and mental incapacity. Most of the states examined required in certain cases that registered voters be informed of changes made to their registration status. See appendix IV for selected statutory requirements for list maintenance for the 21 states we visited. Local election officials at the jurisdictions we visited used a number sources of information and a variety of procedures to remove the names of registrants no longer eligible to vote. Local election officials used information obtained from these sources to both systematically verify the registration list and conduct ongoing identification efforts aimed at removal of ineligible registrants. However, officials noted difficulties with obtaining accurate and current information to perform list maintenance. Figure 19 shows an example of a list maintenance process and some of the numerous sources of information that local election officials could use to maintain accurate and current registration lists. Election officials used various means to systematically verify their registration lists and identify voters who were no longer eligible to be registered, either because they moved or because they failed to respond to certain confirmation mailings. These means included mass mailings, comparing their entire voter registration list against information from the U.S. Postal Service National Change of Address (NCOA) program, and conducting door-to-door canvassing. Some of the jurisdictions we visited relied on mass mailings of nonforwardable election-related material to confirm registrants’ eligibility. For example, officials in one large jurisdiction mailed a nonforwardable sample ballot to every registered voter before each election. If the ballot was returned as undeliverable, the officials sent forwardable mailings asking the registrant to confirm his or her address. Registrants who responded either remained on the registration list or, if their current address was outside the election jurisdiction, were removed from the registration list. Those who did not respond were designated inactive within the registration system. Within NVRA provisions, an inactive registrant can be removed from the registration list if he or she has not voted during the period of time between the date of the required confirmation notice and the second general election for federal office which occurs after the date of the notice. Some other jurisdictions we visited also conducted mass mailings using the same basic process. However, they used different mailing materials, such as voter registration confirmation cards or voter guides, conducted the mailings with different frequencies (i.e., every 2 years or 5 years) and/or targeted the mailings to those registrants who failed to vote in two federal elections. Mass mailings, because they typically included every registered voter on the list, were costly compared to other verification checks that targeted particular groups of registrants, such as those who had moved. Also, the results were incomplete, since many people who had moved did not always confirm their change of address. According to FEC, from 1999 through 2000, local election officials mailed a nationwide total of 18,892,331 confirmation notices to persons who were reported to have moved outside the local election jurisdiction, and there was a 23-percent response rate to these notices. U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address Program We estimate that 70 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used information from the U.S. Postal Service to help maintain accurate voter registration lists. GAO Telephone Survey of Jurisdictions On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 70 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used U.S. Postal Service information to help maintain accurate voter registration lists. Election officials used the U.S. Postal Service’s computerized NCOA files to match against their registration lists to identify those registrants who had moved. Some officials we visited said they relied on private vendors to perform the match; others contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to compare voter files with postal records. The change of address program relied on registrants completing a change- of-address form to allow for the forwarding of mail. The NCOA files did not identify all people who moved because some did not submit a change of address form, nor did the files capture information about other sources of removal, such as deaths or criminal convictions. Some local election officials we visited expressed concerns that postal information did not always match information from their jurisdictions. Two of the jurisdictions we visited used their required annual census as a means of verifying their registration lists. In one small jurisdiction, registrants who did not respond to the town’s annual census and had not voted in 2 years were placed in inactive status and notified of this change in status. If they remained inactive for another 2 years, they were removed from the registration rolls and notified of their removal. In another small jurisdiction, registrants were designated inactive if they did not respond to the town census and were removed from the rolls after no response to two subsequent confirmation letters. Election officials received information from a variety of sources to make individual changes to registration lists, including from state motor vehicle authorities, directly from the registrant, and from a variety of other sources, such as county and state courts. To help maintain accurate voter registration lists, we estimate the following: To help maintain accurate vot Sixty-four percent of jurisdictions nationwide used information from motor vehicle authorities. Ninety-three percent of jurisdictions nationwide used information from registrants. GAO Telephone Survey of Jurisdictions Officials at many of the jurisdictions we visited said they received information from motor vehicle authorities on changes registrants made to their voter registration information. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 64 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used information from motor vehicle authorities to help maintain accurate voter registration lists. Motor vehicle authorities conveyed information about changes to a registrant’s information to election officials in a variety of ways, and some officials said timeliness was often a problem. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 93 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used information received directly from registrants to help maintain their registration lists. Registrants could have their names removed from the list at their request. They could also request changes to their registration information, such as name or address. Some local election officials said that although registered voters were required to inform them of any change of address, the registrants frequently failed to do so. The officials told us they believed registrants were not aware of this requirement and that the problem was escalating due to the increasing transience of the population. The mobility of the population created a challenge for local election officials in one very large jurisdiction we visited where it is estimated that approximately 15 to 20 percent of the jurisdiction’s population moves each year. Officials used a variety of other sources to identify registrants made ineligible by death, criminal conviction, or mental incompetence. Local election officials obtained information about the deaths of registrants from sources such as state and county departments of health or vital statistics, the state election office, and newspaper obituaries. Most of the officials with whom we met said they received lists of death notices from their state’s department of health and removed those listed from their registration lists. Officials in some jurisdictions complained that this process was not always timely. Some said they had not received a death listing for several months; others said it was sometimes more than 1 year. Some officials also reviewed newspaper obituaries and used them as a basis for removing registrants from their registration lists. In three small jurisdictions we visited, the local election official was also responsible for issuing death certificates, as the local election official was the clerk of the jurisdiction. Officials in some jurisdictions expressed concern that they often do not find out about registrants who die in other states. In some jurisdictions we visited, registrants were removed from the registration lists on the basis of a death notification from a family member. In others, the individual reporting the death of a registrant had to provide a copy of the death certificate for the name to be removed from the list. Officials from most of the jurisdictions we visited said that they relied on information from the court system to identify convicted felons. However, some of those officials also said that the court system did not always notify them of criminal convictions or releases. For example, in one large jurisdiction we visited, officials said that they received no information on convictions from the court system. Some jurisdictions said they occasionally received information on convicted felons within their jurisdiction, but timeliness was often an issue. For example, one large jurisdiction said they had not received any information on felony convictions in over a year. Some of the jurisdictions we visited received no information of felons convicted outside of their counties or states. If the court system provided information about criminal convictions, local election officials in some states had to interpret and spend time and effort researching a particular individual’s case to determine whether voting rights had been restored. For example, in Delaware, those convicted of certain offenses, such as murder, manslaughter, felony sexual offenses, or certain public corruption offenses, may not have voting rights restored. Any other person who is disqualified as a voter may vote 5 years after expiration of sentence, including probation or parole, or upon being pardoned, whichever occurs first. Thus, election officials in Delaware would need to investigate a particular individual’s offense and sentence to determine whether he or she was eligible to vote. Officials at some of the jurisdictions we visited said they did not routinely receive information from the courts on persons who, as a result of mental incompetence, were no longer eligible to vote. Officials in one large jurisdiction in a statewide system said that the election office did not normally receive information about mental incompetence. Officials in a few jurisdictions said that the only information on mental incompetence was the affidavit the voter signed on the registration form affirming he or she was not mentally incompetent. Where mental incompetence was an eligibility restriction, several officials said they had not removed or could not remember removing anyone from their rolls for this reason. An official in one large jurisdiction said such a disqualification had not happened in 27 years. Local election officials from two jurisdictions said that should they receive information from the courts on a state mental capacity restriction, they would send a confirmation letter to the registrant. Officials in other jurisdictions said they had no process for removing registrants for this criterion. The maintenance of registration lists depended not only on the actions of election officials, but also on the timely receipt of accurate information from numerous sources. Some local election officials expressed concern about the accuracy and currency of their voter registration rolls, while others felt that as a result of NVRA, the voter registration lists were more accurate. Some local election officials were not able to access information on a timely basis. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that 84 percent of jurisdictions nationwide checked death records and 76 percent of jurisdictions nationwide checked ineligibility due to a criminal conviction initially and/or on a continual basis. However, we estimate that only 40 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had the ability to make death record checks on a “real-time” or immediate basis. Similarly, only 33 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had the ability to make criminal conviction checks on a real-time basis. “Currently, we are required to keep voters who have moved and a third party, primarily the post office, has notified us that they do not live at that residence. We cannot cancel them off our voter rolls. We have to carry them on an inactive roll. In the jurisdiction, we have about 200,000 of those people on the inactive roll that we have to supply to those poll workers. Yet, in looking at our database, about 100 of those actually show up and vote.” Despite concerns, some election officials felt that NVRA had increased the accuracy of the voter rolls because registration lists were updated more frequently. They also noted that because NVRA increased the opportunities and locations at which to register, the registration workload had stabilized over the year. Officials in one small jurisdiction noted that NVRA had greatly helped them to purge inactive voters from registration lists following confirmation mailings. Officials said their list is now “more pure” in terms of having more “real” registered voters. Information about the accuracy and currency of voter registration lists nationwide was difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to find was information on the extent of the effect of errors on voter registration lists. Errors and inaccuracies, such as multiple registrations or ineligible voters appearing on the list, could occur as a result of different reasons. However, when explicitly asked about problems with list maintenance in the November 2000 election, most local election officials did not indicate that they had any problems. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia operated statewide voter registration systems, which covered all local jurisdictions. Several other states were implementing such systems, while others operated systems with some local jurisdictions on-line. Local election officials we visited described benefits that statewide voter registration systems provided. However, the implementation and maintenance of such systems required significant resources and the coordination of many jurisdictions. Local election officials in jurisdictions we visited that had statewide registration systems described several benefits of their system. These benefits included real-time access to information about registrants from other jurisdictions in the state, and potentially in other states; the reduction of duplicate registrations across the state; and the potential for instant transmittal of registration applications and information from state motor vehicle authorities and other intake offices to the appropriate election official. FEC described several benefits for list maintenance to operating an automated statewide voter registration system. These benefits included capabilities to “handily” remove names of registrants by reason of death, felony conviction, and mental incompetence; run the statewide list against NCOA files to identify persons who have moved and left a forwarding address with the U.S. Postal Service; receive cancellation notices electronically from motor vehicle authorities, or from other election jurisdictions throughout the nation; perform internal checks to guard against multiple or improper handle any or all of the mailings required under NVRA, such as acknowledgement notices, confirmation notices, and verification mailings; and generate much of the data that FEC required under provisions of NVRA. Statewide voter registration systems had the potential to assist election officials with establishing and maintaining registration lists. However, implementing a statewide system required resources, time, and the coordination of multiple jurisdictions. Also, a statewide system could not ensure the accuracy of a state’s voter registration lists because data may not have been received or entered correctly, or inaccurate data may have been entered. The development and implementation of a statewide voter registration system would not necessarily be an inexpensive or short process. FEC estimated that the process could take 2 to 4 years or longer, and that the costs to implement such systems over the past 2 decades have ranged from under $1 million to over $8 million for the first year. In Maryland, the State Board of Elections and its contractor have worked on the statewide voter registration system since 1998 and expect to finish by the end of 2001 at a cost of $3 to $4 million. In Michigan, the statewide voter registration system was developed within the $7.6 million that was appropriated for the program, with more than half of the funds going to local units of government. Most local election officials we visited that were linked to statewide systems were very pleased with their system. However, officials in one very large jurisdiction in a state without a statewide system indicated that they would prefer to maintain a county-based system because of funding concerns. The jurisdiction currently shares computer capacity with a countywide computer system, and the county pays the bill for processing requirements. With a statewide system, the official said that the jurisdiction “would have to foot the bill for operating and maintenance costs.” Ultimately, some states have implemented statewide systems, and have found the system to be beneficial, while others have felt the investment may not be worth the price. An integrated statewide system required the coordination of all jurisdictions within a state. Coordination could be affected by the size of the state, the number of local election jurisdictions within the state, the variations of the automated systems the jurisdictions operated independently, and the cooperation of local election officials within the state. For example, some large states such as Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey did not have statewide systems. Less than half of the counties in Texas are linked to the statewide system operated by that state. States with numerous local election jurisdictions, such as townships and cities, also typically did not operate statewide systems. A local election official in a state with several jurisdictions said that when the state was implementing their integrated system, one official was so reluctant that she did not take the system hardware out of the box until the “state forced her to.” Finally, a statewide voter registration system could not ensure the accuracy of a state’s voter registration lists because data may not have been received or entered correctly, or inaccurate data may have been entered. For example, Alaska, despite the implementation of a statewide voter registration system, reported that it has at least 11 percent more active registered voters than voting age population. Maintaining accurate voter registration lists depended on the timely receipt of accurate information from multiple sources. In none of the local election jurisdictions that we visited, did officials say that they received comprehensive, timely information from all of the sources they used to update their registration list. Even with an integrated system, these jurisdictions would still require processes to obtain more timely and accurate data. For example, a statewide voter registration system would not be able to remove from the lists the names of registrants who have died if timely death records were not available. Further, adequate quality assurance processes for the data would also need to be developed as data entry errors can and will occur. One jurisdiction we visited addressed this issue by printing out all registration record changes in the voter registration system on a daily basis to be checked against the paper forms initiating the changes. Local election officials nationwide processed registration applications and, using various systems and sources of information, compiled and maintained lists of registered voters to be used throughout the election process. In summary, the following are the challenges election officials identified for voter registration: Officials faced challenges in processing incomplete applications, identifying ineligible individuals and those who had applied to register more than once, and minimizing the number of individuals who showed up at polling places but had never been registered to vote. In particular, officials faced challenges coordinating the events necessary to process registration applications submitted at motor vehicle authorities. Increasing the use of technology options, such as electronically transmitting applications from motor vehicle authorities to election offices, expanding voter education, and improving the training of motor vehicle authority staff were identified as means of addressing these challenges. Obtaining accurate and timely information from numerous sources to update voter registration lists was a challenge noted by election officials. These officials relied on local, state, and federal sources to provide accurate and current information about changes to registration lists. Information did not always match their records, was received late, or was never received at all. Jurisdictions varied in capability and opportunity to share information with other jurisdictions and states. In none of the local election jurisdictions that we visited, did officials say that they received comprehensive, timely information from all of the sources they used to update their registration list. Finally, integrating technology, process, and people to accept registration applications and compile registration lists, to ensure all eligible citizens who intended to register were able to do so, was identified by officials as a challenge. Election officials processed registration applications, and using various technologies and systems compiled lists of registered voters to be used throughout the election process. They faced challenges with inaccuracies, such as multiple registrations, ineligible voters appearing on the list, or eligible voters who intended to register not being on the list. Local election officials expressed varying levels of confidence in the accuracy of their voter registration lists. The narrow margin of victory in the November 2000 general election raised concerns about absentee voting in the United States. Headlines and reports have questioned the fairness and effectiveness of the absentee voting process by featuring accounts of large numbers of mail-in absentee ballots being disqualified and by highlighting opportunities for mail-in absentee voting fraud. A growing number of citizens seem to be casting their ballots before election day. However, the circumstances under which these voters vote and the manner in which they cast their ballots differ because there are 51 unique election codes. Due to the wide diversity in absentee and early voting requirements, administration, and procedures, citizens face different opportunities for obtaining and successfully casting ballots before election day. In particular, the likelihood that voters’ errors in completing and returning mail-in absentee ballots will result in their ballot being disqualified varies, even, in some instances, among jurisdictions within the same state. However, states do not routinely collect and report absentee and early voting data. Thus, no national data currently are maintained regarding the extent of voting prior to election day, in general. More specifically, no data are maintained regarding the number of mail-in absentee ballots that are disqualified and therefore not counted. In addition, election officials face a variety of challenges in administering absentee and early voting, including establishing procedures to address potential fraud; addressing voter error issues, such as incomplete applications and ballots; handling late applications and ballots; and managing general workload, resource, and other administrative constraints. In this chapter, we will describe (1) the frequency and availability of voting before election day, (2) the mail-in absentee voting process and challenges faced by election officials in conducting this type of voting, and (3) the types of in-person absentee and early voting programs available and the challenges encountered by election officials in administering these efforts. Although most voters cast their ballots at their precincts on election day, every state and the District of Columbia has procedures by which voters can cast their ballots prior to election day. Generally, any voting that occurs before election day has been called "absentee" voting because the voters are absent from their precinct on election day. Registered voters may obtain their ballots prior to election day in one of two ways—through the mail or in person. States do not routinely collect and report data on the prevalence of voting before election day. Using Census data, we estimate that, in the November 2000 general election, about 14 percent of voters nationwide cast their ballots before election day. Of these voters, about 73 percent used mail-in ballots and about 27 percent voted in person (as seen in figure 20). This represents an increase from the 1996 presidential election in which we estimate a total of about 11 percent of voters cast ballots before election day. Many of the election officials in the jurisdictions we visited reported that voting before election day had been increasing in the past few years. For example, in one jurisdiction, voting before election day has increased in the past few years from 50 percent in the 1996 election to a little over 60 percent of the total ballots cast in the November 2000 general election. In another jurisdiction, where the state had passed legislation making voting before election day easier and more convenient, this type of voting increased from about 26 percent of all ballots cast in the November 1996 general election to about 60 percent for the November 2000 general election. As shown in figure 21, the total percentage of individuals voting before election day in the November 2000 general election varied among the states from about 2 percent in West Virginia to about 52 percent in Washington. In 31 states, less than 10 percent of voters cast their ballots before election day. However, in 6 states over 25 percent of the voters cast their ballots before election day, including 1 state with more than half of the voters casting their ballots in this manner. Some states require voters to meet one of several criteria to be eligible to vote before election day, such as being disabled, elderly, or absent from the jurisdiction on election day. However, as seen in figure 22, as of July 2001, 18 states have initiated "no excuse" absentee voting in which any voter who wishes to do so may vote absentee. These voters may vote a mail-in ballot or vote in person as established by state requirements, without first having to provide a reason or excuse. In addition, some states have initiated "early voting" in which local election jurisdictions may establish one or, particularly in larger jurisdictions, several locations at which any voter may cast his/her ballot in person a number of days before election day, based on state statutory requirements. One of the primary purposes of absentee and early voting is to increase voter participation. For example, being able to vote before election day provides greater accessibility to voting for certain voters, such as those who are disabled, living internationally, traveling extensively, or residing in distant rural communities with long commutes to work. In addition, allowing voters to vote before election day can make voting more convenient, particularly in states that allow no-excuse absentee or early voting. Election officials in some jurisdictions we visited stated that no- excuse absentee and/or early voting had increased overall voting before election day, particularly when these programs first became available. Election officials were less certain about any positive effects these efforts have had on overall voter participation. For example, several jurisdictions that offer no-excuse absentee and/or early voting stated that they have had a greater shift of voters from election day to absentee and early voting than overall increases in voter participation. However, election officials in Oregon have reported that their efforts to conduct entire elections by mail have resulted in some significant increases in voter participation. Election officials disagree regarding whether the additional accessibility and convenience gained from the increased availability and use of mail-in absentee voting and all vote-by-mail elections outweigh the increased opportunities for voter fraud. This disagreement represents a clear example of how election officials often must weigh opportunities to increase access to voting against the elevated potential risks to integrity in the voting process. Election officials generally did not have similar concerns regarding increases in early and no-excuse, in-person absentee voting—possibly due to the resemblance of these processes and procedures to election day voting. However, regardless of the effects on overall voter participation and election officials’ concerns regarding increased opportunities for fraud, many election officials agreed that voters liked the convenience of no-excuse and early voting. Different State Requirements to Vote, but Basic Steps Similar Manner, Frequency, and Deadlines for Applying Vary Across States Ballot Casting Differs Across States and Jurisdictions Processes for Qualifying Ballots Vary, but Similar Challenges Exist Voter Education Efforts Are Diverse The basic steps for mail-in absentee voting are similar. Registered voters apply for and receive their ballots; voters complete and return their ballots and related materials; and local election officials review ballot materials prior to counting them. However, the circumstances under which voters are allowed to vote by a mail-in absentee ballot, the manner and deadlines for applying and casting these ballots, and the processes by which these ballots are reviewed, differ widely across states and even, in certain instances, within the same state. In addition, local election officials face several challenges in administering this type of voting. While election officials have established procedures to address certain potentials for fraud, some officials expressed concerns regarding their ability to fully address this issue. In addition, election officials identified several other key challenges in the mail-in absentee voting process. These issues include responding to voter error issues, such as incomplete applications and ballots; handling late applications and ballots; and dealing with general workload issues related to processing large numbers of applications and ballots in a timely manner, including addressing postal concerns such as delivery, priority, and timeliness. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some statutory provisions allowing registered voters to vote by mail, but not every registered voter is eligible to do so. Some states allow all registrants to vote with a mail-in absentee ballot, but other states require that registrants provide certain reasons or excuses. Examples include being absent from the state or county on election day; a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a dependent; permanently or totally disabled; ill or temporarily disabled; over a certain age, such as 65; an observer of a religious holiday on election day; at a school, college, or university; employed on election day in a job for which the nature or hours prevent the individual from voting at their precinct, such as an election worker; and involved in emergency circumstances, such as the death of a family member. On the basis of Census data, we estimate that about 10 percent of voters nationwide cast their circumstances differed under which voters in different states were allowed to vote by a mail-in absentee ballot, the basic steps in the process were similar. As seen in figure 23, the basic process of mail-in absentee voting includes the following steps: Registered voter applies for a mail-in absentee ballot. Local election officials review the applications and, if the voter meets the established requirements, sends the voter a mail-in absentee ballot. The voter votes and returns the ballot in accordance with any administrative requirements (such as providing a signature or other information on the ballot/return envelope, often referred to as the affidavit envelope). Local election officials or poll workers review the information on the ballot/return (i.e., affidavit) envelope and subsequently “qualify” or “disqualify” the ballot for counting based on compliance with administrative requirements, such as signatures. The manner in which registered voters were to apply, how frequently they were to apply, and when they were to apply to vote a mail-in absentee ballot varies based on state requirements. Depending on these requirements, registered voters may fax, call, write, or visit their local election official to obtain an application or learn what information is required to request a mail-in absentee ballot. All jurisdictions we visited had a standard state or jurisdiction application form available from local election officials for registered voters to obtain a mail-in absentee ballot. Figure 24 shows an example of the application forms used. In addition, several states we visited allowed voters to apply for an absentee ballot by using a variety of other means, such as a letter or telegram sent to local election officials. In addition, some jurisdictions have a variety of application forms, which are used based on the circumstances under which voters qualify to vote by a mail-in absentee ballot. In addition to providing absentee ballot applications in response to voter’s requests, some jurisdictions made absentee ballot applications available at voter registration locations, such as state motor vehicle licensing and public service agencies, and other public locations, such as libraries. Mail- in absentee ballot applications were also available on-line in many states. For example, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas all have state election Web sites that provide mail-in absentee ballot request forms, which can be downloaded, printed, and returned to the appropriate local election office by mail, fax, or in person. See figure 25 for an example of a mail-in application form available on a local jurisdiction’s Web site. Some local election officials took an even more proactive approach to providing applications for mail-in absentee voting. For example, elections officials in one large jurisdiction sent an absentee voting application and a letter explaining the procedures for absentee voting to all registered voters who were eligible to vote absentee, so that they did not need to request an application. These included registrants who were 60 or older, disabled, or poll workers who would not be working in their precinct on election day. As another example, all California jurisdictions sent every registered voter an absentee ballot application as part of their sample ballot package. Since California does not require an excuse to vote absentee, registered voters who wished to vote in this manner simply needed to complete the application and return it to their local elections office. State requirements varied regarding how frequently a voter had to apply for a mail-in absentee ballot. Depending upon the state, voters may have been required to apply for each election in which they wished to vote by mail, apply once for all or certain elections held during a year, or apply for “permanent” absentee status, in which a mail-in ballot is automatically sent for at least 5 years or for all future elections until the voters request to have their absentee status revoked. appendix V provides a summary of the state statutory provisions permitting permanent mail-in absentee voting. As shown in appendix V, voters may have to meet certain state qualifications, such as permanent disability, to qualify for a permanent mail-in absentee ballot application. For example, in New York and California, a person could apply for permanent absentee voter status due to a permanent illness or disability by checking a box on the absentee ballot application. However, in Washington, for example, no excuse was needed for permanent absentee status. In the jurisdiction we visited in this state, about 50 percent of the registered voters were permanent absentee voters, and absentee ballots represented about 62 percent of all ballots cast in the November 2000 general election Differences existed in state statutory requirements regarding the deadline for requesting a mail-in absentee ballot. In the states we visited, the deadline for returning completed mail-in absentee ballot applications ranged from 1 day to 7 days before the election. Some states, such as California and Colorado, had a procedure for registered voters to obtain an emergency ballot after the deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot had passed. To exercise this option, voters were required to have a circumstance that came up after the absentee application period had closed that prevented them from voting at their precincts on election day. For example, Illinois has a strict set of criteria for emergency voting. Under one circumstance, a voter admitted to the hospital not more than 5 days before the election is entitled to personal delivery of a ballot if a doctor signs an affidavit attesting that the voter will not be released on or before election day. Once local election officials receive mail-in absentee ballot applications or requests, they are to review them to determine if they meet state requirements for mail-in absentee voting. These requirements may include whether the applicant is a registered voter, the application includes all the information required (e.g., applicant’s signature, witness), and the applicant meets the state’s approved eligibility requirements for absentee voting. If all the required information is not provided on the application (such as name, address, birth date, and/or voter signature), most jurisdictions we visited had standard letters that were to be sent to voters requesting them to provide the missing information. In one jurisdiction, election officials said that state law requires that all jurisdictions in the state notify applicants of the status of their request, particularly if they are unable to process it. In contrast, election officials in a very large jurisdiction stated that they do not provide any feedback to applicants with problem applications, unless the voters contact them regarding the their application’s status. Officials from another very large jurisdiction stated that, when applications were missing information, the officials would send out the absentee ballot along with a request for the applicants to provide the missing information with the absentee ballot, rather than delay when the voter receives their ballot. However, officials from most other jurisdictions we visited stated they would not send voters their absentee ballot until the voters had provided all the required application information. In addition, officials from most jurisdictions stated that they only provide feedback to the applicants if there is a problem with the applications. Otherwise, the voters received the absentee ballots, once they were available, as their confirmation that their request was received. Election officials in several jurisdictions stated that they attempted to make more direct contact with voters as the application deadline approached. For example, election officials in both small and very large jurisdictions said they attempted to contact voters regarding problems with their applications by telephone if there was insufficient time to allow for a letter to be sent. However, election officials in one medium-sized jurisdiction said that they did not attempt to contact any voters by telephone because they would only take such actions or provide such assistance that they could provide to all voters, not just some portion of them. In contrast, an election official in one large jurisdiction personally resolved problem applications. For example, this official drove to a nursing home before the November 2000 general election to obtain a signature on a mail absentee ballot application from a 99-year-old woman whose daughter had mistakenly signed the application. Officials in November 2000 faced a variety of challenges in successfully processing applications for mail-in absentee ballots, including voter errors and voter’s not understanding the process, late applications, and workload difficulties. Local jurisdiction officials described voters’ failure to provide critical information, such as a signature and/or valid residence or mailing addresses, as a principal challenge to successfully processing applications. On the basis of our telephone survey nationwide, we estimate that 47 percent of jurisdictions encountered problems with voters failing to properly complete their applications, such as providing a signature; 44 percent of jurisdictions encountered problems with voters failing to provide an adequate voting residence address; and 39 percent of jurisdictions encountered problems with voters failing to provide an adequate mailing address. We estimate that 47 percent of jurisdictions nationwide experienced W ti problems with voters not properly completing applications, such as not providing a signature. We also estimate that 39 and 44 percent of jurisdictions had problems with voters failing to provide adequate mailing or voting residence addresses, respectively. In addition, jurisdictions faced challenges with voters who did not fully understand the mail-in absentee voting process. For example, on the basis of our telephone survey of jurisdictions, we estimate that 51 percent of jurisdictions nationwide encountered problems processing applications because citizens did not register to vote before applying for a mail-in absentee ballot. Also, local election officials said that political parties in one large jurisdiction sent all their members forms to request absentee ballot applications. After some voters filled out the forms and then received absentee ballot applications, they called the local elections office to tell them they did not want to vote absentee. In another jurisdiction, some voters sent in more than one ballot application for themselves. We estimate that 51 percent of jurisdictions nationwide experienced W ti problems processing applications because citizens did not register to vote before applying for a mail-in absentee ballot. In addition, jurisdictions experienced problems with receiving applications after the deadline. We estimate that 54 percent of jurisdictions nationwide experienced problems with receiving applications late. An official in a medium-sized jurisdiction stated that their "primary difficulty in absentee voting is getting voters to respond in a timely fashion to meet mailing deadlines.” We estimate that 54 percent of jurisdictions nationwide experienced W ti problems with receiving late applications. We estimate that local election officials nationwide received about 14.5 million applications for absentee mail-in ballots (plus or minus 3 million) for the November 2000 general election. As seen in figure 26, the number of absentee ballot applications can result in large volumes of absentee ballot packages being mailed to voters. Election officials in both small and large jurisdictions said they considered processing applications a workload challenge for their staff. For example, election officials in a very large jurisdiction stated that they received over 640,000 applications for absentee ballots. Officials in a large jurisdiction, as a result of applications received, sent out about an average of 2,000 absentee ballots each day for several weeks before the election. Officials from a small jurisdiction stated that processing absentee voting materials was time-consuming and expensive, and expressed concerns that they would face significant challenges if the number of absentee ballot applications increased. In addition, several local election officials specifically mentioned the large number of absentee ballot applications received the day of the absentee ballot application deadline, particularly the increased volume of faxed absentee ballot applications received on the last day to be an administrative challenge. Officials from two very large jurisdictions specifically mentioned that they hoped their recently instituted early voting programs would reduce the number of voters using mail-in absentee ballots and, thereby, reduce the workload burden and other challenges in processing mail-in absentee applications. In addition, some of the jurisdictions that we visited had deadlines for absentee ballot applications that were very close to election day—as little as 1 to 5 days before election day. Such jurisdictions faced challenges in ensuring that all ballot applications received by the deadline could be processed and the ballots mailed back to voters with sufficient time for the ballots to be voted and returned. Some officials from such jurisdictions expressed doubt that voters would be able to return their ballots by the election night deadline if they received the ballots 5 days or less before the deadline. For example, one jurisdiction had an mail-in absentee application deadline of the Saturday before election day, clearly a short amount of time to mail the voter the ballot and have it returned by election night. To address these deadline issues, some officials stated that they used overnight mail to speed up ballot distribution as the deadline approached. When allowed by state law, some jurisdictions also encouraged voters, at their own expense, to return voted ballots by overnight mail. In addition, several local election officials indicated that their states were considering legislative changes, such as allowing more time between primaries and general elections, to provide for more time for the mail-in absentee process. Once local election officials obtained any additional needed information and approved the application, they mailed an absentee ballot to the registered voter. Once registered voters receive their absentee ballots, it was their responsibility to vote and return their ballot. As on election day, the type of voting methods used for mail-in absentee voting varied from one jurisdiction to another, even within the same state. We estimate that most jurisdictions nationwide used either optical scan or W ti paper ballots for mail-in absentee voting. Nationwide, for the November 2000 general election, we estimate that over half of the local jurisdictions, about 61 percent, used the same method for mail-in absentee voting as they used on election day for the November 2000 general election. Moreover, we estimate that 89 percent of jurisdictions nationwide that used election day methods that lent themselves to mail-in voting (i.e., punch card, optical scan, and paper ballots) used the same voting equipment for both types of voting. Overall most jurisdictions nationwide used either optical scan or paper ballots for mail-in absentee voting during the November 2000 general election. Specifically, as seen in figure 27, nationwide for mail-in absentee voting, we estimate the following: about 44 percent of election jurisdictions used optical scan ballots; about 45 percent of election jurisdictions used paper ballots; and about 13 percent of election jurisdictions used punch card ballots. Some jurisdictions using either punch card or paper ballots as of November 2000 indicated that they are considering or have already made plans to change to optical scan ballots for mail-in absentee voting. One jurisdiction indicated that it was keeping its punch card equipment for mail-in absentee ballots, but was planning to change to a styrofoam-backed ballot to reduce the occurrence of pregnant or dimpled chads. For more information regarding characteristics of these voting methods, see chapter 1 of this report. In addition to voting the ballot, absentee voters must complete additional information on the ballot or return envelope, often referred to as the affidavit envelope, in accordance with their state’s administrative requirements. Typically, the absentee voter’s signature, and, possibly, name and address, were required on the absentee ballot or return envelope. In addition, as shown in appendix V, in an effort to ensure that the appropriate person completes the ballot, five states require that the voter’s signature be witnessed; one state requires that the signature be notarized; and seven states require that the statement be witnessed or notarized. Frequently, the voted ballot was to be sealed within a series of envelopes. For example, as seen in figure 28, the ballot was to be sealed within a secrecy envelope. The secrecy envelope containing the ballot was to be subsequently sealed in the return envelope on which the voter was to provide the required administrative identifying information (e.g., signature). In some jurisdictions, the entire package is then further sealed in an additional envelope provided by the election office in which to return the ballot. Once the ballot and accompanying materials are completed, the voters are to return their voted ballots to their local election jurisdiction’s office. State requirements vary regarding the manner in which absentee ballots may be returned. Some states, such as Oklahoma and Texas, required that these ballots only be returned by mail, and other states, such as New York and New Mexico, allowed the voter return the voted ballot by personally delivering it. In addition, some states we visited, such as Michigan, Illinois, and California, allowed for the voted ballot and accompanying materials to be delivered in person by the voter or by a family member of the voter to the local elections office and/or the voter’s precinct on election day. In an effort to ensure integrity of the process, some states require the voter to provide written authorization in order for the family member to deliver the ballot. By contrast, California allows any authorized representative to return a voter’s absentee ballot during the last 7 days of an election, up to and including election day. State deadlines for receiving absentee ballots from civilians living within the United States range from the Friday before election day to 10 days after election day. However, as seen in figure 29, most states require absentee ballots to be returned no later than election day, unless the voter meets certain special circumstances, such as being in the active military or residing overseas. In the nine states and the District of Columbia where a mail-in absentee ballot may be returned after election day, all but one required the envelopes to be postmarked on or before election day. See appendix V for each state’s specific deadlines for receiving mail-in absentee ballots. Several local election officials recommended that a standard, nationwide deadline for receiving mail-in absentee ballots should be set for federal elections. In some jurisdiction election officials stated that they consider postal problems a significant challenge for mail-in absentee voting within the United States. Generally, these jurisdictions reported that they had experienced some problems with postal deliveries and/or the priority given to the delivery of election and balloting materials, such as applications. However, officials expressed fewer concerns about postal delivery and timeliness in the jurisdictions we visited for domestic delivery than for overseas delivery. In one jurisdiction, election officials said that election day was designated as a holiday and, as such, they had trouble receiving mail delivery of absentee ballots on election day, the last day they could be received. Officials from a very large jurisdiction reported that, generally, postal delivery problems do not occur repeatedly in the same area of their jurisdiction. However, one jurisdiction reported consistent delivery delays after the U.S. Postal Service centralized its operations. Election officials worked with the Postal Service to mitigate this problem. Several other election officials provided additional examples of having worked closely with the local Postal Service offices to develop workable solutions regarding delivery and timeliness issues. In many jurisdictions we visited, absentee voting materials were printed in colored or specially marked envelopes to assist Postal Service employees in identifying and facilitating delivery. Rather than waiting for postal delivery, several other jurisdictions sent election employees to local post offices several times a day to pick up absentee ballots as the deadline approached and/or arrived. In addition, officials at some locations we contacted had suggestions for changes in their procedures to mitigate postal delivery challenges. For example, on official suggested requiring additional information on the voter’s absentee ballot application, such as an e-mail address and/or a telephone number, to facilitate processing applications with incomplete information, rather than having to rely solely on correspondence through the Postal Service. In addition, some jurisdictions allowed voters to use overnight mail, at their own expense, to return voted absentee ballots, which was particularly useful to voters as the deadline approached. Other jurisdictions stated that they were required by state law to only accept ballots through mail delivery by the U.S. Postal Service. Some of these officials agreed that a change in state laws allowing receipt of absentee ballots from overnight carriers, at the voter's expense, would be helpful in addressing the problem of absentee ballots from some voters that arrive too late to be counted. Generally, jurisdictions pay for postage-related costs for mail-in absentee voting, such as the costs to mail ballot applications and ballots to voters. As deadlines approached, some jurisdictions even incurred overnight delivery costs in an attempt to provide absentee balloting materials to voters in a timely fashion. Voters often must pay for the postage to return applications and ballots to local election offices. Some local election officials expressed concerns regarding growing postal costs to provide election-related materials, such as absentee applications and ballots, to voters. From our mail survey, we estimate that about half of the jurisdictions nationwide (54 percent) would like for the federal government to assist them with postage for election related materials. As another alternative, several election officials suggested having special postage rates for election related materials, particularly absentee balloting materials. In some instances, states have begun to assume all or some of the postage costs for absentee voting materials for statewide elections. In addition, some jurisdiction officials said that they provided voters with postage-paid return envelopes for absentee ballots. In some instances, these envelopes were provided through fiscal support from the state. Other officials suggested that they would like to provide such services to voters but did not have the funds to be able to do so. One jurisdiction official stated that the state or federal government should, at a minimum, assume the costs incurred by voters to return absentee ballots by mail, which could be interpreted, in his opinion, as a poll tax. Further, a few jurisdiction officials commented that U.S. Armed Forces personnel and overseas citizens do not have to pay postage to return their voted absentee ballots in some jurisdictions and questioned whether this service should be extended to all voters. Election officials in two jurisdictions said that, although the jurisdictions indicated the required postage in the corner of the return envelope, they would assume the costs if the voter did not pay. In addition to mail-in absentee voting, some jurisdictions have conducted entire elections by mail. The state of Oregon conducted its first general election using all voting by mail in November 2000. All registered voters in the state were mailed a ballot and allowed to return the ballots by election day through the mail, or by personally delivering them to the elections office or various manned, drop-off sites located throughout the jurisdiction. Oregon reported some increases in voter turnout for the November 2000 general election as well as other statewide elections. For example, voter turnout in an all vote-by-mail primary in 1995 rose to 52 percent, up from 43 percent previously. In a vote-by-mail special election for U.S. Senator, voter turnout was 65 percent, representing a record for special elections. In addition, some jurisdictions have conducted all voting by mail for certain elections or in certain precincts in which the number of registered voters are very small. While jurisdictions have procedures to address certain potentials for fraud in mail-in absentee voting, some local election officials expressed concerns regarding their ability to fully address this issue, particularly regarding an absentee voter being unduly influenced or intimidated while voting. Based on our telephone survey of jurisdictions, we estimate that less than 1 to 5 percent of jurisdictions nationwide experienced special problems with absentee voting fraud during recent elections. In general, absentee voting fraud concerns tend to fall into three categories, including (1) someone other than the appropriate voter casting the mail-in absentee ballot, (2) absentee voters voting more than once, and (3) voters being intimidated or unduly influenced while voting the mail-in absentee ballot. Local election jurisdictions use a number of procedures to ensure the appropriate voter completes a mail-in absentee ballot. For example, from GAO’s telephone survey of jurisdictions, we estimate that nationwide 55 percent of the voting jurisdictions check a voter’s signature on the absentee ballot materials with the signature originally provided on the voter’s registration documents (as illustrated in figure 30); 55 percent of jurisdictions check a voter’s signature on the absentee ballot materials with the signature originally provided on the application for a mail-in absentee ballot; and/or 36 percent of jurisdictions require a voter’s signature on the absentee ballot materials to be witnessed or notarized. All of the jurisdictions we visited used either one of these or other procedures, and most jurisdiction officials did not identify this type of fraud as a major concern. In particular, Oregon officials expressed confidence in their procedures designed to reduce the potential for someone other than the registered voter voting the mailed ballot. Oregon officials compared signatures on mailed ballot materials to voter registration materials. The officials said that this signature comparison provides even greater security against this type of fraud than many jurisdictions’ election day procedures in which voters may not have to show identification or have their signatures checked before casting a ballot. However, even with the described procedures in place, a few jurisdiction officials said that they ultimately have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that only the appropriate person requests and casts an absentee mail ballot. Likewise, local election jurisdictions in November 2000 employed several procedures to prevent voters from voting more than once. From GAO’s telephone survey of jurisdictions, we estimate that, before election day, 64 percent of jurisdictions nationwide checked the absentee ballot applications against their voter records to determine whether a voter had previously applied for a mail-in ballot for that election before providing a voter an absentee ballot. On election day, we estimate that 78 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide checked election day poll books, lists, or logs to determine whether a voter had requested, been sent, or already voted an absentee ballot. For example, as seen in figure 31, one jurisdiction used bar coding on mail-in absentee applications to identify voters who have been sent absentee mail ballot packages. This information is to be scanned into the system used to generate election day poll books, so that voters who have been sent a mail-in absentee ballot can be identified if they attempt to vote on election day. We also estimate that 46 percent of jurisdictions nationwide checked absentee ballots received against election day poll books, lists, or logs to determine if an absentee voter voted on election day before counting the absentee ballot. In addition, we estimate that 10 percent of jurisdictions nationwide employ other methods to ensure an absentee voter only votes once during an election. For example, poll workers on election day can check on-line database containing absentee voting information to verify that voters had not voted before election day. All of the jurisdictions we visited used either one of these or other procedures, and most jurisdiction officials did not identify this type of fraud as a major concern. Officials from some jurisdictions stated that a potential for abuse continues to exist with mail-in voting through voters possibly being intimidated or unduly influenced in their homes when casting their mail-in ballot. This more general fraud concern is, to some extent, inherent in the process and, thus, more difficult to address and causes more concern among some officials. For example, an election official from one very large jurisdiction stated he experienced a situation with absentee ballot fraud allegations during a recent local election. He was informed that people were going door-to-door in low-income neighborhoods to obtain and complete absentee ballot applications and ballots. Because of these types of allegations, he stated that absentee voting by mail is the area that concerns him the most about the elections process. Generally, he said these problems are more likely to occur in smaller elections, such as primaries or local elections, where such efforts have the greatest potential to have an effect on the actual outcome of the election. However, smaller elections, such as primaries, can still have significant impacts on the outcome of general elections in certain circumstances for certain races. This official stated that, at a minimum, he would like to see state law designate people’s homes as polling places while they are completing their absentee ballot. This type of law would make electioneering illegal while a person is casting his or her mail absentee ballot. In addition, one jurisdiction officials stated that political parties attempt to increase turn out for their party by sending ballot applications to voters directly. These efforts result in the election officials not knowing for certain who filled out the application and, subsequently, the ballot, or if it was even completed per the voter’s wishes. Besides the general procedures for preventing mail-in absentee fraud, a number of jurisdictions have taken specific measures to prevent such abuses in high-risk places, like nursing homes. For example, several jurisdictions send a team of election workers, at times consisting of members from both major parties, to nursing homes to give out ballots, assist voters, and deliver the voted ballots back to the elections office. Another location placed restrictions on the number of absentee ballots that a single person could sign as a witness. One election official in a small jurisdiction stated that she personally knows and has provided specific training to the nursing home employees who witness and assist nursing home patients in voting. In addition, in almost all of jurisdictions we visited, the mail-in absentee ballot package provided to voters included statements and/or reminders, such as within the oath or other materials, regarding the possible legal consequences of providing inaccurate or fraudulent information on the balloting materials. Several jurisdiction officials commented that, in the few instances in which they identify or suspect mail-in absentee voter fraud, they refer the case to the local district attorney’s office for possible prosecution. Although states establish the requirements for qualifying mail-in absentee ballots to be counted, local election officials must implement and, at times, interpret these requirements. Most frequently, election officials disqualify mail-in absentee ballots due to voter error in completing the balloting materials or the ballots arriving after the deadline. However, due to differences in procedures and requirements, the likelihood that voters’ errors in completing and returning mail-in ballots will result in their ballots being disqualified varies, even, in some instances, among jurisdictions within the same state. In addition, this qualification process results in local election officials facing similar workload challenges in processing mail-in absentee ballots as they faced in reviewing applications. Generally, once the election officials receive the absentee ballots, the ballots were to be secured until state requirements allow the officials to review them. As with many other aspects of voting, the process for qualifying absentee ballots for counting varied across voting jurisdictions, even within the same state. In some jurisdictions, absentee ballots are reviewed centrally by election officials or special absentee voting boards. In other jurisdictions, absentee ballots are sent to the precincts in which the voters would have voted on election day and reviewed by poll workers. Regardless of who conducts this effort, the accompanying documents (e.g., affidavit envelopes) are reviewed to determine whether all the required information is complete and state requirements are met. Absentee ballots may be disqualified from the count for a number of reasons. For example, as seen in figure 32, the voter may have failed to appropriately sign the affidavit or ballot envelope, or provide other information as required by the jurisdiction. Absentee ballots may also be disqualified if the jurisdiction receives them after the deadline. While the states establish the requirements for mail-in absentee voting, local jurisdictions’ interpretation of the requirements and the resulting practices may vary within the same state—with some jurisdictions holding strictly to the letter of the law, and others applying more flexibility in qualifying ballots. The following examples demonstrate this variety: In one state, officials in three counties said that they accepted any ballot that showed a signature anywhere or return envelope to compare with registration documentation, although officials in two other counties disqualified any ballot when the envelope did not strictly meet all the technical requirements. In another state, officials in two jurisdictions told us that there is no discretion in accepting ballots—either they meet the technical requirements completely or they do not meet them and are not accepted. On the other hand, officials in another jurisdiction told us that if a returned ballot envelope lacked some information, such as an address, that is available on the return address, the ballot would be accepted. In another state, officials in one jurisdiction strictly followed the ballot receipt deadline and did not count any absentee mail ballots received after the Friday before election day. In contrast, officials in another jurisdiction told us that ballots received after Friday but before 8:00 PM on election day were counted. We estimate that less than 2 percent of the total mail-in absentee ballots received for the November 2000 election were disqualified; about two-thirds were disqualified because the ballots arrived late or because the envelopes or forms accompanying the ballots not being properly completed, such as having missing or incorrect voters' signatures. As with processing absentee ballot applications, officials from several jurisdictions cited voter error in completing absentee balloting materials, such as envelopes, as a major problem. States do not routinely collect and report data on the number of mail-in absentee ballots that are disqualified. We estimate that 230,000 (plus or minus 50,000) absentee ballots were disqualified nationwide in the November 2000 election and that the national disqualification rate for absentee ballots was 1.7 percent. We estimate that 64 percent of all disqualified absentee ballots were rejected because the ballots arrived late or the envelopes or forms accompanying the ballots were not completed properly (e.g., missing the voter’s signature or containing an incorrect voter’s signature). Another 35 percent were rejected for one of the following reasons: no postmark or date; late postmark or date; voter not registered or not qualified; improper witness, attestation, or notarization; a previous vote in the election; and other. In general and as with absentee ballot applications, the principal challenges to successfully processing absentee ballots, according to local officials, are caused by voters’ failure to provide critical information. The errors include such things as the ballot envelope lacking a voter’s signature, witness’ signature and/or notarization, or the voter not providing a valid address within the local jurisdiction. For example, in one very large jurisdiction about one-third of the ballots disqualified were because the voter’s signature was missing or the envelope was improperly completed. In addition, election officials in one jurisdiction estimated that about 80 percent of the ballots disqualified were due to being returned after the deadline. The other major challenge the officials mentioned was receiving the ballot after the required deadline. Some jurisdictions have attempted to address problems with voters returning ballots unsigned or otherwise incomplete. In California, a number of counties have begun to put brightly colored stickers with arrows pointing to the signature line or fluorescent colored inserts reminding the voter to sign the envelope. In addition, in several jurisdictions election officials pre-print labels on the absentee ballot envelopes to minimize the amount of information the voter has to provide. Officials from the counties taking these steps reported a reduced number of voters submitting unsigned or incomplete absentee ballots. In a further effort to address these challenges, one large jurisdiction implemented a project for the November 2000 general election in which trained volunteers physically took unsigned absentee ballot envelopes, with the ballots still enclosed, to the voters to obtain their signatures. This reduced the number of unsigned ballots from 500 in previous general elections to 50 in November 2000. In addition, to obtain a necessary signature, one jurisdiction indicated that it returned unsigned mail-in absentee ballot envelopes, with the ballots still enclosed, to the voters through the mail, when time allowed before the deadline. Other jurisdictions said that they are considering doing so as well. Furthermore, our telephone survey results indicated that notifying voters about whether their ballots were received and counted was not a standard practice. We estimate that 29 percent of jurisdictions nationwide notified absentee voters when their ballots are disqualified and, in so doing, provided the reason for the disqualification. Several of the jurisdictions we visited stated that they are required by state law to notify voters whose mail-in absentee ballots were disqualified. These jurisdictions often use a standard letter to do so, which details the reasoning behind the disqualification. This feedback represents one way in which election officials can educate voters regarding proper completion of the mail-in absentee balloting materials. We estimate that 29 percent of jurisdictions nationwide notified absentee W ti voters when their ballots were disqualified and, in so doing, provided the reason for the disqualification. In addition, some election officials said that they plan to begin maintaining data on the number of disqualified mail-in absentee ballots, the reason for the disqualification, and the type of absentee voter (e.g., military, overseas civilian, domestic civilian) whose ballot is being disqualified. Election officials stated that they had not previously tracked this data because they were not required to report this data to their state elections office. Each of the millions of mail-in absentee ballots received by local election officials had to be qualified before being counted. We estimate that nationwide local election officials received about 13 million mail-in absentee ballots (plus or minus 2.7 million) for the November 2000 general election. Officials from several local election jurisdictions considered the mail-in absentee voting process a challenge because of the workload involved in reviewing the sheer volume of ballots. For example, officials from one very large jurisdiction stated that the sheer volume of mail-in ballots received creates a greater potential for errors. Once mail-in absentee ballots are qualified, the ballots are counted. After the November 2000 general election, some voters expressed doubt that local jurisdictions count absentee ballots at all if they would not change the outcome of the election, especially if they were received during extended deadlines after election day. On the basis of our telephone survey, we estimate that between 98 and 100 percent of counties nationwide include absentee ballots in their certified vote totals. All officials in each of the counties we visited confirmed that all ballots are included in certified totals, although ballots arriving during extended deadlines may not be included in totals announced on election night. The process for counting absentee ballots varies across voting jurisdictions. As with qualifying the ballot, some jurisdictions counted absentee ballots centrally by election officials or special absentee voting boards, while others had absentee ballots counted by poll workers at the voters’ respective precincts. For more information on the counting of absentee ballots, see chapter 5 of this report. Crucial to the successful casting of mail-in absentee ballots is the voter’s knowledge of application and casting, such as necessary signatures and deadlines. Although voters have the ultimate responsibility for understanding and complying with state and local requirements for mail-in absentee voting, the process is complicated. If absentee voters did not fully understand and, subsequently, comply with the absentee voting requirements in their state, their votes may not have been counted. Thus, for each election, local election officials said they needed to educate voters regarding how and when to cast a valid mail-in absentee ballot. The information officials needed to provide to voters included deadlines for submitting applications and ballots, any requirements that registrants must meet to vote the mail-in absentee ballot, how often the registrants must apply for an absentee ballot, and any administrative requirements, such as signatures and witnesses. Local election officials used a variety of means to provide this necessary information. Almost all local election offices we visited prepared press releases and/or asked the media to inform the public how and when to vote absentee by mail. Several locations we visited had informational fliers developed by the state or local jurisdictions, which were provided to voters on request or were available at local election offices, voter registration locations (e.g., motor licensing agencies), or public offices (e.g., libraries). Some jurisdictions relied on various organizations, such as political parties and other election watchdog organizations, to inform their respective constituents on the requirements concerning absentee voting. In addition, the officials in one jurisdiction we visited appealed directly to its eligible absentee voters to encourage them to vote an absentee ballot in the November 2000 general election. These officials believed that the November 2000 ballot in their jurisdiction was particularly complex and decided it would be beneficial for their eligible absentee voters, particularly those over age 62, to vote an absentee ballot rather than trying to vote the ballot at their precincts. In addition, most states and many counties had Web sites that provided information on mail-in absentee voting. Generally, these Web sites had very detailed information regarding mail-in absentee voting, including information on the requirements, how to apply, what information is required in completing the absentee voting application, the deadline for applying, and how often an application has to be completed. Some Web sites even include an absentee ballot application, which can be printed and mailed to the appropriate local election office. Voter educational materials provided on or with the mail-in absentee applications and/or ballots from the jurisdictions we visited contained instructions and/or information necessary for voters to successfully obtain and cast an absentee ballot. Some jurisdictions also included a number of user-friendly, reminders and notices to assist absentee voters in properly completing their absentee ballots and envelopes. For example, some jurisdictions, in addition to providing instructions on how to mark the ballot, provided absentee voters with reminders and additional notices highlighting information that was key to successfully completing and returning the absentee ballot. These notices included reminding voters to use a number two pencil on an optical scan ballot (or even providing the pencil), seal their ballots in the secrecy envelopes, and sign the appropriate envelope. Several election officials made or planned changes to improve voter education on mail absentee voting, such as clarifying or simplifying voter instructions in absentee mail materials. Although a variety of methods is used to provide necessary information for voters to vote by mail-in absentee, we estimate that only 15 percent of jurisdictions nationwide actively sought feedback from voters regarding the absentee process, based on our mail survey of jurisdictions, for the November 2000 general election. Thirty-nine States and the District of Columbia Allow In-Person Programs Differ, but Challenges Similar to Election Day Voter Education Efforts Vary Between Jurisdictions There is no clear distinction in state statute between in-person absentee and early voting. Basically, these programs offer voters the opportunity to obtain and cast a ballot in person during a certain period of time prior to election day. However, the length of the early or in-person voting period, location(s) at which voters may vote, and statutory requirements and paperwork required to vote in-person absentee or early differ among states. For example, in-person absentee voters generally must complete an application before voting similar to voters that vote mail-in absentee ballots, while early voters are not always required to do so. Generally, local election officials were comfortable with their procedures to ensure that an early or in-person voter only voted once during an election. However, election officials still faced several challenges similar to those encountered on election day when conducting in-person absentee and early voting, such as having adequate staffing, supplies (including ballots), and locations for voting. For the November 2000 general election, in addition to mail-in absentee ballots, over three-quarters of the states and the District of Columbia allowed some or all registered voters to obtain and cast ballots in person before election day. We estimate that about 4 percent of voters cast their ballots this way for the November 2000 general election. It is difficult to differentiate between in-person absentee and early voting programs in state statutes. As with mail-in absentee voting, states may or may not require voters to provide a reason or excuse for casting an absentee ballot in person. Most frequently, in-person absentee voting programs allow voters to obtain their ballot, complete any paperwork required, and vote their absentee ballot at their local election office. For example, in one jurisdiction in Virginia, in- person absentee voting is conducted at the local election jurisdiction’s office during normal business hours during the 45 days before the election. To cast an in-person absentee ballot, registered voters were to go to the office and complete an in-person absentee application on which they provide one of several reasons or excuses defined in state statute. These reasons could include being a student at an institution of higher learning, being absent for business or vacation, being unable to go to their precinct due to illness, having a religious obligation, working 11 of the 13 hours the polling precincts are open, or being a caretaker of a confined family member. During the visit, election officials approve the application and give the applicant a ballot, which the voter casts before leaving the office. Thus, to vote in-person absentee in Virginia, registered voters must go to their local election office, complete an application, and meet certain requirements (i.e., provide an excuse). Some states also have initiated “early voting” as a unique form of in-person voting in which local election jurisdictions may establish one or, possibly, several polling places a number of days before election day where any voter may cast their vote in person without having to provide an excuse. Voters were not required to cast their ballot at a particular polling place; rather, registered voters can vote at whatever location is most convenient for them. For example, in Texas, local jurisdictions are allowed to establish several “early voting” polling places at schools, libraries, shopping malls, or other locations that essentially function in the same manner as any election day polling place. Election workers staffed these early voting locations for each day they were open and, generally, followed whatever voting procedures would be used on election day. For example, voters at these early voting locations show up and vote their ballots without having to fill out an application, provide a reason for voting early, or complete any additional paperwork or provide any information other than what would normally be required on election day. Thus, to vote early in Texas, registered voters may be allowed to vote at any of several early voting locations, do not have complete an application, and do not have to meet any requirements (i.e., provide an excuse). In the November 2000 general election, in one jurisdiction in Texas, about 44 percent of the ballots were cast by voters at early voting locations, representing about a 10-percent increase from the previous presidential election in 1996. As seen in figure 33, 39 states and the District of Columbia have developed various types of early and in-person voting programs, some of which are more similar to the Texas and Colorado programs and others closer to the Virginia program. For example, California and Arkansas, allow in-person, early voting without a reason or excuse, which may be conducted at more than one location; however, both states require early voters to complete an application before voting—an additional step that is not required on election day nor at early voting locations in Texas and Colorado. Other states, such as North Carolina and New Mexico, allow for no-excuse, early voting in person, but only at the local election jurisdictions’ offices; these states also require voters to apply to vote early. There is no clear distinction in state statute between in-person absentee voting and early voting. However, in effect, in-person absentee voting and early voting programs stretch an election from a single day into an election period ranging from 1 to over 40 days. In-person absentee and early voting programs vary considerably from one state to another. Variations include the number and type of locations at which this type of voting is conducted, duration of the in-person or early voting period, and voting methods used. However, local election officials faced many of the same challenges in administering their in-person and early voting programs. These challenges, such as obtaining sufficient poll workers, ballots and supplies, and locations, were similar to the challenges faced in administering election day voting. The location(s) and time periods in which voters may cast in-person absentee or early ballots differ based on the requirements established by each state. The number of locations vary from one to an unspecified number to be established at the discretion of local election officials. For example, in one very large jurisdiction in Texas, 25 early voting locations were established throughout the jurisdiction for the November 2000 general election. The in-person absentee and early voting period also varies, ranging from 1 day to 45 days before election day. Appendix V summarizes the various in-person absentee and early voting programs established in state statutes as of July 2001. In addition to differences among states, in-person absentee and early voting may even vary from one jurisdiction to another within the same state. For example, in Texas, larger jurisdictions may establish numerous early voting locations, such as at schools and libraries, which are open for extended hours, even some weekends. In contrast, smaller jurisdictions may hold early voting only at the local election official’s office during regular business hours. We estimate that most jurisdictions used optical scan or paper ballots for in-person absentee and early voting, as they do with mail-in absentee voting. As with the type of voting methods used for election day and mail-in absentee voting, the type of ballots used for in-person absentee or early voting also varies from one jurisdiction to another, even within the same state. Nationwide, we estimate that two-thirds of the local jurisdictions, about 67 percent, used the same method for in-person absentee and early voting as they used on election day for the November 2000 general election. We further estimate that most jurisdictions used either optical scan or paper ballots for in-person absentee or early voting during the November 2000 general election. Specifically, as seen in figure 34, we estimate that nationwide 42 percent of election jurisdictions used optical scan ballots; 35 percent of election jurisdictions used paper ballots; and 14 percent of election jurisdictions used punch card ballots. Unlike voting a mail-in absentee ballot, absentee in-person and early voting includes the use of DREs and lever equipment, which voters of a mail-in ballot could not use for logistical reasons. As seen in figure 34, we estimate that 14 percent of election jurisdictions used direct recording electronic machines, and 1 percent of election jurisdictions used lever machines for early or in-person absentee voting. Several election officials indicated that they are considering or planning to change to DRE equipment for early and/or in-person absentee voting. For more information regarding the characteristics of these voting methods, see chapter 1 of this report. Most jurisdictions we visited that allow early or in-person absentee voting at numerous voting locations, used a direct on-line, electronic link to their registration records to ensure an absentee in-person or early voter votes no more than once. Whether the early or in-person absentee voter is required to fill out an application and/or show a voter identification card is established by state law. In on jurisdiction, election officials or poll workers check the voter’s signature in the poll book or on the application against the registration record to confirm the voter’s identity. In some states, the voter’s voting record is checked to determine if he or she has voted previously in the election–even as recently as a few minutes earlier on the same day. For example, typically, in jurisdictions we visited that established more than one early voting location, once poll workers give a voter a ballot, the voter’s voting record was updated automatically on the registration or election management system to which all early voting locations had direct, on-line access. In addition, as with mail-in absentee voting, the poll books used on election day note every voter who has voted early. However, one jurisdiction we visited held early voting that ended on the day before election day. The election day poll books in this jurisdiction identified voters who had been sent a mail-in absentee ballot, but not early voters, because of the jurisdiction’s need to begin printing the books before the close of early voting. In this case, it is possible that an individual could have voted early and again on election day. However, these election officials said they track which registered voters have voted on their election management system by giving each voter credit for having voted during the election. According to election officials in this jurisdiction, after the election when they attempted to give voters credit for voting election day, their on-line election management system would alert them to any people casting two ballots because they had already been given credit for early voting. According to these officials, any cases of duplicate voting would have been provided to the district attorney’s office for possible prosecution. The officials said that in the few instances when this has occurred over the past 10 years, it was generally an older individual who was confused about the election process, rather than an individual intending to commit voter fraud. In our discussions with election officials about early and in-person absentee voting, the officials raised a number of challenges or concerns specific to this type of voting. The issues generally fell into three categories: obtaining poll workers, ballots and other supplies, and suitable early voting locations. Officials from several jurisdictions cited having difficulty obtaining and/or training the poll workers who were needed to work over the period required for early voting (as much as over 40 days). One jurisdiction said that they did not have enough staff to support early voting at the election office and conduct other election day preparations at the same time, especially in the days just before election day. In particular, election officials from one very large jurisdiction with numerous early voting locations stated that their biggest challenge for each election is obtaining sufficient staff to handle the number of voters who vote on the last day of the early voting period. In fact, the lines and waits for certain elections and locations have been longer for voters on the last day of early voting than on election day. Officials from a number of jurisdictions cited ensuring that early voting locations had enough ballots and supplies as a challenge. For example, one medium-sized jurisdiction in Texas that used a punch card voting method needed to have enough copies of every ballot style voted in their jurisdiction, at every satellite location, to support all the voters who could come in to vote, because voters are not assigned to a particular location like they are on election day. For the November 2000 general election, this included 26 different ballot styles. By contrast, two very large jurisdictions, which use a DRE touch screen voting method, had all the ballot types electronically stored within each unit, but still needed to have enough other election-related supplies to support their operations through the entire early voting period. Officials from a few jurisdictions had concerns with getting enough adequate polling locations, such as locations that were sufficiently large, had digital lines for electronically connecting to the registration system, and were conveniently located. For example, officials in one large jurisdiction stated that they had problems establishing early voting locations that were convenient to all voters, and that some early voting locations were too small for the crowds that came at peak times. Another challenge faced by jurisdictions that conduct early voting is the limited amount of time between finalizing and printing the ballots and accompanying materials. For example, in one jurisdiction early voting begins 17 days before election day. Thus, election officials essentially have 17 fewer days to prepare for elections. For each election, state and local election officials are to provide information to voters about when and where to vote early or absentee in- person, including the time during, dates on, and locations at which to vote, among other information. As with by-mail absentee voting, most jurisdictions we visited that offered in-person absentee or early voting prepared press releases and/or asked the media to inform the public when and where to vote early or absentee in-person. In addition, most states and/or counties had Web sites that provide information on such voting. In some jurisdictions, political parties and other election organizations provided information to voters on in-person absentee and early voting. In one very large jurisdiction, election officials, in conjunction with the vendor of the jurisdiction’s voting equipment, advertised their early voting program on a billboard at the juncture of the county’s two major freeways. In summary, election officials identified the following challenges in the absentee and early voting process: Preventing mail-in absentee voting fraud. Our telephone survey of jurisdictions and discussions with local election officials revealed that officials had established procedures to address certain potentials for fraud, such as someone other than the registered voter completing the ballot or voters casting more than one ballot in the same election. However, some mail-in absentee voting fraud concerns remained, particularly regarding absentee voters being unduly influenced or intimidated while voting. Addressing voter error issues, such as unsigned or otherwise incomplete application and ballot materials, and receiving late applications and ballots. Our telephone survey of jurisdictions and discussions with local election officials showed that voters’ failures to provide critical information, such as signatures and addresses, or jurisdictions receiving applications and ballots after state statutory deadlines represent principal challenges to successfully processing mail-in absentee applications and qualifying ballots for counting. Processing large numbers of mail-in absentee applications and ballots in a timely manner. Local election officials indicated that large volumes of mail-in absentee applications and ballots represent workload and administrative challenges. In particular, officials expressed concerns regarding the timely processing of applications received close to the deadlines and the enhanced potential for errors in processing large volumes of applications and ballots. In addition, officials identified some concerns with postal costs, delivery, and/or timeliness. However, officials expressed fewer concerns about postal delivery and timeliness for domestic delivery than for overseas delivery. Obtaining adequate staffing, supplies (including ballots), and locations for conducting early voting. As on the election day, local election officials indicated that the principal challenges in conducting in-person absentee and early voting were having enough workers and locations for the entire early voting period, as well as having all ballot styles available at a single location. Despite the numerous responsibilities that involve coordinating people, preparing and using voting technologies, and following election rules and processes, the behind-the-scenes efforts of election officials generally attract little public notice. Election officials ordinarily find themselves in the spotlight only when citizens experience difficulties on election day. Long lines at the polls, voters’ names missing from the registration lists, a complicated ballot, voting machine malfunctions preventing vote casting, or, as was the case in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, hotly contested election results, may focus public attention on the otherwise unnoticed details of election administration. This chapter describes those activities that election administration officials identified to us as important to planning and conducting an election. This chapter also outlines the challenges those officials encountered in the November 2000 election. Conducting an election involves activities that must be concluded prior to the election and on election day itself. As illustrated in figure 35, election officials are responsible for a wide range of activities, all necessary to ensure that all eligible citizens may freely cast their votes in private and have them counted in federal, state, and local elections. The ways that local jurisdictions perform what can be an enormously complicated civic duty vary widely across the country for several reasons. First, states have different laws and regulations that govern elections; some states exercise a relatively high degree of control over local elections while others allow local jurisdictions to operate with more autonomy. For example, some states have statewide election systems so that every voting jurisdiction uses the same procedures for administering elections, including registering voters, processing absentee ballots, using common voting equipment, and tallying votes. Oklahoma, for example, standardizes most aspects of local and statewide elections. In other states, local jurisdictions run elections with less direction from the state, which means local officials may exercise a larger degree of autonomy in conducting elections. For instance, in Pennsylvania, local election officials told us there are 67 counties and consequently 67 different ways of handling elections. Figure 36 illustrates these differences. Other states are somewhere in between Oklahoma and Pennsylvania on the continuum of greater to lesser state direction of local elections. Virginia, for example, requires local jurisdictions to follow many standardized election procedures, but leaves their implementation largely to local jurisdictions. Second, the type of voting technology used by a jurisdiction influences how election officials plan and conduct an election. Usually it is local election officials who choose the voting technology to be used in their precincts, often from a list of state certified options, but in some states, state law prescribes the use of common voting technology throughout the state. The types and uses of voting technology are extensively described in chapter 1. Depending on their jurisdiction’s type of voting equipment, election officials face different challenges in ballot preparation, voter education, poll worker training, and setting up the polls. “the logistics of preparing and delivering voting supplies and equipment to the county’s 4,963 voting precincts, recruiting and training 25,000 election day poll workers, preparing and mailing tens of thousands of absentee ballot packets daily and later signature verifying, opening and sorting 521,180 absentee ballots, and finally, counting 2.7 million ballots is extremely challenging.” In contrast, one small jurisdiction we visited had only 2,843 registered voters, 5 voting precincts, and 28 poll workers. As illustrated in figure 37, the magnitude of key tasks for election officials in the large jurisdiction is a thousand times larger than for the small jurisdiction. Fourth, jurisdictions face different burdens in preparing for election day because where some have relatively homogeneous populations, others service highly heterogeneous publics, with diverse histories, cultures, and languages. In some jurisdictions, large segments of the population speak languages other than English. In these jurisdictions, ballots must be prepared in those languages. In November 2000, Los Angeles County, for instance, provided ballots in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Tagalog, as well as English. On the basis of a consent decree with the Justice Department, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, will provide certain types of voting assistance in the Navajo language, including translation of the ballot. Election officials said, in the future, they anticipate having to provide ballots in other Native American languages, some of which have no written form. And finally, the voting jurisdictions themselves may develop their own election day traditions and cultures. For example, jurisdictions generally seek to ensure that only eligible voters can cast their ballots on election day. However, the procedures adopted to determine whether a citizen who appears at the polls is eligible to vote differ. Jurisdictions may place different emphasis on preventing ineligible people from voting than they do on facilitating voting for eligible voters. States have different legal requirements for verifying voters’ identities, and localities develop different procedures for handling questions about eligibility that arise on election day. In some jurisdictions, voters identified themselves by stating their names and addresses to the poll workers, who also matched the signature on the voter application with the voter registration records. Other jurisdictions require voters to present a valid photo identification card and require the signature on their application to vote to match the signature on their voter registration card. In other jurisdictions presenting some form of identification, such as a hunting or fishing license, is sufficient to verify one’s identity. Still other jurisdictions require no identification other than the voter stating his or her name. Recruiting and Training Poll Workers Was Major Problem for Many Selecting Polling Places That Met Standards Was Not Always Possible Designing Ballots That Were Clear to Voters Was More Challenging for Long, Complex Ballots Educating Voters Can Help Reduce Election Problems Preparing and Delivering Equipment and Supplies Was Logistical In some jurisdictions, preparing for the presidential election began as early as 10 months before the November 2000 general election. Despite differences among local voting jurisdictions, five key tasks have emerged from our interviews with election officials as integral to preparing for elections. Prior to election day, officials must recruit and train a sufficient number of poll workers with appropriate skills to open, operate, and close polling places. Suitable polling places located in the voting precincts must be reserved. Election officials are responsible for designing and producing multiple versions of ballots, which may vary not only by voting precinct but by address within a voting precinct. Many jurisdictions educate voters about the ballot, the voting technology they will use, and where to vote. In the days leading up to election day, voting equipment and supplies, prepared weeks in advance, must be delivered to thousands of polling places. According to the results of our mail survey of local election officials, nationwide 57 percent (plus or minus 4 percent) of voting jurisdictions said they encountered major problems in conducting the November 2000 election. During our on-site visits, election officials described in greater detail the problems and challenges they faced and the ways they addressed these challenges. These challenges include labor shortages among the ranks of qualified poll workers, exacerbated limited access to a shrinking number of appropriate polling places; complicated ballots or new voting technology unfamiliar to voters; and limited resources for voter education. We estimate that 51 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide reported that it was somewhat or very difficult to find a sufficient number of poll workers. Elections in all states could not take place without an army of poll workers who run the polls on election day. Poll workers are the frontline of democracy. They are the public face of elections for most citizens, whose voting experience is largely informed by their interaction at the polls with poll workers. Although these workers are usually employed for only one day, the success of election administration partly hinges upon their ability to perform their jobs well. Therefore, recruiting and training qualified poll workers becomes one of the most crucial tasks that election officials face in most locations. On the basis of our mail survey, we estimate that 51 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had a somewhat or very difficult time getting enough poll workers. Of these jurisdictions, 27 percent had difficulty obtaining enough poll workers, and 23 percent had difficulty obtaining enough required Democrat or Republican poll workers. These problems were the most frequently identified by the jurisdictions in preparing for elections. Factors that can work in concert to complicate an already difficult task for election officials include an aging work force, low pay, little or no training, and limited authority to hold poll workers accountable for their job performance. To meet these challenges, some election officials said that they have developed specific recruiting and training strategies. Some poll workers are elected; some are appointed; and some are volunteers. For example, Pennsylvania law specifies that poll workers be elected to the position. One official in a small jurisdiction told us that “We beg people to do it.” Political parties often play a key role in identifying poll workers. For example, Illinois statutes require leading political parties to nominate all election judges needed at the polls on election day. Many jurisdictions require that poll workers from each of the two major parties staff each precinct. For example, New York law requires that each polling place must be staffed with four election inspectors equally divided between the major political parties. Poll workers have different titles, levels of pay, training requirements, and responsibilities, depending on state law and the organization and traditions of the local jurisdiction. Jurisdictions assign their poll workers different responsibilities in the polling place and call them by different titles, including clerks, wardens, election judges, inspectors, captains, and precinct officers. Often jurisdictions have a chief poll worker. Virtually all the jurisdictions we visited provide some compensation to poll workers for their service on election day, ranging from $55 a day for clerks to $150 a day for a coordinator. These amounts differ by jurisdiction and level of responsibility within the polling place. Jurisdictions also differ in the training that they provide and require for poll workers prior to the election. Most of the election officials we talked to said that they offer some training for poll workers, and some said that the training is mandatory. One jurisdiction requires that each poll worker be certified as an inspector by the county board after attending an official training class and passing a written test. Some jurisdictions only require training for individuals who have not previously served as poll workers. Other jurisdictions require only that the lead poll workers be trained before each election. In addition to the number, pay, and training of poll workers, jurisdictions differ in the levels of authority and responsibility they grant to poll workers. Poll workers may have significant autonomy over the operation of the polling place and decisions, being the final authority on interpreting guidance in areas such as deciding who can vote and determining voter intent. In other jurisdictions, poll workers have limited discretion and function primarily as clerks and facilitators, referring decisions back to elections headquarters. “ inspectors serve 17 or 18 hours, a very long day. Because many of our inspectors are senior citizens, between the age of 70 and 80-plus years, such conditions are difficult on them physically, as well as creating the potential for errors at the end of election day. Since compensation for this job is only $80 to $135 per day, depending upon the election district, it is not sufficient to attract a younger workforce.” Election officials often face a plethora of problems recruiting and training their poll workers. Some election officials simply cannot recruit enough poll workers; others have a stable but aging workforce, and still others cannot recruit reliable workers with the requisite skills. Particular recruitment problems vary. Election officials from several jurisdictions mentioned that they have problems getting enough poll workers in the manner specified by law. For example, in a jurisdiction that requires election of poll workers, election officials told us that they rarely have enough poll workers running for the positions. Several election officials noted that often the political parties do not provide enough poll worker nominations to cover the needs of the jurisdiction, despite a legal requirement that they provide all the poll workers. One official in a small jurisdiction that typically votes for candidates of one party said that they often could not find enough poll workers from the other party. Several officials said that their election workforce was aging and they were having difficulty recruiting younger workers. The pool of potential poll workers may be shrinking because a greater proportion of the population have full time employment and poll worker pay is inadequate to attract employed or more skilled workers. One official remarked that volunteering is characteristic of an older generation. Another official said that “hat they used to consider as a fun and interesting day and an American duty has become ‘heavy duty.’” The length of the day is a complaint of many poll workers. In one large jurisdiction, election officials asked poll workers to provide feedback on their experience in the November 2000. One poll worker responded that it was “bsolutely, positively too long a day. I am 26 years old and very athletic and still went home at night and fell asleep with my clothes on. With the majority of helpers either older or disabled, I have no idea how they survived the day.” Another problem is addressing the specialized labor needs unique to particular polling sites, according to several local election officials. Some polling places required poll workers to have specific language skills; other locations needed poll workers who were able to learn the technical skills necessary to operate voting equipment. Finding qualified bilingual workers, specifically workers fluent in Asian languages, is one very large jurisdiction’s biggest recruiting problem. Some places had trouble finding poll workers with the skills to use computers and newer technologies. One election official wrote that “it is increasingly difficult to find folks to work for $6 an hour. We are relying on older retired persons – many who can’t/won’t keep up with changes in the technology or laws. Many of our workers are 70+.” Officials in one very large jurisdiction said they have no scarcity of people willing to serve, but finding people to meet specialized needs is the issue. Because election officials have little ability to hold poll workers accountable for how well they do their jobs on election day, they try to find reliable workers, but must sometimes take whomever they can find. Officials we talked to cited a number of examples from the November 2000 election. An election official in a medium-sized jurisdiction said that not only did she have difficulty finding a sufficient number of poll workers, but also that she was not satisfied with the performance of some of the workers she did recruit. Some officials said that problems with performance and an aging poll worker labor pool can overlap. As an example, one official said she had to let an elderly worker go because the person could no longer reconcile the ballot roster at the end of the day. An election official in a large jurisdiction said that the worst part of his job was signing letters to older poll workers thanking them for their years of service and telling them that their services would no longer be needed. Because workers are in short supply, some election officials stated that they found themselves on the horns of a dilemma, choosing between finding enough workers versus hiring skilled and reliable workers. One major problem for election officials is absenteeism on election day. As one official from a very large county told us, “our biggest fear concerning election workers is whether they will show up on election day.” In the November 2000 election, one very large jurisdiction had 20 percent of its poll workers cancel or not show up on election day. Some jurisdictions tried to plan around poll worker absenteeism by recruiting and training more than they needed, but still had insufficient poll workers on election day. As one official from a medium-sized jurisdiction said, “e are usually able to recruit more poll workers than needed. However, because of no- shows, we came up short on election day. No one has an abundance of good poll workers.” We estimate that 87 percent of jurisdictions nationwide provided some training for poll workers. Poll worker training courses generally span a few hours time and focus on the key processes that poll workers should follow, including how to operate voting equipment. Although most of the jurisdictions we visited required some poll worker training, election officials cited instances where poll workers who had attended either still did not understand what they were to do or chose not to follow specific instructions on how to run the polls. For example, to handle unregistered voters in one very large jurisdiction, the poll workers were instructed to provide those voters with questionable credentials a provisional ballot. However, some poll workers failed to follow these rules and turned away some voters from the polling place. Poll worker training in the sites we visited rarely included discussion of the interpersonal skills that poll workers should employ when dealing with frustrated citizens or with each other. Some jurisdictions have developed strategies for addressing the particular challenges associated with poll worker recruitment and training. Officials in the jurisdictions we visited described both measures that their jurisdictions have adopted and ones that they would like to institute if they had the funding and legal authority to do so. Many election officials told us that increasing poll worker pay would be an important step in efforts to solve poll worker recruitment problems. Recruiting Strategies Targeted Youth, Civil Servants, Businesses, and Civic Groups To recruit more poll workers, jurisdictions have special recruitment programs in place. Student Poll Worker Programs: Some jurisdictions have been participating in student poll worker programs. For example, in its 1999- 2000 legislative session, Colorado passed legislation that allowed junior and senior high school students, ages 16 and older, to serve as election judges as long as they also met other criteria, such as being recommended by a school official and having a parent’s or guardian’s permission. Students must pass the same training courses as nonstudent election judges. Other states also allow for the use of student judges. In the 2000 general election, one very large jurisdiction used 969 students from 91 schools as election judges. This number included 453 bilingual students. State and County Employees as Poll Workers: Civil servants were recruited to serve as poll workers in a number of jurisdictions. One very large jurisdiction had a County Poll Worker Program that permitted county employees to volunteer as poll workers. Those employees participating received their county pay for election day, plus either a $55 or $75 stipend, and $25 for attending the training. For the November election, 1,400 county employees worked as poll workers. Our mail survey results showed that 21 percent of jurisdictions nationwide used workers from local governments or schools to help staff the polls in the November 2000 general election. Election officials in one medium-sized jurisdiction we visited said they used 25 to 30 state employees as election judges in November 2000. These state employees received their regular pay in addition to the poll worker compensation. Adopt-a-Poll Programs: Some jurisdictions have developed a program to let businesses or community groups adopt a poll and use their employees or volunteers to staff that polling place. Election officials in a very large jurisdiction encouraged companies and service organizations to adopt a poll. Participating organizations provided the poll workers, who were allowed to wear shirts with the logo of the company or organization. In another large jurisdiction, volunteers from a charity organization adopted a poll and donated their poll worker pay to the charity. In this case, staffing a poll was both an exercise of civic duty and a fundraising event. Split Shifts for Poll Workers: To make the poll worker’s day more manageable, some jurisdictions are allowing poll workers to serve only half of the election day, rather than asking them to commit to a 12 to 18 hour day. Election officials from one jurisdiction that uses split shifts said that poll workers are very pleased with the option of working only part of a day. Additionally, they said that they have had less trouble recruiting poll workers since they don’t have to work an entire election day. In addition to these recruiting strategies, jurisdictions have proposals that are pending necessary legislative changes and funding. Several jurisdictions told us that their state has legislation pending that would allow serving as a poll worker to satisfy jury duty requirements. Officials in several jurisdictions expressed the view that an election holiday at the state or national level would, among other things, make more citizens who are employed full time free to serve at the polls. Our mail survey results indicate that 29 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide favor establishing election day as a national holiday; 19 percent support providing federal employees time off to assist at the polls; but only 5 percent favor extending voting hours or holding Saturday voting. Officials Turned to Training Efforts to Improve Poll Worker Performance To prepare poll workers for election day, many jurisdictions have focused on improving poll worker training. Although training may be required, some poll workers do not attend and are still allowed to work. To encourage attendance at training sessions, some jurisdictions offer attendees a stipend in addition to their nominal poll worker pay. Localities have pursued a variety of approaches for improving training classes. For example, one very large jurisdiction hired experts in adult education to improve the quality of their training courses. Some states provide localities with training resources. For example, in Washington and West Virginia, the states produce standard training materials, relieving the local voting jurisdiction from the cost of producing such materials, and offering a consistent curriculum for poll workers. Some jurisdictions tailored the content of the training sessions to focus on changes that have occurred in the election system or on problematic tasks that poll workers are likely to encounter on election day. For example, when introducing a new voting technology, one very large jurisdiction produced a video to train poll workers in the use of their new optical scan counters. When introducing its touchscreen DRE voting equipment, another very large jurisdiction had the equipment vendor provide the training video and materials. To prepare poll workers for situations they may encounter on election day, several jurisdictions had poll workers participate in simulated precinct operations in their training class. Recruiting and training poll workers are major concerns for election officials. When asked what their three top priorities would be if federal funds were available for election administration, over half of the election officials from the jurisdictions that we visited told us that they would use the money to increase poll worker pay and/or to improve poll worker training. We estimate that 9 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide had a major problem obtaining enough polling places accessible to voters with disabilities. Election officials are responsible for obtaining a sufficient number of polling places that meet basic standards. To meet the needs of the voting population, the polling places should be available on election day and easily accessible to all voters, including voters with disabilities. They should also have a sufficient infrastructure to support voting machines and provide basic comforts for voters and poll workers alike. This infrastructure includes electricity, communication lines, heating, and cooling units. Many public and private facilities are used as polling places, including schools, churches, community buildings, malls, and garages. Specific legal requirements relating to the number, location, and characteristics of polling places can vary from state to state. For nearly two-thirds of the jurisdictions nationwide, we estimate that obtaining polling places did not pose a major problem. Our mail survey results also indicate that only 5 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide said they had a major problem obtaining enough polling places and 9 percent said that they had a major problem obtaining enough polling places accessible to voters with disabilities. However, in our site visits many election officials did identify difficulties they had securing polling places. According to election officials, low rental fees, the disruption of business that ordinarily takes place at a facility, and the possibility of damage to facilities are the primary reasons that fewer and fewer locations are willing to serve as polling places. In many jurisdictions, officials said that they still had jurisdictions that were not fully accessible to voters with disabilities. To address this challenge, some officials have consolidated precincts or created a “super precinct,” a single, centralized location where all voters cast their ballots no matter what the geographic boundaries of their assigned precinct. Some jurisdictions have adopted election day holidays, which help resolve some problems of using schools as polling places when students are present. Additionally, officials said they have taken steps to provide alternatives to voters with disabilities when the polling places are not fully accessible. Among jurisdictions where reserving polling places is an ongoing problem, officials may be faced with the problem of accepting polling places that do not meet all of the basic standards in order to have enough places to conduct the election. For example, election officials in different jurisdictions said that they used polling places in the November 2000 election that did not fully meet requirements that polling places limit the number of voters who may vote in one location, be located within the precinct they serve or be centrally located within be accessible to voters with disabilities, or provide the infrastructure necessary to support election activities. Finding locations that are handicapped-accessible is a particular concern for local election officials; in many places, officials have not located enough polling places that meet the needs of voters with disabilities and the elderly. Our onsite work on the November 2000 election found that polling places are generally located in schools, libraries, churches, and town halls, as well as other facilities. Although the extent to which any given feature may prevent or facilitate access is unknown, we estimate that, from the parking area to the voting room, 16 percent of all polling places have no potential impediments. Fifty-six percent have one or more potential impediments but offer curbside voting, and 28 percent have one or more potential impediments and do not offer curbside voting. Although efforts have been made to improve voting accessibility for people with disabilities, state and local election officials we surveyed cited a variety of challenges to improving access. Facilities used as polling places are generally owned or controlled by public or private entities not responsible for running elections, complicating attempts to make them more accessible. Places in older, denser cities have particular difficulties locating not only buildings that are accessible but that also have accessible parking facilities. For example, in one very large jurisdiction we found that of the 1,681 polling places used in the November 2000 election, only 440 were handicapped accessible. Even fewer, 46, had handicapped parking. A scarcity of available polling places also led some officials to accept facilities that did not meet other specifications. Officials in a large jurisdiction told us they had to settle for substandard buildings, some of which were being renovated, that did not have electricity or heating. Additionally, the officials told us that every year the department of elections buys heaters for some buildings that serve as polling locations. A small jurisdiction faced a temporary problem with the school gymnasium that the town uses as its super precinct–a single polling location for all precincts. During the 2000 primary election, the gym was undergoing significant renovation, and half of the space usually available for elections was closed off. Additionally, temporary electricity, communication lines, and toilet facilities had to be added for the election. Because the construction was completed before the general election, the jurisdiction did not have these problems in November 2000. Election officials expressed concern that it is not only difficult to retain current polling places but also challenging to find replacements. Some jurisdictions lack funds to pay a large enough stipend to a facility to provide an incentive for its owners to offer it for use as a polling place. In one case, according to the election official, the stipend was so small that it may not have even covered the owner’s electricity costs. Election officials may be hampered by laws that restrict them from spending public funds to modify private facilities to make the spaces ready for the elections or to repair damage to those facilities that result from their use as a polling place. Schools are often used as polling places. But space constraints and security considerations raised by having nonstudents entering the school grounds during school hours have led some schools to withdraw their facilities as polling places. Election officials do not generally have control over polling places. Some must rely on building managers or custodians to unlock the buildings and ready the space for election day. Because the polls typically open so early in the morning, custodians may not have opened the space so that the poll workers could enter on time. For example, officials in both a large and a medium-sized jurisdiction reported that poll workers were delayed because buildings were not unlocked and accessible at the appointed time on election day. Before every election, some jurisdictions provide information to voters about their polling place location. For example, one medium-sized jurisdiction mailed out polling place location information to every household. Many jurisdictions may also describe the location of the voter’s polling place in print, radio, and television announcements. Canceling locations after they have been publicized presents difficulties for election officials who must find substitute locations and then try to notify the voters of the last minute change. For example, in one very large jurisdiction, five locations canceled after the sample ballot, which lists the precinct the voter is assigned to, was mailed. The jurisdiction had to mail out 110,500 post cards to the affected voters notifying them of their new polling place. To compensate for the lack of an adequate number of facilities, election administration officials have pursued or proposed the following actions: Consolidated Precincts: To ease the difficulty of finding polling places for each voting precinct, some jurisdictions are consolidating several precincts into a single location. One small jurisdiction crafted a super precinct with all six precincts in one polling place. This solution offers the advantages of providing a known, central location easy for voters to find and alleviating the pressure to provide poll workers for each polling place. By using this super precinct, the jurisdiction is able to provide handicapped access and parking to all its voters. Additionally, the county clerk, who is the chief election official, is on site to resolve any issues over voters’ eligibility to vote. Rather than creating a super precinct, some jurisdictions are consolidating voting precincts. One large and one medium jurisdiction consolidated several precincts resulting in fewer polling places. One of these jurisdictions has 45 polling places with as many as 4 precincts per polling place; the other has 270 polling locations for 576 precincts. Revised State Limits on Number of Voters Per Precinct: In some cases the election officials’ proposed strategies for dealing with these problems involve changing state laws that prescribe the number of registered voters per precinct. By increasing the number of registered voters per precinct, officials hope to decrease the number of required polling locations. California introduced legislation to increase the number of voters in each precinct from 1,000 to 1,250, which would reduce the number of polling places needed. This solution would also reduce the number of poll workers needed on election day. However, as one election official observed, an unintended consequence of condensing precincts may be longer lines at polling places, which makes voting a more time-consuming and difficult activity. School Holidays on Election Day: Traditionally, schools have served as polling places. However, several election officials mentioned that they are increasingly difficult to obtain because of security concerns and competition for space when students are present. In one large jurisdiction, election officials, in cooperation with school boards, have made election day a student holiday. The schools, which account for two-thirds of the polling places, are then available as polling locations with teachers present, alleviating some of the security concerns. Similarly, a medium-sized jurisdiction persuaded three of its four school districts to schedule a student holiday on election day. All-Mail Voting: Oregon is the only state that has adopted mail voting for all its elections statewide. Election officials told us that one of the positive effects of their move to all-mail voting is that election jurisdictions no longer have to contend with the logistical problem of securing polling places or hiring poll workers. Other jurisdictions use all-mail voting on a more limited scale. For example, one medium-sized jurisdiction has mail-only precincts for sparsely populated areas. In another medium-sized jurisdiction, officials said they also permit smaller election jurisdictions, such as a water district, to opt to hold a special election entirely by mail. We estimate that 42 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide indicated that the federal government should subsidize the operational costs of elections (e.g. printing ballots or paying poll workers). Despite the controversy over the “butterfly ballot” and other ballot problems in the aftermath of Florida’s 2000 election, few election officials we spoke with reported experiencing major difficulty with ballot design for the November 2000 general election. We estimate that only 2 percent of jurisdictions nationwide thought that confusing ballot design was a major problem. However, we emphasize that this is the view of election officials and not voters. Election officials are responsible for designing ballots that meet both statutory requirements and the requirements of the particular voting equipment and that are easy for voters to understand. Officials we met with did identify a number of challenges they faced in ballot design. They noted that designing usable, easily understood ballots that meet the constraints of particular voting equipment can become much more difficult in jurisdictions where the ballot is printed in multiple languages, or a large number of offices or initiatives are on the ballot. Many states have statutory requirements that affect the design and layout of ballots. The specific statutory requirements and the level of detail specified differ by state. Many states prescribe specific features of ballot design. For example, some states require that ballots provide for rotation of candidates so that the no candidate of a particular party consistently has the advantage of appearing first on the ballot. State law in other states dictates that voters be offered a ballot that allows them to vote a straight- party ticket. Some states identify the order of races and ballot issues. For example, Washington law specifies that state ballot issues appear before all offices on the ballot. In New York, state law even includes specifications relating to the size of the print and the size of the checkboxes for the ballot. States also differ in the degree of state oversight of ballot design. In some statewide systems, such as those in Oklahoma, ballot design is done primarily at the state level for state and federal offices. In Massachusetts, the state designs and prints all ballots for state elections. In other states, such as Virginia, local officials develop ballots, but the State Board of Elections must approve them. Other states have no statutes that provide instruction on ballot design, leaving ballot design in the hands of local officials without state oversight. The voting technology that a jurisdiction uses is the major factor that influences ballot design and defines the tasks that election officials face as they prepare the ballot. As we discussed in chapter 1, different voting machines require different types of ballots and each different type has its own constraints. For example, the size of ballot, type of paper, and other features of the ballot must follow physical characteristics of the voting machine. Figure 38 illustrates two punch card ballots and identifies some of the characteristics that caused problems with the ballots for the November 2000 election. Figure 39 shows an optical scan ballot and a ballot for a pushbutton DRE voting machine. Election officials must determine all the ballot styles needed for every precinct in the jurisdiction. They must “define the election,” which entails identifying all races, candidates, and issues such as statewide referenda or local tax levies in a particular election. Additionally, officials must determine how many variations of the ballot they need to produce. A voting jurisdiction, which is generally a county, is comprised of precincts. Voters in the same precinct may vote a different ballot because boundaries of certain election districts, such as congressional districts and special districts, may vary within the precinct. Therefore, voters in the same precinct may vote different ballot styles, depending on where the voter lives. Jurisdictions design their ballots to meet the special needs of their constituents in various ways. Certain jurisdictions may require that ballots be prepared in multiple languages. Others prepare audio versions of their ballot for sight-impaired voters. For example, one very large jurisdiction, which uses touch screen DRE machines, provides an audio option to allow blind voters to cast their ballots in privacy without outside assistance. No matter the ballot style or unique aspects of ballot design, all ballots must include instructions to voters on how to complete their ballots. Once election officials determine everything that must appear on the ballot, they must construct detailed layouts for a particular type of ballot used for their election equipment. In many jurisdictions, the ballot layout is completed in-house. Some jurisdictions have computer programs that they use for ballot layout. In other places, election officials rely on voting equipment vendors, printers, or other outside contractors to fit the candidates and issues onto the ballot. Although most officials did not identify ballot design as a major problem area, some officials reported the design of the ballot created problems and confusion for some voters in the November 2000 election. These problems generally varied by the type of voting equipment used by the jurisdiction. On the ballot for a medium-sized jurisdiction that used lever machines, the list of names for president was so long that it extended into a second row. Election officials said that listing candidates in a second row confused some voters. In a small optical scan jurisdiction, officials said that their voters seemed to have problems with the write-in section of their ballot. Voters selected a choice from the candidates listed on their ballots and then also wrote in the candidate's name in the write-in section. The officials believe that this confusion on the part of the voters accounted for much of their county’s 5 percent overvote for president. In one small jurisdiction, officials said that they had to use both sides of their optical scan ballot because of the number of issues on the ballot. They said that two-sided ballots generally created some voter confusion. Some voters did not flip their two-sided ballot over and only voted on one side. In one very large punch card jurisdiction election officials said that after the difficulties with the butterfly ballot in Florida were publicized, they also received complaints that the butterfly ballot for their punch card machines was confusing. Additionally, they said that approximately 1,500 voters put their punch cards into the machine upside down, thereby negating their vote. In a jurisdiction that uses a full-face electronic DRE machine, officials had to use a small print size, difficult for some voters to read, to ensure that their ballot could (1) include all of the races and candidates, (2) meet the legal requirement that the full text of all ballot issues appear, and (3) have all text in English and Spanish. Additionally, because many voters had not received advanced information on the issues on the ballot, they took more time in the voting booth; thus, waiting times at polls became lengthy. The preparation of paper and punch card ballots requires an extra step in the production process. These types of ballots must be printed or produced separately from the voting machine, which introduces the potential for other problems. In a medium-sized jurisdiction that uses punch card ballots, officials said the printer trimmed ballots too closely, and the ballots had to be redone. Locations that use punch card machines provide a ballot book that fits onto the machine and identifies for the voter the correct location to punch. The paper ballot book and the punch card must be correctly aligned in the machine. Small deviations can result in erroneous punches. Officials in optical scan jurisdictions also reported ballot production problems. For example, officials said that a printing error on the ballots caused the counting machines to reject the ballots in one medium-sized jurisdiction. A small ink dot in the ballot coding section made the ballots unreadable by the machines. Election officials told us that they anticipated that long lists of candidates or changes in their traditional ballot format would lead to ballots that would confuse some voters. However, they often had limited alternatives, given everything they had to fit on the ballot for the November 2000 election. Some officials attempted to mitigate the impact of confusing ballot features by focusing voter education on these features. For example, officials in a large jurisdiction anticipated that they would have a problem with their three-column ballot design and the straight-party ballot option. If voters wanted to vote a straight party ticket in the November 2000 election, they had to mark the ballot in four different places, which was a departure from the usual way ballots were voted. These officials said that they tried to avert a problem for the voters by emphasizing this change in the ballot in voter education efforts before the election. Some other jurisdictions have adopted longer range efforts to limit the length and complexity of ballots. To minimize the length of the ballot, officials in South Carolina recommended the creation of two different ballots–one for candidates and one for ballot issues. Washington pursued a similar course of action, scheduling state elections in the off-years of the presidential election cycle. Jurisdictions identified other ideas to improve ballot design that are still in the proposal stage. Officials in one jurisdiction said they would like to use professional design consultants to create ballots that are easy to use and understand. Another jurisdiction is proposing to pretest ballots with selected groups of voters to identify and resolve design flaws before the election. Given the many problems of voter confusion with ballot design identified in the detailed reviews of ballots cast in Florida, many are interested in applying the principles of the field of information design to developing usability standards for ballot design. Some jurisdictions are planning to acquire new voting equipment and the characteristics of the ballots associated with different equipment will play a big role in their decision. One official in a very large jurisdiction told us that they would not even consider optical scan equipment because the amount of paper that would be required for their complex ballots would be prohibitive. We estimate that over a third of the jurisdictions nationwide believed that federal government should provide monetary assistance for voter education programs. To educate voters on how to translate their choices of candidates and issues into votes on election day, jurisdictions employ a range of activities. Jurisdictions place varying degrees of emphasis on educating voters on election processes and procedures. Some officials publish a sample ballot in local newspapers; others publish voter guides, mail out sample ballots and election information to every registered voter, and fund public service announcements. Officials told us that the introduction of new voting technologies or other significant changes in the way elections are conducted increases the need for educating voters on how the changes will affect the way they vote. A lack of funds is the primary challenge that election officials said they face in expanding their efforts to educate voters about elections. On the basis of our mail survey, we estimate that over a third of the jurisdictions nationwide believed that the federal government should provide monetary assistance for voter education programs. Virtually all jurisdictions we visited provide some information to assist voters in knowing how, when, and where to vote. However, there is wide variation in the amount and type of information provided and in the importance elections officials attach to voter education. In one small jurisdiction, for example, an election official told us, “eople have been voting here the same way all their lives. They don’t need voter education.” However, in many jurisdictions, election officials consider more extensive voter education campaigns to be an important way to minimize voter errors on election day. Some jurisdictions use multiple media for providing information to the public before election day, and other jurisdictions would like to provide more extensive voter education, but lack resources to do so. Jurisdictions provide voter education through print and electronic media, public demonstrations of the voting process, and public forums. In our mail survey of jurisdictions, we asked local election officials to identify ways they provided information to voters for the November 2000 election. Making information available at the election office and printing election information in the local newspaper were by far the most common ways of providing information to voters. Our mail survey results indicate that about 91 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide made sample ballots available at the election office; 74 percent printed sample ballots in the local newspaper; and 82 percent printed a list of polling places in the local paper. In contrast, between 18 and 20 percent of jurisdictions nationwide indicated they placed public service ads on local media, performed community outreach programs, and/or put some voter information on the Internet. Mailing voter information to all registered voters was the least used approach. Thirteen percent of the jurisdictions mailed voting instructions; 7 percent mailed sample ballots; and only 6 percent mailed voters information on polling locations. All election officials we visited provide information to the public at the elections office and answer inquiries from citizens. Most jurisdictions also provide information on elections to the public by publishing sample ballots, candidate lists and positions, registration deadlines, polling place location, and times the polls open and close. Fewer jurisdictions mail information on the election directly to voters. Some states mail voter guides, which provide detailed explanations of ballot issues and describe all the candidates for state and federal office to registered voters. Some local jurisdictions have developed voter guides and other information on the election to help educate voters. Jurisdictions we visited provided an array of different types of voter information and aids. In one large jurisdiction, election officials distributed business cards with instructions on how to complete optical scan ballots on one side and dates of elections on the other. A very large jurisdiction provided voters a demonstration that included instructions on punch card voting and sample ballots. Some of the materials alert voters to common mistakes that they should avoid. Voter education materials are often both distributed before the election and available at the polls on election day. Figure 40 provides examples of materials jurisdictions used to inform voters in the November 2000 election. Other forums for educating voters include discussions sponsored by organizations such as churches and civic and advocacy groups. Election officials in several jurisdictions said they frequently spoke to civic and educational organizations about the voting system. One large jurisdiction has an NVRA coordinator with responsibility for outreach to community groups, and another jurisdiction has an Election Ambassador Program aimed at citizens 18 to 35 years old. The Internet provides another medium for communicating voting process information to voters. All but three of the jurisdictions we visited have established a Web site as an additional means of educating voters. Many of the Web sites simply provide general information about elections and the requirements for participation. Others permit the voter to search a database to find information, such as the location of the voter’s polling place. A number of sites have forms the voter can get and print, but none permits the voter to actually submit the form electronically. Some jurisdictions may also operate telephone information hotlines so those voters may call in to obtain information about their polling place location. For example, Delaware has a computerized telephone system answering calls at election headquarters. The system handled over 11,000 calls on election day in November 2000. Many of the calls were from voters using the polling place locator feature. Use of such a system frees up the time of election officials to field questions from poll workers. Some jurisdictions rely on civic organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, to supplement their voter education efforts. In some locations, such groups provide almost all voter education. In one very large jurisdiction, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, watchdog organization provides voter education before election day. On election day, the group operates a voting control center from its offices to respond to questions and field complaints from citizens, election board officials, and party representatives. In another large jurisdiction, officials said that they relied on the League of Women Voters and the media to provide the community with voter education information. To familiarize citizens with the mechanics of voting, some jurisdictions conduct nongovernmental elections for groups such as unions and schools. For example, local election officials in one large jurisdiction will, on request, run local high school elections such as those for student council officers. The officials follow the same procedures as they would in a general election—developing the ballots and using the same voting machines used in the general election. Officials in other jurisdictions also conduct nongovernmental elections at the request of community groups as an educational tool. When election jurisdictions changed the equipment they use for voting, there was a particular need for voter education to help citizens understand how the new equipment would change the way they cast their ballots. Two of the jurisdictions we visited had developed extensive voter education programs in connection with introducing new voting technology. One large jurisdiction introduced new optical scan voting equipment that was used in November 2000. As a part of planning the transition, election officials significantly increased voter education to ease the transition. Consequently, voting error decreased in this jurisdiction in the November 2000 election. A very large jurisdiction was the first jurisdiction in the country to move completely to touchscreen DRE machines. The vendor supplying the new voting technology also provided $80,000 for voter education. Among other things, their education program included the development of videotapes and billboards. The vendor also published a voter guide with the county. Many jurisdictions would like to provide more extensive voter education tailored to the needs of particular elections. However, voter education programs compete with other needs for scarce local resources in conducting an election. Officials in two large jurisdictions said that they could not mail sample ballots to registered voters because of the postal costs they would incur. Spending for voter education is considered discretionary. Some local officials must first take care of mandatory items such as equipment, supplies, poll workers and polling places. Many officials said that they see voter education as an area where federal funds could be particularly helpful. When asked what their priorities would be were federal funds to become available for election administration, two- thirds of these election officials identified increasing voter education among the top three spending priorities. Supplies and equipment are generally prepared before the election and either delivered to each polling location or picked up by poll workers. Although no election official mentioned this task as a major problem, it is crucial to administering a successful election. The logistics of preparing supplies and machines for election day can be daunting, particularly for larger jurisdictions. As discussed in chapter 1, the type of voting equipment a jurisdiction uses influences the equipment testing routines required before election day as well as the kind of ballots and supplies that are needed. Officials typically put all supplies needed by voters and poll workers in a supply box which, in many jurisdictions, doubles as a ballot box. Generally, officials assemble a supply box for every precinct which typically includes (1) voter registration books or lists; (2) signs to identify the polling places; (3) voter education materials; and (4) instructions for poll workers that explain how to open, operate, and close the polls. The supply boxes may also contain incidentals such as bibles, American flags, and other items; for example, one jurisdiction’s box included a 50-foot length of string to mark an electioneering-free zone around the polls. Additionally, supply boxes can have forms, such as voter challenge forms and voter assistance requests; tally sheets to count blank, spoiled, absentee, and properly voted ballots; and a ballot box. The boxes may include color-coded envelopes or other dividers to separate different kinds of ballots. All boxes are checked by an election official to ensure that they contain the correct supplies. A lock or security tab must secure the supply boxes. In addition to preparing the supply boxes, election officials must prepare and deliver the voting equipment, except in jurisdictions that use paper ballots. Depending on the size of the jurisdiction and the types of equipment, the logistics of delivering the voting machines will vary. For example, in one very large jurisdiction, the election board hires a fleet of trucks to distribute the supplies and equipment to nearly 5,000 precincts for election day. The election board in a medium-sized jurisdiction hires a contractor who stores and delivers the equipment. The machines are prepared and tested while they are still in the warehouse, and then the contractor delivers them to the appropriate polling place. Jurisdictions using lever machines have different logistical problems. Lever machines weigh 700 to 900 pounds apiece, depending on the construction material. Prior to election day election officials in one jurisdiction delivered 464 of these lever machines to 327 election districts. A small jurisdiction that uses lever machines avoids delivering heavy lever machines by storing the machines at the polls. Setting Up the Polling Place Required Different Steps Determining Voter Eligibility Often Created the Biggest Election Day Our site visits with election officials indicated that these officials were generally satisfied with the way the November 2000 general election was conducted within their jurisdiction. However, few of them reported keeping data or evaluating the way in which the election was conducted. Therefore, it is likely that the election officials’ views about how well the election was run at the polling place level were shaped by anecdotal information that was voluntarily supplied or by public complaints. In our mail survey, jurisdictions nationwide identified determining voter eligibility at the polls and communication inadequacies as the key problems they faced on election day. Election officials we visited noted that the problems they face with registration, absentee voting, and other preparations for election day often manifest themselves on election day. Election day marks the point at which election officials delegate much of the actual operation of the election to poll workers, who become the public face of the election to most citizens. Entrusting an election to temporary workers requires a leap of faith for some election officials. One election official told us that he could spend a year planning for an election, preparing for every possible contingency, meeting all required deadlines, and ensuring all materials were in their proper places. However, on the day of the election, the fate of his professional reputation rested in the hands of strangers, and at the end of the day he would learn how well he had done his job during the preceding year. Poll workers carry out many important tasks on election day. In a number of jurisdictions, election administrators have developed detailed checklists that direct poll workers in opening, running, and closing the polls. From our mail survey, we estimate that 74 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide provided poll workers with checklists of procedures to follow on election day. The checklists we saw in different jurisdictions varied significantly in detail. Before the polls open on election day, election officials must ensure that the people, processes, and technology to conduct the election are in place. Election officials did not identify the setting up of the polling place as a major problem although they did encounter routine glitches on election day in November 2000. To set up the polling place and begin preparing the site for the voters, poll workers in some jurisdictions arrive at the polling place as early as 5:45 a.m. In other places the polls are set up the night before election day. Opening the polls entails swearing in the officials, setting up the machines, unpacking the supply box, setting up voting booths, testing equipment, and completing paperwork such as confirming that the correct ballot styles and number of blank and demonstrator ballots have been delivered, and posting signs. There are many different ways polls are set up. The type of voting technology influences the types and sequence of tasks poll workers perform. For example, in a small jurisdiction that uses paper ballots, the lead poll worker is responsible for picking up the supply box the day before the election. He or she must be the first person to enter the polling place the next day, and the supply box must be opened in the presence of the other poll workers in the morning before the polls open on election day. In contrast, in a very large jurisdiction, which uses precinct-count optical scan machines (in which the ballots are counted at the polls), the supply box contains the ballots and is locked inside the machine. Election warehouse employees deliver the machines to the polling places the night before election day. The election judge and at least one other poll worker go to the polling place to unpack supplies and prepare and test the optical scan vote-counting machine. When they complete these tasks, they secure the polling place until the next morning. One very large jurisdiction uses touchscreen DRE machines that are portable voting devices. On election eve, the poll workers set up the machines in each polling place. The lead poll worker must test the separate devices at home that will be used to activate the DREs. Election morning, the lead poll worker powers up the machines and runs the self- test to ensure the system is operating properly. The first voter of the day activates the machines for all subsequent voters. Although election officials did not say that setting up the polls created major problems for them, they did remark that they always have last minute problems to deal with, such as absent poll workers and polling places canceling on the day of the election. But election officials said that they have contingency plans for most of these problems. For example, in one small jurisdiction, the polls cannot open until all the poll workers are present. In this jurisdiction, each polling location has alternative poll workers in case a designated poll worker cannot be present on election day. However, in the November 2000 election, one polling location opened 45 minutes late because an alternate who lived a great distance from the polling place had to be summoned at the last minute. The schematic diagram in figure 41 illustrates the way that poll workers in one jurisdiction were instructed to position the voting booths, election judges’ tables, signage, and the ballot box in each polling place. This diagram also shows the path the voter takes upon entering the polling place. State law determines the hours that polling places open and close for all jurisdictions within the state, as shown in table 21 in appendix VI. When the polls open and voters enter the polling place, they will generally follow the path laid out in figure 41. The particular steps and stops on the way to casting a ballot differ, but in most cases, voters must check in at an official table and a poll worker must verify that they are registered and otherwise eligible to vote. When eligibility has been verified, the voter receives a ballot or an authorization to use a voting machine and proceeds to the voting booth. Once the voter’s choices have been recorded on the ballot, the voter must make sure the ballot is cast. For punch card and paper ballots, the voter must take the ballot to the ballot box or ballot counter; for lever and DRE voting machines, the voter casts the ballot on the machine. At each step, there is the potential for problems or voter confusion. We estimate that 30 percent of jurisdictions considered dealing with unregistered voters at the polls to be a major problem and 20 percent considered other voter eligibility issues to be major problems at the polls. From the perspective of election officials that we contacted, the biggest problems on election day stem from resolving questions about voter eligibility. Provisional ballots, court orders, and affidavits were used in some jurisdictions to resolve voter eligibility problems. High numbers of voters with these eligibility issues create challenges on election day, particularly by creating frustration for voters, long lines, and problems communicating between the polls and election headquarters as poll workers work to resolve the problems. Election jurisdictions have different requirements for establishing that the voter is eligible to vote at a particular polling place on election day. As noted in figure 42, different states have different requirements for checking the voter’s identity. Although many jurisdictions have stringent requirements for identifying voters and confirming their eligibility to vote, many others have very limited procedures. Twenty-three states require or authorize poll workers to inspect proof of the voter's identity, such as a driver's license or a birth certificate, before allowing him or her to vote. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia require a voter signature at the polls. Sixteen of these states provide for verification of the voter's signature based, for example, on a comparison with the voter's signature on a registration application. Before a voter receives a ballot, his or her eligibility must be confirmed. Typically, the poll worker examines the registration list for the person’s name. As discussed in chapter 2 of this report, jurisdictions produce poll books or lists of registered voters in a number of different ways. If the name appears on the list and other identification requirements are met, the voter is given a ballot and proceeds to vote. If the voter’s name does not appear on the registration list, jurisdictions have different procedures for dealing with the question of the voter’s eligibility. Twenty states plus the District of Columbia utilize some form of provisional ballot. Provisional balloting is typically identified by (1) the provision of a ballot to voters whose names are not on the precinct level voter registration list, (2) the identification of such ballot as some type of special ballot, and (3) the post election verification of the voter’s registration status before the vote is counted. Provisional balloting measures go by differing names among the states including, provisional ballot, challenged ballot, ballot to be verified, special ballot, emergency paper ballot, and escrow ballot. Five states use a form of affidavit ballot whereby upon completion of an affidavit the vote is cast and counted without the confirmation of such registration prior to the counting of the ballot. Table 22 in appendix VI details the provisions in the laws of different states for provisional voting and other procedures to address voters whose names do not appear on the registration list. Our mail survey showed that over three-quarters of the jurisdictions nationwide had at least one procedure in place to help resolve eligibility questions for voters who did not appear on the registration list at the polling place. Poll workers will often first try to reconcile this type of problem by contacting election headquarters and verifying their registration list against the more current master registration list. If election headquarters cannot provide a definitive answer about a voter’s eligibility, many jurisdictions allow the individual to vote some type of provisional ballot. Several election officials told us that provisional ballots are a great help in conducting elections. One director of elections said that in order to keep the polling places operating smoothly, no person who asks to vote is denied a ballot. In this jurisdiction, poll workers are instructed to give a provisional ballot to persons whose names do not appear in the poll book. The provisional ballot will not be counted if the person is not a registered voter. In the 2000 general election, this jurisdiction distributed 18,000 provisional ballots to voters, and about half of these ballots were rejected, primarily because the person casting the ballot was not registered. This jurisdiction, unlike most, posted the names of those persons whose ballots were rejected and, therefore, not counted in the election. Voters whose ballots were rejected could appeal the decision. The procedures and specific instructions that jurisdictions develop to permit provisional voting differ across jurisdictions. For example, in some jurisdictions, the voter must sign a sworn statement to cast a provisional ballot, but not in others. Figure 43 shows a provisional flow chart that officials in one very large jurisdiction developed to spell out for poll workers and voters the specific steps that have to be taken to vote a provisional ballot. Figure 44 illustrates the special envelope or sleeve that one very large jurisdiction uses for provisional ballots. In this jurisdiction, the voter must place his or her punch card provisional ballot in the sleeve, fill in the required information, and sign the ballot. Our mail survey results indicate that nationwide only 12 percent of jurisdictions reported turning away from the polls persons who desired to vote but whose names did not appear on the list of registered voters. Several election officials we visited in jurisdictions that did not have provisional voting said that introducing provisional voting would be an important step in helping assure that all eligible voters were permitted to vote at the polls on election day. Additionally, they said that the option of provisional voting could also help minimize other problems that interfere with the smooth operation of the polling place. According to the election officials we spoke with, resolving a high number of voter eligibility questions contributed to two other election day problems: communications between polling places and election headquarters and long lines at polling places. To help resolve these problems, election officials have proposed or taken the following steps: Adding Telephone Lines: Some jurisdictions have added telephone lines both in the election headquarters office and at polling places to alleviate some of the communication problems. Other jurisdictions are providing poll workers cell phones to ensure that they have access to telephones to call headquarters. One of the most promising solutions to this problem is to provide poll workers direct access to central registration files. Electronic Poll Books: If funds were available, officials in one very large jurisdiction said they would buy electronic poll books that can be directly linked to the central registration files. We estimate that communication between the polls and the central election office was a major problem for 17 percent of the jurisdictions nationwide and long lines at polling places was a major problem for 13 percent. There is tremendous variability in the tasks performed throughout election day among jurisdictions. Not only is this variability dictated by the voting system, but also by the culture and traditions that have emerged in each jurisdiction. Typically, many of the tasks required to successfully conduct voting are handled routinely. However, election officials identified long lines and inadequate communication links as major challenges. Once officials have ascertained the voter is eligible to vote, they give the voter the appropriate ballot or authorize the voter to use the voting machine containing the appropriate ballot. Some precincts have multiple versions of the ballot because some voters in the same precinct for the presidential election live in different jurisdictions for other races. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, the different ballot styles were color-coded so that the poll workers could quickly identify the appropriate ballot for the voter. Once a voter completes the ballot, how he or she casts the ballot depends on the type of voting system. In precincts that count paper, punch card, and optical scan ballots centrally, typically the voter will carry the ballot to an election official, who deposits the ballot in the ballot box. Where there are precinct-level counters for punch cards or optical scan ballots, voters place their ballots in the automatic feed slot of the counting machine. The precinct-level counting machine tells the voter if there is an error on the ballot, such as an undervote, an overvote, or a damaged ballot, giving the voter an opportunity to correct the ballot. To cast a ballot using electronic voting systems or lever machines, the voter pushes a “cast vote” button or pulls a lever to register the vote. Figure 45 illustrates how a voter would cast an electronic vote on a touch screen DRE machine that resembles an ATM. Voters can change their votes on the DRE machine until they push the “vote” button. Many jurisdictions using other voting equipment, such as optical scan or punch card machines, permit voters who request them, a second or third replacement ballot if they have spoiled the previous one. Our mail survey results indicate that nationwide, 71 percent of jurisdictions allowed voters to correct their ballots or get new ones if the original is spoiled. However, the voter must realize that he or she has made a mistake and ask for a new ballot. Once the ballot is cast, some jurisdictions require a checkout procedure, and some simply give the voter an “I voted” sticker. Election officials perform many other tasks throughout the day to ensure that the elections run smoothly and that voters move expeditiously through the polling place. Culture and tradition influence how the polling places carry out these tasks on election day. Some polling places are more indulgent, while others more rigorously follow required procedures. For example, jurisdictions using DRE machines require the voter to push a button to record his or her vote, but if the voter exits before properly recording the vote, various jurisdictions follow different procedures. Election officials in a large jurisdiction using DRE machines told us that if the voter leaves the voting machine without pushing the green “vote” button, the poll worker at the machine is to void the vote. In contrast, in a different jurisdiction, the election official said the poll worker may reach discreetly under the curtain and press the “vote” button, thus recording the vote. In another jurisdiction, if a voter leaves without hitting the “cast vote” button, then the poll worker can cast the vote only if two poll workers, a Democrat and Republican, are present. For many places, an election is not only a civic event but also an occasion for socializing. In small voting jurisdictions, the poll workers often share potluck meals with one another. Neighbors and friends not only vote, but also visit at the polls. In contrast, many large jurisdictions manage their polling places in a business-like fashion, and voters want to get in and out of the polls as quickly as possible. While the polls are open, poll workers are responsible for making sure that no one violates electioneering laws; for example, by passing out campaign literature at the polling place. In one jurisdiction, a string is included in the supply box to mark off the “electioneering free zone” outside the polling place. Periodically, the poll workers check to ensure that no one has left campaign or other materials in the voting booths, that the instruction cards are still posted and intact, and that the voting equipment is still functioning properly. Poll workers also monitor voters in the polling place and provide assistance and information as needed. Our mail survey results indicate that nationwide, 51 percent of jurisdictions instructed poll workers to ask voters if they had any questions about operating the voting equipment or casting their votes before voting. This assistance may include helping handicapped voters. In one jurisdiction, if voters call in advance, they may arrange for curb side voting, in which case the town clerk and another poll worker deliver ballots to the voter’s vehicle. Although many jurisdictions are required to have voting instructions on every machine, poll workers also provide other types of voter education. As illustrated in figure 46, poll workers can explain how to complete ballots before the voter enters the voting booth. Most of the jurisdictions we visited identified several types of assistance that are offered to voters at the polls, although the amount and type of voter education at the polls varied. Of the voting jurisdictions nationwide, our mail survey results indicate that 84 percent made written instructions available for voters to review before voting, and 37 percent provided demonstrations on how to vote through a videotape or in person. At some polling places, poll workers hand the voter an instruction card to take in the voting booth with them. When introducing a new technology, one jurisdiction dedicated a voting machine for teaching purposes, allowing voters to familiarize themselves with the equipment before actually voting. Other places have continuously running video for voter education. Long voter wait times are a problem that election officials try to avoid. Our mail survey results indicate that 13 percent of jurisdictions in the United States considered long lines at the polling places to be a major problem in the November 2000 election. These results also indicate that 88 percent of jurisdictions did not collect information on the average time that it took voters to vote in November 2000; thus, the cause of long wait times remains unclear. However, some jurisdictions reported to us anecdotally that the length of time voters must wait is affected by ballots that include many races and issues. Underestimating voter turnout also may contribute to long wait times. Some jurisdictions reported their ballot was so long that it took voters a long time in the voting booth to read it and vote. As a result, lines backed up, and some voters had to wait for over an hour to cast their votes. Officials in a very large jurisdiction said that their voters experienced long wait times, in part because redistricting caused confusion among voters, who often turned up at the wrong polling places. Election officials cited inadequate communication links from the polling places to headquarters as a problem. For instance, officials from a medium-sized jurisdiction told us that their phones were inadequate to handle the large volume of calls coming into the office so poll workers found it difficult to get through with their questions. For the November 2000 election, some jurisdictions dealt with the problem of inadequate communication links by installing more phone lines or using cell phones. One small jurisdiction distributed cell phones to poll workers whose polling places did not have phone lines. A large jurisdiction provided all polling places a cell phone. In another large jurisdiction, even though more phone lines were installed in election headquarters offices and additional staff were added to answer questions from precincts and voters, the phone system was overloaded and down at various points during election day. Overall, election officials reported a high degree of satisfaction with how the November 2000 general election was conducted in their jurisdiction. However, jurisdictions did not comprehensively collect and report on their performance. According to our mail survey, four-fifths of the jurisdictions nationwide did not seek feedback from voters on how well voter registration, absentee voting, polling place locations and times, voting equipment, polling place procedures, or other areas were administered. Some jurisdictions conducted selective evaluations of their elections. For example, some jurisdictions maintained information on overvotes and undervotes, but many did not. In one large jurisdiction, election officials conducted a survey of poll workers after the election to obtain their views of problems encountered on election day. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, officials performed an evaluation of their voting procedures. Many jurisdictions maintained logs of voter complaints. An election official from a large jurisdiction said that they do not need to solicit feedback from the voters because they receive enough unsolicited feedback. In summary, election officials face many challenges as they pursue their goal of planning and conducting an election that permits eligible citizens to cast their ballots without difficulty on election day. The following are the key challenges that election officials faced as they planned and conducted the November 2000 general election and their views on how these challenges might be addressed. Local election officials were generally satisfied that the election of November 2000 was conducted well in their jurisdictions. However, many also identified major problems that they faced, particularly in recruiting qualified poll workers who, for nominal pay, would commit to a long election day, and in handling a range of problems associated with determining voter eligibility at polling places on election day. There is wide diversity in how elections are conducted within and across states. Often these differences reflect local needs and customs. Local election officials frequently told us that “one size does not fit all.” However, local election officials acknowledge that standardization of certain aspects of election administration may be appropriate at the state and even the federal level. Based on our mail survey, we estimate that over 14 percent of local election officials nationwide are supportive of federal development of voluntary standards for election administration similar to the voluntary standards now available for election equipment. An additional 26 percent support federal development of mandatory standards for election administration. Few local election officials systematically collected information on the performance of the people, processes, and equipment on election day or conducted post-election assessments to help them understand the impact of some problems on the election. For example, few of the jurisdictions surveyed voters to obtain their views on how easy it was to understand the ballots or other voting procedures. Additionally, few states routinely ask for information on or compare the problems and performance of local election jurisdictions. However, some local election officials believe that greater sharing of information on best practices and systematic collection of standardized information on elections can help improve election administration across the United States and within states. Some also suggested this would be an appropriate role for a national election administration office and clearinghouse. If federal funds are made available for election reform, local officials believe that such funds should not be limited to equipment replacement but that they should have the option to use funds for other improvements to election administration, such as increasing poll worker pay or voter education. They also believe that they should be able to use such funds to help with what they believe are their most pressing needs. In the jurisdictions we visited, officials identified purchasing new equipment or software (for registration, absentee voting, or election day voting), increasing voter education, and poll worker pay to be their top priorities for the use of federal funds. The polls close on election day. The votes are counted, and final election results are reported. It sounds simple, but the presidential election in Florida in November 2000 revealed just how difficult the vote counting process can be as the state scrambled to provide an accurate count of the votes cast. Problems with vote counting can occur because of the way people—election officials or voters--interact with technology. For example, in New Mexico, an election official in one county incorrectly programmed the software used to count votes. The result was that more than 20,000 votes cast for President were not included in the initial counts, and the final vote totals could not be determined until the problem was resolved. In another example, the Clerk for Cook County, Illinois reported that a defect in the some of the templates used for punch card votes may have accounted for one-third of the 123,000 ballots with errors in the November 2000 election. The Methods Used to Count Votes Varied Among the Jurisdictions but The Greatest Vote Counting Challenges Occur, Not When the Margin of Victory Is Wide or Ballots Are Properly Marked, but When Elections Are Close or Voters Mark Their Ballots in Ways That Prevent the Vote Counting Equipment from Reading and Counting the Vote The methods used to count votes vary among jurisdictions, depending on the type of voting method or methods used, the type of ballots being counted, and whether some or all ballots are counted at the precinct or at a central location. However, all vote-counting methods have certain steps in common. Following the close of the polls, election officials and poll workers generally take a number of basic steps to count or tabulate votes, including securing voting machines and ballots so that no additional votes can be accounting for all ballots, reconciling any differences between the total number of ballots on hand at the beginning of the day with the number of voters who signed in at the polling place, the number of ballots distributed, and/or the number of ballots cast; qualifying and counting mail absentee ballots and provisional ballots (i.e., ballots issued to voters whose voter registration could not be confirmed at the polling place); securely transferring—electronically, physically, or both—ballots and election results (if ballots are counted at the polling place) to a central location; canvassing the votes, which includes reviewing all votes by precinct, resolving problem votes, and counting all valid votes (absentee and other preelection day; regular election day, provisional election day) for each candidate and issue on the ballot and producing a total vote for each candidate or issue; certifying the vote, in which a designated official certifies the final vote totals for each candidate and each issue on the ballot, within a specific timeframe; conducting any state-required recounts and responding to any requests responding to allegations regarding a contested election. Vote counting is not necessarily completed on election day or even on the day after. For example, nine states and the District of Columbia allow absentee ballots to be counted if they arrive after election day. To be counted, however, all of them but one require that the absentee ballot be postmarked on or before election day. Canvassing the vote—when election officials combine totals for each type of vote and the votes from each voting precinct into a total vote for each candidate and issue on the ballot—usually occurs one or more days after election day. With regard to certification of the vote, some states have a specific deadline following an election, and others do not. The election board or official may order a recount or partial recount. Most state codes contain specific provisions for conducting a recount, which may be mandatory if there is a tie vote or if the vote for a specific office falls within a certain margin of victory, such as one-half of 1 percent. If there is no recount, or when the recount has been resolved, the local results are totaled, certified, and reported to the state’s chief election official. The greatest vote counting challenges occur not when the margin of victory is wide or ballots are properly marked, but when elections are close or voters mark their ballots in ways that prevent the vote counting equipment from reading and counting the vote. This can occur, for example, when voters circle a candidate’s name on an optical scan ballot instead of filling in the oval, box, or arrow beside the candidate’s name. In close elections where there are a large number of ballots that vote counting equipment cannot read, questions may arise about the accuracy of the vote count, and recounts may be required or election results contested. Local Election Jurisdictions May Need to Count Several Different Types of Votes That Were Cast at Different Times Using Different Voting Methods Votes May Be Counted at the Precinct, at a Central Location, or at a The Counting of Each Type of Vote May Be Done by Some Type of Vote Tabulating Machine, by Hand Count, or a Combination To determine the final vote count, local election jurisdictions may need to count several different types of votes that were cast at different places using different voting methods. These types of votes include votes cast at individual polling places by registered voters who appear in the registration lists for that precinct, votes cast at individual polling places by voters who do not appear in the registration lists for that precinct and whose eligibility to vote cannot be determined at the polling place, absentee votes cast by mail before election day, and absentee and early votes cast in person before election day. Each of these types of votes may be counted at the precinct, at a central location, or at a combination of the two. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, absentee votes exceeded the number of votes cast at the voting precincts on election day in November 2000. Absentee ballots may be counted centrally, while the votes cast at the polling place by eligible voters may be counted centrally or at the precinct. The results of our national mail survey indicate that many jurisdictions count votes both centrally and at the precinct. We estimate that about 52 percent of the local election jurisdictions nationwide counted votes centrally and about 58 percent counted votes at the precinct. Of the optical scan jurisdictions, about 56 percent counted votes centrally, and about 51 percent counted votes at the precinct. We estimate that nationwide, of those jurisdictions that counted votes at a central location, about 70 percent of all jurisdictions and 90 percent of optical scan jurisdictions programmed their equipment to reject or separate ballots that the equipment could not read. The counting of each type of vote may be done by some type of vote tabulating machine, by hand-count, or a combination. According to our analysis of available data on voting jurisdictions, about 2 percent of the approximately 186,000 precincts nationwide are in jurisdictions that hand- count paper ballots. The remaining 98 percent of the precincts use some type of vote-counting equipment. The 27 local election jurisdictions we visited illustrate the wide variation among election jurisdictions. Twelve of the these jurisdictions used one voting method for casting election day ballots and a different method for casting absentee or early voting ballots. Ten jurisdictions used ether DRE or lever equipment on election day. With DRE and lever equipment, voters cast their ballots directly on the equipment; they do not use individual paper ballots. Thus, DRE and lever jurisdictions use a different type of voting method that uses some type of individual paper ballot for mail absentee voting. Fourteen jurisdictions used the same voting method for election day and absentee and early voting ballots—all were jurisdictions in which voters cast their votes on individual punch cards or paper ballots. Eighteen of the 27 jurisdictions counted ballots cast on election day at the precinct, and 10 of the 27 counted absentee ballots at the precinct. In one jurisdiction, absentee ballots were qualified for counting at the precincts, but counted centrally. One jurisdiction counted mail absentee ballots centrally, but counting other preelection day ballots at the precinct. Details for each jurisdiction are shown in table 23 in appendix VII. The way in which votes are counted on each type of voting equipment is described in detail in chapter 1. Here we focus on the ways in which election jurisdictions used those technologies. After voting, the voter deposits his or her ballot in a ballot container placed in the polls. The ballot may remain in a secrecy envelope or slip from the secrecy envelope as it is deposited into the ballot container. After the polls close, the ballots are transported to a central-count location where they are fed into a tabulator and counted by precinct. After the completion of the tabulation process, the election workers responsible for managing the counting center use the tabulator to generate a report, which lists the voting results by precinct and by candidate. Figure 47 shows a central- count tabulation machine. Nationwide, of those jurisdictions that used central vote counting equipment in November 2000, about 70 percent programmed the vote counting equipment to reject or separate ballots that the equipment could not read. Almost 90 percent of jurisdictions that used central-count optical scan equipment did this. Where central counting was used, voters did not have an opportunity to correct ballots that could not be read by the counting equipment. Votes may be counted at the precinct. Hand-counted paper ballots are usually counted at the voting precinct. Lever and DRE equipment is designed to automatically tabulate the votes cast on each machine at the precinct. Generally, punch card jurisdictions use central counting equipment. However, punch cards may be counted at the precinct in some cases. One advantage of precinct counting is that the counting equipment at each precinct can be configured to notify voters of errors they have made on their ballots that would prevent any of their votes from being counted. This includes overvotes—voting for more than the allowed number of candidates for an office—and undervotes—voting for no candidates or fewer than the permitted number of candidates for an office. DRE and lever equipment can be programmed to prevent voters from casting overvotes. DRE equipment can also be programmed to alert voters to undervotes. A jurisdiction may have had the precinct count technology available, but could not use it in the November 2000 election. For example, Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, had the technology for their punch card ballots but were prohibited by state law from using it. All five of the punch card jurisdictions we visited used central counts, where the punch cards were collected from the precincts and sent to a central-count location. About half of optical scan jurisdictions used precinct counts in November 2000. Generally, in jurisdictions that count ballots by hand at the precinct, election workers remove ballots from the ballot container and tally the valid votes. We visited two small jurisdictions that counted votes by hand. As described by local election officials in one of these jurisdictions, each precinct filled out a certificate of results once the counting was complete. The certificate showed how many votes each candidate received. Poll workers also must record the number of unused, spoiled, challenged, and absentee ballots on a separate form. When the poll workers have completed the certificate, they posted a copy of the precinct results outside the precinct and sent another to the county clerk’s office. With lever machines and DREs, voters do not receive individual paper ballots to mark. Poll workers take counts at the precinct from lever machines. For lever machines, the votes cast by each voter trigger mechanically controlled tumblers, which are concealed in a sealed compartment at the back of the machine. After the polls close, poll workers open the sealed compartment and record the vote totals shown on the tumblers. After recording the vote results, the machine is resealed to prevent tampering. Some lever machines can print a paper copy of the vote totals shown on the tumblers. To get the printed copy, a poll worker must pull a sheet of roll paper over the tumblers and rub the number indicated for each candidate in each contest and for each issue. Figure 48 shows the back of such a machine and the sheet of paper with the vote totals. With DREs, the votes cast by the voter are stored in the unit’s memory component after the voter indicates that he or she has completed the voting process, usually by pressing a “Vote” button or screen. After the close of the polls, the poll workers responsible for managing the precinct use the unit to generate a report, which lists the voting results. Different methods may be used to transmit the results. For example, in one medium-sized jurisdiction, the DRE cartridges were delivered to the various municipal clerks’ offices, where the voting results were transmitted electronically to the county clerk’s office. In a large jurisdiction, the DRE cartridges were transported to one of seven counting centers. The results were transmitted over the county’s secure data network to the registrar’s office. With precinct-based optical scan equipment, the voter removes the ballot from the secrecy envelope and feeds it into a tabulator placed in the polls. “Read heads” engineered in the tabulator identify the votes cast on the ballot and electronically record them in a memory component housed in the tabulator. After passing over the read heads, the ballot is channeled into a storage bin, where it remains until the close of the polls. After the close of the polls, the election workers responsible for managing the precinct use the tabulator to generate a report that lists the voting results. Figure 49 shows a precinct-count optical scan machine. Voting Equipment Can Be Locked and Ballots Sealed so That the Voting Results May Not Be Altered Once the Precinct Has Closed Poll Workers May Use Some Method to Ensure That All Ballots Are Accounted for at Precinct Closing Once a precinct has closed, voting equipment can be locked and ballots sealed so that the voting results may not be altered. When this is done depends on whether votes are counted at the precinct or centrally. In jurisdictions in which all votes are counted centrally and in precinct-count jurisdictions in which absentee and provisional votes are counted centrally, poll workers can lock voting equipment and secure ballots shortly after the polls close. In jurisdictions in which only absentee and provisional ballots are counted at the precincts, one or more precinct counters may remain unlocked so that poll workers may use them to count these ballots after the polls close. The procedures for securing and locking voting equipment varies by the type of voting equipment used. For example, for optical scan equipment, poll workers may read an “end” ballot into the optical scan counter at the precinct, which instructs the equipment to accept no more ballots and locks it, at which point the counter begins tallying the vote. For DREs and some optical scan equipment, poll workers may use a key to initiate the program that tabulates the total votes counted for each candidate and issue from the ballots read by the equipment. This procedure can lock the vote reading mechanism in the equipment. Poll workers can lock lever machines so that no additional votes can be recorded. However, in precincts at which absentee and provisional votes are counted, an optical scan counter or a DRE may remain unlocked so that it may be used to count these votes. In conjunction with securing voting machines and ballots at the precinct, poll workers may use some method of ensuring that all ballots are accounted for at closing. Jurisdictions can also employ one or more methods to reconcile the number of blank ballots on hand at the voting precinct at the end of election day (including any supplemental ballots provided during the day) with the number of ballots issued or the number of voters who signed in. This reconciliation may take place before or after the votes are counted at a precinct. In jurisdictions that use central count, this reconciliation can occur at the precinct before poll workers transport the ballots to the central tabulation center. Figure 50 shows a form that poll workers used at one of the jurisdictions we visited for reconciling the ballot count. We estimate that about 88 percent of jurisdictions nationwide compared the number of ballots cast with the number of voters who signed in at the voting precinct in the November 2000 election. Our mail survey of local election jurisdictions indicates that most jurisdictions nationwide compared the number of ballots cast to the number of voters who signed in to vote on election day. Specifically, we estimate that in November 2000 about 88 percent of jurisdictions nationwide compared the number of ballots cast to the number of voters who signed in to vote on election day. We estimate that about 64 percent of jurisdictions nationwide compared the total number of ballots cast, spoiled, and unused to the original supply of ballots. Nationwide, we estimate that about 78 percent of optical scan jurisdictions did such a comparison. However, only about 1 in 10 DRE jurisdictions noted took this step. This difference may be due to the differences between voting technologies that use individually marked paper ballots and those that do not. Except for voters who cast a provisional ballot, jurisdictions that use DRE or lever equipment had no paper ballots for voters to complete. About 6 percent of jurisdictions used some other type of procedure. A medium-sized punch card jurisdiction we visited provided an example of other types of procedures used to reconcile ballots and voters. There, election officials said that election judges counted the number of ballots in the ballot box after the polls closed and compared the total with the number of ballots cast. If there was a discrepancy, the ballots were recounted and the applications checked to make sure they were numbered correctly. If the count was a ballot short, it was noted. If the count was a ballot over, a ballot was randomly withdrawn from the box and placed in an envelope for excess ballots. Two election judges took the ballots in a locked transfer case to the counting center. The ballots were machine tabulated and a count provided. If the count did not match the judges’ count, the ballots were retabulated by a different machine. If the count still did not match, the ballots were sent to a discrepancy team where they were hand counted again. After this, the ballots were once again machine tabulated. These processes were from guidelines provided by the state election board. Jurisdictions May Use Different Equipment to Count Absentee or Provisional Ballots Than Regular Ballots Cast at the Voting Precinct Absentee or Provisional Ballots May Also Be Counted at a Different Place Than Regular Ballots Cast at the Voting Precinct Both mail absentee and provisional ballots must first be qualified as eligible for counting. For mail absentee ballots, this may include checking postmarks, voter signatures, or other required items on the outer envelope containing the ballot envelope. For provisional ballots, this means determining that the voter was registered and eligible to vote in the precinct in which the provisional ballot was cast. Absentee and provisional ballots may be counted at a different place using different types of vote counting equipment than those cast at the voting precinct on election day. Different equipment may also be used to record the votes. There were considerable variations in how absentee ballots were counted; for example, by hand at the precinct or by machine at the precinct or centrally. One large jurisdiction we visited used DRE equipment at the polling place in November 2000 but paper ballots for absentee ballots. These paper ballots were counted by hand at the precinct and the votes entered into a DRE unit at the precinct by poll workers. Two other DRE jurisdictions we visited also used DRE equipment at the polling place but counted both absentee and provisional ballots at a central place, using optical scan equipment. However, in one of these jurisdictions, voters casting early voting ballots used an optical scan machine that notified voters if their ballot could not be read, allowing them an opportunity to correct errors. Absentee ballots were initially counted at a central location after a review by an absentee board. Voting results stored on cartridges from the optical scan equipment from both absentee and early voting ballots were tabulated at a central location, using software customized for each election. Jurisdictions used different methods to allow a person to vote when his or her name did not appear on the official voter registration list and their voter registration could not be confirmed at the voting precinct. In such cases, jurisdictions in some states provided voters with a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots were generally kept separate from other ballots and researched by election officials to determine the voter’s eligibility to vote. Only those ballots cast by voters whose eligibility had been confirmed were generally counted. However, provisional ballots were not always counted. In a small jurisdiction we visited, for example, if a voter was not listed in the voting precinct’s list of registered voters, local election officials searched for the person’s name by computer using a statewide database of voter registration records. If the voter’s name still could not be found, the voter was permitted to fill out an “escrow” ballot, this jurisdiction’s term for provisional ballots. However, these provisional votes are not counted unless the election is close enough that the provisional votes, if all cast for the same candidate, would be sufficient to change the outcome of the election for one or more offices on the ballot. If the number of provisional ballots were sufficient to change the outcome, the ballots would only be counted after additional research was completed to verify the voter’s registration status. In one large jurisdiction, election officials said that, partly to avoid confrontation with people on election day, they provided provisional ballots to individuals who appeared at the front desk of the central election office and stated that they were registered to vote and wished to vote. If a person’s registration was confirmed, his or her vote was counted with all the rest. Election officials tracked the number of provisional ballots that could not be counted because they found that the person was not registered. In the November 2000 election, 1,302 provisional ballots in this jurisdiction were rejected from the count—less than one-half of 1 percent of the total 299,776 votes cast in the election. A Canvass of the Election Results Is Usually Conducted a Day or Two After Election Day by the Jurisdiction’s Canvass Board or an Official, at Which Time All the Precinct Results Are Tabulated Together Eight of 27 Election Jurisdictions Selected for Our Site Visits Reported Problems With the Vote Counting Equipment, Involving Either Technical Difficulties or Human Error That Caused Problems in Obtaining an Accurate Count Once the polls close and the votes are transported to a central location where they are counted, or voting results are transmitted from the polling place to a central location, the canvassing process may begin. Canvass is the term used in many states to describe the process of vote counting, including aggregating the votes from all precincts to obtain the jurisdictional totals, and from all jurisdictions to obtain statewide totals. A recanvass is a repetition of the canvass. A canvass of the election results is usually conducted a day or two after election day by the jurisdiction’s canvass board or an official. Once the canvass is completed, the final vote counts are certified, the official results issued, and the canvass board or other official certifies the vote count by a specific date after the election. Dates vary by state. The canvassing process varies widely, as illustrated by several examples from our site visits. The process may be conducted by a canvassing board, board of elections staff, or bankers and lawyers hired for the canvass. It may include provisional ballots in the canvassed totals. The process can involve some hand counts, a comparison of results from individual voting machines to precinct totals or totals reported to the state, or a comparison of hand counts of absentee votes to the machine counts for absentee votes. Regardless of how canvassing is done, its principal purpose is to produce an accurate vote count. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, the election canvass process consisted of an internal audit conducted by the canvass board. Canvass board duties included processing absentee ballots, checking postmarks, verifying signatures, opening envelopes, and sorting ballots. The canvass was required by state law to ensure the accuracy of election results. The canvass board certified special elections or primary elections on the tenth day after the election and general election results on the fifteenth day after the election. During the canvass process, absentee and provisional ballots not counted on election night were researched to validate their eligibility to be counted. In addition, the canvassers conducted an audit and reconciliation of the number of signatures indicated by the poll inspector on the poll roster with the number of ballots tabulated by the counter. The canvass was completed with the certification and issuance of official election results. In another medium-sized jurisdiction, officials noted that the voting machines were canvassed after the polls close. All of the paper ballots, including affidavit ballots, which is this jurisdiction’s term for provisional ballots, and emergency ballots were returned to the Board of Elections. If required, affidavit ballots and absentee ballots were researched. The paper ballots were counted and the results tallied. The ballots were counted during the 7 days after the election at the county court house office. Officials said the lever machine totals were recanvassed by Board of Elections staff, including one Democrat and one Republican. In a large jurisdiction, bankers and lawyers were hired for the canvass and worked together in separate banker or lawyer teams; each team did its own vote tally sheet. Bankers did not review the tally until the lawyers were done. Write-in votes for candidates were added as adjustments to DRE machine tabulations. The teams verified the information on the tally sheets by comparing information from each DRE machine’s paper tape to printed results collected by the State Election Director’s office. Absentee votes were tallied by hand and then compared to the machine’s reported count for absentee votes. This was done to confirm the accuracy of the hand- counted absentee vote totals entered into one of the DRE machines at each precinct. The Chancery Court certified the canvass in the county. The canvass process began the Thursday following election day. Two judges from different political parties are to resolve any challenges to the vote count. As discussed in the section on voting technology, pre- and post-election tests were widely performed on voting equipment, at precincts and central counting locations, to make sure the equipment was operating properly, to check for accuracy, and to guard against tampering. In addition to testing the voting equipment, a manual recount may be routinely performed on a small percentage of ballots, as a check on the validity and accuracy of the machine count. Accuracy operational tests are most difficult with DRE and lever equipment, where there is no ballot document and the count is recorded at the voting booth on each individual machine. A thorough preelection test would require hundreds of simulated votes to be placed on each machine. Election officials in the 27 sites we visited were generally satisfied with the performance of the vote casting and tabulating equipment used in the November 2000 election. Officials in 18 jurisdictions reported no problems with vote counting; 8 sites reported problems; and 1 site provided no response. The problems reported by the 8 sites mostly concerned the vote counting equipment, involving either technical difficulties or human error. Other problems mentioned included reconciling hand and machine counts with poll books and the counting of absentee and provisional ballots. Some of the technical difficulties included punch cards that stuck together and could not be read by the counting machines that were fed stacks of cards at a time; punch card counting machines that froze up during the count; 5,000 regular and absentee punch card ballots that had to be remade because they could not be machine read; slight variances in the punch card ballots produced by two different card vendors that made it difficult to use the machines that counted the punch cards; optical scan equipment that stopped working because it became clogged with paper dust due to the size of the ballot and the number of ballots received; and integrating the operations of two different DREs that were being tested in the same jurisdiction. Some of the human errors that contributed to problems in counting the vote included incorrect marks by voters on optical scan ballots that could not be programming errors in the software used to tally optical scan ballots. Among those jurisdictions that reported no problems, officials from one site mentioned some growing pains with remote tallying. One reported that checks and balances used throughout the day prevented counting problems, and another reported no problems since switching to DRE equipment. The remaining sites identified a “smooth election” or simply no problems in counting the vote. State Guidance on What Is a Proper Mark on a Ballot and How to Interpret Variations From Proper Ballot Marks Varied Some States Are Voter Intent States, and Election Officials Are Tasked With Determining How a Voter Intended to Cast a Vote When a Question About the Ballot Arises Other States Do Not Try to Interpret Voter Intent, but Instead Rely Solely on Specific Voter Actions In the canvassing process, election officials generally must consider issues regarding ballots that have not been marked properly—for example, an optical scan ballot in which the voter has circled a candidate’s name, instead of completing the oval, box, or arrow next to the candidate’s name. State guidance on what is a proper mark on a ballot and how to interpret variations from proper ballot marks vary. Each type of voting equipment presents different issues. What constitutes a proper mark on a ballot can differ based on the type of voting method used. With DRE and lever equipment, voters record their vote directly on the equipment. Because there is no separate ballot, there is generally no need for a specification of what constitutes a properly marked ballot. With paper, optical scan, and punch card ballots, there is the possibility that such a determination would need to be made. With these methods, a voter must make the proper mark or punch to indicate which candidate or issue he or she is voting for. If the mark is not made correctly, it can result in an improperly marked ballot that may be subject to review. Depending on the requirements in the jurisdiction, these problem ballots may be reviewed to determine a voter’s intent; in other jurisdictions, they will not. On the basis of our survey of state election directors, 30 states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a state law or other provision that specified what is a proper ballot marking for each voting method. Definitions regarding what constitutes a proper ballot marking for paper, punch card, and optical scan ballots varied by state, where they existed, and for the type of machine. Some statutes did not contain specific definitions of proper ballot markings, but instead referred to instructions on the ballot or to requirements of the voting method. For example, in Maine “the voter must mark the ballot as instructed in the directions on the ballot to indicate a vote for the name of each nominee for whom the voter wishes to vote.” In Iowa "the instructions appearing on the ballot shall describe the appropriate mark to be used by the voter. The mark shall be consistent with the requirements of the voting system in use in the precinct.” Other states had statutory provisions that were more specific regarding the type of marks that would count as a valid vote. For paper ballots, for example, Michigan was specific about the type of proper marks that should be counted as a valid vote, requiring that a cross, the intersection of which is within or on the line of the proper circle or square, or a check mark, the angle of which is within a circle or square, is valid. Some states also provided specific instructions on how optical scan ballots should be marked. For example, Alaska requires that the mark be counted if it is substantially inside the oval provided, or touching the oval so as to indicate clearly that the voter intended the particular oval to be designated. In Nebraska, to vote for a candidate, “the registered voter shall make a cross or other clear, intelligible mark in the square or oval to the left of the name of every candidate, including write-in candidates, for whom he or she desires to vote.” For states that use punch card ballots, the definitions varied from general instructions on what should constitutes a proper ballot mark under all types of voting methods, as previously described, to more specific instructions. For example, in Massachusetts, the instructions state “a voter may vote by punching holes in a data processing card.” In Texas, in any manual count, the instructions state a punch card ballot may not be counted unless “(1) at least two corners of the chad are detached; (2) light is visible through the hole; (3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or (4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter.” The problem of trying to interpret variations from proper ballot marking was clearly evident in the November 2000 presidential election in Florida. Issues arise with paper, optical scan, and punch card ballots, not when the ballots are marked properly for the type of ballot used, but when there are variations from proper marking. In our survey of state election directors, 25 states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a state law or other provision that specified for variations from proper ballot markings. In addition, some states are voter intent states, and election officials are tasked with determining how a voter intended to cast a vote when a question about the ballot arises. Other states do not try to interpret voter intent but instead rely solely on specific voter actions. Some states had general statutory provisions that they provided general provisions that covered all types of voting methods. For example, California law requires that each voting method have procedures adopted for use with that method and each set of procedures addresses this issue in detail. In California, these procedures are set out in a separate voting procedures manual. Some states had specific guidance for different types of voting methods. Some states had specific instructions on how to interpret variations from proper markings on paper ballots. Minnesota law contains detailed specifications as to where the mark “X” on the ballot can be placed and still be a valid vote, and regarding the use of marks other than the mark “X.” New Jersey law is also specific as to where the mark is placed and the type of mark to make on the ballot. Marks must be substantially in the square to the left of the candidate’s name and must be substantially a cross, plus, or check. State law differed among some states for interpreting variations from proper marking on optical scan ballots. In Illinois, a voter casts a proper vote on a ballot sheet by making a mark in a designated area. A mark is an intentional darkening of the designated area on the ballot sheet, and shall not be an “X,” a check mark, or any other recognizable letter of the alphabet, number, or other symbol which can be recognized as an identifying mark. On the other hand, Wisconsin requires that a mark be counted if a voter marks a ballot with a cross or other marks within the square to the right of the candidate’s name, or any place within the space in which the name appears, indicating an intent to vote for that candidate. Some state laws are specific on how to count punch card ballots, but these laws can vary by state. For example, under a recent amendment to Ohio law, effective August 2001, a chad with three corners attached to a ballot and detached at one corner must not be counted as a vote. Under a recently passed Nevada law, effective October 2001, a chad with three corners attached to the ballot and one detached must be counted as a vote. Other punch card states provided general or no guidance for interpreting variations from proper marking directive or procedures. In Arizona, according to the Secretary of State’s procedures manual for inspection boards, board members are to remove hanging chads prior to tabulating the ballots; “hanging chad” means hanging by one or two corners. In Oregon, a Secretary of State directive provides the instruction to “remove loose chad to insure that voters’ choices are accurately reflected in the count,” but there were no specific instructions about how many corners must be hanging to be counted. We estimate that nationwide about 32 percent of local election jurisdictions had no written instructions, either from the state or local jurisdiction, on how to interpret voter intent, such as stray marks on ballots or partially punched punch card boxes. As discussed earlier, states have varying requirements for the counting of improperly marked ballots. Even if a state has specified how a ballot should be marked, there are often variations from those ballot markings that are allowed to be counted. Beyond counting ballots with specified variations from proper ballot markings, many states specifically require election officials to count ballots if the “intent of the voter” can be determined. In our survey of state election directors, 31 states and the District of Columbia reported that they make some determination of voter intent. State statutes specifically address voter intent in a number of different contexts, including the count of all votes, absentee votes, write-in votes, manual recounts, and others. Certain states apply either an “intent of the voter” standard or an “impossible to determine the elector’s choice” standard in the review of ballots. For example, Vermont law states that “in counting ballots, election officials shall attempt to ascertain the intent of the voter, as expressed by his markings on the ballot.” Illinois law states that “if the voter marks more candidates than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if for any reason it is impossible to determine the voter’s choice for any office to be filled, his ballot shall not be counted for such office….” Although many states allow for a determination of voter intent, it is difficult to describe how this determination is being made in each of the states, because the responsibility is often delegated to local election officials. Below the state level, we asked the local election jurisdictions in our national mail survey if they had specific instructions on how to interpret voter intent, such as stray marks on paper ballots, dimples, or partially punched chads on punch card ballots. Our mail survey results indicate about 30 percent of local jurisdictions nationwide had written state instructions, about 15 percent had instructions developed by the jurisdictions, and about 23 percent had both. Optical scan jurisdictions were the most likely to have any one of the three types of instructions and DRE jurisdictions the least likely. Overall, we estimate that about 32 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had no written instructions and about 92 percent of DRE jurisdictions had no written instructions. In addition, during our visits to 27 election jurisdictions, we asked election officials if they had a definition of what constitutes a vote. We also asked the officials if they had written instructions on how to handle those ballots that could not be machine counted, such as those with hanging chads. Instructions, when they existed, were often detailed and specific to a location. The most notable differences were in the punch card jurisdictions. With regard to punch card ballots, jurisdictions we visited reported various ways to handle problem ballots. For example, in one medium-sized jurisdiction, election officials told us if the punch card ballot contained a dimple with a pinhole, employees were instructed to put the original ballot over a pink (or duplicate) ballot, hold it up to the light, and punch where they saw light. The employee also turned over the ballot and looked for bumps, which indicated the voter inserted the ballot backwards. If a ballot contained bumps on the backside, the ballot could be duplicated properly by election officials so that it could be read by the vote counting equipment. In another medium-sized jurisdiction, a vote on a punch card was defined as any removed chad plus any chad that freely swung by one side. The person scanning the ballot was to inspect it for improperly punched chads by running the ballot through his or her fingers. In one very large jurisdiction, the ballot inspection teams were given a pair of tweezers and told to remove any chads remaining on the punch card. In another very large jurisdiction election workers were to remove a chad if it was broken on three sides and connected to the punch card by no more than two sides. One medium jurisdiction used persons called “scanners” to go over the ballots before they were counted. Each ballot was inspected for improperly punched chads by running the ballot cards between the scanners fingers. Very loose chads would be removed through this process. If the chad did not come off and freely swings by one side, it could be removed. Problem ballots, such as those that were unreadable because of incompletely removed punches or incorrect punches, which can alter the counting results or create problems with the computer processing, were given to “makeover scanners.” Ballots that needed to be reviewed and possibly remade by the make-over scanners were placed in the ballot transfer case, either on top of the rest of the materials, or sideways in the stack of ballots, so that they were easily recognizable. For example, a ballot with an improper punch, such as those made with a pen or pencil, were sent to the “make-over scanners” to be remade. In one medium-sized jurisdiction, all ballot cards were inspected, marked with a precinct, and had the chad removed regardless of whether the ballot was regular or irregular. Careful attention was directed to finding a loose “chad” (partially punched) and bent or torn cards. If a “chad” was loose (attached by two corners or less), it was considered an attempt to vote for that choice and the “chad” was completely removed to enable the ballot tabulator to properly count that vote. Ballot cards were inspected for bends or tears that would prevent the ballot tabulator from counting the votes. Those that were imperfect were placed with irregular ballots. Each ballot card was also checked for punch positions that were circled or crossed out that would have indicated that the voter had changed their vote on the ballot card. Any ballot card with pen or pencil marks, tape, glue, or grease was placed with the irregular ballot cards. Although DRE equipment is designed to minimize voter error, problems can also occur with this voting method as well. However, the problems, do not generally involve the interpretation of improperly marked ballots, but rather with voter error in using the DRE equipment. As with the other voting methods, the jurisdictions may deal with the problems raised in different ways. For example, many DREs require the voter to push a cast- vote button before leaving the booth or the vote is not recorded. However, some voters forget to push this button and leave the polling place. One medium-sized jurisdiction required that an election official reach under the voting booth curtain and push the cast-vote button without looking at the ballot to cast the vote. However, a large jurisdiction required that the election official shall invalidate such ballots and reset the machine for a new voter. After pressing the final cast vote button on DRE equipment, voters cannot alter their votes. Election officials told us of small children being held by parents who kicked the final vote button, located at the lower right of the machine, before the parent had completed their ballot. In such cases, the voter may not be permitted to complete the ballot using some alternative method. When the Results Are to be Certified and by Whom Varied Among the Rather Than a Single Event, the Certification Process Can Occur in The media may report election results on election night and declare winners, but those returns are not official. In most states, the election returns posted on election nights are unofficial results. The results of an election are not final until the results have been certified. Different states have different methods of certifying the final results. In an Election Administration Survey performed by the National Association of State Election Directors in December 2000, respondents from different states replied that different individuals or boards are to certify the election returns. The responses on who is to certify the vote included, depending on the state, the Secretary of State, the Director of Elections, the Governor, the State Board of Canvassers, the State Board of Elections, or the State Board of Certifiers. The response from Pennsylvania cited the Secretary of the Commonwealth as the person who is to certify the election returns. In Tennessee, the response was that the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Attorney General all are to certify the election returns. When the election must be certified also varied among the states, with some states having no state deadline for vote certification. Some respondents replied that the time that the state has to certify the returns was expressed as a number of days after the election. For example, Texas and Washington have 30 days to certify; Iowa has 27; New Mexico has 21; Hawaii, Michigan, and Illinois have 20; North Dakota has 17; Alabama and Idaho have 15; and Colorado has 14. Some states have extensions and caveats. For example, Louisiana requires certification in 12 days unless the last day falls on a holiday or weekend. Other respondents replied that the time to certify was expressed as a time period, including the third Monday following the election for Arizona, the first day of the next month for Kansas, the fourth Monday after the election for Nebraska, 5 p.m. on the Friday following the election for Oklahoma, the fourth Monday in November for Utah, no later than December 1 for Wisconsin, and the second Wednesday following the election for Wyoming. The response from Alaska was that there was no actual statutory deadline to certify the election results. Maryland also reported having no specific time in which to certify the election returns, but the statewide canvassers convene within 35 days after the election. Rhode Island reported that the requirement on the time to certify the election results was simply sufficient time for the candidates to be sworn in. During our site visits, we also found differences in the how local election jurisdictions certified their results. Rather than a single event, the certification process can occur in steps, as shown in the following examples. At one very large jurisdiction, the Board of Elections completed the certification process. After all the votes had been counted and recorded, the Board of Elections held a public hearing during which the votes for each office were announced. A five-day appeal period followed. The Board of Elections signed the official count of the votes, certified the results, and sent the results to the state election director. According to local election officials, the certification was to occur within 20 days of the date of the election by state law. The officials said that it is difficult to meet that deadline, given all the hand counting and recounting required. In one large jurisdiction we visited, each of 10 counting centers had a modem to electronically transmit the voting results to Election Headquarters in the Department of Elections building. Optical scan equipment counted the absentee ballots at the Central Counting Board in a convention center. The Central Counting Board transmitted the absentee voting results to elections headquarters using a dedicated phone line. The Board of Canvass certified the final count and submitted it to the county, which in turn submitted it to the Board of State Canvassers, which had 20 days to certify the results. In another large jurisdiction, the County Election Board met on election night to certify the election to the state for state and federal candidates. One person was assigned to read the memory packs from the optical scan equipment for each precinct into the equipment as they were received. When all memory packs had been read into the equipment, a precinct report was printed. The report was proofread against the total printout tapes from every precinct. When this task was completed, the certification report was printed and proofread. Two copies of the certification report were printed and signed by the County Election Board secretary and members, and the Election Board seal was affixed. The county kept one copy, and the other was mailed to the Secretary of State on the day after the election. The Secretary of State certified the results after 5 p.m. on the Friday after the election. In one small jurisdiction, the County Board of Elections prepared a county- wide tally sheet for the results from all nine precincts. The county-wide tally sheet numbers were transcribed to a state form, which was secured using tabs and taken by courier to the State Board of Elections in the state capital. The county-wide tally sheets were provided to the Chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Parties, to the General Registrar, and a copy was provided for the Minute Book and the County Office. The sheets are certified by the local county Board of Elections, and the board members signed the county-wide tally sheet. Forty-seven States and the District of Columbia Have Provisions for a Election Officials from 42 of the 513 Responding Jurisdictions in Our Mail Survey Said That They Had One or More Recounts for Federal or Statewide Office Between 1996 and 2000 According to Officials in the 42 Jurisdictions, None of the Recounts Changed the Original Outcome of the Election When the margin of victory is close, within a certain percentage or number of votes, issues may arise about the accuracy of the vote count, and recounts may be required and/or requested. When this occurs, each jurisdiction must recount the votes for the office or issue in question. Each jurisdiction must adhere to different guidelines to ensure an accurate and timely recount of election results. Depending on state law and the type of voting method in each jurisdiction, the recount process differs. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have provisions for a recount. The exceptions are Hawaii, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Illinois only allows a discovery recount that does not change the election results. Seventeen states have provisions that call for a mandatory recount, often when there is a tie or the margin between the candidates is a small percentage or number of votes, such as when the difference between the candidates is less than a certain percent or number of votes. For example, the criterion for a mandatory recount in South Dakota and Alaska is a tie vote. The margin for a mandatory recount in Arizona is one-tenth of 1 percent, or 200 votes. In Michigan, the margin is 2,000 or fewer votes. The recount may be conducted before or after the certification, and the recount may be an administrative process or to may be a judicial process or both. The Secretary of State, a state election board, local election officials, or court-appointed counters may conduct the recount, also depending on the state. To determine the recount provisions in each state, we analyzed state statutes and surveyed state election directors and the election director for the District of Columbia. Table 24 in appendix VII provides the conditions for a mandatory recount, whether requested recounts are permitted, and who is responsible for conducting the recount in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. When the margin of victory is very close, recounts can occur, and flaws in the vote counting system may become apparent. In the November 2000 presidential election, the winner’s margin was less than one-half of 1 percent in four states—Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa. From 1948 through 2000, the winning margin in 31 presidential elections in 22 states has been less than 1 percent. In response to a question in our mail survey, election officials from 42 of the 513 responding jurisdictions said that they had a recount for federal or state office between 1996 and 2000. The recounts occurred in 16 states. Because some of the recounts were for the same office and some jurisdictions had more than one recount, the 42 jurisdictions reported recounts for 55 offices. For example, one county in Florida conducted a recount both for a state office in 1998 and President in 2000. Additional details on these jurisdictions are provided in appendix VII in table 25. In addition to the presidential election in Florida in November 2000, jurisdictions reported that they had recounts for the U.S. Senate contests, governor, state representatives, judges, state board of education, superintendent of schools, the register of deeds, state controller, state secretary or commissioner of labor, and state secretary or commissioner of agriculture. Election officials most often identified a requirement in state law as the reason that a recount occurred, such as the margin between the candidates being within a given percentage or number of votes. Other reasons noted were candidate request, secretary of state order, and court order. Officials in a few jurisdictions could not recall why they performed the recount. Figure 51 shows the reasons for which officials in these 42 jurisdictions said the recounts were conducted. The officials who reportedly authorized the recounts are shown in figure 52, and the board or official who actually conducted the recount is shown in figure 53. The jurisdictions were split in their responses as to whether the recount occurred before or after certification. Of the jurisdictions, 26 responded that the recount occurred before certification, and 19 responded that the recount occurred after certification. Eight jurisdictions didn’t know if they recounted the votes before or after certification, and three did not respond. All but one recount involved recounting all precincts. The exception involved a recount of just absentee ballots in one jurisdiction. However, absentee ballots were included in all of the recounts. According to election officials, 27 of the reported recounts involved optical scan ballots that were recounted using vote-counting equipment. Hand recounts were done in 8 cases, some included paper ballots or optical scan ballots. Paper tapes were reconciled to totals from direct recording equipment in 11 cases. Punch cards were recounted by machine in 6 cases. One recount involved a lever machine. However, in the end, it did not matter who requested or ordered the recount, the office that was at stake, who conducted the recount, the method used for the recount, or whether it occurred before or after certification. According to officials in the 42 jurisdictions, none of the recounts changed the original outcome of the election. Additional details on some of these recounts are provided in appendix VII. Contested Elections Can Occur When a Party Alleges Misconduct or Fraud on the Part of the Candidate, the Election Officials, or the Voters CRS Identified Five House of Representative Elections That Were Contested in the Period 1996 to 2000, and None Changed the Original Outcome of the Election Two Jurisdictions From Our Sample of 513 Election Jurisdictions Identified Two Contested Elections for National or Statewide Office Between 1996 and 2000, and Neither Contested Election Changed the Original Outcome of the Election Although recounts are to be conducted when the margin of victory is close and the accuracy of the vote count is questioned, they can also occur as a result of an election that is contested. Contested elections can occur when a party alleges misconduct or fraud on the part of the candidate, the election officials, or the voters. The Constitution provides that “ach House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members…” (Art. I, sec. 5). Within this constitutional framework, the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 governs contests for the seats in the House of Representatives. By contrast, the Senate does not have codified provisions for its contested election procedures. The act essentially sets forth the procedures by which a defeated candidate may contest a seat in the House of Representatives. The contest is first heard by the Committee on House Administration, which can conduct its own investigation of the contested election and report the results. Then the whole House, after discussion and debate, can dispose of the case by privileged resolution by a simple majority vote. Based on House precedent, certification of the election results is important, since the official returns are evidence of the regularity and correctness of the state election returns. The certification process places the burden of coming forward with evidence to challenge such presumptions on the contestants. The contestant has the burden of proving significant irregularity which would entitle him or her to a seat in the House. Fraud is never presumed but must be proven by the contestant. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) identified 102 contested elections for the House of Representatives from 1933 to 2000. According to CRS, the vast majority of these cases was resolved in favor of the candidate who was originally declared the victor. Since the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 was enacted, most cases have been dismissed because the contestant failed to sustain the burden of proof necessary to overcome a motion to dismiss. CRS identified five House of Representative elections that were contested in the period 1996 to 2000. The House of Representatives adopted the House Committee motion to report dismissing the election contests in three cases, and the contestants withdrew the challenges in the other two. In three cases, the House Committee did not find for the contestant and adopted resolutions dismissing the election contests, which were passed by House vote. In one case, Anderson v. Rose, H.Rep. 104-852 (1996) in the 7th District of North Carolina, the contestant presented credible allegations that spotlighted serious and potentially criminal violations of election laws. However, the House Committee found that they were not sufficient to change the outcome of the election if proven true. In another case, Haas v. Bass, H.Rep. 104-853 (1996) in the 2nd District of New Hampshire, the contestant claimed that the other candidate failed to file an affidavit attesting to the fact that he was not a subversive person as defined by New Hampshire law. However, the House Committee found that the law the contestant relied upon had been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and repealed by the New Hampshire legislature prior to the election. In the third case, Dornan v. Sanchez, H.Rep. 105-416 (1998) in the 46th District of California, the contestant alleged noncitizen voting and voting irregularities, such as improper delivery of absentee ballots, double voting, and phantom voting. The Task Force on Elections found clear and convincing evidence that 748 invalid votes were cast in the election, but it was less than the 979-vote margin in the election. In two cases, the contestants withdrew the challenges. In one case, Munster v. Gejdenson, 104th Congress (no report filed) in the 2nd District of Connecticut, the contestant claimed vote counters made errors of judgment. In the second case, Brooks v. Harman, 104th Congress (no report filed) in the 36th District of California, the contestant claimed the 812-vote margin of victory was based on illegal ballots, including votes from nonresidents, minors, and voters illegally registered at abandoned buildings and commercial addresses. In our survey of 513 jurisdictions, we asked them if they had a contested election for federal or statewide office during the period 1996 to 2000. Two jurisdictions reported contested elections for a federal office, and neither contest changed the outcome of the election. None of the jurisdictions reported a contested election for statewide office during that time period. The first contested election was the 1996 U.S. senate contest in Louisiana, Landrieu v. Jenkins. The jurisdiction reported that candidate Jenkins contested the election, raising questions of voter integrity. Allegations included people voting twice, people voting using the names of the deceased, people voting using the identity of others, vote buying, political machine influences, election official conspiracy, and machine tampering and malfunctions. According to the jurisdiction, the contest went first to the Louisiana state legislature, then to the U.S. Congress, which investigated the issue. Retired FBI agents investigated the allegations by interviewing election officials and testing voting machines. The investigation was completed within 6 months. The contest did not change the outcome of the election. The second contested election was the Florida presidential contest in November 2000, Bush v. Gore. The jurisdiction reported that the narrow margin in the contest triggered a recount, and then voter integrity was also questioned. Both the Republican and Democratic parties and candidates contested the election. Allegations included voters who cast duplicate ballots, voters who were ineligible to vote because of felonies, voters who were not U.S. citizens, people who voted in the name of voters deceased before the election, people who voted using the identity of others, and people who voted but were not registered to vote. There were also allegations that the polls closed too early and that law enforcement officers detained voters on their way to the polls. The contested presidential election in Florida was ultimately resolved by the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The Court, in determining whether manual recount procedures adopted by the Florida Supreme Court were consistent with the obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the electorate, found a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most jurisdictions did not report any problems in counting the vote, but when they did, it usually involved either technical or human error that affected the voting equipment. The challenge for voting officials is developing an awareness of and planning for addressing such errors. Having multiple checks on the people involved and the processes followed can help prevent human errors. Although technical errors cannot always be anticipated, an awareness of the types of errors that have occurred in other jurisdictions and contingency planning for them can help when they do occur. A challenge for many jurisdictions is how to determine voter intent for improperly marked optical scan, paper, and punch card ballots that counting equipment could not read and count or that those who hand counted the paper ballots could not clearly interpret. An issue in the recount of presidential votes in Florida in 2000 was the variation in the interpretation of improperly marked ballots in different jurisdictions. Our data suggest that similar issues could arise in other states. The process for initiating and conducting recounts and contested elections varied by jurisdiction. Regardless of the processes used, the challenge is the same—to complete the recount or determine the contested election in a fair, accurate, and timely manner. Voting methods can be thought of as tools for accommodating the millions of voters in our nation’s more than 10,000 local election jurisdictions. These tools are as simple as a pencil, paper, and a box, or as sophisticated as computer-based touchscreens. However, to be fully understood, all these methods need to be examined in relation to the people who participate in elections (both voters and election workers) and the processes that govern their interaction with each other and with the voting method. This chapter focuses on the technology variable in the people, process, and technology equation. It describes the various voting methods used in the November 2000 election in terms of their accuracy, ease of use, efficiency, security, testing, maintenance, and cost; provides cost estimates for purchasing new voting equipment for local election jurisdictions; and describes new voting equipment and methods that are currently available or under development. Each of the five voting methods was used extensively in the United States in the November 2000 election. Punch card and optical scan equipment were most widely used, together accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the total. Figure 54 shows the distribution of voting methods in the United States by counties, precincts, and registered voters. As figure 54 shows, the results vary according to whether they were reported by county, precinct, or registered voter, but no matter how the data were reported, optical scan and punch card equipment were the most common voting methods used. Figures 55 to 59 show the distribution of various voting methods by counties, and figures 60 to 64 show the distribution of the various voting methods by MCDs, such as the cities, towns and townships. These breakouts also show that the two most used methods were optical scan and punch cards. People and Process Affect Equipment Accuracy Ease of Use Depends on Friendliness of Voting Equipment Voting Equipment’s Efficiency Is Not Consistently Measured Security of Voting Equipment Is Generally an Area of Mixed State and Local Jurisdictions Generally Tested Voting Equipment Type and Frequency of Equipment Maintenance Performed Varied Equipment Costs Vary by Unit Cost, Jurisdictions’ Size, and Voting equipment can be examined according to a range of characteristics, including accuracy, ease of use, efficiency, security, testing, maintenance, and cost. Because all these characteristics affect election administration, all should be considered in any assessment of voting equipment. Further, all these characteristics depend on the integration of three variables: (1) the equipment itself, (2) the people who use and operate the voting equipment, and (3) the processes and procedures that govern people’s use of the equipment. Accuracy, ease of use, and efficiency can all be considered performance characteristics, and measuring these performance characteristics can help determine whether voting equipment is operating as intended, or whether corrective action is needed. Accuracy refers to how frequently the equipment completely and correctly records and counts votes; ease of use refers to how understandable and accessible the equipment is to a diverse group of voters, and election workers; and efficiency refers to how quickly a given vote can be cast and counted. By measuring and evaluating how accurate, easy to use, and efficient voting equipment is, local election jurisdictions can position themselves to better ensure that elections are conducted effectively and efficiently. However, jurisdictions cannot consider voting equipment’s performance in isolation. To protect the election and retain public confidence in its integrity, other characteristics should also be considered. Ensuring the security of elections is essential to public confidence, and properly testing and maintaining voting equipment is required if its optimum performance is to be achieved. Finally, the overriding practical consideration of the equipment’s lifecycle cost versus benefits, which affects and is affected by all the characteristics, must be considered. Generally, our survey of vendors showed little difference among the basic performance characteristics of DRE, optical scan, and punch card equipment. However, when local election jurisdictions’ experiences with the equipment are considered, performance differences among voting equipment become more evident. These differences arise because a real- world setting—such as an election in which equipment is operated by actual voters, poll workers, and technicians—tends to result in performance that differs from that in a controlled setting (such as in the manufacturer’s laboratory). This difference demonstrates the importance of the effect of people and process on equipment performance. On the basis of the results of our mail survey and visits to 27 local election jurisdictions, we found that while most jurisdictions did not collect actual performance data for the voting equipment that they used in the November 2000 election, jurisdiction election officials were nevertheless able to provide their perceptions about how the equipment performed. For example, our mail survey results indicate that 96 percent of jurisdictions nationwide were satisfied with the performance of their voting equipment during the November 2000 election. Table 2 shows the percentage of jurisdictions satisfied with equipment performance during the November 2000 election, by type of voting equipment. Figure 65 shows a relative comparison of certain characteristics— accuracy, ease of use, efficiency, and security—of the various types of voting equipment used in the November 2000 election. The comparison reflects the results of our survey of voting system vendors and of 513 local election jurisdictions. In our survey of jurisdictions, we grouped those that used punch card, lever, and hand-counted paper ballots, and placed them in an “other” category. In our vendor survey, we excluded lever equipment because it is no longer manufactured and, of course, hand-counted paper ballots, for which no equipment is needed. Confidence intervals were calculated at the 95 percent confidence level. Unless otherwise noted, all estimates from our mail survey have a confidence interval of plus or minus 4 percentage points or less. Overall, from both the vendor and jurisdiction perspective, DREs are generally easier to use and more efficient than the other types of equipment. In the area of security, DRE and optical scan are relatively equal, and in the area of accuracy, all equipment is relatively the same. The differences among voting equipment reported by local election jurisdictions can be attributed, in part, to the differences in the equipment itself. However, they also can be attributed to the people who use the equipment and the rules or processes that govern its use. For example, how voters interact with DREs differs from how they interact with optical scan, punch card, or lever machines. In each case, different opportunities exist for voter misunderstanding, confusion, and error, which in turn can affect the equipment’s performance in terms of accuracy, ease of use, and efficiency. Further, all voting equipment is influenced by security, testing, maintenance, and cost issues, each of which also involves people and processes. Thus, it is extremely important to define, measure, evaluate, and make decisions about equipment choices within the context of the total voting system—people, processes, and technology. We estimate that 96 percent of jurisdictions nationwide were satisfied with the performance of their voting equipment during the November 2000 election. We estimate that only about 48 percent of jurisdictions nationwide collected data on the accuracy of their voting equipment for the election. Ensuring that votes are accurately recorded and tallied is an essential attribute of any voting equipment. Without such assurance, both voter confidence in the election and the integrity and legitimacy of the outcome of the election are at risk. Our vendor survey showed virtually no differences in the expected accuracy of DRE, optical scan, and punch card voting equipment, measured in terms of how accurately the equipment counted recorded votes (as opposed to how accurately the equipment captured the intent of the voter). Vendors of all three types of voting equipment reported accuracy rates of between 99 and 100 percent, with vendors of DREs reporting 100-percent accuracy. In contrast to vendors, local election jurisdictions generally did not collect data on the accuracy of their voting equipment, measured in terms of how accurately the equipment captures the intent of the voter. Overall, our mail survey results revealed that about 48 percent of jurisdictions nationwide collected such data for the November 2000 election. Table 3 shows the percentage of jurisdictions that collected data on accuracy by type of voting equipment. Further, it is unclear whether those jurisdictions that reported collecting accuracy data actually have meaningful performance data. Of those local election jurisdictions that we visited that stated that their voting equipment was 100-percent accurate, none was able to provide actual data to substantiate these statements. Similarly, the results of our mail survey indicates that only about 51 percent of jurisdictions nationwide collected data on undervotes, and about 47 percent of jurisdictions nationwide collected data on overvotes for the November 2000 election. Table 4 shows the percentage of jurisdictions that collected data on undervotes and overvotes by type of equipment. In contrast, less than half of the 27 jurisdictions that we visited indicated that they collected data for undervotes, overvotes, or both. For those that did, the percentage of undervotes was slightly higher for punch cards than for DRE and optical scan. For overvotes, the percentages for both optical scan and punch cards were relatively similar, generally less than 0.5 percent. However, election officials in one jurisdiction that used optical scan equipment reported an overvote rate of 4.9 percent, and officials in one jurisdiction that used punch card equipment reported an overvote rate of 2.7 percent. Although voting equipment may be designed to count votes as recorded with 100-percent accuracy, how frequently the equipment counts votes as intended by voters is a function not only of equipment design, but also of the interaction of people and processes. These people and process factors include whether, for example, technicians have followed proper procedures in testing and maintaining voters followed proper procedures when using the equipment, election officials have provided voters with understandable procedures poll workers properly instructed and guided voters. To illustrate this point, officials from a very large jurisdiction stated that 1,500 voters had inserted their punch cards in the recording device upside down, thus causing the votes to be inaccurately recorded. Fortunately, officials stated that they detected the error and remade and counted the ballots. Election officials further stated that they remake, on average, about 1,100 ballots for every election because voters improperly insert their ballots into the recording device. Similarly, at a small jurisdiction that we visited where optical scan equipment was used, officials reported that some voters incorrectly marked the ovals or used a nonreadable pen to mark the ballot, resulting in partially read ballots. In another medium-sized jurisdiction that we visited, the ballot section permitting write-in votes confused voters. Voters selected a candidate on the ballot and then wrote the candidate’s name in the write-in section of the ballot, thus overvoting and spoiling the ballot. The election officials stated that they believed that this misunderstanding contributed to the jurisdictions’ almost 5 percent overvote rate. In each of these cases, the way that the voter completed the ballot caused the vote to be recorded inaccurately, even though the voting equipment correctly counted the votes as recorded. In addition, the accuracy of voting equipment can be affected by the procedures that govern how voters interact with the technologies. Differences in these procedures can have noticeable effects on the prevalence of undervotes and overvotes, for example. In particular, we found that some precinct-count optical scan voting equipment can be programmed to return a voter’s ballot if the ballot is overvoted or undervoted. Such programming allows the voter to make any changes necessary to ensure that the vote is recorded correctly. However, not all states allow this. For example, election officials in one Virginia jurisdiction stated that Virginia jurisdictions must accept ballots as cast. The extent to which voters can easily use voting equipment largely depends on how voters interact, physically and intellectually, with the equipment. This interaction, commonly referred to as the human/machine interface (or in the case of voting technology, the voter/machine interface), is a function both of the equipment design and of the processes established for its use. For example, how well jurisdictions design ballots and educate voters on the use of voting equipment can affect how easy voters find the equipment to use. Ease of use (i.e., the equipment’s user friendliness) is important not only because it influences the accessibility of the equipment to voters but because it also affects the other two performance measures discussed here—accuracy (i.e., whether the voter’s intent is captured) and the efficiency of the voting process. Our vendor survey showed that, in general, most voting equipment is limited in its ability to accommodate persons with special physical needs or disabilities. Most vendors, for example, reported that their equipment accommodates voters in wheelchairs; however, vendors of DRE equipment reported providing accommodations for more types of disability than other vendors. For instance, many of the DREs offer accommodations for voters who are blind, such as Braille keyboards or an audio interface. In addition, at least one vendor reported that its DRE accommodates voters with neurological disabilities by offering head movement switches and “sip and puff” plug-ins. Table 5 summarizes vendor-reported accessibility options by voting equipment type and device. Our work on the accessibility of voting equipment to persons with disabilities during the November 2000 election found that most voting equipment presents some challenges to voters with disabilities. For example, persons in wheelchairs may have difficulty reaching and manipulating the handles on lever machines or reaching and pressing the buttons/screens on DREs. In addition, persons with dexterity impairments may find it difficult to hold the pencil or pen for optical scan, apply the right amount of pressure to punch holes in punch cards, press the buttons/screens on DREs, or manipulate the levers on lever machines. Similarly, for all the voting methods, voters with visual impairments may have difficulty reading the text. Consistent with our vendor survey, however, election officials and representatives of disability organizations told us that DREs can be most easily adapted (with audio and other aids) to accommodate the widest range of disabilities. We estimate that jurisdictions nationwide that used DREs were generally more satisfied than those that used optical scan or punch cards with how easy their voting equipment was for voters and election workers to use. Differences are apparent in local election jurisdictions’ perceptions of how easy their voting equipment was for the voters to use, with jurisdictions using DREs being generally more satisfied with how easy their equipment was for voters to use and to correct mistakes (see table 6). Likewise, the results of our mail survey reveal that 83 percent of jurisdictions nationwide were satisfied with how easy it was for election workers to operate and set up the voting equipment on election day. Again, jurisdictions that used DREs expressed a higher rate of satisfaction (see table 7). Figure 66 summarizes jurisdictions’ satisfaction with the various types of voting equipment on ease of use by voters, ability to correct mistakes, and ease of operation and setup for election workers. Another key component of the voter/machine interface for voting equipment is the design of the ballot, which is generally a state and/or jurisdictional decision for each election. For example, in a medium-sized jurisdiction that used lever machines, the list of names for president was so long that it extended into a second column. According to jurisdiction officials, this layout confused voters because they were not used to seeing the ballot this way. Similarly, at a small jurisdiction that used optical scan equipment, officials stated that they had to use both sides of the ballot, which was confusing to voters who did not think to turn over the ballot and vote both sides. In addition, the well-known Florida “butterfly” ballot was confusing to many voters, because candidates’ names were printed on each side of the hole punches, with arrows pointing to alternating candidates. For example, the first candidate in the left column was paired with the first hole; the first candidate in the right column with the second hole; the second candidate in the left column with the third hole; and so on. Voters found the arrows confusing and hard to follow. Such situations illustrate the importance of ensuring a friendly voter/machine interface. Efficiency is important because the speed of casting and tallying votes influences voter waiting time, and thus potentially voter turnout. Efficiency can also influence the number of voting machines that a jurisdiction needs to acquire and maintain, and thus the cost. Efficiency can be measured in terms of how quickly the equipment can count votes, the number of people that the equipment can accommodate within a given time, and the length of time that voters need to wait. Like the other characteristics discussed so far, the efficiency of voting equipment (i.e., how many ballots can be cast in a given period of time) is a function of the interaction of people, processes, and technology. As our vendor survey showed, efficiency metrics vary for the DRE, optical scan, and punch card equipment because of the equipment itself. With DREs, the vote casting and counting functions are virtually inseparable, because the ballot is embedded in the voting equipment. In contrast, with optical scan and punch cards, the ballot is a distinctly separate medium (i.e., a sheet of paper or a computer card), which once completed is put into the vote counting machine. As a result, vendors reported that the efficiency of optical scan and punch cards is generally measured in terms of the speed of count (i.e., how quickly the equipment counts the votes on completed ballots). In contrast, DRE vendors reported that because DREs count the votes as soon as the voter pushes the button to cast the vote (i.e., instantaneously), efficiency is measured in terms of the number of voters that each machine accommodates on election day. Complicating any measurements of efficiency is the fact that optical scan and punch card equipment’s efficiency differs depending on whether central-count or precinct-based equipment is used. Central-count equipment generally counts more ballots per hour because it is used to count the ballots for an entire jurisdiction, rather than an individual polling site. For central-count optical scan equipment, vendors reported speed of count ranges from 9,000 to 24,000 ballots per hour. For precinct-count optical scan and punch card equipment, vendors generally did not provide specific speed of count data, but they stated that one machine is generally used per polling site. For DREs, vendors reported that the number of voters accommodated per machine ranges from 200 to 1,000 voters per machine per election day. We estimate that during the November 2000 election, only 26 percent ( W ti of jurisdictions nationwide collected actual performance data on counting speed, and 10 percent collected data on voter wait time. We estimate that more than 80 percent were satisfied with count speed and voter wait time. ±5) The results of our mail survey and visits to 27 local election jurisdictions revealed that most jurisdictions did not collect actual performance data on the efficiency of the voting equipment that they used in the November 2000 election. For example, from our mail survey, we found that only 26 percent (± 5 percentage points) of local election jurisdictions nationwide collected information on the speed at which their equipment counted votes, and only 10 percent of jurisdictions nationwide collected information on the average amount of time that it took voters to vote. Despite the absence of performance data on efficiency, officials in jurisdictions that we visited reported some perceptions about how the respective voting equipment performed. Overall, our mail survey results reveal that 91 percent of jurisdictions nationwide reported that they were satisfied with the speed at which their equipment counted votes. Further, 84 percent of jurisdictions nationwide reported that they were satisfied with the amount of voter wait time at the polling place during the November 2000 election. Figure 67 summarizes jurisdictions’ satisfaction with speed of count of voting equipment and voter wait time, by equipment type. Effectively securing voting equipment depends not only on the type of equipment but on the procedures and practices that jurisdictions implement and the election workers who execute them. Effective security includes, at a minimum, assigning responsibility for security, assessing security risks and vulnerabilities and implementing both manual and technology-based security measures to prevent or counter these risks, and periodically reviewing the controls to ensure their appropriateness. The results of our mail survey indicate that most jurisdictions nationwide have implemented some of these important elements of security, but not all. Figure 68 summarizes jurisdictions’ implementation of security controls. Assigning responsibility: Our mail survey results indicate that 89 percent of jurisdictions assigned responsibilities to one or more individuals for securing voting equipment for the November 2000 election. From our visits to 27 local election jurisdictions, we learned that individuals assigned responsibility for securing voting equipment were generally election administrator’s staff, county warehouse staff, or county clerks before election day, and poll workers or county clerks at the polling site on election day. Assessing risks and implementing controls: Similarly, our mail survey results indicate that 87 percent of jurisdictions nationwide had implemented security controls to protect their voting equipment during the November 2000 election. However, only 60 percent of jurisdictions had ever assessed security threats and risks, such as modification or loss of electronic voting data, loss or theft of ballots, or unauthorized access to software. From our visits to 27 jurisdictions, we learned that the controls implemented generally included physical controls for securing the voting equipment and ballots. For example, officials from one large jurisdiction stated that they provided 24-hour, 7-day-per-week security for voting equipment in a controlled access facility that included a security surveillance system linked to the Sheriff’s Department. In another large jurisdiction officials reported that they stored voting equipment in a warehouse that required a four-digit passcode to enter. In contrast, however, officials from a small jurisdiction reported that they stored their lever machines at the polling places all year, with no control over how the equipment is secured. Election officials in jurisdictions we visited also reported that they have implemented access controls to limit the number of people who can operate their election management system and/or their vote tabulation equipment. For example, officials from one large and one medium-sized jurisdiction reported that they safeguarded their election management software by using a firewall and access controls. In addition, the vendors we surveyed reported that voting equipment has been developed with certain embedded security controls, although these controls vary. In general, these controls include the following: Identification (ID) names and passwords control access to the voting equipment and software and permit access only to authorized users. Redundant storage media provide backup storage of votes cast to facilitate recovery of voter data in the event of power or equipment failure. Encryption technology scrambles the votes cast so that the votes are not stored in the same order in which they were cast. If vote totals are electronically transmitted, encryption technology is also used to scramble the vote count before it is transmitted over telephone wires and to unscramble it once it is received. Audit trails provide documentary evidence to recreate election day activity, such as the number of ballots cast (by each ballot configuration/type) and candidate vote totals for each contest. Hardware locks and seals protect against unauthorized access to the voting equipment once it has been prepared for the election (e.g., vote counter reset, equipment tested, and ballots prepared). Table 8 shows security controls by type of voting equipment for the systems we surveyed. Generally, DRE and optical scan equipment offer more security controls than punch cards. DRE and optical scan equipment are fairly comparable in terms of the security controls that they offer; DREs generally offer more redundant storage media, which provides backup storage of votes cast to facilitate recovery of voter data in the event of power or equipment failure. However, both optical scan and punch card equipment use a paper ballot, which could be recounted in the case of equipment failure. In addition, punch card equipment generally does not have hardware locks and seals. Reviewing controls: The results of our survey indicate that about 81 percent of jurisdictions nationwide periodically review the steps taken to ensure that these are sufficient. However, most jurisdictions that we visited indicated that they did not periodically review controls. To ensure that voting equipment performs as intended on election day, it must be tested, both before it is accepted from the manufacturer and before it is used. Although effective testing does not guarantee proper performance, it can greatly reduce the chances of unexpected equipment problems and errors. Further, the people who plan and conduct the tests, as well as the processes and procedures that govern the conduct of tests, are central to effective testing. Generally, voting equipment testing can be viewed as consisting of five stages. The initial three stages—qualification, certification, and acceptance—are typically conducted before the purchase and acceptance of the voting equipment by the jurisdiction. After the voting equipment has been purchased, jurisdictions typically conduct two additional stages of testing to ensure that the voting equipment operates properly before each election—readiness and verification testing. Each of these five stages of testing includes similar steps: defining the equipment requirements to be tested, planning the tests (e.g., determining what level of tests to be performed), executing the tests, documenting the test results, and completing the tests (e.g., ensuring that the test criteria have been met). (Figure 69 provides a simplified model of the voting equipment testing process.) Qualification testing validates the compliance of the voting equipment with the requirements of FEC’s voting system standards (applicable to punch card, optical scan, and DRE voting equipment) and with the vendor’s equipment design specifications for the equipment. These tests are conducted by independent test authorities accredited by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). Vendors are expected to resubmit their voting equipment to the qualification test process whenever they modify the equipment. The majority of states (38) have adopted the FEC standards, which means that the majority of states require voting equipment used in their jurisdictions to be NASED qualified. However, because the standards were not published until 1990 and the qualification testing program was not established until 1994, many jurisdictions may be using voting equipment that did not undergo qualification testing. This may be particularly true for those jurisdictions that use punch card equipment; only one punch card machine is on NASED’s list of qualified voting equipment. However, in our survey of states and the voting equipment they used in the November 2000 election, we identified 19 different types of punch card equipment being used by jurisdictions. Further, the FEC standards do not address lever machines. In contrast, the results of our mail survey revealed that 49 percent (plus or minus 7 percentage points) of jurisdictions nationwide that use DREs and 46 percent (plus or minus 7 percentage points) of jurisdictions nationwide that use optical scan equipment use voting equipment had been qualified by NASED. We estimate that 39 percent (±4.33) of jurisdictions nationwide used voting equipment that was NASED qualified. About half of those using DRE or optical scan equipment used equipment that was NASED qualified. Also, 90 percent used equipment that had been certified by the state. Certification testing validates compliance of the voting equipment with state-specific requirements and can also be used to confirm that the presented voting equipment is the same as the equipment that passed NASED qualification testing. Certification tests are generally conducted by the states and can be used to establish a baseline for future evaluations. Although states establish certification test requirements, FEC recommends that state certification tests not duplicate NASED qualification tests and that they include sufficient functional tests and qualitative assessments to ensure that the voting equipment operates in compliance with state law. Further, FEC recommends that states recertify voting equipment that has been modified to ensure that it continues to meet state requirements. However, it is not clear that this recertification always occurs. For example, one state election director cited repeated problems with local jurisdictions and vendors modifying their voting equipment after state certification. In fact, the election director stated that in some cases, vendors modified equipment without even notifying the local jurisdiction. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia reported that they have certification programs to identify voting equipment that may be used in the state. Of these 46, 38 require certification testing. Four states—Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Utah—do not require that voting equipment used in these states be NASED qualified and do not perform certification testing of voting equipment. Our mail survey results show, however, that 90 percent of jurisdictions used state-certified voting equipment in the November 2000 election. Table 9 shows the percentage of jurisdictions that use state-certified voting equipment. Acceptance testing checks that the voting equipment, as delivered by the vendor, meets the requirements specified by the states and/or local jurisdictions. State or local jurisdictions conduct acceptance tests, which can be used to establish a baseline for future evaluations. Many of the jurisdictions that we visited had recently procured new voting equipment, and most of these jurisdictions had conducted some form of acceptance testing. However, the processes and steps performed and the people who performed them varied by jurisdiction and by equipment type. For example, in a very large jurisdiction that had recently purchased DRE equipment, election officials stated that testing consisted of a visual inspection, power-up, opening of polls, activation and verification of ballots, and closing of polls. In contrast, officials in one large jurisdiction stated that they relied entirely on the vendor to test the equipment. In jurisdictions that used optical scan equipment, acceptance testing generally consisted of running decks of test cards. For example, officials from another large jurisdiction stated that they tested each voting machine with the assistance of the vendor using a vendor-supplied test deck. Readiness tests, often referred to as logic and accuracy tests, check that the voting equipment is properly functioning. Jurisdictions normally conduct readiness tests in the weeks leading up to election day—often while the equipment is still at the warehouse—to verify that the voting equipment has been properly prepared for the election (e.g., that ballots have been properly installed in voting devices). Our mail survey results indicate that 94 percent of jurisdictions nationwide conducted readiness (logic and accuracy) testing before the November 2000 election. Figure 70 shows the percentage of jurisdictions that conducted readiness testing by equipment type. Although most jurisdictions nationwide performed readiness testing, the actual testing activities varied by the type of equipment and by jurisdiction. For example, jurisdictions that used DREs performed readiness testing by running diagnostic tests that the equipment is designed to perform, using vote simulation cartridges, and by conducting mock elections; jurisdictions that used optical scan and punch cards generally relied on the use of test decks. In a large jurisdiction that used DREs, the election officials stated that the county’s readiness tests included checking the battery, paper tapes, machine labels, curtain rods, and the memory cartridge against the ballot and the equipment; performing voting tests, such as voting for each candidate; and testing the write-in capabilities. At the conclusion of the tests, election officials checked the counters and the memory tapes to ensure that the results matched the testers’ entries. In a very large jurisdiction that used punch cards, election officials stated that they conducted a public test on the Monday before election day with a test deck of 55 cards that included numerous configurations for valid ballots, overvoted ballots, and undervoted ballots. One of the most comprehensive tests was conducted in a very large jurisdiction. This jurisdiction tested the integration of all its voting equipment. Officials conducted a mock election that included testing the precinct-based optical scanner, the central-count optical scanner used for absentee ballots, DREs used for early voting, and the election management system. For this test, they prepared each type of equipment and had each type of equipment transmit vote totals created using test decks to the election management system to ensure that it prepared the results correctly. Effectively testing voting equipment depends not only on the voting equipment itself, but also on the procedures developed by the jurisdiction and the people that implement them. For example, in one large county, an election official misprogrammed software on the optical scan equipment used to tally early and absentee votes, which affected all ballots with a straight party vote in the November 2000 election. About a third, or 66,000, of the ballots cast in the county were cast early or absentee. Of these, over 20,000 voters had cast a ballot with a straight party vote. According to county officials, although the equipment detected the straight party vote, it did not properly distribute the vote to each of the party candidates. That is, if a voter checked a straight party vote for Democrat, the optical scan equipment detected the vote but did not properly add a vote for the Democratic candidates on the ballot. Although county officials agreed that this problem should have been detected during readiness testing, they stated that the confirmation of the results of the test deck had been incomplete. According to county officials, test personnel verified only that the system accurately detected the straight party vote and did not verify whether the tallies resulting from the test deck were correct. Further, the county had no written procedures to ensure that the software was properly tested. Fortunately, county officials detected the software problem during the vote tallying process. However, if the problem had gone undetected, over 20,000 properly cast votes would not have appeared in the official vote totals. We estimate that 94 percent of jurisdictions nationwide conducted readiness testing before the November 2000 election, and 95 percent of jurisdictions nationwide conducted verification testing before the election. The purpose of verification testing is to verify that the voting equipment is operating properly before the election. This testing is typically conducted by poll workers or election officials at the poll site on election day unless a central-count configuration is used. Our mail survey results show that 95 percent of jurisdictions nationwide conducted verification testing before the November 2000 election. Figure 71 shows the percentage of jurisdictions that conducted verification testing by type of voting equipment. Verification tests generally vary by type of technology. For jurisdictions that use optical scan and DREs, verification testing generally includes generating a zero tape that verifies that the equipment is ready to start processing ballots. Zero tapes typically identify the specific election, the equipment’s unit identification, the ballot’s format identification, and the contents of each active candidate register by office (showing that they contain all zeros). In addition to running the zero tapes, jurisdiction officials indicated that they also check the security seals on the machines to ensure that they have not been tampered with, compare the ballot on the machine with the sample ballot for the polling place, and check the protective counter number on the voting machine before voting begins. Figure 72 shows a zero tape. Jurisdictions that use punch cards also need to test the vote recording device. For example, in a medium-sized jurisdiction, election officials stated that before opening the polls, the poll workers inspected each ballot page in the ballot book and compared each to the specimen ballot for the precinct. Further, these officials and officials in another medium-sized jurisdiction stated that poll workers checked that the punch positions for each vote recording device worked properly. Similarly, for those jurisdictions that we visited that use lever machines, verification testing includes making sure the public counters are set to zero and checking the security seals, the protective counters on the machines, the paper rolls, and the ballot labels to ensure that the names of the parties, office titles, candidate names, and ballot proposals match the sample ballot displayed at the polling place. As with security and testing, proper maintenance is important to ensure that voting equipment performs as intended and problems are prevented. According to voting equipment vendors, routine maintenance for most voting equipment generally includes inspecting the voting equipment for damage; testing and recharging batteries, if applicable; and cleaning the equipment before the election. Not effectively maintaining voting equipment could contribute to equipment failures or malfunctions, which in turn could cause voters to wait longer and could cause vote and tally errors. Our mail survey results indicate that about 80 percent of jurisdictions nationwide performed routine or manufacturer-suggested maintenance on their voting equipment before the November 2000 election. For those jurisdictions that we visited, the maintenance activities performed were generally consistent with those recommended by the vendors for their respective voting equipment, such as inspecting and cleaning the machines, testing and recharging batteries, and replacing malfunctioning parts. However, despite performing regular maintenance, jurisdiction officials stated that they had experienced equipment failures during the November 2000 election. In most cases, officials characterized these failures as not significant because they were resolved on-site through repairs or replacements. The specific maintenance procedures that jurisdictions performed varied because of differences in the physical characteristics of the equipment. Table 10 shows examples of maintenance procedures, by equipment type. Our mail survey shows that a significantly higher percentage of jurisdictions nationwide using DRE and optical scan equipment had performed maintenance than had jurisdictions using lever and punch card equipment. Figure 73 presents summary information on jurisdictions that conducted maintenance, by equipment type. Our visits to 27 local election jurisdictions also revealed variations in the frequency with which jurisdictions perform routine maintenance. For example, some jurisdictions perform maintenance before an election, while others perform maintenance regularly throughout the year. For example, officials in a medium-sized jurisdiction that uses DREs, stated that they test the batteries monthly. Likewise, officials from a very large jurisdiction reported that its warehouse staff worked year-round to repair Votomatic units and booths. Our site visits also showed that local jurisdictions have experienced few problems with equipment maintenance. Only one large jurisdiction reported that it had experienced problems with obtaining replacement parts for its optical scan equipment. The cost to acquire, operate, and maintain voting equipment over its useful life varies, not only on a unit cost basis but also on a total jurisdiction basis, depending on such decisions as whether ballots will be counted at poll sites or centrally, who will perform maintenance, and how frequently maintenance will be performed. Our vendor survey showed that voting equipment costs vary among types of voting equipment and among different manufacturers and models of the same type of equipment. For example, DRE touchscreen unit costs ranged from $575 to $4,500. Similarly, unit costs for precinct-count optical scan equipment ranged from $4,500 to $7,500. Among other things, these differences can be attributed to differences in what is included in the unit cost as well as differences in the characteristics of the equipment. Table 11 shows equipment costs by unit, software, and peripheral components. In addition to the equipment unit cost, an additional cost for jurisdictions is the software that operates the equipment, prepares the ballots, and tallies the votes (and in some cases, prepares the election results reports). Our vendor survey showed that although some vendors include the software cost in the unit cost of the voting equipment, most price the software separately. Software costs for DRE, optical scan, and punch card equipment can run as high as $300,000 per jurisdication. The higher costs are generally for the more sophisticated software associated with election management systems. Because the software generally supports numerous equipment units, the software unit cost varies depending on the number of units purchased or the size of the jurisdiction. Other factors affecting the acquisition cost of voting equipment are the number and types of peripherals required. In general, DREs require more peripherals than do optical scan and punch cards. For example, some DREs require smart cards, smart card readers, memory cartridges and cartridge readers, administrative workstations, and plug-in devices (for increasing accessibility for voters with disabilities). Touchscreen DREs may also offer options that affect the cost of the equipment, such as color versus black and white screens. In addition, most DREs and all optical scan and punch cards require voting booths, and most DREs and some precinct-based optical scan and punch card tabulators offer options for modems. Precinct- based optical scan and punch card tabulators also require ballot boxes to capture the ballots after they are scanned. Once jurisdictions acquire the voting equipment, they must also incur the cost to operate and maintain it. Our visits to 27 local election jurisdictions indicated that annual operation and maintenance costs, like acquisition costs, vary by the type and configuration of the voting equipment and by the size of the jurisdiction. For example, jurisdictions that used DREs reported a range of costs from about $2,000 to $27,000. Similarly, most jurisdictions that used optical scan equipment reported that operations and maintenance costs ranged from about $1,300 to $90,000. Most punch card jurisdictions reported that operations and maintenance costs ranged from $10,000 to over $138,000. The higher ends of these cost ranges generally related to the larger jurisdictions. In fact, one large jurisdiction that used optical scan equipment reported that its operating costs were $545,000, and one very large jurisdiction that used punch cards reported operations and maintenance costs of over $600,000. In addition, the jurisdictions reported that these costs generally included software licensing and upgrades, maintenance contracts with vendors, equipment replacement parts, and supply costs. Figure 74 shows the ranges of operations and maintenance costs, by type of voting equipment. For decisions on whether to invest in new voting equipment, both initial capital costs (i.e., cost to acquire the equipment) and long-term support costs (i.e., operation and maintenance costs) are relevant. Moreover, these collective costs (i.e., lifecycle costs) need to be viewed in the context of the benefits the equipment will provide over its useful life. These benefits should be directly linked to the performance characteristics of the equipment and the needs of the jurisdiction. Estimated Costs of Buying Central-Count Optical Scan Voting Estimated Costs of Buying Precinct-Based Optical Scan Voting Estimated Costs of Buying Touchscreen DRE Voting Equipment Election jurisdictions used five basic types of voting methods in the November 2000 election—hand-counted paper ballots and lever machines, punch card, optical scan, and DRE voting equipment. In some cases, the same method was used for all votes cast—mail absentee, in-person absentee, early, normal election day, and provisional election day. Others used different methods for different types of votes. For example, any jurisdiction that used lever or DRE equipment normally used some different method of counting mail absentee ballots, because neither method uses individual paper ballots that could be mailed to absentee voters. As discussed earlier in this chapter, any of these voting methods can produce accurate, reliable vote counts if the people, processes, and technology required to accomplish this task are appropriately integrated. However, in considering new voting equipment, most jurisdictions have focused on two types of equipment—optical scan and DRE. Optical scan equipment can be used for counting ballots at a central location or a counter can be located at each precinct where voters cast their votes. A central-count configuration is generally less expensive, particularly in larger jurisdictions, because fewer pieces of equipment are needed. However, with a central-count configuration, voters cannot be notified of any mistakes they made in filling out their ballots and offered an opportunity to correct them. Optical scan counters located at voting precincts can be programmed to notify voters if they have voted for more candidates for an office than permitted (overvotes) or have not voted for a specific office (undervotes). Such voters can then be offered an opportunity to correct their ballot, if they wish. For example, the voter may wish to correct any overvotes but deliberately chose not to vote for any candidates for a specific office. Properly programmed, DRE voting equipment does not permit the voter to overvote and can also notify the voter of any undervotes. Jurisdictions may have different requirements for evaluating the purchase of new voting equipment. For example, large jurisdictions with long ballots with multiple offices and initiatives that must be printed in multiple languages will have requirements different from the requirements in small jurisdictions with short ballots printed only in English. Some equipment has more features to accommodate those with disabilities than others. For example, with most types of voting equipment, ballots with larger print or magnifying glasses can be offered to voters with impaired sight. Currently, however, only certain models of touchscreen DRE equipment can be configured to accommodate most persons with disabilities, such as persons who are blind, deaf, paraplegic, or quadriplegic. We developed cost estimates for three approaches to replacing existing voting equipment—central-count optical scan equipment; precinct-count optical scan equipment; and touchscreen DRE equipment that could accommodate persons with disabilities, except those who are quadriplegic. The cost estimate for each approach used a set of assumptions that may overestimate the needs and costs for some jurisdictions and underestimate the needs and costs for other jurisdictions. These assumptions and limitations are discussed in more detail in the text that accompanies each estimate. Our estimated purchase costs range from about $191 million for central-count optical scan equipment to about $3 billion for touchscreen DRE units, where at least one of which in every precinct was a unit equipped to enable most voters with disabilities to cast their votes on DRE units in secrecy. Our estimates used vendor cost data provided in August 2001, and these costs are subject to change. With the exception of central-count optical scan units for jurisdictions with fewer than 25,000 registered voters, these cost estimates did not include software or other necessary support items. Our estimates generally included only the cost to purchase the equipment and do not contain software costs associated with the equipment to support a specific election and to perform related election management functions, which generally varied by the size of the jurisdiction that purchased the equipment. Also, our estimates did not include operations and maintenance costs, because reliable data were not available from the jurisdictions. The cost of software and other items could substantially increase the actual cost to purchase new voting equipment. Actual costs for any specific jurisdiction would depend upon the number of units purchased, any quantity discounts that could be obtained, the number of reserve units purchased, and the cost of software and other necessary ancillary items. In a central-count optical scan system, ballots are transported from the precincts to a central location for counting. Our estimates used vendor cost data provided in August 2001. Actual cost per unit may be more or less than those used in our estimates. Vendors provided data on three central-count optical scan units. The least expensive unit costs $20,000, including a personal computer, card reader, and software. The vendor recommends 1 unit for each 25,000 registered voters. This is the unit we used in our cost estimates for election jurisdictions with 25,000 or fewer registered voters. We had data on two high-speed central-count units that we used for jurisdictions with more than 25,000 registered voters. The $24,000 unit had a counting capacity of 9,000 ballots per hour and the $55,000 unit had a capacity of 24,000 ballots per hour. Prices did not include software costs, which varied by the number of registered voters in the jurisdiction, and ranged from $15,000 to $300,000 per jurisdiction. For jurisdictions with more than 25,000 registered voters, we estimated costs assuming that each jurisdiction would have one $55,000 unit and one $24,000 unit. None of our estimates included such associated costs as the cost of purchasing individual “privacy booths” for voters to mark their ballots or the cost of ballots and other supplies. In addition, our estimates for central-count systems did not include separate units for subcounty minor civil divisions that have responsibility for conducting elections in some states. The number of registered voters in these subcounty election jurisdictions— more than 7,500—varied widely. Some had fewer than 100 registered voters; others have 40,000 or more. The cost estimate shown in table 12 would be considerably higher if we assumed that each election jurisdiction within a county purchased central counters. Given the assumptions we used, we estimated that it would cost about $191 million to purchase 2 central-count optical scan units for 3,126 counties election jurisdictions in the United States, plus 1 reserve unit for each jurisdiction with more than 25,000 registered voters. We developed separate cost estimates for replacing each type of voting method used in the November 2000 general election. Of the 3,126 counties, 2,072, or about two-thirds, had 25,000 or fewer registered voters. We estimated it would cost just about $83 million to purchase two $20,000 units—one for election day and one for absentee ballots—for each of these jurisdictions. Each unit would include a personal computer, card reader, and software. Because each individual unit should accommodate the entire vote counting needs of these jurisdictions, we did not include an estimate for reserve units for these smaller jurisdictions. We assumed that the second machine could function as the reserve for these election jurisdictions. For the 1,054 election jurisdictions with more than 25,000 registered voters, we estimated that it would cost about $109 million to buy 2 central-count optical scan machines for election jurisdictions plus 1 reserve unit per jurisdiction. The election day unit would cost $55,000 and have a counting capacity of 24,000 ballots per hour. The absentee ballot and reserve units would cost $24,000 each and have a counting capacity of 9,000 ballots per hour. The cost per unit does not include software or other associated costs. It is important to remember that within each of the categories we used— small and large—there is wide variation in the numbers of registered voters. Some of the small jurisdictions had fewer than 3,000 registered voters. Some of the large jurisdictions had more than 500,000. The largest election jurisdiction in the nation had more than 4 million registered voters. Thus, our assumptions would not necessarily match the needs of individual jurisdictions. For example, the capacity of the 2 central-count units used in the estimate for small jurisdictions would exceed the needs of jurisdictions with fewer than 5,000 registered voters. Similarly, the capacity of the 2 central-count units used in the estimate for large election jurisdictions would probably exceed the needs of jurisdictions with 100,000 registered voters. However, for the largest jurisdictions, these same two central-count units would probably have insufficient capacity to count votes in 1 or 2 days. We have assumed that each election jurisdiction with more than 25,000 voters would have one of the $24,000 units in reserve, should either of the other 2 units break down. The estimate in table 12 included the 36 election jurisdictions in Oregon. We assumed that Oregon would use a central-count system because Oregon used mail ballots for all ballots cast in the November 2000 general election. Purchasing optical scan equipment that is placed in each voting precinct is more expensive than purchasing central-count optical scan equipment because each election jurisdiction usually has multiple precincts. We estimated that it would cost about $1.3 billion to purchase an optical scan unit for each of 185,622 precincts in the country, excluding Oregon. Although the cost per unit is much less, the number of units is much higher. According to vendor-provided data, optical scan units for precincts range from $4,500 to $7,500 each. None of the prices included software. For our estimate, we assumed that each precinct would have a $6,500 optical scan unit—neither the least nor most expensive available. Each unit could be programmed to alert voters to errors (overvotes and undervotes) on their ballots. Each unit would also record and total the votes cast for each candidate and each issue on the ballot at the precinct at which it was placed. With this option, we also assumed that each election jurisdiction would have a central-count optical scan unit for counting absentee ballots within the jurisdiction. Placing a central-count optical scan unit within each subcounty election jurisdiction—more than 7,500—would increase the cost estimates shown in table 13. The unit costs used for the estimates do not include software, which ranges from $15,000 to $300,000 per jurisdiction, depending upon the number of registered voters in the jurisdiction. The estimated costs also do not include training, supplies (such as ballots), or other costs associated with operating and maintaining the units. Finally, although we could determine the types of voting methods used within 36 election jurisdictions that used mixed methods, we could not make this determination at the precinct level for 3,472 precincts in these jurisdictions. Therefore, the cost estimates for any specific type of voting method, such as punch cards, may not include all precincts that used that method. Actual costs would depend upon the number of units purchased, any quantity discounts that could be obtained, the number of reserve units purchased, and the cost of software and other necessary ancillary items. DRE equipment is available in two basic types. With full-face DRE equipment, the entire ballot is placed on the machine, with buttons beside each candidate or issue choice on the ballot. However, it may be difficult to design an easily readable ballot for a full-face DRE machine that includes many candidates and issues or that must be printed in multiple languages. The second type of DRE machine is the touchscreen, analogous to a bank ATM machine. DRE machines range in price from $2,000 to $6,000 depending upon the features offered. These prices did not include costs that can substantially increase per unit cost, such as for software and in some cases such essential equipment as card readers and smart cards for each machine. Our estimate used a touchscreen machine that cost $3,995 for each unit equipped for the disabled and $3,795 for each unit not so equipped. The equipped unit for the disabled can accommodate all disabled voters except those who are quadriplegic. The unit cost includes the vote count cartridge but does not include software, which ranges from $15,000 to $300,000 per jurisdiction, depending upon the number of registered voters in the jurisdiction. One reason that touchscreen DRE equipment is generally more costly than precinct optical scan equipment is that more units are required. Voters do not vote on precinct optical scan units—they mark their ballots at the voting place and then feed their individual ballots into the precinct counter to be read and counted. However, as with lever equipment, voters actually cast their ballots on DRE units. Thus, the cost of purchasing DRE equipment is affected by the number of voters who use each DRE unit during the course of an election day. Some states have statutory standards for the maximum number of voters per voting machine. We used two assumptions—1 unit for each 250 registered voters per precinct and 1 unit for each 500 registered voters per precinct. We also assumed that there would be at least 1 unit equipped for the disabled at every precinct—or a minimum of 185,622 units. Because there were no data available on the number of registered voters in each precinct in Alaska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, our estimate provides a single disabled equipped unit for each precinct in those states. Consequently, our estimates may understate the total number of touchscreen units needed. Using 250 voters per DRE unit, we estimated that 763,196 DRE units would be required to replace all voting equipment in the United States (see table 14). This includes more than 24,000 reserve units, assuming reserves were 3 percent of the estimated average number of units needed in each election jurisdiction. The estimated total cost of purchasing these units is $3 billion, including one $20,000 central-count optical scan unit for each of the 2,072 election jurisdictions that had 25,000 or fewer registered voters and one $24,000 central-count optical scan unit for each of the 1,054 election jurisdictions that had more than 25,000 registered voters (excluding Oregon). The central-count units were for counting absentee ballots in each election jurisdiction. As shown in table 15, purchasing 1 unit for each 500 registered voters per precinct reduces the estimated number of touchscreen units needed, including reserves, to 388,198 and the cost to around $1.6 billion, including the central optical scan counters for each jurisdiction. Again, software is a substantial additional cost, approximately $46 million ($15,000 per jurisdiction) to $927 million ($300,000 per jurisdiction). Purchasing software separately for each of the more than 7,500 subcounty election jurisdictions—cities, townships, villages—would cost more. For example, if the average software cost for each of 7,500 jurisdictions were $20,000, the additional cost would be $150 million. Actual costs for any specific jurisdiction would depend upon the number of units purchased, any quantity discounts that could be obtained, the number of reserve units purchased, and the cost of software and other necessary ancillary items. Notes for tables 14 and 15 are found at the end of table 15. New DRES Are Similar to Existing DREs, With Added Features to New Optical Scan Equipment Is Very Similar to Those Currently Feasibility of Telephone-Based Voting is Being Proposed Explored On the basis of vendors surveyed, we identified five new models of voting equipment—four DRE touchscreens and one optical scan. We also identified two proposals for a new method of voting—telephone-based voting. None of these were used in the November 2000 election. Four new DRE models are available that build on the advanced features already present in the most recent of the DREs used in the November 2000 election and offer several new options. In general, these new options are intended to improve the DREs’ ease of use and security characteristics. Other characteristics, such as accuracy, efficiency, and cost, are generally not affected. The new options include the following: A “no-vote” option helps avoid unintentional undervotes (offered by three of the four new DREs). These DREs’ touchscreens provide the voter with the option to select “no vote (or abstain)” on the display screen if the voter does not want to vote on a particular contest or issue. A recover spoiled ballots option allows voters to recast their votes after their original ballots are cast. In this scenario, every DRE at the poll site is connected to a local area network. A poll official would void the original “spoiled” ballot through the administrative workstation that is also connected to the local area network. The voter could then cast another ballot. Voice recognition capability allows voters to make selections orally. Printed receipts for each vote option provides a paper printout or ballot each time a vote is cast. Vendors claim that this feature provides voters and/or election officials an opportunity to check what is printed against what is recorded and displayed. It is envisioned that procedures would be in place to retrieve the paper receipts from the voters so that they could not be used for vote selling. One of the new DREs also has an infrared “presence sensor” that is used to control the receipt printer in the event the voter is allowed to keep the paper receipt; if the voter leaves without taking the receipt, the receipt is pulled back into the printer. Our survey also identified one vendor that proposed a new model of its existing precinct-based optical scanner. According to the vendor, the primary advantage of this new model is that it is lighter and quieter than the previous model, and it has expanded memory capabilities. However, this model’s accuracy, ease of use, efficiency, and security characteristics do not generally differ from those of comparable existing optical scan devices. The new model is slightly more expensive than the existing model. Our survey identified two vendors that are exploring the feasibility of a new method of voting in which voters would record their votes using a touch- tone telephone; the votes would be transmitted in real time over public telephone lines and recorded electronically at a central location. According to one of the vendors, this method of voting could be based at poll sites and/or remote locations. In either case, the voter interacts with the telephone in essentially the same way. As with the new DREs, telephone- based voting is generally concerned with improving a voter’s ease of using the equipment. A general description follows of the vendors’ respective approaches to implementing this method of voting. Vendor A (poll-site or remote voting): Once a voter was authenticated (the vendor did not say how this would be done, although for poll-site voting it could be done by traditional means), he or she would be provided with an ID and a list of the candidates or issues, each with corresponding unique code numbers. For poll-site voting, the poll-site worker would hand these code numbers to the voter and provide necessary instructions; for remote voting, the codes would be mailed before election day to the voter. The voter would use the touch-tone telephone feature to key in the ID number to gain access and then enter the code numbers for each selection. After each selection, a recorded message would be sent to the voter to confirm the selection. The voter could make any necessary changes and would have access to live assistance if necessary. For poll-site voting, the vote would be recorded on a PC at the polling site, which would send the information to an election data center over the telephone once the polls closed. For remote voting, the vote would be sent directly to the data center. According to the vendor, the system would provide multiple languages and interactive voice recognition technology to accommodate persons with disabilities. Vendor B (poll-site voting for persons with disabilities): Once the voter was authenticated (again the vendor did not specify how, although traditional approaches could be used), the person would be provided with an ID and directed to a poll worker, who would dial up the system and input the ID. Once the ID number was input, a recording would ask, “Is your candidate ready to vote?” At this point, the poll worker would hand the phone (which could include a headphone set) with button panel to the voter. The voter would then be prompted to request a language of preference and would be directed through the voting sequence. The voter could vote by using the touch-tone keys on the telephone or by speaking responses. After the voter selected a candidate or issue, the system would provide feedback to confirm the selection. The telephone also would read a summary of the results and allow the voter to revise any previous selections. Once the voter finished, the system would hang up, and the ballot would be recorded on a central system. The challenges confronting local jurisdictions in using voting technologies are not unlike those faced by any technology user. As discussed throughout this section, these challenges include the following: Having reliable measures and objective data to know whether the technology being used is meeting the needs of the jurisdiction’s user communities (both the voters and the officials who administer the elections). Looking back to the technology used in the November 2000 election, our survey of jurisdictions showed that the vast majority of jurisdictions were satisfied with the performance of their respective technologies. However, this satisfaction was mostly based not on hard data measuring performance, but rather on the subjective impressions of election officials. Although these impressions should not be discounted, informed decisionmaking on voting technology investment requires more objective data. Ensuring that necessary security, testing, and maintenance activities are performed. Our survey of jurisdictions showed that the vast majority of jurisdictions perform these activities in one form or another, although the extent and nature of these activities vary among jurisdictions and depend on the availability of resources (financial and human capital) that are committed to them. Ensuring that the technology will provide benefits over its useful life commensurate with lifecycle costs (acquisition as well as operations and maintenance) and that these collective costs are affordable and sustainable. Our survey of jurisdictions and discussions with jurisdiction officials showed that the technology type and configuration that jurisdictions are employing vary depending on their unique circumstances, such as size and resource constraints, and that reliable data on lifecycle costs and benefits are not available. Ensuring that the three elements of people, process, and technology are managed as interrelated and interdependent parts of the total voting system. We must recognize that how well technology performs is not only a function of the technology design itself, but also of the people who interact with the technology and the processes governing this interaction. The growing use of the Internet for everyday transactions, including citizen-to-government transactions, has prompted considerable speculation about applying Internet technology to elections. Such speculation was recently fueled by the vote counting difficulties of the November 2000 election, which sparked widespread interest in the reform of elections (particularly the technology used to record and count votes). However, well before the November 2000 election, some groups had already begun considering the pros and cons of Internet voting. In addition to the growing popularity of the Internet, interest in Internet voting was spurred by claims that it would increase the convenience of voting (particularly for those with limited mobility) and add speed and precision to vote counts. Further, it has been claimed by Internet voting proponents that the convenience of Internet voting could increase voter turnout. As a result, academics, voting jurisdiction officials, state election officers, and others have been examining Internet voting for some time. Although opinion is not unanimous, consensus is emerging on some major points: Security is the primary technical challenge for Internet voting, and addressing this challenge adequately is vital for public confidence. Internet voting as an additional method of voting at designated poll sites may be technically feasible in the near term, but the benefits of this approach are limited to advancing the maturity of the technology and familiarizing voters with the technology. The value of Internet voting is uncertain because reliable cost data are not available and its benefits are in dispute. Voter participation and the “digital divide” are important issues, but controversy reigns over their implications. The Internet originated in the late 1960s through government-funded projects to demonstrate and perform “remote-access data processing,” which enabled researchers to use off-site computers and computer networks as if they were accessible locally. Although these networks were initially intended to support government and academic research, when their public and commercial value was realized, they were transformed into the medium known today as the Internet. Over time, these networks were privatized, and additional networks were constructed; the spread of networks along with advances in computing technology fostered the Internet’s growth. The development of the World Wide Web and “browser” software and advancements in the processing capability of personal computers greatly facilitated public use of the Internet. In the early 1990s, a major surge occurred in Internet use that continues unabated today. According to the Department of Commerce, the number of Internet users in the United States rose to about 117 million in the year 2000. (The population of the United States is over 281 million.) Promoting the easy sharing of information was a prime motivation for the Internet. To this end, systems and software followed open rather than proprietary standards, and software tools were put into the public domain, so that anyone could copy, modify, and improve them. This approach is a source of both strength and weakness. Openness and flexibility contributed to the rapid evolution and spread of Internet information and technology. But this openness and flexibility, and the vast web of interconnections that resulted, are also the source of widespread and growing security problems. This interconnectivity has also led to growing concerns about individual privacy. Information that may previously have been publicly available in principle has become easily available in practice to almost anyone, and even private information can be accessed if security protections break down. Another growing concern is that the availability of Internet technology is producing a “digital divide”: two classes of people separated by their ability to access the Internet and all that it offers. In investigating this question, both we and the Department of Commerce found greater home usage of the Internet by more highly educated and wealthier individuals. For Internet-based voting, the generic Internet issues—security, privacy, and accessibility—are entwined with issues relating to the unique nature of voting (such as ballot secrecy). Another important issue is the practical consideration of the costs of Internet voting versus its benefits. Poll-site Internet Voting Kiosk Voting Remote Internet Voting When Internet voting is discussed, the popular image is of citizens voting on-line from any computer anywhere in the world. However, other possible scenarios have been suggested for applying Internet technology to elections. Such groups as the Internet Policy Institute and the California Internet Voting Task Force have pointed out that various approaches to Internet voting are possible, ranging from the use of Internet connections at traditional polling stations to the ability to vote remotely from anywhere. An intermediate step along this range is an option referred to as “kiosk voting,” in which voters would use conveniently located voting terminals provided and controlled by election officials. Some voting experts see the three types of Internet voting as evolutionary, because the issues become more complex and difficult as elections move from poll sites—where limited numbers of voting devices are physically controlled by election officials—to sites where voting devices are not under such direct control, and the number of devices is much greater (see figure 75). In poll-site Internet voting, Internet-connected computers either replace or reside alongside conventional dedicated poll-site equipment. In its most limited configuration, in which voters vote only at their traditional assigned polling places, poll-site Internet voting is little more than another type of voting equipment. An expanded configuration would permit voters to vote at any polling place within their jurisdiction, thus expanding their voting options—as well as increasing the complexity of the system required to support these options. In poll-site Internet voting at assigned polling places, poll workers would authenticate voters as they traditionally do; that is, they would follow the local procedures for ensuring that the voter was who he or she claimed to be and that the voter was registered in that precinct. However, if a voter wished to use an Internet device to vote, a poll worker would also assign the voter a computer-recognizable means of identification—a password or personal identification number (PIN), for example. At the Internet voting device, the voter would identify himself or herself to the system using the identification assigned; the voter would then be presented with an electronic ballot on which to vote. When the voter submitted the ballot electronically, it would be encrypted and sent via the Internet to the jurisdiction’s central data center, where the vote would be decrypted, the voter ID separated from the vote, and the vote and voter ID stored separately. Through software checks, the system would check the validity of the ballot and ensure that it had not been altered in transit. The system would also send an acknowledgment to the voter that the vote was received. However, the acknowledgment would not indicate how the voter voted, because the system would have separated that information from the voter’s identity to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. An extended version of poll-site Internet voting would allow voters to vote at other poll sites within a jurisdiction, rather than limiting them to their traditional assigned sites. These poll sites could be either within the same precinct or beyond the precinct within the voting jurisdiction. In any case, poll workers would have to be able to authenticate voters from a larger population than they do now that is, the voters in the entire precinct or voting jurisdiction, rather than simply those assigned to an individual poll site. Further, the election officials would have to present voters with the appropriate ballot style for which they were eligible to vote (corresponding to their local precinct). Figure 76 summarizes the process for poll-site voting. Of the various types of Internet voting, poll-site Internet voting requires the least change to current election processes. For example, traditional means can be employed for poll watching and physical security. For voting at assigned poll sites, voter authentication could also be done traditionally. However, if jurisdictions offer more options for polling places, the voter authentication system becomes more complex. Poll-site Internet voting in general does not offer advantages over traditional voting technology. The California Internet Task Force described poll-site Internet voting as primarily useful for testing technology that would allow voters to cast ballots from sites other than their assigned polling places. In the November 2000 federal election, poll-site Internet voting was tested in nonbinding pilot projects in four counties in California to ascertain voter satisfaction and acceptance of the technology. Voters who chose to participate, as well as election officials, generally reacted positively to the tests. However, some voters had security concerns, and some jurisdictions questioned the cost-effectiveness of expanding the pilots. An extension of poll-site Internet voting is the proposal to establish Internet voting sites at convenient public places, such as libraries and community centers. In this scenario, jurisdictions would provide Internet voting equipment but generally not staff the voting sites. If the voting sites were unstaffed, the voting equipment would require protection against tampering, and advance voter authentication would have to be implemented. In kiosk Internet voting, voters would have to be authenticated and provided with a means of identification (such as a password or PIN), just as in poll-site Internet voting. How this process would take place would depend on whether the voting sites were staffed by poll workers. In this scenario, poll workers could use the same means of voter authentication used for the expanded poll-site voting. In an unstaffed setup, voters would have to authenticate themselves in advance. For advance authentication, the voter would contact the authentication authority before the election, and the means of identification would be sent to the voter, similar to the way absentee ballots are requested and mailed out in a conventional election system. Once the voter received the means of identification, the rest of the voting process would be the same as for extended poll-site Internet voting. Figure 77 summarizes this kiosk voting process. Steps differing from the process described in figure 76 are shown in heavily outlined boxes. Retaining some of the features of traditional poll-site voting, this option adds some of the features of remote voting. As in traditional poll-site voting, the equipment is under the control of election officials. (For unmanned voting kiosks, some form of security is usually proposed to avoid tampering, such as camera surveillance or security guards.) However, as in remote voting, procedures and technology must be in place for voter authentication in the absence of poll workers. Kiosk voting is currently a purely conceptual alternative; no jurisdiction has yet tried to demonstrate the concept. In its ultimate form, remote Internet voting allows voters to cast ballots from any Internet-connected computer anywhere in the world. This form of Internet voting would allow maximum convenience to those voters with access to networked computers. However, because neither the actual machines used for voting nor the network environment could be directly controlled by election officials, this option would present election systems with the greatest technological challenge. Proposals for remote Internet voting, as well as for kiosk voting, usually assume that voters will submit requests for Internet voting in advance and that means of identification will be sent to these voters before the election. In addition to the means of identification, the jurisdiction would also have to take steps to ensure that voters secured the platform on which they proposed to vote. Some have suggested that the jurisdiction would have to send out software for the voter to install, such as a dedicated operating system and Web browser; such software would have to accommodate many platforms and system configurations. Once the voter had secured the computer by the means prescribed by the jurisdiction, the rest of the voting process would be similar to that described earlier. One difference, however, would be that after voting, voters would have to reconfigure their computers to return them to their previous state (for example, they might need to reset their network settings to those needed to connect to their Internet service providers). In cases where voters wished to vote from computers they did not own (at schools or businesses, for example), this process could be problematic. Figure 78 summarizes the process for remote Internet voting. Steps that differ from the processes in figures 76 and 77 are shown in heavily outlined boxes. Like any form of remote voting, including the mail-in absentee voting used in most states today, remote Internet voting lacks some of the safeguards associated with voting within the controlled environment of a traditional polling place; that is, election officials cannot guarantee that the ballot is kept secret and that voters are not coerced. Likewise, traditional citizen poll watching is impossible, because voting takes place in private settings. Remote Internet voting has been used for private elections for several years, but only recently have attempts been made to use Internet technology for public elections in which candidates were running for federal office. To date, no jurisdiction has attempted to use remote Internet voting in a binding general election, although some political parties have used remote Internet voting in binding primary elections. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) conducted a pilot project to allow military service members, their dependents, and citizens stationed overseas to send binding absentee ballots over the Internet rather than by mail. The DOD pilot, however, differed in a number of aspects from what a jurisdiction-run remote Internet election would be. In the DOD pilot, the ballots were not sent to an electronic data center for tallying, but rather were sent to various local jurisdictions, where officials printed the ballots out and processed them like paper absentee ballots. Further, responsibility for voter authentication was delegated to DOD, so the local jurisdictions did not have to perform that step or issue computer-readable means of identification. In some of the primary elections that allowed for remote Internet voting, results were mixed. Many voters were comfortable with the process, but some also expressed concerns about security. Disputes about Internet accessibility also led to a lawsuit in the case of the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary. Further, a range of problems surfaced, from the technical (some computers and Web browsers were incompatible with the election system) to the procedural (additional telephone help lines had to be added). The standards by which new election technologies, such as Internet voting, should be judged combine practical considerations (such as cost and benefits) with generally recognized requirements for free and fair elections: (1) the secrecy of the ballot should be ensured; (2) only authorized persons should be able to vote; (3) no voter should be able to vote more than once; (4) votes should not be modified, forged, or deleted without detection; (5) votes should be accurately accounted for and verifiable; and (6) voters should not be denied access to the voting booth. For Internet voting to reasonably meet these requirements, a number of issues need to be resolved. These issues have been raised by groups and individuals with voting expertise, including election officials, citizens groups, voting technology vendors, and academics. Among these issues, we have identified those that have received the widest discussion and are generally agreed to be of primary importance; these can be placed into four general categories: ballot secrecy/voter privacy, security, accessibility, and cost versus benefits. Although ballot secrecy and voter privacy are closely related, they can be distinguished and are treated differently in practice in many forms of elections. Ballot secrecy refers to the content of the vote; voter privacy refers to the voter’s ability to cast a vote without being observed. In poll- site voting, protecting voter privacy is generally ensured by election officials and observers. However, in voting that does not take place at poll sites, including traditional mail-in absentee balloting, election officials cannot safeguard voter privacy, although they can and do take steps to protect ballot secrecy. In any form of voting that takes place away from a poll site (including conventional mail-in absentee voting), safeguards are imposed to protect ballot secrecy at the receiving end (the election office) and in transit, but it is not practical to impose such safeguards at the origin (the voter’s location). The current mail-in absentee balloting process offers some procedural assurances that election officials cannot trace votes back to individuals. That is, the voter returns the absentee ballot in two envelopes: the outer envelope includes identifying information about the voter and is signed, but the internal one has no identifying information that links the ballot to the voter. When absentee ballots arrive at the election office, election workers separate the inner envelopes from the outer ones and randomize them before the ballots are inspected. This procedure ensures secrecy at the receiving end (as long as more than one absentee ballot is received). It does not ensure ballot secrecy or voter privacy at the origin or in transit. With absentee balloting, like remote Internet voting, practical solutions are not available to ensure that voters are not spied on or coerced by a third party. The digital process proposed by the California Voting Task Force for transmitting ballots over the Internet is generally patterned after the mail-in absentee ballot process. The process aims to preserve ballot secrecy and integrity through the use of encryption technology working with various forms of authentication, such as digital certificates. Encryption technology would act as the “envelopes” preserving the secrecy and integrity of the ballot, and the electronic voter authentication would be automatically stripped from the ballot before the votes were tabulated. As in the mail-in absentee ballot process, the voter authentication and the actual ballot would be stored separately and randomized to preserve ballot secrecy. Assuming that these technologies work as designed, this means of transmitting and receiving the ballot would protect the ballot’s secrecy. As in mail-in absentee balloting, voters would be responsible for protecting their own physical privacy. Like other forms of remote voting, then, proposed implementations of remote Internet voting would not protect voters’ physical privacy (leaving open the risk that voters may be coerced—through threats, bribery, and other forms of pressure); however, unlike paper-based voting, remote Internet voting also introduces threats to electronic privacy. For example, voters who access the Internet through a local area network (such as at an office, school, or library) might have their privacy compromised by a network administrator who could access the voter’s computer while the ballot was in an unencrypted state. In one of the Internet voting pilots where remote voting was allowed, voters relied heavily upon computers at offices and public libraries. Because these computers were tied into central networks, the potential for compromise was present. Reducing the likelihood of such breaches of privacy require that substantial legal penalties be imposed on such activities. Finally, any connection to the Internet brings with it the possibility that hackers or malicious software could target the connected computer for attack. Software is available now that allows users to remotely monitor other people’s activities over the Internet, without necessarily being detected or causing any obvious harm. Such snooping allows hackers to look for transactions of interest to them. As transactions increase in significance, their attraction to hackers increases. The challenge and high stakes of an Internet election are very likely to attract not only snooping, but also determined efforts at disruption and fraud. The process described for transmitting and receiving ballots would be used in all the forms of Internet voting proposed, not just remote voting. This process does not address protection of voters’ privacy while they are generating ballots. However, in poll-site Internet voting as in other poll-site voting, election officials can institute procedures to protect voters’ physical privacy at the poll site. Similarly, in kiosk voting, election officials could also establish procedures to protect against coercion. Of the three types of Internet voting, remote Internet voting is recognized as least protective of ballot secrecy and voter privacy. On the assumption that techniques such as digital certificates and encryption are effective safeguards for transmission and reception, poll-site Internet voting provides the most privacy safeguards, covering origination, transmission, and reception; kiosk Internet voting could safeguard transmission and reception and (depending on the setup) provide some safeguards on origination; and remote Internet voting could safeguard transmission and reception, but not origination. Some experts consider that the safeguards now available would be effective for protecting ballot secrecy during transmission and reception. However, other voting experts believe that although digital certificates and encryption could in theory provide the transmission and reception safeguards described, these technologies are not yet mature enough to do so in any large-scale implementation of Internet voting, particularly remote voting. These experts note that as encryption algorithms improve, so do the encryption-cracking tools and the power of the computers that run them. Further, even with perfect technology, they note that the human factor can undermine the goal. Digital certificates and encryption depend on passwords or keys, which can be stolen or voluntarily revealed. A further practical difficulty is the cost and technological challenge of creating the infrastructure required for a large-scale implementation of digital certificates. Systems would have to be set up to positively identify voters, issue digital certificates, and manage the exchange and verification of certificates. In the DOD Voting Over the Internet pilot, the system depended on the public key infrastructure that was already in place on DOD’s systems for electronic certificate registration and management services. In addition, for remote Internet voting, some experts believe that any large- scale solution would have to address the problem of maintaining ballot secrecy across different Internet browsers and computing platforms (that is, computers running various versions of Windows, Macintosh, and Linux operating systems). This problem would require continual attention as operating systems themselves evolve and change; it was not solved in the remote pilot elections in November 2000. In one of these pilots, the vendor that ran the Internet voting software discovered during the election that its voting encryption software was not supported by older Internet browsers. The vendor also reported that several Macintosh users had problems casting their votes on-line and were advised to vote in person. Beyond the cost and technological problems are the social problems that some experts foresee arising from more widespread use of remote voting. Some voting experts believe that remote voting would encourage organized voter coercion by such groups as employers, unions, nursing homes, and others. One election expert has also noted that the laptops now prevalent in campaign organizations could be used to turn out the vote in favorable precincts, removed from the scrutiny of election officials or poll watchers. The risk of fraud in remote Internet voting has been likened to that in mail- in absentee balloting. In a 1998 report, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement concluded that “The lack of ‘in-person, at-the-polls’ accountability makes absentee ballots the ‘tool of choice’ for those inclined to commit voter fraud.” Some experts suggest that remote Internet voting could compound this problem significantly. Election officials can provide reasonable assurance to voters of the secrecy of their ballots when these officials control the voting equipment. However, when elections are remote, this assurance fades, and when Internet technology is introduced, local election officials can have very little control over the technology. Even with encryption, election officials would not be able to guarantee that the voter’s computer or the jurisdiction’s election servers or communication link would not be compromised. Further, given the vulnerability of the Internet to manipulation, it may ultimately be difficult to convince voters that their votes over the Internet will remain secret. The primary issue for Internet voting is security-that is, ensuring that the voting technology (and related data and resources) is adequately safeguarded against intentional intrusions and inadvertent errors that could disrupt system performance or compromise votes. In Internet voting, the familiar security threats of the Internet are compounded by the particular security requirements of elections-that is, primarily the secret ballot, but also their low tolerance for fraud and disruption. Because the Internet is being increasingly used to transmit proprietary or privacy-sensitive information—health care records, business documents, engineering drawings, purchase orders, credit information—it has become an increasingly tempting target for attackers. Security experts contend that significant efforts are needed to define, develop, test, and implement measures to overcome the security challenge posed by the increasing complexity, interconnectivity, and sheer size of the evolving Internet. Although complete summary data are not available (many computer security incidents are not reported), the number of reported Internet- related security incidents is growing. For example, the number of incidents handled by Carnegie Mellon University’s CERT Coordination Center increased from 1,334 in 1993 to 8,836 during the first two quarters of 2000. Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that its caseload of computer intrusion-related cases is more than doubling every year. The fifth annual survey conducted by the Computer Security Institute in cooperation with the FBI found that 70 percent of respondents (primarily large corporations and government agencies) had detected serious computer security breaches within the last 12 months and that quantifiable financial losses had increased over past years. These Internet security hazards are especially significant in the context of voting, because voting is an especially significant form of electronic transaction. For remote Internet voting, the problem of malicious software (such as computer viruses, worms, or “Trojan horses”) is acute-that is,such software could be introduced into computers without voters being aware of its presence. Hackers could thus alter ballots, spy on citizens’ votes, or disrupt Web sites, preventing voters from voting. The accessibility and speed that are the hallmarks of the Internet—the very attributes that make Internet voting attractive—are also attractions for malicious or mischievous individuals and organizations that might wish to attack on-line elections. Recent software attacks (such as the ILOVEYOU virus in May 2000, the 1999 Melissa virus, the 2001 Code Red worm, and the Nimda worm of September 2001) illustrate the disruptive potential of such malicious software. In addition, inadvertent errors by authorized computer users could have equally serious consequences if the election systems were poorly protected. Hackers could attack not only the computer on which voting was taking place, but also the communication links between the voters and the election system. Commercial Web sites have been brought down by a technique known as a “denial of service” attack, in which the attacker overloads a Web site with requests for information, jamming the communication lines and preventing legitimate users from interacting with the site. A more refined version of this type of attack, developed recently, is referred to as a distributed denial of service attack. In this type of assault, software programs called worms, which propagate through the network without user intervention, are installed on several computers without the knowledge or consent of their owners. The hacker basically penetrates several computers and turns them into agents, using them to target Web sites. These types of attacks spread quickly and are very difficult to trace. The public became aware of these attacks in February 2000, when Web sites owned by eBay, E*Trade, CNN, and Yahoo were assaulted and their operations affected. Denial of service attacks would be especially threatening to remote Internet voting, since they could prevent voters from voting. In poll-site voting, however, the election system could mitigate the denial of service problem, because voting devices could be disconnected from the network until the attack was over, votes could be stored and transmitted later, or other voting technologies could be used. All types of Internet voting are at risk from malicious software attacks. Remote voting is riskiest; in poll-site and potentially kiosk voting, in which the voting equipment is under the control of election officials, the danger of such attacks is reduced, although not eliminated. Poll-site voting does permit remedies that are not available with remote voting (e.g., controlling the computers used for voting, disconnecting machines from the network if an attack or other disruption occurs, and offering alternative means of voting); some of these remedies would also be available for kiosk voting. Other kinds of remedies for all types of Internet voting would include measures such as system redundancies and backup systems; contingency plans would also need to be designed into any Internet voting system. Internet voting systems face greater security challenges than other Internet systems, because voting requires more stringent controls than other electronic transactions. In particular, elections could not tolerate the level of fraud that occurs in other electronic transactions, such as on-line banking and commerce. (One study reported that 6 million Internet users claimed that they had been victimized by credit-card-related fraud in e- commerce transactions.) Compounding the problem of fraud for Internet voting is a security requirement that is unique among on-line transactions: ballot secrecy. Under current election laws, the requirement for ballot secrecy prevents election systems from associating voters with their ballots or providing confirmation of how they voted. As a result, audit trails in public elections are specifically designed not to associate the voter with a ballot; for Internet voting, this would mean that voters could not be issued electronic receipts confirming that their votes were cast as they intended. In contrast, in both e-commerce and on-line banking, receipts providing transaction details for verification are routinely used to protect consumers from error. To date, there is no way to authenticate every voter’s identity on-line. This raises the problem of devising means to ensure that electronic ballots are not cast by individuals who are not registered to vote, who are ineligible to vote, or who have already voted (whether on-line or by other means). Although this problem is mostly avoided with the poll-site approach to Internet voting, it emerges with any system in which voting takes place at sites that are not monitored by election officials. It is generally agreed that system security is the biggest obstacle to Internet voting. In view of the Internet’s multiple vulnerabilities, security experts question whether the Internet is ready to offer the level of security necessary to ensure the integrity of an election. Two experts assert that the Internet can never be used for secure elections, because the Internet, which was designed to facilitate information accessing and sharing, is inherently insecure. The proposals for poll-site and kiosk Internet voting, in which voting equipment is under the control of election officials, are largely motivated by the desire to avoid some of the security problems associated with remote Internet voting. Some experts believe that security mechanisms may evolve one day to the point that they could form the framework for secure Internet voting solutions. In our interviews with several Internet voting vendors, one vendor stated that its product had adequate security measures in place now that would make it possible to conduct a secure public election with remote voting over the Internet. However, some security experts dispute this statement, pointing out that security breaches are being experienced every day by the most technologically sophisticated companies in our country. Most technology experts agree that today no organization is immune from security breaches over the Internet. The vendors that we contacted are exploring solutions to these challenging security issues. Like any security system, these solutions will involve design trade-offs between the ease of voters using the system and the protection afforded by it, as well as between protection and cost. Because our nation’s election system has rigorous security requirements, the expectation is that considerable complexity and cost would be introduced by whatever solution is devised. In general, the election community agrees that remote Internet voting is not now practical; a few suggest that it may never be. Most agree that Internet voting at designated poll sites is feasible; although the security issues are still significant, technological and procedural solutions could probably be devised to allow Internet voting at poll sites. The accessibility of the polls is fundamental to the right to vote. All eligible voters, including those with disabilities, should have equal access to voting, and election systems should be easy for all voters to use. The ease of use aspect of accessibility is important not only to minimize voter confusion and thus error, but also because voting technology that is easy to use is more likely to capture the intent of the voter. Election systems should strive to minimize the opportunities for errors that invalidate or misdirect votes. In the context of Internet voting, the digital divide takes on particular importance. If access to the Internet continues to be divided along socioeconomic lines, remote Internet voting would likely benefit only the more privileged classes in American society. For voting, the need to minimize the effect of socioeconomic divisions is particularly pressing, because it is a fundamental principle of American democracy that elections should be free and fair. Any system that is perceived to offer unfair advantage to certain classes of people could undermine public confidence in elections and in the governments they produce. As we have reported, Internet voting presents increased participation opportunities for voters with disabilities as well as implementation challenges. Because Web software can be accessible to voters with disabilities, Internet voting could potentially provide voters with disabilities the convenience of voting from remote locations, such as their homes, thereby promoting voter participation. We identified the following as possible advantages of Internet voting for voters with disabilities: Voters would have more flexibility to vote when they want and from convenient locations if remote Internet voting were allowed. Blind individuals might be able to vote independently with special equipment and a Web site designed to provide universal access. However, we also reported concerns expressed about the Internet’s security and reliability, as well as the lack of widespread Internet access. Some of the disadvantages include the following: Voters who are accustomed to traditional methods might resist the Internet method. Voters who lacked a convenient connection to the Internet would not have equal access to voting. Blind voters may need special equipment to allow them to use the Internet. Some disability advocates believe that although alternative voting methods, like Internet voting, do expand options for voters with disabilities, they do not provide the same voting opportunities afforded the general public and thus should not be viewed as permanent solutions to the problem of inaccessible polling places. Moreover, although the Internet is potentially accessible to people with disabilities, they are in fact less likely to have access to the Internet than the general population. According to the Department of Commerce, people with disabilities are only half as likely to have access to the Internet as those with no disability: about 22 percent of the persons with disabilities are on-line compared to about 42 percent of the general population. And while just under 25 percent of people with no disability have never used a personal computer, close to 60 percent of people with a disability fall into that category. Different types of disabilities also lead to different rates of access. Among people with a disability, those who may require special equipment to use computers (such as those who have impaired vision and problems with manual dexterity) have lower rates of Internet access and are less likely to use a computer regularly than people who need no special equipment, such as those with hearing difficulties. According to Commerce, this difference holds in the aggregate, as well as across age groups. Because experience so far with any kind of public election using Internet technology is limited, knowledge concerning ease of use and Internet elections is similarly limited. However, information that is available suggests that problems with ease of use would arise in Internet elections as in all voting methods and technologies, and voters who are unfamiliar with computers are most likely to have difficulty. For example, in the nonbinding pilot projects on poll-site Internet voting run by a few jurisdictions in the November 2000 elections, voters chose whether or not to participate, so it is believed that most participants were already familiar with computers and the Internet. Thus, when these voters were surveyed concerning ease of use, most expressed satisfaction. One jurisdiction reported that 100 percent of voters surveyed were satisfied with the ease of the Internet voting implementation; however, another jurisdiction also reported anecdotally that two senior citizens who attempted to use the system became so frustrated with using the computer mouse that they abandoned the attempt within a minute of sitting down. Another of the jurisdictions running a pilot also reported that voters who had never used a computer had difficulties with the keyboard and mouse. Further, even voters who were familiar with computers ran into problems. One jurisdiction reported that several voters did not read directions and had difficulty performing the steps needed for authentication. Also, in one nonbinding primary in which remote Internet voting was tested, several survey respondents commented on their reluctance to download and install the security software, whose function they did not understand. In the DOD Internet absentee ballot pilot, organizers also commented that participants were not familiar with digital certificates. Removing obstacles that prevent or discourage eligible voters from voting is one aspect of accessibility; actively encouraging eligible voters to vote is another. The term generally used in discussions of this aspect of accessibility is “voter participation.” This issue may be as important to the Internet voting debate as security concerns. The goal of increasing accessibility/voter participation has been cited in arguments both for and against remote Internet voting. Some social scientists contend that remote Internet voting would improve the convenience of voting by removing the need for voters to go in person to poll sites at particular hours, and that this convenience would attract voters to exercise their right to vote. Proponents of remote Internet voting argue that Internet voting would thus increase voter participation, particularly among underrepresented groups, such as young people; people with limited mobility (such as the elderly and the physically challenged); and voters living overseas, including military personnel. On the other hand, in the long term, Internet voting could decrease voter participation, because it could undermine confidence in the security and fairness of the election process. That is, if the electorate lost confidence that Internet voting was secure or grew to believe that Internet voting unfairly favored certain classes of voters, the resulting disillusionment could discourage voters from participating. Some evidence that increased convenience could increase participation is found in the Oregon experience with mail-in voting, which resulted in significant increases in turnout. In 1995, when Oregon held the nation’s first all-vote-by-mail statewide congressional primary election, turnout in Oregon primaries rose to 52 percent, up from 43 percent previously. In the special election for U.S. Senator that followed these primaries, the turnout was 65 percent, a record for special elections. For more direct evidence that remote Internet voting could encourage participation, proponents cite the increased turnout seen in the Arizona 2000 Democratic presidential primary. In this primary, which provided for remote voting, the Democratic party saw an increase in voter participation of over 600 percent in comparison with both the 1992 and 1996 presidential primaries. This surge exceeded increases in every state that had Democratic and/or Republican primary elections during that year (although some other states, which did not provide Internet voting, also showed impressive surges: 419 percent in Rhode Island, 260 percent in Massachusetts, and 200 percent in Georgia). A study done at Northern Arizona University concluded that the availability of Internet voting contributed to Arizona’s increase in political participation, along with other factors, such as the contested primary and media attention focusing on the availability of Internet voting. The study further concluded that participation would have been greater if all technical glitches had been anticipated and corrected before voting began (some voters who ran into technical difficulties ended up by not casting any kind of ballot). Some suggest that after the novelty of Internet voting is dissipated, this increase in participation will subside. They argue that Internet voting is likely to be similar to previous election reforms (such as early voting, motor voter registration, and absentee balloting), which have had very little, if any, effect on participation. Some voting experts have suggested that information and mobilization are much more important than convenience in increasing voter participation. A slightly different argument is made about the participation of young voters in remote Internet voting. The argument here is that the 18 to 24 age group, which is least likely to vote (according to FEC), is also the age group whose access to and familiarity with the Internet is highest. Thus, that age group, it is argued, would be most likely to respond to the opportunity to use remote Internet voting. For older voters, on the other hand, particularly those with no exposure to computers, Internet voting could actually discourage participation. The Internet usage rate for people 50 and over was about 30 percent in 2000, compared to about 42 percent for the general population. Thus, poll-site Internet voting (if it were the only option) might be discouraging to such voters, as the anecdotal evidence from the pilot voting projects suggests. Remote and kiosk voting would be even less likely to attract such voters. Even if remote Internet voting did result in increased turnout, many voting experts believe that such an increase would be likely to appear in some voter groups more than others (in particular, those who have Internet- connected computers in their homes). Thus, Internet voting could serve to widen the gap that already exists in the way different socioeconomic groups are represented at the polls. Less privileged groups could be disadvantaged by the new technology. There is little suggestion that poll-site Internet voting would have a significant effect on accessibility and participation, any more than any other form of voting device. The experience with pilots shows, however, that ease of use issues arise especially for voters unfamiliar with computers and are present even for those who do use computers. Kiosk voting remains a concept only, with no real-world pilots or testing. Therefore, few have commented on the issues of accessibility, ease of use, and participation. The arguments on accessibility and participation all concentrate on remote Internet voting—both those in favor and those against. (Ease of use tends to be discussed only in terms of its effect on convenience-that is, if security requirements are too difficult or too much trouble for voters, the convenience of Internet voting is undermined.) Consensus does not exist on accessibility for those with disabilities. Although remote Internet elections could in theory be made accessible for this group and thus could increase their opportunities to vote, in practice Americans with disabilities are among those groups who have the least access to computers and the Internet. On the question of voter participation, there is little evidence, and thus consensus, that the availability of remote Internet voting would succeed in bringing substantial increases in voter turnout. However, as there is also little evidence against this proposition, most agree that further study and debate are warranted. Further, whether any increase in participation that resulted from remote Internet voting would benefit the democratic process or only the well-off is likewise in dispute. Before committing to any new technology, jurisdictions faced with multiple competing needs, investment options, and budget constraints will want to assess the technology’s potential cost and benefits. The ACE Project partners are the International Foundation for Election Systems, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. analysis should be performed. According to the ACE project, the analysis should incorporate the elements described in table 16. Little of the information needed for an analysis of the kind described in table 16 is currently available for Internet voting of any type. In the absence of such information, most of the Internet voting debate consists of hypotheses concerning possible outcomes and benefits. Arguments have been offered both that Internet voting would save jurisdictions money and that Internet voting would cost more than current elections. Some Internet voting proponents have said that remote Internet voting could have the benefit of increasing voter participation and thus decreasing the cost per voter. They contend that remote Internet voting would permit jurisdictions to save money by using fewer printed ballots, storage facilities, polling places, and poll workers. Others, however, have noted that substantial costs would be incurred in implementing security solutions. One security expert has said that the initial investment for Internet voting will be substantial and not affordable to many jurisdictions. Because of the different types of Internet voting being proposed (poll site, kiosk, and remote), it is unclear whether introducing Internet voting technology to the electoral process would increase or decrease costs. Some argue that the cost would depend on the voting expenses and equipment the technology replaced. However, most scenarios envision Internet voting to be used concurrently with existing voting methods. We were unable to acquire information on costs from the jurisdictions involved in the pilots, because in most cases the vendors incurred the costs, not the jurisdictions. We were able to acquire cost data on the DOD absentee ballot pilot project, but DOD warned against equating its cost with that of owning and operating an Internet voting system. Rather, the project was described as a “proof-of-concept research and development project.” DOD reported that the project cost $6.2 million. In the project, 84 electronic ballots were transmitted over the Internet, and 74 were counted (10 were not counted because paper ballots from those voters had already been delivered and deposited in sealed ballot boxes). DOD provided no cost estimates for a final operational system. Four of five vendors currently providing Internet voting solutions, however, provided us with information on costs for poll-site voting solutions; only one of these vendors provided us with a cost estimate for remote voting. One Internet vendor estimated that his organization could host a poll- site Internet voting configuration for approximately $300 to $1,500 per day (including 12 computer voting stations with all associated hardware and software); the vendor did not provide any cost estimates for support services. Moreover, the vendor stated that certain variables would affect this cost estimate, such as the length of the election, level of security, and ballot complexity. Another Internet vendor declined to give a cost estimate because any estimate would depend on a number of variables unique to a jurisdiction, such as its existing technology and networking infrastructure, number of devices required, technical proficiency of in- house staff, and other customer specifications. Two other vendors provided us with “cost per vote” estimates. One vendor stated that it could provide a poll-site Internet voting solution for approximately $3 per vote. This system would provide 4 Internet voting stations (computers) per precinct, each of which could support 300 voters. Another vendor stated that it could provide poll-site Internet voting for $1.70 per voter and remote Internet voting for 10¢ to 50¢ per voter. This vendor was the only one willing to give a cost estimate for remote Internet voting. Some of the vendors we spoke with stated that an Internet voting solution could be more cost effective if the costs could be spread out and shared. They proposed that jurisdictions could use computers used for Internet voting for other purposes (e.g., in schools) when they were not being used for election functions. However, some security experts have expressed concerns that this approach would compromise the use of the computers for elections, because they might become infected with malicious software. We could arrive at no consensus on costs from the information currently available beyond the general recognition that potentially sizable up front infrastructure costs would be incurred. Some experts acknowledge that the Internet and the associated technology are evolving so rapidly that it is difficult to reliably estimate costs at this time. There is likewise no consensus on the suggestion that jurisdictions might mitigate their costs by using equipment acquired for Internet voting for purposes other than elections. Except for DOD’s pilot project, cost information was unavailable for the pilots. As acknowledged by some experts who have commented on this topic, given that most proposals to use Internet technology for voting in the near term envision poll-site voting, and given that most suggestions for possible cost savings envision remote voting, it appears that Internet technology offers no near-term promise of significant cost savings. In addition to the major issues we have discussed, a number of other issues have been raised in discussions of Internet voting; however, extensive information for these issues is not available, and so we do not address them in detail. For some, discussion has been largely at the level of speculation. Further, some issues cannot be resolved not only because of the uncertainties about the form of Internet voting, but also because of ongoing rapid changes in information technology. For example, it has been suggested that election officials would need to find new means of communicating with voters (for instance, sending out sample ballots); providing voter assistance; recruiting and training poll workers; identifying polling places (which would have to have Internet connections); storing and maintaining equipment; and designing ballots, among other processes. The times for elections may be lengthened (to avoid network traffic problems, to allow time for voters to overcome technical difficulties, and to permit Internet voting systems to recover from disruptions such as system failures or denial of service attacks). The Internet Policy Institute also points out that “for Internet voting to gain acceptance, new ways of testing, certifying and developing standards for election systems will have to be explored.”28, 29 Election officials would also have to examine laws concerning elections for their application to Internet voting, and they may find that some need to be changed to allow implementation of such a system. For example, state laws may prescribe certain types of acceptable voting equipment or certain ratios of equipment to voters. Further, election officials might recommend new laws to address the new possibilities for election fraud and improprieties opened up by Internet voting. (Examples of such laws would be prohibitions against buying, stealing, selling, or giving away digital signatures for the purpose of fraudulent voting; hacking voting systems or individual votes; interfering with voting systems by reducing or eliminating access to the system; or invasion of privacy by attacking a ballot or Web site with the intent to examine or change votes). Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting, March 2001. No Internet voting equipment and software standards are currently in place. However, FEC has released for comment a draft of its voting systems standards, which outline some Internet voting standards. Democratic Party made efforts to increase minority participation, and the election was allowed to proceed. Some of the issues raised are not unique to Internet voting, but rather are applicable to any kind of electronic, computer-based voting. It is suggested, for example, that the use of computers for voting requires new ways to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the ballot count; traditional confidence measures are not effective for computer-based voting. Trust in electronic voting technology depends on persuading the public to place trust in technical experts. For Internet voting, the trust issue is particularly important, because Internet security threats are significant and well known. Although the nature and significance of the challenges vary somewhat depending on the type of Internet voting in question (poll site, kiosk, or remote), broad application of Internet voting in general faces several formidable social and technological challenges. These challenges were explicitly highlighted and discussed in depth in this chapter. They include providing adequate ballot secrecy and voter privacy safeguards to protect votes from unauthorized disclosure and to protect voters from coercion; providing adequate security measures to ensure that the voting system (including related data and resources) is adequately safeguarded against intentional intrusions and inadvertent errors that could disrupt system performance or compromise votes; providing equal access to all voters, including persons with disabilities, and making the technology easy to use; and ensuring that the technology is a cost-beneficial alternative to existing voting methods, in light of the high technology costs and security requirements, as well as the associated benefits to be derived from such investments. | Events surrounding the 2000 presidential election raised concerns about the reliability of various types of voting equipment, the role of election officials, the disqualification of absentee ballots, and the accuracy of vote counts and recounts. As a result, public officials and various interest groups have proposed reforms to address perceived shortcomings. This report discusses: (1) voter registration; (2) absentee and early voting; (3) election day administration; and (4) vote counts, certification, and recounts. |
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) combines its research activities into the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The mission area is composed of four agencies with the federal responsibility to advance scientific knowledge for agriculture. Activities include the biological, physical, and social sciences related broadly to agriculture, food, and natural resources, delivered through research, statistics, extension, and higher education ( Table 1 ). Federally funded intramural research is intended in part to address issues of national importance and promote basic research, regional coordination, and spillover. Federally funded extramural research activities are decentralized and are often regionally specific and/or applied in nature. The federal-state research system also supports USDA's regulatory programs in the areas of meat, poultry, and egg inspection; foreign pest and disease exclusion; and control and eradication of crop and livestock threats, among other things. Although all four USDA research agencies are headquartered in Washington, DC, much of the work is executed through a set of agency field stations and a network of university partners throughout the United States that operate at the state and local levels. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has about 100 research centers and work locations across the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands ( Figure 1 ). The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) partners with colleges of agriculture at land-grant universities in 50 states and eight U.S. territories, affiliated state agricultural experiment stations (SAESs), schools of forestry and veterinary medicine, and the Cooperative Extension system. These colleges include the traditional land-grant colleges of agriculture established by the Morrill Act of 1862 ("1862 institutions"), 19 historically black colleges of agriculture ("1890 institutions," HBCUs) that were created by the Second Morrill Act of 1890, and 31 Native American colleges (referred to as tribal colleges) that gained land-grant status in 1994 ( Figure 2 ). The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the only REE agency based entirely in Washington, DC. The House and Senate Agriculture committees are the committees of jurisdiction for the authorizing statutes and oversight of agricultural research, education, and extension programs. In recent years, Congress has modified agricultural research policy in the "farm bill," most recently in 2014 ( P.L. 113-79 , Title VII). Annual appropriations bills and hearings provide more frequent opportunities for oversight and determination of funding. The majority of federal funding for agricultural research, education, and extension activities is from annual discretionary appropriations in the Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill. In FY2016, discretionary funding for the entire REE mission area totaled $2.937 billion ( Table 1 ). A subset of research programs, especially within NIFA, is provided with mandatory funding—such as for specialty crops or organic agriculture that were created in the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. The 2014 farm bill provides an average of $120 million per year of mandatory funding to agricultural research ( Figure 3 ). Intramural research at federal agencies (ARS, NASS, and ERS) is funded directly with discretionary appropriations to pay salaries and expenses of federal employees, to conduct research, and to build and maintain facilities. Extramural research that is sponsored by NIFA is administered by a relatively small cadre of employees who are funded by a small portion of NIFA's appropriation for salaries and expenses. The vast majority of the NIFA appropriation is available for extramural research grants that are made primarily through two types of funding: formula funds and competitive grants ( Figure 3 ). 1. Formula f unds for research and extension are distributed to land-grant colleges (1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions), schools of forestry, and schools of veterinary medicine using calculations that are set in statute. The amount provided to each institution is determined by census-based statistics that change infrequently. Research priorities at each college may be influenced at the university level (7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). Two accounts provide most of the formula funding. The Hatch Act of 1887 authorizes research funding at the state agricultural experiment stations (SAESs). Congress amended the Hatch Act in 1955 to distribute the appropriation based on each state's farm and rural population in the U.S. Census (7 U.S.C. 301 ) . The Hatch Act also requires dollar-for-dollar matching funds from state budgets, but most states appropriate three to four times the federal allotment. The act also requires each state to use 25% of its Hatch Act funds to support multi-state or regional research. HBCUs get similar funding through Evans-Allen research grants and 1890s capacity building grants . The Smith-Lever Act authorizes cooperative extension funding using statutory formulas and nonfederal matching requirements similar to the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 341 ) . Federal funding supporting forestry and veterinary programs at the land grant institutions also is distributed among the institutions according to formulas, but these have different criteria than the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act formulas. 2. Competitive g rants are awarded using a peer-reviewed merit selection process. Activities include fundamental and applied research, extension, and higher education activities, as well as for projects that integrate research, education, and extension functions. Competitive programs are designed to enable USDA to attract a wide pool of applicants to work on agricultural issues of national interest and to select the best quality proposals submitted by highly qualified individuals, institutions, or organizations (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)). Competitive grants are primarily funded with discretionary appropriations, but some also receive mandatory funding from the farm bill ( Figure 3 ). The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) is NIFA's flagship competitive grants program. It funds basic and applied research, education, and extension to colleges and universities, agricultural experiment stations, and other organizations conducting research in priority areas that are established partially in the farm bill. The 2008 farm bill mandated that AFRI allocate 60% of grant funds for basic research and 40% for applied research. At least 30% of total funds must be used to integrate research with education and/or extension activities. Policymakers continue to debate the appropriate role and implications of various funding mechanisms for agricultural research. At the federal level, this debate entails formula funding versus external peer-reviewed competitive grant funding. Those wanting to focus on agricultural research efficiency often call for more competitive grants to allocate limited federal resources. Two historically influential reports published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Rockefeller Foundation argued that the agricultural research of 30-40 years ago had become overly focused on applied research rather than cutting-edge basic research, and both reports recommended shifting to more competitive funding rather than formula funding of the state agricultural experiment stations (SAESs). The creation of a new, separate grant-making agency within USDA that was solely responsible for administering competitive grants programs in agricultural research and extension was one of the recommendations that came out of a National Academy of Sciences 2000 report looking at the efficacy of the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. In July 2004, a USDA task force advocated for a revised extramural research agency (what is now NIFA) modeled on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF). It believed that NIFA should accomplish its mission primarily through administering competitive peer-reviewed grants that support and promote high-caliber, fundamental agricultural research. In its 2012 report, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended a continued focus on increasing the proportion of research funds awarded competitively. The choice of funding mechanisms is viewed by some as important because it is thought to determine where and by whom the research is conducted, and the type of research performed. On the one hand, the competitive, peer-reviewed process is thought to have an advantage because a wider pool of candidates is eligible to apply for funding (e.g., grant recipients are not limited to land-grant institutions or SAESs), and it is thought to engage the best and brightest minds in addressing challenges facing the agriculture sector. At the same time, the agricultural community widely acknowledges that USDA-funded research has an important role to play, whether carried out intramurally (e.g., ARS) or through formula funds. Census-based formulas and nearly constant appropriations has meant that states receive a predictable allocation every year. Although all federal sources account for 30% or less of total funding for the experiment stations (including grants from non-research agencies within USDA and from other federal departments), the reliability of the formula funds has resulted in them traditionally being used to support the core ongoing research programs of the state agricultural experiment stations, which underpin academic programs at many universities ( Figure 5 ). Studies have shown that funding through competitive grants tends to favor basic research, reach a greater proportion of non-land grant universities, and are concentrated among fewer states than funding that is allocated by statutory formula funds. States with large agricultural production and top-ranked academic programs in biology and agricultural sciences were generally more competitive and more successful in receiving larger shares of federal funds allocated as competitive grants. Other studies have shown that federal formula funding has a larger impact on agricultural productivity over the longer term than federal competitive grants and contracts. The rationale is that federal-level research is steady funding that can support core or foundation research and is best able to take on higher-risk and long-term projects of national importance, such as deciphering plant and animal genomes, conducting longitudinal studies on human nutrition, and measuring and analyzing current and historical socioeconomic factors in the U.S. food and fiber sector. Proposals that address problems of concern to an entire state or region, and/or are multi-disciplinary, are typically underfunded in a national competitive-grant process, despite the fact that such research problems are considered by many to be of critical concern and may have a large net social payoff to the agricultural sector. ARS is the principal in-house or intramurally funded research arm of the USDA. Many believe that maintaining some level of federally funded internal research allows ARS to fill an important niche that is not met by industry or other institutions. Specifically, some believe that intramural research is best to address research problems of national and long-term priority, such as conservation and improvement of plant genetic resources, surveillance and monitoring of national and regional disease outbreaks, soil and water resource management, and adaptation to increasing climate variability and extreme events. On the other hand, some believe that ARS scientists have an unfair advantage in competing with other agricultural scientists, who do not have an endowed source of support like the federal budget for core research expenditures. A recurring policy issue is whether more federal spending should be provided for agricultural research, education, and extension. A related issue is the role of publicly funded research in context with privately funded research. Over the long run, and adjusted for inflation, public funding for agricultural research grew steadily from the 1950s to the late 1970s, and remained basically constant from the end of the 1970s through the 1980s ( Figure 4 ). There was a marked rise in public funding from 1998 through 2001, at a time of a budget surplus. One-time, supplemental funding for anti-terrorism activities increased funding in the several years after 2001. Funding levels peaked in FY2010, but began declining in FY2011 as Congress cut federal spending. As a result of a relatively flat or declining USDA research budget, funding from other federal agencies, such as NIH and NSF, has accounted for an increasing portion of federal support for agricultural research. Funds from private industry for agricultural research also generally have increased since the 1970s ( Figure 4 ). This includes public-private partnerships that can facilitate technology transfer and at the same time help to supplement federal and state support. Private-sector spending on agricultural research has grown faster than publicly funded research and development over the long term. Figure 5 shows the many funders of agricultural research, the scale of their contributions, and the destinations for that funding. In 2009, out of $13.9 billion of agricultural research funding, about 68% came from the private sector ($9.5 billion) and about 62% remained in the private sector ($8.7 billion). State governments passed through $1.4 billion to land-grant universities (LGUs) or state agricultural experiment stations (SAESs), which incidentally received a majority of their funding from combined federal sources in nearly equal shares from USDA, other federal agencies such as NSF and NIH, and the private sector. USDA intramural research by ARS, ERS, and NASS accounted for about 11% of total agricultural research spending in 2009. Some observers are concerned that both the increase in non-USDA public funding (e.g., NSF and NIH) and the increase in private funding might cause the focus of agricultural research to shift away from the U.S. agricultural sector's highest priorities and needs. They believe that such a shift could hamper the nation's ability to remain cutting-edge with regard to new innovations, to be competitive in a global market, and to cope with long-term challenges such as pest and disease outbreaks, climate change, and natural resource management. Public investment in agricultural research has been linked to productivity gains and economic growth. Studies consistently report high social rates of return (20%-60% annually) from public agricultural research. The rate of return may depend on the type of research (basic vs. applied), the duration of the research investment, and the specific commodity being studied. Advances in agricultural research and extension were critical to the huge productivity gains in the United States after World War II ( Figure 6 ). Yields for some major crops grew about 2% annually from the 1950s through the 1980s, but that growth has moderated since 1990 ( Table 2 ). Advances in the basic and applied agricultural sciences—such as disease-resistant crop varieties, efficient irrigation practices, and improved marketing systems—are considered fundamental to achievements in agricultural yields, increases in farm sector profitability, higher competitiveness in international agricultural trade, and improvements in nutrition and human health. Some want more public spending on agricultural research to maintain U.S. competitiveness and increase agricultural productivity in the face of world population growth and food demand. But agricultural research competes for federal funding in relation to other federal agricultural programs, such as conservation, farm income and risk management programs, food safety inspection, rural development, and domestic and foreign food aid programs. The 2008 farm bill required the REEO to develop and implement a USDA Roadmap for Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension to plan and coordinate across the entire department both capacity and competitive programs, as well as USDA-administered intramural and extramural programs. The objective was to identify current trends, constraints, gaps, and major opportunities that no single entity within the USDA would be able to address individually. The research provisions, including changes to the management and structure of REE in the 2008 farm bill, drew heavily on proposals and recommendations put forth by key stakeholder groups, including the USDA Task Force on Research, Education, and Extension and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). USDA subsequently published an "Action Plan" that builds upon the Roadmap. Some argue that the stagnant growth in inflation-adjusted USDA funding for agricultural research, education, and extension over the past few decades has hurt the ability of the U.S. agricultural sector to stay productive and competitive. It is widely acknowledged that new innovations and technologies related to production, processing, marketing, and natural resource management are essential for continued productivity gains and economic growth of the sector. Some of these same critics argue that USDA has not been successful at elevating agricultural research to the same priority level with policymakers as other sectors, such as health, and that U.S. agriculture will suffer over the long term because of a lack of new innovations. These critics argue that the lack of public investment in new agricultural innovations will have dire consequences in the future, especially given new and varied challenges, such as rising production costs, especially for fuel and inputs; new pest and disease outbreaks; increasing frequency of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods; and climate change. On the other hand, some argue that the federal government should have a limited role in funding agricultural research and that taxpayer dollars should not be used to support what should be a private sector endeavor. In addition, due to a severely constrained federal budget in recent years, limited resources are available to support the agricultural sector. Historically, Congress has not prioritized increasing funding for agricultural research, education, and extension activities, and instead has tended to fund programs designed to provide more immediate benefits to farmers, such as income support and crop insurance. Others believe that the states and the private sector should fill the research funding gap left by the federal government. At the same time, while private sector funding has increased over time to fill some of the gap in public spending, there is growing concern that private sector funding focuses primarily on taking existing technologies to market (i.e., more applied research) and does not focus on basic problems and/or longer-term challenges that the agricultural sector may face in the future, such as environmental sustainability or adaptation to climate variability. Some advocates have argued that some of USDA's agricultural research portfolio duplicates private sector activities on major crops, including corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. They argue that funding should be reallocated to basic, noncommercial research to benefit the public good that is not addressed through private efforts. Others point out that these crops are economically important to the food, feed, and energy sectors and should continue to receive significant amounts of public funding, especially for emerging threats, such as new pests and pathogens, limited water availability, and impacts of agriculture on human and environmental health. | The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area has the primary federal responsibility of advancing scientific knowledge for agriculture through research, education, and extension. USDA REE responsibilities are carried out by four agencies: the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). USDA conducts its own research and administers extramural federal funding to states and local partners primarily through formula funds and competitive grants. Discretionary funding for the REE mission area totaled $2.937 billion in FY2016, and mandatory funding from the 2014 farm bill adds another $120 million per year on average. Debates over the direction of public agricultural research and the nature of its funding mechanism continue. Ongoing issues include the need, if any, for new federal funding to support agricultural research, education, and extension activities, and the implications of allocating federal funds via formula funds versus competitive grants. Many groups believe that Congress needs to increase support of U.S. agriculture through expanded federal support of research, education, and extension programs, whereas others believe that the private sector, not taxpayer dollars, should be used to support these activities. |
Animal rights activists and mourners gather for a Memorial Day vigil outside the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, Monday, May 30, 2016 in Cincinnati for Harambe, the gorilla killed Saturday at the... (Associated Press)
CINCINNATI (AP) — An animal protection watchdog group Tuesday called on federal authorities to hold the Cincinnati Zoo responsible for the death of an endangered western lowland gorilla.
The zoo's director, Thane Maynard, said Monday it remains safe for its 1.6 million annual visitors despite a weekend tragedy in which a gorilla was fatally shot to protect a 4-year-old boy who had entered its exhibit. But, he added that a review is underway to determine any improvements that can be made.
Maynard said the powerful gorilla was agitated and disoriented by the commotion during the 10 minutes after the boy fell and that the zoo stands by the decision to shoot 17-year-old Harambe. The boy was taken to a hospital and released Saturday evening; his family said he was "doing just fine" in a statement Sunday. He hasn't been identified publicly.
The Cincinnati-based Stop Animal Exploitation NOW said the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which inspects zoo facilities, should fine the zoo for violating the Animal Welfare Act by having an exhibit in which people can gain access to animals. The zoo didn't immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.
Tanya Espinosa, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said Tuesday there wasn't an investigation open yet, but that the service will "be looking into this incident."
"The (zoo's) barrier obviously isn't sufficient to keep the public out," the watchdog group's executive director, Michael Budkie, told The Associated Press. "Otherwise, Harambe wouldn't be dead."
He said the zoo has had past issues, including in March, when two polar bears wandered through an open den door into a service hallway The zoo reported March 16 that zoo visitors were moved for safety after a male and female bear entered the behind-the-scenes service area, but remained contained.
Zoo staff moved the bears back to their main containment area with two hours, the zoo said at the time, adding that there were no injuries to bears or people.
Jack Hanna, host of "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," said the zoo made the right call by shooting the gorilla. Hanna said he saw video of the gorilla jerking the boy through the water and knew what would happen if the animal wasn't killed.
"I'll bet my life on this, that child would not be here today," Hanna told WBNS-TV.
In an interview with Boston television station WFXT, conservationist and television host Jeff Corwin suggested that the boy's family should shoulder some of the blame, saying "zoos aren't your baby sitter."
"I don't think this happened in seconds or minutes. I think this took time for this kid, this little boy, to find himself in that situation. Ultimately it's the gorilla that's paid this price," he said.
A Cincinnati police spokesman said Sunday that no charges against the parents were being considered. A spokeswoman for the family said Monday they had no plans to comment.
"I do think there's a degree of responsibility they have to be held to," said Kate Villanueva, a mother of two children from Erlanger, Kentucky, who started the "Justice for Harambe" page and attended a Monday vigil for the gorilla outside the Cincinnati Zoo.
The Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas, where Harambe spent most of his life, said its staff is deeply saddened by the gorilla's death. Harambe was sent to Cincinnati less than two years ago in hopes he would eventually breed with gorillas there.
Jerry Stones, facilities director at Gladys Porter Zoo raised Harambe since birth and has worked with the gorilla's family since they first entered the U.S., the Brownsville Herald reported. He spoke Monday about his relationship with Harambe.
"He was a character. . He grew up to be a beautiful, beautiful animal, never aggressive and never mean," Stones said, according to the newspaper. "He would tease the heck out of people and would do things to irritate you just like some kids."
Stones said he would take Harambe home with him when the gorilla was a baby and let him sleep on his bed, according to KRGV-TV.
There are critics of the zoo's decision to kill Harambe. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said the zoo should have had better barriers between humans and the gorillas.
Maynard said the atmosphere following the incident is "very emotional."
"Not everyone shares the same opinion and that's OK," he said. "But we all share the love for animals."
Maynard said the zoo has received messages of support and condolences from around the world, including from other zoo directors and gorilla experts. He said zoo visitors have been leaving flowers at the exhibit and asking how they could support gorilla conservation.
___
Follow Dan Sewell at http://www.twitter.com/dansewell
For earlier stories on the gorilla shooting and some of Sewell's other recent stories: http://bigstory.ap.org/content/dan-sewell ||||| (CNN) Zookeepers shot and killed a rare gorilla on Saturday after a 3-year-old boy slipped into its enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo, triggering outcry over how the situation was handled.
If they had to do it again, they would respond the same way, the zoo's director said Monday.
Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynard said he stands by the decision to kill 17-year-old silverback Harambe to save the child. The boy went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into the enclosure, according to the zoo. Footage shot by a witness shows Harambe dragging the child through the water as the clamor of the crowd grows louder.
Zookeepers shot the 450-pound gorilla with a rifle, rather than tranquilizing him. The brief encounter sparked widespread Internet outrage over the decision to shoot Harambe and whether the child's parents were to blame for failing to look after him.
But those second-guessing the call "don't understand silverback gorillas," Maynard said in a news conference. And, they were not there when it was time to make the crucial decision.
"That child's life was in danger. People who question that don't understand you can't take a risk with a silverback gorilla -- this is a dangerous animal," he said. "Looking back, we'd make the same decision. The child is safe."
Tranquilizer darts can take 10-15 minutes to work -- @iamjeffcorwin weighs in on gorilla killed at Cincinnati zoo https://t.co/ctCTN3QRaB — New Day (@NewDay) May 30, 2016
'We made a difficult call'
The family was visiting the zoo on Saturday when the boy slipped away and entered the enclosure. Kimberley Ann Perkins O'Connor, who captured part of the incident on her phone, told CNN she overheard the boy joking to his mother about going into the water. Then, suddenly, there he was, being dragged by Harambe.
The unidentified boy was taken to Children's Hospital and released Saturday evening. The family thanked the zoo in a statement through a public relations firm:
"We are so thankful to the Lord that our child is safe. He is home and doing just fine. We extend our heartfelt thanks for the quick action by the Cincinnati Zoo staff. We know that this was a very difficult decision for them, and that they are grieving the loss of their gorilla. We hope that you will respect our privacy at this time."
Some suggested the boy's parents should be held criminally responsible for the incident. An online petition seeking "Justice for Harambe" earned more than 100,000 signatures in less than 48 hours.
"This beautiful gorilla lost his life because the boy's parents did not keep a closer watch on the child," the petition states.
If you leave your kid in a car you go to jail, if you let your kid fall into a Gorilla Enclosure u should too! #TeamDl — DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) May 30, 2016
It seems that some gorillas make better parents than some people. — Ricky Gervais (@rickygervais) May 29, 2016
Cincinnati Police Lt. Stephen Saunders said he is "not aware of any intention to charge the mother" or "the parents" at this time.
Maynard refused to point fingers at the child's family.
"We had a very difficult situation and we made a difficult call at the end. I'm not here to point fingers about fault," he said.
"We live in the real world, we make real decisions. People and kids can climb over barriers. We work hard to make sure this zoo is safe. People can climb over barriers, that's what happened."
Well-wishers left flowers by the gorilla statue at the Cincinnati Zoo.
He also defended the enclosure barriers, saying the zoo has been inspected by both the USDA and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. He compared the scenario to a locked car that burglars find their way into if they try hard enough.
He also pointed out this was the first breach of the exhibit in 38 years of existence.
"The barriers are safe. They exceed any required protocols. The trouble with barriers, whatever the barrier is, some people get past it," he said. "The zoo is not negligent."
Questions over lethal shot
Western lowland gorillas are critically endangered in the wild, numbering fewer than 175,000, according to the zoo. An additional 765 gorillas dwell in zoos worldwide.
At first, it looked like Harambe was trying to help the boy, O'Connor said. The gorilla stood him up and pulled up his pants. However, as the crowd's clamors grew, Harambe tossed the boy into a corner of the moat and stood over him, O'Connor said. As the crowd's cries grew, the video shows Harambe grabbing the boy by the foot, dragged him through the water and out of the moat atop the habitat, O'Connor said.
JUST WATCHED Gorilla drags 4-year-old in shocking video Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gorilla drags 4-year-old in shocking video 02:51
Moments later, Harambe was put down, a decision that left many wondering if the zoo was too quick to shoot.
Ian Redmond, chairman of The Gorilla Organization, said zookeepers had other options.
"When gorilla or other apes have things they shouldn't have, keepers will negotiate with them, bring food, their favorite treats, pineapple or some kind of fruit that they don't know and negotiate with them," he told CNN.
"I don't know if that was tried or people thought there was too much danger but it does seem very unfortunate that a lethal shot was required."
Maynard has said that tranquilizers may not have taken effect in time to save the boy while the dart might have agitated the animal, worsening the situation. Animal expert Jeff Corwin agreed that tranquilizers may have taken too long.
"... In some situations, depending on what the medication is, it can take upward to 10 to 15 minutes," Corwin said. "It may take multiple shots."
Many pointed out that a human life was at stake -- especially that of a child -- and that's more important than that of a gorilla.
@CNN it was the best decision that guaranteed the safety of the kid. You really want to risk a human life for a gorilla ? Stop it. — Danny (@Judge_No_1) May 30, 2016
Similar incidents, different endings
Although it was the first incident of its kind at Cincinnati Zoo's Gorilla World exhibit since it opened in 1978, similar cases have occurred with very different outcomes.
In 1986, a 5-year-old boy named Levan Merritt tumbled into the gorilla enclosure at Jersey Zoo in the United Kingdom. Video filmed by a bystander showed Levan lying on the ground, bleeding from the head and unconscious.
The footage shows Jambo, a male gorilla, approaching the boy as if to check on him, extending a hand to stroke his back. When Merritt comes to, wailing, Jambo, seemingly startled by the cries, sets off in a different direction. Zookeepers immediately move in to save the boy.
A decade later, a 3-year-old boy fell nearly 20 feet into the gorilla enclosure at the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago.
This time, a female gorilla named Binti Jua picked up the unconscious boy, while carrying her own infant on her back, and guarded him from other gorillas.
In an incredible show of maternal care, Binti took him right to a door so that zookeepers could retrieve him.
PETA: Captivity not acceptable
Although gorillas are known to be unpredictable -- not always the gentle giants the world saw in these two cases -- the animal advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said the larger concept of zoos is the root of the problem.
The animal rights organization said on Twitter the tragic episode was the latest proof that "even under the 'best' circumstances ... captivity is never acceptable for gorillas or other primates."
Others pointed out that in the end, the odds were stacked against the gorilla.
Humans imprison gorilla. Human enters gorilla prison. Gorilla gets shot dead for being near human. Humanity is a disease. — daniel (@13forests) May 30, 2016
Maynard said the zoo plans to reopen the exhibit to the public after a thorough assessment.
"The exhibit will be completely safe when it reopens." ||||| About the Western Lowland Gorilla
Western lowland gorillas are endangered, but they remain far more common than their relatives, the mountain gorillas. They live in heavy rain forests, and it is difficult for scientists to accurately estimate how many survive in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Western lowland gorillas tend to be a bit smaller than their mountain cousins. They also have shorter hair and longer arms.
Social Behavior
Gorillas can climb trees, but are usually found on the ground in communities of up to 30 individuals. These troops are organized according to fascinating social structures. Troops are led by one dominant, older adult male, often called a silverback because of the swath of silver hair that adorns his otherwise dark fur. Troops also include several other young males, some females, and their offspring.
The leader organizes troop activities like eating, nesting in leaves, and moving about the group's three-quarter- to 16-square-mile home range.
Those who challenge this alpha male are apt to be cowed by impressive shows of physical power. He may stand upright, throw things, make aggressive charges, and pound his huge chest while barking out powerful hoots or unleashing a frightening roar. Despite these displays and the animals' obvious physical power, gorillas are generally calm and nonaggressive unless they are disturbed.
Diet
In the thick forests of central and west Africa, troops find plentiful food for their vegetarian diet. They eat roots, shoots, fruit, wild celery, and tree bark and pulp.
Reproduction
Female gorillas give birth to one infant after a pregnancy of nearly nine months. Unlike their powerful parents, newborns are tiny—weighing four pounds—and able only to cling to their mothers' fur. These infants ride on their mothers' backs from the age of four months through the first two or three years of their lives.
Young gorillas, from three to six years old, remind human observers of children. Much of their day is spent in play, climbing trees, chasing one another, and swinging from branches.
In Captivity vs. In the Wild
In captivity, gorillas have displayed significant intelligence and have even learned simple human sign language. ||||| One witness who saw a toddler crawl into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati zoo last weekend says the 400-lb. gorilla was handling the child “like a Raggedy Ann doll in his grip,” and another called the gorilla’s behavior “very violent.”
Zookeepers shot and killed an endangered 17-year old western-lowlands gorilla named Harambe after a three-year old boy crawled into his enclosure. Animal rights activists are outraged, and more than 320,000 people have signed a Change.org petition demanding that the boy’s parents be held responsible for the gorilla’s death. Some are even questioning whether the situation was dangerous enough to warrant killing the gorilla, after video emerged of the animal appearing to protect the boy.
But witnesses at the zoo said the gorilla was overpowering the toddler and threatened the boy’s life. “I was frozen in fear, it was too traumatic to be on camera,” says Kim O’Connor, a witness who filmed the incident. “What you don’t see is the way he pulled the boy up the wall. He was treating the little boy like a Raggedy Ann doll in his grip.”
Another witness, Deidre Lykin, says the encounter was “horrific.” “It wasn’t until the gorilla became agitated because of the nosey, dramatic, helpless crowd; that the gorilla violently ran with the child!” she wrote in a Facebook post. “And it was very violent; although I think the gorilla was still trying to protect, we’re taking a 400 lb gorilla throwing a 40 lb toddler around!”
The Brief Newsletter Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample Sign Up Now
O’Connor, who spoke to PEOPLE, said she overheard the boy telling his mother he wanted to go play with the gorilla, and the mother told him he couldn’t. “People around me were talking about how big the gorilla was, calling him King Kong, and I heard him say ‘I wanna go!’ and the mom was like, ‘No, you’re not!'” she says. “I don’t think in her wildest imagination she thought he would actually go back and do that.”
She says the boy’s mother, who has been identified in media reports as Michelle Gregg, didn’t realize at first that the child in the enclosure was her son. “All of a sudden, I heard a splash and someone yelled, ‘Oh my God, there’s a kid in there!’ ” O’Connor says. “Kids, men, women, everyone started screaming and then the mother looked around and ran to the wall and said, ‘Oh my God, that’s my son!'”
Lykin says she witnessed the moment when the mother realized her son had crawled into the enclosure. “She said ‘He was right here! I took a pic and his hand was in my back pocket and then gone!'” she wrote. Lykin says her husband was attempting to talk to the boy over the railing, to calm him down. “As she could find him nowhere, she looks to my husband (already over the railing talking to the child) and asks, ‘Sir, is he wearing green shorts?’ My husband reluctantly had to tell her yes, when she then nearly had a break down!”
In a now-deleted Facebook post, the boy’s mother thanked zookeepers for their quick action. “As a society we are quick to judge how a parent could take their eyes off of their child and if anyone knows me I keep a tight watch on my kids,” she wrote, according to PEOPLE. “Accidents happen but I am thankful that the right people were in the right place today.” The boy is reportedly out of the hospital and doing well.
Write to Charlotte Alter at [email protected]. ||||| A 3-year-old boy fell into an endangered gorilla's enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo on May 28, and a witness captured the scene as onlookers shouted for help. The gorilla, a 17-year-old named Harambe, was shot by zoo staff in order for rescuers to reach the boy. (Kimberley O'Connor/ViralHog)
The young boy wanted a better view of the silverback gorilla living at the Cincinnati Zoo.
On Saturday morning, the zoo housed 11 western lowland gorillas. By Saturday evening, the population of the zoo’s Gorilla World had been reduced to 10.
As he struggled to find a good vantage point, the boy, whose name has not been released, tumbled into a moat surrounding the enclosure. A 17-year-old, 400-pound silverback ape named Harambe grabbed the child, dragging him through the concrete moat. To save the boy from further harm, a staff member fatally shot the ape.
The gorilla Harambe, in an undated photo. (Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden via Getty Images)
[‘Shooting an endangered animal is worse than murder’: Grief over gorilla’s death turns to outrage]
“The gorilla could have killed him if he wanted to,” Derek Spielman, a wildlife pathologist and conservation biologist at the University of Sydney, told The Washington Post in a phone interview.
The child survived his encounter with the great ape.
In the aftermath of the event, The Washington Post reported, critics of Harambe’s shooting called for “justice” on social media. (Spielman added that, had this happened in Australia, he believes zoo officials would have attempted to tranquilize the ape first, only turning to lethal weaponry if the darts were ineffective.)
The Cincinnati Zoo defended its actions. “The Zoo security team’s quick response saved the child’s life,” said the director, Thane Maynard, in a statement on Saturday. “We are all devastated that this tragic accident resulted in the death of a critically-endangered gorilla.”
Much of the wrath of social media focused on the mother of the child for letting the 4-year-old get away. But the handling of animals in captivity came under fire as well, along with the idea of them being in captivity at all.
Harambe’s death comes at a time when zoos and circuses are overturning long-standing traditions, in part due to increased scrutiny following “Blackfish,” the 2013 documentary on the killer whale that fatally attacked trainers at SeaWorld. In what commentators have attributed to the so-called “Blackfish” effect, SeaWorld’s stock price plunged, its attendance decreased and the aquarium terminated its breeding program. In early May, elephants performed at a Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus for the last time, ending a legacy of live pachyderm entertainment that had lasted for 145 years.
Some advocates see events like “Blackfish” as signs that zoos need to rethink captivity. In March 2014, the Scientific American editorial board called for an end to captive elephant and orca whale breeding, citing the animals’ immense sizes, need for large swathes of habitat and their intelligence.
“We have to change direction, hit the brakes,” Ed Stewart, a founder of the Performing Animals Welfare Society, told the Christian Science Monitor. “We need to change the way we’re doing things.”
In the aftermath of Harambe’s death, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals opined that gorillas have “complex needs,” which zoos “cannot even begin to meet.”
[‘It could have been very bad’: Gorilla killed after boy falls into Cincinnati zoo exhibit]
“Yet again,” PETA primatologist Julia Gallucci said in a statement on Sunday, “captivity has taken an animal’s life.”
How well gorillas fare in zoological captivity is not, perhaps, so clear-cut as the issue of elephants or orcas. There have been have been accidents involving captive gorillas prior to Harambe: In 2005, a Lincoln Park zoo intern was bitten by a gorilla; in 2015, a gorilla rushed the viewing window at an Omaha zoo, finding viral fame in the fractured glass; a month later, a female gorilla died at the Melbourne Zoo after another gorilla attacked her.
But no gorilla has achieved the notoriety of Tilikum, the orca at the center of “Blackfish” who was involved with the deaths of three trainers. In fact, a captive gorilla named Jambo once protectively stood watch over a boy who had fallen into the ape exhibit at the Jersey Zoo, as the University of Salford’s Robert John Young, an animal behavior expert who studies captivity, pointed out to The Washington Post in an interview.
“Gorillas are very different from killer whales,” Young told The Post. Recreating a sufficient habitat for orcas — which can cross 60 miles in a day — would be exorbitantly expensive, he said. Gorillas, on the other hand, are in a “much more manageable situation.” Young cites the Philadelphia Zoo, which now allows its gorillas to roam through a 200-foot-long series of walkways and enclosures, as a leader in providing apes with mentally stimulating conditions. “The concept of zoos is changing quite readily.”
Still, captivity does not treat all gorillas equally. Captive gorillas frequently suffer from cardiac disease, with the National Zoo reporting in 2011 that 30 apes take heart medication. They can be emotionally distressed as well. Laurel Braitman’s book “Animal Madness” recounts the story of Tom, a gorilla sent to a new zoo because he was a genetic match with its inhabitants. There, he shed a third of his body mass after his new ape companions began to assail him. Upon encountering his old human caretakers, according to Braitman, the gorilla began to cry.
Supporters of keeping gorillas captive note that many belong to species survival programs, in which animals are bred in captivity in the hopes of reintroduction in the wild. Two dozen scimitar-horned oryx were released in Chad in May, for instance, after years of breeding in zoos. Harambe was part of the Gorilla Species Survival Plan (SSP), which was formed in 1988 to preserve a healthy genetic stock of gorillas.
“This is a huge loss for the Zoo family,” Cincinnati Zoo’s Maynard said, “and the gorilla population worldwide.”
For gorillas, the situation in the wild can be dire. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers the 175,000 or so western lowland gorillas to be critically endangered, facing habitat loss, hunting and the spread of the Ebola virus.
Unlike the oryx, there are no immediate plans to release captive gorillas. For captive breeding programs to be successful, the wild habitat must first be preserved. “A minority of SSP populations actually participates in reintroduction, but the majority of SSP programs, like the Gorilla SSP, exist solely to create a sustainable captive population,” the Cincinnati Zoo notes on its website.
It is very possible, Spielman said, that gorillas in the species survival program will have to remain in captivity for at least another hundred years. “Whatever zoos can do,” he said, “is dwarfed by the problems facing biological diversity.”
Though species survival programs are popularly imagined as an ark, Young argues they are more like car insurance. “You’re hoping that you’ll never need it,” he said.
“But if we do ruin the planet, at least we’ve got this insurance policy.” ||||| Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was killed Saturday after a four-year-old boy crawled through a barrier and fell into the moat in the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden. The gorilla dragged the boy around before emergency responders shot and killed the gorilla. The boy sustained non-life threatening injuries. (Photo: Jeff McCurry/ Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden)
At 17, Harambe, the gorilla shot and killed Saturday after a child fell into Gorilla World at Cincinnati Zoo, was relatively young: Gorillas can live 40 to 50 years in zoos.
The 450-pound silverback western lowland gorilla was born at the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas, on May 27, 1999, and came to Cincinnati in September 2014.
A post on the Gladys Porter Zoo's Facebook page from Sept. 18, 2014, bids farewell to the primate. It reads: "With a mixture of sad and happy feelings, we are preparing #Harambe, one of our #Silverback #WesternLowlandGorillas, for the journey to his new home. The #CincinnatiZoo and big, new adventures are waiting for you, big boy!"
A Cincinnati Zoo blog post from April 14, 2015, noted that Harambe had gotten too old to remain at Gladys Porter and had come to the Cincinnati Zoo to join a social group with females Chewie and Mara, who were both 19 at that time.
Happy 17th birthday to silverback gorilla Harambe! https://t.co/FeITuw0hPbpic.twitter.com/FrfWUSKacV — Cincinnati Zoo (@CincinnatiZoo) May 27, 2016
"He demonstrates intelligence and curiosity, using sticks and things to reach for items outside his grasp,” Ron Evans, curator of primates at the Cincinnati Zoo, said of Harambe in 2015.
Evans is part of the Species Survival Program management group for the species. That group manages the 360-odd gorillas in Association of Zoos and Aquariums facilities, with a goal of keeping the animals genetically diverse so that their populations are healthy and viable into the future. At 17, Harambe was not quite at breeding maturity, but the zoo had hoped to breed him in the future, director of the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden Thane Maynard said Saturday.
"It'll be a loss to the gene pool of lowland gorillas," Maynard said. "The loss of a breeding male is a big deal.
"Harambe was a good guy," he added.
Children pause at the feet of a gorilla statue where flowers and a sympathy card have been placed, outside the Gorilla World exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, Sunday, May 29, 2016, in Cincinnati. On Saturday, a special zoo response team shot and killed Harambe, a 17-year-old gorilla, that grabbed and dragged a 4-year-old boy who fell into the gorilla exhibit moat. Authorities said the boy is expected to recover. He was taken to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. (Photo: John Minchillo, AP)
His short time at the Cincinnati Zoo was commemorated by flowers left next to a gorilla statue Sunday.
"We are so sad that you had to kill one of your gorillas we love the gorillas," read the card, headed "With Deepest Sympathy" and written in a child's handwriting, on a bundle of carnations.
Harambe was one of 10 western lowland gorillas at the Cincinnati Zoo. They are a critically endangered species in the wild, with their numbers estimated at fewer than 175,000.
There are about 765 gorillas in zoos worldwide.
Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/1VoQ5Ca ||||| CLOSE How a 3-year-old boy dropped into the Gorilla World exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden. The Enquirer/Mike Nyerges
Jack Hanna attends Safe Kids Day at Smashbox Studios on April 24, 2016 in Culver City, Calif. (Photo: Jason LaVeris, FilmMagic)
Celebrity zookeeper Jack Hanna, a Knoxville native and director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, defended the actions of officials at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens after they shot to death a critically endangered gorilla out of concern for a 4-year-old boy who got into the animal's enclosure Saturday afternoon.
However, Hanna wasn't ready to defend the mother of the child who slipped away from her supervision.
Speaking to"CBS This Morning on Monday Hanna said, "I agree 1,000 %" with the Cincinnati Zoo's officials to take out the gorilla before he harmed the unnamed child who had gone under a railing, through wires and over a wall before falling 10-15 feet into a moat in the gorilla's enclosure.
The 17-year-old, 450-pound western lowland gorilla named Harambe, grabbed the boy and pulled him through the water, keeping the child close as onlookers screamed. The boy was treated at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and later released, and his family says he is doing fine.
A widely circulated video of the event has left many wondering if lethal force was necessary; some have interpreted the gorilla's actions as more protective than dangerous.
Hanna has no doubts, however: "They made the correct decision," he told CBS, adding that a shot from a tranquilizer gun might take 5 to 10 minutes to take effect, and it was clear to Hanna that Harambe was already alarmed by the situation and a tranquilizer shot would have aggravated him further.
"A human being is alive today because of the decision the Cincinnati Zoo made," he said.
Hanna also defended the safety of zoos in general: "We'd be at the very top of safety (compared to other types of attractions)," however, "We can only do so much (to assure safety) … What do we do? … We can't protect everything all the time."
Then as a warning to parents, Hanna said, "You always have to watch children."
About the mother of the boy, he said, "I guess maybe she was doing something else (instead of keeping an eye on her son). I don't know. I wasn't there."
In an earlier statement, Cincinnati Zoo director Thane Maynard attempted to justify the zoo's actions. "It could have been very bad," he said.
Many of those following the story online think the killing of Harambe was already "very bad," and a petition, called Justice For Harambe, had already logged more than 210,000 supporters as of dinner time Monday.
Hanna, 69, is one of the world's most celebrated zookeepers. After growing up in Knoxville, he served as the general curator of the Municipal Zoo in Knoxville in the early 1970s, he was part-owner of Pet Kingdom on Kingston Pike, and he kept a menagerie of wild animals at his Cedar Bluff Road home that he called "Hanna's Ark."
In July of 1972, a lioness at his home, Daisy, mauled a three-year-old boy who put his hand through a fence. The lioness severed the boy's arm just above the elbow.
Hanna and his family moved to Florida in the mid-1970s, and he took a job with the Central Florida Zoo in Sanford. He eventually took a position at the Columbus Zoo in 1978.
Nicknamed "Jungle Jack," the charismatic Hanna has made many media appearances over the decades — notably on talk shows hosted by Johnny Carson and David Letterman — and hosted several of his own syndicated shows, including "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" and "Jack Hanna's Wild Countdown."
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1sIvKvX ||||| Image copyright Facebook/Justice for Harambe
The mother of a boy who fell into a gorilla enclosure at a US zoo has become the victim of online abuse after zookeepers shot the animal dead.
Harambe, a 17-year-old gorilla, was captured on video dragging the child across a moat in the enclosure.
The boy's mother, identified on social media as Michelle Gregg, is heard shouting in footage of the incident.
She tells her son to remain calm, after he had climbed through a barrier and fallen into the pen at Cincinnati Zoo.
A Facebook post, purportedly written by Michelle Gregg, thanked "the right people" for being "in the right place" and said "accidents happen".
Image copyright Facebook/Michelle Gregg
Ms Gregg later became the focus of a furious online backlash after zoo officials defended the decision to shoot the animal.
Eddie Whrnbrg wrote on Facebook: "...the zoos aren't the problem. It's the idiotic parents."
On Twitter @blxxm83 wrote: "So lazy parents can't control their wild kids and a beautiful endangered animal gets shot and killed because of it? #Harambe #RIPHarambe"
In another tweet @brittrosenthal wrote "Sad thing is it looked like #Harambe was protecting the kid more than the parent was. #CincinnatiZoo"
Some even called for Ms Gregg to be dismissed from her job.
Ms Gregg posted on Facebook after the incident and at about the same time a Facebook group called Justice for Harambe was set up.
An online petition signed by more than 300,000 people was also created, calling for her to be held accountable for Harambe's death.
Image copyright Facebook/Justice for Harambe
Michelle Gregg's Facebook page has since been deleted, after many accused her of being a bad mother.
Other social media users with the same name have been dragged into the debate after being mistakenly targeted.
This Facebook user even changed her profile picture and posted: "There is some pretty foul language in these emails... but here are some I've received today. I have also received tons of emails of people apologising for what others have said to me."
Image copyright Facebook/Michelle Gregg
In contrast to more than 100,000 likes on the Justice for Harambe page, a Facebook group in support of Ms Gregg has attracted just over 300 likes.
One of its most recent posts reads: "#ISupportMichelleGregg As to the people writing disgusting things I hope you guys have a good night knowing all of you are hypocrites. Don't scream for justice and then turn around and wish death on a child."
Emily Rose Clifford wrote on Facebook: "I don't normally even voice my opinion on these types of things but I just feel so sorry for this mother. I know as a mother that things and accidents can happen in the blink of an eye, even if you are a good mum." ||||| People think this video shows gorilla Harambe trying to protect the boy who fell into zoo enclosure
As outrage continues to grow over the shooting dead of a gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo at the weekend, a new video of the incident has emerged which some claim proves the animal was trying to protect a young child who had fallen into its pen.
Harambe, a 17-year-old endangered West Lowland gorilla, was shot by animal control staff in the zoo after a four-year-old boy fell into his enclosure.
ViralHog has posted a 90-second video of the encounter, which a longer version of the first bits of footage that came out over the weekend.
In the video, Harambe can be seen dragging the child around the enclosure - but then putting its arm around the child and standing him upright in the water.
There's a lot of confusion over what the gorilla's intentions were, but some people are claiming that the animal didn't pose any real risk to the child.
Looks like the gorilla was protecting the child - from the frantic pitch of the people's reaction. Also, if... https://t.co/LFNpzrkBMh — Betty Barkas Hood (@heliosmou) May 30, 2016
Advertisement
But others say that, regardless of how the gorilla may have behaved, the child could have drowned had extreme measures not been taken.
Dr Sharon Redrobe, from Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire, told Metro:
"In the footage I have seen the animal was clearly becoming more agitated and zoo officials need to make quick assessments. Tranquillising the gorilla with a dart just simply wouldn’t have worked in this situation. "It would have taken up to 10 minutes to take affect and the animal may have become violent which would have had catastrophic consequences."
Meanwhile, the child's mother Michelle Gregg can be heard in the video calling out "Mommy loves you" and "stay calm" from up above. Earlier today, Gregg responded to critics, saying "accidents happen" in a Facebook post. She wrote:
"I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers today. What started off as a wonderful day turned into a scary one. "For those of you that have seen the news or been on social media that was my son that fell in the gorilla exhibit at the zoo. God protected my child until the authorities were able to get to him. "My son is safe and was able to walk away with a concussion and a few scrapes... no broken bones or internal injuries. "As a society we are quick to judge how a parent could take their eyes off of their child and if anyone knows me I keep a tight watch on my kids. Accidents happen but I am thankful that the right people were in the right place today."
An online petition has been set up to press for "the parents to be held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life." At the time of writing, 173,000 people had signed it.
Later on Monday evening, the director of the Cincinnati Zoo defended the decision to shoot the gorilla. Thayne Maynard told reporters at a press conference: "Looking back, we would make the same decision. The gorilla was clearly agitated. The gorilla was clearly disoriented."
The director added that the boy's head was smacking off the concrete as he was dragged through the enclosure, which was one factor in the decision to shoot Harambe. | The story of the Cincinnati Zoo's decision to kill a gorilla after a 4-year-old boy slipped into Harambe's exhibit on Saturday continues to resonate: Renowned zookeeper Jack Hanna is on the zoo's side, reports USA Today. The BBC looks at the abuse the child's mother is taking online, including this "Justice for Harambe" petition calling for an investigation into "parental negligence." An animal watchdog group says the feds must hold the zoo accountable—because the exhibit clearly wasn't human-proof, reports the AP. The Cincinnati Enquirer offers a profile of Harambe. The Washington Post examines how the story has reignited the debate over the whole idea of keeping animals in captivity for our viewing pleasure. Time rounds up witness accounts, including one who says the gorilla was handling the boy "like a Raggedy Ann doll." Others think Harambe was being protective, and joe.co.uk has a video they say supports their case. CNN's coverage takes note of two other similar incidents that had happier endings. National Geographic has a fact sheet on the endangered western lowland gorilla. |
Republican leaders in Washington are staring ahead at a potentially grim fall, facing the likely loss of Senate control and potentially heavy losses in the House, too. The last thing they need is more drama out of the Capitol weeks from the election to further stoke voter doubts about their Donald Trump-led party.
If it were only that easy.
Story Continued Below
While Republicans say they’ve cleared the decks for a placid September, with no debt ceiling deadline approaching and no key programs expiring, they’ll still have less than a month to fund the government upon returning Tuesday from their long summer recess. And with competing ideas among Republicans about what to prioritize, and likely resistance from Democrats, some late-September theatrics look almost inevitable.
The biggest wild card is the House Freedom Caucus, whose members are still steamed after the fall of their colleague Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) in an August primary. They blame House leadership for Huelskamp's defeat, and they’re already making merciless demands on Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that will put him in a real pinch.
One is to force an impeachment vote against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, which most Republicans privately reject but conservatives are determined to make happen.
The issue has the potential to spill over into the Senate, where several Republicans are fighting for their political lives this election and would prefer the impeachment matter remain on the other side of the Capitol.
The GOP is also under pressure from Florida Republican lawmakers to approve a Zika rescue package — even if it means caving to some Democratic demands. The mosquito-borne virus has spread in Florida since Congress skipped town in mid-July, infecting multiple counties and beaches. And Democrats are launching a political campaign based on the GOP's inaction, specifically targeting incumbent Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio.
Despite the hurdles, Republican leaders are confident they’ll be able to shepherd a short-term spending bill through both chambers. And perhaps, if the stars align, the “continuing resolution” will also contain money to combat Zika.
With so much on the line in November, Republicans say they can't and won’t let the government shut down, despite Minority Leader Harry Reid's raising of that possibility last week. Conservatives are even prepared to accept the higher funding level negotiated by outgoing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the White House last year — a figure they spent the entire year opposing.
Many Republicans and even some Democrats privately dismissed Reid's shutdown warning, which others in his party have not parroted. But the relative lack of shutdown talk so far is a little disquieting in a Capitol so accustomed to being in crisis mode, some lawmakers say.
“I’m hopeful we can pass the CR, although I am anxious that someone could create an issue,” said senior appropriator Charlie Dent (R-Penn.) “Last year, it was Planned Parenthood. Before that it was Obamacare … I hope we don’t get caught up in one of those situations.”
As it stands now, the biggest sticking point is one of time: How long to fund the government?
Conservative outside groups and the House Freedom Caucus want a spending bill that extends into next year. They worry that a short-term, two-month patch — the standard practice in recent years — would set the stage for a year-end deal-making bonanza during the lame-duck session. And they fret that Republicans would cave to Democrats on the Supreme Court confirmation fight, or advance trade issues they oppose.
Case in point is the Export-Import Bank. Its charter was revived last year with support from mainstream Republicans and Democrats over the protests of conservatives who say it amounts to crony capitalism. The bank, however, has too few board members to fully function, prompting the White House to pen a letter to Congress recently urging lawmakers to essentially enable it to operate without a full quorum. While aides in both parties said the matter is too politically sensitive to take up before the election, it could surface in the lame-duck session.
"Leadership is essentially saying, 'Trust us, we're going to get a great deal — the best deal — in December even though we're going to get creamed in November,’” said Dan Holler, an official at conservative lobbying outfit Heritage Action. “That is not very compelling given their track record even when they had an electoral mandate."
Senate Republicans, who are in real danger of losing their majority, prefer a short funding bill into December. Passing a longer-term spending bill would mean “giving away the store” to Democrats next year if Republicans relinquish the Senate, in the words of one top Republican source. A short fix would allow them to maintain some leverage if that happens — just as Senate Democrats did after the chamber flipped in 2014.
"Our intention is to move a bill that takes us through after the election and into December sometime," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the third ranking Senate Republican, on Tuesday. In a chat with reporters Tuesday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy also suggested a CR into December would be the way to go in order to give Congress more time to finish appropriations.
Senate Democrats are happy to support that strategy, as long as they get some Zika funding out of it, aides said. And many House Republicans also back that plan.
“I don’t know that the conservatives had made a compelling argument as to why that’s better” to extend funding into the next administration, said retiring Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.). “[I]f they’re concerned about who is going to be in charge next year in the White House, that would be the only way [Republicans] can influence policy. Because in a CR you’re only getting a number and continuing the status quo.”
In the House, some appropriators are pushing for so-called mini-bus packages to fund several agencies and departments — Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Energy, Housing — for the entire fiscal year, while leaving other agencies with short-term funding. House leadership is considering that option, too.
Such a split "would be smart,” Dent said. “It would be a terrible shame to just punt [government funding entirely] into the New Year. It would be giving up on governing.”
Zika also figures to play a big role in the funding fight. During recess, both parties blamed each other for Congress’ impasse on the issue, but Republicans are taking the brunt of the blame from angry constituents demanding action.
On Monday NARAL Pro-Choice America is dropping $175,000 on an ad in Orlando and West Palm Beach, Florida criticizing Rubio over the matter. It singles out his opposition to allowing women who have contracted the Zika virus to get abortions. Rubio has said he will "err on the side of life" when it comes to such a "difficult question."
GOP leaders have said they will try to do something that would neutralize such attacks, but the path forward is still unclear. The Senate will vote on a $1.1 billion GOP proposal when they return Tuesday, but that will fail over objections to language restricting health care spending and Obamacare cuts — policy riders Democrats say they simply can’t support.
Many expect the funding to get tucked into the larger, must-pass spending bill, without the pet GOP provisions. Because while Democrats are unlikely to shut down the government over the Zika issue, they’re already promising to crank up the volume blaming the right should nothing make it to the Oval Office.
“We’re going to get some additional funding here by the end of September — I promise,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) at a news conference last week in Texas, according to audio provided by his office. “I’m confident that money will be coming.”
Amid the funding skirmish, the House Freedom Caucus is expected to force a full House vote the second week of September to impeach Koskinen, the IRS commissioner whom conservatives say lied to Congress. (He strongly denies that.)
Republican leaders and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have refused the Freedom Caucus' call to hold a trial for Koskinen. They say he's guilty of incompetence, not a crime. Many Republicans say privately they’re unhappy about being forced to even take a vote on the matter.
And since only a majority is needed to impeach Koskinen, the House is expected to add the ex-IRS chief to the history books as the most recently impeached official.
The matter will get trickier when it goes to the Senate, the chamber responsible for trying — and, with a two-thirds majority — convicting the accused. Staff working on the issue have been wrestling with the question of whether they can just ignore the resolution, but the rules are unclear.
Every impeachment since the nation’s founding has been executed with the near-full support of the party in power. But the Senate, like the House, does not want to take up the Koskinen impeachment.
However, should the Parliamentarian’s office rule that any lawmaker can call the issue to the Senate floor, the chamber could find itself drawn into a political debate they’d rather avoid, with the election weeks away. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Marianna Sotomayor
When Congress returns to work in D.C. on Tuesday, members will have to brush off the dust accumulated on a stack of bills left undone prior to their summer recess.
A tense partisan climate has led to inaction on several issues like funding research for the mosquito-borne Zika virus and moving forward with an anti-terrorism package in response to the nightclub shooting massacre in Orlando.
Though Congress was able to pass a Puerto Rico bankruptcy relief and opioid relief bill before their August recess, several politicians, including President Barack Obama, are hoping they will pass other stalled legislation before their month-long break beginning in October.
But members will have to act quickly if they plan on passing legislation that would prevent a government shutdown. Both chambers will have fewer than 20 days to complete this work before taking off for their month-long election season recess.
Here are the issues Congress is likely to address upon returning from vacation, or risk not providing a solution before year's end.
Funding Zika Vaccines
After the Senate failed twice to move and vote on a $1.1 billion Zika funding bill prior to their summer recess, the chamber will try once again to take it up on their first day back from recess.
Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has set up an evening vote on Tuesday to overcome cloture, a procedural hurdle, which would effectively end floor debate and move the bill for a final vote.
Senate Democrats were willing to support the original bill passed by the GOP-controlled House, but twice turned back on invoking cloture after Republicans added what Democrats described as "poison pill" provisions.
The new provisions would take money out of Ebola research, Planned Parenthood funding and Obamacare to fund Zika research.
McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement released in early August that if Democrats prioritized Zika over Planned Parenthood and gave unanimous consent, Senate leadership would "pass the conference report and send it straight to the President."
With several government health agencies running out of money to combat Zika and dozens of non-travel infections in the Sunshine State, Florida Gov. Rick Scott was expected to spend Tuesday on Capitol Hill in an effort to put pressure on members to addresses funding, but changed plans due to Hurricane Hermine.
If Democrats do not meet the 60 votes needed to close floor debate, they can vote directly after to invoke cloture on the Department of Defense Appropriations bill, which provides funds for Zika relief.
And if that does not work either, a funding provision for Zika could be introduced in a bulk omnibus bill.
Tackling Appropriations
Ever since the GOP gained control of Congress in 2014 Republican leadership has promised to send President Obama a dozen appropriation bills. Partisan bickering, however, has prevented them from sending even one to the president's desk.
September 30 marks the end of the 2016 fiscal year and just happens to be the last day before House members are scheduled to start their month-long fall recess. The Senate's recess starts a week later.
If members do not pass a continuing resolution to extend the deadline, the country could face another government shutdown. The last time the U.S. government came to a standstill was in 2013.
But members of Congress didn't leave Washington this summer without putting some bills in movement.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved all 12 appropriation bills to move to the floor, while the House Appropriations Committee has moved on 10. But getting them through a deeply divided Congress and to the floor for a vote has proven highly difficult in years past.
Congress will likely pull a repeat performance on this issue: pass a continuing resolution to extend the deadline that will set up another funding battle in December. But there's a chance members could extend the continuing resolution well into the lame duck season.
"I'm not going to get into any of those things," Speaker Paul Ryan said in his last press conference before recess. "I don't think it's right at this stage to say we're done with appropriations."
Appointing a Supreme Court Nominee
Five months after President Obama nominated him for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland is still waiting for his Senate hearing.
Members of the Senate GOP leadership have refused to give Garland a hearing, citing that the next president should fill the spot vacated by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But the growing number of Republicans pivoting against Donald Trump has heightened the call to approve Garland or risk the nomination of a more liberal nominee under President Hillary Clinton.
According to interviews with NBC News, Democrats are making the case for hesitant Republicans to reject Trump by choosing Garland.
At the Sioux City Rotary Club late last month, Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, hinted that Garland could get a lame-duck hearing if enough senators stir interest in one after the November election. But it seems unlikely that Senate leadership will call Garland up for a hearing — at least for now.
"The Leader has been clear: The next president will make the nomination for this vacancy," Sen. McConnell's Deputy Chief of Staff Don Stewart said in a statement.
Impeaching IRS Commissioner
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus will continue their push to impeach Internal Revenue Services Commissioner John Koskinen, a fight that started over a year ago.
Rep. John Fleming, R-Louisiana, and Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, filed a resolution to force a vote of impeachment before recess on the grounds that Koskinen intentionally lied about details surrounding the 2010 IRS scandal that targeted Tea Party organizations.
Related: GOP Seeks to Impeach IRS Chief Over Alleged Tea Party Targeting
The resolution marked the third attempt to impeach the IRS commissioner and it's likely not the last. The Freedom Caucus may pass a "privilege resolution" to immediately force an impeachment vote in the next couple weeks, skirting around the House Rules Committee and Judiciary Committee, who historically authorize impeachments. The move is in direct contrast to what House leadership deems a potentially risky precedent for declaring impeachments.
"We expect the full conference to discuss the appropriate path ahead when we get back into session," Speaker Ryan's spokeswoman Ashlee Strong told NBC News.
The last time the House impeached a government official was in 2010.
Finally Addressing Gun Control?
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., piqued interest among Republican and Democrats alike when he announced that his chamber would vote on a counterterrorism bill before Congress left for recess. The bill included a provision that would prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns.
But the Dallas police ambush and push-back from the conservative House Freedom Caucus has delayed voting on the measure until after members come back in September.
Ryan's effort to pass some form of gun control was viewed as a peace offering to Democrats, who had staged a 25-hour sit-in on the House floor in June. But if a resolution isn't picked up soon, the Democratic caucus has promised that they will not stay silent.
"We're not going to stand here and tell you we're going to do 1, 2,3 and A,B,C," Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, said after a closed-press meeting with Ryan in July. "But don' worry, we will continue to act." |||||
Congress returns this week after a seven-week recess. (Jonathan P. Larsen/Diadem Images)
Congress returns Tuesday after a seven-week summer break with one major task to accomplish: Don’t shut down the government.
Lawmakers have four weeks to hammer out a spending deal before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, but some are already warning the task will not be easy.
The tension surrounds how long a stopgap funding bill keeping the government open, known as a continuing resolution (CR), should last.
Conservatives want to pass a six-month CR that would kick the larger budget fight into next year with a new president and Congress in place. They argue that coming back after the election to complete the annual budget work during a “lame-duck” session will result in a massive legislative package that hikes spending and contains policies sought by special interests.
But Democrats and some moderate Republicans want to finish the annual budget work later this year after the election.
Both sides are digging in for a fight.
“We are not going to agree to a long-term [continuing resolution],” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Thursday — his comments coming with the implicit threat of a filibuster against any deal Democrats don’t support. “We are not doing anything into next year. Republicans should be aware of that right now.”
The potential stalemate over spending is a headache for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) who would like to avoid any whiff of a shutdown threat just weeks before the election. Neither has publicly weighed in on how long a stopgap spending bill should last, with aides saying it’s an issue that will be discussed with members when they return to Washington this week.
The opposition to a lame-duck spending deal in the House is being led by the approximately 40-member House Freedom Caucus with the backing of several prominent conservative groups. The picture in the Senate is less clear, but Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a member of leadership, has said he prefers kicking work on a final spending agreement into next year.
[Conservative groups gear up for spending fight when Congress returns next week]
Conservatives have reason to worry that Democrats will try to use a yearend negotiation to force Republicans to accept additional spending or risk another shutdown fight weeks or days before Christmas.
Democrats have successfully used similar tactics several times in recent years, and Republicans have not found an effective strategy to fight back. But a yearend negotiation would also give GOP leaders one last shot at influencing federal spending in the event Republicans lose control of one or both chambers of Congress in 2017.
Republicans hold a slim 54-46 majority in the Senate, and many are worried they will face heavy losses in November thanks to the sinking popularity of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. House Republicans have a more comfortable advantage of 247-186, but they face the possibility of significant losses of their own.
Further complicating the budget debate is the continuing standoff over how to fund efforts to combat the spread of the Zika virus, which leads to birth defects.
Last month, Senate Democrats blocked a $1.1 billion spending bill over what they called poison pill provisions, including language that would deny Zika-related funds from being sent to Planned Parenthood and a provision that would loosen environmental regulations on pesticides. McConnell has said he plans to bring the same measure up again for a vote immediately when Congress returns. But Democrats still oppose the bill, and they are expected to block it again.
Congress will be under heavy pressure to address Zika funding as quickly as possible. Last month, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden announced the agency would run out of funding for programs to combat the virus by the end of this month.
“The cupboard is bare,” he said. “Basically, we’re out of money, and we need Congress to act to allow us to respond effectively.”
That deadline makes it increasingly likely that Zika talks will merge with the larger spending debate.
“Despite Senate Democrats’ obstruction of the House-passed $1.1 billion bill to fight Zika, we are confident resources will get approved in September,” said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong.
Republicans are expected to hold closed-door meetings throughout the week to gauge how willing members are to negotiate with Democrats on either issue. While lawmakers aren’t scheduled to recess again until the end of the month, Senate Republicans are under pressure to reach a solution sooner so vulnerable members can head back home to campaign. Twenty-two GOP senators are up for reelection in November.
The Senate could choose to negotiate its own spending agreement to speed things along. That would allow the Senate to vote on the must-pass legislation and leave town early, effectively forcing the House to either accept the Senate-passed bill or take the blame for a government shutdown. ||||| Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) takes questions from reporters at the U.S. Capitol July 14, 2016. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Congress returns Tuesday from a seven-week recess that has left lawmakers with less than a month to fund the federal government and prevent a shutdown. But the scramble to solve that problem will not stop Republicans from casting votes on other issues designed to register their opposition to the Obama administration.
Federal agencies ranging from the National Park Service to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could face closures unless lawmakers vote on a stop-gap spending bill to keep the government running past the end of September.
Lawmakers also will confront a pressing problem they left behind in July: How to pay for efforts to combat the Zika virus, which is now being transmitted by mosquitoes in Florida, has been linked to the death of an infant in Texas, and has been declared a public health emergency in Puerto Rico.
Republicans and Democrats have spent their recess blaming each other for the failure to agree on a funding bill, but a USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll released Monday showed strong public support for new Zika finding. By a margin of 62%-19%, poll respondents said Congress should approve additional funding, rather than continue to divert funds from other programs.
"As the Zika disease spreads, Congress is eventually going to have to come to terms with it and stop politicizing the issue," said Donald Wolfensberger, a congressional expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a non-partisan research institution.
Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are planing votes on several "message bills" that are almost certain to go nowhere. The House is expected to vote on whether to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over Republican allegations that he obstructed a congressional investigation into whether the IRS improperly scrutinized Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status. Democrats and the Treasury Department have called the allegations baseless, and the Senate is unlikely to vote on the matter.
Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is also promising a vote on some kind of legislation to register GOP opposition to a $400 million cash delivery to Iran made by the Obama administration in January. President Obama said the money was an overdue repayment to Iran of assets frozen decades ago, and there was no connection to American prisoner released by Iran the same day the payment arrived. The State Department later admitted that the payment was used as "leverage" to assure the prisoners' release.
It is not clear what form this legislation will take.
Other major issues are unlikely to see significant progress before Congress departs for the elections in October.
The Republican-led Congress is expected to continue blocking a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Obama after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia six months ago. And no vote is expected on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, although some supporters still hold out hope of action during the lame-duck session after the election.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday that Congress has not done enough to address issues such as opioid abuse, the tainted water system of Flint, Mich., and gun violence. "There is so much unfinished business that directly affects the lives of the American people," she said on CBS This Morning. "That’s what we have to get on with.”
After September, the House and Senate will adjourn for October and part of November, leaving only a handful of weeks after the Nov. 8 election for lawmakers to finish any work and adjourn by their target date of Dec. 16. A new Congress will be seated in January.
"At this point, I think Congress is just trying to do the minimal amount needed to keep the government open and then get out of town without looking too bad," Wolfensberger said.
Congressional leaders' immediate focus will be preventing a government shutdown, a prospect created by lawmakers' failure to pass the 12 annual spending bills that tell federal agencies how to spend billions in taxpayer dollars. Partisan squabbling derailed those bills, giving Congress little choice but to pass a short-term spending measure to keep federal agencies running until lawmakers — and the White House — can reach a deal on longer-term legislation.
Members of the rebellious House Freedom Caucus want any funding fix to last into March so that the new Congress and new president will set spending priorities. But members of the House Appropriations Committee, which has jurisdiction over discretionary spending, argue that the current Congress should finish its job. They want a stop-gap funding bill to expire in December to force lawmakers to resolve the issue this year.
Josh Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, said it's possible that lawmakers may try to deal with Zika by adding funding to combat the virus to whatever deal they reach to keep the government open.
"There definitely are senators who are feeling a lot of pressure to do this, particularly in the South, and (Senate Majority Leader) Mitch McConnell wants to help (Florida Senator) Marco Rubio get re-elected so that Republicans have a better chance to keep their Senate majority," Huder said. "The question is whether the House will go along with any deal the Senate reaches."
Ryan and other House leaders may be forced to turn to Democrats for help to keep the government funded if the Freedom Caucus won't go along with a short-term fix, he said.
"If the Freedom Caucus won't compromise on either the length of the funding or the amount, then they're going to force House leaders' hands to work with Democrats to get this done," Huder said. "The only alternative for House leaders is a shutdown, which they see as an absolute catastrophe. Just keeping the government open is a very big lift. It's hard to imagine a scenario where they do more than that."
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2c2AvJg | Congress is back to work Tuesday after its summer recess, and the Washington Post reports that one issue is paramount: avoiding a government shutdown in an election year. The fiscal year ends September 30, meaning the House and Senate will need to pass a continuing resolution in less than a month to keep the government open. This time around, the big sticking point is how long such a resolution would last: Conservatives want a six-month deal that would push the larger money fight into 2017, under a new president and Congress. Democrats, however, are pushing for a shorter resolution that would require a lame-duck Congress to return after the election to hammer out a spending package. Beyond that, a slew of other issues are on the agenda, most notably funding to curb the spread of Zika, reports Politico. Before the summer recess, a bill stalled in the Senate as Democrats objected to GOP demands that money come out of Ebola research and ObamaCare. Since then, Zika has begun to spread locally in Florida, ramping up pressure to act, notes USA Today. Also on the radar, per NBC News: A House GOP push to impeach IRS chief John Koskinen over his agency's perceived political bias, determining whether Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland will get a hearing in the Senate, and a House vote on a measure designed to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. |
John McLaughlin, host of the namesake long-running television show that pioneered hollering-heads discussions of Washington politics, has died. He was 89.
John McLaughlin, host of the namesake long-running television show that pioneered hollering-heads discussions of Washington politics, has died. He was 89.
John McLaughlin, host of the namesake long-running television show that pioneered hollering-heads discussions of Washington politics, has died. He was 89.
John McLaughlin, a former Jesuit priest, speechwriter for President Richard M. Nixon and conservative provocateur whose pugnacious style as a host of a political chat show helped usher in the era of impolite punditry, died Aug. 16 at his home in Washington. He was 89.
The cause was complications from prostate cancer, said journalist Eleanor Clift, one of his on-air sparring partners. Mr. McLaughlin missed the most recent installment of his syndicated public affairs program, “The McLaughlin Group.”
For more than three decades, Mr. McLaughlin sat in judgment of national political trends on “The McLaughlin Group” and goaded journalists and pundits into moving beyond fact into the argumentative terrain of ideological talking points and rhetorical hyperbole. He corralled guests into critiquing political decisions and probabilities on a sliding scale of 1 to 10 — with 10 representing “metaphysical certitude.”
At times, “The McLaughlin Group” felt more like a cross-talk show than a talk show, with the host interrupting his guests’ trains of thought or bellowing “Wronnng!” to express disapproval of their statements.
His approach forever changed audience expectations of public affairs programming. Mr. McLaughlin’s impact can be glimpsed almost any night on cable news channels, for better or worse. And although no one ever mistook Mr. McLaughlin for a digital visionary, his show’s staccato approach to wringing opinions from guests previewed the Internet’s addiction to fast and unprocessed news bites.
The Rev. John J. McLaughlin in 1970 formally became a candidate for Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate from Rhode Island. (UPI Telephoto)
“Look at ‘The McLaughlin Group’ now and it looks positively quaint,” said Syracuse University television historian Robert Thompson. “The kind of thing McLaughlin was doing is being done in so many places.”
Although “The McLaughlin Group” dominated his later life, Mr. McLaughlin had a three-act career that started in the priesthood. He worked his way into politics, running unsuccessfully for a U.S. Senate seat in 1970 and later landing a job in the Nixon White House. As a speechwriter for the president and one of his fiercest defenders through the Watergate scandal, Mr. McLaughlin attracted media attention upon which he capitalized to get into television.
When “The McLaughlin Group” launched in 1982 on WRC (Channel 4) in Washington, D.C., political chat shows were unrecognizable by modern standards. “Washington Week in Review,” produced by the public television outlet WETA, was a cerebral and quiet product. “Agronsky and Company,” on WUSA (Channel 9), occasionally veered into shouting and political showmanship but not with a great degree of reliability.
Mr. McLaughlin saw an opening in the market for TV blather. “Energy, tempo and bonhomie,” he said, were a few of the vital ingredients he sought to infuse in the program, along with “first-rate reporting and straight opinion.”
The program’s format, like its inspiration, remained steady over the show’s run, with Mr. McLaughlin sitting alone in the middle of the set and liberal and conservative commentators tethered in his orbit.
Those guests regularly fielded not so much questions from Mr. McLaughlin as demands. In a September 1998 show during the debate over President Bill Clinton’s pending impeachment inquiry resulting from an affair with a White House intern, the host posed this typical “McLaughlin Group” formulation to his interlocutors:
“On a survival probability scale of zero to 10 — zero, Mr. Clinton leaves office, he’s out, almost overnight; 10, Clinton stays, he finishes his term till January 2001 — rate the survival probability level of Bill Clinton as president,” he said.
1 of 66 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Notable deaths of 2016 View Photos Remembering those who have died this year. Caption Prince, David Bowie, Debbie Reynolds, Harper Lee and others: Remembering those who have died this year. Debbie Reynolds Actress Debbie Reynolds starred in the 1952 classic movie “Singin’ in the Rain” with Gene Kelly, shown above. Reynolds died one day after the death of her daughter, actress-writer Carrie Fisher. Reynolds was 84. “She’s now with Carrie and we’re all heartbroken,” her son Todd Fisher said. Read the Debbie Reynolds obituary AFP/Getty Images Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue.
The gimmickry worked. Mr. McLaughlin’s best-known guests — then-Newsweek writer Clift, the late Baltimore Sun columnist Jack Germond, conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan, and Washington-based journalist and editor Morton Kondracke — thrived in this corral. They often shouted over each other to present their opinions.
“Next to ‘McLaughlin,’ all the rest of the shows are ‘Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,’ ” Clift once said.
While Mr. McLaughlin was seated at the center of his show’s set, his politics favored the right. He once described himself as a “crypto-Republican” and gave the show something that TV Guide critic John Weisman in 1985 deemed noteworthy — “ ‘The McLaughlin Group’ is the only political show seen nationwide that favors the political right,” he said.
On the strength of its host’s bouncing jowls and nonstop barking, the show roared in its early years and into the 1990s: In 1992, for instance, it was broadcast on 297 PBS stations, not to mention three NBC stations, for a total viewership of 3.5 million. It was the highest-rated public affairs show in the country’s top 10 markets, according to an account from the New York Times.
Mr. McLaughlin cherished his celebrity. He told a Times interviewer in 1992, “Walking down 57th Street in New York, a car goes by and an 18-year-old kid opens the window and shouts, ‘Wronnng!’ ”
From that cultural perch, “The McLaughlin Group” lost relevance in more recent years, in part because of the emergence of the Fox News Channel — which launched in 1996 — and because of the host’s advancing age.
As an octogenarian, Mr. McLaughlin was not quite the on-air force that his younger incarnation had proved to be. The show’s later episodes received attention on the Internet primarily when one of its guests made a rude or offensive remark.
In July 2012, for instance, Buchanan won a shot of publicity for “The McLaughlin Group” when he expressed hope that the United States would not see its first female president until 2040 or 2050.
Seeing a chance to provoke, Mr. McLaughlin argued that Hillary Clinton, then serving as secretary of state in the Obama administration, “owed it to her gender” to run for the office in the 2016 election.
Mr. McLaughlin’s bombastic style was memorably parodied by comedian Dana Carvey on “Saturday Night Live.” And some of Mr. McLaughlin’s colleagues contended that the tyrannical fellow whom viewers saw on “The McLaughlin Group” was no act.
A female office manager who worked for the host filed a sexual harassment suit against him that was settled out of court in 1989. Kara Swisher, a McLaughlin staffer who later rose to prominence at the Wall Street Journal, was once ordered by Mr. McLaughlin to make toast. After she balked at the command, he told her, “If I ask you to make toast and you don’t do it, I can fire you.”
A critical look at the “The McLaughlin Group” by commentator Eric Alterman in 1990 decried its “abhorrence of complexity, its reductiveness, its celebration of nastiness and macho posturing.” Alterman wrote that it is hard to determine “when John McLaughlin is serious and when he is making fun of himself being serious.”
The priesthood John Joseph McLaughlin was born in Providence, R.I., on March 29, 1927. He described his parents, of Irish descent, as “rootedly Democratic.” His father was a furniture salesman.
The young McLaughlin attended LaSalle Academy, a Christian Brothers school in Providence. It was in those formative years that he built his reverence for the Jesuit religious order, telling the New York Times that it had “a gallantry, an intellectual adventurism, a style, a panache.”
He began his training for the priesthood at Weston College in Massachusetts. He later received a bachelor’s degree from Boston College, where he also earned master’s degrees in philosophy and education.
In the 1950s, Mr. McLaughlin was posted to teaching positions at high schools in Massachusetts and Connecticut. He then secured a transfer to New York City and, while pursuing a doctorate in communications at Columbia University, began working for America, the Manhattan-based Jesuit publication, where he became assistant editor.
Mr. McLaughlin added another platform to his brand, hitting the lecture circuit on topics that often circled back to sex and marriage.
In 1968, he met his future wife, Ann Lauenstein Dore, when he was delivering a speech at Marymount College in Tarrytown, N.Y. She was the school’s director of alumni relations.
Over the years, Mr. McLaughlin feuded with the top editor of America, the Rev. Donald R. Campion, and left the journal in 1970.
It was unclear what prompted the separation, but Campion issued a lukewarm assessment of his colleague, noting that he was fond of “baroque” words: “You don’t know quite what they mean, but they sort of stun you.”
The departure from the journal helped clear the way for Mr. McLaughlin’s brief but high-profile career in U.S. politics.
He broke with his family heritage by registering as a Republican in advance of his candidacy in the 1970 U.S. Senate race in Rhode Island. Mr. McLaughlin took aim at incumbent John O. Pastore (D) by running as a “peace” candidate during the Vietnam War.
Pastore, said Mr. McLaughlin, stuck to “pro-Pentagon” policies that were prolonging the war and costing taxpayers their hard-earned cash. Vietnam, charged the challenger, was “an incredibly bloated expenditure.”
For his part, Pastore said at the time that “McLaughlin’s driving me batty. How can I debate with a man my religion teaches me to call Father?”
Secular success
Pastore held his office with 67.5 percent of the vote. Mr. McLaughlin parlayed his loss at the polls into a professional win — an appointment as a junior speechwriter in the Nixon White House, which was already familiar with Mr. McLaughlin’s written work.
An essay Mr. McLaughlin had written for America in December 1969 titled “Public Regulation and the News Media” sympathized with the well-known views of Vice President Spiro Agnew on the alleged biases of the mainstream media. In his piece, Mr. McLaughlin railed against the leanings of the country’s “broadcasting hierarchy.” Buchanan, then a White House speechwriter, approved.
Mr. McLaughlin became special assistant to the president. He toured Southeast Asia and reported back unremittingly positive news of combat operations. He said U.S. bombing runs were “scrupulously and assiduously” pinpointed in their precision, resulting in minimal civilian casualties and ecological damage.
In 1972, operatives of Nixon’s reelection campaign orchestrated the break-in and bugging of the Democratic Party’s national headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington.
During the scandal’s fallout, Mr. McLaughlin remained one of the president’s most vocal defenders. Shortly before Nixon’s resignation in August 1974, the aide reportedly told a gathering of Republicans that the president would be regarded by historians as “the greatest moral leader of the last third of this century.”
Mr. McLaughlin served in the White House for two months under President Gerald R. Ford before leaving to start a public affairs and media relations consulting firm with Dore, whom he married in August 1975 after successfully petitioning Pope Paul VI for laicization, relieving him of priestly obligations.
Dore had been campaign manager for Mr. McLaughlin’s Senate run, communications director for the Committee to Reelect the President and a government relations executive with Union Carbide. She was secretary of labor toward the end of President Ronald Reagan’s administration.
Their marriage ended in divorce in 1992. His second marriage, to Cristina Vidal, also ended in divorce. He had no immediate survivors.
In 1980, Mr. McLaughlin worked his way into radio on WRC-AM but was fired a year into the gig, “reportedly for talking too much and taking too few calls,” according to a published account.
Then he rounded up funding from a Nixon administration veteran and launched “The McLaughlin Group.” Though the “group” and the show’s format helped to propel it into pop-culture history, the “McLaughlin” component was indispensable.
“ ‘The McLaughlin Group’ presented something that wasn’t just about public affairs and civic information,” said Thompson, the Syracuse University scholar. “It was show biz, and the show biz came from McLaughlin himself.” ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Jon Schuppe
Television host John McLaughlin, who every week for more than three decades headed a boisterous public affairs show, died Tuesday morning, the program's staff said.
McLaughlin, a former Catholic priest who became a pundit in the 1970s after writing speeches for President Richard Nixon, was 89.
His final public message to his fans was on Aug. 13, when he explained on his show's website that he had missed recent tapings because of poor health.
"Yet my spirit is strong and my dedication to the show remains absolute," he wrote.
Television Personality John McLaughlin attends the party for 'The McLaughlin Group' on Oct. 6, 1991 at Chasen's Restaurant in Beverly Hills, California. Ron Galella, Ltd. / WireImage
His death ended a remarkable run for a man who first went on the air with "The McLaughlin Group" in 1982.
Born in 1927 in Providence, Rhode Island, McLaughlin became a Jesuit priest but stepped down in 1975, after getting increasingly involved in politics and punditry.
He switched from Democrat to Republican during the Vietnam War, which he came to support, and ran for U.S. Senate in his home state. He lost, but became a speechwriter for Nixon. After Nixon's resignation. McLaughlin turned to political consulting, then journalism.
McLaughlin wrote for National Review magazine and hosted various programs on radio and television. His career took off with "The McLaughlin Group," which aired mainly on PBS, and his interview show, "One on One."
The shows familiarized millions of Americans with his forceful speaking style, and spawned imitators and parodies, including sketches on "Saturday Night Live."
McLaughlin made cameo appearances on the sitcoms "Cheers" and "Murphy Brown" and in several politics-related movies, including 1993's "Dave" and 1998's "Bulworth."
He also hosted a show on CNBC in the early 1990s.
In an announcement posted on Facebook, staff from "The McLaughlin Group" said McLaughlin died peacefully Tuesday morning.
"For 34 years, The McLaughlin Group informed millions of Americans. Now he has said bye bye for the last time, to rejoin his beloved dog, Oliver, in heaven," the post said. "He will always be remembered." ||||| "The liveliness of the show 'The McLaughlin Group'was a reflection of his unique personality as well as his keen intellect, which helped to cover and uncover the numerous landscapes of opinions that steered his listeners to make qualified decisions," Zuckerman said. "I was privileged to spend many hours talking with John, on and off his show; his friendship and intelligence will be sorely missed, not only by me, but also by his many listeners, colleagues, family and friends." | Political talk show pioneer John McLaughlin died Tuesday morning at his home in Virginia at the age of 89, the New York Daily News reports. According to the Washington Post, he had been fighting prostate cancer. After stints as a Catholic priest and speechwriter for President Nixon, McLaughlin started The McLaughlin Group in 1982, NBC News reports. With the PBS political panel show, McLaughlin "helped usher in the era of impolite punditry," according to the Post. “The kind of thing McLaughlin was doing is [now] being done in so many places,” television historian Robert Thompson says. McLaughlin missed the most recent taping of The McLaughlin Group, the Hill reports. It was the first time he'd missed a show in 34 years, seven months, and one week. A note to viewers before the show stated he was "under the weather." "My spirit is strong and my dedication to this show remains absolute," the note read. His death was announced on The McLaughlin Group's Facebook page: "He has said bye bye for the last time, to rejoin his beloved dog, Oliver, in heaven. He will always be remembered." |
Prior to the New Deal, decisions regarding classification of national security information were left to military regulation. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order authorizing government officials to protect information pertaining to military and naval installations. Presidents since that time have continued to set the federal government's classification standards by executive order, but with one critical difference: while President Roosevelt cited specific statutory authority for his action, later Presidents have cited general statutory and constitutional authority. The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the extent to which Congress may constrain the executive branch's power in this area. Citing the President's constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in dicta that "[the President's] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant." This language has been interpreted by some to indicate that the President has virtually plenary authority to control classified information. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has suggested that "Congress could certainly [provide] that the Executive Branch adopt new [classification procedures] or [establish] its own procedures—subject only to whatever limitations the Executive Privilege may be held to impose on such congressional ordering." In fact, Congress established a separate regime in the Atomic Energy Act for the protection of nuclear-related "Restricted Data." Congress has directed the President to establish procedures governing the access to classified material so that generally no person can gain such access without having undergone a background check. Congress also directed the President, in formulating the classification procedures, to adhere to certain minimum standards of due process with regard to access to classified information. These standards include the establishment of uniform procedures for, inter alia , background checks, denial of access to classified information, and notice of such denial. There is an exception to the due process requirements, however, where compliance could damage national security, although the statute directs agency heads to submit a report to the congressional intelligence committees in such a case. With the authority to determine classification standards vested in the President, these standards tend to change when a new administration takes control of the White House. The differences between the standards of one administration and the next have often been dramatic. As one congressionally authorized commission put it in 1997: The rules governing how best to protect the nation's secrets, while still insuring that the American public has access to information on the operations of its government, past and present, have shifted along with the political changes in Washington. Over the last fifty years, with the exception of the Kennedy Administration, a new executive order on classification was issued each time one of the political parties regained control of the Executive Branch. These have often been at variance with one another ... at times even reversing outright the policies of the previous order. Various congressional committees have investigated ways to bring some continuity to the classification system and to limit the President's broad powers to shield information from public examination. In 1966, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a presumption that government information will be open to the public unless it falls into one of FOIA's exceptions. One exception covers information that, under executive order, must be kept secret for national security or foreign policy reasons. In 2000, Congress enacted the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000, which established the Public Interest Declassification Board to advise the President on matters regarding the declassification of certain information. However, the act expressly disclaims any intent to restrict agency heads from classifying or continuing the classification of information under their purview, nor does it create any rights or remedies that may be enforced in court. Most recently, Congress passed the Reducing Over-Classification Act, P.L. 111-258 (2010), which, among other things, requires executive branch agencies' inspectors general to conduct assessments of their agencies' implementation of classification policies. Congress occasionally takes an interest in declassification of specific materials that might be deemed essential for some public purpose. The procedural rules of both the Senate and House provide a means for disclosing classified information in the intelligence committees' possession where the intelligence committee of the respective house (either the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)) determines by vote that such disclosure would serve the public interest. In the event the intelligence committee votes to disclose classified information that was submitted by the executive branch, and the executive branch requests it be kept secret, the committee is required to notify the President. The information may be disclosed after five days unless the President formally objects and certifies that the threat to the U.S. national interest outweighs any public interest in disclosing it, in which case the question may be referred to the full chamber. It does not appear that either house has invoked its procedure for disclosing classified information. In fact, in at least one instance, Congress deferred to the executive branch even with respect to materials prepared by Congress, albeit perhaps using documents obtained from the executive branch. A recent example involved the 28 pages of classified text from the report of the Joint Inquiry of the HPSCI and the SSCI into the Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. The report of the Joint Inquiry was completed in 2002 and referred to the executive branch for a classification review, which determined that three of the four parts of the report could be disclosed to the public, but that the disclosure of a portion of the report would pose national security risks. Despite calls for the release of the 28 pages by some Members and former Members, and legislative proposals to mandate disclosure, the intelligence committees awaited a declassification review by the intelligence community before releasing the material in redacted form. One notable instance in which Congress sought and procured the declassification of government information involved records pertaining to prisoners of war and personnel listed as missing in action after the Vietnam War ("POW/MIA"). Congress initially required certain agencies to provide information regarding "live-sightings" of such personnel to next of kin, with the exception of "information that would reveal or compromise sources and methods of intelligence collection." Congress subsequently directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to create an accessible library of documents related to POW/MIA, excluding records that would be exempt under certain provisions of FOIA. The Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs considered invoking the procedural rule described above to declassify relevant documents, but deemed that untested avenue unsuitable because it would have required the Committee to identify the documents beforehand and to have had them in its possession. Furthermore, enforcement of the measure would have required the full vote of the Senate. Instead, Members wrote to President George H. W. Bush requesting an executive order to accomplish the declassification of relevant records. It was followed by a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should expeditiously issue an executive order for the declassification, without compromising national security, of relevant documents. President Bush complied. More recently, Congress has directed the President or agency heads to undertake a declassification review of records pertaining to specific matters and to release them as appropriate. For example, Congress in 2000 directed the President to "order all Federal agencies and departments that possess relevant information [about the murders of churchwomen in El Salvador] to make every effort to declassify and release" them to victims' families. In 2002, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress and to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs "a comprehensive plan for the review, declassification, and submittal" of all information related to Project 112—a series of biological and chemical warfare vulnerability tests conducted by the Department of Defense —that would be relevant for that project's participants' health care. In 2004, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to "review and, as determined appropriate, revise the classification policies of the Department of Defense with a view to facilitating the declassification of data that is potentially useful for the monitoring and assessment of the health of members of the Armed Forces who have been exposed to environmental hazards during deployments overseas." In 2007, Congress directed the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to make public a version of the executive summary of the CIA Office of the Inspector General report on "CIA Accountability Regarding Findings and Conclusions of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," declassified "to the maximum extent possible, consistent with national security." And in 2014, Congress directed the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to conduct a declassification review of documents collected during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, requiring a justification for materials that remain classified after the review. The current standards for classifying and declassifying information were last amended on December 29, 2009, in Executive Order 13526. Under these standards, the President, Vice President, agency heads, and any other officials designated by the President may classify information upon a determination that the unauthorized disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to damage national security. Such information must be owned by, produced by, or under the control of the federal government, and must concern one of the following: military plans, weapons systems, or operations; foreign government information; intelligence activities, intelligence sources/methods, cryptology; foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources; scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to national security; federal programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; vulnerabilities or capabilities of national security systems; or weapons of mass destruction. Information may be classified at one of three levels based on the amount of danger that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause to national security. Information is classified as "Top Secret" if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security. The standard for "Secret" information is "serious damage" to national security, while for "confidential" information the standard is "damage" to national security. Significantly, for each level, the original classifying officer must identify or describe the specific danger potentially presented by the information's disclosure. In case of significant doubt as to the need to classify information or the level of classification appropriate, the information is to remain unclassified or be classified at the lowest level of protection considered appropriate. The officer who originally classifies the information establishes a date for declassification based upon the expected duration of the information's sensitivity. If the office cannot set an earlier declassification date, then the information must be marked for declassification in 10 years' time or 25 years, depending on the sensitivity of the information. The deadline for declassification can be extended if the threat to national security still exists. Classified information is required to be declassified "as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification." The original classifying agency has the authority to declassify information when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need to protect that information. On December 31, 2006, and every year thereafter, all information that has been classified for 25 years or longer and has been determined to have "permanent historical value" under Title 44 of the U.S. Code will be automatically declassified, although agency heads can exempt from this requirement classified information that continues to be sensitive in a variety of specific areas. Agencies are required to review classification determinations upon a request for such a review that specifically identifies the materials so that the agency can locate them, unless the materials identified are part of an operational file exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or are the subject of pending litigation. This requirement does not apply to information that has undergone declassification review in the previous two years; information that is exempted from review under the National Security Act; or information classified by the incumbent President and staff, the Vice President and staff (in the performance of executive duties), commissions appointed by the President, or other entities within the executive office of the President that advise the President. Each agency that has classified information is required to establish a system for periodic declassification reviews. The National Archivist is required to establish a similar systemic review of classified information that has been transferred to the National Archives. Access to classified information is generally limited to those who demonstrate their eligibility to the relevant agency head, sign a nondisclosure agreement, and have a need to know the information. The need-to-know requirement can be waived, however, for former Presidents and Vice Presidents, historical researchers, and former policy-making officials who were appointed by the President or Vice President. The information being accessed may not be removed from the controlling agency's premises without permission. Each agency is required to establish systems for controlling the distribution of classified information. The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)—an office within the National Archives—is charged with overseeing compliance with the classification standards and promulgating directives to that end. ISOO is headed by a Director, who is appointed by the Archivist of the United States, and who has the authority to order declassification of information that, in the Director's view, is classified in violation of the aforementioned classification standards. In addition, there is an Interagency Security Classifications Appeals Panel (ISCAP), headed by the ISOO Director and made up of representatives of the heads of various agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Archives. ISCAP is empowered to decide appeals of classifications challenges and to review automatic and mandatory declassifications. If the ISOO Director finds a violation of E.O. 13526 or its implementing directives, then the Director must notify the appropriate classifying agency so that corrective steps can be taken. Under E.O. 13526, each respective agency is responsible for maintaining control over classified information it originates and is responsible for establishing uniform procedures to protect classified information and automated information systems in which classified information is stored or transmitted. Standards for safeguarding classified information, including the handling, storage, distribution, transmittal, and destruction of and accounting for classified information, are developed by the ISOO. Agencies that receive information classified elsewhere are not permitted to transfer the information further without approval from the classifying agency. Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch are required to ensure it receives protection equivalent to those required internally. In the event of a knowing, willful, or negligent unauthorized disclosure (or any such action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure), the agency head or senior agency official is required to notify ISOO and to "take appropriate and prompt corrective action." Officers and employees of the United States (including contractors, licensees, etc.) who commit a violation are subject to sanctions that can range from reprimand to termination. Executive Order 12333, United States Intelligence Activities, spells out the responsibilities of members of the Intelligence Community for the protection of intelligence information, including intelligence sources and methods. Under Section 1.7 of E.O. 12333, heads of departments and agencies with organizations in the Intelligence Community (or the heads of such organizations, if appropriate) must report possible violations of federal criminal laws to the Attorney General "in a manner consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods." ISOO Directive No. 1 (32 C.F.R. Part 2001) provides further direction for agencies with responsibilities for safeguarding classified information. Section 2001.41 states: Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for: (a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person; (b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head; and (c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits interception by unauthorized persons. Section 2001.45 of ISOO Directive No. 1 requires agency heads to establish a system of appropriate control measures to limit access to classified information to authorized persons. Section 2001.46 requires that classified information is transmitted and received in an authorized manner that facilitates detection of tampering and precludes inadvertent access. Persons who transmit classified information are responsible for ensuring that the intended recipients are authorized to receive classified information and have the capacity to store classified information appropriately. Documents classified "Top Secret" that are physically transmitted outside secure facilities must be properly marked and wrapped in two layers to conceal the contents, and must remain under the constant and continuous protection of an authorized courier. In addition to the methods prescribed for the outside transmittal of Top Secret documents, documents classified at Secret or Confidential levels may be mailed in accordance with the prescribed procedures. Agency heads are required to establish procedures for receiving classified information in a manner that precludes unauthorized access, provides for detection of tampering and confirmation of contents, and ensures the timely acknowledgment of the receipt (in the case of Top Secret and Secret information). Section 2001.48 prescribes measures to be taken in the event of loss, possible compromise, or unauthorized disclosure. It states: "Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose." Agency heads are required to establish appropriate procedures to conduct an inquiry or investigation into the loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information, in order to implement "appropriate corrective actions" and to "ascertain the degree of damage to national security." The department or agency in which the compromise occurred must also advise any other government agency or foreign government agency whose interests are involved of the circumstances and findings that affect their information or interests. Agency heads are to establish procedures to ensure coordination with legal counsel in any case where a formal disciplinary action beyond a reprimand is contemplated against a person believed responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Whenever a criminal violation appears to have occurred and a criminal prosecution is contemplated, agency heads are to ensure coordination with the Department of Justice and the legal counsel of the agency where the individual believed to be responsible is assigned or employed. ISOO must be notified in case of a violation that (1) is reported to congressional oversight committees; (2) may attract significant public attention; (3) involves large amounts of classified information; or (4) reveals a potential systemic weakness in security practices. The most recent intelligence community directives related to the safeguarding of classified information appear to be Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 700, Protection of National Intelligence, effective June 7, 2012; ICD 701, Security Policy Directive for Unauthorized Disclosures of Classified Information, effective March 14, 2007; and ICD 703, Protection of Classified National Intelligence, Including Sensitive Compartmented Information, effective June 21, 2013. Damage assessments in the event of an unauthorized disclosure or compromise of classified national intelligence are governed by ICD 732, effective June 27, 2014. ICD 700 mandates an integration of counterintelligence and security functions for the purpose of protecting national intelligence and sensitive information and, among other things, to strengthen "deterrence, detection, and mitigation of insider threats, defined as personnel who use their authorized access to do harm to the security of the US through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of information, or through the loss or degradation of resources or capabilities." Under ICD 701, Senior Officials of the Intelligence Community (SOICs) are to promptly notify the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and, if appropriate, law enforcement authorities of any actual or suspected unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including any media leak, that is likely to cause damage to national security interests, unless the disclosure is the subject of a counterespionage or counterintelligence investigation. Disclosures to be reported include: Unauthorized disclosure to an international organization, foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or terrorist organization; National intelligence activities or information that may be at risk of appearing in the public media, either foreign or domestic, without official authorization; Loss or compromise of classified information that poses a risk to human life; Loss or compromise of classified information that is indicative of a systemic compromise; Loss or compromise of classified information storage media or equipment; Discovery of clandestine surveillance and listening devices; Loss or compromise of classified information revealing U.S. or a foreign intelligence partner's intelligence operations or locations, or impairing foreign relations; Such other disclosures of classified information that could adversely affect activities related to US national security; and Loss or compromise of classified information revealing intelligence sources or methods, US intelligence requirements, capabilities and relationships with the US Government. Upon determining that a compromise meeting the above reporting criteria has or may have occurred, the SOIC is required promptly to report it to the DNI, through the Special Security Center (SSC), and to any other element with responsibility for the material at issue. The SOIC is then required to provide updated reports as appropriate (or as directed). This process occurs in tandem with any required reporting to law enforcement authorities. The required formal notification to the DNI is to include a complete statement of the facts, the scope of the unauthorized disclosure, sources and methods that may be at risk, the potential effect of the disclosure on national security, and corrective or mitigating actions. SOICs are further required to identify all factors that contributed to the compromise of classified information and take corrective action or make recommendations to the DNI. Department of Defense Directive 5210.50, "Management of Serious Security Incidents Involving Classified Information" (October 27, 2014), prescribes policy and responsibilities for handling unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the public and other serious security incidents. More detailed procedures governing specific types of information possibly compromised are found in DOD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, Enclosure 6, "Security Incidents Involving Classified Information," February 24, 2012. In the event of a known or suspected disclosure of classified information, the heads of DOD components must take prompt action to decide the nature and circumstances of the disclosure, determine the extent of damage to national security, and take appropriate corrective action. If the inquiry or investigation turns up information suggestive of a criminal or counterintelligence nature, component heads are to cease investigation pending coordination with the relevant Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) or Defense Counter-Intelligence (CI) component. Security inquiries are to be initiated and completed within 10 duty days unless an extension is required. The inquiry is aimed at discovering: (a) When, where, and how did the incident occur? What persons, situations, or conditions caused or contributed to the incident? (b) Was classified information compromised? (c) If a compromise occurred, what specific classified information and/or material was involved? What is the classification level of the information disclosed? (d) If classified material is alleged to have been lost, what steps were taken to locate the material? (e) Was the information properly classified? (f) Was the information officially released? (g) In cases of compromise involving the public media: 1. In what specific media article, program, book, Internet posting or other item did the classified information appear? 2. To what extent was the compromised information disseminated or circulated? 3. Would further inquiry increase the damage caused by the compromise? (h) Are there any leads to be investigated that might lead to identifying the person(s) responsible for the compromise? (i) If there was no compromise, and if the incident was unintentional or inadvertent, was there a specific failure to comply with established security practices and procedures that could lead to compromise if left uncorrected and/or is there a weakness or vulnerability in established security practices and procedures that could result in a compromise if left uncorrected? What corrective action is required? Section 7(f) lists factors for determining whether to initiate an additional investigation by a DCIO or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the event classified information appears in the public media: The accuracy of the information disclosed. The damage to national security caused by the disclosure and whether there were compromises regarding sensitive aspects of current classified projects, intelligence sources, or intelligence methods. The extent to which the disclosed information was circulated, both within and outside the Department of Defense, and the number of persons known to have access to it. The degree to which an investigation shall increase the damage caused by the disclosure. The existence of any investigative leads. The reasonable expectation of repeated disclosures. If classified DOD information appears in a newspaper or other media, the head of the appropriate DOD component is responsible for the preparation of a "DOJ Media Leak Questionnaire" to submit to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, who prepares a letter for the Chief, Internal Security Section of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. The following eleven questions are to be promptly and fully addressed: Date and identity of the media source (article, blog, television, or other oral presentation) containing classified information. Specific statement(s) that are classified, and whether the information is properly classified. Whether disclosed information is accurate. Whether the information came from a specific document, and if so, the originating office and person responsible for its security. Extent of official circulation of the information. Whether information has been the subject of prior official release. Whether pre-publication clearance or release was sought. Whether sufficient information or background data has been published officially or in the press to make educated speculation on the matter possible. Whether information is to be made available for use in a criminal prosecution and the person competent to testify on its classification. Whether information has been considered for declassification. The effect the disclosure of the classified data might have on the national defense. Information security at the State Department is governed by 12 FAM 500 and 600. The Bureau of Administration is responsible for implementing E.O. 13526 as it applies to the classification and declassification of material, the marking of classified material, and relevant training and guidance. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) is responsible for protecting classified information and special access programs. Senior agency officials have the primary responsibility for overseeing their respective agency's information security program, while supervisors are charged with safeguarding classified information within their organizational units. Individual employees having access to classified material are responsible for maintaining its security. Security incidents are to be reported through the appropriate security officer to DS by filling out a standard form. The employee suspected of having caused the incident is given an opportunity to provide a statement of defense or mitigating circumstances, after which the incident is referred to his or her supervisor and to DS. DS is responsible for evaluating security incidents and performing final adjudication of them and initiation of any further action deemed necessary. Investigations of loss, unauthorized disclosure, or serious compromise of classified information are covered in 12 FAM 228.4 and are the responsibility of the Professional Responsibility Division (DS/ICI/PR) of the Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence. In the event of a "media leak" of classified information, the originating agency is to undertake an initial investigation to determine if any other agency had access to the information, and if necessary request that such receiving agency conduct an appropriate investigation into the unauthorized disclosure. The manual notes that DOJ may decide to prosecute those who disclose classified information without authority, but does not provide a list of reporting criteria. In addition to administrative penalties agencies may employ to enforce information security, there are several statutory provisions that address the protection of classified information as such, but only certain types of information or in specific situations. There is no blanket prohibition on the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The Espionage Act itself does not mention classified information, but prohibits transmittal of national defense information with the relevant intent or state of mind. Generally, federal law prescribes a prison sentence of no more than a year and/or a $1,000 fine for officers and employees of the federal government who knowingly remove classified material without the authority to do so and with the intention of keeping that material at an unauthorized location. Stiffer penalties—fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years—attach when a federal employee transmits classified information to anyone that the employee has reason to believe is an agent of a foreign government. A fine and a 10-year prison term also await anyone, government employee or not, who publishes, makes available to an unauthorized person, or otherwise uses to the United States' detriment classified information regarding the codes, cryptography, and communications intelligence utilized by the United States or a foreign government. Finally, the disclosure of classified information that reveals any information identifying a covert agent, when done intentionally by a person with authorized access to such identifying information, is punishable by imprisonment for up to 15 years. A similar disclosure by one who learns the identity of a covert agent as a result of having authorized access to classified information is punishable by not more than 10 years' imprisonment. Under the same provision, a person who undertakes a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents" with reason to believe such activities would impair U.S. foreign intelligence activities, and who then discloses the identities uncovered as a result is subject to three years' imprisonment, whether or not violator has access to classified information. In addition to the criminal penalties outlined above, the executive branch employs numerous means of deterring unauthorized disclosures by government personnel using administrative measures based on terms of employment contracts. The agency may impose disciplinary action or revoke a person's security clearance. The revocation of a security clearance is usually not reviewable by the Merit Systems Protection Board and may mean the loss of government employment. Government employees may also be subject to monetary penalties for disclosing classified information. Violators of the Espionage Act and the Atomic Energy Act provisions may additionally be subject to loss of their retirement pay. Agencies also rely on contractual agreements with employees, who typically must sign non-disclosure agreements prior to obtaining access to classified information, sometimes agreeing to submit all materials that the employee desires to publish to a review by the agency. The Supreme Court enforced such a contract against a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), upholding the government's imposition of a constructive trust on the profits of a book the employee sought to publish without first submitting it to CIA for review. In 1986, the Espionage Act was amended to provide for the forfeiture of any property derived from or used in the commission of an offense that violates the Espionage Act. Violators of the Atomic Energy Act may be subjected to a civil penalty of up to $100,000 for each violation of Energy Department regulations regarding dissemination of unclassified information about nuclear facilities. Under some circumstances, the government can also use injunctions to prevent disclosures of information. In at least one instance, a court upheld an injunction against a former employee's publishing of information learned through access to classified information. The Supreme Court also upheld the State Department's revocation of passports for overseas travel by persons planning to expose U.S. covert intelligence agents, despite the fact that the purpose was to disrupt U.S. intelligence activities rather than to assist a foreign government. As noted above, E.O. 13526 sets the official procedures for the declassification of information. Once information is declassified, it may be released to persons without a security clearance. Leaks, by contrast, might be defined as the release of classified information to persons without a security clearance, typically journalists. In 2012, some allegedly high-profile leaks of information regarding sensitive covert operations in news stories that seemed to some to portray the Obama Administration in a favorable light raised questions regarding the practice of "instant declassification," or whether disclosure of classified information to journalists may ever be said to be an "authorized disclosure" by a senior official. The processes for declassification set forth in E.O. 13526 seem to presuppose that agencies and classifying officials will not have any need or desire to disclose classified information in their possession other than to comply with the regulations. Yet it has long been noted that there seems to be an informal process for "instant declassification" of information whose release to the public serves an immediate need. As Representative William Moorhead, at the time chairman of the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, stated in 1974: Critics of the present system of handling classified information within the Executive Branch point to an obvious double standard. On one hand, the full power of the Government's legal system is exercised against certain newspapers for publishing portions of the Pentagon Papers and against someone like Daniel Ellsberg for his alleged role in their being made public. This is contrasted with other actions by top Executive officials who utilize the technique of "instant declassification" of information they want leaked. Sometimes it is an "off-the-record" press briefing or "backgrounders" that becomes "on-the-record" at the conclusion of the briefing or at some future politically strategic time. Such Executive Branch leaks may be planted with friendly news columnists. Or, the President himself may exercise his prerogative as Commander in Chief to declassify specific information in an address to the Nation or in a message to the Congress seeking additional funds for a weapons system. E.O. 13526 does not address an informal procedure for releasing classified information. Section 1.1 of the E.O. provides that "[c]lassified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information," but does not address what happens in the event of a disclosure that was in fact authorized. By definition, classified information is designated as classified based on whether its unauthorized disclosure can reasonably be expected to cause a certain level of damage to national security. This definition may be read to suggest that disclosures may be authorized under such circumstances when no damage to national security is reasonably expected. Nothing in the order provides explicit authority to release classified information that exists apart from the authority to declassify, but it is possible that such discretionary authority is recognized to release information outside the community of authorized holders without formally declassifying it. Part 4 of the E.O. 13526 describes safeguarding of classified information from unauthorized disclosure and preventing access to such information by "unauthorized persons." Most of the provisions appear to envision classified documents or communications and storage devices used for classified information rather than the spoken word. Section 4.1(g) requires agency heads and the Director of National Intelligence to "establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons." If "transmitted" is interpreted to include oral dissemination and "unauthorized persons" is interpreted to mean persons who do not meet the criteria set forth in Section 4.1(a), then it would seem that agency heads who approve leaks could be in breach of their responsibilities under the Order. Moreover, there is a provision for "emergency disclosure" of classified information "when necessary to respond to an imminent threat to life or in defense of the homeland" to "an individual or individuals who are otherwise not eligible for access." Section 4.2(b) provides that such disclosures must be in accordance with implementing regulations or procedures the classifying agency implements; must be undertaken in such a way as to minimize the information disclosed and the number of individuals who receive it; and must be reported promptly to the originator. Information disclosed under this provision is not deemed to be declassified. The existence of this provision could be read to cut against an interpretation that permits selected release of classified information to reporters for broader dissemination. However, it could also be read to allow a different procedure by which an agency head, who is the original classifying authority for the information at issue, might simply authorize remarks to the press that reference classified information in such a way as to minimize harm to national security. As a practical matter, however, there is seemingly little to stop agency heads and other high-ranking officials from releasing classified information to persons without a security clearance when it is seen as suiting government needs. The Attorney General has prosecutorial discretion to choose which leaks to prosecute. If, in fact, a case could be brought that a senior official has made or authorized the disclosure of classified information, successful prosecution under current laws may be difficult because the scienter requirement (i.e., guilty state of mind) is not likely to be met. The Espionage Act of 1917, for example, requires proof that the discloser has the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation. Although the nature and sensitivity of the information that was released are elements for the jury to decide, knowledge that the information is classified may be enough to persuade a court that damage to national security can be expected. However, in the event the disclosure was made or authorized by a person who has the authority to make such determinations—as to whether the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation—it would seem likely that such deference would potentially result in not meeting the scienter requirement absent some proof of ill intent. For example, a belief on the part of a lower level official that a particular disclosure was authorized could serve as an effective defense to any prosecution, and could entitle the defendant to depose high level government officials in preparation for his or her defense. Executive branch policy appears to treat an official disclosure as a declassifying event, while non-attributed disclosures have no effect on the classification status of the information. For example, the Department of Defense instructs agency officials, in the event that classified information appears in the media, to neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the information. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence is then advised to "consult with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and other officials having a primary interest in the information to determine if the information was officially released under proper authority." The regulation does not clarify what happens in the event the disclosure turns out to have been properly authorized. It appears no further action need be taken, whether to inform employees that the information no longer needs to be protected or to make annotations in classified records to reflect the newly declassified status of the information. In any event, any documents that contain that information potentially contain other classified information as well, in which case each such document would retain the highest level of classification applicable to information in the document. Thus, it seems unlikely that the authorized disclosure of classified information to the media would often result in the public release of any records. The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2013, P.L. 112-277 (2013) section 504 requires a government official who approves a disclosure of classified information to the media, or to another person for publication, to first report the decision and other matters related to the disclosure to the congressional intelligence committees. The provision applies to "national intelligence or intelligence related to national security" that is classified or has been declassified for the purpose of making the disclosure, where the disclosure is made by a government officer, employee, or contractor. According to the original committee report, the reporting is intended to keep the intelligence committees apprised of expected media disclosures of relevant classified information and to assist in distinguishing between "authorized disclosures" and "unauthorized leaks." Originally scheduled to sunset after a year, the provision was made permanent in the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2014. Any reports to Congress of authorized disclosures submitted pursuant to this provision apparently are classified. In October 2011 President Obama issued Executive Order 13587, "Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information." Among other measures, it established an interagency Insider Threat Task Force with a mandate to: develop a Government-wide program (insider threat program) for deterring, detecting, and mitigating insider threats, including the safeguarding of classified information from exploitation, compromise, or other unauthorized disclosure, taking into account risk levels, as well as the distinct needs, missions, and systems of individual agencies. This program shall include development of policies, objectives, and priorities for establishing and integrating security, counterintelligence, user audits and monitoring, and other safeguarding capabilities and practices within agencies. President Obama issued the resulting new policy and minimum standards for agencies in implementing their own insider threat programs in November 2012. Concerned about WikiLeaks and other disclosures of classified information by those with access, the 112 th Congress held at least two hearings on the topic of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Congress also passed a measure as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 to require the Defense Department to establish a "program for information sharing protection and insider threat mitigation for the information systems of the Department of Defense to detect unauthorized access to, use of, or transmission of classified or controlled unclassified information." The program is required to make use of both technology based solutions as well as a "governance structure and process" to integrate these technologies into existing security measures. As initially reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee, S. 3454 (112 th Cong.) contained a number of measures to address the disclosure of classified information by federal employees, whether authorized or not, especially if the disclosure were to the media. Opposition to these measures resulted in a manager's amendment to the bill with all but the reporting provision regarding authorized disclosures removed. Some of the measures that were eliminated from the bill involved restrictions on media access to government officials. One was a prohibition on federal officers, employees, and contractors who have security clearances, including some who have left government service within the prior year, from entering into agreements with the media to provide analysis or commentary on matters related to classified intelligence activities or intelligence related to national security. Another would have limited the individuals authorized to provide background or off-the-record information to the media regarding intelligence activities to the Director and Deputy Directors or their equivalents of each agency and designated public affairs officers. Another would have required the Director of National Intelligence to prescribe regulations regarding the interaction of cleared personnel with the media. Such persons would have been required to report all contacts with the media to the appropriate security office. Also eliminated was a prohibition on federal officers, employees, and contractors from possessing a security clearance after having made any unauthorized disclosure regarding the existence of, or classified details relating to, a covert action as defined in 50 U.S.C. Section 413(b) (now classified at 50 U.S.C. Section 3091). The insider threat issue was revisited in the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2016, passed as Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, P.L. 114-113 (2015). Section 306 added a requirement to Title 5, U.S. Code , for the DNI to direct agencies to each establish an "enhanced personnel security program" to integrate a broader data set into reassessments of the continuing eligibility of personnel to hold security clearances or sensitive positions. Specifically, The enhanced personnel security program of an agency shall integrate relevant and appropriate information from various sources, including government, publicly available and commercial data sources, consumer reporting agencies, social media and such other sources as determined by the Director of National Intelligence. The provision requires the agency programs to conduct random automated record checks of the selected sources of data at least twice within a five-year period for each covered person, unless that individual is subject to more frequent reviews. The deadline to implement the programs is five years after enactment (which will occur December 15, 2020) or the date on which the backlog of overdue periodic reinvestigations is eliminated, as determined by DNI. | This report provides an overview of the relationship between executive and legislative authority over national security information. It summarizes the current laws that form the legal framework protecting classified information, including current executive orders and some agency regulations pertaining to the handling of unauthorized disclosures of classified information by government officers and employees. The report also summarizes criminal laws that pertain specifically to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, as well as civil and administrative penalties. Finally, the report describes some recent developments in executive branch security policies and relevant legislative activity. |
5 years ago
(CNN) - A new poll released Monday indicates President Barack Obama has expanded his margin over Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and now leads his Republican opponent by 15 points.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say they will vote for the president, while 37% say they back Romney, according to the latest WMUR Granite State Poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
Three percent, meanwhile, say they prefer a different candidate and 9% are undecided.
The 15-point margin represents a much wider gap than previous polls released in the state last week. According to an American Research Group survey released Friday, the president held a five-point - 50%-45% - advantage over Romney.
And an NBC News/Marist/Wall Street Journal poll on Thursday showed Obama seven points ahead of Romney in the Granite State, 51% to 44%, a difference outside of the poll's sampling error of 3.1 percentage points.
READ MORE: Obama, Romney tied up in new CNN national poll
New Hampshire, a crucial battleground state rated as a toss-up on CNN's Electoral Map, has four electoral votes.
According to CNN's Poll of Polls, which averages the three recent polls of likely voters, Obama has a nine-point advantage - 51%-42% - over the Republican nominee in New Hampshire, a state where Romney heavily campaigned during the primary and continues to court during the general election.
The new WMUR poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday, a period of time that included Rep. Paul Ryan's trip to the state Saturday - his second such visit in as many weeks. The GOP vice presidential nominee acknowledged the importance of the first-in-the-nation primary state and laid out what's at stake in this election.
"You've had presidential candidates in your kitchens. You're used to this, but that's why you know the responsibility you have," Ryan told the crowd at a rally in Derry, located 15 miles from the border of Massachusetts, a state Romney governed from 2003 to 2007.
New Hampshire will also see a high-profile figure from the Democratic side, as well, this week. Former President Bill Clinton hits the trail for the current president on Wednesday. Obama, however, is not scheduled to be at the Granite State event, as it falls on the same day as the first presidential debate.
The University of New Hampshire interviewed 600 likely voters by telephone between September 27 and September 30. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
- CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser and CNN Political Producer Shawna Shepherd contributed to this report. ||||| October 2, 2012 - Women Give Obama An Edge Over Romney, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds Likely Voters Pick President To Win Debate 2-1
Clip Information and Download:
FLV File - For Website (1920x1080 / 66.3MB)
Original .MP4 File - For Broadcast (1920x1080 / 72.1MB)
An 18 point lead among women puts President Barack Obama ahead of Gov. Mitt Romney 49 - 45 percent among likely voters nationwide, and voters expect 54 - 28 percent that the president will win the debates, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
The president leads 56 - 38 percent among women and 94 - 2 percent among black voters, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Men back Romney 52 - 42 percent while white voters back the Republican 53 - 42 percent.
Independent voters are divided with 47 percent for Romney and 45 percent for Obama.
American likely voters say 60 - 25 percent that the federal government would make progress addressing the nation's problems if one party controls the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Voters dislike the Democratic Party less than they dislike the Republican Party, giving the Democrats a negative 45 - 49 percent favorability rating, compared to a negative 41 - 52 percent for the Republicans.
"President Barack Obama won only about 43 percent of the white vote in 2008, so his current standing among whites tracks his earlier winning performance," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "If the president can match or exceed his 2008 showing among whites it will be difficult to impossible for Romney to win.
"It is also very difficult to win an election when you are getting shellacked among women, the group that makes up about half the electorate."
"Historically, voters have preferred divided government in the belief that one side can keep the other in line, but these numbers may indicate that the public is fed up with gridlock in Washington," said Brown.
The economy is the most important issue in this election, 50 percent of American likely voters say, while 17 percent list health care, followed by 13 percent who cite the budget deficit and 7 percent who point to national security.
The candidates are even on who would do a better job on the economy, with 48 percent of voters betting on Obama and 47 percent picking Romney.
Romney would do a better job on the budget deficit, voters say 52 - 42 percent.
Obama leads on every other issue: 50 - 45 percent on health care, 50 - 44 percent on national security, 52 - 43 percent on handling an international crisis.
If they or a family member were at risk of violence in a foreign country, American likely voters say 50 - 45 percent they would want Obama in the White House.
"Some critical keys to the president's lead are that Romney has not convinced voters that he would do a better job on the economy," Brown said. "Romney is more trusted to address the budget deficit, but Obama is the choice to handle other major problems - and the go-to guy if you or a family member is in danger overseas."
Obama cares about their needs and problems, voters say 60 - 38 percent. Romney doesn't care, voters say 51 - 46 percent.
Among likely voters, 93 percent say they plan to watch the presidential debates, but 86 percent say they do not expect the candidates to say anything that would change their mind.
"Voters clearly are interested in the debates but skeptical that the events will make them reconsider their voting preference," said Brown.
"The best news for Romney going into the debates is that voters have very low expectations for him and therefore the bar for him to change some minds is set lower than it is for the president."
From September 25 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,912 likely voters nationwide, with margin of error of +/- 2.2 percent. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research.
For individual statewide crosstabs and trends visit - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2881.xml or call (203) 582-5201.
1. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more toward Obama or Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 49% 7% 94% 45% 42% 56% 42% 94% Romney 45 91 5 47 52 38 53 2 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - - 4 3 1 2 1 DK/NA 4 2 2 5 3 5 3 3 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 50% 36% 32% 36% 35% 49% 18% 43% Romney 45 57 63 60 59 46 77 53 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 DK/NA 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 54% 46% 56% 49% 48% 48% 62% 49% 46% Romney 41 48 37 44 48 49 30 46 51 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 3 3 3 2 2 6 2 1 DK/NA 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 3 3
1a. (If candidate chosen q1) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?
LIKELY VOTERS....... CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q1 Tot Obama Romney Mind made up 95% 94% 95% Might change 5 5 4 DK/NA 1 - 1
2. Is your opinion of Mitt Romney favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Favorable 45% 88% 6% 46% 51% 38% 52% 5% Unfavorable 48 7 88 45 42 55 42 83 Hvn't hrd enough 5 3 5 7 5 5 4 10 REFUSED 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Favorable 48% 55% 62% 57% 58% 46% 74% 53% Unfavorable 47 38 32 36 36 49 20 40 Hvn't hrd enough 3 5 4 6 5 4 4 5 REFUSED 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Favorable 43% 46% 35% 45% 48% 48% 32% 44% 50% Unfavorable 51 46 57 47 46 48 61 48 44 Hvn't hrd enough 4 6 7 7 5 2 6 6 5 REFUSED 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
3. Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Favorable 50% 7% 94% 46% 43% 57% 42% 96% Unfavorable 47 90 5 49 54 40 55 4 Hvn't hrd enough 1 1 - 2 1 1 1 - REFUSED 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 - WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Favorable 51% 37% 33% 37% 36% 50% 18% 44% Unfavorable 47 59 63 60 61 47 78 54 Hvn't hrd enough 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 REFUSED 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Favorable 54% 47% 57% 49% 48% 48% 63% 49% 46% Unfavorable 43 49 39 47 50 50 34 47 51 Hvn't hrd enough 1 2 2 3 1 - 2 1 1 REFUSED 2 2 3 1 1 3 - 3 2
4. (If Obama q1) Would you describe your support for Barack Obama as strongly favoring him, or do you like him but with reservations, or do you support him because you dislike Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.... OBAMA Q1......... Tot Men Wom Strongly favor 74% 68% 79% Like/Reservations 21 25 17 Dislike Romney 5 6 4 DK/NA - - -
5. (If Romney q1) Would you describe your support for Mitt Romney as strongly favoring him, or do you like him but with reservations, or do you support him because you dislike Barack Obama?
LIKELY VOTERS.... ROMNEY Q1........ Tot Men Wom Strongly favor 60% 57% 65% Like/Reservations 21 22 20 Dislike Obama 17 20 12 DK/NA 2 1 2
6. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Approve 48% 7% 93% 44% 42% 55% 41% 94% Disapprove 49 92 5 52 56 41 56 4 DK/NA 3 1 2 5 3 4 3 2 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Approve 48% 36% 33% 36% 34% 48% 19% 43% Disapprove 48 61 64 61 63 48 78 55 DK/NA 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Approve 52% 47% 55% 48% 46% 47% 60% 48% 45% Disapprove 44 51 41 47 52 51 36 50 52 DK/NA 4 3 4 4 1 2 4 2 3
7. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in the nation today; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Very satisfied 9% 4% 19% 6% 8% 10% 6% 30% Smwht satisfied 28 4 53 26 24 33 25 48 Smwht dissatisfied 18 14 18 23 18 18 19 18 Very dissatisfied 43 77 9 45 48 38 49 4 DK/NA 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 - WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Very satisfied 5% 6% 4% 7% 4% 7% 4% 7% Smwht satisfied 32 21 20 23 21 29 9 26 Smwht dissatisfied 21 18 18 17 19 20 15 20 Very dissatisfied 41 53 57 52 54 43 71 46 DK/NA 1 1 2 - 2 1 1 1 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Very satisfied 5% 11% 11% 10% 8% 6% 11% 9% 9% Smwht satisfied 34 25 32 27 28 30 38 27 26 Smwht dissatisfied 20 17 18 20 19 19 26 19 15 Very dissatisfied 40 45 38 42 45 44 24 44 49 DK/NA 1 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 1
8. Is your opinion of the Republican Party favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about it?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Favorable 41% 89% 5% 38% 45% 37% 47% 8% Unfavorable 52 9 90 53 49 55 47 85 Hvn't hrd enough 4 1 4 4 3 5 3 5 REFUSED 3 1 1 4 3 3 3 2 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Favorable 41% 52% 55% 56% 52% 43% 68% 49% Unfavorable 55 42 37 39 43 51 24 46 Hvn't hrd enough 1 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 REFUSED 2 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Favorable 38% 44% 34% 41% 45% 43% 31% 41% 45% Unfavorable 56 49 59 51 51 52 63 53 49 Hvn't hrd enough 4 4 6 4 3 2 5 3 3 REFUSED 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3
9. Is your opinion of the Democratic Party favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about it?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Favorable 45% 7% 91% 37% 38% 52% 38% 88% Unfavorable 49 89 7 53 56 42 56 9 Hvn't hrd enough 3 3 1 4 3 3 2 2 REFUSED 3 1 1 5 3 3 3 1 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Favorable 45% 34% 31% 34% 31% 46% 18% 40% Unfavorable 50 61 64 62 63 49 79 56 Hvn't hrd enough 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 REFUSED 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 3 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Favorable 48% 43% 52% 45% 43% 43% 50% 43% 45% Unfavorable 46 51 41 51 53 50 44 50 50 Hvn't hrd enough 3 3 3 2 3 2 5 3 2 REFUSED 3 3 4 2 1 4 2 4 3
10. Thinking about the major problems facing this country today do you think Washington is more likely to make progress on them after the 2012 election if one party controls the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, or if control of the White House, the Senate, and the House and Representatives is divided between the parties?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk One party controls 60% 68% 61% 57% 64% 56% 63% 50% Control divided 25 20 26 25 23 27 23 31 DK/NA 15 12 13 17 13 17 14 20 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No One party controls 68% 59% 62% 62% 66% 58% 61% 61% Control divided 20 25 24 25 21 26 24 27 DK/NA 12 16 14 12 13 16 15 12 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ One party controls 67% 56% 50% 63% 64% 68% 57% 62% 61% Control divided 22 27 32 24 23 24 30 25 22 DK/NA 11 17 19 14 12 8 12 13 16
11. In deciding who you would like to see elected President this year, which one of the following issues will be most important to you, national security, the economy, health care, the budget deficit, taxes, immigration, or something else?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk National security 7% 8% 3% 7% 6% 7% 7% 3% The economy 50 55 47 49 53 47 51 45 Health care 17 7 30 14 14 20 15 33 The budget deficit 13 17 5 17 15 10 14 5 Taxes 3 2 6 1 2 4 3 7 Immigration 1 2 - 1 1 2 1 - Something else 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 2 DK/NA 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 4 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No National security 5% 8% 8% 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% The economy 52 51 48 57 55 48 49 54 Health care 15 16 14 14 11 20 12 14 The budget deficit 16 12 18 10 16 11 19 12 Taxes 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 4 Immigration 1 1 1 2 - 2 1 1 Something else 8 7 6 7 8 6 8 5 DK/NA 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ National security 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 4% 7% 6% 7% The economy 52 49 42 53 54 55 45 53 50 Health care 15 19 27 17 13 12 19 14 20 The budget deficit 15 12 10 11 13 16 13 13 13 Taxes 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 Immigration 1 1 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 Something else 8 6 8 4 7 8 13 8 5 DK/NA 2 2 2 2 1 1 - 2 3
12. Compared to past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of enthusiasm about voting in this year's presidential election; are you more enthusiastic than usual, less enthusiastic, or about the same as usual?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk More 44% 55% 41% 39% 47% 41% 42% 58% Less 14 12 10 20 13 16 15 11 About the same 41 33 49 40 39 43 43 31 DK/NA 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No More 38% 44% 42% 45% 46% 38% 48% 41% Less 15 14 16 13 14 16 17 13 About the same 46 41 41 42 40 46 35 45 DK/NA - 1 - - 1 - - - COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ More 38% 47% 45% 48% 42% 39% 41% 45% 44% Less 16 14 15 14 15 15 16 15 14 About the same 45 39 39 38 43 45 41 40 42 DK/NA - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 -
13. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on - the economy, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 48% 6% 92% 43% 42% 54% 40% 93% Romney 47 91 4 51 54 40 55 2 DK/NA 5 2 3 7 4 7 5 5 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 48% 35% 31% 35% 35% 46% 17% 40% Romney 48 59 64 61 61 48 79 55 DK/NA 4 6 5 4 4 6 4 5 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 52% 45% 56% 47% 46% 47% 60% 47% 44% Romney 44 49 37 50 49 51 34 48 51 DK/NA 4 6 8 3 5 2 5 5 5
14. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on - health care, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 50% 8% 93% 48% 45% 56% 44% 93% Romney 45 88 4 46 50 39 51 6 DK/NA 5 4 2 6 5 5 5 1 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 52% 39% 34% 38% 38% 50% 19% 44% Romney 44 55 60 58 56 45 75 52 DK/NA 4 6 6 4 6 5 6 4 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 55% 48% 59% 51% 48% 49% 67% 50% 46% Romney 41 47 35 44 50 48 30 47 48 DK/NA 4 5 7 5 3 3 3 3 5
15. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on - national security, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 50% 7% 92% 48% 43% 57% 43% 91% Romney 44 87 4 46 51 37 51 3 DK/NA 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 5 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 51% 38% 33% 39% 37% 50% 21% 43% Romney 44 56 61 58 58 44 72 53 DK/NA 5 6 7 4 6 6 7 4 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 54% 48% 60% 50% 47% 49% 63% 51% 46% Romney 40 47 33 46 48 48 32 44 48 DK/NA 5 6 7 4 5 3 5 5 5
16. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job - handling an international crisis, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 52% 11% 94% 49% 46% 59% 46% 93% Romney 43 84 4 45 50 35 50 3 DK/NA 5 5 2 6 5 5 5 4 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 54% 41% 35% 41% 39% 53% 21% 47% Romney 43 54 59 56 56 42 74 49 DK/NA 4 5 6 3 4 5 5 4 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 57% 50% 60% 52% 52% 51% 71% 50% 48% Romney 39 45 34 43 46 46 25 45 47 DK/NA 4 5 6 5 2 3 4 5 4
17. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on - the budget deficit, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 42% 5% 83% 38% 37% 48% 35% 87% Romney 52 92 11 56 58 45 59 10 DK/NA 6 3 6 6 5 7 6 3 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 42% 31% 25% 32% 30% 41% 15% 35% Romney 54 62 68 63 65 53 80 60 DK/NA 4 7 7 4 5 7 5 6 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 44% 41% 50% 41% 41% 40% 54% 41% 40% Romney 51 53 40 53 56 56 42 54 54 DK/NA 5 6 9 5 3 4 4 5 6
18. If you or a family member were at risk of violence in a foreign country, who would you want in the White House Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Obama 50% 7% 93% 46% 44% 56% 43% 90% Romney 45 90 3 46 51 38 52 4 DK/NA 6 3 3 8 6 6 6 6 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Obama 49% 39% 34% 36% 37% 49% 20% 43% Romney 45 56 60 60 58 45 75 53 DK/NA 6 6 7 4 6 6 6 4 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Obama 53% 48% 59% 50% 47% 47% 64% 49% 47% Romney 41 47 33 46 49 49 32 46 48 DK/NA 6 5 8 4 3 4 4 5 5
19. Would you say that - Barack Obama cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Yes 60% 23% 94% 58% 55% 64% 54% 94% No 38 73 4 40 43 34 44 5 DK/NA 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Yes 64% 47% 47% 49% 49% 58% 35% 55% No 34 51 51 49 48 40 62 44 DK/NA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Yes 65% 56% 64% 59% 59% 62% 68% 62% 55% No 32 42 33 39 39 37 30 36 43 DK/NA 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2
20. Would you say that - Mitt Romney cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Yes 46% 85% 11% 47% 50% 41% 53% 5% No 51 9 86 51 46 56 44 90 DK/NA 3 5 3 2 3 3 3 5 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Yes 49% 54% 62% 60% 57% 48% 77% 53% No 48 42 35 38 40 50 20 45 DK/NA 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Yes 46% 46% 34% 44% 50% 53% 33% 46% 50% No 52 50 63 53 48 46 65 51 46 DK/NA 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 4
21. Would you describe the state of the nation's economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Excellent - - 1% 1% - 1% - 2% Good 17 5 31 17 17 18 13 39 Not so good 38 22 56 36 35 42 37 49 Poor 43 73 12 46 47 40 49 9 DK/NA - - 1 - - - - 1 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Excellent - - - - - - - - Good 16 12 10 11 13 14 7 13 Not so good 44 33 36 37 34 40 27 40 Poor 40 55 54 51 53 45 66 47 DK/NA - - - - - - - - COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Excellent - 1% - - - - 1% - - Good 18 17 21 16 18 17 20 17 16 Not so good 43 36 35 41 38 42 51 37 36 Poor 39 46 44 43 44 41 27 46 47 DK/NA - - - 1 - - - - 1
22. Do you think the nation's economy is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Better 39% 7% 75% 36% 37% 42% 33% 79% Worse 34 62 7 35 35 33 39 6 The same 26 30 18 29 27 24 28 15 DK/NA 1 - - - - 1 - - WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Better 41% 28% 25% 29% 31% 36% 14% 35% Worse 29 45 47 39 40 38 60 36 The same 30 26 28 30 29 26 26 28 DK/NA 1 - - 1 - 1 - - COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Better 44% 37% 40% 41% 39% 41% 48% 39% 37% Worse 28 38 34 35 33 32 22 36 37 The same 28 25 25 24 28 26 30 25 25 DK/NA - - 1 - - - - - 1
23. Compared with four years ago, is the United States better off today, worse off today, or about the same?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Better off 40% 7% 75% 36% 35% 44% 34% 76% Worse off 45 85 7 47 49 40 51 5 About the same 15 8 17 16 15 15 15 17 DK/NA 1 - - 1 1 - - 2 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Better off 43% 28% 24% 28% 30% 38% 14% 32% Worse off 44 55 59 59 55 46 73 51 About the same 12 17 17 13 15 15 13 16 DK/NA 1 - - - - 1 1 - COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Better off 46% 36% 42% 39% 38% 44% 53% 38% 36% Worse off 41 47 38 45 47 47 27 48 49 About the same 12 17 21 15 15 8 20 13 15 DK/NA 1 - - - - - - 1 -
24. Compared with four years ago, are you and your family better off today, worse off today, or about the same?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Better off 25% 6% 40% 26% 23% 27% 20% 50% Worse off 34 55 11 37 36 32 38 6 About the same 41 39 47 37 41 40 41 43 DK/NA - - 1 - - 1 1 1 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Better off 25% 17% 15% 16% 19% 22% 11% 19% Worse off 28 45 43 41 40 36 51 38 About the same 46 37 41 42 41 40 38 42 DK/NA - 1 - - - 1 - - COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Better off 28% 23% 19% 23% 26% 33% 43% 26% 18% Worse off 27 38 39 35 33 26 24 34 37 About the same 44 39 40 41 41 41 32 39 45 DK/NA - 1 1 - - - 1 - -
25. If Barack Obama is reelected, do you think his economic policies would help your personal financial situation, hurt your personal financial situation, or won't make a difference?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Help 28% 4% 58% 23% 24% 32% 21% 72% Hurt 41 77 6 42 46 35 47 3 No difference 30 17 34 33 29 31 30 25 DK/NA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Help 23% 20% 18% 19% 16% 26% 10% 23% Hurt 42 50 55 52 53 40 66 47 No difference 34 28 25 27 29 31 20 29 DK/NA 1 3 3 2 2 3 4 1 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Help 25% 29% 38% 28% 28% 19% 34% 30% 24% Hurt 38 42 32 40 43 46 29 44 43 No difference 35 26 29 29 28 34 37 25 31 DK/NA 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3
26. If Mitt Romney is elected, do you think his economic policies would help your personal financial situation, hurt your personal financial situation, or won't make a difference?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Help 35% 70% 6% 36% 40% 30% 39% 2% Hurt 33 4 66 28 30 37 28 64 No difference 29 23 25 34 28 29 29 32 DK/NA 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Help 35% 42% 45% 46% 44% 34% 51% 42% Hurt 33 25 22 25 25 32 13 29 No difference 30 28 29 27 28 30 32 26 DK/NA 2 4 4 2 3 4 4 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Help 33% 36% 26% 36% 34% 46% 21% 37% 38% Hurt 35 32 40 34 35 26 36 32 34 No difference 30 28 30 27 28 28 41 27 25 DK/NA 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 4 3
27. If Barack Obama is re-elected President, do you think the policies of his administration will favor the rich, favor the middle class, favor the poor, or will they treat all groups the same?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Favor the rich 9% 12% 3% 10% 10% 8% 11% 4% Favor middle class 27 8 48 26 25 30 24 42 Favor the poor 31 59 7 33 35 26 34 10 Treat all the same 26 11 39 23 22 29 23 41 DK/NA 7 11 2 7 7 7 8 4 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Favor the rich 5% 14% 11% 8% 11% 10% 14% 10% Favor middle class 31 20 21 22 21 28 13 24 Favor the poor 35 34 37 42 39 29 42 37 Treat all the same 23 24 20 21 20 26 18 22 DK/NA 6 8 11 7 8 7 13 7 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Favor the rich 6% 11% 12% 13% 7% 6% 9% 9% 10% Favor middle class 33 24 28 26 28 29 35 29 24 Favor the poor 32 30 19 30 35 37 29 31 32 Treat all the same 23 27 35 23 24 21 27 25 26 DK/NA 6 8 6 8 6 7 1 7 8
28. If Mitt Romney is elected President, do you think the policies of his administration will favor the rich, favor the middle class, favor the poor, or will they treat all groups the same?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Favor the rich 55% 14% 93% 54% 51% 60% 50% 91% Favor middle class 9 20 1 7 9 8 10 2 Favor the poor 1 - - 1 1 - 1 - Treat all the same 33 62 4 36 36 29 37 5 DK/NA 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Favor the rich 55% 46% 38% 44% 46% 54% 25% 50% Favor middle class 10 9 10 13 9 10 14 9 Favor the poor - 1 - 1 1 - 3 - Treat all the same 32 41 47 40 41 34 53 39 DK/NA 2 3 4 2 3 2 5 2 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Favor the rich 59% 53% 64% 55% 53% 54% 71% 56% 50% Favor middle class 10 8 7 8 10 10 11 8 9 Favor the poor - 1 3 - 1 - 3 1 - Treat all the same 29 35 23 34 34 35 14 33 38 DK/NA 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3
29. Who do you blame more for the current condition of the U.S. economy, former President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Bush 50% 10% 91% 47% 44% 57% 45% 88% Obama 42 80 6 44 47 36 47 7 DK/NA 8 10 4 9 9 8 8 6 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Bush 51% 41% 34% 40% 38% 52% 22% 45% Obama 40 51 56 50 53 41 66 48 DK/NA 9 8 10 10 9 7 11 8 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Bush 54% 48% 58% 53% 47% 49% 55% 49% 49% Obama 37 44 35 41 43 44 32 42 45 DK/NA 8 8 7 6 9 8 13 9 6
30. Which comes closer to your view, Government should do more to solve national problems or government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Should do more 40% 14% 70% 38% 37% 44% 37% 65% Doing too much 52 83 22 56 58 47 57 23 DK/NA 7 4 9 6 5 9 6 11 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Should do more 43% 33% 29% 27% 33% 41% 21% 34% Doing too much 51 61 65 69 61 53 74 61 DK/NA 6 6 6 4 5 7 5 5 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Should do more 46% 38% 45% 40% 41% 40% 58% 38% 37% Doing too much 47 56 45 54 54 56 40 56 54 DK/NA 7 7 10 5 5 4 2 6 9
31. Do you plan on watching any of the upcoming presidential debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Yes 93% 92% 95% 94% 93% 93% 92% 99% No 6 5 4 6 6 5 6 1 DK/NA 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 - WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Yes 94% 92% 92% 95% 92% 93% 92% 94% No 5 7 6 5 7 5 7 5 DK/NA 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Yes 94% 93% 94% 91% 93% 95% 97% 93% 91% No 5 6 5 8 6 3 3 7 6 DK/NA 1 1 1 2 1 1 - - 2
32. Do you think the candidates are likely to do or say anything during the debates that would make you change your mind about who to vote for?
LIKELY VOTERS.............................................. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Yes 11% 6% 9% 16% 10% 12% 9% 14% No 86 92 89 81 87 85 88 83 DK/NA 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 WHITE.............................................. COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No Yes 11% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 8% 10% No 87 88 88 87 89 87 90 87 DK/NA 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME... AGE IN YRS....... Yes No <30K 30-50 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ Yes 13% 10% 9% 12% 11% 11% 14% 13% 8% No 85 86 85 86 86 88 84 84 89 DK/NA 2 3 5 2 3 1 2 3 3
33. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think will win the debates, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? ||||| President Obama holds a 73-21 percent lead over Mitt Romney among Latino voters, a new high-water mark for the president.
The new 52-point margin represents a high watermark for Obama in the weekly tracking poll from Latino Decisions, and is a significant jump from the 65-26 percent advantage he held six weeks ago.
Romney has failed to make inroads despite a push at the GOP convention to highlight Hispanic Republicans, while Latino voters who have tuned in during the period shortly before and since the conventions have mostly gravitated towards Obama.
ADVERTISEMENT
Obama is polling a higher percentage in the poll than the 67 percent of the Latino vote he won four years ago, when GOP presidential nominee Sen.(R-Ariz.) won 31 percent, according to exit polls.
Romney himself said at a private fundraiser earlier this year that his campaign was "doomed" if it couldn't make inroads with Hispanic voters, who make up a significant — and fast-growing — chunk of the population in key swing states including Florida, Nevada and Colorado.
A Romney campaign official told The Hill in August that the campaign's goal was to win 38 percent of the Hispanic vote, though a Romney surrogate later said that figure might be for the swing states, not nationally.
One thin silver lining for Romney: He trails Obama by a less daunting 61 to 33 percent in the swing states, according to a six-week average of the Latino Decisions polls. Those figures skew towards him because of his strong standing with Cuban-American voters in Florida, pollster Matt Barreto told The Hill.
"The swing state number is heavily influenced by Romney's standing among Cuban Americans," Barreto told The Hill. "He's definitely doing well among Cuban Americans — that's his only group amongst Latinos."
||||| Mia Love, who would be the first black female Republican in Congress, is leading Democratic Utah Rep. Jim Matheson in a poll released late Monday.
Love leads Matheson 49 percent to 43 percent, according to a Deseret News/KSL poll. Eight percent are undecided.
Text Size -
+
reset
Matheson is Utah’s only Democratic House member but was drawn into a Republican-heavy district in redistricting, opening up a chance for Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, to challenge him.
Last week, Love released internal polling showing her up 51 percent to 36 percent. The poll released Monday, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, contacted 414 residents of the 4th District. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. ||||| 1 year ago
(CNN) - A new poll released Monday in the battleground state of North Carolina shows Republican nominee Mitt Romney with a four point advantage over President Barack Obama.
The American Research Group survey taken over the weekend indicates Romney with 50% to Obama's 46% among likely voters' choice for president. Romney's advantage is within the poll's sampling error.
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
– Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.
Another recent poll in the state conducted by NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist released last week shows Obama with a slight advantage over Romney 48%-46%, also within the poll's sampling error.
In 2008, Obama narrowly won the swing state becoming the first Democrat to win North Carolina since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
This election season, President Obama has visited the state seven times since June 2011, not including his party's convention in Charlotte in early September.
Romney has visited the state four times for public events and three for private events since announcing his candidacy last June.
North Carolina has 15 electoral votes and is one of nine states CNN considers a "toss up" on its Electoral Map.
The American Research Group survey was taken by telephone from September 28-30 among 600 likely voters. The poll's sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.
CNN's Paul Steinhauser and Dana Davidsen contributed to this report. | President Obama still holds a small lead over Mitt Romney, and it's thanks entirely to his popularity with women and minorities, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. The poll has Obama ahead 49% to 45% overall, but his support among women is especially strong at 56% to 38%, and his support among blacks is nearly unanimous at 94% to 2%. Men and whites, by contrast, back Romney 52% to 42% and 53% to 42%, respectively. In other polling news: Voters expect Obama will win the presidential debates by a margin of 54% to 28%. Obama's numbers among Latinos have hit an all-time high; a Latino Decisions tracking poll has him up 73% to 21%, the Hill reports. Romney's "47%" comment has hurt him badly, a Pew poll finds: 67% of voters are aware of the gaffe, and 55% of those people reacted negatively, compared to only 23% who approved of the comments. In individual state polling, CNN reports that Obama is crushing Romney in New Hampshire, while Romney has opened a slim lead in North Carolina. Moody's latest projection has Obama winning 303 electoral votes, and that's after accounting for what it calls the "grumpy voter effect" in states with a jobless rate above 8%. In down-ballot news, Claire McCaskill is up 9% over Todd Akin, the Kansas City Star reports, while Politico notes that Mia Love is ahead in her bid to be the first black female Republican in Congress. |
Abstract Though beliefs in Heaven and Hell are related, they are associated with different personality characteristics and social phenomena. Here we present three studies measuring Heaven and Hell beliefs' associations with and impact on subjective well-being. We find that a belief in Heaven is consistently associated with greater happiness and life satisfaction while a belief in Hell is associated with lower happiness and life satisfaction at the national (Study 1) and individual (Study 2) level. An experimental priming study (Study 3) suggests that these differences are mainly driven by the negative emotional impact of Hell beliefs. Possible cultural evolutionary explanations for the persistence of such a distressing religious concept are discussed.
Citation: Shariff AF, Aknin LB (2014) The Emotional Toll of Hell: Cross-National and Experimental Evidence for the Negative Well-Being Effects of Hell Beliefs. PLoS ONE 9(1): e85251. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085251 Editor: Pablo Branas-Garza, Middlesex University London, United Kingdom Received: August 21, 2013; Accepted: November 24, 2013; Published: January 22, 2014 Copyright: © 2014 Shariff, Aknin. 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 funding or support to report. Competing interests: The first author is a recipient of grant money from the John Templeton Foundation for other projects unrelated to this one. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction Though the psychology of religion has tended to treat religion as a single construct, evolutionary theories of religion have argued that religion is instead a multifaceted family category – comprised of different beliefs, teachings and rituals that have emerged for different reasons at different times, to serve different cultural purposes. ‘Religion’ is many things. Supporting this argument, new evidence demonstrates that these different aspects of religions have systematically distinct psychological effects. For example, recent research has explored the divergent impact of benevolent aspects of religion, such as beliefs in Heaven and comforting, forgiving gods, versus more malevolent religious beliefs, such as those in Hell and punitive supernatural agents [1]–[2]. Compared to the benevolent aspects, supernatural malevolence has been found to be associated with stronger rule-following and group coordination at the national level. For instance, in developing countries (where secular institutions tend to be weaker), a higher proportion of citizens who believe in Hell is associated with higher GDP growth [3]. Similarly, controlling for the belief in heaven as well as obvious third variables such as wealth and wealth inequality, a higher rate of belief in hell is associated with lower national crime rates [2]. These studies suggest that belief in supernatural punishment may curb unethical behavior, allowing for greater social stability and economic success. However, belief in supernatural malevolence may not be without its costs. Research has shown that people with more malevolent views of God tend to report lower self-esteem, psychological coping and health resiliency [4]–[5]. Thus, beliefs in religious malevolence may have emotional costs, even as they have norm-following benefits. Here we present three studies testing the divergent emotional correlates and consequences of Heaven and Hell beliefs. Specifically, we examine whether these beliefs differentially affect subjective well-being. Although religiosity is consistently tied to greater well-being [6]–[7], little research has examined which elements of religious belief offer mood benefits, which do not, and which may in fact be detrimental. In Study 1, we used a similar method as Shariff & Rhemtulla [2] to measure the relationship between Heaven and Hell belief and subjective well-being at the cross-national level. In Study 2, we used data from the World Values Survey [8] to test these relationships at the individual level. In Study 3, we used an experimental priming method to test the causal relationships between Heaven and Hell beliefs and subjective well-being. We note that this exploration diverges from the growing literature examining the relationship between religion and well-being. Over the past several years, scholars from various disciplines, such as sociology [7], psychology [9], and economics [10], have explored the relationship between religious beliefs and happiness. Results typically reveal that religious beliefs are associated with greater well-being [6], [11]–[14]. Although this existing work makes great strides in assessing the impact of widespread religious beliefs with large-scale data sets, the present paper offers two important theoretical extensions. First, the present work examines the well-being consequences of specific religious beliefs. While past work has explored the outcomes associated with broad religious devotion or participation, it has not tested the impact of religious belief, let alone parsed belief into malevolent and benevolent components. Given the divergent effects of these two sides of religious belief cited in the literature above, and its important theoretical implications for understanding the origins and functions of the various facets of religions, we examine the impact of two widely recognized religious ideas: heaven and hell. Second, the present work presents one of the first direct experimental investigations of the consequences of such malevolent and benevolent concepts (Study 3), which, hitherto have been primarily examined with correlational designs [1], [2], [10].
Study 2: Large-scale correlational study Using the WVS and EVS, we measured the association between life satisfaction and Heaven/Hell belief, again controlling for a number of associated variables. Materials and Methods All variables were drawn from the same waves of the WVS and EVS as were used in the first study. Here, though, individuals' responses (n = 257, 597) were used, rather than aggregating data into a national average. Because individuals living in the same country may respond to survey questions in a similar way, we used multi-level modeling to account for the possibility of within-country dependence. Heaven belief, Hell belief, God belief and religious attendance were the same as those used in Study 1. The dependent measure, subjective well-being, was assessed using a life satisfaction item (a170) asking “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? Using this card on which 1 means you are “completely dissatisfied” and 10 means you are “completely satisfied” where would you put your satisfaction with your life as a whole?” Belief in God (f050), Religious Attendance (f028), Age (×003), Age-squared, Sex (dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female; ×001), Education Level (×025), relative Income Level (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3-high; ×047r), Self-reported importance of friends (1 = Not at all important, to 4 = Very important, a002) and Self-reported importance of family (1 = Not at all important, to 4 = Very important, a001) were also included as covariates. The fitted model equation was
where are fixed effects representing the mean intercept and regression coefficients at the individual (within-country) level, and , and , are a random intercept and random effects of heaven and hell. The variance of these random effects ( , and ) reveal the variability of the individual-level effects across countries. The software package lme4 in R was used to run the model [28]–[29]. Results Fixed effects analyses reveal the extent to which heaven beliefs and hell beliefs predict life satisfaction at the individual level (within countries), controlling for the effects of age, sex, relative income, religious attendance, and belief in god. Mirroring the pattern of results seen in Study 1, the belief in Heaven is associated with greater life satisfaction ( = .25, p<.001), but the belief in Hell is associated with less ( = −.28, p<.001) (See Table 3). While our focus was on the impact of heaven and hell beliefs on life satisfaction across countries, we note that random effects analyses did reveal that this relationship varied little for heaven beliefs ( = .01) and a small to moderate amount for hell beliefs ( = .15). PPT PowerPoint slide
PowerPoint slide PNG larger image ( )
larger image ( ) TIFF original image ( ) Download: Table 3. Predicting individual subjective well-being from heaven and hell beliefs in Study 2. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085251.t003 Although our primary interest was examining the relationship between Heaven beliefs, Hell beliefs, and well-being with the equation above, we also explored whether these relationships varied depending on a respondent's religious denomination. To do so, we categorized respondents by their reported religious affiliation into either (a) the Abrahamic tradition (e.g. Roman Catholic, Sunni Muslim; n = 180,843) or (b) the non-Abrahamic religion (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism; n = 22,193). To test whether Heaven and Hell beliefs' relationship with well-being interacted with membership to these meta-religious groups, we conducted a new analysis with belief in hell (centered), belief in heaven (centered), whether the respondent adhered to an Abrahamic religion (dummy coded, −1 = no, 1 = yes), and the interaction terms (Hell belief X Abrahamic, Heaven belief X Abrahamic) entered into the fitted model, along with the same covariates from the main analysis above, all predicting well-being. The new model equation was:
Analyses revealed that the observed relationship between Heaven beliefs and Hell beliefs did not vary by respondents' religious denomination. Indeed, the non-significant interaction terms indicate that the emotional correlates of heaven and hell beliefs are similar for Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religious believers ( = .05, p = 0.33; = −.06, p = 0.19), while the Heaven and Hell beliefs remained significant predictors of well-being. Thus, these results suggest that the divergent effect of Heaven and Hell beliefs on well-being does not differ between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic adherents. These findings complement the pattern seen in Study 1; Heaven and Hell beliefs have sizable, but divergent effects on well-being. The individual-level effects of belief in Heaven and Hell on happiness in this study are smaller here than the country-level effects in Study 1. However, the individual-level values are larger or comparable in size to other important predictors of life satisfaction, such as education level ( = .03, p<.001) and sex ( = .21, p<.001), though smaller than the effect of income ( = 0.54, p<.001). Though we tried to discount obvious third variable explanations in Studies 1 and 2, both use correlational designs, which are limited in their ability to determine causation. While we suggest that a belief in Hell leads to lower levels of well-being, these data cannot rule out the possibility that individuals with low levels of well-being are more likely to adopt the belief in Hell or that some third variable is responsible for this pattern. Furthermore, even if the causal direction does run from Heaven and Hell beliefs to well-being, the correlational results leave open the possibility that these effects might be indirect – operating on intermediary phenomena – rather than direct. For example, Brañas-Garza and colleagues [10] have similarly used large datasets to show that belief in Heaven is more tightly related to religious practice and service attendance than is Hell. It is possible that the beliefs in benevolent and malevolent afterlives do not affect well-being directly, but do so via alternative pathways such as religious participation. In order to clarify the specific causal relationships, we conducted Study 3, an experimental priming study in which we assigned participants to think about Heaven, Hell, or a control topic before reporting their current happiness. If Heaven and Hell beliefs have direct and divergent well-being consequences, we should observe happiness differences between participants in these two experimental conditions.
Study 3: Experiment Notice of IRB Review and Approval-Amendment Expedited Review as per Title 45 CFR Part 46.110, 63 FR 60366, # 7, 46.117(c)(2) ?The amendment submitted for the project identified above has been reviewed and approved by the University of Oregon Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Research Compliance Services using an expedited review procedure. This is a minimal risk study. This approval is based on the assumption that the materials, including changes/clarifications that you submitted to the IRB contain a complete and accurate description of all the ways in which human subjects are involved in your research. Methods Four hundred and twenty-two American participants (M age = 28.9, SD = 10.1, Range = 18–71; 53.5% female (not all participants reported their sex and age)) completed a survey on Amazon's Mechanical Turk survey site in exchange for $0.35 each. Fifty-seven percent reported being religious believers, of which 82% were Christian (20.3% Catholic, 52.3% Protestant, 9.3% did not specify), 8% indicated Other, and Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist participants made up the remaining 10%. Unlike the samples from Studies 1 and 2, who were randomly polled across the world, the participants in Study 3 were all self-described American residents who self-selected to participate in Mechanical Turk's set of online tasks for hire, and, in particular, the current study, which was advertised as “Autobiographical Memory and Mood”. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the Hell condition, participants were asked to write 100–200 words about their conception of Hell, including its purpose and description. In the Heaven condition, participants were similarly asked to write about Heaven. In the control condition, which was designed to be neutral and non-religious, participants were asked to write about what they did yesterday. Subsequently, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they were experiencing seven emotions – happiness, sadness, guilt, security, shame, fear and calmness – on a scale from 1 (“Very slightly or not at all”) to 5 (“Extremely”). Finally, participants completed a series of demographic questions, a suspicion probe, questions about their religious beliefs, and a manipulation check, in that order. The suspicion probe revealed that five participants (1% of sample) correctly guessed the hypothesis; these respondents were dropped from analyses, leaving a final sample of 417 participants (including these five participants did not significantly change the pattern of results). A manipulation check queried participants on the degree to which they thought about the primed topics (e.g. “Thinking back to your writing task, to what degree did you focus on the idea of Hell?”) on a scale from 1 (“Very slightly or not at all”) to 5 (“An extreme amount”). The check confirmed that participants in each of the three conditions thought more about the topic they were primed with, than the topics they were not (neutral condition: t(253) = 5.82, p<.001; Hell condition: t(252) = 4.87, p<.001; Heaven condition: t(254) = 3.95, p<.001; The homogeneity of variance (HOV) assumption was violated in these manipulation check analyses (all Levene's test p<.05). Therefore, we present the Welch Test corrected values). Importantly, the manipulation check also confirmed that the degree to which participants reported thinking about their respective primed topic did not differ between conditions (F(2,412) <.25, ns). That is participants who wrote about Hell did not think about Hell more than participants who wrote about Heaven thought about Heaven. This suggests that all three primes were equally engaging and that effects cannot be attributed to artifacts of certain primes being more effective than others. Following Studies 1 and 2, we predicted that participants assigned to think about Heaven would report higher levels of positive emotion and lower levels of negative emotion than those in the control condition. Similarly, we expected participants assigned to think about Hell to report lower levels of positive emotion and higher levels of negative emotion than those in the control condition. Results Individual one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to examine the effect of the priming manipulations on Happiness (F(2, 412) = 6.14, p = .002), Sadness (F(2, 388) = 3.32, p = .037), an aggregated average of the three Positive Emotions minus the four Negative Emotions (F(2, 349) = 4.95 p = .008). Breaking these initial results down with planned contrasts revealed that the emotion differences were driven entirely by the Hell prime. Participants who wrote about Hell reported significantly less happiness and more sadness than those who wrote about Heaven (t happiness (407) = 2.60, p = .010; t sadness (384) = 2.29, p = .023), or those in the neutral writing condition (t happiness (407) = 3.44, p = .001; t sadness (384) = 2.32, p = .021) (see Table 4 for all means and SDs). Notably, and supporting Shariff & Rhemtulla [2] and others' suggestion about the Supernatural Punishment Hypothesis, those writing about Hell also reported more fear than those in the Heaven (t fear (361) = 2.62, p = .009) and control conditions (t fear (361) = 2.63, p = .009). In total, subtracting the average of all negative emotions from the average of all positive emotions, those who wrote about Hell reported more emotional negativity than those in the Heaven (t all_emo (344) = 2.44, p = .015) and control conditions (t all_emo (344) = 3.08, p = .002). Those writing in the Heaven and control conditions did not significantly differ on any of these measures (ts<1.0, ps>.35). PPT PowerPoint slide
PowerPoint slide PNG larger image ( )
larger image ( ) TIFF original image ( ) Download: Table 4. Means and standard deviations for the experimental conditions in Study 3. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085251.t004 What relationship does dispositional religious affiliation have with emotion ratings? Collapsed across condition, those who identified as religious believers reported higher levels of happiness (M = 3.40, SD = 1.07) than those identifying as religious non-believers (M = 3.04, SD = 1.01, t(407) = 3.46, p = .001), replicating a consistent finding regarding the self-reported mood benefits of religious identification [30]. However, there was no significant interaction between religious identification and condition (F(2,198) = .19, p = .824); religious believers and non-believers both showed more emotional negativity when writing about Hell compared to the control condition (t believers (150) = 2.35, p = .02; and t non-believers (190) = 1.99, p = .049). It is notable that reflecting on Hell negatively affected well-being, regardless of whether the participant identified as a religious believer. There are numerous interpretations for this, and it is a ripe avenue for future investigation.
Discussion Three studies showed that heaven and hell beliefs are associated with markedly divergent well-being outcomes. Two large-scale correlational studies conducted with international data sets showed that, controlling for each other, Hell beliefs were associated with lower well-being at the national level and individual level, whereas Heaven beliefs were associated with higher well-being. Furthermore, an experiment using an online sample of Americans shows consistent findings; priming participants with Hell leads to lower levels of positive emotion and higher levels of negative emotion, compared to controls. The results of Study 1 demonstrate that Heaven and Hell beliefs have divergent effects both on the day-to-day affective experiences of joy and sadness, as well as on overall evaluations of life satisfaction, suggesting that religious beliefs might relate to multiple levels of well-being. Similarly, Study 2 replicates the link between heaven and hell beliefs with well-being at the individual level. That said, while Studies 1 and 2 provide compelling evidence for such links, the correlational nature of our investigations preclude causal conclusions regarding the direct impact of either Heaven or Hell beliefs. However, the results of Study 3's suggest that the beliefs do have a causal impact on well-being. It remains possible that the well-being differences between the two types of beliefs seen in Studies 1 and 2 are the result of multiple pathways, Study 3's results support the conclusion that one of these is the direct impact of thinking about Hell. This interpretation should be taken with some caution, though, considering the entirely American and predominantly Christian and non-religious sample. Though Amazon's Mechanical Turk has been shown to be somewhat more representative than undergraduate samples [31], it can by no means be taken to be globally representative. Nevertheless, our finding that certain religious beliefs are consistently related to lower levels of well-being adds nuance to the general finding that religion is tied to greater well-being [30]. Although we replicate this general finding in Study 3, where religious believers reported higher positive affect and lower negative affect than did non-believers, all aspects of religion do not seem to be created equal in this regard. In fact, in our experimental test, neither Hell nor Heaven belief contributed to an increase in mood above what was found in our control condition. Though the heaven writing task likely did not capture the whole spectrum of mood and security benefits that a long-standing belief in heaven may actually afford, the absence of an effect lends support to the possibility that the well-being benefits of religiosity derive from its social aspect, not its beliefs [7] (this hypothesis is further supported by the observation that in our cross-national analyses, after controlling for wealth, wealth inequality and political stability/absence of violence, the rate of religious attendance in a nation emerged as a significant predictor positive predictor of daily experienced well-being (β = .35, p = .040), but the rate of belief in God did not (β = .03, p = .864). Diener, Tay & Myers [9], for instance, showed that religiosity only relates to well-being in those areas with religious majorities. Why Hell? If the belief in Hell has reliably negative effects on well-being, why has it persisted? In the introduction, we cited evidence for the association between Hell beliefs and ethical behavior. Thus, the belief in Hell, and religious malevolence more generally, may contribute to the encouragement of rule following, through the deterrence value of supernatural punishment, but may do so at the cost of well-being. This creates an intriguing trade-off between the interests of the group, which benefit from the ethical behavior of the group's members, and the interest of the individual, who shoulders the emotional costs of a society that follows norms out of fear. From a cultural evolutionary perspective, different societal circumstances could shift the balance of this tradeoff. For example, where rule-following is well organized by secular institutions, supernatural punishment may provide less added value on this front [32]. In these societies, one might expect religions to shift towards a more benevolent tone – especially in a competitive religious market where such a benevolent tone may be more attractive to potential converts than fire, brimstone and other aspects of supernatural malevolence. Future research could investigate this possibility by examining conversion rates among religious sects that differ on these dimensions. In sum, the current findings join a growing literature examining the different psychological impact of different concepts often conflated together as ‘religion’ [2], [33], [34]. Though certain of these religious concepts may be associated with greater well-being, the belief in Hell appears not to be one of them.
Acknowledgments We gratefully thank Mijke Rhemtulla for her comments and consultation on this manuscript. ||||| A new study links believing in hell, and perhaps even thinking about it, with lower levels of happiness and satisfaction in life.
Fire, brimstone, eternal suffering — hell is not a pleasant concept. But research has pointed to the societal benefits of a belief in supernatural punishment, including higher economic growth in developing countries and less crime.
But there are also drawbacks, even in this life. A new study links believing in hell, and perhaps even thinking about it, with lower levels of happiness and satisfaction in life.
"It seems there is this trade-off," said Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon.
In research published in January in PLOS ONE, Shariff and a colleague looked at international survey data to see how belief in heaven and hell affected people's daily emotional states, along with a more long-term measure, life satisfaction. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]
Because many, but not all people believe in both heaven and hell simultaneously, Shariff and Lara Aknin of Simon Frasier University in British Columbia focused on those who believe in one but not the other. In the vast majority of cases, this meant people who believed in heaven unchecked by hell.
Looking at survey data from 63 countries, the researchers found that the more a belief in heaven outstripped a belief in hell in a country, the happier and more satisfied the residents were. When researchers looked at individual responses, they found a similar pattern — people who believe in heaven reported greater satisfaction with life.
The survey data came from the Gallup World Poll, the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey. Of the 63 nations surveyed, Christianity or Islam dominated in all but eight. However, an analysis of individual responses found no meaningful difference in this pattern of belief and life satisfaction between members of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and those of non-Abrahamic religions.
But these studies did not rule out the possibility that miserable people are more inclined to believe in hell — rather than that a belief in hell causes people to be more miserable. To look for evidence of such a causal relationship, the researchers conducted their own survey, asking 422 respondents on Amazon's Mechanical Turk to write about heaven, hell or what they had done the day before; researchers then asked participants to rate the extent to which they were experiencing seven emotions: happiness, sadness, guilt, security, shame, fear and calmness.
It turned out the emotional ratings of those who wrote about heaven did not differ in any meaningful way from those who wrote about the previous day's activities. This suggests that the belief in heaven on its own does not make people happier, Shariff said.
"Religious people tend to be happier, or at least they report they are happier, and that is probably driven by the social aspect of religion," he said. Other research suggests that the social benefits of religion spring from the community and connections to others it provides.
Meanwhile, participants who wrote about hell reported feeling less happiness and more sadness than the others. This was true not only for religious people, but also for nonreligious people.
There are several possible explanations for this hell-sadness link, Shariff said. For instance, because hell is a negative concept, writing about it may prompt negative feelings for that reason alone. It is also possible that thinking about hell prompts nonbelievers to think about what they may face if they are wrong in their nonbelief, he said. Past research by Shariff and Mijke Rehmtulla of the University of Kansas revealed that countries in which residents put more stock in heaven than hell have higher crime rates, and the bigger the gap in belief, the worse the crime. The link, the two researchers say, is likely that belief in supernatural punishment suppresses antisocial behavior and motivates people to cooperate for fear of punishment.
This line of research fits into a larger theory about the evolution of religion that Shariff and others have developed. Historically, religion appears to have been a powerful force in promoting societal rules and fostering trust. However, effective police, courts, contract enforcement and so on allowed secular society to take on much of this responsibility. This shift may have allowed new religions — such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, which emerged in the 19th-century United States — to strike a positive tone that does not emphasize hell, the researchers speculate.
A more positive message could have helped these religions recruit new members, Shariff said.
Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science. | Believers in hell—or just those who think about it—may find themselves less satisfied with life on Earth, a new study suggests. In the study published in PLOS One, researchers in British Columbia investigated data from 63 countries, both on a national scale and an individual one. They compared those who believe only in heaven with those who believe only in hell. The more a country's population leaned toward the former, the happier that country was, LiveScience reports, and individuals who believed in heaven said they were more satisfied with life. The data, however, left open the possibility that people who are already unhappy tend to believe in hell, instead of the other way around. So researchers asked 422 people to write about heaven, hell, or what they did the previous day. Afterward, they were surveyed about their emotions. There wasn't much difference between the reported emotions of those who wrote about heaven and those who described their daily activities. But people who wrote about hell—whether they believed in it or not—reported more sadness. It may be that writing about hell simply makes people less happy; it's also possible that nonbelievers feared they could be wrong, a researcher suggests. |
RS21332 -- The African Union Updated April 30, 2003 The African Union (AU) has its roots in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the African Economic Community (AEC)Treaty of 1991. It came into force in 1994, following ratification by two-thirds of OAU member states. (1) The AEC Treaty set up asix-stage economic integration process leading to the anticipated creation, by 2028, of a common market and a rangeof commonpolitical and economic institutions. Its lengthy implementation schedule, however, meant that the treaty might yieldfew benefits fordecades. This factor, along with increasing calls for a basic restructuring of the purposes, priorities, and organizationof the OAU,ultimately led to its replacement by the AU. Developments in the late 1990s that contributed to the reformmovement included: Increasing support by OAU member states for good governance and its rejection of undemocratic changes ofpower. A loosening of the OAU's adherence to its long-standing doctrine of non-interference by member statesin theaffairs of their peers, including some marked by human rights abuses and undemocratic transfers ofpower. The rising importance of economic liberalization, renewed attention to market-driven economic growth,andglobal trends toward regional economic integration. H.Res. 155 , introduced by Representative Meeks on March 2003, urges that the United States commend the AU'screation and support its diverse economic and political goals. Sirte Summit. In September 1999, a summit of OAU heads of state held in Sirte,Libya assessed and sought to improve the OAU charter. The meeting, held on the 30th anniversary of Libyan leaderMuammaral-Qadhafi's coup d'état, was seen as an effort to extend Libya's growing influence in Africa, and to end itsinternational isolation inthe wake of the Lockerbie airplane bombing. (2) Al-Qadhafi hosted the meeting to press for the creation of a United States of Africa,loosely modeled on the United States. Such a union, he asserted, was needed to further intra-continental economicdevelopment andintegration, and to enable more organic relations to emerge between nations divided by arbitrary, colonial-eraborders. He cited theAEC Treaty as the legal and institutional basis of his proposal, stating that it had fundamentally redefined the OAUCharter, andnoting that it allowed for the creation of a range of common, pan-continental institutions. His proposal, whichechoed 1960s-erapan-Africanist ideas, emphasized a need to resolve and prevent Africa's conflicts through the establishment ofcommon defenseinstitutions. Summit participants issued the Sirte Declaration. Explicitly referencing al-Qadhafi's ideas, it called forthe revitalizationof the OAU and provided for the creation of an African Union, which was to conform with the OAU Charter andthe AEC Treaty. Italso called for the accelerated implementation of the AEC Treaty, and set the year 2000 as the projected start-up datefor apan-African parliament. It tasked the presidents of Algeria and South Africa, in consultation with the OAU ContactGroup onAfrica's External Debt, with seeking a substantial reduction or the total cancellation of Africa's foreign debt. Subsequent Developments. In March 2000, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the OAUCouncil of Ministers ratified the Sirte Declaration. In July 2000, in Lomé, Togo, the OAU Assembly ofHeads of State andGovernment adopted an African Union Draft Constitutive Act. It also requested that OAU member parliamentariansvet aPan-African Parliament (PAP) Draft Protocol to the AEC Treaty, prior to its ratification. The AU Draft ConstitutiveAct text differedsubstantially from the model proposed by al-Qadhafi, and contained no binding provisions or timetables. In March2001, againmeeting in Libya, an OAU/AEC summit of heads of state mandated that the AU would come into being upon the36th ratification byan OAU member state of the AU Constitutive Act -- a benchmark reached in April 2001, when Nigeria depositedits instrument ofratification. The summit also adopted the PAP Draft Protocol, prior to its approval by OAU members. An OAU/AEC Summit, meeting in July 2001 in Lusaka, Zambia, charged the OAU Secretary General, in consultation with OAUstates, with determining the modalities necessary for the creation, structuring, and functioning of the organs of theAU. Priority wasgiven to the creation of an Assembly, Executive Council, Commission, and a Permanent RepresentativesCommittee. The sameactors were charged with defining the areas of competence, inter-relationships, and linkages with other externalmultilateral,non-governmental, and professional organizations of the OAU's specialized agencies, and processes forreconstituting these as AUorgans. The Summit also: Determined that regional economic communities would function as key "building blocks" of the AU. (3) Authorized the OAU Secretary General to "identify alternative modalities of funding the activities andprograms of the [AU], bearing in mind that the Union cannot operate on the basis of assessed contributions fromMember Statesonly." (4) Mandated that, as provided by the AU Constitutive Act, OAU assets, liabilities, and agreements withotherparties would devolve to the AU. In July 2002 in Durban, South Africa, the final meetings of the OAU were held. They were followed by official inauguration of theAfrican Union, and meetings of its Assembly, Executive Council, and Assembly of Heads of State and Government. Organization. The Constitutive Act of the African Union defines the institutionalstructure, organizational principles, and broad policy roles of constituent AU organs. These include the following: An Assembly, an Executive Council, and a Commission of the Union. A Pan-African Parliament and a Permanent Representatives Committee. Court of Justice. Peace and Security Council. (5) Specialized Technical Committees, responsible to the Executive Council. These include committeeson:Economy and Agricultural Matters; Monetary and Financial Affairs; Trade, Customs and Immigration Matters;Industry, Science andTechnology, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment; Transport, Communications and Tourism; Health, Laborand SocialAffairs; and Education, Culture and Human Resources. Economic, Social and Cultural Council. Central Financial Institutions (including an African Central Bank; and African Monetary Fund; andan AfricanInvestment Bank). The precise operational relationships among these organs and with their subsidiary bodies, and their structures, functions, mandates,and powers, are yet to be determined. African Union Policy: NEPAD. A key AU policy vehicle is the New Partnershipfor Africa's Development (NEPAD), a multi-sector sustainable development and investment planning and advocacyframework. Ithas been endorsed by diverse African leaders and by key multilateral organizations. (6) A core feature of NEPAD is the voluntary,progress-based African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). APRM signatory states will be subject to peerevaluations that will assesstheir degree of adherence to political, economic and corporate governance goals, codes, and standards containedin the NEPAD Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance . During the African Union inaugural summit in July 2002, leaders from across Africa joined together in a public display ofcontinental unity and pageantry. The formation of the African Union, however, was reportedly the subject ofsignificant, sometimesdivisive debate among African leaders. The debate arrayed leading political and economic reformers, in particularadvocates ofNEPAD and of Africa's further integration into the global economy, against several leaders who have championedAfrican politicalautonomy and nationalist policy agendas. The latter, including the heads of state of Libya, Zimbabwe, Namibia andGambia,criticized NEPAD. They warned that for such a plan to be successful, it would need to be defined, realized, andcontrolled byAfricans alone, independent of external influences. NEPAD was defined by foreign political and economic models,they asserted,and might subject Africa to externally-imposed political conditions in exchange for credit and other assistance. Theyalso assertedthat NEPAD would create financial dependency on external creditors. (7) Libyan and South African Leadership Roles. Differences over the proposedpurpose and role of the AU played out in reported disagreements between President Thabo Mbeki of South Africaand Libyan leaderMuammar al-Qadhafi. The latter has promoted a range of populist, sometimes radical, proposals. These reflecttraditionalpan-Africanist goals emphasizing a need for greater continental unity and sovereignty vis-a-vis the industrializedworld, and a strongrejection of policy conditionalities in exchange for access to credit. Despite al-Qadhafi's early conceptualcontributions to thecreation of the AU and his subsequent outreach efforts, the AU organization that ultimately emerged reflected broadAfricanleadership support for NEPAD. The gradual displacement of al-Qadhafi's agenda by NEPAD reportedly gave riseto a leadershipstruggle between him and President Mbeki. During a June 2002 state visit by Mbeki to Libya, al-Qadhafi reportedlycalled NEPAD aproject of "former colonisers and racists," i.e., of Western governments. (8) He also reportedly attempted to delay the July 2002initiation of the AU in Durban, South Africa in favor of a launch in 2003 in Libya, with Libya -- not South Africa-- as the first AUchair. Libya has helped some countries to pay their OAU arrears, in an apparent attempt to garner support and toincrease itsinfluence within the OAU during the transition to the AU. The president of Zambia, which received such assistance,reportedlychampioned the transfer of AU headquarters from Ethiopia to Libya, asserting that such a key role was befitting ofLibya, as one ofthe richest AU countries. The Libyan and South Africa governments have dismissed claims that a rivalry exists between them, and efforts to bridge theirdifferences appear to have been successful, albeit broadly in favor of the South African agenda. President ThaboMbeki was namedas the first chairperson of the AU during its inaugural year, and the first AU summit was held in Durban, SouthAfrica. Libya hasindicated its acceptance of NEPAD and its Peer Review mechanism, and Libya is represented on the NEPADImplementationCommittee. Some AU inauguration summit participants reportedly believe that al-Qadhafi's presence in NEPADcould jeopardizethe recent endorsement of the plan by the G-8 countries. (9) HIV/AIDS. World-wide, Africa is the region currently most affected by theHIV/AIDS epidemic. In many African countries, it is rapidly decreasing life expectancy rates, reducing current andfuture economicproduction, and leading to enormous human resource losses, including within the educated work force. Some criticsclaim thatNEPAD fails to substantively and pro-actively address the extreme devastation being engendered by the spread ofAIDS in manyAfrican countries. War and Conflict. Conflicts in Sierra Leone and Angola have recently ended, buthostilities continue in Somalia, Liberia, Burundi, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). (10) Many other countrieshave faced armed insurgencies or periodically high levels of political violence in recent years. Such conflicts posepotent challengesto the AU goal of achieving continental peace and security, while upholding the doctrine of member states'non-interference in theinternal affairs of their peers. In late April 2003, the AU began deploying the first 100 members of a planned3,500-strong combinedSouth African, Ethiopian, and Mozambican peacekeeping force that will monitor and reinforce a cease-fire andpolitical successionaimed at ending Burundi's civil war. Democracy and Governance Challenges. The extent of the African Union'sdetermination to consolidate democratic institutions and culture, and ensure good governance and adherence to therule of law -- asreflected in the AU Constitutive Act and in multiple NEPAD texts -- face immediate tests. In recent years, theconstitutions ofseveral African states have been amended expressly to allow current leaders to renew their terms of office. Suchdevelopmentssuggest that the power of incumbency, rather than the rule of law, effectively governs political power-holding inmany Africancountries -- although in several countries, including Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique, the trend towardentrenched presidentialincumbency has been reversed. In other cases, the legitimacy of recent local legislative elections administered byruling parties havebeen questioned by opposition groups and outside observers. Key challenges facing the AU are disputed polls inMadagascar,Zimbabwe; Nigeria also held a widely criticized election. Madagascar. In the island nation of Madagascar, contested presidential elections in late 2001 led to a tense, violent, half year stand-off between the two candidates and their supporters. After theelection, thechallenger, businessman Marc Ravalomanana, citing electoral irregularities, declared himself the electoral winnerover DidierRatsiraka, the longtime incumbent. The Malagasy Supreme Court later sanctioned his claim. In June 2002, theUnited States andseveral other powers formally recognized Ravalomanana's government, and France soon followed suite. The AU,however, has notrecognized the new government, and has called for new elections. Senegal, which had tried to mediate in crisis, didnot endorse theAU decision. It recognized the new government, as did Burkina Faso, Mauritius, Libya and the Comoros. There areindications thatthe AU may soon recognize the current Malagasy government. Zimbabwe. In contrast to its Madagascar decision, the inaugural AU Assembly tacitly accepted the highly disputed March 2002 re-election of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, which was precededby extensivepolitical violence and a controversial land redistribution program. Although the AU did not directly address theelection, it affirmedearlier OAU endorsements of it, mirroring acceptance of the election by sub-regional leaders and SADC. In contrast,the UnitedStates, the European Union, and other countries rejected the Zimbabwean poll. Leaders of the Zimbabweanopposition Movementfor Democratic Change, some of whom were prevented from attending the AU inauguration, called upon the AUto use the NEPADAfrican Peer Review Mechanism to sanction the Zimbabwean government for abuses of human and political rights. Elitism and Popular Participation. Civil society activists have long charged thatthe OAU was a state-centric forum that upheld the interest of political elites, rather than the public good. Somecritics predict that theAU may become subject to similar biases, and assert that without much broader input from African societies atlarge, the AU willbecome irrelevant to the needs of the majority of Africa's citizens. Still, many critics see positive potential in boththe AU andNEPAD, and leading AU architects, such as President Mbeki, have recognized their concerns in public statements.Mbeki hassponsored forums focusing on AU-related policy goals of diverse civil society groups. Structural Poverty and Financing of NEPAD. The AU may face difficulties infinancing its ambitious agenda, as did the OAU. The average sub-Saharan per capita in 2002 was $470 and wasmuch lower in manynon-oil-producing countries. In addition, wealth is highly unequally distributed in many African countries; even inthe wealthiest ofsub-Saharan countries, the majority of people are poor. While NEPAD is an attempt to improve the economicstanding of Africa ingeneral, growth that it may generate is likely to occur over the medium to long-term. In the short to medium term,funding shortfallsare likely to curtail the ability of the AU to meet its planned objectives. | In July 2002, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), founded in 1963 during thedecolonization era, was superseded by the African Union (AU). An AU Interim Commission, created to transfer theinstitutional andreal assets and liabilities of the OAU to the AU, and establish the AU's organizational structure, is the focal pointof AU activitiesduring its inaugural year. The AU's policy agenda overlaps substantially with that of the OAU, but more stronglyemphasizes a needfor greater economic growth and for governance reforms. The AU is likely to confront many of the same policy andfiscal challengesfaced by the OAU (see CRS Report RS20945(pdf), The Organization of African Unity). H.Res. 155,introduced in March2003, urges U.S. support of the AU and its diverse economic and political goals. This report will be updated asevents warrant. |
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 5:11 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
Photographer: Johannes Berg/Bloomberg Photographer: Johannes Berg/Bloomberg
The White House is considering a draft executive order for President Donald Trump that would instruct federal antitrust and law enforcement agencies to open probes into the practices of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc., and other social media companies.
Bloomberg News obtained a draft of the order, which a White House official said was in its early stages and hasn’t been run past other government agencies. Separately, Lindsey Walters, deputy White House press secretary, said in an emailed statement that the document isn’t the result of an official White House policy making process.
The document instructs U.S. antitrust authorities to “thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws.” It instructs other government agencies to recommend within a month after it’s signed, actions that could potentially “protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias.”
Read the Executive Order draft on bias in online platforms
The document doesn’t name any companies. If signed, the order would represent a significant escalation of Trump’s aversion to Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, whom he’s publicly accused of silencing conservative voices and news sources online.
A Facebook spokeswoman said the company has no comment on the order. The press offices of Google and Twitter didn’t respond Saturday to emails and telephone calls requesting comment.
Trump’s Complaint
“Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices,” Trump said on Twitter in August. “Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.”
Social media companies have acknowledged in congressional hearings that their efforts to enforce prohibitions against online harassment have sometimes led to erroneous punishment of political figures on both the left and the right, and that once discovered, those mistakes have been corrected. They say there’s no systematic effort to silence conservative voices.
Stiglitz Calls for Tougher Antitrust Stand to Fight Market Power
The draft order directs that any actions federal agencies take should be “consistent with other laws” -- an apparent nod to concerns that it could threaten the traditional independence of U.S. law enforcement or conflict with the First Amendment, which protects political views from government regulation.
“Because of their critical role in American society, it is essential that American citizens are protected from anticompetitive acts by dominant online platforms,” the order says. It adds that consumer harm -- a key measure in antitrust investigations -- could come “through the exercise of bias.”
The order’s preliminary status is reflected in the text of the draft, which includes a note in red that the first section could be expanded “if necessary, to provide more detail on role of platforms and the importance of competition.”
Jeff Sessions Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg
The possibility of an executive order emerged as Attorney General Jeff Sessions prepares for a Sept. 25 briefing by state attorneys general who are already investigating the tech firms’ practices.
Federal Case
The meeting, which will include a representative of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, is intended to help Sessions decide if there’s a federal case to be made against the companies, two people familiar with the matter have said. At least one of the attorneys general participating in the meeting has indicated he seeks to break up the companies.
Growing movements on the right and the left argue that companies including Google and Facebook engage in anti-competitive behavior. The companies reject the accusation, arguing they face robust competition and that many of their products are free. Bias has not typically figured in antitrust examinations.
Jack Dorsey on Sept. 5 Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
In July, for instance, Twitter algorithms limited the visibility of some Republicans in profile searches. Jack Dorsey, the company’s chief executive officer, testified before Congress in September that the limits also affected some Democrats as the site tried to enforce policies against threats, hate, harassment or other forms of abusive speech. The moves were reversed.
A Few Misgivings
A Pew Research Center survey earlier this year found that 72 percent of Americans, and 85 percent of Republicans, think it’s likely that social media companies intentionally censor political viewpoints that those companies find objectionable.
Even on the right, however, there are misgivings about a Trump administration crackdown on the companies. On Friday, libertarian-leaning groups including FreedomWorks and the American Legislative Exchange Council sent a letter to Sessions expressing “fear” that his “inquiry will be to accomplish through intimidation what the First Amendment bars: interference with editorial judgment.”
Content on Facebook and Google is delivered to users by computer programs using thousands of signals to rank what may be most relevant to them in that moment. Those programs, which are written by humans, mostly try to serve up what other people have found useful in the past, or what the user seems to like seeing. That means it could be difficult to prove or disprove bias, since most people already have a somewhat personalized experience on the internet.
Facebook has said it has no reason to believe its algorithm is biased. But in order to answer to critics, the company hired Jon Kyl, a former Republican senator from Arizona, to run an internal probe. Kyl has returned to the Senate after being appointed to replace John McCain, who died in August, but his team is continuing the work at Facebook.
— With assistance by David McLaughlin, Tom Metcalf, and Sarah Frier ||||| Business Insider has obtained a copy of a proposed executive order for President Trump that would ask federal law enforcement to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws," to "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias."
Trump has previously said, "Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices."
He has also stated, wrongly, that Google discriminated against his State of the Union speech.
There is no evidence that either Google or Facebook systematically discriminate against conservatives.
The White House has sought to distance itself from the draft text. A spokeswoman said Saturday that " this document is not the result of an official White House policymaking process."
The White House has drafted a text of a proposed executive order for President Donald Trump that would trigger an antitrust investigation into Google and Facebook, according to a copy of the document obtained by Business Insider. The existence of the draft was first reported by Capital Forum.
The proposed text focuses on "bias" at the companies:
"Whether reading news or looking for local businesses, citizens rely on search, social media, and other online platforms to provide objective and reliable information to shape a host of decisions ranging from consumer purchases to votes in elections. Because of their critical role in American society, it is essential that American citizens are protected from anticompetitive acts by dominant online platforms. Vibrant competition in the online ecosystem is essential to ensuring accountability for the platforms that hold so much sway over our economy and democratic process."
"… Executive departments and agencies with authorities that could be used to enhance competition among online platforms (agencies) shall, where consistent with other laws, use those authorities to promote competition and ensure that no online platform exercises market power in a way that harms consumers, including through the exercise of bias."
"... Not later than 30 days from the date of this order, agencies shall submit to the Director of the National Economic Council an initial list of (1) actions each agency can potentially take to protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias."
The order also commands federal agencies to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws."
The president and other conservatives have repeatedly complained that they believe Facebook and Google (owned by corporate parent Alphabet) bias the way they show news to users by dampening down conservative voices or outlets. In August, Trump tweeted, "Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others......."
Trump later claimed that Google did not highlight his State of the Union speech on its front page even though it had always done that for President Obama. But that allegation turned out to be entirely false. Google promoted Trump's State of the Union event in the same way it did for Obama.
Facebook has removed some conservative commentators from its platform, such as the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, after they broke Facebook's rules against "glorifying violence" and "hate speech" against minorities. Many conservatives believe that shows the platforms do not give them a fair shake.
But there is no evidence that either Facebook or Google systematically discriminates left or right.
The draft order is reportedly in its preliminary stages, though the White House sought to distance itself from the text on Saturday, according to The Washington Post.
"Although the White House is concerned about the conduct of online platforms and their impact on society, this document is not the result of an official White House policymaking process," deputy White House press secretary Lindsey Waters said in a statement.
Three White House aides also told The Post they neither wrote the draft order, nor had any idea where it came from. Another senior official told The Post that the document was, indeed, known around the White House, but had not undergone the formal drafting process.
While the political bias aspect of the order would likely be the most controversial aspect, it would also be the least threatening to either Google or Facebook. The First Amendment to the US Constitution bans the government from restricting or imposing speech. Federal authorities cannot require any company to publish views it favors.
The more worrying aspect of the draft, from the point of view of the companies, is the antitrust aspect. That could cost the companies real money. The European Union recently fined Google $5 billion for abusing its power over phone manufacturers through its dominance of Android; and $2 billion for its distortion of shopping search results that favored Google's own properties over superior independent results.
Google has a dominance of the search market that approaches 90% or more in many markets. And between them, Google and Facebook receive 90% of all new advertising dollars spent on the web. Facebook and Google capture 71% of all digital ad spending in Europe, according to analyst Brian Weiser at Pivotal Research.
Here is the full text of the draft order seen by Business Insider:
EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PROTECT COMPETITON AND SMALL BUSINESSES FROM BIAS IN ONLINE PLATFORMS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to protect American consumers and workers and encourage competition in the U.S. economy, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Online platforms are central to American commerce and the free flow of news and information. Whether reading news or looking for local businesses, citizens rely on search, social media, and other online platforms to provide objective and reliable information to shape a host of decisions ranging from consumer purchases to votes in elections. Because of their critical role in American society, it is essential that American citizens are protected from anticompetitive acts by dominant online platforms. Vibrant competition in the online ecosystem is essential to ensuring accountability for the platforms that hold so much sway over our economy and democratic process.
[Can expand this section, if necessary, to provide more detail on role of platforms and the importance of competition]
Section 2. Agency Responsibilities. (a) Executive departments and agencies with authorities that could be used to enhance competition among online platforms (agencies) shall, where consistent with other laws, use those authorities to promote competition and ensure that no online platform exercises market power in a way that harms consumers, including through the exercise of bias.
(b) Agencies with authority to investigate anticompetitive conduct shall thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws, as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12, or any other law intended to protect competition.
(c) Should an agency learn of possible or actual anticompetitive conduct by a platform that the agency lacks the authority to investigate and/or prosecute, the matter should be referred to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission.
(d) Not later than 30 days from the date of this order, agencies shall submit to the Director of the National Economic Council an initial list of (1) actions each agency can potentially take to protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias; (2) any relevant authorities and tools potentially available to enhance competition among and protect the users of online platforms.
(e) Not later than 60 days from the date of this order, agencies shall report to the President, through the Director of the National Economic Council, recommendations on agency-specific actions in response to paragraphs (d) of this section. Such recommendations shall include a list of priority actions, including rulemakings, as well as timelines for completing those actions.
Section 3. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Get the latest Google stock price here. | President Trump is about to hit America's tech giants with federal antitrust probes, if a newly leaked document holds any water—and it may not hold any water at all, the Washington Post reports. Revealed Friday by Bloomberg, the draft executive order would empower federal agencies to investigate Google, Facebook, and other tech companies for anti-competitive behavior and "online platform bias." (See the full document at Business Insider.) But White House aides say don't know who wrote the draft order or even where it originated. "This document is not the result of an official White House policy-making process," explains Lindsay Walters, the deputy White House press secretary, in part. Worse, it seems top White House technology advisers first saw the document in an email from Yelp, and two White House aides first saw it when contacted by Luther Lowe, Yelp's senior vice president. So did Lowe write it? "Yelp has been consistently critical of Google for actual bias in search results—in local search, for their own competitive benefit," says Lowe in a statement that echoes Yelp's ongoing criticism of Google but doesn't address the question. Meanwhile, tech companies have nervously awaited a possible federal crackdown as top Republicans, including Trump, accuse Silicon Valley firms of censoring conservative voices. Jeff Sessions plans to meet state attorneys general about the issue on Sept. 25; maybe we'll know more then. |
In response to concern about the U.S. government's inability to close or consolidate unneeded military facilities, Congress in 1988, and again in 1990, enacted statutory provisions establishing a process intended to insulate base closings from the "political" considerations that are part of the regular lawmaking process. Pursuant to these provisions, in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005, an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended the closure and realignment of more than 100 defense facilities throughout the United States. The Department of Defense (DOD) formally asked Congress to provide it with statutory authority to conduct another round of base closures and realignments in 2015, but no round was authorized. Under the BRAC process, the final recommendations of a bipartisan commission are submitted to Congress and automatically take effect unless Congress passes and the President signs legislation disapproving the recommendations within a stated time period. To ensure that Congress can promptly act if it so chooses, the BRAC procedure includes special "fast track" or expedited legislative procedures laying out the terms for House and Senate consideration of legislation striking down the BRAC Commission's report. Such "fast track" procedures have governed congressional consideration of the five previous rounds of base closures and are included in the DOD's recent request to Congress for authority to pursue a 2015 BRAC round. Under the parliamentary procedures laid out in the BRAC process, a package of suggested base closures and realignments is to be implemented by the Secretary of Defense unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval rejecting the entire package within the 45-day period beginning on the date of the President's submission of the package to Congress or the sine die adjournment of the session, whichever occurs earlier. Congressional consideration of such a BRAC resolution of disapproval is governed not by the standing rules of the House and Senate but by special expedited parliamentary procedures laid out in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended ( P.L. 101-510 , 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). The procedures have the same force and effect as standing House and Senate rules and exempt the joint resolution of disapproval from many of the time-consuming steps and obstacles that apply to most measures Congress considers. For example, the procedure dictates when a joint resolution may be introduced, specifies its text, limits committee and floor consideration of the measure, prohibits amendments and other motions, and establishes an automatic "hook-up" of joint resolutions passed by both chambers. This report outlines the "fast track" parliamentary procedures that have governed congressional consideration of the recommendations of the BRAC commission in prior rounds and have been included in the DOD's recent requests for authority to conduct a BRAC round. This section describes the parliamentary procedures that have governed congressional consideration of recent BRAC Commission reports and were included in a legislative proposal DOD recently submitted to Congress requesting authority for a BRAC Commission round in 2015. Ordinarily, Members of the House and Senate may introduce legislation at any time that their chamber is in session during the two-year Congress. Under the BRAC procedure, however, a qualifying joint resolution of disapproval must be introduced within the 10-day period beginning on the date the President transmits a certified BRAC report to Congress. Such a joint disapproval resolution may be introduced by any Member in either chamber, and when it is, it is referred to the House or Senate Committee on Armed Services. There is no limit to the number of disapproval resolutions that can be introduced, and in prior rounds, multiple disapproval resolutions have been introduced, aimed at the same BRAC report. Provisions are included in the BRAC procedure specifying the text of the disapproval resolution. These are meant to make it clear exactly which legislation is eligible to be considered under the expedited procedures. The joint resolution of disapproval may not contain a preamble. The title of the measure is to read: "Joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission." The text of the joint resolution after the resolving clause is to read: "That Congress disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission as submitted by the President on ______," with the appropriate date filled in the blank. With certain exceptions—for example, when time limits are placed on the sequential referral of a bill by the Speaker—Congress generally does not mandate that a committee act on a bill referred to it within a specified time frame or at all. The BRAC procedure, however, places deadlines on the Committees on Armed Services to act and creates a mechanism to take the resolution away from them if they do not. These expediting provisions are intended to make it impossible for a joint resolution of disapproval to be long delayed or blocked outright in committee. As noted, upon introduction, a joint resolution of disapproval is referred to the House or Senate Committee on Armed Services. The committee may choose to report such a resolution but may not amend it. If the committee does not report a joint resolution of disapproval by the end of a 20-day period beginning on the date the President transmits the BRAC report to Congress, the panel is automatically discharged from its further consideration, and the measure is placed directly on the House's Union Calendar or the Senate's Calendar of Business, as appropriate. Under the terms of the BRAC procedure, an Armed Services Committee must report just one resolution of disapproval; if multiple joint resolutions of disapproval are introduced by several Members and referred to committee, the panel must report only one resolution or a substitute for it within the 20-day time frame to forestall the automatic discharge of all of the others. On or after the third day following the day the House or Senate Armed Services Committee reports a joint resolution or is discharged from its consideration, any Member may move in chamber to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution. The BRAC law stipulates, however, that a Member must first, on the preceding calendar day, have given notice of his or her intention to offer the motion to proceed. This notice can be avoided in the House of Representatives if the motion is being made at the direction of the committee of referral. The motion can be made even if the body has previously rejected an identical motion to the same effect. This provision serves as incentive for the chamber to get to a vote on the underlying joint resolution of disapproval; if a motion to proceed is defeated, supporters can simply re-offer it until it passes or force the chamber to expend time and energy disposing of repeated motions. Points of order against the resolution and its consideration are waived. In the Senate, under most circumstances, a motion to proceed to the consideration of a measure is debatable. Under the BRAC procedure, however, the motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution of disapproval is not debatable in either chamber, and it cannot be amended or postponed. Appeals of the decision of the chair relating to consideration of the joint resolution are decided without debate. If the motion is adopted, the chamber immediately considers the joint resolution without intervening motion, order, or other business. Once a chamber has chosen to take up the joint resolution by adopting the motion to proceed, consideration of the measure is, in a sense, "locked in." It remains the unfinished business of the chamber until disposed of. Other business cannot intervene, the joint resolution cannot be laid aside, and it must be disposed of before other business can be taken up. In the absence of a special rule dictating otherwise, the standing rules of the House of Representatives generally call for measures to be debated in the House under the one-hour rule. In the Senate, debate is usually unlimited except by unanimous consent, by the invocation of cloture, or by some other special procedure, such as the statutory rules governing the consideration of budgetary legislation. In keeping with its "fast track" nature, floor consideration of a BRAC joint resolution of disapproval is limited in both houses. Debate in a chamber on the joint resolution, and all debatable motions and appeals connected with it, is limited to not more than two hours, equally divided. A non-debatable motion to further limit debate is also in order. The BRAC procedure limits Members' ability to delay consideration of a joint resolution of disapproval by barring amendments and motions that would ordinarily be permissible under the House and Senate's standing rules. Amendments to the measure, a motion to postpone its consideration, or motions to proceed to the consideration of other business are not permitted. A motion to recommit the joint resolution to committee is not in order, nor is a motion to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution is agreed to or disagreed to. It is virtually impossible from a parliamentary standpoint to avoid a final vote on a joint disapproval resolution once a chamber has decided to take it up. At the conclusion of debate and after a single quorum call (if requested), without intervening motion, a chamber immediately votes on passage of the joint resolution of disapproval. Passage of the joint resolution is by simple majority in each chamber, although, in the likely event the disapproval resolution is subsequently vetoed by the President, a two-thirds vote in each chamber would then be required to override the veto. If, before voting upon a disapproval resolution, either chamber receives a joint resolution passed by the other chamber, that engrossed joint resolution is not referred to committee. Instead, the second chamber proceeds to consider its own joint resolution as laid out above up until the point of final disposition, when they will lay it aside, take up the joint resolution received from the first chamber, and vote on it. After the second chamber votes on the first chamber's joint resolution, it may no longer consider its own version. This provision is included to avoid the need to reconcile differences between the chambers' versions or expend time choosing whether ultimately to act upon the House or Senate joint resolution. For a joint resolution of disapproval to become law, it must be signed by the President or enacted over his veto. The BRAC procedure does not include expedited provisions governing House and Senate consideration of a joint disapproval resolution vetoed by the President. Such a veto message would be considered pursuant to the regular procedures of each house. The fact that an expedited legislative procedure is contained in statute does not mean that another law must be enacted to alter it. Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the power to determine the rules of its proceedings; as a result, statutory expedited procedures such as those governing BRAC can (like all rules of the House or Senate) be set aside, altered, or amended by either chamber at any time. As several House Parliamentarians have observed, a chamber may "change or waive the rules governing its proceedings. This is so even with respect to rules enacted by statute." These changes can be accomplished, for example, by the adoption of a special rule from the House Committee on Rules, by suspension of the rules, or by unanimous consent agreement. Instances of this ability to "rewrite" expedited procedure statutes have occurred during consideration of base closure joint resolutions of disapproval. For example, in the 101 st Congress, Representative George E. Brown Jr. introduced H.J.Res. 165 , a joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the 1988 Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. Under the terms of the 1988 BRAC statute, the House Committee on Armed Services had to report a joint disapproval resolution prior to March 15, 1989, or see it be automatically discharged of its further consideration. The statute further permitted any Member, at any time three days after this report or discharge, to make a motion to proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution. The House, however, "rewrote" these statutory terms as they related to the consideration of H.J.Res. 165 . On March 21, 1989, Representative Les Aspin asked unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the provisions of the BRAC law, it not be in order to move to proceed to the consideration of H.J.Res. 165 prior to April 18, 1989. Still later, on April 11, 1989, a second unanimous consent request laid aside not only the terms of the BRAC expedited procedure statute but those of Representative Aspin's March 21 unanimous consent request as well. As noted above, the House again agreed to lay aside certain provisions of the BRAC statute that governed its consideration of the 2005 round of closures. On September 29, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 469 , which stated that, despite the BRAC statute's provision permitting any Member to make a motion to proceed to the consideration of a joint resolution of disapproval, that motion "shall be in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee." The Senate has also overridden the BRAC fast-track procedure by unanimous consent. On September 15, 1993, the Senate agreed to a unanimous consent agreement governing the subsequent consideration of S.J.Res. 114 , disapproving the recommendations of the 1993 BRAC Commission. This consent agreement limited debate on the disapproval resolution to one hour (instead of two as provided for in the statute) and permitted the Senate to consider separate legislation in the midst of its consideration of the joint disapproval resolution. In a sense, then, the expedited procedures in the BRAC statute establish a default set of parliamentary ground rules for consideration of a disapproval resolution; these provisions can be tailored by Members in either chamber to meet specific situations or for their convenience. Table 1 lists all joint resolutions of disapproval introduced in Congress relating to prior BRAC rounds and their disposition. | In 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005, an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission was authorized by law to recommend the disposal of unneeded defense facilities throughout the United States. The Department of Defense (DOD) formally asked Congress to provide it with statutory authority to conduct another round of base closures and realignments in 2015, but no new round was authorized. Under the terms of the statutes that authorized these previous BRAC rounds, the BRAC Commission's recommendations automatically take effect unless, within a stated period after the recommendations are approved by the President and submitted to the House and Senate, a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted rejecting them in their entirety. Congressional consideration of this disapproval resolution was governed not by the standing rules of the House and Senate but by special expedited or "fast track" parliamentary procedures laid out in statute. This report describes these expedited parliamentary procedures and explains how they differ from the regular legislative processes of Congress. The report will be updated as needed. |
Can you contort your body -- roll upside down onto shoulders and tuck in knees -- while solving a math problem? Then, try it in a pair of super tight, high-waisted jeans.
Such was the talent of then-teenage actress Brooke Shields in a controversial 1980 Calvin Klein jeans campaign shot and directed by photographer Richard Avedon.
The success of the campaign, for both Ms. Shields and the brand, would have been impossible without stage mother Teri Shields, who passed away last week. Their ascent came with the rise of the denim pioneer that , while today would be considered staid, was responsible for introducing the concept of designer jeans to the U.S. market.
Perhaps Ms. Shields' mother had foreseen the career-launching power of Calvin Klein's fearless marketing, which, 10 years later, also catapulted actor Mark (Marky Mark) Wahlberg. Or perhaps she was just a stage mom jumping at another opportunity for her daughter, whom she placed in front of the camera at a mere 11 months old for an Ivory soap commercial. Either way, the campaign series generated major PR buzz for the brand and for the teen actress.
You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing!
One spot featured Ms. Shields reading a dictionary in which she discovered the derivatives of the word Calvin. In another, she reads a passage from a novel and proclaims, "Reading is to the mind what Calvins are to the body." (There's a little compilation of these you can see here. ) And then Calvin Klein and Mr. Avedon crossed the line with the cornerstone spot in campaign, which Ms. Shields says, "Do you want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing!"
Pondering the thing the nothingness that got between Ms. Shields and her Calvins sent a few networks, including CBS, into shock. They wouldn't run the ad. But for Calvin, buzz around the entire campaign, including the too-sexy-for-TV spot, contributed to sales of $2 million per month, according to a Vogue 2011 article, which referred to Ms. Shields' in the ads as "Lolita-esque" and the pulled spot as "one of the most memorable commercials ever."
The Justice Department at one point launched an investigation into the brand's exploitation of young models and eventually dropped the case.
To the Shields duo, however, the campaign was as innocent as Shirley Temple and as much a win for the teen's acting career as it was for the brand. Ms. Shields had had nude photographs taken of her daughter when she was only 10 years old, and a few years later encouraged her to take the controversial role of a child prostitute in the film Pretty Baby. After that came the Calvin spots and then an acting career we can thank for the Caribbean jungle masterpiece Blue Lagoon. ||||| This past Sunday, Tyga and Kylie Jenner essentially confirmed their long-rumored relationship via Tyga’s new song and accompanying video “Stimulated.” In the fairly explicit song, Tyga brags about having sex with a much younger woman: “They say she young/ She should have waited/ She a big girl, dawg, when she stimulated.” While not technically naming Kylie, it’s not exactly a leap to divine the true meaning of the lyrics. Tyga, a 25-year-old father of one, has known Kylie Jenner and her family since she was eleven-years-old. There have been multiple reports of them vacationing in Paris and a social media trail dates their relationship back to before she turned 18.
While many in the media—especially the celebrity media—has treated the story as racy gossip, a grown man having sex with a minor isn’t romantic, cute or “scandalous.” More broadly, the Kylie-Tyga saga is an example of the way society continues to perpetuate the sexualization of child celebrities, packaging them for our consumption and entertainment with little thought to the emotional repercussions.
According to Debra Merskin of the University of Oregon’s department of journalism and communications, magazines and newspapers have played a significant role in the sexualization of children, both regular and famous. In 1993, for example, The New York Times published a fashion spread called “Lolita is a Comeback Kid” featuring grown women dressed as adolescent girls.
But this blurring of the lines between adulthood and childhood is particularly apparent in the way celebrity children have been photographed and displayed. In 1981, a 15-year-old Brooke Shields starred in an instantly controversial Calvin Klein ad. Her line? “Nothing comes between me and my Calvins.” In 1999, a 17-year-old Britney Spears was photographed for Rolling Stone lying on a bed in a bra while cuddling a purple Teletubbie. Nine years later, 15-year-old Disney princess Miley Cyrus was photographed in Vanity Fair suggestively wrapped in a silk bed sheet.
The message is clear—when it comes to famous young women (and men) the normal rules about consent and sexuality don’t apply the same way. It’s okay for Brooke Shields to flirt with the camera because she’s “acting,” for example. Never mind the fact that she’s the age of the average sophomore in high school.
Granted, the societal problem is nuanced by intersectional issues of race. Celebrity children of color are arguably at risk of hypersexualization at a much younger age than their white counterparts, and for different reasons. At just nine years old, satirical site The Onion called Quvenzhané Wallis a cunt. At just three, Beyoncé’s daughter Blue Ivy Carter was the subject of an equally off color joke on Hulu’s Difficult People: “I can’t wait for Blue Ivy to be old enough for R. Kelly to piss on her.” The difference in the aforementioned cases is that the hyper-sexualization of black celebrities does not seem to stem from a sense of desire, as in the cases of Brooke Shields or Britney Spears. Rather, these comments are designed to ridicule.
Perhaps, we gloss over the potential consequences of exploitative or predatory behavior because actors by nature must slip between different personas, creating a dehumanizing wall between the public and the private aspects of their lives. In this context appearance, personality and even age can seem like a construct.
When it comes to famous young women (and men) the normal rules about consent and sexuality don’t apply the same way. But money and fame do not beget advanced emotional maturity. In some cases, the nature of childhood stardom—in which young celebrities grow up isolated and potentially vulnerable—may make abuse worse. As former actor Corey Feldman detailed in his 2013 memoir Coreyography, both he and Corey Haim were sexually abused by older men who assured them that such relations were normal in show business. According to psychologist Dr. Denise A. Hines and sociologist David Finkelhor, both adolescent girls and boys who engage in sex with adult men may be looking for emotional and financial security they are not receiving at home.
Statutory rape—sex between an adult and a minor—is a complicated problem from both a cultural and legal perspective because participants generally argue that the sex is consensual. It may take years for the true toll of such relationships to reveal itself. But that’s why it’s so important for the adults in the room to step in when cases occur. This means critics should be making sure Tyga’s “Stimulated” is not played on the radio and push back when he makes excuses in the press. “She seemed old for her age” is simply not a valid argument when it comes to sexual consent.
Yes, celebrities are selling products. They become brands and commoditize themselves, often with incredibly lucrative results. However, we cannot consume an adult celebrity in the same way that we do a young boy or girl, whether or not they tell us it’s okay. Tyga is not simply “chasing controversy” with “Stimulated,” he’s bragging about having sex with a high schooler. The fact that this high schooler happened to grow up in the public eye is irrelevant. If anything, the pressures of being a young celebrity make the entire situation all the more dangerous.
We welcome your comments at [email protected]. ||||| Britney Spears extends a honeyed thigh across the length of the sofa, keeping one foot on the floor as she does so. Her blond-streaked hair is piled high,exposing two little diamond earrings on each ear lobe; her face is fully made-up, down to carefully applied lip liner. The BABY PHAT logo of Spears' pink T-shirt is distended by her ample chest,and her silky white shorts — with dark blue piping — cling snugly to her hips. She cocks her head and smiles receptively.
But hold on. It's not like that. You're falling into the same trap as the lovelorn youths who call Spears' local florist to send her long-stemmed roses and the randy fellows outside the MTV studios with prom invites scrawled on their chests. Admittedly, that trap is carefully baited by a debut video that shows the seventeen-year-old singer cavorting around like the naughtiest of schoolgirls. But, as Spears points out, nothing is actually revealed.
"All I did was tie up my shirt!" she says, addressing the critics who would hunt her down like a gay Teletubby. "I'm wearing a sports bra under it. Sure, I'm wearing thigh-highs, but kids wear those — it's the style. Have you seen MTV — all those in thongs?"
Spears' left thigh is presently adorned by several small plastic discs that are wired to a neuromuscular stimulator. A dance rehearsal accident has temporarily confined Spears to her parents' ranch-style house in rural-burban Kentwood, Louisiana, when she should be out promoting her white-hot debut, ... Baby One More Time, 1999's biggest-selling pop album so far. Staying home has its compensations: As Spears holds forth, her mom, Lynne, a second-grade teacher, sits on the carpet in the wood-paneled living room, fluffing and folding the laundry. If it weren't for the diamond-laden tennis bracelet that Britney just bought her, you'd think her daughter was a vacationing college kid and not a pop sensation with an eleventh-grade education.
The song that put Spears on top is a strutting statement of intent called "...Baby One More Time" — and that ellipsis tells a tale. The three dots mask a chorus hook line — "Hit me, baby" — that some have taken as a masochistic come-on. "It doesn't mean physically hit me," says Spears. "It means just give me a sign, basically. I think it's kind of funny that people would actually think that's what it meant."
Perhaps the linguistic confusion arises from the fact that the creative force behind "...Baby One More Time" is the Swedish Ikea-pop maestro Max Martin, who is also behind Backstreet Boys and Robyn. As cowriter and co-producer on the record, Martin would run lyrics past Britney, ten years his junior, for approval. "I asked them to change the words to 'Born to Make You Happy.' It was a sexual song," reveals Spears, who cleaves to the Baptist faith, I said, 'This may be a little old for me.' Because of the image thing, I don't want to go over the top. If I come out being Miss Prima Donna, that wouldn't be smart. I want to have a place to grow."
1960. Elvis has been kidnapped by Uncle Sam. Buddy Holly is dead, and Little Richard has found the Lord. Into the vacuum rises a counterrevolutionary force of adenoidal adolescents like Bobby Vee, Frankie Avalon, Fabian and former Mouseketeer Annette Funicello. These pop puppets, with their Tin Pan Ailey songs and Sta-Brite smiles, actually managed to neutralize rock & roll's threat for several years.
It's happening again. Welcome to the new Teen Age. In a distant demographic echo of the postwar baby boom, the American teen population has reached the kind of critical mass that makes the culture industry sit up and listen. Teen spending power is reshaping pop culture, filling our TV screens with teen dramas and our multiplexes with teen movies. It has also put a perky new beat on the pop charts, where the devotional vaporings of boy bands have vanquished the roiling rock angst of the early to mid-Nineties.
'N Sync, Backstreet Boys and 98 are now choking on dust from the high-steppin' heels of Miss Britney Spears. Spears, who shares a manager with 'N Sync and a label with Backstreet Boys, screamed off the production line early this year and became the first solo artist of the Sound-Scan era to lodge a debut single and album atop the charts simultaneously, in the album's first week of release.
But for all the fan-mag prose that greeted Spears' explosive marketplace entry, we know precious little about her beyond an image that hints at several stereotypes. Is Spears bubblegum jailbait, jaded crossover diva or malleable Stepford teen? Who knows? Whether by design or not, the queen of America's new Teen Age is a distinctly modern anomaly: the anonymous superstar.
Lynne Spears is issuing crisp directions to the family's home in Kentwood, an hour north of New Orleans. "Turn off Highway 55..." says the husky voiced Louisiana native, "then onto 51... turn right when you pass the Burning Bush."
The Burning Bush? A bar? Restaurant? Strip club?
"No, it's an actual bush that's burning in our neighbor's yard. You can't miss it."
Such religious portent is fitting, for, in record-industry terms at least, Britney Jean Spears is a golden child — the chart-topping apotheosis of a generation that's breathing life into an imperiled business. MTV VJ Carson Daly is intimately acquainted with the habits of teenagers — not just through dating the newly twenty-year-old scream queen Jennifer Love Hewitt but via his stewardship of the station's afternoon call-in and e-mail show, Total Request Live. "Teens don't have an attention span anymore," says Daly, 25. "They just want to feel good for those four minutes, then go hit the Internet. They don't want to take things too seriously, and they wanna move—tempo is everything. Britney is a poster child for them."
Being a generational mascot brings with it certain responsibilities. "You want to be a good example for kids out there and not do something stupid," Spears says. "Kids have low self-esteem, and then the peer pressures come and they go into a wrong crowd. That's when all the bad stuff starts happening, drugs and stuff. I think if they find something that keeps them happy — writing, drawing, anything like that — then they'll have confidence."
Spears, who won her first talent show when she was six, sounds more middle-aged than teenage as she delivers this brisk message. Doesn't she think that people her age are struggling with self-esteem because of a torrent of media images that promote feelings of inadequacy? Spears thinks about this for a moment. "When people see things on TV that they can't do," she ventures, "that should make them want to go out there and make something of themselves. That's how I looked at it."
The very first low, aching "Ooh bay-by bay-by" that Britney Spears whispered into the public's ear strongly suggested that this wasn't your average seventeen-year old. It's still hard to equate those salacious syllables with the basketball-playing, churchgoing schoolkid who would travel an hour to shop at her nearest Abercrombie and Fitch. As Max Martin says, "People like the song — then they see the video and it's like, 'Fuck!'" You can see that kid in the family photographs and Britney-bilia that dominate the walls of the Spears household. Nestled among them — near the picture of Britney with Ed McMahon from her Star Search performance, in 1992 — is a picture of the star with her prom date, a gangly youth wearing moccasins with his dress pants. This is Reg, Britney's only boyfriend, with whom she had a two-year relationship. It came to an end when the strains of her budding career began to take their toll.
"It wasn't that I was changing," says Spears. "We broke up before any of my success had happened. He became insecure with himself, I felt. I wasn't gonna do anything — I'm a straight-up, honest person, and if I was gonna do something, I'd tell him before I'd do it and end the relationship. I was really head over heels in love. I don't think I'll ever love somebody like that again....I just woke up one day and click, it was gone." Spears shrugs off the rumors linking her with both Lance Bass and Justin Timberlake of 'N Sync. "Overseas they say it's Nick Carter of Backstreet Boys," she notes wryly. Right now, she says, she prefers to concentrate on her work rather than romance. "I have," she says, "no feelings at all."
Despite her position as Queen of Teen, Spears does not fully endorse the current wealth of youthful movies that her friends flock to. "Party movies," she calls them. She prefers Kleenex-intensive fodder like Stepmom and Steel Magnolias. She reads Cosmopolitan.
She used to follow Dawson's Creek, but she finds that regular habits like television watching and churchgoing are impossible to maintain on the road. Spears does pray nightly, however, and she catches random bits of TV. She has seen one episode of South Park, which she found "sacrilegious." Tonight, the opening titles of Felicity appear on the family television as she talks. The show is a touch too neurotic for Spears' tastes.
The Spears' house itself resembles a sitcom set, with several neighbors and relatives making unannounced cameos. Britney's eight-year-old sister, Jamie Lynn, drags a broom into the middle of the floor and treats everyone to a spirited reading of "It's a Hard-Knock Life" — the version from Annie, not Jay-Z's hip-hop revision. Above the kid's head, on top of the TV cabinet, is a forest of trophies. Many represent the athletic feats of Jamie Lynn's big brother, Bryan, now twenty-one, but most were won by Britney at talent shows and gymnastics meets (that's Britney back-flipping in the "...Baby One More Time" video).
As Mrs. Spears dishes out portions of a neighbor's Mississippi mud pie, Britney quietly listens to one of Felicity's soliloquies. "Isn't she breathtaking? So cute!" Britney says. She met the show's star, Keri Russell, when they were Mouseketeers together.
The Britney Spears phenomenon is no overnight creation. Even before she tasted the hard-knock life of children's talent shows, Spears was preparing for greatness. From age two she would hog the family bathroom, singing passionately into a hairbrush. "I was in my own world," she says. She made her stage debut at five, singing "What Child Is This" at her kindergarten graduation. "I found out what I'm supposed to do at an early age," she explains.
"She was always singing — she would never hush," coos Britney's mom, a diminutive forty-three-year-old with large brown eyes. Kinesiology student Bryan Spears remembers his sister dancing in front of the TV, trilling Madonna's "Like a Prayer." "It was very annoying," he confirms.
Before she was ten, Spears had pretty much nailed the talent-show racket. "Those little competitions got really old," she says. At age eight she impressed judges at an open call for the Disney Channel's revival of the Mickey Mouse Club, but she was deemed too young for the show. So she did TV ads and an off-Broadway play, Ruthless, attending New York's storied Professional Performing Arts School for three summers. Then, finally, came a two-season Mouseketeer stint in Orlando, where Spears palled around with Russell and future 'N Sync members JC Chasez and Timberlake.
In contrast to most child-performer scenarios, it was Spears who got her parents to set up the Mickey Mouse audition. Jeff Fenster, Jive Records' senior vice president of A&R, who signed Spears, was quite surprised when he saw the family dynamic at work. "Her parents were not pushing her at all," he says. In other words, Britney Spears is her own stage mother.
Upon the show's cancellation, Spears handed back her mouse ears and returned to Kentwood, enrolling at the private Park Lane school in nearby McComb, Mississippi. Park Lane's rules felt stuffy, and Spears' fellow pupils seemed, frankly, a bit provincial. "Remember that opening scene in Clueless with all the cliques? That's what it was like," says Spears, who made friends with cheerleaders and burnouts alike.
Britney Spears is well-regarded in Kentwood, a close-knit community of 2,600 where one can feel like a Satanist just for living in the wrong ZIP code. A local high school has a sign outside: DRIVE CAREFULLY, LIVE PRAYERFULLY. "Pretty much everybody here likes her," says Kentwood High student Lucas Thornton, 17. "When I went down to Mardi Gras, I had a Kentwood jacket on, and lots of people were asking did I know her."
Spears' ticket out of Kentwood arrived when music-business lawyer Larry Rudolph got her — in timeless showbiz style — an audition for Fenster. "It's very rare to hear someone that age who can deliver emotional content and commercial appeal," says Fenster of his first impressions.
There was more. "For any artist, the motivation — the 'eye of the tiger' — is extremely important," says Fenster. "And Britney had that. This is clearly a self-motivating person from a very young age."
From the second that Jive heard Britney Spears' first sessions with appointed producer-writer Eric Foster White, her fate was sealed. The singer's development deal was ramped up to a recording contract, and Jive began the kind of capital-intensive promo blitz more commonly associated with new products from Disney or Coca-Cola.
First came the Britney Web site, e-mail address and 800 number, advertised on several hundred thousand postcards. In summer 1998, about six months before she released her record, Spears performed at twenty-six malls across the country, schlepping with her two dancers and multiple costume changes. The outing was underwritten by leading teen magazines — Spears was signing autographs before she had ever been on the radio.
The Britney Spears cross-promotional bandwagon rolled on with a Sunglass Hut tie-in, a Tommy Hilfiger modeling gig and a warm-up slot on 'N Sync's tour. When... Baby One More Time was finally released, the hidden track was Britney flacking for label mates Backstreet Boys.
Impressive though Jive's promotional effort is, the company lays much of the credit for its success at the feet of the talent. "I have never seen an artist so focused on what she needed to do," says Kim Kaiman, Jive's marketing director. On Spears' mall tour, for instance, Kaiman was astonished at the way her charge cheerfully embraced grueling promo duties at retail chains and radio stations. "One of the reasons that radio fell in love with her is that she's so very Southern, so sweet and gracious," says Kaiman. "And that's really warming to a programmer's heart."
According to Spears, the record that was subsequently delivered to those pliant programmers was not quite what she had envisaged. She had vaguely imagined herself singing "Sheryl Crow music, but younger — more adult contemporary," she says. Spears, however, is happy that she went along with Jive's choice of high-gloss producers and writers. "It made more sense to go pop, because I can dance to it — it's more me."
When it came time to make a promo clip for . . . Baby One More Time, Spears had to show that her Southern conviviality had its limits. Jive had hired on video director Joseph Khan, whose concept reached the storyboard stage be-fore Spears spoke up. "They had this really bizarre video idea, this animated Power Ranger-y thing," she explains. "I said, 'This is not right. If you want me to reach four-year-olds, then OK, but if you want me to reach my age group ...' So I had this idea where we're in school and bored out of our minds, and we have Catholic uniforms on. And I said, 'Why don't we have knee-highs and tie the shirts up to give it a little attitude?' — so it wouldn't be boring and cheesy." The seventeen-year-old won the day, and the rest is chart history.
Britney Spears sits in her mom's kitchen, holding an ice pack on her knee as she sips her morning coffee. Her hair is down but not messy. Hot rollers have been dutifully applied; makeup and jewelry are in place. The knee is feeling a little better, but Spears is growing impatient with her local physicians. They don't seem to understand that she's got a new video to make.
Spears hobbles out of her kitchen and down a photo-lined hallway to her old bedroom. "It's a girly room," she warns. To say the least. The tiny space, like the rest of the house, is awash in floral patterns and frills; throw cushions cover every square inch not colonized by an impressive collection of pale-faced dolls, from porcelain models to squishy plastic specimens. "I knew this would happen!" says Spears in mild exasperation. Her little sister has been trying to fashion one doll's hair into dreadlocks.
For Spears, these dolls, like Mom's abiding ban on long-distance phone calls, are reminders of an earlier life. She has no intention of going back.
The next step forward is today's trip to New Orleans, where Spears will be attended by a physical therapist from the Saints football team. While she's there, this self-confessed bad driver may test-drive a soft-curved, new model BMW like the one in her next video, for the demure "Sometimes."
Spears' highway to heaven has not been without speed bumps. First there was the threatened lawsuit against her from a man claiming to be her former manager (the case was resolved out of court). A more serious threat comes from fans who have figured out where Spears lives. Alone in the house one night, she hid from a prowler lurking at the window; her mother surprised another as he was hailing to her through a locked bedroom window. Britney's father, a construction contractor, has been forced to work in Memphis due to a slump in the Louisiana economy; Britney has taken to sleeping in her mother's bed.
Lynne Spears walks through the kitchen's French doors and into a hug from her daughter. The pair speculate about the zit that has appeared on Britney's nose. The singer nonetheless implores her mother to whip up a grilled cheese sandwich. "You go into a hotel and you'll have grilled cheeses, but they're not like your mama's," says Spears as she scarfs down the butter — fried snack. In between bites, she dips chips into a hot cheese sauce.
Brother Bryan rolls up, lugging a giant bag of boiled crawfish. He and his fiancee, Blaze, have promised to take Britney to a New Orleans bar that has a built-in waterfall. (Long before she was in the public eye, she used to tag along on drinking trips with her brother and his friends, with fake ID in hand.) "What about me? Can't I come, too?" asks Lynne Spears, pouting in mock disappointment. "Of course you can!" say the kids.
"I know how to drink," says Britney. "Me and my mom will have a glass of wine together, and that's fine. Kids are gonna drink, and the more you say, 'Don't do it,' the more they're gonna want to do it." She has, she confesses, never been inebriated. "I stop before that happens. I just sit there and go all quiet, because I hate to lose control."
Control freaks often make good pop stars, and Britney Spears is not lacking in that department. Anyway, a prosperous debut year is practically guaranteed by ... Baby One More Time, which is front-loaded with hits in several pop genres. The Max Martin tracks should come with a free insulin shot, and Eric Foster White's songs are not for the lactose intolerant ("E-mail My Heart"?), but Spears sure sells the heck out of her material. Hearing a Britney Spears song for the first time is oddly comforting, like finding a Starbucks in a strange town. Spears' record company will be disappointed if U.S. sales don't break 4 million.
For teenage tyros like Britney Spears, though, it's the sophomore year that sorts out the Boyz II Men from the New Kids. As Carson Daly says, "The loyalty factor with teens is dangerous. As quickly as they came, they will leave. But Britney should make enough money this year to not have to worry about what the teens do a year from now."
There would seem to be a finite number of available story lines for Spears. She could find gainful employment in stage musicals, as did Debbie Gibson, or even denounce pop altogether and reincarnate herself like a vengeful Alanis Morissette. Then there's Tiffany, the teen-pop sensation whose name is now synonymous with anonymous.
The way Jeff Fenster sees it, Spears has already outgrown such archetypes. "I think she's got the opportunity to become someone who combines the best elements of Madonna in terms of versatility with the serious singers she looks up to: the Whitney Houstons and Celine Dions."
Spears fancies the Madonna model, praising the singer as a "smart businesswoman" and expressing a desire to shape her own career. To date, Spears has co-authored one B side, and she often leaves fragments of songs on her answering machine. She sums up her own ambition with chilling simplicity: "I want to be big all around the world."
Whatever Britney Spears ends up "growing into," she stands today as the latest model of a classic product: the unneurotic pop star who performs her duties with vaudevillian pluck and spokesmodel charm. As Spears herself says, "It's not supposed to be in-depth — that doesn't mean I haven't worked really hard."
Then again, if you're standing in some bar ten years hence and "... Baby One More Time" comes on the jukebox, you will smile. And you will move.
It looks like ephemeral pop might even be around in ten years' time. According to one estimate, the U.S. teen population is set to rise, in the next decade, from 29 million to 36 million. In other words, resistance is futile. Teenagers are driving our culture — and they won't be giving the keys back any time soon.
Related
• Britney Spears: A Life in Photos•
• Photos: Britney Spears, The Rolling Stone Covers
• Photos: Britney Spears' 'Femme Fatale' Tour Kickoff
• Britney Spears Pleases Herself: Rolling Stone's 2002 Cover Story
• Britney Spears Finds It Hard to Be a Woman: Rolling Stone's 2003 Cover Story
• The Tragedy of Britney Spears: Rolling Stone's 2008 Cover Story
• Britney Spears Returns: Rolling Stone's 2008 Cover Story
This story is from the April 15, 1999 issue of Rolling Stone. | Already think we're hypersexualizing our child celebrities? Then sigh and consider Tyga's latest video, "Stimulated," which all but confirms that he's dating just-turned-18 Kylie Jenner: "While many in the media—especially the celebrity media—has treated the story as racy gossip, a grown man having sex with a minor isn’t romantic, cute or 'scandalous,'" writes Morgan Jerkins at Quartz. He calls the "fairly explicit" song by Tyga, a 25-year-old father of one, another example of how underage celebs are packaged "for our consumption and entertainment with little thought to the emotional repercussions." (Tyga brags in the song, "They say she young/ She should have waited/ She a big girl, dawg, when she stimulated.") Jerkins accuses magazines and newspapers of playing "a significant role in the sexualization of children," noting 15-year-old Brooke Shields' controversial "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins" 1981 ad for Calvin Klein (revisited here by Advertising Age) and 17-year-old Britney Spears' Rolling Stone cover in a bra in 1999. But stardom makes child celebrities especially prone to predators—just look at Corey Feldman's memoir, Coreyography, which chronicled his sexual abuse by older men in show business. "Yes, celebrities are selling products" and can enjoy "incredibly lucrative results," writes Jerkins. "However, we cannot consume an adult celebrity in the same way that we do a young boy or girl, whether or not they tell us it’s okay." |
At Jomtien, Thailand, in March 1990, representatives of the global education community held the “World Conference on Education for All” and adopted a declaration on universal access to education as a fundamental right of all people. In April 2000, the “World Education Forum”met in Dakar, Senegal. Delegates from 181 nations adopted a framework for action committing their governments to achieve quality basic education for all—including ensuring that by 2015, all children— especially girls, children in difficult circumstances, and those from ethnic minorities—have access to completely free primary education of good quality. Also in early 2000, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Food Agencies in Rome proposed that the United States, within the U.N. framework, take the lead in organizing a worldwide school lunch program. The purpose would be to provide a meal every day for every needy child in the world. Doing so, the ambassador said, would attract children to school and keep them there under conditions in which they are able to learn and grow. The United States would pay 25 percent of the cost, and other donor nations would pay the rest. The United States would benefit, since Americans produce more food than they can eat or profitably sell and since most of the U.S. contribution would be in the form of agricultural commodities and thus would strengthen the market for cereal grain, dairy products, and livestock. According to the ambassador, other farm surplus countries such as France, Canada, and Australia would benefit as well. In late May 2000, President Clinton met with the ambassador to discuss the idea and asked senior advisers to prepare an analysis of how the United States might participate. In early July 2000, the advisers reported that all relevant agencies recommended that the president announce a U.S. pilot program to support the international community’s goal of achieving universal access to basic education by 2015 and the U.N.’s 10-year “Girls’ Education Initiative” to help poor countries eliminate gender disparities in educational access. The advisers recommended spending approximately $300 million in the first year on the pilot program, with levels in subsequent years dependent upon factors such as the extent of international participation and the continued availability of CCC funding. At the Okinawa Summit on July 23, 2000, the president announced the Global Food for Education Initiative and the pilot program. According to the White House press release, which was issued the day the program was announced, the purpose of the pilot program is to improve student enrollment, attendance, and performance in poor countries. These objectives were reaffirmed in USDA’s September 2000 request for proposals from cooperating sponsors and, more recently, in a December 2001 paper describing the goals, scope, and framework for action for monitoring and evaluating the pilot program. For the pilot, USDA sought proposals from various potential implementing partners, and approved 53 projects in 38 countries covering an estimated 8.3 million children. Partners include WFP and various cooperating sponsors. Among the latter are 13 PVOs and 1 foreign government (Dominican Republic). As of mid-December 2001, USDA had finalized agreements for 21 of 25 PVO projects, 26 of 27 WFP projects, and 1 project with the Dominican Republic. The recent total estimated cost for all of the pilot projects was $227.7 million, allocated as follows: WFP projects, $92.5 million; PVO projects, $121.1 million; and the government of the Dominican Republic, $14.1 million. The total cost is $72.3 million less than the originally planned $300 million initiative. According to USDA officials, the balance will be used in fiscal year 2002 to expand existing projects that show the most potential, based on performance. Appendix II provides more detailed program and cost information. Research and expert views on school feeding programs indicate that these programs are more likely to have positive results when they are carefully targeted and integrated with other educational, health, and nutritional interventions. There is considerable evidence that school feeding programs can increase enrollment and attendance if the programs are targeted at the right communities or populations. Evidence of the effectiveness of school feeding programs in improving learning is somewhat more mixed, possibly because of difficulties isolating factors associated with increased learning, the quality of studies assessing such relationships, or the quality and settings of such programs. Programs are more likely to have a positive result on enrollment, attendance, and learning when they are integrated with a facilitative learning environment and appropriate health and nutritional interventions. Community participation and parental involvement also promote these objectives. Taking steps to ensure that programs will be sustainable when donor assistance is no longer available is important for ensuring long-term effectiveness. At the same time, school feeding programs are costly and may not be cost effective, relative to other possible interventions. (Apps. IV and V provide results from selected studies on these issues.) Evidence indicates that school feeding programs can improve school enrollment and attendance if they target the right population. In general, studies and experts point to the importance of targeting programs on low- income communities that lack a secure supply of food and have relatively low rates of school enrollment and attendance. When school feeding programs do improve enrollment and attendance, their contribution is primarily through a transfer of income (the food) to families. School feeding programs may not have much of an impact if children are staying away because the distance to school is too far to walk, parents perceive the quality of the education to be low, or children are disabled. Providing national coverage to all children is usually not cost effective. Targeting high-risk communities is preferable to targeting individual children within schools, which could lead to competition among students and parents, dilution of nutritional impact through food sharing, and insufficient community support. (See app. IV for results from selected studies on the use of targeting to improve the effectiveness of school feeding programs.) According to several experts and practitioners, school feeding programs can also help reduce the educational gender gap—where the proportion of school-age boys attending school significantly exceeds that for school-age girls. Many studies have shown that the inability of households to cover direct and indirect costs of education results in fewer girls attending school. This inequity exists partly because parents perceive less value in educating girls, there is greater demand for girls’ labor at home, and girls are more affected by issues of school location and security. Yet some of the highest returns to education and other development investments derive from girls’ education. For example, according to studies cited by WFP: Illiterate girls have an average of six children each while girls who go to school average 2.9 children; Infants born to mothers with no formal education are twice as likely to die before their first birthday than are babies born to mothers with a post-primary school education; Between 1970 and 1995, 44 percent of the decrease in child malnutrition was attributable to improvements in female education; and Educated mothers are more likely to send their own daughters to school. To increase educational opportunities for girls, a “package” of strategies is often tailored to meet a country's special needs. These packages typically contain some combination of interventions to (1) reduce the opportunity costs of sending girls to school; (2) improve the quality and relevance of education; (3) increase access to close, safe schools equipped with basic infrastructure; (4) educate parents and communities about the benefits of girls' education; and (5) establish supportive national policies. A group of experts and practitioners who convened at USAID headquarters in October 2000concluded that little learning is likely to occur without a facilitative learning environment, where teachers engage children in stimulating learning tasks, provide frequent feedback and encouragement, and are equipped with motivational textbooks and other learning materials. A facilitative learning environment also requires a suitable physical environment and minimal school supplies. Unfortunately, most schooling in the developing world is far from this kind of environment.Teaching is frequently of poor quality and is poorly supported; and the curriculum often has little relevance to rural life, making formal schooling unconnected with the needs of rural communities. Thus, most developing countries require investments in teacher training; basic supplies (books, blackboards, desks, and chairs); a suitable physical environment; and other learning materials. Furthermore, many school systems in developing countries are dysfunctional, characterized by dispersed or displaced populations (as a result of conflict or natural calamities), limited basic infrastructure, and endemic child malnutrition. Many experts and practitioners also conclude that food for education programs must take place within the context of broad, national education reform programs that focus on essential inputs to education and learning, such as teacher development, curriculum reform, and student assessment. (See app. IV for results from selected studies on the impacts that school feeding programs have on learning.) According to various studies, poor nutrition and health among schoolchildren contribute to diminished cognitive abilities that lead to reduced school performance. According to experts, school feeding programs can be effective in reducing short-term hunger—which in turn can improve learning capacity—by providing an inexpensive breakfast or small snack, shortly after students arrive at school. Meanwhile, using enriched foods or complementing commodities in school feeding programs with locally available vitamin and mineral-rich foods is an effective route to alleviating the complex micronutrient deficiencies that schoolchildren in developing countries often suffer. At the same time, school feeding programs designed to capture both nutritional and educational gains need to invest in adequate water and sanitation at schools, since poor water and sanitation give rise to infectious diseases, including parasites, which adversely affect schoolchildren’s enrollment, attendance, and learning. These programs also benefit from inclusion of deworming treatments and health and nutrition education. (See app. IV for results from selected studies on nutrition and health measures that can be used in combination with school feeding programs to improve school performance.) Community and parental involvement are also important to successful school feeding programs. Community involvement in implementing school feeding programs can increase contact, and hence communication, between parents and teachers, officials, and others; provide parents an opportunity to become more aware of what goes on at schools; help raise the value of education and the school for parents and the whole community; and motivate parents to enroll their children in school and ensure regular attendance. Parent-teacher associations (PTA) or other outreach efforts can be used to educate parents and other community groups on issues such as the negative effects of temporary hunger on learning or the social and health benefits of educating girls. According to WFP, another important ingredient in successful school feeding programs is national government commitment to the goal of “education for all.” This commitment should be put into practice through policies, programs, and financial commitments within a country’s means that support basic education. Governments also need to commit to school feeding programs within the context of broad, national school reform programs, according to practitioners and experts who met at USAID in October 2000. These reforms should target essential inputs to education and learning, including teacher development, curriculum reform, and student assessment. While the benefits of school feeding programs are recognized, the programs are expensive both financially and in terms of the human resources required to operate them. In addition to the price of the food, costs associated with food logistics, management, and control can represent a significant financial burden for recipient country governments. These costs may be difficult for national governments to absorb and thus adversely affect long-term program sustainability. Estimates of the average cost of school feeding programs vary considerably (see app. V). According to WFP, the average cost per student of its development school feeding projects in 2000 was 19 cents per day, or $34 for a 180-day school year (see app. V). Programs costing $34 per pupil per school year are substantial when compared with what many developing countries spend on education. For example, in 1997 public expenditures of 19 least-developed countries for both pre-primary and primary education averaged only $20 per pupil, according to UNESCO. Average public expenditures of five southern Asian countries were reported at $40 per pupil. According to many experts, national ministries of education in developing countries should not be encouraged to take on school feeding at the expense of other educational inputs. Few national governments are committed to school feeding programs over the long term, they said. In addition, many governments and education ministries already are struggling to maintain barely functioning education systems; may not be equipped, financially or technically, to assume the additional burden of food distribution; and do not have the financial resources to sustain feeding programs after donor support is withdrawn. These experts say that getting local communities involved from the beginning and giving them ownership of school feeding programs greatly increase the chances for long-term program sustainability. According to WFP, its guidelines for school feeding programs require both national governments and local communities to provide a significant amount of resources and infrastructure. There are potential detrimental impacts if school feeding programs are not effectively implemented. For example, where adequate infrastructure is not available, increased attendance may lead to overcrowding and actually reduce educational achievement for existing students, while providing minimal benefit to new students. In some developing country circumstances, the school day is only a few hours. In such cases, time taken to prepare a meal may further limit an already inadequate period of instruction. In addition, if volunteers are not available to provide labor, teachers may be required to undertake this task at the expense of instructional time. Since school feeding is a highly visible income transfer, it may also be used for political purposes by actors in the recipient country. If school feeding programs are relatively ineffective, they may result in resources being taken away from better performing programs. According to several experts, in particular situations, school feeding programs may not be as cost effective in promoting learning as other possible approaches, such as establishing maternal child health and early childhood development programs or providing alternative nutritional and educational interventions (see app. V). The pilot program has not provided reasonable assurance that lessons from previous school feeding and food for education programs have been integrated into approved pilot projects. Under pressure to get the pilot up and running quickly, USDA gave interested applicants little time to prepare proposals, and it did not require them to provide basic information on and analysis of various factors important to successful food for education programs. Written criteria for evaluating proposals similarly did not focus on many of these factors. Many of the proposals approved did not address key elements of successful school feeding programs. Moreover, USDA provided little funding for important nonmeal components of the food for education projects, and only a few of the approved PVO proposals indicated they had obtained other donors’ support for nonmeal components. According to USDA officials with whom we spoke, the agency was under pressure to start a new and complex food for education program quickly and with far less funds—$300 million—than what is needed to fully address the educational components of school feeding. As a result, USDA did not solicit basic information on various factors linked to effective school feeding and food for education programs. Table 1 lists a set of questions, based on lessons learned, that USDA could have used to guide the type of information and analysis requested from implementing partners (i.e., cooperating sponsors and WFP) and, subsequently, for evaluating proposal quality. As shown in table 1, many important factors that experts cited were not addressed specifically by USDA in its formal request for proposals, and other items were only partly addressed in its request. The request was made to cooperating sponsors but not to WFP. (Less information was sought from WFP because, as a USDA official told us, many projects in the WFP proposals had previously been reviewed and approved by the U.S. government as part of the process by which the WFP Executive Board approves its projects.) We derived the questions from our review of lessons described in various studies and other documents on school feeding and food for education programs (see app. IV, especially tables 4 to 10. Also see app. VI for a more complete discussion of the interagency process used to evaluate, and approve proposals.) As table 1 indicates, USDA sought some information on how the projects would be targeted. For example, USDA indicated that it wanted to target poor countries and that it favored programs that would significantly improve enrollment and attendance. However, USDA did not require that proposals address how programs would be designed to improve educational performance, nor did it seek any information on factors that are key to whether learning could occur, such as adequate numbers of well- trained teachers and reasonable supplies of good learning materials. Similarly, USDA asked requesters how their programs would affect health and nutrition but did not specifically ask whether the schools had safe water and adequate sanitation facilities and whether intestinal parasitic infections in the student population were likely to be a problem. A USDA official told us there were limits on how much information the agency could require, given the short amount of time sponsors had to prepare proposals and the 1-year duration of the pilot. Further, the agency did not want to make the information requirements so costly for sponsors that it would get few or no proposals, the official said. Regarding the criteria used to evaluate the programs, table 1 also shows that U.S. agencies’ written criteria did not specifically address most of the key factors we derived, based on our review of lessons from previous school feeding and food for education programs. Of the 20 questions in table 1 on key factors in effective school feeding and food for education programs, 1 question was addressed specifically in the agencies’ written criteria and 8 were partly addressed. None of the agencies’ criteria specifically addressed the four learning environment questions shown in table 1. See appendix VI for a discussion of the written criteria used by agencies in evaluating the proposals. We also reviewed the approved PVO and WFP proposals and found that many included information related to the key factors we identified as important to successful food for education programs, although fewer than a third of the approved PVO and WFP proposals discussed most of the items. In general, the response rate was highest for those factors where USDA had solicited information. Table 2 shows the number of approved PVO and WFP proposals that provided information related to the key factors irrespective of whether USDA requested this information. For example, a considerable number of the PVO and WFP proposals included information on certain health and nutrition issues that were not specifically requested by USDA. To a lesser extent, proposals also included information on factors associated with the learning environment. Overall, the highest response rates were mostly for factors for which USDA had sought information (i.e., school enrollment and attendance levels, literacy rates, target area based on low economic status, and programs that involve the community and parents.) (See app. VI for additional discussion about the information that was included in WFP proposals.) USDA provided little funding for nonmeal components—such as basic classroom materials, nutritional education, and treatment of parasitic infections—that are essential elements of an integrated approach to food for education programs. Altogether, USDA approved 60 proposals, including 34 for WFP, 25 for PVOs, and 1 for the government of the Dominican Republic. For WFP projects, USDA largely funded only school meals and related costs, including storage, transportation, and handling of the food. For the PVO projects, USDA was willing to consider proposals that included nonfood components to be funded by monetizing some of the surplus commodities or by the PVOs themselves. We found that 17 of the 25 approved PVO proposals included nonmeal components; but of the 17 proposals, only 10 included in their proposed budget a dollar value for resources that would be allocated to some or all of these activities. (See app. VII, table 14, for additional information on the extent to which PVO proposals included nonmeal components and budgeting for these activities.) While the U.S. pilot program expects to provide food to more than 8 million schoolchildren in developing countries, its structure, planning, and management to date do not reasonably ensure a program that will produce substantial gains in enrollment, attendance, and especially learning. The administration’s decision to fund the program through surplus commodities may be appropriate for a 1-year pilot but is not sustainable for a longer-term program. USDA, which was selected to manage the pilot, lacked the expertise and resources of USAID--the agency traditionally responsible for foreign development aid such as food for education programs. The pressure on USDA to get the pilot program up and running quickly did not allow time to adequately plan the program and hire additional staff to manage it. USDA launched the pilot before fully developing a strategy for monitoring and evaluating performance; and, because of the pilot’s short time frame, USDA officials told us they would not be able to evaluate improvements in learning—one of the program’s three objectives. This weakness, as well as others related to ensuring financial accountability for some parts of the projects, could make determining the pilot’s effectiveness difficult. The administration’s decision to use surplus agricultural commodities to fund the pilot was an expedient way to get the program quickly under way. However, surplus commodities are not a good vehicle for funding a medium- or long-term development program, since surpluses cannot be ensured on a regular basis. (For example, between fiscal years 1996 and 1998, there was no section 416(b) program.) Although the pilot was expected to run for just over 1 year, the administration contemplated a multiyear food for education program, possibly lasting as long as a decade. Under this scenario, when surpluses were not available, the administration would have to end the program or sustain it through the foreign aid budget, which is expected to have many competing priorities in the foreseeable future. USAID—traditionally the U.S. agency for providing foreign development assistance, including school feeding and food for education programs— would normally have been the logical choice to establish and run the pilot. However, in light of constraints on foreign aid funding generally and other high priority development needs, the administration wanted CCC to manage the pilot, and to do so using available surplus agricultural commodity funding authority (i.e., section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949). The administration’s decision to assign management responsibility for the pilot to USDA rather than USAID follows a recent trend of giving USDA a larger role in U.S. food aid programs, primarily because of increased section 416(b) program activity. However, USDA lacked USAID’s resources (such as USAID’s overseas development missions) and USAID’s school feeding/food for education development expertise. The principal mission of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is to help ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural exports; it generally has had little experience in managing school feeding development assistance programs. USDA has previously used section 416(b) authority to provide some commodities for international school feeding programs, but we were told the amounts were relatively smalland not for integrated food for education programs. In contrast, USAID has been engaged in school feeding programs since the 1950s and administers economic and humanitarian assistance programs in more than 80 countries. Beginning in the mid-1990s, USAID began reducing its support for traditional school feeding programs that provided only meals, citing mounting evidence that school feeding, in and of itself, contributed little to improving child learning ability or child nutrition on a sustainable basis. According to USAID officials, its school feeding assistance has evolved into programs designed to improve education (i.e., enrollment, attendance, and graduation rates, especially for girls) by focusing on national education policy reform, curriculum development, and teacher training programs. In 2000, USAID spent $33 million on PVO- operated food for education programs in eight countries that benefited 1.3 million children. President Clinton announced GFEI on July 23, 2000. USDA began to implement the pilot program almost immediately, leaving little time for planning and relying on existing staff from within the Foreign Agricultural Service to work on the assignment. USDA issued its request for proposals on September 6, 2000, with a closing date for all submissions at the end of September. (See app. IX for key events from the time the concept of an international school lunch program was suggested until approval of the GFEI pilot program proposals.) According to USDA officials, USDA was understaffed when the GFEI pilot was launched and a year later still lacked sufficient staff for handling food aid matters. For example, in a July 2000 meeting with PVOs to discuss the pilot program, the Secretary of Agriculture said the lack of staffing in U.S. agencies for running food aid programs was acute. At the same time, he said the president wanted to see some benefits from the pilot program before leaving office. In November 2000, a USDA official told us that USDA was generally understaffed for monitoring food aid programs. At a July 2001 meeting with PVOs, other USDA officials apologized to PVO representatives for having too few staff available to negotiate agreements and address other food aid program issues in a timely manner.44, 45 According to OMB, in March 2001, the administration authorized USDA to use $2.5 million of the $300 million in CCC funds for administrative salaries and expenses. According to a USDA official, the funds are being used to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of the pilot program’s impact. As of September 2001, a year after the pilot was launched, USDA was still in the planning stage regarding hiring regional coordinators and local national staff in PVO recipient countries to help monitor pilot program projects. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service has managed the pilot with existing Program Development Division staff resources, which were already stretched thin because of a recent section 416(b) program expansion, personnel turnover, and slow hiring of replacements. During our review, a significant portion (ranging from between 25 percent to 33 percent) of the division’s permanent staff positions were vacant. WFP and IPHD noted that many of the recipient countries were well into their academic year before USDA commodities were procured, shipped, and available for distribution. USDA’s September 2000 Federal Register notice indicated that CCC funds might be available to cover some of the cooperating sponsors’ expenses related to implementing the school feeding projects. As a result, many PVOs submitted proposals based on the assumption that they would receive CCC funds to cover part of their expenses. However, in January 2001 USDA reversed its position, announcing that funding would not be available. This meant that PVOs’ expenses in recipient countries would have to be covered by selling (monetizing) commodities in the recipient countries and using the resulting local currency proceeds to cover in- country costs. The policy change further meant that PVO direct administrative headquarters’ costs could not be covered, since the section 416(b) program does not allow monetization of commodities for that purpose. USDA’s policy shift resulted in several of the proposals having to be restructured, causing discontent within the PVO community and leading to delays in concluding a number of agreements. In fact, about one-third of the approved PVO agreements were not signed by the end of September 2001. In addition, the change presented problems for some PVOs because it required them to monetize increased quantities of commodities within recipient countries to recover some of their costs, and there were limits on the commodity tonnage that could be monetized effectively. Some PVOs were also upset because all of WFP’s operating expenses, including headquarters’ costs, were funded by CCC cash payments. Legislative relief in the form of limited CCC funding was provided to PVOs in late July 2001; at that time, only 4 PVO agreements had been signed. (App. IX discusses the funding sources used for pilot program sponsors in more detail.) To know whether programs are effective, program objectives should clearly describe the intended end results and accompanying indicators so that changes and progress toward achieving the objectives can be tracked over time. However, USDA initiated its requests for proposals in September 2000 without having a comprehensive plan for how it would monitor and evaluate project performance and has spent much of the time since then establishing such a plan. USDA and WFP will collect baseline data on school enrollment and attendance for the time before the projects began and monitor and assess change in these variables over the course of the projects. However, USDA has not set specific targets or desired performance levels for enrollment and attendance in its agreements with most of its implementing partners. In addition, although improved learning is one of the three principal objectives of the pilot program, USDA said it will not monitor and evaluate performance on this variable, unless improved learning is an element within an agreement, because of the program’s short duration. Officials from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service told us USDA is responsible for evaluating the performance of WFP, PVOs, and the Government of the Dominican Republic in implementing GFEI projects. According to these officials, FAS’ mandate is to monitor and review the 25 PVO and 1 country government projects in 20 countries from October 2001 through March 2003, and at appropriate intervals report to the Congress on the projects’ status. They added that FAS headquarters staff is also responsible for evaluating WFP’s GFEI project implementation. They stated that the agency intends to complete an interim status report on the pilot for the Congress by July 2002 that will address several performance- related issues. In its September 6, 2000, Federal Register notice, USDA said that cooperating sponsors would be required to report periodically the number of meals served, enrollment levels, and attendance levels, including female attendance levels. In addition, USDA said that reports should include information on infrastructure relevant to sustaining the feeding program, such as establishment of PTAs and community groups. However, the notice did not indicate whether sponsors would be required to collect baseline data on these variables, which would permit comparisons of conditions before a project got under way and when it was completed. It did not indicate whether or how success would be measured—for example, what percent improvement in attendance would represent achievement of the program’s objectives. In addition, the notice did not discuss whether sponsors would be required to report on educational performance, one of the program’s three principal objectives. In February 2001, USDA began negotiating final agreements with cooperating sponsors and WFP for approved proposals. As of December 2001, USDA had completed agreements for 21 of 26 approved cooperating sponsor project proposals. All 21 proposals contained provisions that required reporting on the number of meals served, enrollment and attendance levels (including female attendance), and establishment of infrastructure relevant to sustaining the feeding program, such as PTAs and community groups. However, less than half of these agreements indicated a requirement for baseline data; and a majority of the agreements did not specify performance targets for enrollment, attendance, and female attendance. None of the agreements included reporting requirements for educational performance. (According to USDA officials, PVOs opposed such reporting, arguing that the pilot was too short in duration to permit a meaningful analysis of impacts on learning.) By September 2001, 33 of 34 agreements for WFP projects were concluded, with 1 deferred until fiscal year 2002. None of these agreements specified requirements for measuring project performance; in fact, they did not even say that WFP would report the types of data USDA had required from cooperating sponsors, such as enrollment and attendance data. Nonetheless, WFP developed a detailed survey instrument for collecting baseline information on its GFEI-funded projects. The survey was pilot- tested in August 2001, approximately 1 year after USDA received proposals from WFP and cooperating sponsors. According to USDA and WFP officials, WFP conducted the surveys in a sample of schools for all of its projects before the end of 2001 and before the food aid was distributed. In addition to collecting basic information on the feeding program, the survey sought detailed baseline and subsequent performance data on school enrollment and attendance (broken down by boys and girls and grade level); the number of certified and uncertified teachers in the school; the number of classrooms; certain baseline information on community and parental involvementand health and nutrition issues; and whether the school had other ongoing programs related to effective school feeding programs and if so, the name of the donor providing the program. The survey also called for the use of focus groups to collect views on the likely reasons why eligible children did not enroll and enrolled boys and girls did not attend school during a year. The survey instrument indicates WFP’s interest in upgrading monitoring and evaluation of its feeding programs, since previous efforts revealed some weaknesses. However, the survey included only two questions focused on the possible impact of the programs on improved learning.WFP is sharing its survey results with USDA. (See app. III for additional information on WFP activities to improve monitoring and evaluation of school feeding programs.) During the summer of 2001, USDA was still debating how to monitor and evaluate performance for the cooperating sponsors’ projects. In August 2001, it convened a working group of USDA officials and USAID consultants with expertise in monitoring and evaluation methodologies to discuss the issue. The group recommended use of local school or government records for collecting data on enrollment and attendance, but it was against collecting quantitative data on indicators for measuring educational progress (such as reduced dropout rates, retention and/or completion, and promotion to the next grade) and level of community participation and infrastructure development. For the latter variables, it recommended information be collected through a combination of focus groups and structured interviews with school staff and parent and community groups. In fall 2001, USDA decided to use the WFP survey instrument for the cooperating sponsors’ projects and, like WFP, apply the survey in a sample of the schools in each project. According to USDA officials, doing so would allow collection of comparable data, provided USDA’s sampling strategy was properly designed. USDA also decided to contract with about 20 local national monitors (approximately 1 per country) to collect the data and 5 regional coordinators to manage the monitors. In late December 2001, USDA officials told us they planned to add a few more questions to the survey to address concerns about whether some of the projects were well targeted. They also said the surveys would be conducted in early 2002. USDA officials told us that they ultimately decided not to measure change in school learning. They said that from the beginning of the pilot, USDA, WFP, and PVOs were concerned about the ability to effectively evaluate and judge an increase in student performance under a 1-year pilot program. Research that tries to demonstrate improvements in academic achievement is lengthy and requires a long-term approach, they said. USAID officials with whom we spoke were also critical of the short time allowed for running the pilot program. They said USAID pilot programs usually take 4 to 5 years, with an evaluation done in the third year to see if the program is on track, and an assessment of the impact conducted in the fourth year. An effective global food for education program needs to ensure that food aid does not interfere with commercial markets and inhibit food production in developing countries. USDA uses an international consultative process—the Consultative Sub-Committee on Surplus Disposal (CSSD)—to keep the pilot program’s food aid from interfering with commercial exports. The process involves notification of various categories of food aid donations, prior consultation with other exporters, and establishment of Usual Marketing Requirements (UMR) to ensure that food aid recipients maintain a normal intake of commercial imports in addition to the food aid they receive. According to the CSSD, in recent years several factors reduced the effectiveness of the UMR approach, including (1) lack of uniformity in the compliance period (fiscal year, crop year, and calendar year); (2) fewer food aid operations covered by the UMR because many transactions are exempt; (3) a rise in UMR waivers for countries facing difficult economic situations; and (4) delays in collecting trade data, which make establishment of 5-year average commercial imports as a benchmark for current import levels unrealistic. USDA officials acknowledged that some countries have expressed concerns that GFEI might adversely affect commercial exports but said they have not received any specific complaints about the U.S. pilot’s food exports. To address disincentive effects of food aid on local production, the United States requires all proposed food aid projects to submit an analysis showing the recipient has adequate storage facilities and that food aid will not disrupt domestic production and marketing. (Technically the analysis is known as a Bellmon determination.) We reviewed the analyses by cooperating sponsors whose projects were approved for the pilot and found the analyses were not adequate for determining disincentives to production of local commodities. All cooperating sponsors concluded that the amount of food for their projects was so small it was unlikely to significantly affect local production. But their analysis of data on local market conditions was generally based on production of identical commodities. For example, if wheat was not grown in the recipient country, sponsors concluded there was no disincentive to importing and monetizing wheat—without considering whether the amount of imported wheat would affect price or demand for locally produced substitute commodities. Cooperating sponsors did not adequately verify that the commodities were in demand and would not compete with local markets, other commercial export programs, and other donor imports. USDA officials told us that cooperating sponsors are responsible for analyzing the potential disincentive effects of their projects. They said USAID no longer has agricultural officers stationed overseas and now USDA has to rely on PVOs—which have on-the-ground, in-country staff—to determine whether the food aid will adversely affect recipient country markets. (USAID advised us that while the number of agricultural officers overseas has been reduced in recent years, it still has such officers in a number of posts.) Although USDA and/or USAID attaches may review such analyses, USDA does not independently verify the results. USDA officials also noted that the lack of good data could affect sponsors’ ability to prepare more robust analyses. USDA does not require WFP to conduct or submit similar analyses of WFP projects that are partly funded by the U.S. pilot program. However, WFP told us a review is required of all WFP proposed projects for their potential impact on production and markets, and food aid donors (including the United States) participate. We identified several weaknesses in how USDA has maintained financial accountability over WFP and PVO projects that could adversely affect the pilot program. Although USDA advances funds (in the case of WFP) or food (in the case of cooperating sponsors) on the basis of their estimated needs and requires them to provide regular though different forms of financial and project status reporting, WFP in particular has not adequately accounted for past Section 416(b) program donations. The PVOs provide more detailed financial reporting, in part, because a large portion of the commodities they receive are to be monetized in country to cover foodand other expenses. USDA requires that PVOs monetize commodities at market prices, but it has not systematically tracked whether the PVOs received prices for the monetized commodities that were commensurate with their cost or whether the funds were spent in accordance with approved program plans. Under a section 416(b) umbrella agreement, WFP is required to account for the costs it incurs and charges USDA on food aid donations. WFP is supposed to submit annual standardized project reports that provide implementation and actual expenditure data for ongoing activities similar to what is required of PVOs. We found that WFP had not met its obligation to provide USDA with an accounting for past Section 416(b) program donations by providing detailed actual cost data. As a result, USDA is not in position to know whether its advances to WFP, on the basis of initial cost estimates, are consistent with actual project costs and to what extent the project objectives are being achieved within the approved budget estimates. A similar situation exists with USAID-funded donations to WFP. According to a USAID official, WFP has not provided actual cost data for direct and indirect project costs at the level of project activities and by donors. Such data is needed, the official said, to know whether the United States is meeting and not exceeding its fair share of a project’s total cost, as well as the costs of specific project activities. In April 2001, U.S. officials reiterated to WFP officials the need for disaggregated actual cost data. During the meeting, WFP officials noted that WFP was in transition, using a new financial information system for new business while still using the earlier system for old business. According to a USAID review conducted in June 2001, WFP’s new system appeared to have the capacity to accurately monitor and report on full cost recovery in the aggregate. However, the system was not yet fully operational and thus the adequacy of the complete system could not yet be determined. In September 2001, WFP told USDA it would not be able to provide finalized reports for fiscal year 1999 obligations that were due by the end of that month. According to USAID, pursuant to bilateral consultations between an interagency U.S. government delegation and WFP management, the United States agreed to a 6-month extension for WFP to report actual cost data for all U.S. government contributions to WFP. As previously indicated, a substantial portion of the commodities provided to PVOs are to be monetized, with the proceeds used to pay for other foods and/or other expenses, such as administrative expenses and inland transportation, storage, and handling costs. For the first 17 completed PVO agreements, more than 80 percent of the commodities are to be monetized. At issue is whether USDA is sufficiently tracking the proceeds that PVOs receive from the commodities they monetize. Also, if a PVO sells a commodity for less than the market value, the commodity could undercut other commercial sales, including imports or domestically produced commodities, and fewer proceeds would be available for financing the school meals or related activities. USDA regulations require that PVO commodity sales meet local market conditions and that PVO and government sponsors provide a report showing deposits into and disbursements out of special accounts established for commodity sales proceeds. In past Section 416(b) programs, USDA did not determine to what extent proceeds compared with what sponsors expected to receive as stipulated in the project agreements, nor whether the commodities were sold at real market prices. However, in September 2001, USDA officials told us they plan to conduct such an analysis for the pilot program projects. The success of a comprehensive, long-term GFEI strongly depends on other donor support, but most other donors are either opposed or not committed to supporting GFEI at this time. A few donors have indicated support for the food for education initiative but have offered little in terms of specific additional contributions. While WFP officials are confident of eventual support, most donor countries seem unlikely to provide substantial support unless the United States adopts a permanent program that is not dependent on surplus commodities and/or unless the pilot program demonstrates strong, positive results. Some donors are opposed to GFEI on the grounds that developmental food aid assistance is ineffective in promoting sustainable development. Others are noncommittal for a variety of reasons, including possible adverse impacts on commercial agricultural exports to and domestic agricultural production in recipient countries. The U.S.-proposed GFEI challenged other donor countries and organizations to join the United States in helping achieve the goal of education for all children in developing countries by 2015. Indeed, the United States said that its willingness to extend the pilot program beyond its first year would depend in part on other donors’ response. Since the initiative was first proposed, U.S. officials have indicated they would like to see other donors contribute, in aggregate, anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the total cost of a global food for education program. The Clinton administration estimated that at least 300 million children in developing countries need school meals. Assuming an annual average cost of $34 per student for a 180-day school year, the annual meal cost alone for 300 million children would be approximately $10.2 billion.To put this estimate in perspective, in 1999, $10.2 billion represented about 96 percent of the Organization for Economic Cooperation/Development Assistance Committee countries’ official development assistanceto least developed countries, or about 18 percent of development assistance directed to all developing countries. In addition, net official development assistance has declined during the past decade, from $56.7 billion in 1991 to $53.7 billion in 2000. We estimate the food tonnage required to provide a school meal for 300 million children (for a 180-day school year) to be in excess of 16 million metric tons, which would exceed average annual global food aid deliveries between 1990 and 2000 by about 40 percent. (Global food aid deliveries averaged approximately 12 million metric tons per year from 1990 through 2000.) Moreover, food aid for development programs, only a part of which is for school feeding, averaged about 3 million metric tons per year. Thus GFEI would represent more than a fivefold increase for these types of programs. According to a State Department cable, when the United States proposed GFEI at the July 2000 G-8 Summit, the proposal received a cool reception. Subsequently, in November 2000, the State Department headquarters asked U.S. diplomats in 23 countries to explain the U.S. pilot program to foreign governments and encourage their support. In addition, the previous U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Food Agencies in Rome sought other countries’ support for GFEI through his participation in the WFP Executive Board and in official visits to food aid donor countries, such as Denmark and Finland. These efforts notwithstanding, most donor countries have yet to respond in a strongly positive or substantial way. Of the top 13 food aid donating countries for the period 1995 through 1999, the United States supplied more than half of all deliveries, with the other donors providing slightly more than 41 percent (see app. X). Table 3 summarizes general views of all but one of these other donor countries as well as Finland and their plans or actions to contribute to GFEI or the WFP’s school feeding initiative. As table 3 shows, representatives of 4 of the 12 donors (Japan, France, Italy, and Finland) indicated general support for the food for education initiative. The European Commission, the second largest provider of food aid in the world, has said it is against a “one-program-fits-all” approach, citing a preference for strategic planning that identifies all of a country’s development needs and then analyzes alternative ways to achieve them. According to the Commission, education forms an integral part of the European Union’s development policy, and it is crucial that all shortcomings in providing education are tackled at the same time. If analysis indicated that a food for education program would have a positive impact, the Commission would still want to assess the relative cost effectiveness and efficiency of the alternatives. Representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden also expressed reservations about GFEI not being an integrated approach to development assistance and/or about the ability of recipient countries to sustain the programs over the long run. Representatives of Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom indicated they would like to see whether the U.S. pilot program or WFP program demonstrates successful results. Representatives of the European Commission, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden expressed concerns about or said they thought the U.S. program was being used to dispose of surplus commodities. In addition, some donors indicated they favor using food aid for emergency (rather than development) purposes, expressed reservations about providing assistance for school feeding programs in the form of food or surplus commodities, or indicated they lack convincing information on the effectiveness of WFP school feeding activities. (See app. VIII for additional information on donor views on food aid.) Regarding actual support for GFEI, Italy has contributed nearly $1 million to the WFP initiative in three African countries. A French representative said France might provide some support, either on its own or through WFP, but added that France wanted to maintain its current level of WFP development activities, which would limit France’s ability to greatly increase funding for WFP’s school feeding initiative. Representatives of Japan and Finland, the two other supporters, indicated their countries would not increase their current level of donations to support the initiatives. Meanwhile, representatives of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden all indicated that they would track the progress of the food for education initiatives for the results. The German representatives said their country’s budget situation does not permit providing additional support. In mid-April 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Food Agencies in Rome acknowledged that there had been very little movement by other donor countries toward supporting GFEI but said that they were coming around to the idea. They want to see an American commitment, which will begin with the pilot program’s implementation, he said. The Ambassador said he thought Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden would be on board within the next few months and that France and Germany would soon join in. At the same time, WFP officials told us that most or all governments, donors and recipients alike, support a global school feeding effort and that they were optimistic that additional contributions would be forthcoming by the end of 2001. At the beginning of August 2001, WFP officials told us the Swiss government was contributing 194 metric tons of food, and France intended to contribute a total of 5,280 metric tons of rice, beans, oil, and corn/soy blend to a Honduran program. In addition, they said, Cargill, Inc., had provided a $50,000 donation to assist WFP’s school feeding operation in Honduras (to be matched by the local Cargill affiliate in Honduras). Apart from food donations, the Canadian government approved the use of a $250,000 grant facility for WFP for a deworming effort in conjunction with WFP school feeding efforts in Africa, WFP officials said. In addition, an international fund offered to consider providing upwards of $300,000 to fund nonmeal items (such as construction of schools, teacher training, training materials, school books, and cooking utensils) in least-developed countries. And, the officials said, WFP was negotiating new partnerships for school feeding, including the health, sanitation, and educational aspects of primary schools, with a variety of U.S. government and international agencies. At the end of December, 2001, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. Food Agencies in Rome told us that Italy, France, and Switzerland were still the only countries that had agreed to supplement the U.S. government contribution to the WFP school feeding program. In our review of the current GFEI pilot, we found a number of weaknesses that make it difficult to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. For example, our research of past school feeding programs indicated that the programs are more likely to improve enrollment, attendance, and learning if they are carefully integrated with other educational, health, and nutritional interventions—such as ensuring adequate numbers of well-trained teachers and providing treatments for parasitic infections and micronutrient deficiencies. However, USDA began the GFEI pilot quickly and did not require potential implementing partners to provide important information on the linkages to these other interventions. Since most of the pilot’s funding is targeted for the school meals, it is unclear whether these other important factors that contribute to effective programs are adequately addressed. In addition, USDA has not effectively managed the pilot in part because of its lack of expertise and resources for food for education development programs. It has not set specific targets or desired performance levels for enrollment and attendance in its agreements with most of its implementing partners. WFP has recently collected baseline data on enrollment and attendance, and USDA is in the process of doing so. USDA will not try to measure the projects’ impacts on learning, as it believes the 1-year time frame is too short for such an assessment.Because of these weaknesses, we do not believe the pilot program will yield adequate information on whether its projects have succeeded or failed in improving enrollment, attendance, and learning—and why. Furthermore, a number of other donor countries will not contribute to GFEI until they see if the pilot is successful. These are important concerns as the Congress considers what actions to take regarding legislation on GFEI. As the Congress decides whether to further fund GFEI, it may wish to consider: extending the pilot program to permit an assessment of its effects on learning, as well as a more meaningful review of its impact’s on enrollment and attendance; deciding whether additional funding for pilot project related activities, such as teacher training and textbooks, may be needed for effective projects; assuring that the administering agency has sufficient expertise and staff resources to effectively manage the program; and requiring the administering agency to establish measurable performance indicators to monitor progress and evaluate project results. We received written comments on a draft of this report from USDA, USAID, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that are reprinted in appendixes XII, XIII, and XIV. These agencies also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in this report as appropriate. The Department of State’s liaison for GAO told us that State believes the report findings are essentially factual and correct and opted not to comment further. We also obtained technical comments on parts of the report from the World Bank, WFP, and six PVOs and have incorporated them as appropriate. In its comments, USDA reiterated a number of key points and findings that were in the draft report and provided some additional information about certain aspects of the pilot program. Beyond that, USDA said it believes we have taken an overly critical view of how it has administered the pilot program, given time and resource constraints. Our draft report cited time and resource limitations as key factors affecting the management and possible effectiveness of the program. USDA also said it believes the report fails to recognize that the president directed a school feeding program, not an entire educational program. We disagree with this statement. We clearly said— as the White House did on the day the program was announced and as USDA itself did in its comments—that the pilot is a school feeding program with the three purposes of improving student enrollment, attendance, and learning. USAID said our draft report accurately and fairly depicted the complex and formidable challenges confronting the GFEI, fully endorsed our matters for congressional consideration, and said the findings and matters should be of great use to the Congress as it debates the structure of U.S. food assistance. USAID observed that the pilot placed priority on getting the program up and running, with program designers believing that improvements could then be made that would address issues of cost, sustainability, and the need for complementary programs. OMB commented that the draft report was balanced and generally accurate and would serve the Congress and the public in future deliberations about school feeding programs. OMB also said that the principal criticisms of the pilot program problems may be attributable to the urgency with which the program was generated. In addition, OMB said, greater emphasis was placed on the nutritional goals of the pilot rather than education objectives. One could expect that some of these problems could be addressed by a more deliberate approach to performance and evaluation, it said. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the secretary of state; secretary of agriculture; and the administrator, USAID. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-4347. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix XII. We obtained information on the Global Food for Education Initiative (GFEI) and pilot program from U.S. government officials at the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and State, as well as officials from the Agency for International Development (USAID), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the White House. We also obtained information from officials of the World Food Program (WFP), foreign donor governments, and representatives of private voluntary organizations. In addition, we met with representatives of the European Commission and the World Bank, and experts from private research institutions. We conducted our review in Washington, D.C.; Rome, Italy; and Brussels, Belgium. Our review addressed lessons learned from past international school feeding programs, the application of lessons learned to the pilot program, an assessment of the design and implementation phase of the pilot project, the impact of the GFEI on recipient country agricultural markets, and the commitment of other donor countries to the initiative. Our review did not address the in-country phase of the pilot program because projects were not operational during most of the time of our review. Our contact with PVOs was limited because most of their agreements were not finalized until we had completed most of our field work. To examine the lessons learned about the effectiveness and cost of school feeding programs in promoting increased school enrollment, attendance, and performance, we reviewed studies completed by the U.S. government, international organizations, private voluntary organizations, and private research institutions. We also met with selected experts in international school feeding. We reviewed the studies in terms of past programs’ impact on enrollment, attendance, and learning. In reviewing studies and meeting with experts, we also identified key factors common to effective school feeding programs. Through our analysis of information from World Bank and WFP, we also compared estimated costs of various school feeding programs. To examine the extent to which the U.S. pilot program has been built upon the lessons learned from previous school feeding programs, we met with senior officials of the USDA and State, USAID, the White House, and OMB, as well as representatives of private voluntary organizations, research institutions, and international organizations. We also reviewed program decisionmaking documents. We compared information obtained from these sources to key conclusions of past international school feeding studies and the views of various experts. To determine whether the U.S. pilot program was designed and implemented to reasonably ensure that the food aid and monetized proceeds were used effectively and efficiently, we gathered information and met with officials from the USDA, USAID, the White House, and OMB. We also obtained information from private voluntary organizations and WFP. We reviewed pilot program guidance, proposals, and relevant laws and regulations governing the development and administration of the pilot project. We also gathered and analyzed a variety of key pilot project information to provide estimates of tonnage, project costs, and number of beneficiaries by cooperating sponsor. We assessed selected information in proposals for approved pilot projects and nonmeal program components of these projects, including the amount budgeted and number of project beneficiaries. We applied our governmentwide internal control standards in evaluating the pilot project’s management and financial controls. To determine the views of other major food aid donors regarding support for a comprehensive, long-term global food for education initiative, we gathered information and met with officials from donor countries including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the European Commission. We developed an analytical framework to summarize their individual and collective views on how food aid should be provided in terms of emergencies, development, cash, or food-in-kind. We conducted our review from November 2000 through December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Does not include a late fiscal year 2002 shipment of 2,350 metric tons. Some projects involve multiple commitments. The United States approved 34 WFP proposals covering 27 WFP projects in 23 countries. Of the 34 proposals, 8 were for expansions of already existing school feeding projects. The United States approved two different projects each for Guinea, Kenya, Nicaragua, and Uganda. As of February 21, 2002, USDA and WFP were still negotiating the terms of the second project for Guinea, and no figures for this project are shown in the table. The World Food Program (WFP), set up in 1963, is a major U.N. agency in the fight against global hunger. In 2000, WFP fed 83 million people in 83 countries, including most of the world’s refugees and internally displaced people. It shipped 3.5 million tons of food; received $1.75 billion in donations; and had operational expenditures of $1.49 billion (provisional figures). WFP provides three basic kinds of food aid: (1) emergency assistance to cope with the adverse food effects of natural disasters, civil conflict, and war; (2) protracted relief or rehabilitation aid to help people rebuild their lives and communities once the causes of emergencies recede; and (3) development assistance that aims to make communities food secure so they can devote time, attention, and work to escaping the poverty trap. When WFP was founded, its food assistance primarily focused on development, and for years development projects accounted for more than two-thirds of its expenditures. However, during the past 15 years, WFP has become increasingly involved in responding to humanitarian emergencies. According to WFP officials, WFP devoted 28 percent of its resources to development in 1997, 18 percent in 1999, and only 13 percent in 2000. WFP relies entirely on voluntary contributions to finance its projects. Governments are the principal source of funding, but corporations, foundations, and individuals also contribute. Donations are made either as cash, food (such as grains, beans, oil, salt, and sugar), or the basic items necessary to grow, cook, and store food—kitchen utensils, agricultural tools, and warehouses. Since it has no independent source of funds, WFP’s Executive Board has mandated that all food donations, whether in cash or in-kind, must be accompanied by the cash needed to move, manage, and monitor the food aid. WFP has been running school feeding programs for nearly 40 years. In 1999, it operated 76 school feeding projects in 48 developing countries. These included 33 emergency or protracted relief projects that had 5.28 million beneficiaries and 43 development projects that had 5.85 million beneficiaries. Thus, total beneficiaries were 11.13 million. In 2000, WFP operated 68 projects in 54 countries, with a total of 12.27 million beneficiaries. According to WFP, the total expenditure for its school feeding operations in 2000 was approximately $421 million. About $239 million was for development projects focused on school feeding, and the remainder was for school feeding components of emergency or protracted relief and recovery operations. WFP welcomed President Clinton’s July 23, 2000, announcement of the $300 million pilot program to launch a universal school feeding program, noted that it had been working closely with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Food Agencies in Rome to assist in the creation of such a program, and expressed the hope that the initiative would become a permanent feature of the global community of nations. A few days later, WFP’s executive director, in testimony before a U.S. Senate committee, said a global program needs to be managed by a global organization and WFP, as the food aid arm of the U.N., was uniquely qualified to manage the initiative. Regarding its role in implementing a global program, WFP has said that much could be done to strengthen the education system in many developing countries.According to WFP, this a highly complex task, one for which food aid is not the most effective resource. WFP’s approach will be to use food aid where the food is needed. WFP does not propose to monetize food commodities to fund related educational support activities. WFP will monetize only to effect an exchange between donated commodities and locally grown foods when this is cost effective and does not have an adverse effect on local markets. At the same time, WFP recognizes that while school feeding can bring children to school and help them learn while they are there, school feeding does not ensure qualified teachers, books and supplies, or a suitable curriculum. According to WFP, this is the role of national governments, often supported by international organizations or Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO); and the relationship between improvements in an education system and a national system of school feeding is one that must be managed by governments. However, within the broad framework of government cooperation, WFP said, it is eager to work with other operational partners and experienced in doing so. WFP told us that many of its school feeding projects have shortfalls.Funding for all components of approved projects, including current school feeding programs, depends on the level of contributions received. When and where possible, WFP will allocate unearmarked donations to underfunded projects, taking into consideration the urgency of the need and a need to comply with the executive board’s approved allocation formula. According to WFP, it usually is not technically feasible to identify how many children were not fed due to under-resourcing. An unstable resourcing situation often compels project managers to temporarily adjust the on-site ration size or the number of food distribution days, rather than reducing the number of beneficiaries, it said. When under-resourcing is of a more permanent nature, the project plan is revised and a formal change in the beneficiaries occurs. WFP has developed several documents that describe its policies for establishing school feeding programs and which guide the project development and approval process for all WFP school feeding activities.The following is a brief summary of some of the points presented in these documents, or provided directly to us by WFP in response to questions that we provided to the agency, regarding certain key factors associated with their school feeding programs. Targeting—The focus of WFP’s world school feeding initiative is on feeding preschool and primary school age children. On an exceptional basis, food aid activities designed to encourage girls to continue their education beyond primary school will be considered. Some fundamental issues to be examined in determining the problems to be addressed are (1) enrollment and dropout rates in primary education broken down by gender, region and sociocultural groups, to the extent possible, and factors explaining these rates; (2) extent of, and factors contributing to, short-term hunger; (3) average distances walked by the students, who will be covered in the school feeding activity, between their homes and their school; and (4) cultural practices affecting enrollment/attendance, especially of girls. As a general rule, targeting within school feeding projects will be conducted at the level of geographic areas, with no selection of individual pupils within schools. The only exception for this may be when the effectiveness of an incentive for a particular category (e.g., girls) can be demonstrated. According to WFP, it requires at least 50 percent of its resources in education to be targeted for girls, and WFP has been very successful in achieving this requirement. WFP has a vulnerability analysis and mapping unit (VAM) to identify people most vulnerable to hunger and to target their needs. According to WFP, VAM uses state of the art satellite imagery of rainfall and crop conditions, as well as monitoring of food prices in local markets. WFP has VAM sub-units in more than 50 developing countries. According to WFP, this system is also used in targeting its school feeding programs. Facilitative learning environment—WFP told us that it does not require a facilitative learning environment to be in place or provided as part of its programs, but such an environment is highly desired and encouraged. According to WFP, the presence of school feeding in schools helps bring attention to other school conditions (e.g., classrooms, materials, sanitary facilities, teachers, curricula, and health conditions) and, in turn, helps WFP and its partners to bring attention to problems and attract other needed resources. Safe water and sanitation—WFP guidelines say basic water supply and sanitation standards must be met if food is to be safely stored and prepared for school feeding, and safe water supply should be available on the school premises at all times. WFP provides detailed information on optimal and minimal standards for a safe water supply and sanitation at schools. However, WFP told us it does not require safe water and sanitation facilities to be in place in order to implement school feeding in a given school and, as a rule, does not provide water and sanitation facilities. However, WFP said, it does work with the national and local governments and with other U.N. agencies, donors, and nongovernmental organizations who have the appropriate skills and resources to “trigger” action where the lack of such facilities is a problem. Deworming treatments—According to WFP guidelines, WFP will generally support deworming in a school feeding program when more than 50 percent of the children have intestinal parasites. Treatment is with a single dose of the proper medicine, up to three times a year, and should be combined with improved sanitation and safe water supply, as well as health education on prevention. In April 2001, WFP told us that it did not yet have complete information regarding which of its school feeding programs had already initiated deworming activities (due to decentralized decision-making and no prior requirements for reporting such information). However, WFP said it did know that most or all of its school feeding operations in Latin America and the Caribbean and two or more in Asia had at least implemented limited deworming activities. WFP estimated that by the end of 2001, it would have initiated deworming in its school feeding programs in 15 or more countries, in partnership with WHO and the World Bank, and assisted, in part, by a Canadian grant. WFP said that it hopes to achieve deworming activities in most or all GFEI, as well other WFP school feeding operations. WFP also noted that national, regional, or local governments may require deworming to be in place. Micronutrient supplementation—WFP guidelines note that school feeding can be a vehicle for micronutrients in countries where school children are affected by and/or at high risk of developing micronutrient deficiencies. WFP provides information on micronutrient deficiencies that have been shown to affect school attendance and performance, recommended levels of intake of these micronutrients for 3- to 12-year old children, and guidance on how to use them in school meals. WFP told us that micronutrient supplementation is most often handled as an additive to the commodities that are distributed. In cases where the commodities that arrive are not fortified, WFP most often works locally to fortify the food or seeks other remedies. WFP collaborates with groups that have expertise and resources to bring to bear, especially UNICEF, WHO, a Canadian micronutrient initiative, and certain NGOs. WFP noted that national, regional, or local governments may require micronutrient supplementation to be in place. Health and nutrition education—WFP told us that this is not strictly required in all WFP school feeding operations. However, such activities are highly encouraged, are frequently planned and implemented, and will be further strengthened through collaboration with appropriate partners and coworkers on the ground. WFP noted that national, regional, or local governments may require health and nutrition education to be in place. Community and parental participation—WFP told us that community and parental participation are not strictly required in all WFP school feeding operations. However, WFP said, such activities are highly encouraged,are frequently planned and implemented, and are and will be further strengthened through collaboration with appropriate partners and coworkers on the ground. WFP noted that its data indicates that as girls’ enrollment and attendance increases, so does parental participation. WFP also noted that national, regional, or local governments may require parental involvement to be in place. Education for All—WFP expects recipient governments to have demonstrated a commitment to Education for All. Sustainability—WFP requires that plans be in place for eventual take- over of a feeding program by recipient countries. WFP generally insists that programs be supported by national governments and local communities and that resources and infrastructure be provided as counterpart contributions. However, WFP will consider providing school feeding activities in some emergency and protracted relief situations where full government support is not possible. In addition, for low income countries, it is probably necessary to provide most or all of the food commodities, technical assistance, and equipment. According to a WFP official, sustainability depends on the economic status of the recipient country. There are countries where the national government has been able to take over a program. However, in the poorest, least developed countries, he said, sustainability is only possible where there is substantial community involvement. In many least developed countries, government expenditure on the education sector often represents up to 30 percent of the national budget; it is difficult enough for such countries to maintain the physical infrastructure and teachers. For least developed countries, sustainability is a long-term process. A realistic estimate is 10 to 15 years, he said. Monitoring and Evaluation WFP officials told us that there had been some problems in the past, but WFP is working hard to overcome them for both the U.S. pilot program and its other school feeding activities. As an example of problems, collection of baseline date had varied, depending on the country, the specific goals of the school feeding activity, and the resources available. Principal performance indicators that WFP tended to use were increased enrollment and attendance, reduced dropout rates, and improved performance (such as number of students who had completed primary school the previous year and gone on to higher education). WFP had looked at these indicators, especially as they relate to girls’ education, and had been able to report some notable successes. However, WFP had only done that in isolated cases/countries. Therefore, WFP intends under GFEI to standardize the indicators and upgrade its monitoring and evaluation systems so as to be able to regularly collect and report comparable and up-to-date data for its school feeding operations. WFP also said that data collection and analysis in developing countries is challenging and requires additional resources and capacity building of national counterpart staff. WFP’s guidelines for its new World School Feeding Initiative require a baseline monitoring study to establish the situation prior to the onset of the initiative, followed by periodic updates as a program is implemented. To this end, WFP developed a detailed survey instrument for collecting baseline information on its GFEI-funded projects. The survey was pilot- tested in August 2001, and WFP conducted the surveys in a sample of schools for all of the U.S. pilot program projects before the end of 2001 (details of the survey instrument are discussed in the letter). In addition, according to WFP, during 2001, it developed and successfully pilot-tested a new system of collecting key monitoring data on a timely basis directly from the schools involved in its feeding programs. The system involves school staff entering key data directly into devices, installed at the schools, that transmit the data via satellite to a data collection center in France, using the ARGOS satellite system (that is jointly managed by the governments of France and the United States). Country data is then reported from the data collection center to the country’s relevant ministry of education and to WFP. WFP is seeking donors to fund implementation of the system. WFP also conducted a major, global survey of national school feeding programs (not specific projects) between May and December 2001. The survey collected information on countries’ school feeding programs and related information on their demography; education system; nongovernmental program assistance; health-related education services at school; and evaluations, studies, and surveys about school feeding and related topics. According to WFP, the survey provides a focal point for school feeding information, which WFP will use to promote dialogue with governments and nongovernmental organizations concerning the use of food aid for education and related issues. WFP will also use the data to produce special reports and identify country specific needs and coordinate partnerships between countries with experience in school feeding and those in need. WFP is posting country-specific results on its Web site. WFP is seeking donors to fund installation of the system in its schools. Regarding evaluations, WFP’s central evaluation office generally does not conduct separate evaluations of the school feeding projects that WFP assists. (Occasionally separate evaluations of school feeding projects are undertaken if specifically requested by the executive board.) WFP mandates that evaluations of its country programs be conducted about every 4 years, on average. The evaluations are submitted to WFP’s Executive Board for review. If a country has a school feeding project, the project’s role, relevance, and performance as an activity is to be included in the review. This appendix provides additional information on our review of experts’ findings and views concerning (1) the effect of school feeding programs on enrollment and attendance, (2) the effect of school feeding programs on educational performance or learning, and (3) key factors contributing to effective school feeding programs (see tables 4 and 5). It also provides further information on key factors associated with effective school feeding programs (see tables 6 through 10). (See also app. V, which discusses the costs and cost effectiveness of school feeding programs.) Our review relied considerably on the views of two experts who have reviewed the results of many school feeding program studies; WFP, which has conducted school feeding programs for 4 decades and also reviewed the results of other studies; and the summary views of a meeting of experts and practitioners held at USAID in October 2000. We also conducted literature searches, reviewed the results of individual studies on school feeding programs, and spoke with experts and practitioners. Table 4 summarizes the results of studies and expert views on the relationship between school feeding and school enrollment and attendance. Table 5 summarizes the results of several studies and expert views on the relationship between school feeding and school performance. Table 6 provides results and views on how targeting factors can affect school feeding program effectiveness. Ways to target programs include focusing on areas/communities that are (1) low-income and food insecure, (2) have relatively low levels of school enrollment and attendance, and (3) where girls’ enrollment and attendance are considerably lower than boys’. Table 7 provides results and views on how learning environment factors can affect school feeding program effectiveness, including ensuring adequate numbers of teachers, teacher training, supplies of textbooks and other learning materials, and school infrastructure. Table 8 provides results and views on how health and nutrition factors can affect school feeding program effectiveness, including through treating intestinal parasitic infections, ensuring clean water and adequate sanitation facilities, addressing micronutrient deficiencies, and ensuring health and nutrition education. Table 9 provides results and views on how community and parental involvement can impact the effectiveness of school feeding programs. Table 10 provides results and views on the effect of government commitment and sustainability on the effectiveness of school feeding programs. Among the factors addressed are national government commitment to broad, national school reform programs, resource commitments by national governments and local communities, and plans for program sustainability. Agarwal, D.K.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Tripathi, A.M.; and Agarwal, K.N. Nutritional Status, Physical Work Capacity and Mental Function in School Children. Nutrition Foundation of India, Scientific Report 6 (1987). As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. Ahmed, A.U. and Billah, K. Food for Education Program in Bangladesh: An Early Assessment. International Food Policy Research Institute, Bangladesh Food Policy Project. Dhaka, Pakistan: 1994. Berg A. “School Daze,” New & Noteworthy in Nutrition 34 (1999). Berkley, S. & Jamison D. A Conference on the Health of School Age Children. Sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme and the Rockefeller Foundation, held in Bellagio, Italy, August 12-16, 1991. As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. Briefel, R; Murphy, J.; Kung, S.; & Devaney, B. Universal-Free School Breakfast Program Evaluation Design Project: Review of Literature on Breakfast and Reporting. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey (December 22, 1999). Bundy, D.A.P., & Guyatt, H.L. Global Distribution of Parasitic Worm Infections. Paris: UNESCO (1989). As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. Chambers, C.M. “An Evaluation of the World Food Program (WFP)/Jamaica 2727 School Feeding Program.” Cajunas 24(2)(1991) pp. 91-102. As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. Del Rosso, J.M. & Marek, T. Class Action: Improving School Performance in the Developing World through Better Health and Nutrition. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank (1996). Del Rosso, J.M. School Feeding Programs: Improving Effectiveness and Increasing the Benefit to Education: A Guide for Program Managers. The World Bank (August 1999). Devadas, R.P. The Honorable Chief Minister’s Nutritious Meal Program for Children of Tamil Nadu. Ciombatore, India: 1983. As cited in Del Rosso, 1996. Gopaldas, T., Gujral, S. “The Pre-Post Impact Evaluation of the Improved Mid-Day Meal Program, Gujarat (1994-continuing).” Tara Consultancy Services, Baroda, India (1996). As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. Hubley, J. “School Health Promotion in Developing Countries: A literature review.” Leeds, U.K.: Self-published (1998). As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. IFPRI. Feeding Minds While Fighting Poverty. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI (2001). Janke, C. “SFPs and Education: Establishing the Context.” Catholic Relief Service (CRS) School Feeding/Education Companion Guidebook. 1996. Jarousse, J.P., & Mingat, A. “Assistance a la formulation d’une politique nationale et d’un programme d’investiseement dans le secteur de l’education au Benin,” Project UNESCO/PNUD Benin/89/001. Paris: UNESCO (1991). As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. Khan, A. “The sanitation gap: Development’s deadly menance,” The Progress of Nations 1997. New York: UNICEF (1997). King, J. Evaluation of School Feeding in the Dominican Republic. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: CARE (1990). As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. Levinger, B. School Feeding Programs in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Actual and Potential Impact. AID Evaluation Special Study No. 30. USAID (January 1986). Levinger, B. Statement of Beryl Levinger before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. U.S. Senate, July 27, 2000. Levinger, B. GAO interview with Beryl Levinger, March 9, 2001. Lopez I.; de Andraca, I.; Perales, C.G.; Heresi, M.; Castillo, M.; and Colombo, M. “Breakfast Omission and Cognitive Performance of Normal, Wasted and Stunted Schoolchildren.” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 47 (1993). Meme, M.M.; Kogi-Makau, W.; Muroki, N.M.; and Mwadime, R.K. “Energy and Protein Intake and Nutritional Status of Primary School Children 5 to 10 Years of Age in Schools with and without Feeding Programs in Nyambene District, Kenya, “Food & Nutrition Bulletin Vol. 19, Number 4, 1998. Moore, E. & Kunze, L. Evaluation of Burkina Faso School Feeding Program. Catholic Relief Services, consultant report (February 1994) . Nazaire, J. CRS Select Targeting and Design Guidelines for School Feeding and Other Food-Assisted Education Programs. Catholic Relief Services (2000). Nokes, C.; Grantham-McGregor, S.M.; Sawyer, A.W.; Cooper, E.S.; Robinson, B.A.; & Bundy D.A. “Moderate to High Infections of Trichuris Trichura and Cognitive Function in Jamaican School Children” Parasitology Vol. 104, June 1992. Pillai, N. “Food Aid for Development? A Review of the Evidence.” In Food Aid and Human Security, Clay, E., Stokke, O., eds. London, England: Frank Cass Publishers (2000). Pollitt E. “Does Breakfast Make a Difference in School?” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 95, October 1995. Pollitt, E. “Malnutrition and Infection in the Classroom: Summary and Conclusions,” Food and Nutrition Bulletin Vol. 12, No. 3, 1990. Ponza, M.; Briefel, R; Corson, W.; Devaney, B.; Glazerman, S.; Gleason, P.; Heaviside, S.; Kung, S.; Meckstroth, A.; Murphy, J.; & Ohls, J. Universal- Free School Breakfast Program Evaluation Design Project: Final Evaluation Design. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey (December 20, 1999). Rajan, S.I, Jayakumar, A. “Impact of Noon Meal Program on Primary Education: An Exploratory Study in Tamil Nadu.” Economic and Political Weekly (1992). As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. Select Committee on Hunger, United States House of Representatives, Alleviating World Hunger: Literacy and School Feeding Programs. U.S. Government Printing Office (1987). As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. Seshandri, S. & Gopaldas, T. “Impact of Iron Supplementation on Cognitive Functions in Pre-School and School-aged Children: The Indian Experience.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 50 (1989). Shresta, R.M. “Effects of Iodine and Iron Supplementation on Physical, Psychomotor, and Mental Development in Primary School Children in Malawi.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Malawi, Wappeningen (1994). As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. Simeon, D.T., & Grantham-McGregor, S. “Effects of Missing Breakfast on the Cognitive Functions of School Children of Differing Nutritional Status.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 49. (1989). Stakeholders. “School Feeding/Food for Education Stakeholders’ Meeting.” Summary proceedings of a meeting at USAID of 50 practitioners and experts from USAID, USDA, the World Bank, UNICEF, the World Food Program, and other organizations that either administer or implement school feeding programs. October 3, 2000 (unpublished). UNDP. Partnership for Child Development: An International Program to Improve the Health and Education of Children through School-Based Services. Project document, interregional project. New York (1992). As cited in Whitman et al, 2000. UNESCO. Basic Learning Materials Initiative. www.unesco.org (downloaded Nov. 2001). UNICEF. Focusing Resources on Effective School Health: A FRESH Start to Enhancing the Quality and Equity of Education (2000). UNICEF. “Basic Education Fund Raising Kit.” www.unicef.org (downloaded March 12, 2001). Whitman, C.V., Aldinger, C., Levinger, B., Birdthistle, I. Thematic Study on School Health and Nutrition. Education Development Center, Inc. (March 6, 2000). World Bank. GAO interviews with World Bank officials, May 15 and August 9, 2001. World Food Program (a). Implementation of Operational Guidelines for WFP Assistance to Education (1995). World Food Program (b). “Project Pakistan 4185: Promotion of Primary Education for Girls in Baluchistan and NWFP,” (1995). As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. World Food Program (c). Thematic Evaluation of Long-Term School Canteen Projects in West Africa. WFP Office of Evaluation, (1995). World Food Program. “Report on Pilot School Feeding Programme,” Evaluation Report, WFP/MALAWI, (1996) (unpublished). As cited in Del Rosso, 1999. World Food Program, UNESCO, and World Health Organization. School Feeding Handbook. Rome, Italy (1999). World Food Program. “School Feeding/Food for Education.” World Food Program comments in Response to Oct. 3, 2000, Stakeholders’ Meeting” (2000) (unpublished). Young, M.E. “Integrated Early Child Development: Challenges and Opportunities.” World Bank, 1995. This appendix discusses actual costs of school feeding programs as determined by two World Bank studies, as well as World Food Program (WFP) cost estimates of its programs and our own estimates of school feeding programs based on WFP guidelines and cost factors and other data. It also provides information on situations where school feeding programs may not be as cost-effective in promoting learning as certain other approaches. Table 11 provides figures on the actual costs of more than 30 school feeding programs in 21 countries that were reported in two World Bank studies. Table 11 shows the annual cost of providing 1,000 calories per student on a daily basis for a 180-day school year; dollar values have been expressed in 2000 dollars. As the table shows, costs vary significantly, ranging from a low of $4.29 for one program to a high of $180.31 for another. All but four of the programs cost more than $23 per pupil, and the average cost for all programs was $58.66 per student. Cost differences can be due to a variety of factors, such as differing program objectives, type of food served, and costs in transporting the food to the country and, once there, to its final destination. In April 2001, WFP officials told us they estimated the current average cost of WFP school feeding programs ranged between about $22 to $27 per student, for a 180-day school year. They said WFP did not have precise figures available on the average costs of its school feeding programs because it has not required data to be reported in the specific category of school feeding. Many large projects have a school feeding component, they noted, but are not entirely devoted to school feeding. Subsequently, in July 2001, WFP issued a paper that reported the average cost of its school feeding development projects in 2000 at 19 cents a day (or $34.20 for a 180 day program). We prepared a separate estimate of the cost of school feeding programs using some WFP guidelines and cost factors and other data. According to WFP, the recommended daily school feeding ration for full-time primary school students can range between 600 to 2,000 calories, depending on whether schools are half day, full day, or boarding. For day school, the recommended acceptable range is between 1,200 to 1,500 calories (i.e., 60 to 75 percent of the daily energy requirements of school-age children). The guidelines also indicate that a minimum of 10 percent of calories should be obtained from consumption of edible fats. In addition, the guidelines for day schools recommend that school feeding programs provide 28 to 36 grams of protein; 13 to 17 grams of fat; and no more than 300 grams of cereals, 30 grams of pulses, and 15 grams of vegetable oil. We analyzed the nutritional value of typical food aid commodities and determined that the least costly mix of commodities—consisting of corn and vegetable oil--that met the above requirements for primary day schools would cost 3.72 cents per child per day (based on USDA valuations of the commodities for 2001). If this diet were supplied for 180 days, the food alone would cost approximately $6.69 per child. On the basis of overall WFP costs for its various food aid programs in 1998 to 1999, we estimated that administrative, storage, and transportation costs would result in an additional cost per child (for a 180-day school meal program) of $7.70. The total average cost of this diet would be $14.39 per student. When factoring in the nutritional requirements of school-age children to include other essential elements, such as vitamins, micronutrients, and minerals, we found the lowest-cost, most nutritionally-complete recipe would cost $29.67 per child ($13.80 for the food and $15.87 for administrative and transportation costs.) According to a number of experts, school feeding programs may be less cost effective than other possible approaches, such as establishing maternal child health and early childhood development programs and providing alternative nutritional or educational interventions. According to a USAID official, if nutrition is the problem, maternal child health and preschool feeding programs are more cost effective than school feeding programs. If education is a major weakness, investments in educational reform, teacher training, and learning facilities are more cost effective. In 2001, a USAID contracted evaluation of its school feeding program in Haiti, covering the period 1996 to 2000, was completed. (The program was primarily a school feeding only operation; however, some resources were devoted to food for education activities.) The report concluded there is no causal connection between school feeding and improved educational performance. Other factors such as school quality and parental variables, have a more direct influence on educational outcomes, it said. The report found the food for education approach to be very promising, provided that food is used as leverage to improve school quality. The report recommended USAID consider devoting all of the school feeding resources to food for education activities. However, USAID decided to phase out school feeding activities over a 3-year period. According to a USAID official, Haiti was loosing too many kids before they ever got to school. As a result, USAID concluded it would be more cost effective to employ the resources in a maternal and child health program. increase the likelihood that children will be healthy when they reach school age. Table 12 provides an estimate of the cost effectiveness of nutrition-related interventions for a typical developing country, in terms of the return on each program dollar spent, as reported by the World Bank. (Impact is estimated in terms of wages rather than learning per se.) As shown in table 12, school feeding has one of the lowest return ($2.80) of the 11 interventions. Interventions with the highest returns on each program dollar spent are iron fortification of flour ($84.10), vitamin A supplementation for all children under age 5 ($50), nutrition education ($32.30), and iodized salt ($28). In a study of the cost effectiveness of 40 educational interventions in Latin America, the authors surveyed a panel of 10 world experts on educational research and practical attempts at educational reform in the region, as well as 30 Latin American planner/practitioners working primarily in education ministries. Of the 40 interventions, 4 were variations on school feeding programs. None of the school feeding options were identified as being among the top 10 interventions for increasing learning, taking account of the estimated likelihood of adequate implementation (see table 13). The school feeding options were ranked between 23 and 34 in terms of increasing learning and between 34 and 40 when cost effectiveness was also considered. According to Beryl Levinger, an expert on school feeding and food for education programs, there are children in developing countries that can effectively and efficiently benefit from school feeding programs. Short- term hunger is a genuine problem, and school feeding is one way to get and keep children enrolled in school, she said. At the same time, success in improving school enrollment, attendance, and learning is context driven, and many external factors can affect and interfere with these outcomes, she said. Therefore, according to Levinger, one needs to assess the total picture and identify the most important needs and best solutions for addressing them. For example, if the quality of education in a particular community is low and resources are limited, it is possible that resources could be better spent on improving education than addressing short-term hunger. As learning tasks become more interesting, she noted, learning goes up. Levinger estimated that providing motivational textbooks and other learning materials and training teachers in active learning methods would cost roughly about $5 per pupil per year. For an additional $2, she said, one could also provide some micronutrient supplementation and deworming treatments. Multiple studies of treatments for intestinal parasite infections, through iron supplementation and regular deworming, have shown benefits of lower absenteeism and higher scores on tests of cognition or school achievement at a cost of about $1 per child per year. This is considerably less costly than school feeding programs that average $34 per child per year. However, we are not aware of any studies that assess and compare the relative impacts of programs that only treat for parasite infections to programs that provide a school meal. In April 2000, the World Health Organization, the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the U.N. Children’s Fund, and the World Bank proposed a strategy for Focusing Resources on Effective School Health (FRESH) to give a fresh start to improving the quality and equity of education and promoting the Education for All goal. They noted that poor health and malnutrition are important underlying factors for low school enrollment, absenteeism, poor classroom performance, and early school dropout. The agencies identified a core group of activities that they said captured the best practices from their programming experiences, were highly cost-effective, and a starting point to which other interventions might be added as appropriate. The agencies recommended that the following basic components of a school health program be made available together, in all schools: (1) health related school policies; provision of safe water and sanitation; (3) skills based health, hygiene, and nutrition education; and (4) school based health and nutrition services. Regarding the latter component, the agencies said schools can effectively deliver some health and nutritional services provided that the services are simple, safe, and familiar and address problems that are prevalent and recognized as important within the community. For example, they said, micronutrient deficiencies and worm infections may be effectively dealt with by infrequent (6-monthly or annual) oral treatment. As another example, they said changing the timing of meals, or providing a snack to address short-term hunger during school—an important constraint on learning—can contribute to school performance. In commenting on a draft of portions of this report, WFP officials said there has been no more cost-effective approach identified than school feeding for the combined objectives of increasing enrollment, attendance, and performance in developing countries--especially in areas of food insecurity. Further, when the key resource available is food, the case for school feeding to accomplish these objectives is indisputable, they said. USDA used a considerably different process to solicit, evaluate, and approve program proposals from interested cooperating sponsors and WFP. Cooperating sponsors, including Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO) and the government of the Dominican Republic, underwent an expedited two-stage qualification and proposal review process that either did not apply to or generally was different from that applied to WFP. Proposal formats and criteria applied to them by reviewers varied considerably. An interagency Food Assistance Policy Council (FAPC) made the final selection of project awards. On September 6, 2000, USDA published a notice in the Federal Register requesting proposals from interested cooperating sponsors to carry out activities under GFEI. (See app. XI for key events under GFEI.) USDA said it would use section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 to provide surplus agricultural commodities in support of an international school feeding program to improve student enrollment, attendance, and performance in poor countries. Proposals would be reviewed on an expedited basis. Given time constraints and the considerable effort and time involved in preparing and evaluating proposals, USDA invited interested sponsors to present an initial submission that contained only information intended to demonstrate, based on experience, the organizations’ administrative capabilities for implementing and managing school feeding or monetization of commodities for school feeding. USDA identified nine types of information that should or could be provided. The deadline for initial submissions was September 15, 2000. USDA said that sponsors found to be most capable of successfully implementing school feeding activities under step one would then be invited to provide a supplemental submission addressing their specific proposed activities. The deadline for the step-two submission was September 29, 2000. USDA said the submissions should provide information that supported the goal of establishing a preschool or school feeding program to draw children into the school environment and improve access to basic education, especially for females. Priority consideration would be given to countries that had a commitment to universal free education but needed assistance in the short run; places where preschool or school feeding programs would promote significant improvements in nutrition, school enrollment, and attendance levels; projects involving existing food for education programs; and projects where the likelihood of support from other donors was high. USDA requested that sponsors provide, to the extent possible, information on (1) literacy rates for the target population; (2) percentage of children attending schools, with special emphasis on school-age girls; (3) public expenditure on primary education; (4) whether the country currently operated a school feeding initiative (either through USAID, with assistance from the World Bank, or through internal resources); (5) program impact on areas such as teacher training, community infrastructure (e.g., PTAs and community groups), health, and nutrition; and (6) other potential donors. USDA also referred interested parties to the Code of Federal Regulations, which describes the requirements for the standard 416(b) program. These regulations provide additional guidance on factors to address in preparing a proposal. Twenty-nine PVOs submitted part one of the proposal application within the required time frame. On September 22, 2000, USDA announced that 20 PVOs had qualified for further consideration and invited them to submit the second part of the application on the specific projects they were proposing. In addition, USDA announced that the government of the Dominican Republic had submitted an application, which had been approved for further consideration, and that WFP was eligible to participate in the pilot program. The September 6, 2000 Federal Register notice stated that the pilot program was also open to WFP. USDA did not require WFP to provide either the initial or supplemental submission. WFP had already submitted a set of proposals to USDA in August 2000, following consultations with USDA officials. These proposals (1) were abbreviated; (2) concerned already existing or approved WFP school feeding projects that had not been fully funded, as well as planned expansions of these or other projects; (3) and, in general, did not address many points that USDA had asked cooperating sponsors to address in the second-stage submission. The proposals typically contained a brief half-page description of the project, accompanied by a summary budget for the commodities requested. Some, but not all, U.S. agency officials charged with reviewing the proposals were told they could obtain additional information describing the projects on WFP’s Web site. However, some projects had been approved by WFP’s Executive Board in prior years. Information posted on the Web site was sometimes incomplete and/or out of date. USDA officials noted that the United States is a member of the WFP Executive Board and as such has a vote on which WFP proposed projects should be approved. They also noted that a vote by a donor country to approve a project does not mean that the country intends to donate to that project. In addition, they noted that approved WFP projects submitted to the pilot program in August 2000 would have been approved by the executive board prior to the U.S. announcement of the pilot program and GFEI. According to WFP officials, WFP is strongly committed to addressing the key factors associated with effective food for education programs discussed in this report. The U.S. government is well aware of this commitment, and as a result WFP did not deem it necessary to make repeated reference to this commitment in the country-specific information included in its proposals. WFP officials noted that proposals submitted to USDA for projects that had already been approved by WFP’s Executive Board had gone through a long vetting process, adding that approval of a WFP project requires unanimous consensus from all executive board members, including the United States. The officials also noted that written documentation on its projects had been provided to U.S. government representatives during previous WFP Executive Board sessions when the projects had been reviewed and approved, as well as in sessions to review projects that had been operational. As a result, WFP officials said, the U.S. government had plenty of documentation for evaluating WFP proposed projects apart from documentation available at WFP’s Web site. However, USAID told us that when the United States concurs in an executive board decision to approve a project, the United States frequently states its concerns or reservations about the feasibility or sustainability of program activities and has done so in the case of school feeding programs. Therefore, the fact that a particular project had been approved by WFP’s Executive Board did not necessarily mean the project was a good candidate for the U.S. food for education pilot program. In addition, according to a USAID official, though in principle U.S. government personnel responsible for evaluating WFP proposals could have gone to WFP’s Web site to look up additional documentation, there was little time to do this because of the push to get the pilot program up and running so quickly. He added that he knew of no one who used the Web for this purpose. He also said the evaluation task force members did not receive hard copies of documentation beyond the abbreviated set of proposals provided by WFP to USDA. USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) staff evaluated the initial PVO submissions on the basis of criteria in USDA’s September 6, 2000, Federal Register notice. USDA/FAS assigned different weights to the criteria. PVOs that scored above a certain level were invited to submit the second part of the requested proposals. Of 20 PVOs invited to make a second submission, 19 responded and 1 declined, citing a lack of adequate time to prepare the type of careful proposal the organization wanted to submit. The 19 PVOs submitted a total of 62 project proposals. The government of the Dominican Republic also responded with a proposal. For the second part of the proposal process, which covered the actual programs sponsors proposed to implement in various developing countries, USDA/FAS employed a more elaborate review procedure. The Food Assistance Policy Council (FAPC)was designated to make the final project selections. An FAPC working group was established to evaluate the PVO, government of the Dominican Republic, and WFP proposals and make recommendations on which ones to approve. The working group consisted of staff from FAS and its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Department of State, USAID, OMB, and the White House. USDA/FAS provided the other members of the working group with copies of all of the second-stage as well as WFP set of proposals. USDA/FNS assigned a nutritionist to review all of the proposals from a nutrition perspective. The Department of State assigned two staff to review the proposals. Four offices within USAID were involved in evaluating the proposals: a country backstop officer, the appropriate regional bureau, a nutritionist analyst from the Bureau of Humanitarian Response, and an education specialist from USAID’s Global Bureau, Field Support and Research. USAID’s Food for Peace Office within the Bureau of Humanitarian Response coordinated the process within USAID. The Food for Peace Office is responsible for USAID’s food aid programs, including any programs that have funded school feeding or food for education programs. Each member of the working group conducted an evaluation of the proposals separately during October 2000 and met in early November to discuss their results and reach consensus on which proposals to submit to the FAPC for final approval. USDA/FAS did not score but recommended approval of WFP proposals for all 27 countries in which WFP had established, but unmet, food aid requirements. However, USDA scored and divided the non-WFP proposals into three distinct categories (i.e., strongly recommended, recommend approval, or not recommended). In conducting its second-stage evaluation of the non-WFP proposals, USDA/FAS employed a considerable number of written criteria, nearly all of which were taken from its standard approach to evaluating 416(b) programs. The standard criteria do not focus on school feeding or food for education programs. Apart from the standard criteria, USDA’s evaluation included some criteria that related to school feeding/food for education. (All of USDA’s second-stage criteria were weighted.) USDA considered whether: Objectives supporting the goal of establishing preschool or school feeding programs to draw children into the school environment and improve basic education for females were clearly stated. The proposal targeted a country with existing food for education programs in the host country’s development plan. The method for choosing beneficiaries (whether for preschool or school feeding) activities was clear and justifiable; emphasis on females. The cooperating sponsor provided indicators to measure program impact, including baselines and expected outcomes. Potential indicators might include literacy rates for target populations, percentage of school-age children attending school (emphasis on females), and public expenditure on primary education. The cooperating sponsor included specific performance targets as part of its proposal, such as magnitude of change in number of meals served; enrollment levels, specifically female enrollment; attendance levels; capacity building in areas necessary to sustain the feeding program, such as development of PTAs and other community groups; or infrastructure development for delivery of service. Agriculture officials told us they did not have time and adequate staff to study lessons learned from past school feeding/food for education programs given the short lead time they had to get the program up and running. Instead, they said, USDA relied considerably upon USAID for this aspect of the evaluation, since USAID had extensive experience with school feeding programs. Most of USAID’s written criteria did not focus specifically on food for education. Evaluators in the Regional Bureaus were asked to review how the proposals fit with the bureau priorities for the country and how a proposed project might affect (positively and/or negatively) USAID programs in the country. The bureaus were also responsible for providing each country proposal to the respective cognizant field mission and for incorporating mission responses and concerns into their review. Field missions were also responsible for providing input regarding the Bellmon analysis. Country backstop officers were asked to review each country proposal regarding commodities, monetization, and logistics and how these issues might affect (positively and/or negatively) USAID’s Title II food aid programs in country. The USAID nutritionist was asked to review the nutritional components of the proposal and their adequacy. USAID’s Global Bureau was asked to review the educational components of the proposals and their adequacy, as well as host country policies and commitment to basic education. All of the USAID evaluators were instructed to indicate briefly whether they approved or disapproved of a proposal and, if they approved, to indicate the priority they thought the proposed program should have (low, medium, high, very high). In USAID’s weighting scheme, the Global Bureau’s assessment of the educational component could have accounted for about 25 percent of a proposal’s total score. However, for several reasons, its analysis did not contribute to USAID’s evaluation of which proposals were the best. The USAID staff person assigned to rate this dimension of the proposals told us that although he had expertise in the education area, he was not an expert on school feeding programs. In addition, he said that nearly all of the proposals did not provide adequate information to judge the quality of the educational component. He told us it might have been possible to obtain this information if discussions could have been held with the sponsors. However, the evaluation process did not provide for such interaction. As a result, he assigned the same score to all but one of the proposals. Since virtually all proposals were scored exactly the same, education was not a discriminating factor in the Global Bureau’s overall ranking of the proposals. No formal record was kept of the interagency working group’s deliberations, but a summary of its consensus recommendations was forwarded to the FAPC for action. This summary contained a brief description of the proposed food aid to be delivered to each country, its cost and rationale, economic assessments, and prior aid. In the end, the FAPC approved 34 WFP proposals covering 23 countries. Of the 34, 26 were for approved WFP projects with unmet food aid needs and 8 were for expansion projects. FAPC approved 25 PVO projects and the only proposal submitted by a government entity (the Dominican Republic). FAPC allocated almost equal program value to WFP (about $138 million) and the other sponsors (about $150 million), with instructions that the remainder be first offered in support of additional WFP proposals. However, cost estimates that FAPC used in its award determinations were too high and have since been reduced by USDA in implementing agreements. The total cost of WFP agreements was recently estimated by USDA at about $92.5 million; cooperating sponsors’ agreements were estimated at about $135 million. This appendix discusses selected information in school feeding program proposals approved by USDA, including proposed nonmeal components of the program, proposed funding of nonmeal components, and comments on other donor assistance. In its request for proposals, USDA indicated that PVOs could monetize some of the food to cover certain other elements important to food for education programs. Table 14 provides information on the PVOs that proposed funding for nonmeal components, including the specific components and the overall proposed funding amount for these components. As the table shows, for 17 of the 25 approved proposals, PVOs proposed to include a variety of nonmeal components. Examples include repairs to school buildings, investments in teacher training and school supplies, treatments for parasite infections, and health and nutrition education. Ten of the 17 proposals included a budget amount for some or all of these components. According to information from USDA, it provided little funding for nonmeal components of WFP projects. WFP requested funding for the underfunded school meals of already existing projects or for meals for expansion of existing projects or start-up of new projects. These requests included funding for the commodities and related costs, including ocean freight and overland transportation costs to the recipient countries; internal transportation, storage and handling costs for the commodities within the recipient countries; direct support costs; and administrative costs. According to WFP, its projects often include funding for nonmeal components, which can be obtained through donor countries, partnership arrangements with other international donors, or by recipient country governments. WFP officials told us they are working to develop more partnerships with other donor agencies to address nonmeal aspects of their food for education projects. Table 15 provides information on planned funding of nonmeal components for the pilot program approved WFP projects, based on WFP documentation that was available at WFP’s Web site. Nonfood components typically involve training, construction or rehabilitation of school facilities, or health related activities (such as deworming). Although USDA said that priority would be given to proposals where the likelihood of other donor support was high, neither USDA nor USAID included this factor in written criteria for evaluating the proposals. We reviewed the PVO proposals to assess whether sponsors in fact provided such information in their proposals. As table 16 shows, only five of the approved proposals indicated that other donors might support the project. Of the five, two proposals said other donors would support the project and identified the expected amount of support. This appendix discusses the views of food aid donating countries other than the United States regarding the use of food aid and how it is provided. Table 17 lists donor countries’ views on whether food aid should be used for emergencies, development, or both and whether food aid should be provided as cash or food-in-kind. USDA uses three funding sources to pay for implementing partners’ (PVO/government cooperating sponsors and WFP) operating costs under the GFEI pilot program. These costs cover the distribution of surplus commodities acquired under Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (CCC) authority and donated under Section 416(b) authority to friendly and developing countries. The funding sources are (1) local currency proceeds derived from monetization (sale) of the commodities, (2) direct cash payments made by CCC under commodity surplus removal (CCC Charter Act 5(d)) authority, and (3) direct cash payments made by CCC pursuant to specific limited appropriations authority granted to sponsors in July 2001. Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is the authority that CCC uses to pay for most of the cost of removing and disposing of donated surplus commodities in connection with the GFEI pilot program. This authority allows CCC to directly pay freight forwarders selected by implementing partners for the cost of ocean transportation and reasonably related expenses of moving the commodities to a designated discharge port or point within the country’s border where the food aid is to be distributed. This cost is the largest except for the commodities themselves and is estimated to be roughly one-third of the overall pilot program. In the case of urgent and extraordinary relief requirements, CCC may also pay the partners for internal transportation, storage, and handling (ITSH) expenses but not for nonemergency development assistance, which is the principal type of aid provided by the pilot. In addition, under section 416(b) authority, CCC funds cannot be used to pay partners’ direct administrative headquarters costs of running the program. In lieu of getting CCC funding to recover their ITSH expenses for nonemergency programs and administrative costs, partners are permitted to monetize (i.e., sell) all or a portion of the commodities in the country or region. Local currency proceeds generated from the sale of section 416(b) commodities can be used to finance most of the sponsors’ operating costs—as long as they are specifically approved by USDA in program agreements. Monetization is generally how the PVOs and government sponsors recover their operating costs. Furthermore, these sponsors’ budgets and provisions for financial statement and monetization reporting as well as limitations on budget adjustments without prior USDA approval are incorporated into the program agreements. USDA’s treatment of WFP on these matters differs from that of PVOs and a government sponsor. USDA pays cash to WFP for all of these costs, including headquarters’ administrative expenses. In doing so, it relies on section 5(d) of the CCC Act. This section provides authority for CCC to expend funds in connection with disposal of surplus commodities if such expenditure is required to aid in removing the surplus. WFP’s general policy, as approved by its executive board, is not to monetize commodities. Thus WFP requires cash to cover its expenses. In addition, WFP operates under a “full cost recovery” policy, which requires that the country making a donation cover its full cost. According to USDA’s Office of General Counsel, if USDA wants to dispose of surplus commodities through WFP, it may pay associated costs using section 5(d) authority. Specifically, USDA costs incurred in connection with providing commodities to WFP under the GFEI program are governed by an agreement between CCC and WFP that covers matters related to donation of commodities furnished under section 416(b) during calendar years 2001 and 2002. Under this agreement, CCC agreed to pay WFP not only ocean transportation but other authorized expenses incurred by WFP in connection with distribution of commodities donated to it. Collectively, these other authorized expenses include internal transportation, storage and handling, direct support costs, other direct operational costs, and indirect support costs, up to the maximum amount approved by CCC.For the GFEI program, these costs amounted to about $35 million. When USDA requested sponsor proposals for the GFEI pilot program in September 2000, it said CCC cash funds might also be available to cover expenses related to implementing activities supported with commodities acquired under section 5(d) of the CCC Charter Act. USDA delivered the same message in a meeting with PVOs to discuss the planned pilot program. As a result, most PVOs submitted proposals that were based on receiving cash to cover some of their expenses. However, in January 2001, USDA informed PVOs with approved proposals that cash would not be available to them. Although USDA said it was prepared to adjust approved sponsors’ proposals to permit greater monetization of commodities to cover costs, the USDA reversal posed a few problems. First, monetized commodities cannot be used to cover the sponsors’ direct U.S. headquarters’ administrative expenses. Second, depending on the situation in a recipient country, additional monetization of commodities might risk disrupting commercial sales. Representatives of one PVO told us the organization had submitted proposals for two countries where it was not possible to monetize commodities; therefore, without cash to cover its expenses, the PVO could not go forward. Several PVOs were also upset because they felt that USDA was providing preferential treatment to WFP. USDA noted that its long-standing policy for section 416(b) projects was not to provide cash to PVOs unless the country is deemed urgent and extraordinary. It further said that PVOs and WFP were treated differently because they were fundamentally different in nature and in how they acquired their funding. USDA said that whereas PVOs are operated privately and have access to other funding sources, WFP is governed and funded only by its donor nations and thus not subject to or constrained by the limitations of the section 416(b) regulations. These reasons notwithstanding, USDA did not explain why it had earlier indicated an intention to provide cash to the sponsors. USDA’s policy reversal led to delays in USDA’s negotiating agreements for implementing approved proposals for a number of PVO projects. Some PVOs were not satisfied with the policy change and made their views known to members of Congress. Subsequently, in July 2001, the Congress approved legislation (P. L. 107-20) that included a provision authorizing USDA to approve use of CCC funds up to about $22.9 million for financial assistance to sponsors participating in the pilot program. Funds could be used for internal transportation, storage, and handling of commodities, as well administrative expenses deemed appropriate by the secretary of agriculture. As a result of the congressional action, USDA agreed to consider renegotiating agreements that it had already concluded with some of the PVOs if they so desired. This appendix provides details on the top food aid donating countries in recent years. Table 18 lists the top 20 food aid donors based on shipments for the period 1995 through 1999. Apart from the United States, which supplied more than half of all deliveries, the other 19 donors provided about 43 percent of the food assistance during this period. This appendix outlines key events related to the GFEI pilot from the time the program was announced until early January 2001, when USDA notified proposal winners. As table 19 shows, USDA’s expedited schedule allowed interested cooperating sponsors at most 8 business days to prepare and submit the first part of the proposal. Sponsors who began preparing for the second part of the proposal at the earliest possible time (i.e., without waiting to learn whether they qualified to do so), had a maximum of 18 business days to complete and submit it to USDA. 1. USDA noted that GFEI has three purposes – to improve student enrollment, attendance, and performance, but indicated it is not possible to improve learning in a 1-year pilot program. According to USDA, GAO evaluated USDA against an unrealistic standard— performance—rather than the objectives of enrollment and attendance. In addition, USDA said, a much longer time frame would be required to address all of the factors mentioned in the report (examples cited include teacher training, infrastructure, learning materials, health and nutrition programs, and community involvement). We disagree with USDA’s statements for two reasons. First, our conclusion is that school feeding programs are more likely to improve enrollment and attendance, as well as learning, if they are carefully integrated with other key factors and interventions. Second, we conclude that the pilot program could have been improved by determining in advance which proposals were for communities where key factors were already in place or would be addressed during the projects themselves. 2. USDA disagreed with our statement that USDA lacked expertise in managing development and humanitarian assistance such as food aid. We have revised that statement to specify expertise in food for education development programs. At the same time we note that a recent USDA study of its food aid monetization programs cited difficulty evaluating the programs’ impacts because of limited personnel resources, high staff turnover, and increasing demands to implement large food aid programs. In addition, the limited presence of overseas agricultural attaches has adversely affected USDA’s ability to oversee some of its sponsors’ monetization projects, the study said. USDA’s Inspector General has also expressed concern about this matter. 3. USDA said it believes that GAO’s comparisons between the proposals and the recommended program elements understate the quality of the GFEI programs, since the proposal is only the beginning text of a negotiated contractual process. We focused on the proposal process to determine to what extent USDA secured information for judging and selecting proposals that offered greater promise of improving school enrollment, attendance, and learning. 4. Regarding differences in the treatment of PVOs and WFP, USDA reiterated (as discussed in our draft report) that the United States sits on the WFP Executive Board, which approves all projects. However, executive board approval does not mean that the United States may not have concerns about a particular project. As USAID advised, even when the United States concurs with an executive board decision to approve a project, the United States frequently states its concerns or reservations about the feasibility or sustainability of program activities and, according to USAID, has done so in the case of school feeding projects. USDA also said it is confident that the information submitted by WFP contains the required information listed in the Federal Register notice or the regulations governing USDA food assistance programs. However, WFP did not have to address requirements of the Federal Register notice; the notice did not require as much information as we believe would have been useful for evaluating proposals; and USDA’s 416(b) regulations did not include specific information requirements for assessing food for education programs. 5. USDA indicated agreement with our finding that analysis of the disincentive effects of food aid projects should include the impact of commodity donations on alternative food commodities. USDA said doing so could improve analyses and be a goal for future projects. At the same time, USDA said it stands by the pilot project assessments that significant market disruptions will not occur—even though such analysis was not conducted. Our report notes that cooperating sponsors are responsible for analyzing the potential disincentive effects of their projects and that USDA does not independently verify the results of such analyses. In addition, we noted that USDA officials acknowledged that because PVOs want to provide the food aid, these organizations may not be completely unbiased in preparing analyses of disincentive effects. In its letter, USDA said the latter statement is correct but in the opposite direction suggested by GAO. According to USDA, PVOs are going to more rigorously analyze the food needs of an area, because program success depends upon community support, which is not going to occur if markets are disrupted. We agree that the latter is one possible interpretation of the statement and therefore removed the statement from the letter. In addition to those named above, Gezahegne Bekele, Janey Cohen, Stacy Edwards, Mary Moutsos, and Rolf Nilsson made key contributions to this report. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm, E-mail: [email protected], or 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system). | At the Group of Eight industrialized countries' summit in July 2000, President Clinton proposed a Global Food for Education Initiative (GFEI) whereby developed countries would provide school breakfasts or lunches to needy children in poor countries. The aim of the initiative is to use school meals to attract children to school, keep them attending once they enroll, and improve learning. The president also announced a one-year, $300 million pilot program to be run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to jump-start the proposed global effort. Research and expert views on the effectiveness of school feeding programs indicate that the programs are more likely to be successful when they are carefully targeted and integrated with other educational, health, and nutritional interventions. In establishing the pilot program, USDA did not build on some important lessons from previous school feeding programs. Although USDA expects more than eight million children to benefit from the pilot program, the structure, planning, and management fall short in ensuing that the program's objectives will be attained. Representatives of most other donor countries GAO interviewed said their governments were either noncommittal about, or unwilling to provide, substantial support for a comprehensive, long-term food for education program. This lack of support is a problem because the United States envisioned a multilateral program with other donors funding about three-quarters of the program's total cost. GFEI seems unlikely to attract much support from other donors unless the United States adopts a permanent program that does not depend on surplus agricultural commodities or the pilot program produces strong, positive results. |
Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Theresa Jordan, Karen Ervin and Laurie Malashanko were the first women to become consecrated virgins in the Archdiocese of Detroit. Ann Zaniewski/Detroit Free Press
Buy Photo Karen Marie Ervin, Theresa Anne Jordan and Laurie Beth Malashanko during their Consecration of Virgins ceremony presided over by Archbishop of Detroit Allen H. Vigneron at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament on Saturday, June 24, 2017 in Detroit. (Photo: Kirthmon F. Dozier, Detroit Free Press)Buy Photo
It was any bride's dream wedding — a packed church, a beautiful white dress and a palpable feeling of excitement and love.
But what made Saturday's ceremony at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament really special was the groom:
Jesus.
Three women from metro Detroit were the first to become consecrated virgins in the Archdiocese of Detroit. The little-known vocation involves a commitment to lifelong chastity.
Laurie Malashanko of Plymouth, Karen Ervin of Northville and Theresa Jordan of Dearborn Heights are now, in the words of Catholic canon law, "mystically betrothed to Christ."
Unlike nuns, they are not part of a religious order. They will continue to work regular jobs and financially support themselves, while being steadfastly dedicated to serving the church.
Read more:
"The focus is on how to be in the world, but not be of it, and (having) this understanding of your role as a bride of Christ, and reflecting your love of Jesus to the world," said Ervin, 42, the principal of St. Catherine of Siena Academy in Wixom.
The consecration ceremony followed years of prayer and discernment — and involved a bit of a learning curve for the Archdiocese.
There are about 250 consecrated virgins in the U.S. and 4,000 worldwide, said Judith Stegman, president of the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins.
The practice dates to the church's earliest centuries, when there were no convents.
But by the year 1139, as more women were joining religious orders, bishops stopped consecrating virgins who weren't part of those orders. The bishops believed that women would be better protected if they lived together in religious communities, Stegman said.
In 1963, the Second Vatican Council decreed that the rite of consecrated virginity should be revised. The revision took place in 1970 to again include women who were "living in the world," rather than just those in religious communities.
"That’s why it’s so misunderstood," Stegman said. "For centuries, we only had the other kind of religious life in the church (for women). People aren't as familiar with it."
Diocesan bishops oversee and administer the rite. A woman who has never had sex has to ask for permission and assistance to be consecrated.
There is no universal blueprint for bishops or candidates to follow.
The diocese of Lansing has consecrated seven virgins. In Detroit, Malashanko, Ervin and Jordan broke new ground.
"It was a little bit scattered it first, because it was the first time we were practicing this vocation in the Archdiocese of Detroit," Jordan said. "There was no set procedure or protocol."
A lifelong promise
Jordan, 40, learned about consecrated virgins through a 2013 article in the Michigan Catholic newspaper.
"I felt like it was an opportunity to take my relationship with Christ one step further," she said.
The Archdiocese of Detroit tapped Susan Cummins, who was consecrated in 2002 in Lansing and now works for the Archdiocese, to mentor Jordan and the other women.
For the past few years, they've been meeting once every six weeks or so to pray and talk about the vocation. They had dinner several times with Auxiliary Bishop Donald Hanchon. Priests served as their spiritual directors.
The women submitted character references, a biography and a statement of intent to Archbishop Allen Vigneron.
"It’s not a vocation you can just 1-2-3 get into," Jordan said. "It takes a lot of formation, study and prayer."
Ervin said she first felt called to religious life as a child, but was intimidated by it. She was open to marriage and dated throughout her 20s. She also visited different religious orders.
Nothing seemed like the right fit.
Then one day, just before she turned 35, Ervin was talking to a professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary who mentioned consecrated virgins. Ervin had never heard about the vocation.
"I had so much joy flooding my heart the more and more she talked," she said.
Malashanko, 41, who works for a publishing company, also had a calling. But she didn't feel like she needed the structure of a religious community.
"There were religious orders I loved, and there were guys I dated who were great, but nothing clicked until I heard about this," she said.
Giving 100%
The idea behind lifelong virginity is giving 100% of oneself to Christ. Many consecrated virgins attend mass daily.
Stegman said 106 dioceses out of more than 190 in the U.S. have consecrated virgins — and many of those have only one or two.
Some dioceses don't even know about the vocation and are perplexed at first when a woman asks about it.
But that's changing.
"Clearly, as it becomes known more and more, there's been a continual increase in women who are interested in the vocation, asking about it and becoming consecrated, especially as various bishops become more aware of it and encourage it in their dioceses," Stegman said.
One other woman in the Archdiocese of Detroit is in formation.
The idea of lifelong virginity may make some people snicker, Jordan said. But she views it as a sacred gift from the Holy Spirit.
"In today’s society, virginity is often criticized, it's made fun of," said Jordan, who works as a French teacher and in the registrar's office at Marygrove College.
"To be in this world where there's a lot of sexual immorality and perversion, this is a great task set before me, but it’s one I look forward to overcoming, and helping others learn about the beauty of virginity and chastity in this world."
Last September, Malashanko, Ervin and Jordan had one-on-one interviews with Vigneron.
"There were no promises at the end of that interview," Malashanko said. "He could have said, 'I don’t think anyone is ready yet.' But that afternoon, all three of us were accepted. We set a date."
Wedding preparations began.
The big day
The women sent out invitations that listed Vigneron, rather than their parents, as the inviter.
Malashanko bought her wedding dress online. She was drawn to its boat neck, cinched waist and chiffon bottom, details that reminded her of Jackie Kennedy and Grace Kelly.
Buy Photo A veil, ring and prayer book were given during Mass for the Consecration of Virgins Living in the World held at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament Saturday, June 24, 2017 in Detroit, MI. (Photo: Kirthmon F. Dozier, Detroit Free Press)
Everyone picked out rings. Ervin designed hers, with a crown of thorns inside a white gold band connected to rose gold fleur-de-lis cross.
Most important, the women spent extra time in prayer and reflection.
On Saturday morning, the Cathedral was packed with several hundred guests and close to two dozen priests.
Each bride clutched an oil lamp as she walked down the aisle.
Like any traditional Catholic mass, there were two readings and the Gospel. The consecration rite followed.
Buy Photo Archbishop of Detroit Allen H. Vigneron says a prayer for Laurie Beth Malashanko, Theresa Anne Jordan and Karen Marie Ervin during Mass for the Consecration of Virgins Living in the World held at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament Saturday, June 24, 2017 in Detroit, MI. (Photo: Kirthmon F. Dozier, Detroit Free Press)
In an especially powerful part, the women lay prostrate as Vigneron and everyone in the church recited the Litany of the Saints.
Then, Vigneron gave each woman a ring and placed a veil on her head. He presented her with a Liturgy of the Hours prayer book.
Standing before Vigneron, Jordan, Malashanko and Ervin sang, "I am a spouse to Him, whom the angels serve; sun and moon stand in wonder at His glory."
Applause filled the church.
"I was very happy, very elated to be wedded to Christ," Jordan said. "I felt aligned with his virginity, his purity and all of his sufferings.
Buy Photo Archbishop of Detroit Allen H. Vigneron places a veil over Karen Marie Ervin during Mass for the Consecration of Virgins Living in the World held at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament Saturday, June 24, 2017 in Detroit, MI. (Photo: Kirthmon F. Dozier, Detroit Free Press)
"To be mystically espoused to him, it was very joyful."
Contact Ann Zaniewski: 313-222-6594 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @AnnZaniewski.
Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/2tqZlPk ||||| Three women consecrated as virgins lie prostrate during a June 24 ceremony at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Detroit. (CNS photo/Joel Breidenbach)
The women vowed to live in perpetual chastity, but will live 'in the world' rather than in a convent
Three brides in long, white dresses stood before the altar of the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Detroit. There was not a single groom in sight.
Like the 10 wise virgins from Matthew’s Gospel, each carried a lighted lamp. Together, they joined their voices in an antiphon, “I am espoused to him whom the angels serve.”
These women are “brides of Christ,” and through this ceremony, they have sealed their intention to dedicate their lives to God in perpetual virginity.
“It’s a promise that we make to be faithful to Christ all our life,” Theresa Jordan explained shortly after the June 24 ceremony. “(We) make him a promise of our virginity as a gift back to him.”
“Making a resolution to live in perfect chastity my whole life, I get to testify that God satisfies. He is enough,” Karen Ervin added.
This particular ceremony of consecration had never been performed before within the Archdiocese of Detroit. As far as records show, it was the first time in the United States that three women committed their lives at the same time in this way.
Yet this vocation, the order of virgins, whose members are known as “consecrated virgins living in the world,” dates back to the very beginnings of the church.
“If you’ve heard of St. Cecilia or Agnes or Lucy, they were all virgins living in the world,” said the third bride, Laurie Malashanko, referring to first-century martyrs.
Women called to this vocation do not live in a community as religious sisters do, nor are they called by a title like “sister” or wear distinguishing garb. These three women will continue their professional careers — Jordan as a college professor; Malashanko as an acquisitions editor for a publishing company; and Ervin as a principal at an all-girls Catholic high school.
As consecrated virgins, however, they intend to show a profound commitment to the Lord during their everyday interactions.
“I think young women really need to see who they are, and who they are is reflected in God’s eyes not the world’s eyes,” said Ervin, who had already explained her vocation to the students at her school. “I witness that to them and they know that I’m completely captured by God.”
During the ceremony, the three brides each placed their hands between the hands of Detroit’s Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron and requested that he accept their resolve to live in chastity. Similar to the sacrament of holy orders and religious profession of vows, the women then lay prostrate while the congregation petitioned the saints to intercede.
The newly consecrated also received a prayer book containing the Liturgy of the Hours along with wedding veils and rings, clearly symbolising their mystical marriage to Christ.
“Consecration, in general, means something is being set aside. It’s set aside for God alone,” said Judith Stegman, a consecrated virgin and president of the U.S. Association of Consecrated Virgins, a group founded to facilitate communication among those who follow this vocation.
“In this case what is being set aside is a person,” she told Catholic News Service.
To be set aside as a bride of Christ, the woman must have lived a life of perfect chastity. This is another factor that distinguishes the vocation of consecrated virginity from religious orders, which women may join if they are widowed or if they resolve to live a chaste life from that day forward.
“Virginity itself is important because virginity is important in the eyes of God,” Stegman said. “This is representing the church as a virgin, this is representing the Virgin Mary.”
“(We) image the church herself as virgin, as bride, as mother, so this whole vocation reflects Christ’s spousal union with his church,” said Malashanko.
Although prevalent in the early church, the vocation of virgins living in the world disappeared after the 11th century as women living a life of chastity came together in communities. By the time of the Second Vatican Council, the consecration of women existed entirely in conjunction with religious life.
“The rite of consecration of virgins in the world dropped off over the centuries as monastic community life for women developed,” explained Mary T. Kantor, who studied the vocation extensively for her doctoral dissertation at Harvard Divinity School. “The rite for women living in the world was brought back with Vatican II. It is specifically noted in the liturgy document, ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium.'”
The renewed rite for virgins living in the world is both overseen and administered by diocesan bishops, making it necessary for each diocese to develop its own formation programme if a woman within its borders feels called to the vocation. This requirement, combined with this rite’s novelty, slowed its spread in the United States in the decades directly following Vatican II.
“During my research, I spoke with someone in the bishop and/or vocation offices of each diocese in the country,” said Kantor in an email interview with CNS. She had begun her national survey in the early 2000s.
“Some had no knowledge of the rite,” she said. “I was hung up on more than once by those who thought I was joking or a prank caller. One secretary in a diocesan office said: ‘I’ve never heard of it, and if I’ve not heard of it, it must not be happening.'”
Today, the U.S. Association of Consecrated Virgins counts about 245 consecrated virgins living in 106 dioceses across the United States. For this first consecration ceremony in the Archdiocese of Detroit, a congregation of hundreds as well as two dozen priests and deacons celebrated alongside the three brides.
“We’re delighted that God should have called these women from our local church,” said Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Donald F. Hanchon, who had helped to oversee the women’s formation. “They’re going to be great witnesses for the Lord in the businesses and careers that they already have.”
A constant stream of friends, family and complete strangers congratulated the newly consecrated at a reception following the ceremony. Between poses with a huge bouquet of red roses, Jordan paused to give advice.
“(Jesus) is waiting for whatever gifts you have to give back to him,” she said, “and to have an eternal relationship even here on earth.” | All that debate about Jesus having a wife can now be squashed: He has not one, but three new brides, all from the Detroit area. In a first for the Archdiocese of Detroit, Theresa Jordan, Karen Ervin, and Laurie Malashanko became what the Catholic Herald terms "brides of Christ" in front of a crowd of hundreds at Detroit's Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament on Saturday. Donning wedding dresses and rings, the women promised to remain as virginal as Jesus' mother was purported to be as part of their vow to dedicate themselves as "a spouse to Him." In doing so, they became the first consecrated virgins in the Archdiocese of Detroit and are "mystically betrothed to Christ" under Catholic canon law, reports the Detroit Free Press. "It's a promise that we make to be faithful to Christ all our life," says Jordan, 40. Ervin, 42, adds that in "making a resolution to live in perfect chastity my whole life, I get to testify that God satisfies. He is enough." Consecrated virgins date back to the church's earliest days, though they became obsolete in the 12th century. In 1970, however, the church decided to again consecrate women dedicated to Christ but who carry on lives outside of a nunnery. In Detroit, the women first had to submit character references, a biography, and a statement of intent before they were approved by the archbishop. The United States Association of Consecrated Virgins says there are about 250 consecrated virgins in the US and 4,000 around the world. |
CLOSE Queen Elizabeth II is one of the longest reigning monarchs. But just because she's a Queen, doesn't mean she doesn't put her pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us common folks. USA TODAY
Queen Elizabeth II, the longest-reigning British monarch, turned 90 on April 21. In celebration of her birthday, here are 90 facts about her life:
1. She was born at 2:40 a.m. on April 21, 1926, at 17 Burton St. in Mayfair, London.
2. She was christened Elizabeth Alexandra Mary at Buckingham Palace on May 29, 1926.
3. Elizabeth was named after her mother.
4. In 1930, then-Princess Elizabeth's sister Margaret Rose was born.
5. When King Edward VIII abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, Elizabeth's father became King George VI.
6. After the 1936 abdication, Princess Elizabeth became first in line to the throne.
7. During World War II, Elizabeth and sister Margaret moved to Windsor Castle for their safety.
8. Elizabeth was educated at home.
9. She studied constitutional history and law, preparing for her future role as queen.
10. She was also instructed in religion by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
11. Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip met at a wedding in 1934.
12. Elizabeth learned how to drive in 1945.
13. Elizabeth and Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were married at Westminster Abbey on November 20, 1947.
14. For a while, Elizabeth and Philip enjoyed a somewhat normal existence in Malta between 1949 and 1951. Philip was an officer in the Mediterranean Fleet.
15. Elizabeth became queen when King George VI died in February 1952.
16. In 1953, Elizabeth II attended her first football match (FA Cup Final).
17. Elizabeth had four children (Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward).
18. She has made five official visits to the United States during her reign.
19. Elizabeth II has answered over 3.5 million items of correspondence.
20. She has owned over 30 corgis. Her first dog was named Susan.
21. Elizabeth says Prince Phillip has been her "strength and stay" during her reign.
22. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh became the first couple in the Royal Family to celebrate 60 years of marriage, also known as their diamond wedding anniversary.
23. For her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the queen received over 120,000 cards, letter and gifts.
24. Her coronation was the first to be televised in England.
25. Her great-grandson Prince George calls her "Gan-Gan."
26. The oldest recipient of a message from the queen was a man from Canada who turned 116 in December 1984.
27. Elizabeth carries cash in her purse only on Sundays; she donates money to her church.
28. The queen learned of her father's death while she was in Kenya.
29. The last British governor of New South Wales made three films, entitled Long to reign over us about Elizabeth's accession and coronation
30. She was coronated in Westminster Abbey in June 1953.
31. It was raining during her coronation.
32. Drives through London, visits to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and a review of the fleet at Spithead followed the coronation.
33. In three months in 1977, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of her accession, Elizabeth went on six tours that took her through 36 counties in the UK and Northern Ireland.
34. In that same year, her travels continued overseas to countries including Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and other countries.
35. That year, it's estimated that the queen and the Duke of Edinburgh traveled 56,000 miles.
36. That June, she lit a a bonfire beacon that began a chain of celebratory beacons across the country.
37. The next day, after making a speech during which she declared she had no regrets in taking on her responsibilities, 4,000 street and village parties were reported to have been held across the country.
38. In 2002, she celebrated 50 years of reign.
39. During that year, she visited every region of the UK, as well as many other countries.
40. June 2002 was the main focus of the celebration, and involved services as well as two concerts including artists such as Paul McCartney and Elton John.
41. During Elizabeth's 80th-birthday celebrations, she held a "Children's Party at the Palace" and invited 2,000 kids.
42. On April 19, two days before her birthday, she invited guests who also turned 80 years old to Buckingham Palace.
43. She spent April 21 meeting the crowds in Windsor before a family dinner, with fireworks.
44. During the year, she received almost 40,000 birthday messages from the public.
45. For the queen's 60th wedding anniversary, she returned to her honeymoon location, Broadlands in Hampshire; she and Philip recreated their wedding photos.
46. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Trust took donations for initiatives like Queen's Young Leaders.
47. The queen's favorite animals are horses and dogs.
48. She regularly attends both the Derby at Epsom and the Summer Race Meeting at Ascot.
49. Elizabeth owns and breeds thoroughbreds and often watches her horses race at other events, where they have won numerous times.
50. She also is interested in Scottish country dancing, and she gives annual dances for the community.
51. She gives to almost 40 animal-related organizations as well as almost 90 medical and health-care charities, in addition to the hundreds of other organizations she is involved with.
52. The queen celebrates her birthday twice — once in April and once in June — because sovereign birthdays are often celebrated twice when not naturally in the summer.
53. Once a week for an hour, she meets with Britain's prime minister.
54. The queen speaks fluent French.
55. Norman Hartnell designed the queen's wedding and coronation gowns, as well as her dress for her first visit to the U.S. as monarch.
CLOSE Queen Elizabeth II is now the longest-reigning monarch in British history. Here are five things you might not know about her. VPC
56. Queen Elizabeth II is the 40th monarch since William the Conqueror was crowned in 1066.
57. There have been 12 U.S. presidents since she first began her reign.
58. There have been seven Roman Catholic popes during her time as monarch.
59. The queen was a Girl Guide as a child, as well as a Sea Ranger (a portion of Girl Guides dedicated to sailing).
60. Elizabeth has 30 godchildren.
61. Queen Elizabeth II became the first British monarch to visit China in 1986.
62. She sent her first email in 1976 from a British research facility.
63. Since she began her reign, there have been six Archbishops of Canterbury.
64. She bred a corgi with a dachshund and created the dorgi, and has continued to breed them since.
65. The queen once had to demote a footman for putting whiskey and gin in one of her corgi's water bowls.
66. She is the oldest to celebrate 60 years in the crown, second only to Queen Victoria who celebrated the milestone at 77.
67. In summer 2005, she opened the first children's trail in the Buckingham Palace garden.
68. The British Monarchy Youtube channel launched in 2007 and has almost 56 million views and more than 150,000 subscribers.
69. The queen is the only person in the UK who doesn't need a driver's license or a license plate to drive.
70. Elizabeth also does not need a passport to travel internationally.
71. As a princess, Elizabeth drove a truck and trained as a mechanic in World War II.
72. Whales, dolphins, porpoises and sturgeons are considered “Fishes Royal" and therefore the property of the monarch when caught within three miles of the UK coast.
73. The queen, when gifted rare animals such as jaguars, donates them to the London Zoo.
74. To pay for her wedding dress materials, she collected rationing coupons.
75. She has visited more than 115 countries.
76. After visiting Belfast in 2014, she referenced her June Game of Thrones set tour in her Christmas message. She even met some of the actors.
78. Her love of dogs came from her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria, who owned dachshunds and Scottish collies.
79. Only five other British kings and queens have ruled for 50 years or more.
80. Since her rule began, she has visited Edinburgh nearly every year during Holyrood Week. She stays in the Palace of Holyroodhouse.
81. Queen Elizabeth II has given royal assent to, or passed, more than 3,500 Acts of Parliament after passed by the houses of Lords and Commons.
82. The queen has visited the Vatican three times, most recently to visit Pope Francis in 2014.
83. The Royal Yacht Britannia traveled over 1 million miles in the more than 40 years it was in use by the royal family — that's an average of 25,000 miles a year.
84. The queen has traveled overseas more than 250 times.
85. Elizabeth has attended every Parliament opening with the exception of two, during which she was expecting two of her children.
86. Two of the more recent prime ministers were born during her reign: Tony Blair and David Cameron were born in 1953 and 1966, respectively.
87. Her love of horses began with a gift of a pony for her third birthday.
88. The queen usually receives around 60,000 letters a year.
89. She made a radio broadcast in 1940 at the age of 14.
90. The queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have sent more than 45,000 Christmas cards.
Sources: Royal.gov.uk; USA TODAY research
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1WeHam4 ||||| Queen Elizabeth II celebrates her 90th birthday on Thursday. Veteran CNN royal-watcher Roger Clark recalls the time he met the Queen, reflects on her six decades of public service and asks what it is that makes her so popular. For full coverage of the British royal family, head to cnn.com/royals
(CNN) King George VI once told his daughter she wouldn't remember most of the people she would meet in her life. But His Majesty said those very people would always remember the day THEY met HER.
I know exactly what he meant. I doubt the Queen tells her friends about the day she met me but let's just say I've mentioned the occasion once or twice!
It was a meeting I'll never forget -- I think I even have a picture on the wall at home of us chatting together at Windsor Castle. I wanted to make a good impression. I'm not normally lost for words but I did struggle a bit that day.
On June 10, Buckingham Palace released a new official photograph to mark the Queen's 90th birthday. It shows Queen Elizabeth II with her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, and was taken at Windsor Castle just after Easter.
On June 10, Buckingham Palace released a new official photograph to mark the Queen's 90th birthday. It shows Queen Elizabeth II with her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, and was taken at Windsor Castle just after Easter.
This undated photo provided by HM The Queen shows the then Princess Elizabeth, left, Princess Margaret and their father King George VI in Britain. Rare footage of Britain's Queen Elizabeth has been shared to celebrate her 90th birthday. (Courtesy of HM The Queen via AP) NO SALES NO ARCHIVES
This undated photo provided by HM The Queen shows the then Princess Elizabeth, left, Princess Margaret and their father King George VI in Britain. Rare footage of Britain's Queen Elizabeth has been shared to celebrate her 90th birthday. (Courtesy of HM The Queen via AP) NO SALES NO ARCHIVES
Queen Elizabeth II acknowledges the crowd as she celebrates her 90th birthday in Windsor, England, on April 21.
Queen Elizabeth II acknowledges the crowd as she celebrates her 90th birthday in Windsor, England, on April 21.
Prince George gets a boost from some foam blocks for a special family photo. The portrait, featuring the four generations of the House of Windsor, was commissioned by the Royal Mail and will be featured on a series of stamps to commemorate the Queen's 90th birthday.
Prince George gets a boost from some foam blocks for a special family photo. The portrait, featuring the four generations of the House of Windsor, was commissioned by the Royal Mail and will be featured on a series of stamps to commemorate the Queen's 90th birthday.
The British monarch greets the public after attending services at the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, West Newton, on February 7, 2016, near King's Lynn, England.
The British monarch greets the public after attending services at the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, West Newton, on February 7, 2016, near King's Lynn, England.
The Queen sits at a desk in Buckingham Palace in July 2015.
The Queen sits at a desk in Buckingham Palace in July 2015.
The Queen waits to give her speech during the State Opening of Parliament on May 27, 2015.
The Queen waits to give her speech during the State Opening of Parliament on May 27, 2015.
The Queen enters the Great Hall at Edinburgh Castle after attending a commemorative service for the Scottish National War Memorial in July 2014.
The Queen enters the Great Hall at Edinburgh Castle after attending a commemorative service for the Scottish National War Memorial in July 2014.
A boy in Belfast, Northern Ireland, takes a selfie in front of the Queen in June 2014.
A boy in Belfast, Northern Ireland, takes a selfie in front of the Queen in June 2014.
The Queen tours the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London in December 2012.
The Queen tours the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London in December 2012.
The Queen speaks at a reception for members of the International Olympic Committee on July 23, 2012.
The Queen speaks at a reception for members of the International Olympic Committee on July 23, 2012.
Prince Charles kisses his mother's hand on stage as singer Paul McCartney, far right, looks on at the Diamond Jubilee concert held June 4, 2012, at Buckingham Palace. The Diamond Jubilee celebrations marked Elizabeth's 60th anniversary as Queen.
Prince Charles kisses his mother's hand on stage as singer Paul McCartney, far right, looks on at the Diamond Jubilee concert held June 4, 2012, at Buckingham Palace. The Diamond Jubilee celebrations marked Elizabeth's 60th anniversary as Queen.
Madame Tussauds London reveals a wax figure of the Queen in May 2012.
Madame Tussauds London reveals a wax figure of the Queen in May 2012.
Flags are waved as Queen Elizabeth II leaves St. Paul's Cathedral following its 300th anniversary service in June 2011.
Flags are waved as Queen Elizabeth II leaves St. Paul's Cathedral following its 300th anniversary service in June 2011.
The Queen's signature is seen in the visitors book at Aras An Uachtarain, the Irish President's official residence in Dublin, Ireland, in May 2011.
The Queen's signature is seen in the visitors book at Aras An Uachtarain, the Irish President's official residence in Dublin, Ireland, in May 2011.
Queen Elizabeth II drives her Range Rover as she attends the Windsor Horse Show in May 2011.
Queen Elizabeth II drives her Range Rover as she attends the Windsor Horse Show in May 2011.
The Queen, second from right, greets a crowd from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on April 29, 2011. Her grandson Prince William, third from left, had just married Catherine Middleton.
The Queen, second from right, greets a crowd from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on April 29, 2011. Her grandson Prince William, third from left, had just married Catherine Middleton.
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip leave London's St. Paul's Cathedral on October 9, 2009, following a commemoration service to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq.
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip leave London's St. Paul's Cathedral on October 9, 2009, following a commemoration service to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq.
Prince Charles looks back at his mother after wedding Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, in April 2005.
Prince Charles looks back at his mother after wedding Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, in April 2005.
The Queen addresses the nation on the night before Princess Diana's funeral in 1997.
The Queen addresses the nation on the night before Princess Diana's funeral in 1997.
While at Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip view the floral tributes to Princess Diana after her tragic death in 1997.
While at Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip view the floral tributes to Princess Diana after her tragic death in 1997.
Queen Elizabeth II fires a rifle during a visit to the Army Rifle Association at Bisley, England, in July 1993.
Queen Elizabeth II fires a rifle during a visit to the Army Rifle Association at Bisley, England, in July 1993.
The Queen reacts to an elephant as she tours a charity event in London's Hyde Park in June 1987.
The Queen reacts to an elephant as she tours a charity event in London's Hyde Park in June 1987.
Queen Elizabeth II takes pictures of her husband during a horse show in Windsor, England, on May 16, 1982.
Queen Elizabeth II takes pictures of her husband during a horse show in Windsor, England, on May 16, 1982.
The Queen stands next to Prince Charles as he kisses his new bride, Princess Diana, on their wedding day July 29, 1981.
The Queen stands next to Prince Charles as he kisses his new bride, Princess Diana, on their wedding day July 29, 1981.
The Queen meets the crowds during her royal tour of New Zealand in 1977.
The Queen meets the crowds during her royal tour of New Zealand in 1977.
Queen Elizabeth II takes a portrait at Windsor Castle for her 50th birthday on April 21, 1976.
Queen Elizabeth II takes a portrait at Windsor Castle for her 50th birthday on April 21, 1976.
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip wave from a plane ramp shortly before taking off from Tokyo in May 1975.
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip wave from a plane ramp shortly before taking off from Tokyo in May 1975.
Prince Charles adjusts his coronet during his investiture ceremony as Prince of Wales in 1969.
Prince Charles adjusts his coronet during his investiture ceremony as Prince of Wales in 1969.
Queen Elizabeth II is seen during the State Opening of Parliament in April 1966.
Queen Elizabeth II is seen during the State Opening of Parliament in April 1966.
The Queen holds her son Prince Andrew while his sister, Princess Anne, watches during a family holiday at Scotland's Balmoral Castle in September 1960.
The Queen holds her son Prince Andrew while his sister, Princess Anne, watches during a family holiday at Scotland's Balmoral Castle in September 1960.
From left, Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mother visit Epsom Downs Racecourse in June 1958.
From left, Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mother visit Epsom Downs Racecourse in June 1958.
Queen Elizabeth II on the balcony of Melbourne's Government House, during her tour of Australia in March 1954.
Queen Elizabeth II on the balcony of Melbourne's Government House, during her tour of Australia in March 1954.
Queen Elizabeth II walks to the altar during her coronation ceremony on June 2, 1953.
Queen Elizabeth II walks to the altar during her coronation ceremony on June 2, 1953.
Elizabeth ascended to the throne in February 1952, when her father died of lung cancer. Here, the new Queen leaves the Royal Archers Hall in Edinburgh after a ball in June 1952. It was the first function she attended as Queen following her father's death.
Elizabeth ascended to the throne in February 1952, when her father died of lung cancer. Here, the new Queen leaves the Royal Archers Hall in Edinburgh after a ball in June 1952. It was the first function she attended as Queen following her father's death.
Princess Elizabeth smiles in March 1950 as she arrives to a state banquet at the French Embassy in London's Kensington Palace Gardens.
Princess Elizabeth smiles in March 1950 as she arrives to a state banquet at the French Embassy in London's Kensington Palace Gardens.
The Royal Wedding Party waves from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on November 20, 1947. After becoming a British citizen and renouncing his Greek title, Philip became His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. His wife became the Duchess of Edinburgh.
The Royal Wedding Party waves from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on November 20, 1947. After becoming a British citizen and renouncing his Greek title, Philip became His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. His wife became the Duchess of Edinburgh.
This portrait of the British royal family was taken in July 1947, after Princess Elizabeth, far left, got engaged to Prince Philip of Greece, a lieutenant in the British Navy. He is second from left. To his left are Queen Elizabeth, King George VI and Princess Margaret.
This portrait of the British royal family was taken in July 1947, after Princess Elizabeth, far left, got engaged to Prince Philip of Greece, a lieutenant in the British Navy. He is second from left. To his left are Queen Elizabeth, King George VI and Princess Margaret.
With the Drakensberg Mountains behind her, Princess Elizabeth sits in South Africa's Natal National Park on April 21, 1947, her 21st birthday.
With the Drakensberg Mountains behind her, Princess Elizabeth sits in South Africa's Natal National Park on April 21, 1947, her 21st birthday.
Princess Elizabeth shakes hands with an officer of the Grenadier Guards on May 29, 1942. King George VI made Elizabeth an honorary colonel in the Royal Army regiment.
Princess Elizabeth shakes hands with an officer of the Grenadier Guards on May 29, 1942. King George VI made Elizabeth an honorary colonel in the Royal Army regiment.
A 14-year-old Princess Elizabeth, right, sits next to her sister for a radio broadcast on October 13, 1940. On the broadcast, her first, she said that England's children were full of cheerfulness and courage.
A 14-year-old Princess Elizabeth, right, sits next to her sister for a radio broadcast on October 13, 1940. On the broadcast, her first, she said that England's children were full of cheerfulness and courage.
Princess Elizabeth, center, sits with her parents and two dogs in an undated photos.
Princess Elizabeth, center, sits with her parents and two dogs in an undated photos.
From left, Princess Elizabeth, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret wave to the crowd from the Royal Balcony of Buckingham Palace on June 22, 1939.
From left, Princess Elizabeth, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret wave to the crowd from the Royal Balcony of Buckingham Palace on June 22, 1939.
Princess Elizabeth is seen in the Duchess' box during a pantomime act at London's Lyceum Theater in February 1935.
Princess Elizabeth is seen in the Duchess' box during a pantomime act at London's Lyceum Theater in February 1935.
Princess Elizabeth is seen with her uncle Edward, Prince of Wales, during a visit to Balmoral, Scotland, in September 1933. He would go on to become King Edward VIII in 1936. But when he abdicated later that year, Elizabeth's father became King and she became heir presumptive.
Princess Elizabeth is seen with her uncle Edward, Prince of Wales, during a visit to Balmoral, Scotland, in September 1933. He would go on to become King Edward VIII in 1936. But when he abdicated later that year, Elizabeth's father became King and she became heir presumptive.
Elizabeth was born April 21, 1926, in London. She is held here by her mother, Elizabeth. Her father would later become King George VI.
Elizabeth was born April 21, 1926, in London. She is held here by her mother, Elizabeth. Her father would later become King George VI.
Queen Elizabeth is the longest-reigning monarch in British history. Look back at moments from her life so far.
Queen Elizabeth is the longest-reigning monarch in British history. Look back at moments from her life so far.
I was covering the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and we'd asked the Palace if on the opening day, she would adjust her schedule by a few minutes to help the broadcasters. The Palace agreed.
So when I met Her Majesty, I thanked her for changing her schedule. Unfortunately, I pronounced it "SKedule" not "SHedule. I'd used the American pronunciation in front of the Queen AND in her Castle. Brilliant move! She gently corrected me and then laughed.
The King was right. I still remember our meeting, which is why, even during my years living in America, I never use the American pronunciation. And if any one questions me about it, I tell them to ring Buckingham Palace for an explanation!
Stage presence
When you meet the Queen, she tries to put you at ease. But it's still nerve wracking. After I'd shaken her hand, I thought about all those world leaders, pop stars, sports legends and others who've shaken THAT hand. Despite being 5'4" tall, the Queen has enormous presence when she enters the room. It's a most unusual feeling.
My first encounter with Her Majesty came during her Silver Jubilee in 1977. She visited my hometown of Hull in the North of England. I wonder if she'd forgiven the city for rising up against one of her predecessors, King Charles I.
Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning monarch, turns 90 on April 21. She is seen here with her parents, the Queen Mother and King George VI, (then the Duke and Duchess of York) on May 1, 1926, at her christening. Take a look at other images from the Queen's first year. Hide Caption 1 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Family photo on the day of the christening of Princess Elizabeth on May 29, 1926. The Duke of Connaught, back row left, King George V, the Duke of York and the Earl of Strathmore. Lady Elphinstone, front row left, Queen Mary, the Duchess of York with Princess Elizabeth, the Countess of Strathmore and Princess Mary. Hide Caption 2 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Princess Elizabeth in 1926. Hide Caption 3 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year The Duchess of York looks lovingly at her first child, Princess Elizabeth, in May 1926. Hide Caption 4 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Queen Mary of Great Britain with her granddaughter Princess Elizabeth after her christening. Hide Caption 5 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Princess Elizabeth at 6 months old. Hide Caption 6 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Portrait of Princess Elizabeth in December 1926. Hide Caption 7 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year The Duke and Duchess of York with Princess Elizabeth in December 1926. Hide Caption 8 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year The Duchess of York poses for a portrait with Princess Elizabeth in 1926. Hide Caption 9 of 10 Photos: Queen Elizabeth II: Her first year Queen Mary with her granddaughter Princess Elizabeth on the day of her 1st birthday, April 21, 1927. Hide Caption 10 of 10
The protests had ignited the English Civil War that led to the King losing his head -- and all future monarchs ruling not through the Divine Right, but with the blessing of their people. That first sight of the Queen was one I'll always remember. We didn't see her often in those days before 24 hour news.
Sure, she was on our stamps, our coins and her picture hung in the school assembly hall. But to see her in the flesh was quite something. I was with hundreds of choirboys that day singing to her. I really hope she doesn't remember that!
Patience - more than a virtue
Over the years, I've seen the Queen in action on many Royal visits. God only knows how she does it. She travels all over the world, meets countless people, tries to ensure a routine day for her is a special day for those she meets.
One event after another, listening to and giving speeches, shaking endless outstretched hands and all with a smile on her face. It must be tough because, in truth, some of the speeches can be dull and some of the events are pretty boring.
But she can't exactly yawn when she's bored or, indeed, tired. And if she is bored or tired, you'd never know it.
Little is known about her
JUST WATCHED The contentious Brexit issue has even reached the Queen Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The contentious Brexit issue has even reached the Queen 01:37
Despite being one of the most famous people in the world, very few of her subjects really know much about her.
She's never given an interview, never written an autobiography. We know she likes horses, corgis and the outdoors. We know also that she's a deeply religious person and has a sense of humor.
Apparently she's an excellent mimic. But we know nothing about her politics or her views on anything remotely controversial.
Sense of duty
Some commentators have criticized her for being a bit remote as a mother. Yet when she put her grandmotherly responsibilities to Princes William and Harry first in the days after Princess Diana died, she was criticized for that too.
I remember that time very well and the angry mood of the British people -- it was unprecedented. That week saw the biggest wobble of her reign. What a remarkable turnaround that just five years later, millions of people around the Commonwealth came onto the streets to celebrate her Golden Jubilee.
Photos: Will and Kate's royal family In this undated handout photo released on Sunday, May 1, by Kensington Palace, Britain's Princess Charlotte poses for a photograph at Anmer Hall in Norfolk, England. The princess will celebrate her first birthday on Monday. Hide Caption 1 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George and Prince William talk with U.S. President Barack Obama at Kensington Palace in London on Friday, April 22. Obama visited the royals during his global tour, with stops in Saudi Arabia, Britain and Germany. Hide Caption 2 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Prince George gets a boost from some foam blocks for a special family photo. The portrait, featuring the four generations of the House of Windsor, was commissioned by the Royal Mail and will be featured on a series of stamps to commemorate the Queen's 90th birthday. Hide Caption 3 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Britain's Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge pose for a photo with their children, Princess Charlotte and Prince George in the French Alps on Thursday, March 3. Hide Caption 4 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Britain's Prince William poses with Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, and their children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, during a family Christmas photo released on Friday, December 18. Hide Caption 5 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Princess Charlotte plays with a stuffed dog in this photo taken by her mother in early November. Hide Caption 6 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine pose with their children at Charlotte's christening in July. Hide Caption 7 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Princess Charlotte is seen with her big brother for the first time in a photo released by Kensington Palace in June. Hide Caption 8 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine present their newborn daughter as they leave a London hospital in May. Hide Caption 9 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family In March, William and Catherine visit a center dedicated to community learning in London. Hide Caption 10 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The royal family celebrates Prince George's first birthday with a trip to the Natural History Museum in July 2014. Hide Caption 11 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The royal family waves to a crowd before boarding a plance in Wellington, New Zealand, in April 2014. They went on a three-week tour of Australia and New Zealand. Hide Caption 12 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The royal couple attends the Tusk Conservation Awards at the Royal Society in London in September 2013. Hide Caption 13 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine start an ultra marathon in Holyhead, Wales, in August 2013. It was Catherine's first public appearance since the birth of Prince George. Hide Caption 14 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple are pictured with their newborn boy, Prince George, in 2013. The new parents released two family photographs taken by Michael Middleton, Catherine's father. Hide Caption 15 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The Duke and Duchess and their newborn son depart St. Mary's Hospital in London in July 2013. Hide Caption 16 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family In June 2013, William, Catherine and Prince Harry arrive at Westminster Abbey for a celebration marking the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Hide Caption 17 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family In April 2013, Harry, Catherine and William make magic on the set used to depict Diagon Alley in the "Harry Potter" films. Hide Caption 18 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple attends a St. Patrick's Day parade as they visit Aldershot, England, in March 2013. Hide Caption 19 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family In September 2012, the couple drank coconut milk from a tree that Queen Elizabeth II planted decades ago in the South Pacific nation of Tuvalu. Hide Caption 20 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Catherine and William celebrate during cycling events at the Olympic Games in London in August 2012. Hide Caption 21 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The Queen, William and Catherine stand on the balcony of Buckingham Palace during the finale of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations in June 2012. Hide Caption 22 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family As part of their charity work, the couple attended a "healthy living cookery session" in London in December 2011. Hide Caption 23 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The newly married royal couple watches a rodeo demonstration at a government reception in Calgary, Alberta, in July 2011. Hide Caption 24 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family Catherine shovels soil during a tree-planting ceremony in Ottawa in July 2011. Hide Caption 25 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family You can feel the love as the happy couple attends a Snowbirds air show during Canada Day celebrations in July 2011. Hide Caption 26 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama meet with the royal couple at Buckingham Palace in May 2011. Hide Caption 27 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The newlyweds walk hand in hand from Buckingham Palace the day after their wedding in April 2011. Hide Caption 28 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family After their wedding on April 29, 2011, the couple drove from Buckingham Palace to Clarence House in a vintage Aston Martin. Hide Caption 29 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine kiss on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after their wedding ceremony in London. Hide Caption 30 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The pair returned to their alma mater in St. Andrews, Scotland, in February 2011. They launched a fundraising campaign for a new scholarship. Hide Caption 31 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple poses for photographers to mark their engagement in November 2010. Catherine received the engagement ring that belonged to William's late mother, Diana. Hide Caption 32 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple cheers on the English rugby team during the Six Nations Championship match in London in February 2007. Hide Caption 33 of 34 Photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple takes a photo after graduating from the University of St. Andrews in June 2005. They met at school and even shared a house with others while students. Hide Caption 34 of 34
So why is the Queen so popular?
JUST WATCHED The world's longest serving monarchs Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The world's longest serving monarchs 01:23
Well for a start she's not a politician. She also stands for something and does not do knee-jerk reactions to some poll or focus group. Again, not a politician.
She's seen as genuine, somebody who cares about her country, her Commonwealth and her people. In times of sadness and despair, people look to the Queen and her family for words of support. I remember her doing just that after the London bombings of 2005. She and her family are also there in times of joy to celebrate with us.
Remember that dramatic arrival with James Bond at the opening of the London Olympics? The Queen also provides a sense of continuity in a changing world.
Sure, there are people who would like to see an end of monarchy but they are few in number compared to those who, day in day out, welcome the Queen to their towns, cities and homes around the world. Her realms and territories extend across the globe. She's monarch in places ranging from New Zealand in the south to Scotland in the north, taking in Australia, Canada and a host of Caribbean countries. She's also Head of the Commonwealth -- a 53-nation club whose membership numbers almost a third of the world's population. On those occasions when millions turn up outside Buckingham Palace and sing God Save the Queen, they truly mean it.
READ: Full coverage of British royal family
"I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family." So said the then Princess Elizabeth 69 years ago as she broadcast to the British Empire on her 21st birthday. "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family." So said the then Princess Elizabeth 69 years ago as she broadcast to the British Empire on her 21st birthday.
Now, as she celebrates her 90th birthday, we look back and know her life has indeed been a long and momentous one.
Happy Birthday Ma'am. ||||| Queen Elizabeth II Through The Years Queen Elizabeth II In 1976 The Queen Elizabeth II, dressed in royal regalia, posed for this special Jubilee picture in the Throne Room of Buckingham Palace, after she had delivered the traditional Queen's speech at the 1976 official State Opening of Parliament. She wears the Imperial State Crown and the Robe of State, also known as the Parliamentary Robe. Around her neck is the Jubilee Necklace of diamonds and pearls and the chain is the Collar of the Order of the Garter, Britain's premier order of Knighthood. Her gown is of white silk with bands of gold and silver embroidery. (Photo credit /AFP/Getty Images) ||||| Image copyright Tristram Kenton Image caption Emma Handy, left, and Marion Bailey, right, both played the Queen in productions of the play Handbagged
As she celebrates her 90th birthday, the image of the Queen on stage and screen is more prevalent than ever. But what is it like to play one of the most famous faces in the world - and what makes so many want to do so?
Playing the Queen could be daunting for many actresses. But two who have done exactly that on stage say there is one crucial element for getting into character - the wig.
Emma Handy played Liz - the 1980s version of the Queen - in the recent touring production of Moira Buffini play Handbagged, which imagines older and younger versions of the Queen and Margaret Thatcher in conversation during their weekly audience.
"The wig and make-up and clothes do so much," she says. "It's extraordinary."
But, adds Handy: "She seems to have two faces - the public and the private face. There is very little footage of her private life, but she is known to be enormously mischievous - and these are things I have in common with her."
Media caption The Queen has been portrayed on stage and screen many times
One thing Handy was adamant about was not doing an impersonation of the Queen - instead she focused on capturing her "essence". She says she found sitting "incredibly straight-backed" helped.
"She's probably the most photographed person in the world, so everyone has an idea of her," says Handy.
"Every year you see the Christmas broadcast, but that's not who she is. There is a massive side of her people don't know."
Marion Bailey, who played Q - the older Queen - in the West End production, says: "It is irresistible to play the Queen. When I was cast, I mentioned it to a few people and someone said I didn't look anything like the Queen.
"And I replied: 'Oh, but I do,'". I've often sat in make-up chairs and had my hair in a particular way, looked in the mirror and thought: 'You know what? I could do the Queen,'."
'Is that the Queen?'
In preparation for the London run of the play, initially at the Tricycle Theatre before transferring to the Vaudeville Theatre, she says she watched all the Queen's Christmas messages - as well as anything else she could find online.
And the reaction was everything she could have hoped for.
"Some nights I would walk out and there would be gasps," she says. "It was to do with the look of it and the history, and I tried to get as many of the mannerisms as I could. On the West End transfer, I heard an American tourist whisper: 'Is that the Queen?'."
Queen of popular culture
Peter Morgan's 2006 film The Queen featured Helen Mirren as the Queen and Michael Sheen as Tony Blair and focused on the reaction to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales
The Audience, also written by Morgan, starred Mirren on its West End and Broadway runs, with the role also being played by Kristin Scott Thomas on the London stage
Channel 4's The Queen featured five actresses, including Emilia Fox and Samantha Bond, playing the Queen at different stages in her life
The Crown, starring Claire Foy and Matt Smith as the Duke of Edinburgh, is a Netflix series due to be released in November, covering six decades of the Queen's life. Again, it is written by Morgan
Songs written about the Queen include Her Majesty by The Beatles and God Save the Queen by the Sex Pistols
Alan Bennett has twice written about the Queen - his book The Uncommon Reader sees the monarch's life changed by a mobile library, while play A Question of Attribution includes a scene where the Queen and spy Anthony Blunt are in conversation
Queen lookalike Jeannette Charles made a career out of impersonating the monarch and even turned her hand to acting in several films including The Naked Gun in 1988 with Leslie Nielsen, and Austin Powers in Goldmember with Mike Myers and Michael Caine.
Prof Philip Murphy, director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London, says the closest the public ever got to seeing the real Queen was in the 1969 documentary Royal Family.
But Prof Murphy says: "The Royal Family effectively suppressed it. They decided it reduced the mystique around them.
"In a way, that creates a carte blanche for writers and satirists to make up personalities."
'Mixing fact and fiction'
He adds: "That's the problem the Royal Family has - they want to appear human but they also want to appear somehow removed and keep this dignified distance."
One issue with writing about the Queen is that "fact and fiction gets mixed up", he says.
"The public have very little sense of what actually goes on. But a plausible fictional representation can almost seep into historical record."
Image copyright Pathé Image caption Helen Mirren won the best actress Oscar for her role in 2006 film The Queen
Portrayals of the Queen have not always been the most flattering, he notes.
"Spitting Image was an attack on British deference around authority figures - and there were no more esteemed than the Royal Family," says the professor.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The Queen, in the foreground, and other members of the royal family were often satirised on Spitting Image
One of the lead writers of that series was author John O'Farrell, who says: "If you cast your mind back to the 1980s, there was an enormous reverential style. It was seen as poor form to laugh at the Queen's expense... But what we did was show her to be an ordinary person in an ordinary family, which is where it struck a comic nerve," he says.
'Complete blank sheet'
He adds: "The tabloids faked outrage, but people loved it... At times it was crude and disrespectful - but I think that's warranted."
Alison Jackson is someone else whose work has attracted controversy. Her apparently candid photographs of celebrities in private moments are created with the help of carefully-chosen lookalikes.
Thanks to Jackson, we see "the Queen" putting out dog food for her corgis, taking a selfie and doing the washing-up.
Image copyright Alison Jackson Image caption Alison Jackson's apparently candid pictures of the Queen - posed by a lookalike - show her carrying out everyday tasks
"I thought it would be really good to get her doing normal things," says Jackson.
"She is a person, after all. And she does do normal things - she reads, she drives a Land Rover, she gets her hands dirty - she's quite tomboyish, really. She's not a diva and seems to come across as a normal woman, even though of course she's not."
Jackson says one photograph seems to be seen as going too far, however.
"My photograph of the Queen on the loo is my least published. I don't think it's been seen in any newspaper in England, whereas a lot of other works get published all the time," she says.
"People think breaking that taboo is tasteless, which I find interesting. But it's designed to be thought-provoking, rather than controversial."
Image copyright PA Image caption Queen Elizabeth with James Bond actor Daniel Craig, who she appeared alongside in a film sequence for the London Olympics
Thought provoking as they may be, perhaps fictional representations get us no closer to who the Queen actually is - barring of course the only time she has played herself, acting alongside Daniel Craig in a James Bond sketch for the London Olympics opening ceremony in 2012.
But that certainly isn't going to stop people from continuing to try to capture the essence of this elusive, yet ever-present, figure. ||||| Prince William has spoken of the incredible support he received from the Queen in the years following the death of his mother, Princess Diana.
Speaking to Sky News as the family prepares to celebrate Her Majesty's 90th birthday, the Duke of Cambridge said his grandmother had been a "strong female influence" to him - especially during his teenage years.
"Having lost my mother at a very young age, it has been particularly important for me that I had somebody like the Queen to look up to and who has been there and has understood some of the more complex issues when you lose a loved one," he said.
Prince William was 15 when his mother was killed in a car crash in Paris - and following her death in 1997, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were heavily criticised for staying in Balmoral with William and Harry rather than immediately returning to Buckingham Palace.
It is an aspect of his relationship with his grandmother that he has rarely spoken about publicly.
Play video "The Queen: 90 Years In 90 Seconds" Video: The Queen: 90 Years In 90 Seconds
Asked if he had any particularly fond childhood memories of the Queen, Prince William recalled a time when she gave him and his cousin a severe telling off.
He explained: "(We) were on a quad bike in Balmoral and we were chasing Zara around who was on a go-cart. Peter and I managed to herd Zara into a lamppost and the lamppost came down and nearly squashed her.
"I remember my grandmother being the first person out and running across the lawn in her kilt. She came charging over and gave us the most almighty b*****king.
"That sort of stuck in my mind from that moment on that I really should be a little bit more careful about what I'm doing and try not to kill my cousins."
Play video "Royal Fans Await Queen's Birthday" Video: Royal Fans Await Queen's Birthday
Despite recent criticism in the newspapers for trying to balance his royal duties, family life and his job as an air ambulance pilot, he insists he has his grandmother's backing.
"Surprisingly, she is very supportive of what I'm doing at the moment - she understands that I'm a family man and I want to be around for my children as much as I can," he said.
"She's very much at the helm, the Queen, she's incredibly active and her schedule's packed. My father is very active, charitably and otherwise - and there's me, Harry, Catherine and everyone else so there's a time and a place for taking on more and more responsibilities."
The Duke of Cambridge added he is looking forward to stepping up his royal duties in the future, but for now is concentrating on his children and his "incredibly worthwhile and meaningful job" serving the community with the air ambulance service.
Play video "The Queen At 90: Tonight At 9pm" Video: The Queen At 90: Tonight At 9pm
Prince William said these commitments, combined with serving the Queen as and when required, was a "good balance".
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will carry out public engagements today in Windsor ahead of her actual birthday tomorrow. Her official birthday will be celebrated in June.
:: A special programme, The Queen At 90, is on Sky News at 9pm tonight - with live coverage throughout Thursday. ||||| Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth is the longest-reigning monarch in British history. Look back at moments from her life so far. Hide Caption 1 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Elizabeth was born April 21, 1926, in London. She is held here by her mother, Elizabeth. Her father would later become King George VI. Hide Caption 2 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Princess Elizabeth in 1928. Hide Caption 3 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Princess Elizabeth is seen with her uncle Edward, Prince of Wales, during a visit to Balmoral, Scotland, in September 1933. He would go on to become King Edward VIII in 1936. But when he abdicated later that year, Elizabeth's father became King and she became heir presumptive. Hide Caption 4 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Princess Elizabeth is seen in the Duchess' box during a pantomime act at London's Lyceum Theater in February 1935. Hide Caption 5 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II From left, Princess Elizabeth, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret wave to the crowd from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on June 22, 1939. Hide Caption 6 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II A 14-year-old Princess Elizabeth, right, sits next to her sister for a radio broadcast on October 13, 1940. On the broadcast, her first, she said that England's children were full of cheerfulness and courage. Hide Caption 7 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Princess Elizabeth shakes hands with an officer of the Grenadier Guards on May 29, 1942. King George VI made Elizabeth an honorary colonel in the Royal Army regiment. Hide Caption 8 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Princess Elizabeth, right, and Princess Margaret wear summer dresses circa 1942. Margaret is Elizabeth's only sibling. Hide Caption 9 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II With the Drakensberg Mountains behind her, Princess Elizabeth sits in South Africa's Natal National Park on April 21, 1947, her 21st birthday. Hide Caption 10 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II This portrait of the British royal family was taken in July 1947, after Princess Elizabeth, far left, got engaged to Prince Philip of Greece, a lieutenant in the British Navy. He is second from left. Next to him, from left, are the Queen Mother, King George VI and Princess Margaret. Hide Caption 11 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The royal wedding party waves from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on November 20, 1947. After becoming a British citizen and renouncing his Greek title, Philip became His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. His wife became the Duchess of Edinburgh. Hide Caption 12 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Princess Elizabeth arrives at a state banquet in London in March 1950. Hide Caption 13 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Elizabeth ascended to the throne in February 1952, when her father died of lung cancer. Here, the new Queen leaves the Royal Archers Hall in Edinburgh after a ball in June 1952. It was the first function she attended as Queen following her father's death. Hide Caption 14 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II walks to the altar during her coronation ceremony on June 2, 1953. She was the sixth female to ascend to the British throne. Hide Caption 15 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II is photographed on the balcony of Melbourne's Government House during her tour of Australia in March 1954. Hide Caption 16 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen sits for a photograph with Charles and Anne, two of her four children. Hide Caption 17 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II From left, Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mother visit Epsom Downs Racecourse in June 1958. Hide Caption 18 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen holds her son Andrew while his sister, Anne, watches during a family holiday at Scotland's Balmoral Castle in September 1960. Hide Caption 19 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II is seen during the state opening of Parliament in April 1966. Hide Caption 20 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II with her oldest son, Prince Charles, in 1969. Charles is next in line for the throne. Hide Caption 21 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Prince Charles adjusts his coronet during his investiture ceremony as Prince of Wales in 1969. Hide Caption 22 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen and Prince Philip wave from a plane ramp shortly before taking off from Tokyo in May 1975. Hide Caption 23 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II takes a portrait at Windsor Castle for her 50th birthday on April 21, 1976. Hide Caption 24 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen meets the crowds during her royal tour of New Zealand in 1977. Hide Caption 25 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen stands next to Prince Charles as he kisses his new bride, Princess Diana, on July 29, 1981. Hide Caption 26 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Elizabeth takes pictures of her husband during a horse show in Windsor in May 1982. Hide Caption 27 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen reacts to an elephant as she tours a charity event in London's Hyde Park in June 1987. Hide Caption 28 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II fires a rifle during a visit to the Army Rifle Association at Bisley, England, in July 1993. Hide Caption 29 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II While at Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip view the floral tributes to Princess Diana after her tragic death in 1997. Hide Caption 30 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen addresses the nation on the night before Princess Diana's funeral in 1997. Hide Caption 31 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Prince Charles looks back at his mother after wedding Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, in April 2005. Hide Caption 32 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen and Prince Philip leave London's St. Paul's Cathedral in October 2009, following a commemoration service to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq. Hide Caption 33 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen, second from right, greets a crowd from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on April 29, 2011. Her grandson Prince William, third from left, had just married Catherine Middleton. Hide Caption 34 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II drives her Range Rover as she attends the Windsor Horse Show in May 2011. Hide Caption 35 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen's signature is seen in the visitors book at Aras An Uachtarain, the Irish President's official residence in Dublin in May 2011. Hide Caption 36 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Flags are waved as Queen Elizabeth II leaves St. Paul's Cathedral following its 300th anniversary service in June 2011. Hide Caption 37 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Madame Tussauds London reveals a wax figure of the Queen in May 2012. Hide Caption 38 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Prince Charles kisses his mother's hand on stage as singer Paul McCartney, far right, looks on at the Diamond Jubilee concert in June 2012. The Diamond Jubilee celebrations marked Elizabeth's 60th anniversary as Queen. Hide Caption 39 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen speaks at a reception for members of the International Olympic Committee on July 23, 2012. Hide Caption 40 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen tours the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London in December 2012. Hide Caption 41 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II A boy in Belfast, Northern Ireland, takes a selfie in front of the Queen in June 2014. Hide Caption 42 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen enters the Great Hall at Edinburgh Castle after attending a commemorative service for the Scottish National War Memorial in July 2014. Hide Caption 43 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen waits to give her speech during the state opening of Parliament in May 2015. Hide Caption 44 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The Queen sits at a desk in Buckingham Palace in July 2015. In September of that year, she became the longest-reigning British monarch in history. Hide Caption 45 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II The British monarch greets the public after attending church services in February 2016. Hide Caption 46 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Prince George gets a boost from some foam blocks for a special family photo. The portrait, featuring the four generations of the House of Windsor, was commissioned by the Royal Mail and were featured on a series of stamps to commemorate the Queen's 90th birthday in 2016. Hide Caption 47 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II acknowledges the crowd as she celebrates her 90th birthday in Windsor. Hide Caption 48 of 50
Photos: The life of Queen Elizabeth II On June 10, 2016, Buckingham Palace released a new official photograph to mark the Queen's 90th birthday. It shows her with Prince Philip, and it was taken at Windsor Castle just after Easter. Hide Caption 49 of 50 ||||| The Queen will undertake engagements in Windsor in the week of her 90th birthday.
Wednesday 20th April
The first engagement is a visit to the Royal Mail Windsor delivery office on William St, Windsor. This visit marks the 500th Anniversary of the Postal Service. The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh will meet Mrs Moya Greene, the Chief Executive Officer of Royal Mail, and Mr Peter Long, the Chairman of the Royal Mail Group and will see the operation of the Caller's Office. This is where customers collect items that are not delivered to their home or business. Staff on duty will explain how the system works and there will be an opportunity to see how modern technology enables customers to track items.
The Queen and The Duke will then have an opportunity to see how postmen and women sort mail ahead of delivery, and meet staff, including some who have given many years of service. Before they leave, Her Majesty and His Royal Highness will view an exhibition highlighting some of the key events, people and developments in the history of Royal Mail over the last half millennium and unveil a plaque marking the visit. While the visit takes place, The Royal Mail choir made up of frontline staff from Bristol will sing. They were formed as part of a BBC television series "The Choir: Sing While You Work". They regularly perform around the UK, raising funds for good causes.
The second engagement is a visit to Alexandra Gardens for a ceremony to officially open the new Bandstand. The Queen, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh, will arrive at the Barry Avenue entrance where they will be received by Mr James Puxley, Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire. They will view an exhibition about the Bandstand and the school’s workshops which informed the design of the six commemorative plaques fixed to its railings. They will then meet school children from the six schools involved in the bandstand's decoration: Alexander First, Braywood, Dedworth Green First, Dedworth Middle, Queen Anne, Royal School as well as the designers and builders of the bandstand. A children’s choir will perform four short songs followed by a performance of Shakespeare as part of the School's Shakespeare Festival. Prior to departure The Queen will ascend the bandstand to unveil a plaque marking the day.
Thursday 21st April
The Queen, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh will undertake a walkabout in Windsor.
Her Majesty and His Royal Highness will walk from the Henry VIII Gate of Windsor Castle towards the Statute of Queen Victoria at the foot of Castle Hill. Here Her Majesty will unveil a plaque marking The Queen's Walkway.
The Queen’s Walkway is a 6.3km self-guided walking trail connecting 63 points of significance in the town of Windsor. The Walkway was designed by The Outdoor Trust to symbolically recognise the moment that Her Majesty became Britain’s longest reigning monarch after more than 63 years on 9 September 2015. It builds on the success of the Jubilee Walkway in London, the first urban walking trail in the world, opened by The Queen in 1977 in celebration of her Silver Jubilee. Excitingly, the bronze EIIR crested markers, embossed panel and promotional app have now also inspired a parallel network of Walkways throughout all 71 Nations and Territories of The Commonwealth in recognition of The Queen’s service as Head of
The Commonwealth for more than 63 years. A dozen Walkways are already in development in various countries and Her Majesty launched the first complete route in Malta as part of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November 2015. By 2018 it is hoped that there will be 100 Commonwealth Walkways, connecting 5,000 rich and diverse points of significance, uniting the Commonwealth.
In the evening, The Queen, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, will light a beacon and view two further beacons being lit along Long Walk and at Copper Horse.
The Queen will light the principal beacon which will set in train a series of over 900 beacons across the country and worldwide. Beacons large and small, either specially built gas-fuelled structures or simple bonfires, will be lit across the country to mark The Queen's 90th Birthday, and individuals have been asked to attend a beacon-lighting event in their area, hosted by their local authority.
June events
Events are also taking place in June to mark Her Majesty's official birthday. Find out more ||||| LONDON — She has been served by 12 prime ministers, starting with Churchill; navigated the decline of the British Empire; braved the tragedies of her family and the nation; and, on Sept. 9, edged out Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history: 64 years now. And she is lauded for having the stiffest upper lip in the realm.
On Thursday, Queen Elizabeth II celebrates her 90th birthday, and a grateful Britain is honoring a woman her biographer Douglas Hurd, a former foreign minister, has called “The Steadfast.”
Through seven decades, she has remained gloriously and relentlessly enigmatic in one of her signature pastel outfits and colorful hats, chosen, royal experts say, so onlookers can spot her in a crowd.
This being Britain, the occasion will be celebrated with pageantry; warm beer; longer pub hours; equestrian displays; and an appearance by the actress Helen Mirren, who won an Oscar for portraying the queen.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
But befitting a workhorse who carried out 341 engagements last year, Elizabeth kicked off birthday celebrations on Wednesday in a dutiful display: at a Royal Mail delivery center, where she and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, watched workers sort mail and were serenaded by a choir of postal employees. On Thursday, she is to light the first of more than 900 celebratory beacons. On Friday, President Obama will offer the queen birthday wishes at Windsor Castle.
And the frenzy will not end this week.
Pub opening times in England and Wales will be extended by two hours, until 1 a.m. on June 10 and 11. (Her birthday is officially celebrated in June for ceremonial purposes.) A British artist has also paid tribute to her service as an Army mechanic during World War II by using 800 car parts to create a giant sculpture of the queen’s head, including a crown made with spark plugs. There is a new set of stamps to honor the birthday, featuring four generations of royals, including little Prince George. They will be first class, of course.
Video
Retailers and canny subjects are cashing in. Those who cannot afford the bespoke 22-karat gold “God Save the Queen” music box (retailing for $1,425) can buy a souvenir waistcoat emblazoned with the queen’s image ($50, on eBay).
In a reflection of how multicultural Britain has become during her reign, Nadiya Hussain, a head scarf-wearing Muslim baker who won the BBC’s wildly popular “Great British Bake Off,” will prepare an orange drizzle birthday cake with orange curd and orange buttercream for the queen. (A 68-year-old slice of the queen’s wedding cake fetched $719 at a September auction.)
The queen could be forgiven for showing emotion when she blows out her candles. But it is unlikely.
Vernon Bogdanor, an eminent constitutional scholar at King’s College London, commended the queen for her self-restraint and for keeping her views to herself, arguing that the enigma of her persona has been essential to her success at symbolizing and unifying the nation.
“She grew up during the war when people had to show emotional restraint,” he said. “Not like today when you have to let everything out.”
Professor Bogdanor said he could recall only two gaffes by the queen: The first came on a trip to St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1994, when she evidently told a young Russian biologist, who had studied in Manchester, England, that the city was “not such a nice place.” (Buckingham Palace denied it at the time.) More memorably, in 1997, the queen misread the public mood after Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris and initially remained in Balmoral, Scotland, with her grandsons, rather than returning to London to emote before a grieving nation.
Retaining the sparkle of a creaking institution is not easy. Britons also recently got a rare glimpse inside the royal household in an ITV documentary “Our Queen at 90,” in which her subjects learned that her 2-year-old great-grandson, Prince George, calls her “Gan-Gan.” His father, Prince William, second in line to the throne, noted that some people are so overwhelmed when they meet his grandmother that they faint.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Born on April 21, 1926, Elizabeth was initially third in line to the throne. In 1947, she defied her parents to marry Prince Philip, who is part Danish and Greek; she was smitten when she saw him at age 13. She acceded to the throne in 1952, after the death of her father, King George VI; his older brother, King Edward VIII, had abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, an American.
Though the monarchy is associated with the class system, wealth and privilege, Peter York, a leading cultural commentator, argued that the queen’s unbridled blandness was a form of “human bondage.” Britons, he said, relished reports of her legendary thriftiness, including stories, apocryphal or not, that she roams Buckingham Palace turning off lights, enjoys soap operas and eats “nonbanquet dinners out of Tupperware containers.” In private, she is said to have a keen sense of humor.
“She should be congratulated for living this long,” Mr. York said. “The certainty of her life reminds Britons of the continuity of their own.”
Mr. York said the queen could also display barely decipherable piques of annoyance, as when she asked in 2008, during a visit to the London School of Economics, why no one had foreseen the financial crisis, which had dented her wealth.
“Every so often you see a little lip-tightening that suggests, ‘What fresh hell is this?’ when she is forced to endure something hideous or idiotic,” Mr. York said.
The queen’s mother lived to 101, and Elizabeth shows little sign of slowing down, but Stephen Bates, the author of “Royalty Inc.: Britain’s Best-Known Brand,” said that in Buckingham Palace, uttering the word “abdication” was akin to swearing in a church.
He also expressed concerns that the queen’s line of presumed successors — Charles, Prince of Wales; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge; and Prince George — may lack her luster. “William has become just another middle-aged bald bloke in a suit,” he said.
Whatever the challenges, the queen appears to have kept the promise she made on her 21st birthday: “I declare before you all, that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.” | Queen Elizabeth II has become the first British sovereign to reach her 90th birthday and is celebrating in a very royal way: with a stamp. An official photo showing four generations of royals—the queen and princes Charles, William, and George—will be put on first-class stamps, reports CNN. The queen will take it easy on her birthday, lighting the first of some 900 celebratory beacons before President Obama visits on Friday, reports the New York Times. But she'll be one of 10,000 attendees at a birthday picnic in June (when her birthday is ceremonially marked), when pubs will be open for an extra two hours. Prince William shares kind words with Sky News, noting she's been a "strong female influence" who helped him through the death of his mother. He also recalls getting into trouble as a kid and being on the receiving end of "the most almighty bollocking." More birthday coverage: The BBC takes a look at how the queen has been portrayed on stage and screen, noting portrayals "have not always been the most flattering." A CNN correspondent remembers an "English lesson" from the queen. CBS New York presents photos of the queen throughout her life, including a rare one of her wearing pants. USA Today rounds up 90 facts you might not know, including the nickname Prince George has given her. Care to remember this historic day? Official souvenirs include a $35 commemorative photo album of the queen's life. |
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 ||||| Story highlights Rogelio Martinez and his partner were responding to activity on patrol
Martinez had been a border patrol agent since 2013
(CNN) A Border Patrol agent died Sunday morning from injuries he suffered while on patrol in southwest Texas, US Customs and Border Protection said.
Rogelio Martinez, 36, and his partner were responding to activity while on patrol in the Big Bend Sector, which runs along the US-Mexico border, and the partner reported they were both injured, the agency said. The agents were patrolling near Interstate 10, in the Van Horn station area of the sector.
Customs officials would not say what type of activity the agents were responding to.
Other agents responded, provided medical care and transported both to a local hospital. CBP was later told Martinez had died, and his partner remains hospitalized. It was not clear what injuries they suffered. A Customs and Border Protection spokesman said Martinez was not shot.
"On behalf of the quarter of a million front line officers and agents of DHS, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Agent Martinez and to the agent who is in serious condition," acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke said in the statement.
Read More ||||| Copyright 2018 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
VAN HORN, Texas - A U.S. Border Patrol agent from El Paso died Sunday morning while on patrol near Van Horn, according to a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson.
Details have been limited because it's an ongoing investigation but officials with National Border Patrol Council told KTSM there was an attack on two agents.
Art Del Cueto, the Vice President of the NBPC, told KTSM, "Obviously when these stories come up, you here a bunch of back and forth but what we like to use is what we hear from agents that are actually there -- agents on the ground."
Del Cueto said, "(Martinez and his partner) were out there responding to a censor and one agent was murdered. I know people don't want to jump to conclusions and say stuff but the reality is but you hear the talk about individuals trying to get a better life and enter this country to get a better life but the reality is they will stop at nothing including killing a federal agent -- including taking someone's life which is what happened."
As NewsChannel 9 previously reported, Rogelio Martinez, 36, and his partner were patrolling I-10 near the Van Horn Station area when they got injured.
Both agents were taken to a local hospital where Martinez died as a result of his injuries. His partner remains hospitalized in serious condition, according to CBP.
Officials have not yet said how the two got injured but Del Cueto told KTSM, "We strongly believe rocks were what was used."
According to CBP, the Border Patrol's Special Operations Group and agents from CBP's Air and Marine Operations are searching the area for potential suspects or witnesses.
The Culberson County Sheriff's Department, FBI, Office of Inspector General, and CBP's Office of Professional Responsibility are investigating the incident.
According to a spokesperson with CBP, Martinez joined the Border Patrol in 2013.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has announced a $20,000 reward through Texas Crime Stoppers for information leading to the arrest of the person or people responsible for Agent Martinez's murder.
Tips can be called in 24-hours a day at 1-800-252-TIPS.
||||| U.S. Border Patrol agent dies from injuries suffered while on patrol near Big Bend Sunday morning
Photo: John Moore, Getty Images Image 1 of / 40 Caption Close Image 1 of 40 File photo of a U.S. Border Patrol agent on a bridge over the Rio Grande on March 13, 2017 in Roma, Texas. The agency reported one of its agents died from injuries while on patrol Sunday morning, Nov. 19, 2017, in the Big Bend area. less File photo of a U.S. Border Patrol agent on a bridge over the Rio Grande on March 13, 2017 in Roma, Texas. The agency reported one of its agents died from injuries while on patrol Sunday morning, Nov. 19, 2017, ... more Photo: John Moore, Getty Images Image 2 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainee Stevany Shakare, 24, takes part in a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. See more photos of how U.S. Border Patrol trainees are prepared to man the border... less U.S. Border Patrol trainee Stevany Shakare, 24, takes part in a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. See more photos of how U.S. Border Patrol ... more Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 3 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 4 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee runs an obstacle course at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee runs an obstacle course at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 5 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees carry their luggage after their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees carry their luggage after their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 6 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol instructor yells at a new trainee run upon her initial arrival with fellow agents to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol instructor yells at a new trainee run upon her initial arrival with fellow agents to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 7 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee climbs an obstacle course ladder at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee climbs an obstacle course ladder at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 8 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee completes an obstacle course at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee completes an obstacle course at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 9 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees sweat during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees sweat during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 10 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee grabs a handful of bullets before loading his magazine at a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee grabs a handful of bullets before loading his magazine at a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 11 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee runs an obstacle course at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee runs an obstacle course at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 12 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees run during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees run during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 13 of 40 A new Border Patrol agent attends a Spanish class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A new Border Patrol agent attends a Spanish class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 14 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee fires his M-4 rifle during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee fires his M-4 rifle during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 15 of 40 A target stands during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A target stands during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 16 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees carry M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees carry M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 17 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 18 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol instructor yells at trainees after their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol instructor yells at trainees after their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 19 of 40 New U.S. Border Patrol trainees are fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. New U.S. Border Patrol trainees are fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 20 of 40 A new U.S. Border Patrol trainee is fitted for a uniform at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A new U.S. Border Patrol trainee is fitted for a uniform at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 21 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees run during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees run during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 22 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol instructor stares down a line of trainees upon their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol instructor stares down a line of trainees upon their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 23 of 40 New U.S. Border Patrol trainees are fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. New U.S. Border Patrol trainees are fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 24 of 40 New U.S. Border Patrol trainees try on boots while being fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. New U.S. Border Patrol trainees try on boots while being fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 25 of 40 New U.S. Border Patrol trainees wait to be fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. New U.S. Border Patrol trainees wait to be fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 26 of 40 Dust rises as U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles at targets during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Dust rises as U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles at targets during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 27 of 40 A sign stands at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A sign stands at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 28 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee grabs a handful of bullets before loading his magazine at a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee grabs a handful of bullets before loading his magazine at a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 29 of 40 A new U.S. Border Patrol trainee is fitted for a uniform at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A new U.S. Border Patrol trainee is fitted for a uniform at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 30 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees take part in a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees take part in a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 31 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee climbs over a wall during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee climbs over a wall during a physical training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 32 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol trainee climbs over an obstacle course wall at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol trainee climbs over an obstacle course wall at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 33 of 40 A new U.S. Border Patrol trainee is fitted for a uniform at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A new U.S. Border Patrol trainee is fitted for a uniform at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 34 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol uniforms hang as new arrivals are fitted at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol uniforms hang as new arrivals are fitted at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 35 of 40 New U.S. Border Patrol trainees try on boots while being fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. New U.S. Border Patrol trainees try on boots while being fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 36 of 40 New U.S. Border Patrol trainees wait to be fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. New U.S. Border Patrol trainees wait to be fitted for uniforms at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 37 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol trainees fire M-4 rifles during a weapons training class at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 3, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 38 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol supervisor speaks to trainees upon their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol supervisor speaks to trainees upon their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 39 of 40 A U.S. Border Patrol instructor stands in front of a line of trainees upon their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. A U.S. Border Patrol instructor stands in front of a line of trainees upon their initial arrival to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy on August 2, 2017 in Artesia, New Mexico. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images Image 40 of 40 U.S. Border Patrol agent dies from injuries suffered while on patrol near Big Bend Sunday morning 1 / 40 Back to Gallery
The FBI is investigating what U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is calling an attack on two border patrol agents that left one dead and the other wounded Sunday as they were on patrol in West Texas.
In a news release issued late Sunday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials identified the deceased agent as Rogelio Martinez, 36, of El Paso. The agency did not release details of what occurred.
Jeanette Harper, with the FBI's El Paso office, said Sunday evening that authorities were still gathering facts and that contrary to reports from other news outlets, there was no shooting.
"They were not fired upon," Harper said. "There are so many different agencies working together that we need to come together and develop a timeline."
She said a full account would not be released until Monday.
"Our condolences and prayers go out to the family and friends of Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez, who was killed this morning in the line of duty," Cruz said in a statement. "We are also praying for the full recovery of his partner, who was also attacked."
President Trump tweeted a renewed call to "build the wall" Sunday evening in response to the death.
"Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!"
Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2017
So far, border patrol officials have said that Martinez was on patrol with his partner in the Van Horn Station area, which is near Interstate 10, about 120 miles east of El Paso when they responded to an activity that was not explained in the release.
Martinez's partner reported they had been injured and needed assistance, according to the agency, which did not provide a time the incident occurred or what caused the agent's injuries.
Responding agents provided medical care and both agents were taken to a local hospital, officials said.
RELATED: Suspicious activity report leads to seizure of almost 300 pounds of marijuana
Big Bend Sector agents were later told that Martinez died from his injuries, according to the release. His partner remains hospitalized in serious condition, authorities said.
Culberson County Sheriff's Office deputies aided agents in securing the scene and members from the agency's special operations group joined air and marine operations in searching for "potential suspects or witnesses," according to the release.
#CBP mourns the loss of #USBP Agent Rogelio Martinez who passed away this morning. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and fellow Agents during this difficult time. #HonorFirst https://t.co/ALpQ30thVk pic.twitter.com/wLcPzEXtKs — CBP (@CustomsBorder) November 19, 2017
A Culberson sheriff's office spokesman said deputies were still investigating and could not comment.
Cruz said the death of Martinez in the line of duty is a "stark reminder of the ongoing threat that an unsecure border poses to the safety of our communities and those charged with defending them."
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke said in a statement that she was notified of the incident and that her office is "fully supporting the ongoing investigation to determine the cause of this tragic event."
"On behalf of the quarter of a million frontline officers and agents of DHS, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Agent Martinez and to the agent who is in serious condition," she said in the statement.
Van Horn is about 430 miles west of San Antonio. | President Trump repeated his call for a border wall Sunday night after a Border Patrol agent was fatally injured and another seriously hurt while on duty in west Texas. US Customs and Border Protection says Rogelio Martinez, 36, and his partner were injured after responding to activity in the Big Bend Sector while on patrol near Interstate 10 early Sunday, CNN reports. Both agents were transported to a local hospital, where Martinez died from his injuries later Sunday. Details on what happened are sketchy, though National Border Patrol Council officials tell KTSM that they believe both agents were attacked, probably with rocks. "Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt," Trump tweeted. "We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!" Authorities say Culberson County Sheriff's Office deputies helped secure the scene while the Border Patrol's Special Operations Group searched for suspects or witnesses. The FBI has now taken over the investigation and Jeanette Harper of the agency's El Paso office says a more detailed account of the incident will be released Monday, the Houston Chronicle reports. She says contrary to earlier reports, the agents were not fired upon. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted his condolences, saying resources must be increased to prevent other attacks. |
Ditch the ads.
Want music and videos with zero ads? Get YouTube Red. ||||| Two Wisconsin natives are under investigation after they filmed themselves scaling San Francisco’s iconic Golden Gate Bridge, performing somersaults and hanging from cables over cars below.
The heart-stopping video posted last week by Peter Teatime shows him and Tommy Rector as they climbed vertical steel suspension ropes until they reached a flat surface on the bridge’s steel beams.
One climber appeared to be holding on to the cables as they sprinted toward one of the bridge’s main towers. The climber then stepped one foot off the beam and held on to the cable with one hand as his body hung over the bridge. The video follows the friends as they scaled a series of stairs, performed somersaults and back flips and hung their bodies off the bridge.
“Guys, we’ve just made it to the top,” one teen says in the video. “This is incredible, to be honest. This is so beautiful up here.”
More than a month after the death-defying stunt was performed, Golden Gate officials say they have launched an investigation and are planning to beef up security on the bridge.
A climber scales the Golden Gate Bridge. (Peter Teatime)
‘Let’s give it a try’
Teatime, an 18-year-old high school student, told The Times he and Rector were visiting friends in San Francisco for spring break in early April when they decided on “just a whim” to climb the bridge.
The teen said he and Rector came to a simple understanding: “Let’s give it a try.”
Although the Milwaukee resident could not recall the date of the stunt, he said it was about 3 a.m. when he and Rector began scaling the ropes and steel beam. They were on the bridge for about an hour, he said.
The climb up the bridge was filled with obstacles such as strong winds, mist, fog and slippery conditions, he said.
Teatime, who has been climbing all his life, said he wasn’t afraid because he has climbed taller structures before. During the ascent, he said, he maintained focus and concentration.
“It was an amazing experience,” Teatime said. “You can see all of San Francisco and all of the city’s lights.”
Once they reached the top of the bridge, Teatime said, the friends decided to perform somersaults and hang their bodies to add another level of thrill to the climb. Teatime said they were mindful of the cars below and the risk they posed to those vehicles.
Before performing a stunt, he said, they made sure the road was clear.
“We weren’t bothering anybody,” Teatime said.
Peter Teatime and Tommy Rector take a selfie on top of the Golden Gate Bridge. (Peter Teatime)
‘Golden Gate Bridge is not an amusement park ride’
Golden Gate Bridge officials said the climbers could have posed a danger to motorists if one of them had fallen.
“Their behavior could have harmed motorists below,” said Capt. Lisa Locati, who leads the Golden Gate Bridge patrol.
Golden Gate Bridge officials became aware of the stunt a week and a half ago when they saw the video online, authorities said. Authorities don’t know how the climbers got access to the bridge since their visit didn’t trigger any alarms.
“The Golden Gate Bridge is not an amusement park ride,” said Denis Mulligan, general manager of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. “It is vital public infrastructure and it's a symbol of our community.”
The bridge was not damaged or harmed by the climbers, he said.
Authorities are now looking at ways to safeguard the bridge as well as to boost security to ensure similar acts don’t occur in the future, Locati said.
Locati said the bridge’s security system was “not designed to protect thrill-seekers from harming themselves.”
A climber hangs off the ropes over the Golden Gate Bridge. (Peter Teatime)
Climbers could be slapped with trespassing charge
The California Highway Patrol is investigating the stunt and the climbers could face misdemeanor trespassing charges and fines, said Mulligan, the bridge’s general manager.
Additionally, other steps could be taken against the climbers.
Mulligan said a man who tried to climb the bridge four years ago was placed on a no-fly list and lost his job, which required him to fly, he said.
Teatime said he respects law enforcement officials and wasn’t trying to stir up any trouble.
“We weren’t doing anything wrong,” he said.
The teenager said he is willing to work with authorities to show them how he got access to the bridge, so they can improve security.
“I would definitely discourage anybody from climbing the Golden Gate Bridge,” Teatime said.
He said the climb was a one-time deal.
“I don’t think I need to do it again,” he said.
A climber scales the Golden Gate Bridge. (Peter Teatime) ||||| Photo: FREDERIC J. BROWN, AFP/Getty Images Image 1 of / 78 Caption Close
Image 1 of 78 The Golden Gate Bridge, site of the stunt. The Golden Gate Bridge, site of the stunt. Photo: FREDERIC J. BROWN, AFP/Getty Images
Image 2 of 78 Buy photo The Golden Gate Bridge on Thursday, April 13, 2017, in San Francisco, Calif. The Golden Gate Bridge on Thursday, April 13, 2017, in San Francisco, Calif. Photo: Santiago Mejia, The Chronicle Buy this photo
Image 3 of 78 The Golden Gate Bridge. The Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Instagram / Dillonsaw
Image 4 of 78 A surfer is dwarfed by the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge while riding the waves in the San Francisco Bay at Fort Point, Feb. 28, 2000. A surfer is dwarfed by the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge while riding the waves in the San Francisco Bay at Fort Point, Feb. 28, 2000. Photo: DAN KRAUSS, AP
Image 5 of 78
Image 6 of 78 Click ahead to see historic pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge under construction and today.
Two towers of the Golden Gate Bridge under construction before the installation of the strait in 1936. Click ahead to see historic pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge under construction and today.
Two towers of the Golden Gate Bridge under construction before the installation of the strait in 1936. Photo: Www.goldengate75.org
Image 7 of 78 1936 - A bridge worker looks across to the San Francisco tower as cables are spun for the Golden Gate Bridge. 1936 - A bridge worker looks across to the San Francisco tower as cables are spun for the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Chronicle Archives
Image 8 of 78 The Marin tower of the Golden Gate Bridge upon completion in 1935. The Marin tower of the Golden Gate Bridge upon completion in 1935. Photo: Www.goldengate75.org
Image 9 of 78 The Golden Gate Bridge under construction on September 24, 1936. The Golden Gate Bridge under construction on September 24, 1936. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 10 of 78
Image 11 of 78 For the roadway construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, Strauss insisted on the addition of the $130,000 safety net. For the roadway construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, Strauss insisted on the addition of the $130,000 safety net. Photo: Www.goldengate75.org
Image 12 of 78 Final stage of construction with decks being extended outward from both Golden Gate Bridge towers. Final stage of construction with decks being extended outward from both Golden Gate Bridge towers. Photo: Chronicle Archives, Tidewater Associated Oil Co.
Image 13 of 78 November 9, 1936 - The Golden Gate Bridge under construction. November 9, 1936 - The Golden Gate Bridge under construction. Photo: Chronicle Archives
Image 14 of 78 Cable formers kept the 61 main cable bundles in vertical rows on the Golden Gate Bridge. Cable formers kept the 61 main cable bundles in vertical rows on the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Www.goldengate75.org
Image 15 of 78
Image 16 of 78 Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge on January 10, 1937. Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge on January 10, 1937. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 17 of 78 The Golden Gate Bridge under construction. The Golden Gate Bridge under construction. Photo: Chronicle Archives, Charles Hiller
Image 18 of 78 Ed Stanley drives the golden rivet to mark the completion of the $35,000,000 Golden Gate Bridge spanning the entrance to San Francisco Bay, Ca., April 29, 1937. Holding the rivet is Ed Murphy and leaning over them is Joseph B. Strauss, chief engineer of the project. less Ed Stanley drives the golden rivet to mark the completion of the $35,000,000 Golden Gate Bridge spanning the entrance to San Francisco Bay, Ca., April 29, 1937. Holding the rivet is Ed Murphy and leaning over ... more Photo: AP
Image 19 of 78 Opening day of the Golden Gate Bridge, 1937. Pedestrians walk on the bridge, while planes fly between the North and South Towers. Opening day of the Golden Gate Bridge, 1937. Pedestrians walk on the bridge, while planes fly between the North and South Towers. Photo: Chronicle File Photo
Image 20 of 78
Image 21 of 78 Pedestrians walk across the Golden Gate Bridge on May 27, 1937. Pedestrians walk across the Golden Gate Bridge on May 27, 1937. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 22 of 78 Golden Gate Bridge opening day photo taken from the north tower on May 27, 1937. Golden Gate Bridge opening day photo taken from the north tower on May 27, 1937. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 23 of 78 Photo of chain being cut on the opening day of the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo of chain being cut on the opening day of the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 24 of 78 Grand opening of the Golden Gate Bridge on May 27, 1937. Grand opening of the Golden Gate Bridge on May 27, 1937. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 25 of 78
Image 26 of 78 Auto parade on the opening day of the Golden Gate Bridge, heading southbound. Auto parade on the opening day of the Golden Gate Bridge, heading southbound. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 27 of 78 May 27, 1937: San Rafael High students run through the early morning fog -- among the first pedestrians on the newly completed Golden Gate Bridge. (Chronicle file) May 27, 1937: San Rafael High students run through the early morning fog -- among the first pedestrians on the newly completed Golden Gate Bridge. (Chronicle file)
Image 28 of 78 Aerial photo of Golden Gate Bridge with fog in Marin taken on an unknown date. The Chronicle library envelope says it was shot on opening day, but there is no foot traffic and minimal vehicle traffic on the bridge. less Aerial photo of Golden Gate Bridge with fog in Marin taken on an unknown date. The Chronicle library envelope says it was shot on opening day, but there is no foot traffic and minimal vehicle traffic on the ... more Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 29 of 78 Portrait of the Golden Gate Bridge "Halfway to Hell Club," a group of men who had fallen off the bridge but were saved by the safety nets. Portrait of the Golden Gate Bridge "Halfway to Hell Club," a group of men who had fallen off the bridge but were saved by the safety nets. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Image 30 of 78
Image 31 of 78 The bridge photographed on Nov 20, 1946. The bridge photographed on Nov 20, 1946. Photo: Bob Campbell, The Chronicle
Image 32 of 78 June 25, 1950 - The "High Crew" - Bottom Row: Hale Sharrett, Daniel Galvin, Owen Dittman, James Delfino, Frank Anderson. Standing: John King, Bill Gavre, Gerald Cuff, Harry Fogle, Foreman James Mix. June 25, 1950 - The "High Crew" - Bottom Row: Hale Sharrett, Daniel Galvin, Owen Dittman, James Delfino, Frank Anderson. Standing: John King, Bill Gavre, Gerald Cuff, Harry Fogle, Foreman James Mix. Photo: Bill Young, The Chronicle
Image 33 of 78 March 21, 1956 - Speeches and band music were the order of the day inside the old Waldo Tunnel, but outside, cannon boomed, jet fighters swooped and an Army M-47 tank roared around. It was all part of the ceremony opening the new tunnel, which doubles Marin approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge. less March 21, 1956 - Speeches and band music were the order of the day inside the old Waldo Tunnel, but outside, cannon boomed, jet fighters swooped and an Army M-47 tank roared around. It was all part of the ... more Photo: Duke Downey, The Chronicle
Image 34 of 78 Members of San Francisco Ballet pose beneath the Golden Gate Bridge on the eve of the first Far East Tour (1957). Members of San Francisco Ballet pose beneath the Golden Gate Bridge on the eve of the first Far East Tour (1957). Photo: Courtesy Of SF Ballet
Image 35 of 78
Image 36 of 78 Jan 9, 1975 - Afternoon sunshine at Ft. Baker as two fisherman fish for crab on a dock with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Jan 9, 1975 - Afternoon sunshine at Ft. Baker as two fisherman fish for crab on a dock with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Photo: Susan Ehmer, The Chronicle
Image 37 of 78 April 13, 1976: Toll collector Bill McKeon -- wearing what looks like a Mayberry issue uniform -- stands next a carpool lane sign on the Golden Gate Bridge. (Clem Albers / The Chronicle) April 13, 1976: Toll collector Bill McKeon -- wearing what looks like a Mayberry issue uniform -- stands next a carpool lane sign on the Golden Gate Bridge. (Clem Albers / The Chronicle)
Image 38 of 78 June 3, 1980 - Golden Gate Bridge during rush hour. When it gets slow, it really gets slow. June 3, 1980 - Golden Gate Bridge during rush hour. When it gets slow, it really gets slow. Photo: Gary Fong, The Chronicle
Image 39 of 78 May 1, 1981 - Dave Aguilar is arrested for scaling the South Tower of Golden Gate Bridge as protest of offshore oil drilling. May 1, 1981 - Dave Aguilar is arrested for scaling the South Tower of Golden Gate Bridge as protest of offshore oil drilling. Photo: Fred Larson, The Chronicle
Image 40 of 78
Image 41 of 78 July 11, 1982 - Surfers enjoy high waves under the Golden Gate Bridge. July 11, 1982 - Surfers enjoy high waves under the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Fred Larson, The Chronicle
Image 42 of 78 Feb. 20, 1986 - Test lighting of the Golden Gate Bridge South Tower. Feb. 20, 1986 - Test lighting of the Golden Gate Bridge South Tower. Photo: Steve Ringman, The Chronicle
Image 43 of 78 Oct 6, 1986 - A blanket of fog came in on the Golden Gate Bridge late in the afternoon. Oct 6, 1986 - A blanket of fog came in on the Golden Gate Bridge late in the afternoon. Photo: Deanne Fitzmaurice, The Chronicle
Image 44 of 78 April 5, 1987 - Golden Gate Bridge shot from the top of the South Tower. April 5, 1987 - Golden Gate Bridge shot from the top of the South Tower. Photo: Deanne Fitzmaurice, The Chronicle
Image 45 of 78
Image 46 of 78 May 19, 1987 - Golden Gate Bridge as seen from the Marin side, late in the afternoon light. May 19, 1987 - Golden Gate Bridge as seen from the Marin side, late in the afternoon light. Photo: Tom Levy, The Chronicle
Image 47 of 78 May 24, 1987 - Shot from the South Tower facing south down onto the roadway overlooking a mass of people at the 50th anniversary celebration for the Golden Gate Bridge. May 24, 1987 - Shot from the South Tower facing south down onto the roadway overlooking a mass of people at the 50th anniversary celebration for the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Deanne Fitzmaurice, The Chronicle
Image 48 of 78 May 24, 1987 - One of the vessels in the boat parade with the South Tower in the background. May 24, 1987 - One of the vessels in the boat parade with the South Tower in the background. Photo: Steve Ringman, The Chronicle
Image 49 of 78 Elizabeth Schneider, 7, draws "Happy Birthday Bridge" on a highway bump. Elizabeth Schneider, 7, draws "Happy Birthday Bridge" on a highway bump. Photo: Deanne Fitzmaurice, The Chronicle
Image 50 of 78
Image 51 of 78 Thousands of people gather at the south end of the Golden Gate Bridge for the 50th anniversary celebration on May 24, 1987. Thousands of people gather at the south end of the Golden Gate Bridge for the 50th anniversary celebration on May 24, 1987. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 52 of 78 Dec. 18, 1988 - A view of the Golden Gate Bridge from a boat below it. This is the south tower and we are looking toward S.F. Dec. 18, 1988 - A view of the Golden Gate Bridge from a boat below it. This is the south tower and we are looking toward S.F. Photo: Deanne Fitzmaurice, The Chronicle
Image 53 of 78 Jan 3, 1989 - Toll desk Sgt. Richard Ebert looks out at the traffic approaching the toll plaza. Jan 3, 1989 - Toll desk Sgt. Richard Ebert looks out at the traffic approaching the toll plaza. Photo: Michael Maloney, The Chronicle
Image 54 of 78 July 1, 1991 - Back when $3 was needed to cross the Golden Gate Bridge. July 1, 1991 - Back when $3 was needed to cross the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Scott Sommerdorf, The Chronicle
Image 55 of 78
Image 56 of 78 Feb 25, 1992 - The views were terrific as a tourboat did a U-turn just outside the Golden Gate Bridge. Both tourists and commuters alike were treated to spring-like weather even as the sun set in the west. Feb 25, 1992 - The views were terrific as a tourboat did a U-turn just outside the Golden Gate Bridge. Both tourists and commuters alike were treated to spring-like weather even as the sun set in the west. Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle
Image 57 of 78 June 4, 1993 - Boats gathered at the Golden Gate Bridge to protest the shutdown of the salmon fishing. June 4, 1993 - Boats gathered at the Golden Gate Bridge to protest the shutdown of the salmon fishing. Photo: Eric Luse, The Chronicle
Image 58 of 78 Fireworks over the Golden Gate Bridge, looking back from the Marin Headlands, on July 4th, 2006. Fireworks over the Golden Gate Bridge, looking back from the Marin Headlands, on July 4th, 2006. Photo: Liz Mangelsdorf, The Chronicle
Image 59 of 78 The evening fog curled up in a ball like cotton candy as a near full moon cast a broad beam of light that spread over The Golden Gate Bridge .May 7, 2009. The evening fog curled up in a ball like cotton candy as a near full moon cast a broad beam of light that spread over The Golden Gate Bridge .May 7, 2009. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 60 of 78
Image 61 of 78 Bicycle riders takes the West side sidewalk across the bridge. Bicycle riders takes the West side sidewalk across the bridge. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle
Image 62 of 78 The full moon set seemingly on the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge during Wednesday commute hour (6:35am) seen from Treasure Island on September 26, 2007. The full moon set seemingly on the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge during Wednesday commute hour (6:35am) seen from Treasure Island on September 26, 2007. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 63 of 78 The comet Hale-Bopp is seen low on the horizon Wednesday evening, March 26, 1997 looking northwest over San Francisco's Golden Gate bridge. This photo was made with a 300mm lens exposed with a lens opening of F2.8 for 15 seconds on 800 ASA film pushed one stop. less The comet Hale-Bopp is seen low on the horizon Wednesday evening, March 26, 1997 looking northwest over San Francisco's Golden Gate bridge. This photo was made with a 300mm lens exposed with a lens opening of ... more Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 64 of 78 Fog engulfed the bay where only sites of the Golden Gate bridge can be seen at the highest points of Marin Headlands. Fog engulfed the bay where only sites of the Golden Gate bridge can be seen at the highest points of Marin Headlands. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 65 of 78
Image 66 of 78 The Golden Gate Bridge south tower framed the morning crescent shaped moon perfectly as viewed from the Marin headlands of Sausalito. 4/5/05 The Golden Gate Bridge south tower framed the morning crescent shaped moon perfectly as viewed from the Marin headlands of Sausalito. 4/5/05 Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 67 of 78 The morning rains stirred up the ocean at Bakers Beach as heavy dark rain clouds moved in over the hills of Marin and the Golden Gate Bridge. 4/7/05 The morning rains stirred up the ocean at Bakers Beach as heavy dark rain clouds moved in over the hills of Marin and the Golden Gate Bridge. 4/7/05 Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 68 of 78 The morning commute over the Golden Gate bridge was lit with north and south bound traffic. 4/7/05 The morning commute over the Golden Gate bridge was lit with north and south bound traffic. 4/7/05 Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 69 of 78 The sun casts a late afternoon shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge south tower on the bay. 4/26/05 The sun casts a late afternoon shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge south tower on the bay. 4/26/05 Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 70 of 78
Image 71 of 78 A high pressure system developing off the coast creates a golden sunrise at the bridge. A high pressure system developing off the coast creates a golden sunrise at the bridge. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 72 of 78 Early morning fog whips the top of the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge on May 8, 2012 in San Francisco, Calif. Early morning fog whips the top of the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge on May 8, 2012 in San Francisco, Calif. Photo: Mike Kepka, The Chronicle
Image 73 of 78 The September low hugging fog slowly makes its way under the Golden Gate Bridge seen at Fort Baker during sunrise. The September low hugging fog slowly makes its way under the Golden Gate Bridge seen at Fort Baker during sunrise. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 74 of 78 The sun rises over the Golden Gate Bridge seen from the Marin Headlands. The sun rises over the Golden Gate Bridge seen from the Marin Headlands. Photo: Frederic Larson, SFC
Image 75 of 78
Image 76 of 78 Seen from the Marin headlands rising over the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge was both the crescent moon and the planet Venus pairing up within minutes of each other during the morning twilight on March 5, 2008. less Seen from the Marin headlands rising over the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge was both the crescent moon and the planet Venus pairing up within minutes of each other during the morning twilight on March ... more Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle
Image 77 of 78 Just the tops of the tallest building of the San Francisco skyline was visual just before sunrise as viewed from the Marin headlands looking through the Golden Gate Bridge. Just the tops of the tallest building of the San Francisco skyline was visual just before sunrise as viewed from the Marin headlands looking through the Golden Gate Bridge. Photo: Frederic Larson, The Chronicle ||||| - Two daredevils climbed the iconic Golden Gate bridge, doing flips and walking on top of the 750-foot walkways in the dark, all of which was captured in a video and posted on YouTube this month.
The video, first posted on May 7, features YouTube daredevil Peter Teatime, 18, and his partner, Tommy Rector, who is in his 20s. The young men, both from who is from Allenton, Wisconsin, were in the Bay Area during spring break in April. "We just had to do it," Teatime told KTVU in a phone interview on Tuesday.
Should the Golden Gate Bridge climbers be charged, or should the district work with them to fix security flaws? https://t.co/hKj7ZzhsqX — KTVU (@KTVU) May 17, 2017
The video shows them sprinting up the bridge’s frame, at one point, stopping to do a backflip and a somersault. The pair also dangled their bodies over the edge of one of the bridge’s towers, with only their fingertips stopping them from making the long fall to the ground below. It is illegal to climb the bridge. Teatime said he and his buddy climbed the cables at 3 a.m. on purpose to ensure that there would be less traffic down below. He said he is an experienced climber.
At a news conference on Tuesday, General Manager of the Golden Gate Bridge Dennis Mulligan said bridge officials were not aware of the incident until it was posted online and they received a link. Officials said someone sent them a link after it was posted online - about a week and a half after the original video was posted online.
Mulligan said either of the men could have slipped and fallen, which could have caused injuries to both the men and drivers below. "We will be taking steps to make sure they will not be able to do that again," said Mulligan. He added, there are hundreds of cameras on the bridge but the cameras are set up to protect against terrorist attacks and protecting the structure. At this point, they do not have alarms on the bridge for "reckless behavior." Although they will be looking at new security procedures to prevent incidents like this.
Mulligan said the two men climbed vertical suspender ropes without any harnesses or fall protection. "The Golden Gate Bridge is not an amusement park ride," he said, adding that climbing on the Golden Gate Bridge is a misdemeanor. At this point, it's unclear if the men will face charges.
Teatime said he hopes he won't be arrested and even plans to to contact bridge officials to help them identify flaws in their security system. As for what his parents said to him, Teatime said: "You know, they said the normal parent kind of stuff, like 'Don't do that, you can get hurt.'"
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District has received millions of dollars in Homeland Security grants and awards to bolster security, according to state records. But people have trespassed despite these measures. In 2012, a man climbed the suspension cables of the bridge, and in 2008, three protesters hung a "Free Tibet" sign from the top of the bridge.
Separately, last month, work began to install a stainless steel net under the bridge intended to prevent suicide jumps. That work is expected to take four years and cost about $200 million. | The Golden Gate Bridge is beefing up security to prevent others following in the slippery footsteps of two teenagers who climbed the bridge and performed death-defying stunts. In video posted on YouTube, the two 18-year-olds from Wisconsin climb suspension cables before doing backflips and somersaults on a walkway, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. They also dangled above traffic on the 746-foot-high bridge. Bridge manager Denis Mulligan says the teens could have killed themselves—or motorists—and they could face trespassing charges. "The Golden Gate Bridge is not an amusement park ride," he says. One of the youths, Peter Teatime, tells the Los Angeles Times that he and a friend decided to climb the bridge "on a whim" at 3am one morning while visiting San Francisco last month on spring break. " We weren't doing anything wrong," he says, adding that he can offer bridge officials tips on improving security. Mulligan says bridge security was set up to stop terrorists, not "reckless behavior," KTVU reports. He says authorities have known about the stunt for a while, but didn't address it until Tuesday to avoid inspiring copycats before new measures were in place. Climbing the bridge is a misdemeanor that can carry punishment of a year in jail or a $10,000 fine. |
A working capital fund relies on sales revenue rather than direct appropriations to finance its continuing operations. A working capital fund is intended to (1) generate sufficient revenue to cover the full costs of its operations and (2) operate on a break-even basis over time—that is, not make a profit nor incur a loss. Customers use appropriated funds, primarily Operations and Maintenance appropriations, to finance orders placed with the working capital fund. DOD estimates that in fiscal year 2001, the Defense Working Capital Fund—which consists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense-wide, and Defense Commissary Agency working capital funds—will have revenue of about $74.3 billion. The Defense Working Capital Fund finances the operations of two fundamentally different types of support organizations: stock fund activities, which provide spare parts and other items to military units and other customers, and industrial activities, which provide depot maintenance, research and development, and other services to their customers. Because carryover is associated only with industrial operations, this report discusses the results of our review on Defense’s Working Capital Fund industrial operations. Carryover is the dollar value of work that has been ordered and funded (obligated) by customers but not yet completed by working capital fund activities at the end of the fiscal year. Carryover consists of both the unfinished portion of work started but not yet completed, as well as requested work that has not yet commenced. To manage carryover, DOD converts the dollar amount of carryover to months. This is done to put the magnitude of the carryover in proper perspective. For example, if an activity group performs $100 million of work in a year and had $100 million in carryover at year-end, it would have 12 months of carryover. However, if another activity group performs $400 million of work in a year and had $100 million in carryover at year-end, this group would have 3 months of carryover. The congressional defense committees and DOD have acknowledged that some carryover is necessary at fiscal year-end if working capital funds are to operate in an efficient and effective manner. For example, if customers do not receive new appropriations at the beginning of the fiscal year, carryover is necessary to ensure that the working capital fund activities have enough work to ensure a smooth transition between fiscal years. Too little carryover could result in some personnel not having work to perform at the beginning of the fiscal year. On the other hand, too much carryover could result in an activity group receiving funds from customers in one fiscal year but not performing that work until well into the next fiscal year or subsequent years. By minimizing the amount of carryover, DOD can use its resources in the most effective manner and minimize the “banking” of funds for work and programs to be performed in subsequent years. DOD has a 3-month carryover standard for all but one working capital fund activity group, but Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and military service officials could not provide, and we could not identify, any analytical basis for this standard. We did not determine how much carryover individual activity groups would need in order to ensure a smooth flow of work at the end of the fiscal year. However, because the activity groups perform different types of work and have different business practices, the use of the same carryover standard for all activity groups is likely not appropriate. Military service officials and activity group managers also questioned the use of a uniform standard. For example, because the Army’s ordnance activity group is involved in the manufacture and assembly of munitions and weapon systems and requires a long lead time to obtain material, Army officials believe that group’s carryover standard should be more than 3 months. Similarly, much of the work that customers request from Navy research and development activities is actually accomplished by contractors. Consequently, Navy research and development activity group managers believe they should be able to subtract work that is to be accomplished by contractors from their reported carryover balances or, if they must include this work in their totals, to have a longer carryover period. A 1987 DOD carryover study also raised questions about the use of a uniform carryover standard. This study defined the optimum level of carryover as “the minimum amount of work needed in order to ensure that there is no interruption of the average work cycle.” As part of its 1987 carryover study, DOD asked the military departments to provide information on their working capital fund activity groups. Specifically, for each activity group they were to provide (1) information on the types of services provided and (2) data on the average time between commencement and completion of projects. Data developed for Army, Air Force, and DOD-wide activity groups showed that (1) the minimal carryover level varied significantly from one activity group to another and (2) in some instances the minimal carryover level was considerably less than 3 months. However, the study noted that its analysis did not consider either administrative or material lead times and acknowledged that both of these factors could have a significant impact on carryover requirements. When we discussed the 3-month carryover standard with officials of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), they acknowledged that they do not have an analytical basis for it. They informed us that the 3-month standard (1) was based on management judgment and that 3 months (one-fourth of the fiscal year) should be enough time to ensure a smooth flow of work during the transition from one fiscal year to the next, (2) had been in effect for many years, and (3) was reviewed during a 1996 DOD carryover study when DOD representatives visited various working capital fund activities to solicit the opinions of managers regarding the carryover standard and reviewed data substantiating those opinions. They also said that only in unusual situations should an activity group need more than 3 months of carryover. Finally, they questioned the benefit of performing an analysis for each activity group since it would require time and effort and would need to be updated periodically. However, without a sound analytical basis for carryover standards, we believe questions will continue to be raised about how much carryover is needed. The military services have not consistently implemented DOD’s guidance for determining whether an activity group has exceeded the 3-month carryover standard. One contributing factor for the inconsistency is that DOD’s guidance is vague concerning how certain items should be treated and/or calculated. Specifically, DOD’s guidance is not clear regarding what is to be included or not included in the contractual obligation and the revenue dollar amounts used in the formula for determining the number of carryover months. As a result, year-end carryover data provided to decisionmakers who review and use this data for budgeting—the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and congressional defense committees—are misleading and not comparable across the three services. For example, our analysis of the fiscal year 2001 budget estimates showed that policy changes that affected the use of certain adjustments to the calculations had (1) no impact on the Air Force’s reported year-end carryover because the Air Force did not make any adjustments, (2) reduced the Army’s reported year-end carryover by less than 1 month, and (3) reduced the Navy’s reported year-end carryover balance for some activity groups by 2 to 4 months. Further details on the methods used by the services to calculate carryover can be found in appendix II. Prior to 1996, if working capital fund activity groups’ budgets projected more than a 3-month level of carryover, their customers’ budgets could be, and sometimes were, reduced by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and/or congressional defense committees. However, in 1996, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) directed a joint Defense review of carryover because the military services had expressed concerns about (1) the methodology used to compute months of carryover and (2) the reductions that were being made to customer budgets to help ensure that activity groups did not exceed the 3-month carryover standard. Based on the work of the joint study group, DOD decided to retain the 3-month carryover standard for all working capital fund activity groups except Air Force contract depot maintenance. For Air Force contract depot maintenance, it set a 4.5-month carryover standard because of the additional administrative functions associated with awarding contracts. Furthermore, based on the joint study group’s work and concerns expressed by the Navy, DOD also approved several policy changes that had the effect of increasing the carryover standard for all working capital fund activities. Specifically, under the policy implemented after the 1996 study, certain categories of orders, such as those from non-DOD customers, and contractual obligations, such as Army arsenals’ contracts with private sector firms for the fabrication of tool kits, can be excluded from the carryover balance that is used to determine whether the carryover standard has been exceeded. These policy changes were documented in an August 2, 1996, DOD decision paper that provided the following formula for calculating the number of months of carryover (see figure 1). The impact of DOD’s 1996 decision to exclude contract obligations and certain categories of orders from reported carryover varied significantly among the services. For example, our analysis of the military services’ fiscal year 2001 budget estimates showed that this change (1) had no effect on the Air Force depot maintenance activity group’s reported year-end carryover balance because the Air Force did not make any adjustments, (2) resulted in a $70.1 million reduction in the Army depot maintenance and ordnance activity groups’ reported year-end carryover, and (3) as illustrated in table 1, allowed the Navy to reduce its depot maintenance and research and development activity groups’ reported year-end carryover by about $1.9 billion. Our work showed that these differences were due primarily to the fact that the military services have treated contract obligations differently when calculating carryover. This problem, in turn, is due to the fact that DOD has not provided clear guidance on whether (1) the revenue used in the carryover formula should be reduced when adjustments are made for contract obligations and (2) material requisitions submitted to DOD supply activities should be considered contract obligations. Because the Army and Navy are reducing the amount of carryover but not the amount of revenue, the number of months of carryover they are reporting is understated. We found differences in the way the military services make adjustments for contractual services. DOD’s formula for calculating months of carryover is based on the ratio of adjusted orders carried over to revenue. The formula specifies that carryover should be reduced by the amount of contractual obligations. However, the policy does not address whether downward adjustments for the revenue associated with these contractual services should also be made. Unless this is done, the number of months will be understated. The Army and Navy reduced their carryover balances by the amount of contractual obligations, but they did not reduce the revenue associated with these contractual services. On the other hand, the Air Force depot maintenance activity group in effect did reduce the revenue associated with contractual obligations because (1) it segregates its contract operations’ carryover and revenue from its in-house operations’ carryover and revenue and (2) DOD has established separate carryover standards for the Air Force in-house and contract depot maintenance operations. The Air Force depot maintenance activity group’s approach ensures that data on in-house operations is not distorted by data on contract operations. On the other hand, the Army and Navy’s approach allows activity groups to reduce their reported months of carryover by simply increasing the amount of work contracted out. Our work showed that the months of carryover reported by the Army and Navy activity groups would more accurately reflect the actual backlog of DOD in-house work if adjustments for contractual obligations affected both contract carryover and contract revenue. In discussing this matter with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), they stated that we had a valid point and indicated that DOD would need to review its carryover policy to determine whether it needs to be revised. Similarly, we found that differences in the way the military services treat outstanding material requisitions has a significant effect on the dollar value of carryover that is reported. Specifically, our analysis showed that Navy activity groups and some Army activities consider material requisitions to be contract obligations and that they, therefore, subtract the dollar value of outstanding requisitions from their carryover balances. However, the Air Force depot maintenance activity group, which had about $448 million of material on requisition as of September 30, 2000, did not make any such adjustments. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials informed us that outstanding material requisitions were not intended to be included as contractual obligations for carryover purposes. In fact, they told us that when the policy to allow carryover to be adjusted for contract obligations was established in 1996, the intent was that only contracts with private industry would be included as contract obligations when calculating the number of months of carryover. The inconsistencies in the military services’ implementation of DOD’s 1996 guidance affected the actions that congressional decisionmakers took on fiscal year 2001 budget estimates. For example, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2001 budget showed that the unadjusted months of year-end carryover for in-house depot maintenance operations was 3.3 months. Because the 3-month carryover standard was exceeded, the Congress reduced the Air Force’s Operation and Maintenance appropriation by $52.2 million. However, our analysis showed that the Air Force’s estimate would have been less than DOD’s 3-month standard if it had subtracted the dollar value of outstanding material requisitions from its carryover estimates—as the Navy does. Because the Navy adjusted its year-end carryover estimates for both contract obligations and certain types of orders, its reported year- end carryover balances were less than the 3-month standard. As a result no action was taken on the Navy’s budget. DOD policy requires each individual working capital fund activity to record as carryover any unfilled work orders the activity has accepted. Some of these orders are received from other working capital fund activities. For example, a Navy working capital fund activity (activity 1) may perform part of the work a customer has ordered and “subcontract” part of the work out to another working capital fund activity (activity 2). In this situation, both activities—the activity originally accepting the customer order (activity 1) and the activity receiving part of the work to be performed (activity 2)—record the unfilled order as carryover. In order to eliminate any double counting of carryover, DOD’s policy allows an activity, as shown in figure 1, to adjust or reduce its carryover for orders received from other working capital fund activities (inter/intra fund orders). However, Navy working capital fund activities and some Army activities categorized orders they sent to other working capital fund activities as contract obligations and used these obligations to reduce reported year-end carryover. As a result, not only did the Navy and Army eliminate the double counting of such orders, they eliminated all these orders from its calculation to determine the number of months of carryover and, thereby, did not follow DOD guidance on calculating carryover for inter/intra fund orders. Further complicating the congressional budget review of carryover is that some activity groups have underestimated their budgeted year-end carryover year after year, thereby providing decisionmakers misleading carryover information and resulting in more funding being provided than was intended. As previously discussed, the 3-month standard has never been validated and the services do not use the same method for calculating carryover. Therefore, the number of months of budgeted and actual carryover that the services have reported are not comparable. Nevertheless, each year, the services’ budget submissions include information on budgeted and actual year-end carryover for each activity group. Decisionmakers in the service headquarters, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and congressional defense committees use this information to determine whether the activity groups have too much carryover. If the groups do, the decisionmakers may reduce the customer budgets that finance new orders. Actual reported year-end carryover levels for the Army and Air Force depot maintenance activity groups and the Army ordnance activity group exceeded DOD’s carryover standard many times during fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Further, our analysis showed that in many of these instances, the budget estimate for year-end carryover was less than the DOD standard. If carryover estimates for the Army’s activity groups and the Air Force’s contract depot maintenance operations had been more accurate, the service headquarters, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and/or the congressional defense committees might have taken action to reduce customer funding for new orders as has been done in the past. Table 2 shows that the actual reported year-end carryover for Army’s depot maintenance and ordnance activity groups exceeded the 3-month carryover standard consistently from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000. Table 2 also shows that the Army’s budget consistently underestimated the amount of actual year-end carryover for each year from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000 for the two activity groups. Since the Army’s budgeted year-end carryover exceeded the 3-month standard for fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, reduced the Army’s fiscal year 2001 Operation and Maintenance appropriation by $40.5 million. Concerning the Army depot maintenance activity group, Army officials provided us several reasons to explain why the reported actual year-end carryover exceeded the 3-month carryover standard and budget projections. For fiscal year 1998, Army officials could not explain why the actual fiscal year-end carryover for the depot maintenance activity group was above the 3-month standard and budget projection. They stated that the detailed data needed to determine the reasons had not been retained. For fiscal year 1999, Army officials stated that the depot maintenance activity group (1) received an inordinate number of new orders at year-end and (2) was unable to adjust its production schedules to mitigate the effect of the late receipt of new orders. For fiscal year 2000, Army officials stated that there were four reasons that the actual reported year-end carryover balance exceeded the standard and budget projection. Some depots could not obtain the parts needed in a timely manner, so that less work was performed than planned. Some depots did not accurately estimate the time and resources needed to complete jobs. Emergency situations, such as unplanned orders to perform safety-of- flight work, delayed work on orders already accepted by the depots. The composition and size of the workload changed from the budget projections due to changes in customer funding and priorities. Concerning the Army ordnance activity group which also exceeded the 3-month carryover standard, Army officials informed us that the group’s primary focus is on manufacturing and that the 3-month standard should not apply. They stated that a longer carryover time frame is needed to accommodate the longer time needed for the manufacturing process and the long lead-time involved in buying certain types of material. Table 3 shows that several times since fiscal year 1996 the Air Force’s actual reported carryover for (1) in-house depot maintenance operations exceeded the 3-month standard and (2) contract depot maintenance operations exceeded the 4.5-month standard. Table 3 also shows that the Air Force’s budget for contract depot maintenance underestimated the amount of actual year-end carryover for fiscal years 1997, 1999, and 2000. As stated previously, because the budgeted year-end carryover exceeded the carryover standard for fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, reduced the Air Force fiscal year 2001 Operation and Maintenance appropriation by $52.2 million. Air Force officials informed us that developing accurate carryover budgets and executing those budgets during the late 1990s was difficult because the depot maintenance activity group underwent significant downsizing. Specifically, the activity group (1) reduced maintenance personnel by more than one-third as it closed three repair centers and (2) realigned 40 percent of its in-house workload. In developing budgets for those years, the activity group’s productivity estimates were optimistic resulting in the activity group accomplishing less work than budgeted, and, therefore, was unable to stay within the carryover standard. In addition to the productivity problem, the activity group could not always obtain the material it needed in a timely manner. As a result, it could not complete work as scheduled and the amount of carryover increased. In developing its fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Air Force determined that the initial year-end carryover budget estimate for its contract depot maintenance operations exceeded the 4.5-month carryover standard by $92.5 million. To help ensure that the actual carryover would not be over the 4.5-month standard at the end of fiscal year 2002, Air Force officials reduced the activity group’s customers’ budget request by $92.5 million. Thus, in theory, customers should order less work from the activity group in fiscal year 2002, resulting in less carryover than initially budgeted. Our analysis showed that customer order levels would have been about $2.9 billion less than the amount budgeted if a 30-day carryover policy had been in effect during the fiscal year 2001 budget review process. Further, as previously discussed, the amount of carryover needed to ensure a smooth flow of work during the transition from one fiscal year to the next varies significantly from one activity group to the next. Military service officials and working capital fund managers stated that a 30-day carryover policy would have a potentially adverse effect on the operations of most working capital fund activities. However, because (1) DOD has not performed the analysis necessary to validate its existing 3-month carryover standard and (2) the actual impact would depend on a number of unknown factors—such as the amount and type of work requested by customers and the timing of the requests—it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the operational impact of reducing the carryover standard. If DOD were to reduce its carryover standard to less than 3 months, a corresponding reduction would occur in both the amount of carryover allowed and the level of customer orders accepted. As noted in the previous paragraph, our analysis showed that customer order levels would have been about $2.9 billion less than the amount actually budgeted if a 30- day carryover policy had been in effect during the fiscal year 2001 budget review process. If the standard had been reduced to 60 days or 75 days, projected customer order levels would have been about $1.6 billion or $1.0 billion less, respectively, than the amount budgeted. The amount of carryover exceeding 90 days was about $700 million. Although they have no analytical data to support their views, working capital fund managers at the headquarters level believe a 30-day carryover policy would have the potential of significantly impairing their operations. Working capital fund officials at the activities we visited indicated that a 30-day policy would (1) restrict their ability to accept orders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year as they act to ensure that actual carryover levels do not exceed the 30-day standard, (2) complicate the tasks of planning and scheduling work, and (3) create “pockets of inefficiency” where direct-labor employees are without work and must, therefore, charge their time to overhead. They also indicated that these problems, in turn, would adversely affect their ability to provide timely support to their customers, increase the unit cost of the work that is accomplished, and cause operating losses. Our work showed that, because the amount of carryover needed to ensure a smooth flow of work varies significantly from one activity group to the next, the effect of a 30-day carryover standard on a group’s efficiency and effectiveness would likewise vary significantly. For example, in its August 1996 decision paper, which addresses the carryover standard, DOD points out that the Air Force’s contract depot maintenance operations could not operate with a 30-day standard because the average administrative time associated with awarding a contract is more than 30 days. Conversely, Navy records indicate that the Naval Research Laboratory’s actual reported carryover during fiscal years 1996 through 2000 averaged about 0.9 months, and laboratory officials indicated that these low carryover levels have not had an adverse impact on their operations. Finally, our work indicates that the impact of a 30-day policy depends largely on what action DOD ultimately takes to ensure consistent carryover reporting. For example, at the end of fiscal year 2000, the Air Force depot maintenance activity group reported actual year-end carryover levels of 4.8 months for contract operations and 2.8 months for its in-house operations. However, if it had used the Navy’s carryover reporting policies and procedures, the activity group would have reported an overall carryover level of about 1.6 months. Conversely, although Navy activity groups frequently reported actual year-end carryover balances of less than 2 months during fiscal years 1996 through 2000, their managers indicated that even a 3-month standard would not be enough if they implemented DOD’s carryover formula in the same manner as the Air Force. Decisionmakers do not have the information they need to make informed decisions on fiscal year-end carryover balances because (1) there is no analytical basis for the 3-month carryover standard, (2) the services use different methods to calculate the carryover balances, and (3) some activity groups consistently underestimate their budgeted carryover when developing their budgets. Until these weaknesses are resolved, concerns will continue to be raised about whether an activity group has too much or not enough carryover. These concerns will affect not only the working capital fund activity groups’ operations but also customer operations because they finance the orders placed with the working capital fund activities. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to determine the appropriate carryover standard for the depot maintenance, ordnance, and research and development activity groups because these groups account for about 90 percent of the dollar amount of carryover. The carryover standard should be based on the type of work performed by the activity group and its business practices, such as whether it performs the work in- house or contracts it out. As part of this effort, DOD needs to have a sound analytical basis for determining the appropriate level of carryover. direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to clarify the carryover policy to obtain consistency in calculating the amount of carryover for use in determining whether the activity groups have exceeded the carryover standard. Specifically, in calculating the number of months of carryover, the policy needs to clarify (1) the type of obligations to be included in the contractual obligation category, such as contracts with private industry and outstanding material requisitions, and (2) that the revenue used must be adjusted for certain purposes, such as revenue earned for work performed by contractors. All internal and external reporting of carryover should be done using the same methodology. direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure that the military services calculate carryover consistently during the budget review process so that the carryover figures are comparable. direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Acting Secretaries of the military services to enforce the current policy that specifies that one activity should report carryover on interfund and intrafund orders. direct the Acting Secretaries of the military services to use more realistic carryover figures in developing their budgets by considering historical actual carryover data. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our five recommendations and stated that it will take actions in the near future to clarify the policies and formula to properly ascertain a uniform approach in examining the backlog of funded work in its Financial Management Regulations. In addition, DOD said it will revalidate the appropriate carryover standards that should be applied to the depot maintenance, ordnance, and research and development activity groups. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, and the Acting Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact Greg Pugnetti at (703) 695-6922 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. GAO contact and staff acknowledgments to this report are listed in appendix IV. To determine the reasons and the basis for DOD’s 3-month carryover policy, we met and discussed the policy with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Army, Navy, and Air Force. We also requested and reviewed documentation and/or analysis that supported the rationale for the 3-month carryover standard. In addition, we obtained and analyzed DOD studies, including the 1996 carryover study and budget documents that discussed DOD’s carryover policy and the need for a 3-month period. We did not determine how much carryover individual activity groups would need in order to ensure a smooth flow of work at the end of the fiscal year. To determine if the services were calculating carryover in a consistent manner and, if not, the reasons for any differences, we obtained and analyzed the services’ calculations for the (1) fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000 reported year-end actual carryover balances and (2) fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001 budgeted year-end carryover balances. We met with officials from the Army, Navy, and Air Force to discuss the methodology they used to calculate carryover. We obtained (1) explanations about why the services made adjustments in calculating the dollar amount of carryover balances as well as the number of months of carryover and (2) determined the impact of those adjustments on the carryover figures. To determine if the military services’ budgeted and reported actual carryover amounts exceeded the 3-month standard at fiscal year-end, we obtained and analyzed (1) budgeted year-end carryover data for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001 and (2) reported actual year-end carryover data for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000. When the budgeted and/or actual carryover data exceeded the 3-month standard, we met with responsible budgeting and/or accounting officials to ascertain why. To determine whether applying the carryover authority to not more than a 30-day quantity of work would be sufficient to ensure uninterrupted operations at the working capital fund activities early in a fiscal year and what the impact on these activities would be if the carryover policy were reduced from 3 months to 30 days, we calculated what the potential financial impact on customer orders would have been if a 30, 60, 75, or 90- day carryover standard had been in effect for fiscal year 2001. We also met with (1) headquarters officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Army, Navy, and Air Force and (2) Army, Navy, and Air Force officials at individual working capital fund activity groups and activities to obtain their views on what the impact on their operation would be if the carryover policy were reduced from 3 months to 30 days. However, because (1) DOD has not performed the analysis necessary to validate its existing 3-month carryover standard and (2) the actual impact would depend on a number of unknown factors, such as the amount and type of work requested by customers and the timing of the requests, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the operational impact of reducing the carryover levels. In performing our work, we obtained carryover information on the following Defense Working Capital Fund activity groups: (1) Air Force depot maintenance (in-house and contract), (2) Army depot maintenance, (3) Army ordnance, (4) Naval aviation depots, (5) Naval shipyards, and (6) Naval research and development. The Naval research and development activity group consists of the following five subgroups: Naval Air Warfare Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Naval Research Laboratory, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center. We performed our review at the following locations. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Washington, D.C. Army Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania The reported actual year-end carryover information used in this report was produced from DOD’s systems, which have long been reported to generate unreliable data. We did not independently verify this information. The Defense Inspector General has cited system deficiencies and internal control weaknesses as major obstacles to the presentation of financial statements that would fairly present the Defense Working Capital Fund financial position for fiscal years 1993 through 2000. Our review was performed from September 2000 through April 2001 in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. However, we did not validate the accuracy of the accounting and budget information, all of which was provided by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We requested comments on a draft on this report from the Secretary of Defense or his designee. We have reprinted the comments in appendix III of this report. DOD’s carryover guidance does not address how certain items should be treated and/or calculated and, as a result, it is a contributing factor to the military services’ inconsistent implementation of DOD’s formula for determining the number of months of carryover. This appendix discusses the different methods the services used to determine compliance with DOD’s 3-month carryover standard. Prior to the fiscal year 2002 budget, the Air Force did not make any adjustments to its figures when determining the number of months of carryover and whether the Air Force had exceeded the 3-month standard. An Air Force official said they did not implement the 1996 carryover guidance sooner because the deductions would have had little or no impact on the number of months of carryover. Beginning with the fiscal year 2002 budget, the Air Force official informed us that they were making the adjustments so that the Air Force would be in compliance with DOD’s 1996 carryover policy. In making the adjustments for the fiscal year 2002 budget, the Air Force reduced its year-end carryover figure by the amount associated with certain types of orders, such as orders from foreign countries and non- DOD sources. However, unlike the Navy and Army, as discussed below, the Air Force (1) did not make adjustments for contractual obligations such as outstanding requisitions for material and (2) reduced the revenue figure used in the calculation by the amount of revenue related to those certain types of orders excluded from the carryover figure. An Air Force official told us that they adjusted the revenue figure so that the Air Force would be consistent in making the adjustments. That is, they reduced both the numerator (the carryover figure) and denominator (the revenue figure) part of the equation. The Navy has been making the allowable adjustments to its year-end carryover figures since 1996. The Navy has been reducing orders carried over into the next fiscal year for (1) carryover associated with certain types of orders, such as orders from foreign countries and non-DOD sources and (2) any contractual obligations incurred against those orders, which includes contracts with private industry, outstanding material requisitions with DOD supply activities, and orders placed with other working capital fund activities. However, unlike the Air Force, the Navy did not reduce or make any adjustments to the revenue figure used in the calculation. Because it did not adjust the revenue figure, the Navy’s method resulted in a lower monthly carryover figure than did the method used by the Air Force. Navy officials informed us that they used total revenue in their calculation because total revenue represented the full operating capability of a given activity to accomplish a full year’s level of workload. Further, the Navy’s reason for not removing contract-related revenue from the denominator of the calculation was that the numerator of the calculation included carryover (funds) related to work for which contracts would eventually be awarded but which had not yet been awarded at fiscal year-end. The Army has also been making the allowable adjustments to its carryover figures since 1996. That is, the Army has been reducing orders carried over into the next fiscal year for (1) carryover associated with certain types of orders, such as orders from foreign countries and non-DOD sources and (2) any contractual obligations incurred against those orders, which include contracts with private industry, outstanding material requisitions with DOD supply activities, and orders placed with other working capital fund activities. Like the Navy, the Army also did not reduce or make any adjustments to the revenue figure used in the calculation. Army officials told us that they did not adjust the revenue figure because (1) DOD’s guidance states that current year revenue should be used when calculating months of carryover and (2) doing so reflects the rate of actual workload execution for the entire year. However, in discussing this issue with Army headquarters and depot officials, they stated that it did not make much sense to adjust the carryover figure in the formula (numerator) for contractual obligations and other orders and not make a corresponding adjustment to the revenue figure in the formula (denominator) for the related revenue. Further, Army working capital fund activities where we performed work did not all calculate carryover the same way. For example, at least one Army activity did not use contractual obligations when calculating the number of months of carryover, even though the activity had such obligations. In addition, another Army activity did not use contractual obligations when computing the months of carryover until recently when it calculated its actual carryover for fiscal year 2000. In addition, Karl Gustafson, William Hill, Ron Tobias, and Eddie Uyekawa made key contributions to this report. | This report examines the working capital fund activities for the Department of Defense (DOD). GAO (1) identifies potential changes in current management processes or policies that, if made, would result in a more efficient operation and (2) evaluates various aspects of the DOD policy that allow Defense Working Capital Fund activities to carry over a 3-month level of work from one fiscal year to the next. GAO found that DOD lacks a sound analytical basis for its current 3-month carryover standard. DOD established a 3-month carryover standard for most working capital fund activity groups, although it has not done the analysis necessary to support the 3-month standard. Without a validation process, neither DOD nor congressional decisionmakers can be sure that the 3-month standard is providing activity groups with reasonable amounts of carryover to ensure a smooth transition from one fiscal year to the next or whether the carryover is excessive. In addition, carryover information currently reported under the 3-month standard is not comparable between services and is misleading to DOD and congressional decisionmakers. Specifically, results can differ markedly because the military services use different methods to calculate the number of months of carryover. Further complicating the congressional budget review of carryovers is that some activity groups have underestimated their budgeted carryover year after year, thereby providing decisionmakers with misleading year-end carryover information and resulting in more funding being provided than was intended. GAO also reviewed the potential financial impact of reducing the amount of fiscal year-end carryover permitted by DOD policy. GAO's analysis showed that if a 30-day, 60-day or 75-day carryover policy had been in effect during the fiscal year 2001 budget review process, the amount of budgeted customer orders could have been reduced by about $2.9 billion, $1.6 billion, or $1.0 billion, respectively. |
Friendly fire is a serious problem confronting DOD and the military services. According to a report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993, about 24 percent of the fatalities experienced during Operation Desert Storm were the result of friendly fire—a rate that appeared very high compared to past conflicts. Sixty-one percent of these incidents involved ground-to-ground incidents, while air-to-ground and ground-to-air incidents accounted for 36 and 3 percent, respectively. A more recent notable incident is the 1994 friendly forces’ shootdown of two Blackhawk helicopters over Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort. Such incidents may be caused by command and control failures, navigation failures, or target misidentification. A key aspect of DOD’s effort to prevent friendly fire is the development of new combat identification systems. Some of these systems will “cooperate” to identify friendly targets through queries and answers. Others will identify targets as friendly or unknown with the help of data sources, such as radio emissions or acoustic signals. And others, known as situational awareness systems, will rely on periodic updates of position data to help users locate friendly forces. The cost of such systems is significant. For example, the Army’s efforts to develop, field, and maintain cooperative combat identification systems alone are expected to cost more than $1 billion. Successfully developing and implementing these systems is a major challenge for DOD. The systems themselves will be developed and managed by many different entities within DOD and the military services. They will be involved in a wide range of military operations and installed on a broad array of equipment. At the same time, however, these systems will need to be compatible and interoperable. They will also need to fit in with DOD’s long-term goals for achieving information superiority over the enemy. DOD defines this as “the capability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same.” Additionally, it is important that these systems be able to work with systems belonging to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies in order to help preclude friendly fire incidents during coalition operations. DOD does not yet have a complete enterprise architecture to guide its efforts to develop a family of combat identification systems and past attempts to establish an architecture were not comprehensive or adopted by the services. Without a “blueprint” to guide and constrain DOD’s investments in combat identification systems, the military services and Defense agencies may well find themselves with combat identification systems that are duplicative, not interoperable, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface. An enterprise architecture systematically captures in useful models, diagrams, and narrative the full breadth and depth of the mission-based mode of operations for a given enterprise, which can be (1) a single organization or (2) a functional or mission area that transcends more than one organizational boundary (e.g., financial management, acquisition management, or combat identification). Further, such an architecture describes the enterprise’s operations in both (1) logical terms, such as interrelated functions, information needs and flows, work locations, and system applications, and (2) technical terms, such as hardware, software, data, communications, and security attributes and performance standards. If defined properly, enterprise architectures can assist in optimizing interdependencies and interrelationships among an organization’s operations and the underlying technology supporting these operations. Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to define and build major systems without first completing an enterprise systems architecture often results in systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and do not effectively optimize mission performance. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has recognized the importance of agency enterprise architectures. OMB has issued guidance that, among other things, requires agency information system investments to be consistent with agency architectures. More recently, the Chief Information Officers Council produced guidance for federal agencies in initiating, developing, using, and maintaining enterprise architectures. DOD has also issued architecture policy, including a framework defining an architecture’s structure and content. Specifically, in February 1998,DOD directed its components and activities to use the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Architecture Framework, Version 2.0. DOD’s framework is comprised of three components: (1) an operational architecture—that is, the operational elements, activities, tasks, and information flows required to accomplish or support a mission, (2) a systems architecture—that is, the systems and interconnections supporting the functional mission, and (3) a technical architecture—that is, the minimum set of standards and rules governing the arrangement, interaction, and interdependence of systems applications and infrastructure. According to DOD, the C4ISR Architecture Framework is a critical tool for achieving its strategic direction and all DOD components and activities should use the framework for all functional areas and domains within the Department. The C4ISR Architecture Framework is recognized in the Federal Chief Information Officers Council’s A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture as a model architecture framework for developing enterprise architectures. Appendix I provides more detailed information on the C4ISR Architecture Framework. DOD has also recognized the importance of architectures in its recently revised acquisition guidance, DOD Directive 5000.1 and Instruction 5000.2. This guidance sets DOD policy for managing all acquisition programs. Among other things, it requires the use of architectures to characterize the interrelationships and interactions between U.S., allied, and coalition systems. DOD has initiated efforts to develop an architecture for combat identification, but they have not been comprehensive or adopted by the military services. The first effort began in 1994 with the creation of a Combat Identification Task Force. Among other things, such as identifying promising combat identification technologies for a planned demonstration, the Task Force sought to develop an overall architecture for combat identification through an architecture working group. However, this effort only focused on specific systems and how they would work together. It did not define the operational elements and activities required to support a future warfighting vision or technical standards. Both views are integral to an overall architecture. According to DOD, for example, the operational view is useful for facilitating a number of actions across DOD, such as defining operational requirements to be supported by physical resources and systems. The technical view enables interoperability and compatibility of systems, by providing the standards, criteria, and reference models upon which engineering specifications are based, common building blocks are established, and applications are developed. The work of the architecture working group also excluded elements integral to the battlefield, such as dismounted soldiers, ships, air defense sites, and air-to-ground missions other than close-air support. Additionally, the architecture developed only dealt with the need to identify forces as being either friendly or hostile. It did not address the need to further distinguish targeted systems by class (e.g., “tank” vs. “truck”), platform (e.g., MIG 29 vs. T-72 Main Battle Tank) or intent (e.g., a defecting vs. an attacking platform). More critically, the architecture was never adopted by the services. Subsequent work began in January 2000 when the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Combat Identification Assessment Division began planning draft guidance on an effort to analyze alternative current and evolving combat identification technologies to support development of an operational architecture. The analysis is expected to take over 2 years to complete at an estimated cost of $10 million. However, this effort is to focus on surface-to-surface and air-to-surface military operations and not to include air-to-air or surface-to-air operations. While the draft guidance for the analysis indicated that the Army should lead the effort with support from the other services, thus far, only the Air Force has budgeted funds— $2 million—toward accomplishing this task. Similarly, in January 2001, the Assessment Division described efforts to develop the operational architecture itself. However, this effort is currently unfunded. According to DOD officials, the reasons for the current lack of funding include the difficulty of reflecting such efforts in DOD’s budgets in a timely manner and addressing competing service funding priorities. Architectures enable organizations to know their portfolio of desired systems and to develop a clear understanding of how these systems will collectively support and carry out their objectives. Moreover, they help ensure that systems are interoperable, function together effectively, and are cost-effective over their life cycles. Our previous reviews at the Federal Aviation Administration, Customs Service, Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have shown that while the absence of a complete architecture does not guarantee the failure of system modernization efforts, it does greatly increase the risk that agencies will spend more money and time than necessary to ensure that systems are compatible and in line with business needs. Our previous work reviewing DOD’s combat identification efforts has shown that DOD is confronting such risks. In 1993, we reported on the Army’s ongoing efforts to develop its Battlefield Combat Identification System (see fig. 1)—a system designed to provide a ground-to-ground and potentially an air (helicopter)-to-ground cooperative identification capability. We found that the Army planned to spend up to $100 million on a near-term combat identification system even though the system might eventually be discarded if it could not be integrated into a long-term solution. We also reported that the Army planned to eventually buy 1,520 of the near-term systems to equip some forces even though that number would not be sufficient for a larger-scale operation. Additionally, absent the understanding provided by an enterprise architecture, the services risk being unable to effectively define and develop weapon system requirements (e.g., system characteristics, functions, and performance parameters). As mentioned earlier, developing an enterprise architecture provides further understanding of (1) the operational elements, activities, tasks, and information flows needed to accomplish a mission, (2) the systems needed and their interconnections to support that mission, and (3) the minimum set of standards and rules needed to govern their arrangement, interaction, and interdependence. As a result, systematically reviewing specific systems’ requirements within the context of such an architecture can help ensure the development of cost-effective systems to provide needed capabilities. DOD has already identified some broader needs for combat identification. Specifically, in 1992 and again in 1998, DOD defined its overall mission needs for combat identification systems and it defined the capabilities it expected from these systems, including positive, timely, and reliable identification of friends, foes, and neutrals;classification of foes by platform, class/type, and nationality; and friend-from-friend discrimination. More recently, the U.S. Joint Forces Command developed a Capstone Requirements Document that defines overarching requirements for the combat identification family of systems. Lastly, without having a complete architecture for combat identification, DOD may not be able to ensure that its own operational, systems, and technical requirements are aligned with those of NATO allies. NATO is currently developing both an operational architecture and a systems architecture in all mission domains (air-to-air, surface-to-air, air-to-surface, and surface-to-surface). It plans to complete these architectures by the end of 2001 and the end of 2002, respectively. If DOD’s efforts to develop an enterprise architecture for combat identification occur in a timely manner, they could be more closely aligned with NATO’s efforts and possibly improve coalition interoperability. Moreover, DOD would be able to ensure that the long-term capabilities it envisions for combat identification are recognized. The effort to develop new systems for combat identification is challenging not only because the systems themselves span a number of entities within DOD but also because they may need to operate jointly and with systems belonging to allies and work in concert with DOD’s long-term goals for information superiority. DOD’s success, therefore, hinges on having effective management structures and processes—e.g. focal points, funding and development plans, schedule and resource estimates, performance measures, progress reporting requirements—to guide and manage systems development. DOD and the services have established focal points for coordinating combat identification efforts. For example, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence is responsible for overseeing combat identification programs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff has ongoing efforts to improve combat identification capabilities. However, DOD currently lacks a formalized framework defining the procedures and controls that would facilitate these efforts. As a result, coordination and funding of development initiatives is not assured. Because the prevention of friendly fire is a DOD-wide effort involving the military services, other DOD components, and even U.S. allies, it must be approached as an enterprise endeavor with senior executive management sponsorship. This requires identifying an entity or individual with organizational authority, responsibility, and accountability for managing system development as an agencywide project and ensuring appropriate resources are provided to accomplish needed tasks and develop required systems. We have reported on the need for cohesive management in developing combat identification systems in the past. In 1995, we issued a report on Army and Navy-led efforts to develop cooperative identification systems. We found that the Army and Navy were pursuing development of systems without having developed a cohesive management plan and organizational structure and made recommendations to strengthen those efforts. Given the size and complexity of the project, it is important for DOD to have a plan that lays out the current combat identification capabilities, desired capabilities, and specific initiatives, programs, and projects intended to get DOD and the services to that vision. Such plans, or roadmaps, are often developed as part of an enterprise architecture. To facilitate the implementation of these plans, it is also necessary for DOD to define the organizational structure, responsibilities, and procedures for such things as defining system requirements, developing and procuring systems, and funding specific efforts. Together, these structures and processes can help ensure that combat identification projects are not duplicative or disparate and that they receive adequate priority and funding. Lastly, it is important that DOD define performance measures to assess the progress of combat identification improvements. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires federal agencies and activities to clearly define their missions, set goals, link activities and resources to goals, prepare annual performance plans, measure performance, and report on their accomplishments. Performance measures can be particularly helpful in ensuring that services and components are effectively coordinating their development efforts. For example, DOD could measure the progress associated with planning and successfully conducting joint, cross-service, and allied demonstrations of interoperable systems. Performance measures can also help ensure projects are adequately funded, for example, by measuring whether the services’ budgets support efforts to develop an enterprise architecture for combat identification. DOD has recognized the benefit of formally defining management structures and processes in the past to guide combat identification efforts, but those efforts are no longer in use. First, in January 1993, the services signed a Memorandum of Agreement on Joint Management of Combat Identification to coordinate and provide oversight of their requirements, policies, procedures, development and procurement programs, and related technology efforts. The agreement stated that combat identification encompasses widely varying requirements, policies, platforms, mission areas, and technologies. Among other things, the agreement created a General Officer Steering Committee to serve as a primary focal point for all DOD combat identification activities; a Joint Combat Identification Officer under that committee to provide lower-level coordination on all DOD efforts and develop a master plan for combat identification efforts; three supporting committees; and two acquisition-related groups. Following the agreement, DOD published a joint master plan for its “cooperative identification” system development efforts (that is, systems that identify friendly or unknown through queries and answers). The plan defined management strategies and structures to plan and execute these technologies and it defined an acquisition strategy that called for such things as baselining existing capability, identifying and prioritizing deficiencies, coordinating advanced research and development activities, and integrating system architectures. However, the memorandum of agreement is no longer in use and only one of the entities created from the memorandum still exists—the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Combat Identification Assessment Division (formerly the Joint Combat Identification Office). Moreover, according to a DOD official, the Joint Master Plan for cooperative systems development is no longer in use because the services’ efforts did not evolve into joint programs as originally envisioned. In 1996, the services developed another master plan that represented their strategic vision for developing, maintaining, and enhancing their combat identification capability. This plan went beyond the 1993 plan by including noncooperative and situational awareness system development efforts. The plan was to serve as the focal point for coordination of joint and service-unique initiatives during the budget process. However, it was updated only once in 1998 and that revision was never adopted by the department. Since then, the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Combat Identification Assessment Division has developed and updated an annual action plan. Many of the plan’s tasks are designed to address known deficiencies that can be corrected in the near term. The plan does not define management structures and procedures for guiding system development. And, while it does call for a semiannual report on progress, it does not define specific measures to be used in assessing that progress. Moreover, the Assessment Division does not have authority to direct the services to implement its plan nor does it have funding authority of its own to carry out the plan’s tasks. Rather, an Assessment Division official stated that the services’ cooperation is essential to implement the plan. Without sufficient structures and processes to coordinate and guide systems development, some combat identification projects have not been sufficiently funded. For example, as mentioned earlier, the systems analysis DOD planned to support development of an operational architecture for combat identification has an estimated cost of $10 million. However, while the guidance for this analysis indicated that the Army should lead the effort with support from the other services, thus far only the Air Force has budgeted funds—$2 million—toward its accomplishment. In addition, the Combat Identification Assessment Division’s planned operational architecture is also unfunded at this time. Similar problems are occurring at the service level. Based on a review of the Battlefield Combat Identification System program, the DOD Inspector General recently reported that the Army has obligated $132.4 million in research, development, test and evaluation, and procurement funds through fiscal year 2000 and plans to obligate another $86.5 million to complete development efforts and procure 1,169 low-rate initial production systems from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007 for the 4th Infantry Division. However, the Inspector General also reported that the Army has not provided $918.5 million of procurement and operations and maintenance funds for the program’s procurement objective of 16,414 systems. The lack of a management framework also makes it difficult to coordinate projects among the services to ensure that they are not redundant or disparate. For example, the Army recently proposed a memorandum of agreement between the Army and the Marines for cooperation in battlefield identification activities. The memorandum was to describe the activities and intentions of the two services to promote and ensure joint operational interoperability and to encourage sharing of information and joint work on combat identification concepts, doctrine (tactics, techniques, and procedures), experimentation, operational analysis, and lessons learned. The proposed agreement was also to acknowledge that the Army was pursuing its Battlefield Combat Identification System for ground-to-ground identification and that the Marines’ priority of effort would go toward air-to-ground identification. The Marines declined the Army’s proposed agreement. A Marine Corps official told us that the recent approval of a NATO Standardization Agreement for battlefield identification systems mandating the use of the same technology employed in the Army’s system and the development of the recently approved combat identification Capstone Requirements Document negate the need for a separate agreement to address interoperability between Army and similar Marine Corps systems. Complying with the NATO agreement and the Capstone Requirements Document may enable the Marines to build systems that can interact with those built to NATO’s standards and that have the capabilities that DOD has envisioned. However, it reduces assurance that Marine systems will be fully interoperable with the Army’s and it will not reduce the risk of inefficient redundancy of service efforts. Preventing friendly fire is a complex and challenging endeavor. It encompasses the development of new technologies as well as new training, tactics, and warfighting techniques. It involves a range of equipment and systems that have historically not been able to effectively interact as well as a variety of military operations. And it’s a concern among each of the services as well as our allies. Clearly, it is essential to have a blueprint that ties together these elements and provides a comprehensive map for long-term improvements as well as a management framework that is strong enough to implement the blueprint. While DOD has taken some concrete steps toward both ends, it needs to strengthen these efforts and ensure that they are supported by the services. Without doing so, it may well continue to contend with problems leading to friendly fire incidents. To improve DOD’s combat identification system development efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, in collaboration with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Joint Staff’s Combat Identification Assessment Division; and the services; to Develop—in accordance with federal guidelines and relevant DOD policies and guidance—an enterprise architecture for combat identification that reflects the needs of its future warfighting vision. The architecture should define (1) the operational elements, activities, tasks, and information flows required to accomplish the combat identification mission, (2) the systems and interconnections supporting the mission, and (3) the minimum set of standards and rules governing the arrangement, interaction, and interdependence of systems applications and infrastructure. It should also encompass air-to-air, surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and air-to-surface operations. Once the architecture is defined, we recommend that DOD review specific system requirements to determine whether they should be adjusted to address the needs reflected in those architectures or determine if gaps exist and new development efforts are needed. Develop and annually update a written, formalized management framework to guide the department’s combat identification efforts. The framework should define the organizational structure and procedures to be used in managing those efforts including the structures and procedures to coordinate requirements’ and systems’ development and funding, and develop and enforce the enterprise architecture. Until an enterprise architecture is developed, the framework should contain interim procedures for the review of ongoing efforts and that allow continuation of only efforts deemed essential or for which risk mitigation mechanisms have been provided. The framework should also provide roadmaps to future developments and define time-phased measures of program performance. In addition, to enable accomplishment of overarching combat identification efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that adequate funding is provided to implement these initiatives. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with all three of our recommendations and cited ongoing and planned initiatives to address our concerns. We are encouraged by the department’s initiatives. In concurring with our recommendation related to the development and use of an enterprise architecture, DOD stated that two of the three views forming that architecture—the operational and systems views—are to be developed in the near-term. The department added—as we recommended—that these views can then be used as a guide to review and adjust systems requirements and to determine if gaps exits that may require new development efforts. DOD also stated that development of the technical architecture view will be initiated once development of the other views has progressed to an appropriate point. DOD agreed with our recommendation that the department develop and annually update a written, formalized management framework to guide its combat identification efforts. DOD commented that it has a formalized framework to guide its combat identification efforts that is delineated in a draft Joint Staff Combat Identification Assessment Team charter, the Joint Staff Combat Identification Action Plan, and a Combat Identification Capstone Requirements Document. To complement the Joint Staff’s efforts, DOD proposes the establishment of a combat identification integrated product team to assist in developing and enforcing the combat identification systems architecture and resolving combat identification system acquisition, integration, and synchronization issues. Also, the team is to produce roadmaps and time-phased measures of program performance for individual system’s development efforts as required. DOD stated that it agreed with our recommendation regarding the need for adequate funding of overarching combat identification efforts. The department commented that it is committed to the identification of funding to support these efforts through its budgeting and requirements processes. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. In addition, DOD also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. To determine whether the services are using an enterprise architecture to guide their combat identification efforts, we reviewed documents relating to services’ prior, current, and planned combat identification efforts. We also discussed architecture-related issues with officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence; the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combat Identification Assessment Division; the NATO Identification System Coordination Office; and various service activities. Additionally, we reviewed DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance on requirements development and examined DOD’s and the service’s planned actions within the context of that guidance. We also discussed requirements issues with cognizant DOD and service officials. To determine whether DOD and the services have developed and are using cohesive management plans to assure inter-service and allied interoperability of cost-effective combat identification systems, we reviewed previous combat identification plans and discussed those plans with DOD representatives and the services. We also discussed general management issues with those officials and developed information on management problems that might be avoided by developing a cohesive management plan. Additionally, to gain a better understanding of DOD and allied interoperability requirements, we discussed combat identification issues with representatives of NATO and the United Kingdom’s National Audit Office, Ministry of Defence, and Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. We conducted our work from September 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. This report contains recommendations to you. As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and to the House Committee on Government Reform not later than 60 days from the date of this letter and to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this letter. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees. We are also sending copies to the Honorable Thomas E. White, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy; the Honorable James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force; General James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request. The report will also be available on our homepage at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Charles F. Rey, Bruce H. Thomas, Thomas W. Hopp, Rahul Gupta, Hai Tran, Gary L. Middleton, Cristina Chaplain, and Randolph C. Hite. The Department of Defense (DOD) has published a framework for the development and presentation of architectures within DOD. The framework defines the type and content of architectural artifacts, as well as the relationships among artifacts, that are needed to produce a useful enterprise architecture. Briefly, the framework decomposes an enterprise architecture into three primary views (perspectives into how the enterprise operates): the operational, systems, and technical views, also referred to as architectures. According to DOD, the three interdependent views are needed to ensure that information technology systems are developed and implemented in an interoperable and cost-effective manner. Each of these views is summarized below. (Fig. 2 is a simplified diagram depicting the interrelationships among the views.) The operational architecture view defines the operational elements, activities and tasks, and information flows required to accomplish or support an organizational mission or business function. According to DOD, it is useful for facilitating a number of actions and assessments across DOD, such as examining business processes for reengineering or defining operational requirements to be supported by physical resources and systems. The systems architecture view defines the systems and their interconnections supporting the organizational or functional mission in context with the operational view, including how multiple systems link and interoperate, and may describe the internal construction and operations of particular systems. According to DOD, this view has many uses, such as helping managers to evaluate interoperability improvement and to make investment decisions concerning cost-effective ways to satisfy operational requirements. The technical architecture view defines a minimum set of standards and rules governing the arrangement, interaction, and interdependence of system applications and infrastructure. It provides the technical standards, criteria, and reference models upon which engineering specifications are based, common building blocks are established, and applications are developed. | Friendly fire incidents, or fratricide, accounted for about 24 percent of U.S. fatalities during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since then, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have been working to find new ways to avoid friendly fire in joint and coalition operations. Preventing friendly fire is a complex and challenging endeavor. It encompasses the development of new technologies as well as new training, tactics, and warfighting techniques. It involves a range of equipment and systems that have historically not been able to effectively interact as well as various military operations. It is a concern among each of the services as well as U.S. allies. Clearly, it is essential to have a blueprint that ties together these elements and provides a comprehensive map for long-term improvements as well as a management framework that is strong enough to implement the blueprint. Although DOD has taken some concrete steps toward both ends, it needs to strengthen these efforts and ensure that they are supported by the services. Otherwise, it may continue to contend with problems leading to friendly fire incidents. |
President Barack Obama’s address detailing the White House’s plan to combat the terrorist threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant received mixed reviews on Capitol Hill on Wednesday evening as lawmakers prepare to potentially give the president new authorities to strike against the militant group in Syria.
The speech was immediately criticized by some of Obama’s fiercest foreign policy opponents. Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz dubbed the speech “fundamentally unserious” on Fox News. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), using another acronym for ISIL, said on CNN that “the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is.”
Text Size -
+
reset
“The president’s plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the world’s largest, richest terrorist army,” McCain said in a subsequent statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
(Full text, video of Obama's speech)
Senate Democrats praised the speech as a good approach to tackling the growing strength of ISIL in Iraq.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Obama’s plan was a “forceful strategy.”
“The president tonight laid out a forceful strategy to safeguard our security and that of our allies by rolling back and eventually destroying a brutal extremist group,” the Michigan Democrat said. “The president’s strategy calls for a broad coalition to support Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and religious minorities as they come together to fight a common enemy.”
House and Senate leaders will reconvene Thursday to chart a path forward for legislation giving Obama authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. House Republicans are weighing attaching the measure to a continuing resolution to fund the government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is waiting for the House to move before deciding on the Senate’s path forward.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama: U.S. chasing ISIL 'wherever they exist')
Reid said Wednesday evening that hearings on the proposal will commence next week.
“The one element of the strategy outlined by the president tonight that requires immediate congressional action is granting his administration the authority to equip and train Syrian troops to fight ISIS,” he said. “I believe that Republicans and Democrats in Congress will come together in the week ahead in a strong show of support to grant the president this critical authority.”
Obama detailed a four-part strategy to weaken and eventually “degrade, and ultimately destroy” ISIL, which has been terrorizing Iraqi citizens and has beheaded two American journalists. The effort, Obama said, will include training Iraqi security forces and moderate Syrian rebels — a move the administration has avoided since the outbreak of the civil conflict in Syria two years ago.
“Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy,” Obama said during the prime-time address.
“We must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said his panel will move to draft a resolution giving Obama the congressional authority to wage a “prolonged military campaign.”
“President Obama showed important leadership in laying out an initial plan to confront the threat from ISIL before this barbaric group has the ability to execute a large-scale attack against U.S. interests at home or abroad,” he said.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), an outspoken anti-war advocate, said Obama’s polices need to be swiftly put to a congressional vote for authorization.
“The Constitution requires Congress to vote on the use of military force. This is not about this president. This is about any president and any Congress,” she said.
Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said he supports a vote to institute a limited authority for U.S. action in the region and called Obama’s speech “strong.”
“He did what he had to do,” King said.
Across the Capitol, House Republicans were generally supportive of Obama’s strategy but broadly called for more specific details on the extent of U.S. involvement in the volatile region. Speaker John Boehner said he supports the plan to train Iraqi forces and Syrian rebels but is concerned that process could take years to implement.
“A speech is not the same thing as a strategy, however. While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act,” the Ohio Republican said.
Boehner has been part of a cadre of senior lawmakers who met with Obama and received classified briefings from the administration this week on the White House’s strategy to combat the Sunni militant group.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Republicans still “require a level of commitment to this fight against terrorism not yet seen by this president.”
“We must recognize ISIL is but a symptom of a broader terrorist threat that has been ignored for too long by this administration,” the California Republican said. “Preventing the next 9/11 requires us to confront the reality that Al Qaeda has metastasized, and that radical terrorists operating out of sanctuaries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere pose a growing threat to the United States must be destroyed.”
House Republicans will hold an early morning conference meeting Thursday.
The chamber’s top Democrat, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, praised Obama for establishing a coalition to combat ISIL.
“I commend the president for his persistent, strong leadership in establishing a government of reconciliation in Iraq, and in his diplomatic efforts to have coordination among of our NATO allies and regional powers,” the Californian said. “Working with a broad coalition of partners and without using U.S. combat forces on the ground, we will lead a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy to dismantle the threat ISIS poses to the region and the United States.”
Obama’s proposals were panned by two Senate Democrats in tough reelection races who are eager to put distance between themselves and Obama.
“I will not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq,” said Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “As we have seen in the past, American boots on the ground cannot stamp out an extreme ideology, and the Iraqis must take responsibility for defending their own people.”
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich said he opposes Obama’s plan to arm Syrian rebels, saying, “The U.S. can’t continue to foot the bill of Middle East conflicts.” ||||| President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he is drastically expanding the U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State militant group was met with both tentative relief and reservations from Republican lawmakers, who expressed concern that the president's plan was not going far enough.
In addition, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle said they disapproved of the fact that Obama had not asked for a congressional vote to authorize military force against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT
In a prime-time address to the nation, Obama said he has authorized U.S. airstrikes in Syria along with expanded airstrikes in Iraq, vowing to wipe out the group's terrorists "wherever they exist." He also made a renewed call to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels to aid in the fight.
Lawmakers on both sides have for weeks been clamoring for Obama to articulate a clear plan for dealing with the threat from the terrorist organization, and top Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner said it was good the president has now done so.
However, Boehner, R-Ohio, said it was concerning that Obama seemed to view the new military action as an "isolated counterterrorism campaign," rather than an "all-out effort" to destroy the terror group.
"While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act," Boehner said in a statement.
Boehner also said although he supports Obama's plan to work with and train the Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian opposition forces, he is worried such an effort would take too long to be effective.
Boehner's sentiments were echoed by Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who said Obama "got some key things right" but that his plan will not be sufficient to completely destroy the terror group. They insisted additional steps are necessary.
"The president's plan will help us achieve these vital goals, but only if he remains committed to fully implementing every aspect of that plan," the lawmakers said in a joint statement. "Half measures against ISIS only make it stronger and will not lead to its destruction."
McCain told Fox News' Sean Hannity he is "very worried" about using what he called "half measures" to attempt to counter the Islamic State threat, but Obama's plan is better than the status quo.
"The status quo is unacceptable," McCain, R-Ariz., said. "All I know is, although I am very, very skeptical I'm willing to give it a try."
Rep. Buck McKeon also said he did not think Obama's plan went far enough.
"I believe that many of the elements (Obama) advocated are important and I support them," McKeon, R-Calif., said. "However, they are not enough to achieve his own stated goal of defeating ISIL."
There was also concern from lawmakers on both sides that Obama has not asked for a congressional vote to authorize military force against the militants. Obama did call in his address for Congress to authorize and fund a mission to "train and equip" the moderate Syrian rebels.
Sen Mark Udall, D-Colo., said in a statement he believes "any expanded U.S. military role beyond airstrikes in the fight against ISIL in Iraq must be approved by Congress."
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who has consistently called for congressional authorization for the strikes, agreed.
"I disagree with the president's assertion that he has all necessary legal authority to wage an offensive war against ISIL without congressional approval," he said in a statement.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker said he feels Obama is "exercising poor judgment" by not seeking Congress' authorization.
"While much of the wording in the president's speech was good, the substance of how we accomplish what he laid out is what matters," Corker, R-Tenn., said. "I believe the president is exercising poor judgment by not explicitly seeking an authorization from Congress where consensus can be reached around a substantive plan of action and support can be built for an operation that he has described will take several years."
Obama had previously struggled to articulate his policy toward the militant group, and get on the same page with his own military advisers about how urgent the threat really is outside of Iraq and Syria.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month said the terror group is "beyond anything that we've seen.
Obama, though, then confounded lawmakers when he openly admitted his administration didn't have a strategy yet for confronting the threat in Syria. He sent more mixed messages when he said the goal is to "destroy" the group but also make it a "manageable problem."
Since then, the president has projected a more consistent message that the Islamic State must be destroyed, and was consistent in that message Wednesday. ||||| DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syrian and Iranian officials criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for excluding them from an international coalition coming together in the battle against the Islamic State group while a state-run Syrian daily warned that unauthorized U.S. airstrikes on Syrian territory may trigger the "first sparks of fire" in the region.
FILE - This Tuesday, July 15, 2014 file photo taken with a mobile phone through a car windshield shows a fighter with the Islamic State group taking control of a traffic intersection in central Mosul,... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this undated file image posted by the Raqqa Media Center of the Islamic State group, on Monday, June 30, 2014, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, shows fighters... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Tuesday, July 29, 2014 file photo, Islamic militants parade in Beiji, some 250 kilometers (155 miles) north of the capital, Baghdad, Iraq. U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday, Sept.... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Thursday, Aug. 7, 2014 file photo, a fighter with the Islamic State group stands guard in front of the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in the Christian village of Bartella,... (Associated Press)
FILE - This Saturday, July 5, 2014 file image made from video posted on a militant website, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, purports to show the leader of the... (Associated Press)
This Wednesday, Sept 10, 2014 photo, released by the Syrian official news agency SANA, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, right, speaking during a meeting with United Nations special envoy to Syria... (Associated Press)
FILE - This undated file image posted on a militant website on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2014, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, shows fighters from the al-Qaida linked Islamic... (Associated Press)
President Barack Obama addresses the nation from the Cross Hall in the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014. In a major reversal, Obama ordered the United States into a broad military... (Associated Press)
Syria's main Western-backed opposition group, meanwhile, welcomed President Barack Obama's authorization of U.S. airstrikes targeting — for the first time — the extremists inside Syria, saying it stands "ready and willing" to partner with the international community to defeat the militants.
But the Syrian National Coalition said that airstrikes need to be coupled with a strategy for ultimately toppling Assad.
Kurdish politicians in Iraq similarly praised Obama's announcement of wider airstrikes and assistance to Iraqi forces.
"We welcome this new strategy," said Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurdish politician and one of Iraq's newly-appointed deputy prime ministers. "We think it will work with the cooperation of the indigenous local forces like Iraqi Security Forces, the Kurdish peshmerga and other forces."
"There is an urgent need for action. People cannot sit on the fence. This is a mortal threat to everybody," he told The Associated Press.
The U.S. began launching limited airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq earlier this summer at the request of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri el-Maliki, in a significant boost to the Iraqi forces fighting on the ground to win back land lost to the militant group.
The Sunni extremists have seized roughly a third of Iraq and Syria in their rampage this summer, declaring a self-styled caliphate in areas under their control where they apply their strict interpretation of Islamic law, Shariah.
In a prime-time address to the nation from the White House late Wednesday, Obama announced he was authorizing U.S. airstrikes inside Syria for the first time, along with expanded strikes in Iraq as part of "a steady, relentless effort" to root out Islamic State extremists and their spreading reign of terror.
He also again urged Congress to authorize a program to train and arm Syrian rebels who are fighting both the Islamic State militants and Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Obama did not say when U.S. forces would begin striking at targets inside Syria.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem had last month warned the U.S. against carrying out airstrikes on its territory without Damascus' consent, saying any such attack would be considered an aggression.
Obama, in his speech, ruled out any partnership with Assad in the fight against the Islamic State militants, saying he will "never regain the legitimacy" he has lost.
"I wonder how an international coalition can be formed and Syria, which is targeted by terrorism in depth, is shunned aside?" Sharif Shehadeh, a Syrian lawmaker, told the AP in Damascus. He said violating Syrian sovereignty will have "negative repercussions on regional and international security." He did not elaborate.
The state-run al-Thawra newspaper warned in a front-page editorial that Obama's authorization of airstrikes in Syria might be "the first sparks of fire in the region."
Syrian officials have always insisted that the uprising in Syria which erupted in March 2011 and evolved into civil war was carried out by armed "terrorists" — using the term as shorthand for all rebels and anti-Assad forces.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, whose country is a staunch ally of Assad, also said Thursday that regional and international cooperation will be vital — even though Tehran has not been invited to join an international coalition against the Islamic State group. Rouhani spoke on an official visit to Tajikistan.
In Tehran, foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said the coalition against the Islamic State group has "serious ambiguities," the official IRNA news agency reported Thursday. She added Iran has doubts about the seriousness of the coalition, because some members of the coalition have been supporters of terrorists in Iraq and Syria.
A year ago, Obama gave a speech to the nation in which he was widely expected to announce the U.S. would be launching punishing airstrikes against Assad's forces, after blaming them for a deadly chemical weapons attack near Damascus. Obama backed down at the last minute.
Ironically, the U.S. president is now authorizing airstrikes not against Assad, but against a group committed to his removal from power. In doing that, the U.S. runs the risk of unintentionally strengthening Assad's hand, potentially opening the way for the Syrian army to fill the vacuum left by the extremists.
Hadi Bahra, chief of the Syrian National Coalition opposition group, said mainstream Syrian rebels desperately need the kind of support that would enable it to form a reliable and well-equipped force to fight the extremists.
"Today, we are one step closer to achieving that goal," he said.
He said the Syrian Coalition "stands ready and willing to partner with the international community" not only to defeat the extremists but also "to rid the Syrian people of the tyranny of the Assad regime."
___
Karam reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Vivian Salama in Baghdad contributed to this report. | President Obama laid the foundation last night for his strategy to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS, citing possible expanded airstrikes from Iraq into Syria and explaining how these efforts would be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven," he said. "[ISIS] is a terrorist organization, pure and simple." Some reaction: Syrian and Iranian officials, angry that they haven't been included in an international coalition aimed at taking on ISIS, aren't thrilled with the president's speech, the AP reports—but opposition groups in those countries and Iraq are praising Obama's words: The Syrian National Coalition says "it stands 'ready and willing' to partner with the international community to defeat the militants," while a Kurdish deputy prime minister says, "We welcome this new strategy." Top Republicans had harsh words for Obama's plan. Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News that the speech was "fundamentally unserious," while Sen. John McCain noted to CNN that the "president really doesn't have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is," Politico reports. Democratic reaction was lukewarm. While Sen. Carl Levin called Obama's blueprint a "forceful strategy," as per Politico, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said in a statement per Fox News that he took issue "with the the president's assertion that he has all necessary legal authority to wage an offensive war against ISIL without congressional approval." |
VA policy is to allocate comparable resources for comparable workloads in its 22 health care networks as an important step in ensuring equitable access to care for the nation’s veterans. To achieve this allocation in its national health care system, VA has used VERA since fiscal year 1997 to prospectively allocate resources to the networks. VERA allocates nearly 90 percent of VA’s medical care appropriation in six categories: complex patient care, basic patient care, equipment, nonrecurring maintenance, education support, and research support. Resources for the first four categories are allocated on the basis of patient workload and account for approximately 96 percent of the resources VERA allocates. Allocations for education support and research support are based on workload measures specific to those activities within the VA health care system. Developed in response to a legislative mandate, VERA was designed to correct regional inequities in resource allocation created by shifts in the veteran population from the northeast and midwest to the south and west (see fig. 1) without a corresponding shift in resources. The resources did not shift before VERA was implemented because resource allocation was based primarily on facilities’ historical expenditures. VA expects that veteran population shifts from the northeast and midwest to the south and west will continue at least through 2020. Two other major changes to VA health care provision accompanied the implementation of VERA as a result of the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996. The first change was a major shift in VA health care delivery from an inpatient to an outpatient emphasis that was consistent with changes in health care delivery outside of VA. The act eliminated restrictions that previously prevented VA from treating some veterans in outpatient care settings, allowing VA to shift its focus from inpatient to outpatient care delivery. For example, VA no longer had to admit certain veterans to an inpatient setting to make them eligible for outpatient treatment or to receive prosthetic devices, such as crutches. As a result of eligibility reform, VA has been successful in shifting medical care to outpatient settings by taking advantage of advances in medical technology and practices, such as laser, endoscopic surgery, and other less invasive surgical techniques. VA has also identified alternatives to inpatient care, such as home-based care, for many chronically ill patients. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000, VA closed almost 24,000 acute inpatient beds, a 52 percent reduction systemwide. During this time period, VA’s inpatient admissions decreased and outpatient visits increased from approximately 29 million to 40 million visits, a 36 percent increase systemwide. The second change was the introduction of a veterans’ enrollment system to manage access in relation to available resources due to the expected increase in demand on the VA system as a result of the new eligibility rules. As required by the act, VA established seven priority categories for enrollment. A higher priority for enrollment is given to veterans who have service-connected disabilities, lower incomes, or other statuses such as former prisoners of war. These higher priority enrollees are ranked in priority order from 1 through 6. The lowest enrollment priority is given to veterans not included in priorities 1 through 6, referred to as Priority 7 veterans. These veterans are primarily nonservice-connected veterans with higher incomes. The act requires VA to restrict enrollment consistent with these enrollment priorities if sufficient resources are not available to provide care that is timely and acceptable in quality to all priority categories. If needed, enrollment restrictions would begin with the lowest priority category. For, fiscal year 2002, VA has decided to continue enrolling veterans in all priority categories. VERA has been a key part of VA’s strategy to change its health care system. First, VERA shifted substantial resources among regions reflecting shifts in workload. Second, VERA, in concert with other VA initiatives, has provided an incentive for networks to serve more veterans. VERA has shifted substantial resources from networks located primarily in the northeast and midwest to networks located in the south and west (see fig. 2). VERA shifted approximately $921 million among networks in fiscal year 2001 compared to what allocations would have been if networks received the same proportion of funding they received in fiscal year 1996, the year before VERA was implemented. This included additional resources Congress appropriated from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001. VERA shifted the most resources—approximately $198 millionto Network 8 (Bay Pines), and VERA shifted the most resources from Network 3 (Bronx)approximately $322 million. The shift occurred because VERA allocated resources based primarily on patient workload rather than continuing VA’s prior process of incrementally funding facilities based on historical expenditures. VERA’s implementation resulted in 10 of VA’s 22 networks receiving a smaller share of VA’s medical care appropriation in fiscal year 2001 than in fiscal year 1996. However, because VA’s total medical care appropriation rose 22 percent during this period, all but two of these networks received more resources in fiscal year 2001 than in fiscal year 1996. The two networks with fewer resources from fiscal year 1996 to 2001 were Network 1 (Boston) and Network 3 (Bronx), which experienced 1 percent and 10 percent declines, respectively. VA has also used VERA as one component of a larger strategy to improve access to care by increasing the number of veterans treated. Because VERA allocates resources based on workload, it provides incentives for networks to increase the number of veterans treated. The number of veterans treated nationally in VA, in all priority groups, increased from 2.6 million in fiscal year 1996, the year before VERA was implemented, to 3.8 million in fiscal year 2001, an increase of 47 percent. All 22 networks contributed to this increase (see fig. 3). This includes networks from which VERA shifted resources. VA’s reduction in inpatient care, closure of acute care beds, shift in emphasis to less expensive outpatient care delivery, and a 22 percent increase in VA’s annual medical care appropriation since fiscal year 1996 have provided additional capacity allowing networks to increase workloads. VERA’s design promotes the allocation of comparable resources for comparable workloads to VA’s 22 health care networks consistent with principles used by other payers, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and expert views on the design of payment systems. VERA allocates resources based primarily on networks’ patient workloads. To ensure the comparability of networks’ resources with their workloads, VERA adjusts these allocations for factors beyond networks’ control, namely patient health care needs and certain local costs. By adjusting allocations only for costs beyond a network’s control, VERA holds networks accountable for providing services efficiently. Also, VERA provides protection for patients from the risk that a health care network would not be able to provide services because its expenditures exceed available resources. VERA allocates resources primarily on the basis of network patient workload. Each network receives an allocation based on a predetermined dollar amount per veteran served. This is consistent with how other federal health care payers allocate resources to managed care plans to care for their patient workload. Because VERA uses workload to allocate resources, networks that have more patients generally receive more resources than networks that have fewer patients (see table 1). However, allocation adjustments result in some situations in which networks with fewer patients receive higher total and per patient allocations. For example, Network 3 (Bronx) received a larger VERA allocation in fiscal year 2001 than Network 9 (Nashville) even though Network 3 (Bronx) had a smaller workload. By receiving funding based on workload, VA’s health care networks have an incentive to focus on aligning facilities and programs to attract patients rather than focusing on maintaining existing operations and infrastructure regardless of the number of patients served. VERA seeks to ensure that comparable resources are allocated for comparable workloads by adjusting for differences in networks’ patient health care needs and certain local costs in calculating networks’ allocations. Without these adjustments, networks with justifiably higher costs could face pressure to compromise access to care or lower health care quality, while networks with lower costs could receive more resources than needed. To prevent this problem, VERA, like other federal health care payment systems, makes adjustments to its per patient allocations or capitation amounts. VERA adjusts for patient health care needscase mixby first classifying patients into categories by overall level of health care need and then by setting capitation amounts for each of these patient categories. VERA classifies patients into one of three categories according to the level of health care needs and associated costs. The first category is complex care, which includes patients who generally require significant high-cost inpatient care as an integral part of their rehabilitation or functional maintenance, and is about 4 percent of VA’s workload. This category includes most patients in VA’s special disability programs such as those with spinal cord injuries and serious mental illness. The second category is basic vested care, which includes patients who have relatively routine health care needs and are principally cared for in an outpatient care setting. These patients84 percent of VA’s workloadrely primarily or completely on VA for meeting their health care needs, may require short- term inpatient admissions, and typically require significantly fewer resources than complex care patients. The third category is basic non- vested care which is 12 percent of VA’s workload. This category includes patients who also have relatively routine health care needs but receive only part of their care through VA, are less costly to VA than basic vested patients, and have not undergone a comprehensive medical evaluation by a VA practitioner. The adjustments to capitation amounts for each category reflect whether patients in a category are more or less costly than patients in another category. These adjustments, or case-mix weights, determine what proportion of VERA resources will be allocated to networks to care for patients in each case-mix category, such as complex care. As a result, VERA’s patient case-mix adjustment provides more funding to networks with greater proportions of complex care patients. For example, if two networks have the same number of patients but one has more complex care patients, it will receive a greater allocation because the VERA case- mix weight for complex care is higher. In addition, VERA adjusts for uncontrollable geographic price differences in the resources it allocates. These differences result primarily from variations in federal employee pay rates in different parts of the country. VERA makes this adjustment by applying a price adjustment factor to each network’s allocation. The adjustment lowers the VERA allocation for networks located in lower cost areas and raises the allocation for networks located in higher cost areas. In fiscal year 2001, Network 8 (Bay Pines) had the largest decrease resulting from the geographic price adjustment 2.8 percent. Network 21 (San Francisco) had the largest increase resulting from the geographic price adjustment 6.3 percent. Through fiscal year 2001, this adjustment was for services provided only by VA employees. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, VA expanded the geographic price adjustment to all VERA allocations by including contract labor costs and contract nonlabor purchases, such as energy. VERA’s allocation of resources based on workload with adjustments only for costs beyond the networks’ control aims to promote equity and efficiency. To promote equity, VERA adjusts network allocations by case mix and geographic price to standardize measures of workload and resources so that each network receives comparable allocations for comparable workloads. To create an efficiency incentive, VERA provides fixed capitation amounts for patient categories that are the same for each network and are intended to reflect VA’s average costs instead of historical local costs. Using fixed capitation amounts is consistent with how other health care payers provide managed care plans with an incentive to operate efficiently by placing them at risk if their expenses exceed the payment amount. VERA also provides protection of patients from the risk that a health care network would not be able to provide services because its expenditures exceed available resources. VERA does this annually through the National Reserve Fund which provides supplemental resources to networks when they have difficulty operating within their available resources. VA’s National Reserve Fund is used to cover network requests for supplemental allocations over and above networks’ annual VERA allocations and other sources of revenue. For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, VA has set the National Reserve Fund amount at $100 million using a combination of annual and carry-over funds. Since fiscal year 1999, resources distributed through the National Reserve Fund have averaged approximately 1 percent of total VERA allocations and supplemented VERA allocations in six networks. Although VERA’s overall design is a reasonable approach to allocate resources, we identified weaknesses in its implementation. First, VERA’s calculation to ensure the comparability of networks’ resources with their workloads and their patient health care needs is not as accurate as it could be. Second, the process for providing supplemental resources through the National Reserve Fund process does not provide adequate information to determine the extent to which networks need supplemental funding as a result of potential problems in VERA, network inefficiency, or other factors. VERA’s calculation of networks’ workloads excludes most higher income veterans without a service-connected disability—a growing proportion of VA’s users. In addition, VERA does not account for variation in patients’ health care needs and related costs among networks as accurately as it could. When VERA was established, the number of higher income veterans treated without a service-connected disability was small—approximately 108,000 or about 4 percent of the total number of veterans treated in fiscal year 1996. Because of their small numbers and the expectation that collections from copayments, deductibles, and third-party insurance reimbursements would cover the majority of their costs, VERA did not include most of these higher income veterans in basic care workload. However, the number of these veterans treated increased greatly in recent years and represent about 95 percent of VA’s Priority 7 health care enrollment category. The number of Priority 7 veterans treated increased to approximately 827,722 users (see fig. 4). Priority 7 veterans comprised 22 percent of VA’s total fiscal year 2001 patient workload. This rapid growth in the number of Priority 7 veterans treated has occurred even though networks do not receive additional VERA allocations for the majority of this workload and collections covered only 24 percent of Priority 7 veterans’ costs in fiscal year 2000. Networks pay for most of the costs of Priority 7 services through VERA allocations made mostly on the basis of non-Priority 7 workload. The omission of these veterans from VERA’s workload calculation creates an inequitable allocation of resources across networks because networks’ proportion of Priority 7 veterans treated varies (see fig. 5). For example, in fiscal year 2001, Priority 7 users were 32 percent of Network 14’s (Lincoln) total veterans treated compared to the VA average of 22 percent. Consequently, networks with a higher proportion of Priority 7 veterans, like Network 14 (Lincoln), have fewer resources per patient to treat veterans than networks with a lower proportion of Priority 7 veterans. VA assessed the possibility of including Priority 7 veterans in VERA’s basic vested workload. However, it had concerns that including Priority 7 veterans in VERA workload would create a possible incentive to serve higher income veterans at the expense of service-connected and low- income veterans. VA considered providing a capitation amount for Priority 7 veterans that was less than the average cost of their care. However, rather than including Priority 7 veterans in the workload calculations with a reduced capitation amount, VA decided instead to pursue other options. One of the options VA is examining is the effect of changing the income threshold used to classify enrolled veterans. Specifically, the current uniform national income standard used in part for determining Priority 7 status would be replaced with a regional income standard to account for regional differences in the cost of living. This would change the status of some Priority 7 veterans in high-cost regions to low-income veterans— who are included in VERA’s workload calculation. Although adopting a regional income threshold could improve the equity of resource allocation, the alignment of workload with resources would still be compromised if some networks continue to have disproportionate numbers of the remaining Priority 7 veterans. Inclusion of Priority 7 veterans in VERA basic vested care workload would increase the comparability of resources among networks per patient treated. This would move resources from networks with a smaller proportion of Priority 7 veteran workload to networks with a larger proportion of Priority 7 veteran workload. If, for example, Priority 7 basic vested veteransthose who rely primarily or completely on VA for meeting their health care needs—were capitated at half the average national cost of their care, as VA had considered, this would have increased the allocation to 9 networks in the northeast and midwest and decreased the allocation to 10 networks in the south and west in the fiscal year 2001 VERA allocation (see fig. 6). Although VERA adjusts network allocations for cost differences resulting from the mix of patients networks serve, it does not do so as accurately as it could. This is because the case-mix weights assigned to each category of patients are based on historical cost data from fiscal year 1995 and VERA only uses three case-mix categories to allocate resources. Case-Mix Weights Based On Historic Data Do Not Reflect Changes In VA Health Care VERA uses case-mix weights based on VA health care expenditures in fiscal year 1995 to allocate resources for basic and complex care workload. These weights are determined by the share of resources spent on basic and complex care in that year 61.6 percent of expenditures for basic care and 38.4 percent for complex care. For the VERA allocation in fiscal year 2001, for example, $6.2 billion was available for complex care (38.4 percent) and $10.0 billion was available for basic care (61.6 percent). These case-mix weights, however, have not been updated to reflect the health care that VA is providing. Because of VERA, VA Eligibility Reform, and other VA initiatives, the number of basic care patients has increased since fiscal year 1995 while the number of complex care patients has remained relatively constant. The rising proportion of basic care patients has contributed to a greater proportion of VA expenditures for basic care and a smaller proportion of expenditures for complex care. By fiscal year 1999, 66.9 percent of expenditures were for basic care and 33.1 percent were for complex care. Adjusting capitation amounts to reflect current expenditures for basic and complex care would result in an approximately 9 percent increase in the basic care capitation amounts and about a 14 percent reduction in the complex care capitation amount (see table 2). VA considered updating the weights for basic and complex care based on the most recent available costs. VA officials told us they have maintained the fiscal year 1995 case-mix weights because using more current expenditure data that would lower the allocation for complex care and increase the allocation for basic care could be seen as a weakening of VA’s commitment to serve veterans with complex care needs, such as those with spinal cord injuries or serious mental illness. However, continuing to base VERA case-mix weights on fiscal year 1995 expenditures has not ensured that resources were spent on complex care patients. VERA, like other allocation systems, provides networks with resources but it does not require networks to spend resources in a particular way. Rather, VA program guidance and network management decisions determine how resources are spent. Eighteen of 22 networks spent less for complex care than they received based on their complex care workload in fiscal year 2000, the most recent year for which expenditure data are available (see table 3). As a result, the proportion of VA’s total expenditures on complex care has declined since fiscal year 1995 even though the proportion of VERA’s allocation for complex care has remained constant. However, VA has decided to defer action on using the most recently available costs pending further study of how costs and workload vary in complex care categories among networks. Aligning VERA case-mix weights proportionally with current expenditures is one way to better reflect how health care is delivered in VA. Doing so, however, assumes that expenditures alone are an appropriate measure of health care need. This is not always the case. For example, if health care in a particular case-mix category is not being provided efficiently, using expenditure data alone would result in a higher than necessary case-mix weight. This would lead to excess resource allocation for the case-mix category. On the other hand, using expenditure data only would result in a lower case-mix weight than appropriate if health care providers are not using more expensive treatments when needed to provide clinically appropriate care. This would lead to insufficient resource allocation for the case-mix category. As a result, setting case-mix weights may begin with consideration of current expenditures, but ultimately must use the best available data to reflect efficiency and clinically appropriate care. The Small Number Of Case-Mix Categories In VERA Does Not Accurately Adjust For Network Differences In Veterans’ Health Care Needs VERA uses only three case-mix categories—complex, basic vested, and basic non-vested—to adjust for differences in health care needs and related resource requirements for veterans. These three case-mix categories are based on 44 patient classes VA uses to classify its patients. Using all 44 patient classes as case-mix categories would more accurately adjust for differences in needs and related resource requirements because the average costs of patients in the classes within the VERA categories vary significantly and can be dramatically higher or lower than their capitation amounts for the current three case-mix categories (see table 4). For example, the national average patient cost for domiciliary careone type of complex carein fiscal year 2000 was roughly $17,000 less than the $42,153 capitation amount for complex care, while the average patient cost for ventilator-dependent care another type of complex carewas about $121,000 more than the complex care capitation amount. Our analysis shows that considerable variation exists among networks in the type of workload represented by VERA’s three case-mix categories, which limits VERA’s ability to allocate comparable resources for comparable workload. VERA provides more resources to networks, relative to their costs, that have proportionately more workload in less expensive patient classes, such as domiciliary care, than other networks. VERA provides fewer resources to networks, relative to their costs, that have more workload in more expensive patient classes, such as ventilator- dependent care. Using VA’s current 44 patient classes rather than the three case-mix categories VERA used in fiscal year 2001 would result in a significant movement of resources for some networks because of the variation by network in the type of workload (see fig. 7). This would move resources from networks having proportionately fewer patients in expensive patient classes to networks having proportionately more patients in expensive patient classes, resulting in an average movement of resources of 2 percent per network. In 1998, VA conducted a similar analysis using 54 patient classes for allocation and found that this would have moved a significant amount of resources among networks, an average of 4 percent per network. The analysis further concluded that using only 7 of the 54 classes achieved nearly the same result. A 1998 Price Waterhouse analysis of VERA also concluded that additional case-mix categories would increase equitable resource allocation. VA officials told us they have not introduced more than three case-mix categories because VA wants VERA to be easily understood by stakeholders. While using more case-mix categories can increase the accuracy of allocations, the literature and experts we consulted suggest that a case- mix classification system needs to address two concerns in order to prevent providers from receiving inappropriately high levels of resources. First, having a larger number of case-mix categories may provide more opportunities for networks to inappropriately classify patients to receive the highest capitation amount. However, increasing the VERA case-mix categories from three to a higher number, but not necessarily 44, may strike an appropriate balance between improved allocation and the need to control for potential inappropriate coding of patients into higher capitation categories. Second, basing case-mix categories in part or in whole on utilization of services provides the incentive to overuse services. For instance, in VERA, a patient who receives nine home-based primary care visits is categorized in basic vested care with a capitation amount of $3,126; however, a patient who receives 10 visits is categorized in complex care, which has a capitation amount of $42,765. Consequently, if networks increase the number of such visits, they can increase their funding more than 13-fold. Currently, 22 of VA’s 44 patient classes incorporate utilization factors in classifying patients. These utilization factors are found primarily in the patient classes for extended and residential long-term care and chronic mental health services and for classifying basic non-vested patients. Replacing utilization criteria with diagnosis and functional measures where possible in VERA’s case-mix categories would reduce the incentive to overuse services, especially for complex care patients. Most VERA complex care patient classes are based in part on some measure of service utilization because of the difficulty in predicting the costs of these classes based solely on diagnostic data. Because complex care costs are high and unusually difficult to predict, the literature and experts we consulted suggest that it is prudent to partially insure networks from such unpredictable costs. Therefore, it may be advantageous to use a mechanism to help providers, such as VA’s health care networks, cope with their highest cost complex care patients by providing additional resources for their care based on a formula. If VA used such a funding mechanism, networks with complex care patients in the 99th percentile of cost, for example, would receive the network complex care capitation amount plus a predetermined percentage of the cost above the capitation amount. The additional funds above the capitation amount would partially offset the network’s expenses for high-cost complex care patients. Resources for this funding mechanism could be set aside as part of the National Reserve Fund. Currently, VA is exploring alternative case-mix classification systems, such as Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCG), that could provide more case-mix categories, classify patients based on nonutilization criteria, and better predict costs for acute care patients. DCGs place patients into different groups based on patient demographics and medical diagnoses. However, VA researchers have found that the DCG diagnosis-based system may not be sufficient to allocate resources for certain complex care patient classes. Predicting the costs of many complex care patients is problematic because complex care patients, including those with mental illness and those in extended care settings, may have the same diagnosis but may need very different levels of treatment and support. VA is studying the possibility of supplementing a diagnoses-based system with utilization information in order to better predict the costs of complex care patients. Implementing changes to VERA could better align resources with workload for VA’s 22 health care networks by addressing case mix and workload issues. Incorporating all 44 of the current case-mix categories, updating case-mix weights to reflect the current distribution of expenditures, and funding Priority 7 basic vested veterans at 50 percent of costs would better align resources and workloads. Incorporating the 44 case-mix categories would have the largest effect on resource allocation. The combined effect of these changes would provide additional resources to some northeastern and midwestern networks and reduce resources for some southern and western networks (see fig. 8). The allocation change represents about 2 percent of networks’ budgets, but is more substantial for some networks. Network 1 (Boston) would get approximately a 5 percent increase and Network 20 (Portland) approximately a 5 percent decrease. These changes would better align approximately $200 million with workload. VA has focused its process for administering the National Reserve Fund almost solely on providing supplemental resources to networks to get through a fiscal year but has not included in this process an examination of the root causes of networks’ needs for supplemental resources. To operate the National Reserve Fund, VA, for the last 3 fiscal years (1999 – 2001), has set aside about 1 percent of the VERA allocation in anticipation of networks requiring supplemental resources. No networks requested supplemental funding in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. However, six networks have requested supplemental funding from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001 (see table 5). Supplemental allocations to four networks in fiscal year 2001 totaled $220 million. Officials in 10 of 22 networks told us, in June 2001, that they anticipated requesting supplemental funding at least once from fiscal years 2002 through 2006. VA has used three different approaches to determine whether networks requesting additional resources would receive supplemental allocations. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, VA created teams consisting of staff from networks not requesting supplemental funds. These teams reviewed networks’ funding requests and made recommendations regarding the amount of supplemental allocations and efficiency initiatives networks needed to implement in order to close gaps between their expected expenditures and VERA allocations. In fiscal year 2001, responding in part to criticisms of network staff review of allocation requests, VA replaced the team review process with a review by VA headquarters officials. In this process, VA headquarters officials reviewed requests for supplemental resources from networks anticipating a budget shortfall for the year. In fiscal year 2002, VA created a team to examine networks’ need for supplemental resources. This team consisted of headquarters and network officials, including representatives from networks that requested supplemental allocations and those that did not. None of VA’s approaches to supplemental allocations has systematically evaluated the extent to which certain factors caused networks to require supplemental allocations. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, VA teams conducted site visits and reviewed financial and clinical information that requesting networks provided. The teams made recommendations for supplemental allocations in order to prevent network shortfalls. However, VA could not determine to what extent supplemental resources were needed due to imperfections in VERA, lack of network efficiency, inability to predict complex care patients’ costs, or lack of managerial flexibility to close or consolidate programs or facilities because the teams did not collect the information needed to make this determination. Although the evaluation process changed in fiscal year 2001, VA was still unable to make such a determination. For example, in fiscal year 2001, about half the supplemental resources VA provided to networks was for “inflation and miscellaneous program adjustments.” All networks experienced inflation, however, and VA did not distinguish between the level of inflation in networks that requested supplemental resources and those that did not. VA officials told us that the changes for fiscal year 2002 will still not allow them to determine the extent to which various factors cause networks to need supplemental resources. As a result, VA cannot provide adequate assurance that supplemental allocations are appropriate or take needed action to correct problems that cause networks to have budget shortfalls. One of the corrective actions VA could take is to assist networks that experience budget shortfalls because of an unusually large number of high-cost complex care patients in a given year. This is important because the methods used to predict health care costs are not as precise in predicting the costs of many complex care patients as they are in predicting the costs of many basic care patients. As a result some networks’ budget shortfalls could be explained in part by a higher than expected number of high-cost complex care patients. To address this risk, some other payers have established funding mechanisms to address the costs of these very expensive patients. For example, some state Medicaid programs have used a mechanism called stop-loss or reinsurance to reimburse managed care plans for certain benefits that exceed a specified expense limit. If VA were to use a similar funding mechanism as part of the National Reserve Fund, this could help protect networks from budget shortfalls by providing additional resources above the capitation amount for complex care patients that reach a predetermined level of cost. VA is studying ways to address the risk that a network may have unusually high- cost patients in a given year that are not predicted in a resource allocation model. VERA’s overall design is a reasonable approach to resource allocation and has helped promote more comparable resource allocations for comparable workloads in VA. This approach is reasonable because VERA allocates resources primarily on the basis of workload and attempts to adjust network resources for factors beyond the control of network management, encourage efficiency, and provide protection to patients against network budget shortfalls. The implementation of this approach resulted in VA’s shifting resources to more closely mirror shifts in the veteran population from the northeast and midwest to the south and west. Although VERA’s design is a reasonable approach to resource allocation, VA could correct weaknesses in VERA’s implementation to improve the comparability of resource allocations with networks’ workloads. One of VERA’s implementation weaknesses is that it does not include most Priority 7 veterans in its workload even though the Priority 7 workload now represents about one-fifth of patients served. If the number of Priority 7 veterans VA treats continues to increase, this may create even more serious inequities in the future. VERA’s adjustment for differences in patient health needs across networks emphasizes simplicity at the cost of increased accuracy. Maintaining only three case-mix categories in VERA does not adequately account for important variations in health care needs among networks. Increasing the VERA case-mix categories from three to a higher number would better account for the variation in health care needs across networks and would have the largest effect on resource allocation. In addition, changes are needed to update VERA’s case-mix weights to better reflect how VA health care is now delivered. Updating case-mix weights may begin with using current expenditure data, but additional consideration should be given to using the best available data on appropriate clinical care and efficiency. In addition to these weaknesses, VA has not used the supplemental funding process for improving VERA allocations and management of VA’s resources. Although the amount of resources provided to networks through the supplemental funding process has continued to increase, VA has not been able to determine the relative contribution of factors, such as imperfections in VERA, network inefficiency, inability to predict complex care costs, or lack of managerial flexibility to close or consolidate programs or facilities, to the need for supplemental resources. An important factor that other health care payers have identified and account for that may contribute to VA network budget shortfalls is the inability to accurately predict the cost of complex care patients. Other payers have addressed this risk by using a funding mechanism to partially offset the unanticipated costs of such patients. Because VA has not identified the relative contribution of this factor and other factors that could cause network budget shortfalls, VA is unable to provide assurance that the supplemental funding is appropriate or take needed action to correct problems that cause networks to have budget shortfalls. Making changes to address weaknesses in VERA will add some complexity to how VA allocates resources. Doing so, however, will better align the allocation of approximately $200 million with workload. To continue to improve the allocation of comparable resources for comparable workloads through VERA, we recommend that the secretary of veterans affairs direct the under secretary for health to: better align VERA measures of workload with actual workload served regardless of veteran priority group, incorporate more categories into VERA’s case-mix adjustment, update VERA’s case-mix weights using the best available data on clinical determine in the supplemental funding process the extent to which different factors cause networks to need supplemental resources and take action to address limitations in VERA or other factors that may cause budget shortfalls, and establish a mechanism in the National Reserve Fund to partially offset the cost of networks’ highest cost complex care patients. In comments on a draft of this report, VA agreed with our conclusions that VERA’s design is a reasonable approach to allocate resources commensurate with workloads and that VERA, in concert with other VA initiatives, has provided an incentive for VA to serve more veterans. VA also acknowledged the opportunities for improvements in VERA’s implementation that we identified and concurred with our recommendations. VA’s comments are in appendix II. VA concurred with our workload and case mix recommendations, recognizing the substantial trend in Priority 7 workload expansion and the case-mix limitations of having only three pricing groups within VERA. VA anticipates that the distribution of an expected fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation will consider the Priority 7 workload, but as of February 22, 2002, Congress has not provided VA with the supplemental appropriation it anticipates. Further, VA is evaluating the appropriateness of expanding the number of VERA price groups to include corresponding updates of case-mix weights, but will not make a decision about these potential fiscal year 2003 VERA modifications until September 2002. In its comments, VA also indicated that it plans to wait for further study of VERA’s workload and case-mix measures to determine whether all Priority 7 workload and case-mix refinements should be incorporated in the fiscal year 2003 VERA model. Given the extensive study of most of these issues already conducted by VA and others, we encourage VA to implement our recommended VERA workload and case-mix improvements in its fiscal year 2003 allocations to networks and to further refine these improvements in the future as needed. Delaying these needed improvements to VERA means that approximately $200 million will be allocated annually in a manner that does not align workload and resources as equitably as possible among networks. VA also concurred with our recommendation to determine in the supplemental funding process the extent to which different factors cause networks to need supplemental resources, but the actions VA discussed to improve the supplemental funding process do not address our recommendation. VA used a new supplemental adjustment process in fiscal year 2002 to better identify different factors that cause networks to require supplemental resources. However, this process does not identify the root causes of a network’s need for additional resources as we recommended. Specifically, VA’s new supplemental process does not provide VA information on the relative contributions of specific factors to network shortfalls such as network inefficiency, imperfections in VERA, and the inability to predict complex care costs. Until VA implements our recommendation, it cannot provide assurance that supplemental resources are appropriate or take needed actions to reduce the likelihood of network shortfalls in the future. In addition, VA’s discussion of actions for establishing a mechanism in the National Reserve Fund to partially offset the cost of networks’ highest cost complex care patients do not fully address our recommendation. VA stated that the resources it distributed to five networks through the fiscal year 2002 supplemental adjustment process are expected to meet these networks’ supplemental funding needs, including the cost of their highest cost patients. To address our recommendation, however, VA would have to identify individual complex care patients with unexpectedly high costs over the course of the fiscal year and provide stop-loss coverage for such patients to each network. VA’s current process does not do this. However, as we have noted, ongoing VA studies could develop ways to provide stop loss coverage to networks for unpredictable high-cost complex care patients. Until VA establishes such a funding mechanism, some networks may experience budget shortfalls as a result of these unpredictable complex care costs. We are sending copies of this report to the secretary of veterans affairs, interested congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will make copies of the report available to others upon request. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512-7101. Another contact and key contributors are listed in appendix III. We reviewed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) resource allocation for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 to (1) describe the effect the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system has had on network resource allocations and workloads, (2) assess whether VERA’s design is a reasonable approach to resource allocation, and (3) identify weaknesses in VERA that may limit VA’s ability to allocate comparable resources for comparable workloads. We worked with VA officials from the Resource Allocation and Analysis Office to obtain documents and data on how VERA works and how VERA has changed since fiscal year 1997. We also relied on other VA officials for our assessment of VERA including officials from the Office of the Under Secretary for Health, the Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Quality and Performance, the Office of Policy and Planning, the Spinal Cord Injury Strategic Healthcare Group, the Geriatrics and Extended Care Strategic Healthcare Group, the Mental Health Strategic Healthcare Group, Health Services Research and Development Service, and the Northeast Program Evaluation Center. In addition, we interviewed officials from veteran service organizations and payment system experts outside of government. We obtained information on VERA’s effect and how it could be improved through interviews and documents from VA’s networks. We visited five network offices: Albany (2); Bay Pines (8); Bronx (3); Lincoln (14); and Minneapolis (13) and conducted telephone interviews with officials in three additional networks: Denver (19), Kansas City (15), and Phoenix (18). We chose these networks because they were geographically diverse and had different financial experiences under VERA. We also obtained information from network officials about potential improvements to VERA including adding basic vested care Priority 7 users, basing VERA case-mix weights on more current expenditures, using more categories to adjust for case-mix differences, and other factors. We had follow-up telephone interviews with network officials in Bronx (3), Minneapolis (13), and Lincoln (14) regarding fiscal year 2001 supplemental resources from the National Reserve Fund. We conducted an electronic mail survey to obtain the input of all 22 network directors about VERA. We also obtained information on network directors’ anticipation of future supplemental funding requests. To assess the reasonableness of VERA as an approach to resource allocation, we performed a literature review using works published primarily within the last 5 years. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, ABI/Inform Global, and Econlit, and relied on publications from other federal agencies. We focused our search on finding information on similar health care payment systems, case-mix adjustment for acute and extended care populations, and managing risk for mental health and special care populations. To assess the effect VERA has had on network resource allocations and workload, we identified how resources have shifted among regions and increased veterans’ access to care as measured by the number of veterans treated. We calculated the resources VERA shifted by projecting what allocations would have been in fiscal year 2001 if networks received the same proportion of funding in that year that they received in fiscal year 1996, the year preceding VERA’s implementation. We calculated the resource shifts by subtracting networks’ actual 2001 VERA allocations from their projected allocations. To calculate the total amount of resources VERA shifted, we summed the absolute value of networks’ net gains or losses and divided by two. We divided the total by two to avoid double counting because a dollar transferred to one network is the same dollar transferred from another. To determine weaknesses in VERA, we first examined our more than 10 years of work reviewing VA’s resource allocation processes. In addition, we relied on external evaluations of VERA completed by Price Waterhouse, LLP and The Lewin Group, Inc., AMA Systems, Inc., and the RAND Corporation. We constructed simulation models to estimate the effect in fiscal year 2001 of 1) funding basic vested care Priority 7 patient users, 2) basing the case-mix weights on current expenditures, 3) using all 44 VERA patient classes to allocate network resources, and 4) the result of combining all three of these simulations. VA provided workload and expenditure data from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 and the actual VERA allocations received by networks during fiscal years 1997 through 2001. These data were obtained from VA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Allocation Resource Center, and Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health. To estimate the effect on VERA allocations of funding basic vested care Priority 7 patients, we used the total unduplicated number of basic vested care Priority 7 veterans served for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. In addition, we assumed that these patients would be funded at 50 percent of the national average cost or $849 in fiscal year 1999. In our simulation, we chose to fund them at 50 percent of the national average cost based on documentation from a prior recommendation by the Veterans Health Administration Policy Board. Funding these patients at less than full cost lessens the incentive for networks to serve more Priority 7 veterans. To estimate the effect on network allocations of basing case-mix weights on current expenditures, we compared VERA’s fiscal year 2001 allocations made on the basis of fiscal year 1995 expenditure data to what fiscal year 2001 allocations would have been if they were based on fiscal year 1999 expenditure data. The fiscal year 1999 expenditure data were the most recent available for case-mix weight calculations for the fiscal year 2001 VERA allocation. Using fiscal year 1999 data, we computed new capitation amounts for basic non-vested care, basic vested care, and complex care. To estimate the effect on network allocations of using all 44 VERA patient classes, we used fiscal year 1999 expenditures based on VERA workload. To calculate new capitation amounts, we first calculated the percent of expenditures spent on each of the 44 classes. Second, we calculated the amount of resources available for each class by multiplying the new percentages for each class by the total fiscal year 2001 resources that VERA allocated. Third, we calculated the new capitation amounts by dividing the amount of resources available by the corresponding VERA workload. To estimate the combined effect on network allocations of making each of these changes, we calculated capitation amounts for each of the 44 classes and funded basic vested care Priority 7 users at 50 percent of the national average cost based on fiscal year 1999 expenditures related to VERA workload. In our simulation we created a separate category for basic vested care Priority 7 patients because we did not have data on Priority 7 veterans for each basic care patient class. We tested VA computer-based data used in our analysis and concluded that it was adequate for our purposes. To do this, we assessed the reliability of workload (VERA and non-VERA) and expenditure data we obtained from VA that were used in our analyses. When we identified inconsistencies between databases, we tried to resolve them by interviewing officials responsible for creating or maintaining the databases, updating the databases with additional information VA provided, and requesting special data runs with parameters that we specified. In addition, we confirmed that VA’s Allocation Resource Center verifies all workload and expenditure data used in the VERA allocation process. We did not, however, verify whether these processes were adequate. We relied on previous work to determine what limitations, if any, VA’s data may have had on the analyses we completed. We performed our review from October 2000 through December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to the contact named above Marcia A. Mann, Jacquelyn T. Clinton, Thomas A. Walke, Diana Shevlin, Maria Vargas, Leslie D. Blevins, Deborah L. Edwards, and Susan Lawes made key contributions to this report. Medicare Managed Care: Better Risk Adjustment Expected to Reduce Excess Payments Overall While Making Them Fairer to Individual Plans. GAO/T-HEHS-99-72. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 1999. Medicare Managed Care: Payment Rates, Local Fee-for-Service Spending, and Other Factors Affect Plans’ Benefit Packages. GAO/HEHS-99-9R. Washington, D.C.: October 9, 1998. VA Health Care: More Veterans Are Being Served, but Better Oversight Is Needed. GAO/HEHS-98-226. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 1998. VA Health Care: Resource Allocation Has Improved, but Better Oversight Is Needed. GAO/HEHS-97-178. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 1997. Veteran’s Health Care: Facilities’ Resource Allocations Could Be More Equitable. GAO/HEHS-96-48. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 1996. VA Health Care: Resource Allocation Methodology Has Had Little Impact on Medical Centers’ Budgets. GAO/HRD-89-93. Washington, D.C.: August 18, 1989. VA Health Care: Resource Allocation Methodology Should Improve VA’s Financial Management. GAO/HRD-87-123BR. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 1987. | The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $21 billion in fiscal year 2001 to treat 3.8 million veterans--most of whom had service-connected disabilities or low incomes. Since 1997, VA has used the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system to allocate most of its medical care appropriation. GAO found that VERA has had a substantial impact on network resource allocations and workloads. First, VERA shifted $921 million from networks located primarily in the northeast and midwest to networks located in the south and west in fiscal year 2001. In addition, VERA, along with other VA initiatives, has provided an incentive for networks to serve more veterans. VERA's overall design is a reasonable approach to allocate resources commensurate with workloads. It provides a predetermined dollar amount per veteran served to each of VA's 22 health care networks. This amount varies depending upon the health care needs of the veteran served and local cost differences. This approach is designed to allocate resources commensurate with each network's workload in terms of veterans served and their health care needs. GAO identified weaknesses in VERA's implementation. First, VERA excludes about one fifth of VA's workload in determining each network's allocation. Second, VERA does not account well for cost differences among networks resulting from variation in their patients' health care needs. Third, the process for providing supplemental resources to networks through VA's National Reserve Fund has not been used to analyze how the need for such resources is caused by potential problems in VERA's allocation, network inefficiency, or other factors. |
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defined an HBCU as a school that, among other things, was established before 1964 and is accredited or pre-accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association. The official list of schools that qualify as HBCUs is published in 34 C.F.R. 608.2(b). A map depicting the locations of the 103 HBCUs and a list of schools by state is in appendix II. HBCUs may have historic properties and may have them listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the National Register of Historic Places, the official list of the nation’s districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register, administered by NPS, is part of a program to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation’s cultural resources. Properties may be nominated for inclusion on the National Register by states and federal agencies. State nominations, which may be prepared by local citizens, are submitted to a state review board, which makes an approval/disapproval recommendation to the state historic preservation officer (SHPO). If the SHPO approves the nomination, it is forwarded to NPS to be considered for listing. If the nomination is approved by NPS, the property is officially entered on the National Register. In addition to their role in the nomination process, the SHPOs are responsible for surveying and evaluating properties within their states that they believe are eligible for the National Register. The National Register’s criteria for evaluating properties include a determination that the property is significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In addition, at least one of the following must be present for the property to be considered historic: (1) have an association with historic events or activities; (2) have an association with the lives of people significant in the nation’s past; (3) have distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; be the work of a master; have high artistic values; or be a significant, distinguishable entity; or (4) have yielded, or may likely yield, information important about prehistory or history. In addition, the property generally has to be 50 years of age or more. The National Historic Preservation Act also established a program to provide matching grants to the states and other entities for the preservation and protection of properties on the National Register. Since the act went into effect in 1966, NPS has provided $4.3 million in grants appropriated by the Congress to HBCUs for restoring historic properties. In addition, the Congress authorized $29 million under the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to fund the restoration of historic properties at selected HBCUs. As of December 1, 1997, $4 million has been appropriated for this purpose. Historic properties that are either on the National Register or have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register as a result of SHPO surveys are eligible for federal grant assistance under the National Historic Preservation Act or the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. Most of the 712 historic properties are at a small number of HBCUs and are mostly buildings rather than structures, sites, or objects. About half of the historic properties identified are already on the National Register of Historic Places. The other half are either eligible for the National Register on the basis of SHPO surveys or considered historic by the HBCUs. About 66 percent of the 712 properties identified in our survey were located at 28 schools, each having 10 or more properties. Seventeen schools had no historic properties. These were mostly schools that were created or relocated to other campuses less than 50 years ago and thus were schools that did not have properties eligible to be considered as historic. Table 1 groups the schools according to how many historic properties they reported and shows the number and percentage of the total properties each group had. Historic properties are classified as buildings, structures, sites, or objects. A building may be, for example, a dormitory, gymnasium, house, chapel, or other construction created principally to shelter any form of human activity. A structure is distinguished from a building in that it is used for purposes other than human shelter, for example, a tower, smokestack, or gazebo. A site refers to a location of a significant event or historic occupation or activity where the location itself possesses the historic, cultural, or archeological value. Examples of sites include courtyards, gardens, and cemeteries. Objects are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed, such as a sculpture, bell, monument, or statue. The photos in figure 1 show examples of these types of properties. On the basis of our survey, 94.4 percent of the historic properties at the HBCUs were buildings. The remaining 5.6 percent were structures, sites, or objects. Figure 2 shows the type of properties and percentage of each type. Of the 712 properties respondents identified, 323, or 45.4 percent, were listed on the National Register. These properties have been evaluated and approved for listing by NPS in accordance with the established National Register criteria. Of the remaining properties, 206, or 28.9 percent, were identified through surveys and evaluations completed by the SHPOs but had not yet been nominated to the National Register. The remaining 183 properties, or 25.7 percent, were identified by the schools as historic but were not on the National Register and had not been surveyed or assessed by the SHPOs. In the schools’ opinion, these properties would be eligible for the National Register if they were surveyed and assessed by a SHPO and nominated to the National Register. Figure 3 shows the percentage and number of properties listed on the National Register, surveyed and assessed by the SHPOs, or identified by the schools as historic but not included in either of the other two categories. Identified by schools, not on the National Register and not surveyed by SHPOs (183) The schools estimated that the restoration of the 712 historic properties would cost about $755 million. Most of the estimated restoration cost comes from fewer than half of the schools, and about half of the cost is for properties listed on the National Register. Schools have funds set aside to cover less than a tenth of the estimated restoration costs. In their estimates of the cost to restore the 712 historic properties—which totaled $755 million—the schools provided a wide range of figures for individual properties. The wide range can be attributed to (1) whether a property was recently restored and the condition of those not restored and (2) the size of the area needing restoration. Over 90 percent of the total cost ($681.2 million) was associated with 44 of the schools. The cost to restore all the properties at each of these schools ranged from $5 million to over $20 million. Table 2 shows the number and percentage of schools that fall within various cost ranges and the total costs and percentage of total costs within those ranges. As shown in table 2, 18 of the 103 schools did not have any restoration costs associated with the historic properties. Of these, 17 had no properties, and therefore, no cost. One school had two properties and, as both of them had been recently renovated, no additional funds for restoration were needed, according to the school. Some of the 85 schools with properties having restoration costs also had one or more properties that the schools estimated had no restoration costs. The reasons given by these schools for not identifying any costs included that (1) the property had been recently restored and no additional funds were needed and (2) the property did not need any restoration. For the most part, properties that did not need any restoration were buildings. Of the estimated $755 million needed to restore the 712 properties, $356.7 million was for properties listed on the National Register; $239.1 million was for properties eligible for the National Register on the basis of SHPO surveys and assessments; and $159.2 million was for properties identified by the schools as historic but not included in either of the previous two categories. It should be noted that properties that are not listed on the National Register and that have not been surveyed by the SHPO and assessed to be eligible for listing on the National Register currently are not eligible for federal grant assistance under existing legislation. Therefore, $595.8 million of the $755 million is currently eligible for federal grant assistance. Figure 4 shows the restoration costs of properties by category. Identified by schools, not on the National Register and not surveyed by SHPOs ($159.2) Of the estimated $755 million needed to restore the properties, 36 schools reported that $60.4 million, about 8 percent, had already been set aside to pay the restoration costs for specific properties. As shown in figure 5, of the total set aside, $22.3 million, or 36.9 percent, was from federal sources; $23.8 million, or 39.3 percent, was from state funding sources; and $11.1 million, or 18.4 percent, was from private funding sources. The remaining $3.2 million, or 5.3 percent, was from sources such as a university fund. The $60.4 million set aside was for the restoration of 58 properties at 36 schools. For 32 of these properties, the amount of the set-aside was the full amount needed to cover the total estimated restoration costs. For the remaining 26 properties, the set-aside covered a portion of the total restoration costs. The schools used different, but common, methods to calculate restoration costs. These methods were an original feasibility report, an updated feasibility report, a contractor’s quotation or proposal, a cost-estimating guidebook, a cost-per-square-foot calculation, and a Consumer Price Index inflator. If the schools used other methods, we asked them to explain what they were. An original or updated feasibility report is typically prepared by an architectural or engineering firm and generally describes what is feasible to restore and how much the work would cost. A contractor’s quotation or proposal is an estimate prepared by a contractor to restore a property for the stated price or bid. A cost-estimating guidebook is a reference guide prepared by the architectural engineering industry that gives probable restoration costs by the type of work to be done, such as roof repair, and the materials used. The cost-per-square-foot method uses the industry’s average restoration cost for a locality multiplied by the number of square feet that need to be restored. A Consumer Price Index inflator is a percentage increase each year based on the inflation rate; this method is used to adjust estimates that have already been prepared. Generally, the most comprehensive methods of estimating restoration costs would be an original or updated feasibility report, followed by a contractor’s quotation or proposal. The cost-estimating guidebook, cost-per-square-foot, and Consumer Price Index inflator methods are generally less accurate because they represent guidance, or averages, rather than estimates on specific properties. Even though an original or updated feasibility report is most likely to be more accurate, some of the schools we visited stated that the cost of paying architect or engineering firms or contractors to provide such estimates was prohibitive and that the estimates could not be completed in the time necessary to respond to our survey. As a result, some schools used other methods, such as the cost-per-square-foot method, to avoid incurring excessive costs and still meet our survey deadline. It should be pointed out that estimating the amount of restoration and preservation needed can be a very complex undertaking. As a result, estimates, even those done by professionals under the best of circumstances, cannot be exact. Many restoration problems, particularly those involving major repairs or renovations, are not visible to the naked eye and may not be uncovered until the restoration actually takes place. In addition, cost estimates to restore and preserve properties are just that, estimates, and are subject to revisions until the work is completed. We asked the schools to identify whether one or a combination of methods was used in calculating their estimates. Of the 673 properties that had restoration costs (39 properties had none), 474 had estimates made using a single method, such as the cost-per-square-foot method. For 199 properties, a combination of methods was used. As shown in figure 6, the cost-per-square-foot method was the predominant single method used. (24) (43) (55) (23) (304) (0) (25) Methods and number of times used When more than one method was used, many different combinations occurred. These included, for example, using (1) an original feasibility study estimate with a Consumer Price Index inflator; (2) a cost-estimating guidebook with a Consumer Price Index inflator; and (3) a contractor’s quotation with a cost-estimating guidebook and cost-per-square-foot calculations. We asked the schools to identify whether the preparers of their cost estimates were (1) outside architect/engineering firms, (2) in-house architects/engineers, (3) contractors, (4) school building/maintenance supervisors, or (5) other types of individuals or firms. Typically outside architect/engineering firms prepare original and updated feasibility reports, contractors prepare quotations or proposals, and in-house architects/engineers or building/maintenance supervisors prepare estimates using the guidebooks and cost-per-square-foot method. All of these types of preparers can and will use the Consumer Price Index inflator to adjust previous cost estimates. As shown in figure 7, the estimates of the restoration costs were primarily prepared by in-house architects/engineers, followed by outside architect/engineering firms and in-house building/maintenance supervisors. The information in this report represents the most comprehensive data collected to date on the number of historic properties at HBCUs and the estimated costs to restore those properties. However, the cost estimates presented in this report are based on self-reported data and are subject to limitations. Furthermore, as previously pointed out, estimating the amount of restoration and preservation needed can be a very complex undertaking. As a result, estimates, even those done by professionals under the best of circumstances, cannot be exact. However, these data are a useful starting point for determining the total restoration requirements at HBCUs. We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for its review and comment. The Department commented that highly significant properties on the campuses of historically black colleges and universities are important national historic treasures worthy of care and attention. The Department, however, noted that the magnitude of the repair cost estimates reported by the schools is substantial in terms of the limited level of appropriations available from the Historic Preservation Fund for matching grants to state historic preservation officers and Indian tribes, and the grants available to historically black colleges and universities pursuant to section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. The Department also pointed out that funding for increased appropriations for grants to historically black colleges and universities would be subject to authorization and the budgetary controls imposed under the Omnibus Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, as amended. We agree with the Department that there are budgetary limitations that must be addressed when considering the restoration of historic properties at the schools. The Department concurred with our discussion of the methodologies used by the schools in estimating the cost to restore historic properties. It noted that the restoration cost estimates may include some work that would not conform to the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties—such as sandblasting brick, which would cause the degeneration of the historic materials and appearance. Thus, not all work included in the estimates may be eligible for federal assistance. The Department agreed that the cost of preservation work on historic properties can escalate beyond initial estimates because the need for some major repairs may not be uncovered until the restoration actually begins. Interior’s comments and our responses are in appendix IV. Our study included all HBCUs defined under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and listed in 34 C.F.R. 608.2(b). As of June 1, 1997, there were 103 such schools. To gather background data and to develop and pretest a standardized data collection instrument (survey) for our study, we visited 12 HBCUs in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. To determine the number of historic properties on the campuses of the 103 HBCUs, we used three sources. First, we obtained a list of historic properties on the National Register of Historic Places from NPS, including properties (buildings, structures, sites, and objects) within historic districts on the National Register and properties that contribute to the historic significance of the districts. Second, in conjunction with NPS, we contacted each of the 22 SHPOs in whose jurisdictions the 103 HBCUs were located. NPS sent a letter to each of the 22 SHPOs explaining the nature of our study and provided them with lists of the HBCUs in their states as well as the historic properties in the National Register database. NPS also provided us with each SHPO contact. We asked each of the SHPOs to verify the National Register list as of June 1, 1997, or to submit corrected information. NPS used the SHPOs’ information to update the National Register as warranted. We also asked each SHPO to provide a list of properties at each HBCU that would be eligible for the National Register as a result of the surveys and evaluations that the SHPO conducted at the HBCUs prior to June 1, 1997, but that had not been nominated. Third, we sent each of the 103 HBCUs a survey that included (1) a list of its properties that the SHPO had verified were on the National Register and (2) a list of its properties that the SHPO had told us were eligible for the National Register on the basis of its surveys and evaluations. We asked each HBCU to verify the existence of these properties, to delete properties that no longer existed or that the school never or no longer owned, and to add properties that the school believed met the criteria to be eligible for the National Register. Because the data from the SHPOs were as of June 1, 1997, we asked the schools to provide their data as of June 1, 1997. A copy of the survey sent to each of the 103 HBCUs is in appendix III. To determine the estimated restoration costs for the historic properties, we asked each HBCU to provide a cost estimate to restore each property identified. We requested that the estimate include only capital improvement costs and not normal day-to-day operating and maintenance costs. We also requested that the capital improvement costs include only costs after June 1, 1997. In other words, if an HBCU was restoring a property, expenditures prior to June 1, 1997, were not to be included in the estimate. Each HBCU decided on the extent of restoration needed in making its estimates. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the cost estimates the HBCUs submitted. We did, however, ask the schools to provide information on the methods they used to estimate the costs, such as whether the estimates were based on feasibility studies, contractors’ bids, or cost-per-square-foot calculations. We also asked the schools to provide the names and credentials of the preparers of the cost estimates, such as whether the preparers were professional architect/engineering firms, contractors, or school building/maintenance supervisors. We conducted our study from April 1997 through January 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Some of the historic property data and all of the estimated cost data for the restoration and preservation of the historic properties presented in this report are based on self-reported data from the HBCUs. The accuracy of the results contained in this report is affected by the extent to which the respondents accurately reported the number of historic properties at their schools and the estimated costs to restore and preserve these properties. Also, according to NPS officials, the estimates may include costs for work that does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, particularly if the individuals preparing the estimates are not familiar with those 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 the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of the Interior; the Secretary of Education; the Director, National Park Service; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. (continued) (continued) (continued) A cost of $0 means that the property was restored prior to June 1, 1997. A “ ” in the cost column means that, because there were zero properties owned, there was no associated cost of restoration. Section 1. According to the National Register of Historic Places, the properties listed in the table below are on your campus and are listed on the National Register as of June 1, 1997. (b) (c) (d) Is the property owned and/or still existing? How was the estimate calculated? Principal preparer of latest cost estimate. Estimated total cost to preserve & restore. Please provide only the estimated cost to be spent after 6/1/97. Please provide only capital expenditure costs and not operating and maintenance costs. 1=Yes, both owned and still exists (Enter 1 below, then complete b, c, and d of this section) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2=Yes, both owned and exists, but will be destroyed 3= Never or no longer owned, but still exists 4= No longer exists (Please describe what happened to the property) Of the total cost estimated below, specify the source and amount of funds, if any, that have been set aside from each source. 1=Original feasibility report 2=Updated feasibility report 3=Actual contractor quotations or contractor proposals 4=Cost estimating guidebook 5=Cost per square foot 6=Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflator 7=Other (specify below) a. Name b. Title c. Telephone number d. Credentials of preparer (Enter code listed below) 1=Outside architect/engineering firm 2=In-house or school architect/engineer 3=Contractor - other than architect/ engineering firm 4=School building/maintenance supervisor 5=Other (Specify) (If 2, 3 or 4, then enter code below and STOP Do not complete columns b, c and d for these properties) Total cost to preserve & restore (in thousands) : $_______,_______,000 (Check all that apply) ____ (Enter code) Funds set aside to preserve & restore from: (If none, enter 0.) d. _____ (Enter code from above) Section 2. The properties listed in the table below are not listed on the National Register as of June 1, 1997, but are structures that a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has assessed and identified as being eligible for listing but has not yet been listed on the Register. (b) (c) (d) Is the property owned and/or still existing? How was the estimate calculated? Principal preparer of latest cost estimate. Estimated total cost to preserve & restore. Please provide only the estimated cost to be spent after 6/1/97. Please provide only capital expenditure costs and not operating and maintenance costs. 1=Yes, both owned and still exists (Enter 1 below, then complete b, c, and d of this section) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2=Yes, both owned and exists, but will be destroyed 3= Never or no longer owned, but still exists 4= No longer exists (Please describe what happened to the property) Of the total cost estimated below, specify the source and amount of funds, if any, that have been set aside from each source. 1=Original feasibility report 2=Updated feasibility report 3=Actual contractor quotations or contractor proposals 4=Cost estimating guidebook 5=Cost per square foot 6=Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflator 7=Other (specify below) a. Name b. Title c. Telephone number d. Credentials of preparer (Enter code listed below) (If 2, 3 or 4, then enter code below and STOP Do not complete columns b, c and d for these properties) 1=Outside architect/engineering firm 2=In-house or school architect/engineer 3=Contractor - other than architect/ engineering firm 4=School building/maintenance supervisor 5=Other (Specify) Total cost to preserve & restore (in thousands) : $_______,_______,000 (Check all that apply) ____ (Enter code) Funds set aside to preserve & restore from: (If none, enter 0.) 3. ___ 6. ___ d. _____ (Enter code from above) Section 3. Please list any other properties that have not been identified in either Section 1 or 2. (b) (c) (d) Is the property owned and/or still existing? How was the estimate calculated? Principal preparer of latest cost estimate. Estimated total cost to preserve & restore. Please provide only the estimated cost to be spent after 6/1/97. Please provide only capital expenditure costs and not operating and maintenance costs. 1=Yes, both owned and still exists (Enter 1 below, then complete b, c, and d of this section) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2=Yes, both owned and exists, but will be destroyed 3= Never or no longer owned, but still exists 4= No longer exists (Please describe what happened to the property) Of the total cost estimated below, specify the source and amount of funds, if any, that have been set aside from each source. 1=Original feasibility report 2=Updated feasibility report 3=Actual contractor quotations or contractor proposals 4=Cost estimating guidebook 5=Cost per square foot 6=Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflator 7=Other (specify below) a. Name b. Title c. Telephone number d. Credentials of preparer (Enter code listed below) (If 2, 3 or 4, then enter code below and STOP Do not complete columns b, c and d for these properties) 1=Outside architect/engineering firm 2=In-house or school architect/engineer 3=Contractor - other than architect/ engineering firm 4=School building/maintenance supervisor 5=Other (Specify) Total cost to preserve & restore (in thousands) : $_______,_______,000 (Check all that apply) ____ (Enter code) Funds set aside to preserve & restore from: (If none, enter 0.) 3. ___ 6. ___ d. _____ (Enter code from above) The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s letter dated January 12, 1998. 1. We have referred to the National Register in the “Results in Brief” as “the” official list of properties as suggested. 2. We have revised footnote 1 changing “specific” to “individual” properties, correcting the spelling of “identify,” and changing the phrase “within the district” to “of the district.” 3. We added a sentence to footnote 2 that, according to the Department of the Interior, there currently are National Park Service-approved state historic preservation programs in all states. 4. We revised the text to add “location” and “feeling and association” to the criteria for evaluating properties as suggested. 5. We reworded the definition of a building as suggested. 6. We added text to the report to note that properties that are not listed on the National Register and have not been surveyed by state historic preservation officers and assessed to be eligible for listing on the National Register currently are not eligible for federal grant assistance under existing legislation. As a result, $595.8 million of the $755 million total estimated restoration cost is currently eligible for federal grant assistance. 7. We have made reference to the Department’s concurrence with our discussion of the historically black colleges and universities’ cost-estimating methodologies in the “Agency Comments” section in the body of the report. Doreen Feldman The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the: (1) number of historic properties located at historically black colleges and universities (HBCU); and (2) estimated cost to restore and preserve these properties. GAO noted that: (1) all 103 historically black colleges and universities responded to GAO's survey; (2) respondents identified 712 historic properties that were owned by the schools; (3) most of these properties were at a small number of schools and were mostly buildings rather than structures, sites, or objects; (4) about half, 323, of the historic properties identified were already on the National Register of Historic Places--the official list of sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture; (5) the others were either eligible for the National Register on the basis of state historic preservation officers' surveys or considered historic by the colleges and universities; (6) according to information the schools provided, an estimated $755 million is needed to restore and preserve the 712 properties; (7) the cost estimates include the capital improvement costs to restore and preserve the historic properties, such as making the properties more accessible to people with disabilities, replacing roofs, and removing lead-based paint or asbestos; (8) the respondents were asked not to include routine maintenance costs; (9) some of the schools identified a total of about $60 million in funds that had already been set aside to restore and preserve specific historic properties; and (10) the schools used a number of different methods to calculate the estimated restoration and preservation costs. |
Dramatic increases in computer interconnectivity, especially in the use of the Internet, continue to revolutionize the way our government, our nation, and much of the world communicate and conduct business. However, this widespread interconnectivity also poses significant risks to our computer systems and, more important, to the critical operations and infrastructures they support, such as telecommunications, power distribution, public health, national defense (including the military’s warfighting capability), law enforcement, government, and emergency services. Likewise, the speed and accessibility that create the enormous benefits of the computer age, if not properly controlled, allow individuals and organizations to inexpensively eavesdrop on or interfere with these operations from remote locations for mischievous or malicious purposes, including fraud or sabotage. As greater amounts of money are transferred through computer systems, as more sensitive economic and commercial information is exchanged electronically, and as the nation’s defense and intelligence communities increasingly rely on commercially available information technology, the likelihood increases that information attacks will threaten vital national interests. Further, the events of September 11, 2001, underscored the need to protect America’s cyberspace against potentially disastrous cyber attacks—attacks that could also be coordinated to coincide with physical terrorist attacks to maximize the impact of both. Since September 1996, we have reported that poor information security is a widespread federal problem with potentially devastating consequences.Although agencies have taken steps to redesign and strengthen their information system security programs, our analyses of information security at major federal agencies have shown that federal systems were not being adequately protected from computer-based threats, even though these systems process, store, and transmit enormous amounts of sensitive data and are indispensable to many federal agency operations. In addition, in both 1998 and 2000, we analyzed audit results for 24 of the largest federal agencies and found that all 24 had significant information security weaknesses. As a result of these analyses, we have identified information security as a governmentwide high-risk issue in reports to the Congress since 1997—most recently in January 2001. To fully understand the significance of the weaknesses we identified, it is necessary to link them to the risks they present to federal operations and assets. Virtually all federal operations are supported by automated systems and electronic data, and agencies would find it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out their missions and account for their resources without these information assets. Hence, the degree of risk caused by security weaknesses is extremely high. The weaknesses identified place a broad array of federal operations and assets at risk. For example, resources, such as federal payments and collections, could be lost or computer resources could be used for unauthorized purposes or to launch sensitive information, such as taxpayer data, social security records, medical records, and proprietary business information, could be inappropriately disclosed or browsed or copied for purposes of espionage or other types of crime; critical operations, such as those supporting national defense and emergency services, could be disrupted; data could be modified or destroyed for purposes of fraud or disruption; agency missions could be undermined by embarrassing incidents that result in diminished confidence in their ability to conduct operations and fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities. Concerned with accounts of attacks on commercial systems via the Internet and reports of significant weaknesses in federal computer systems that make them vulnerable to attack, on October 30, 2000, Congress enacted Government Information Security Reform provisions as part of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. These provisions became effective November 29, 2000, and are in effect for 2 years after this date. The reform provisions supplement information security requirements established in the Computer Security Act of 1987, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and are consistent with existing information security guidance issued by OMB and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as well as audit and best practice guidance issued by GAO. Most importantly, however, the provisions consolidate these separate requirements and guidance into an overall framework for managing information security and establish new annual review, independent evaluation, and reporting requirements to help ensure agency implementation and both OMB and congressional oversight. The legislation assigned specific responsibilities to OMB, agency heads and CIOs, and the IGs. OMB is responsible for establishing and overseeing policies, standards and guidelines for information security. This includes the authority to approve agency information security programs, but delegates OMB’s responsibilities with regard to national security systems to national security agencies. OMB is also required to submit an annual report to the Congress summarizing results of agencies’ evaluations of their information security programs. The reform provisions do not specify a date for this report. Each agency, including national security agencies, is to establish an agencywide risk-based information security program to be overseen by the agency CIO and ensure that information security is practiced throughout the life cycle of each agency system. Specifically, this program is to include periodic risk assessments that consider internal and external threats to the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of systems, and to data supporting critical operations and assets; the development and implementation of risk-based, cost-effective policies and procedures to provide security protections for information collected or maintained by or for the agency; training on security responsibilities for information security personnel and on security awareness for agency personnel; periodic management testing and evaluation of the effectiveness of policies, procedures, controls, and techniques; a process for identifying and remediating any significant deficiencies; procedures for detecting, reporting and responding to security incidents; an annual program review by agency program officials. In addition to the responsibilities listed above, the reform provisions require each agency to have an annual independent evaluation of its information security program and practices, including control testing and compliance assessment. The evaluations of non-national-security systems are to be performed by the agency IG or an independent evaluator, and the results of these evaluations are to be reported to OMB. For the evaluation of national security systems, special provisions include designation of evaluators by national security agencies, restricted reporting of evaluation results, and an audit of the independent evaluation performed by the IG or an independent evaluator. For national security systems, only the results of each audit of an evaluation are to be reported to OMB. Finally, the reform provisions also assign additional responsibilities for information security policies, standards, guidance, training, and other functions to other agencies. These agencies are NIST, the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, the Attorney General, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Office of Personnel Management. With oversight jurisdiction for information security, this subcommittee has continued to hold hearings on the status of information security in the federal government. Most recently, on November 9, 2001, the subcommittee issued information security “grades” based primarily on the agencies’ reform provision review summaries and IG evaluations that were submitted to OMB. The overall grade for the federal government was an “F.” The initial implementation of the reform provisions is a significant step in addressing the serious, pervasive weaknesses in the federal government’s information security. The legislation consolidates existing security requirements and adds new statutory requirements designed to improve information security, such as independent evaluations and annual reporting. In addition, implementation of the provisions has improved agency focus on information security and resulted in important actions by the administration. Although security requirements existed in law and policy before this law, the reform provisions put into law several important additional requirements. First, the provisions require a risk-based security management program covering all operations and assets of the agency and those provided or managed for the agency by others to be implemented by agency program managers and CIOs. Instituting such an approach is important since many agencies had not effectively evaluated their information security risks and implemented appropriate controls. Our studies of public and private best practices have shown that effective security program management requires implementing a process that provides for a cycle of risk management activities as now included in the reform provisions. Moreover, other efforts to improve agency information security will not be fully effective and lasting unless they are supported by a strong agencywide security management program. Second, the reform provisions require an annual independent evaluation of each agency’s information security program. Individually, as well as collectively, these evaluations can provide much needed information for improved oversight by OMB and the Congress. Our years of auditing agency security programs have shown that independent tests and evaluations are essential to verifying the effectiveness of computer-based controls. Audits can also evaluate agency implementation of management initiatives, thus promoting management accountability. Annual independent evaluations of agency information security programs will help drive reform because they will spotlight both the obstacles and progress toward improving information security and provide a means of measuring progress, much like the financial statement audits required by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. Further, independent reviews proved to be an important mechanism for monitoring progress and uncovering problems that needed attention in the federal government’s efforts to meet the Year 2000 computing challenge. Third, the reform provisions take a governmentwide approach to information security by accommodating a wide range of information security needs and applying requirements to all agencies, including those engaged in national security. This is important because the information security needs of civilian agency operations and those of national security operations have converged in recent years. In the past, when sensitive information was more likely to be maintained on paper or in stand-alone computers, the main concern was data confidentiality, especially as it pertained to classified national security data. Now, virtually all agencies rely on interconnected computers to maintain information and carry out operations that are essential to their missions. While the confidentiality needs of these data vary, all agencies must be concerned about the integrity and the availability of their systems and data. It is important for all agencies to understand these various types of risks and take appropriate steps to manage them. Fourth, the annual reporting requirements provide a means for both OMB and the Congress to oversee the effectiveness of agency and government- wide information security, measure progress in improving information security, and consider information security in budget deliberations. In addition to management reviews, annual IG reporting of the independent evaluation results to OMB and OMB’s reporting of these results to the Congress provide the Congress with an objective assessment of agencies’ information security programs on which to base its oversight and budgeting activities. This reporting also facilitates a process to help ensure consistent identification of information security weaknesses by both the IG and agency management. In addition to new statutory provisions, first-year implementation of the reform provisions has yielded significant benefits in terms of agency focus on information security. A number of agencies stated that as a result of implementing the reform provisions, they are taking significant steps to improve their information security programs. For example, one agency stated that the legislation provided it with the opportunity to identify some systemic program-level weaknesses for which it plans to undertake separate initiatives targeted specifically to improve the weaknesses. Other benefits agencies observed included (1) higher visibility of information security within the agencies, (2) increased awareness of information security requirements among department personnel, (3) recognition that program managers are to be held accountable for the security of their operations, (4) greater agency consideration of security throughout the system life cycle, and (5) justification for additional resources and funding needed to improve security. Agency IGs also viewed the reform provisions as a positive step towards improving information security particularly by increasing agency management’s focus on this issue. Implementation of the reform provisions has also resulted in important actions by the administration, which if properly implemented, should continue to improve information security in the federal government. For example, OMB has issued guidance that information technology investments will not be funded unless security is incorporated into and funded as part of each investment, and NIST has established a Computer Security Expert Assist Team to review agencies’ computer security management. The administration also has plans to direct all large agencies to undertake a review to identify and prioritize critical assets within the agencies and their interrelationships with other agencies and the private sector, as well as a cross-government review to ensure that all critical government processes and assets have been identified; integrate security into the President’s Management Agenda Scorecard; develop workable measures of performance; develop e-training on mandatory topics, including security; and explore methods to disseminate vulnerability patches to agencies more effectively. On January 16, 2001, OMB issued guidance to the agencies on implementing the reform provisions that summarized OMB, agency, and IG responsibilities, and provided answers to other specific implementation questions. OMB followed up the implementation guidance with agency reporting instructions first issued in draft form in April and then in final form on June 22. These final reporting instructions directed agencies to transmit copies of the annual agency program reviews, IG independent evaluations, and for national security systems, audits of the independent evaluations to OMB 3 months later, on September 10, 2001—the same time they were to submit their fiscal year 2003 budget materials. In addition to the program reviews and evaluations, agency heads were also to provide a brief executive summary developed by the agency CIO, agency program officials, and the IG based on the results of their work. The OMB reporting instructions also listed specific topics that the agencies were to address, many of which were referenced back to corresponding requirements of the reform provisions. These topics, which became the basic structure of the executive summaries submitted by the agencies and most IGs, basically asked that agencies identify, describe, or report: 1. Total security funding as found in the agency’s fiscal year 2001 budget request, fiscal year 2001 budget enacted, and the fiscal year 2002 budget request. 2. The total number of programs included in the program reviews or independent evaluations. 3. The methods used to conduct the program reviews and independent evaluations. 4. Any material weakness in policies, procedures, or practices as identified and required to be reported under existing law. 5. The specific measures and actual performance for performance measures that agencies used to ensure that for operations and assets under their control, agency program officials have assessed the risk, determined the appropriate level of security, maintained an up-to-date security plan (that is practiced throughout the life cycle) for each supporting system, and tested and evaluated security controls and techniques. 6. The specific measures and actual performance for performance measures that agencies used to ensure that the agency CIO (a) adequately maintains an agencywide security program, (b) ensures the effective implementation of the program and evaluates the performance of major agency components, and (c) ensures that agency employees with significant security responsibilities are trained. 7. How the agency ensures that employees are sufficiently trained in their security responsibilities to include identifying the total number of agency employees, the types of security training available during the reporting period, the number of agency employees that received each type of training, and the total costs of providing such training. 8. The agency’s documented procedures for reporting security incidents and sharing information regarding common vulnerabilities. 9. How the agency integrates security into its capital planning and investment control process. 10. The specific methodology and how it has been implemented by the agency to identify, prioritize, and protect critical assets within its enterprise architecture, including links with key external systems. 11. The specific measures and actual performance for performance measures that the head of the agency used to ensure that the agency’s information security plan is practiced throughout the life cycle of each agency system. 12. How the agency has integrated its information and information technology security program with its critical infrastructure protection responsibilities and other security programs. 13. The specific methods used by the agency to ensure that contractor- provided services or services provided by another agency are adequately secure and meet the requirements of the reform provisions and other governmentwide and agency policy and guidance. The reporting instructions also included an additional requirement for each agency head to work with the CIO and program officials to provide a strategy to correct security weaknesses identified through the annual program reviews, independent evaluations, other reviews or audits performed throughout the reporting period, as well as any uncompleted actions identified before the reporting period. Due to OMB by October 31, 2001, this information was to include a “plan of action and milestones” (corrective action plan) that listed the weaknesses; showed required resources, milestones, and completion dates; and described how the agency planned to address these weaknesses. In response to agency requests, on October 17, OMB provided more detailed guidance for preparing and submitting these corrective action plans, which also provided a sample spreadsheet-type format. The guidance also established a requirement for agencies to submit quarterly status updates to OMB with the first update due on January 31, 2002. OMB’s guidance addressed many key information security requirements in the reform provisions, and agencies generally considered the guidance beneficial in summarizing their efforts to implement these requirements. However, with their reports due to OMB on September 10, several agencies questioned the timeliness of the final reporting guidance being issued less than 3 months before this deadline. Several agencies also noted the need for additional clarification or guidance in some areas. For example, our analysis of agency executive summaries showed that many agencies did not have or were still in the process of developing and implementing security performance measures. Some thought additional guidance on appropriate measures would be helpful and more cost-effective than having each agency develop its own. Other agencies had questions regarding what should be identified and reported as security costs in their budgets. In addition to providing guidance, OMB also reviewed the results of agencies’ program reviews and independent evaluations and consulted with officials in the agencies to clarify information and provide feedback. OMB also sent letters to the agency heads that provided the results of its assessment of the agencies’ submissions for the reform provisions and either conditionally approved or disapproved their information security programs. Further, OMB states in its report to the Congress that it will discuss security corrective action plans with each agency and monitor their progress through the quarterly updates that agencies are to submit. These actions should contribute to OMB’s effective oversight and help focus agencies’ improvement efforts. However, OMB’s sustained commitment to both implementing the reform provisions and overseeing agencies will be critical to ensuring that agencies substantially improve their information security programs. On February 13, 2002, OMB released its required report to the Congress to summarize the agency independent evaluations. Based on reports from over 50 departments and agencies and focusing on management issues as opposed to technical or operational issues, this report (1) provides an overview of OMB and agencies’ implementation efforts; (2) summarizes the overall results of OMB’s analyses; (3) includes individual agency summaries for the 24 of the largest federal departments and agencies; and (4) includes brief summary remarks for small and independent agencies. OMB notes that although examples of good security exist in many agencies, and others are working very hard to improve their performance, many agencies have significant deficiencies in every important area of security. In particular, the report highlights six common security weaknesses: a lack of senior management attention to information security; inadequate accountability for job and program performance related to information technology security; limited security training for general users, information technology professionals, and security professionals; inadequate integration of security into the capital planning and investment control process; poor security for contractor-provided services; and limited capability to detect, report, and share information on vulnerabilities or to detect intrusions, suspected intrusions, or virus infections. Overall, OMB views its report to the Congress and the agency reports to be a valuable baseline to record agency security performance—a baseline captured with more detailed information than previously available that will be useful for oversight by agencies, IGs, OMB, GAO, and the Congress. While we agree and believe that OMB’s report provides a useful overview of OMB and agency efforts to comply with the reform provisions, certain additional information not included in the report is necessary to fully assess and oversee these efforts. The lack of such important information limits congressional oversight for agencies’ implementation, compliance, and corrective action efforts, as well as for budget deliberations. Specifically, OMB’s report does not address the following: The report does not provide any specific analysis or opinion on the adequacy of agency corrective action plans that were submitted to OMB in late October of last year and included the planned timeframes for correcting security weaknesses. Agency corrective actions are underway, and while OMB indicated that performance in implementing these plans would be reflected in next year’s report, information about the adequacy and reasonableness of such plans and the related costs to implement them, as well as an independent review, are important elements in congressional oversight and budget deliberations. In August 2001, OMB sent a memorandum to agency heads stating that it considered all reform provision material prepared by the CIOs for OMB to be predecisional and not releasable the public, the Congress, or GAO. In September, this subcommittee interceded to request that OMB provide the agency executive summaries to you, and OMB complied with this request. Recently, OMB agreed that it would also authorize the agencies to release the more detailed material to us after the agencies redact any sensitive information. OMB has continued to restrict access to agency corrective action plans. We plan to continue working with OMB in an effort to find workable solutions to obtain the information needed for congressional oversight. With the president requesting $4.2 billion for information security funding for fiscal year 2003, congressional oversight of future spending on information security will be important to ensuring that agencies are not using the funds they receive to continue ad hoc, piecemeal security fixes that are not supported by a strong agency risk management process. Accordingly, OMB should consider authorizing agencies to release appropriate information from the corrective action plans to the Congress. Also, future IG evaluations need to provide an independent assessment of agency corrective action plans. The report discusses review results for national security systems in several individual agency summaries, but does not summarize the overall results of the audits of the evaluations for these systems, which the reform provisions specifically require agencies to provide OMB and OMB to report subsequently to the Congress. This lack of an overall summary was compounded by limited access to information regarding national security systems by the director of central intelligence (DCI). The reform provisions assign the DCI and the secretary of defense specific responsibilities for national security systems, including developing and ensuring that information security policies, standards, and guidelines are implemented and designating the entity to perform the independent evaluation of the information security program and practices for these systems. As part of our review, DCI staff declined to meet with us to discuss the guidance and assistance they provided agencies to implement the reform provisions for national security systems. The DCI stated that our inquiry related to matters of intelligence oversight, which are under the purview of the congressional entities charged with overseeing the intelligence community. While evaluations and audits of evaluations for systems under the control of the DCI are available only to the appropriate oversight committees of Congress, OMB is required to report to the Congress on the results of audits of evaluations that the agencies submit to OMB for national security systems. We acknowledge the sensitivity of this information. Nevertheless, because the review, evaluation, and reporting requirements of the reform provisions apply to national security systems, as well as non-national-security systems, this lack of high-level summary information on implementation of the provisions and the security for national security systems limits the ability of the Congress to provide governmentwide oversight for information security. Consequently, we believe that OMB should consider providing appropriate information on national security systems to the Congress. OMB’s report identifies lack of top management attention as a common weakness. It also notes that agencies have not implemented all the requirements of the legislation, and that it either disapproved or only conditionally approved the information security programs of each of the 24 agencies. However, the report does not address the status or effectiveness of the agencies’ efforts to implement specific requirements of an agencywide information security program such as conducting risk assessments and testing and evaluating controls. OMB addresses these requirements in its individual agency summaries, but does not provide any overall results. Our analyses showed that most agencies have not fully implemented requirements to assess risk and test and evaluate controls and that this represents systemic weaknesses in the federal government’s information security. Such requirements are critical elements of an overall information security program, and the Congress should be fully informed on the status of agency efforts to implement and comply with them. To address this, in its future annual reports to the Congress, OMB should consider explicitly identifying the overall status of agency efforts to implement each of the requirements for agency information security programs. To implement the reform provisions, agencies conducted management assessments of their information security programs and systems and followed OMB guidance to report their results. The methodologies that the agencies used varied, but most indicated that they used NIST’s Security Self-AssessmentGuideto assist program officials in reviewing their programs. Provided to help agencies perform self-assessments of their information security programs and to accompany the NIST-developed FederalIT Security AssessmentFramework, this guide uses an extensive questionnaire containing specific control objectives and techniques against which an unclassified system or group of interconnected systems can be tested and measured. Most agencies considered this questionnaire to be a useful tool and several modified or tailored it for their use. In addition, several agencies used independent contractors to evaluate their systems, and in at least one case, an agency had its program assessed by the NIST Computer Security Expert Assist Team. In addition to these assessments of their information security programs, agencies also considered the results of audit work performed by their IGs, GAO, and others to help them identify information security weaknesses for reporting to OMB and identifying corrective actions. In particular, a number of agencies worked closely with the IGs to help ensure that they consistently identified weaknesses. Most agencies structured their executive summaries according to the 13 topics that OMB’s reporting instructions indicated they should address. However, these summaries did not always provide all requested data or provide context for determining the significance of their efforts. For example, they did not indicate the extent to which agency programs and systems, contractor-supported operations, or national security system programs were covered by their review. In general, our analyses of these summaries showed that although agencies are making progress in addressing information security, much remains to be done. None of the agencies had fully implemented the requirements of the reform provisions and all continue to have significant information security weaknesses. In particular, we identified the following key information security requirements of the reform provisions that were problematic for the 24 agencies reviewed. The reform provisions require agencies to perform periodic threat-based risk assessments for systems and data. However, the agency and IG reports indicated that most agencies could not demonstrate that periodic risk assessments are being conducted. However, none of the 24 agencies had conducted risk assessments for all their systems, and 11, or 46 percent, had not established effective performance measures to show how well program officials met these requirements. Risk assessments are an essential element of risk management and overall security program management and, as our best practice work has shown,are an integral part of the management processes of leading organizations. Risk assessments help ensure that the greatest risks have been identified and addressed, increase the understanding of risk, and provide support for needed controls. Our reviews of federal agencies, however, frequently show deficiencies related to assessing risk, such as security plans for major systems that are not developed based on risks. As a result, the agencies had accepted an unknown level of risk by default rather than consciously deciding what level of risk was tolerable. OMB reporting guidance addressed this requirement by asking agencies to describe performance measures used to ensure that agency program officials have assessed the risk to operations and assets under their control. In its report to the Congress, OMB identified measuring performance as a common weakness and covered risk assessments in its individual agency summaries. OMB did not, however, identify the pervasive lack of risk assessments as an overall weakness in federal information security. The reform provisions require agencies to establish information security policies and procedures that are commensurate with risk and that comprehensively address the other reform provisions. OMB’s report refers to selected policies and procedures, but does not address them comprehensively. Because risks are not adequately assessed, policies and procedures may be inadequate or excessive. Also, our audits have identified instances where agency policies and procedures did not comprehensively address all areas of security, were not sufficiently detailed, were outdated, or were inconsistent across the agency. The reform provisions require agencies to provide training on security responsibilities for information security personnel and on security awareness for agency personnel. Agency summaries showed that some agencies provided little or no training, and many could not show to what extent security training was provided. For example, 4 of the 24 agencies (17 percent) reported that they were still developing or implementing their security awareness and training program. Further, 10 of the 24 agencies (42 percent) did not report data to indicate the number of agency employees receiving security training, and 8 (33 percent) did not report the total costs of providing such training. Our studies of best practices at leading organizations have shown that these organizations took steps to ensure that personnel involved in various aspects of their information security programs had the skills and knowledge they needed.They also recognized that staff expertise had to be frequently updated to keep abreast of ongoing changes in threats, vulnerabilities, software, security techniques, and security monitoring tools. In addition, our past information security reviews at individual agencies have shown that they have not provided adequate computer security training to their employees including contractor staff. In its report to the Congress, OMB identified security education and awareness as a common weakness and noted that OMB and federal agencies are now working through the new Critical Infrastructure Protection Board’s education committee and the CIO Council’s Workforce Committee to address this issue. Also, the CIO Council’s Best Practices Committee is working with NIST through NIST’s Federal Agency Security Practices Website to identify and disseminate best practices involving security training. Finally, OMB notes that one of the administration’s electronic government initiatives is to establish and deliver electronic training. Under the reform provisions, one of the responsibilities of the agency head is to ensure that appropriate agency officials are responsible for periodically testing and evaluating the effectiveness of policies, procedures, controls, and techniques. Many of the 24 agencies we contacted said that they primarily relied on management self-assessments to review their programs or systems this first year and did not perform any control testing as part of these assessments. Several agencies indicated that control testing was part of their certification and accreditation processes, but also reported that many systems were not certified and accredited. Periodically evaluating the effectiveness of security policies and controls and acting to address any identified weaknesses are fundamental activities that allow an organization to manage its information security risks cost effectively, rather than reacting to individual problems ad hoc only after a violation has been detected or an audit finding has been reported. Further, management control testing and evaluation as part of the program reviews can supplement control testing and evaluation in IG and GAO audits to help provide a more complete picture of the agencies’ security postures. OMB’s report to the Congress also did not specifically identify lack of control testing as a common weakness, but did address it as part of the individual agency summaries. The reform provisions require that agencies develop a process for ensuring that remedial action is taken to address significant deficiencies. While we were unable to review the adequacy of corrective action plans submitted to OMB, our audits have identified instances in which items on other agency corrective action plans were not independently verified or considered with respect to other systems that might contain the same or similar weakness. We have also noted instances where agencies had no process to accumulate identified deficiencies across the agency. Given these prior findings, it is important that corrective action plans be carefully reviewed. The reform provisions require agencies to implement procedures for detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents. Of the 24 agencies we reviewed, 18 (75 percent) reported that they had documented incident handling procedures, but had not implemented these procedures agencywide. In addition, 5 agencies (22 percent) reported that their procedures did not cover reporting incidents to the Federal Computer Incident Response Center (FedCIRC) or law enforcement. Even strong controls may not block all intrusions and misuse, but organizations can reduce the risks associated with such events if they promptly take steps to detect intrusions and misuse before significant damage can be done. In addition, accounting for and analyzing security problems and incidents are effective ways for an organization to gain a better understanding of threats to its information and of the cost of its security-related problems. Such analyses can also pinpoint vulnerabilities that need to be addressed to help ensure that they will not be exploited again. In this regard, problem and incident reports can provide valuable input for risk assessments, help in prioritizing security improvement efforts, and be used to illustrate risks and related trends in reports to senior management. Our information security reviews also confirm that federal agencies have not adequately (1) prevented intrusions before they occur, (2) detected intrusions as they occur, (3) responded to successful intrusions, or (4) reported intrusions to staff and management. Such weaknesses provide little assurance that unauthorized attempts to access sensitive information will be identified and appropriate actions taken in time to prevent or minimize damage. In its report to the Congress, OMB identified “detecting, reporting, and sharing information on vulnerabilities” as a common agency weakness. It also noted that ongoing activity to address this issue includes FedCIRC’s quarterly reporting to OMB on the federal government’s status on security incidents and GSA’s, under OMB and Critical Infrastructure Protection Board guidance, exploring of methods to disseminate vulnerability patches to all agencies more effectively. The reform provisions require that each agencywide information security program ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of systems and data supporting the agency’s critical operations and assets. Of the 24 agencies covered by our review, 15 had not implemented an effective methodology such as Project Matrix reviews to identify their critical assets, and 7 had not determined the priority for restoring these assets should a disruption in critical operations occur. At many of the agencies we have reviewed, we found incomplete plans and procedures to ensure that critical operations can continue when unexpected events occur, such as a temporary power failure, accidental loss of files, or a major disaster. These plans and procedures are incomplete because operations and supporting resources had not been fully analyzed to determine which were most critical and would need to be restored first. Further, existing plans were not fully tested to identify their weaknesses. As a result, many agencies have inadequate assurance that they can recover operational capability in a timely, orderly manner after a disruptive attack. OMB’s report to the Congress does not specifically address the overall extent to which agencies identified and prioritized their critical assets, but does cover this topic in the individual agency summaries. Also, OMB indicates that it will direct all large agencies to undertake a Project Matrix review, and once these reviews are completed, it will identify cross- government activities and lines of business for Matrix reviews. Under the reform provisions, agencies are required to develop and implement risk-based, cost-effective policies and procedures to provide security protections for information collected or maintained either by the agency or for it by another agency or contractor. Laws and policies have included security requirements for years, but agency reports indicate that although most included security requirements in their service contracts, most not did they have a process to ensure the security of services provided by a contractor or another agency. OMB reported this as a common weakness in its report to the Congress noting that activities to address this issue include (1) working under the guidance of an OMB-led security committee established under Executive Order 13231 to develop recommendations addressing security in contracts themselves, and (2) working with the CIO Council and the Procurement Executives Council to establish a training program that ensures appropriate security training for contractors. The reform provisions require agencies to examine the adequacy and effectiveness of information security policies, procedures, and practices, and to report any significant deficiency found as a material weakness under the applicable criteria for other laws, including the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, and the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. Although most agencies reported security weaknesses, several did not identify all weaknesses highlighted in the IGs’ independent evaluations. For example, two IGs identified security weaknesses, but the CIOs did not identify any weaknesses in their executive summaries because they were not considered material weaknesses. As I will illustrate next in my discussion of the results of the IGs’ independent evaluations, our latest analyses of audit results for the 24 agencies confirmed that all agencies had significant information security weaknesses. Such weaknesses should be identified and reported in the CIOs’ reports consistent with the IGs’ independent evaluations to ensure that they are appropriately considered in implementing corrective actions. The reform provisions assign the agency IGs a critical role in the overall implementation and reporting process. Each agency is to have the IG or other independent evaluator annually evaluate its information security program and practices. This evaluation is to include testing of the effectiveness of information security control techniques for an appropriate subset of the agency’s information systems and an assessment of the agency’s compliance with the legislation; it may also use existing audits, evaluations, or reports relating to the programs or practices of the agency. For national security systems, the secretary of defense or DCI designates who is to perform the independent evaluation, but the IG is to perform an audit of the evaluation. The results of each evaluation of non-national- security systems and of the audit of the evaluation for national security systems are to be reported to OMB. Individually, as well as collectively, the annual independent evaluations provide much needed information for improved oversight by OMB and the Congress. Our years of auditing agency security programs have shown that independent tests and evaluations are essential to verifying the effectiveness of computer-based controls. The independent evaluations can also evaluate agency implementation of management initiatives, thus promoting management accountability. Moreover, an annual independent evaluation of agency information security programs will help drive reform because it will spotlight both the obstacles and progress toward improving information security. For this first-year evaluation and reporting for the reform provisions, IGs primarily performed the independent evaluations and largely relied on existing or ongoing work to evaluate agency security, most of which was related to their financial statement audits. With the reform provisions applicable to essentially all major systems including national security systems, as well as other types of risk beyond financial statements, future IG independent evaluation efforts will have to expand their coverage to include such additional risks and more nonfinancial systems, particularly for agencies with significant nonfinancial operations such as the departments of Defense and Justice. An important step toward ensuring information security is to fully understand the weaknesses that exist, and as the body of audit evidence expands, it is probable that additional significant deficiencies will be identified. However, this expanded coverage will also place a significant new burden on existing audit capabilities, which will require ensuring that agency IGs have sufficient resources to either perform or contract for the needed work. While no format was prescribed for their evaluation reports, most IGs prepared an executive summary and report which, at OMB’s request, addressed the specific topics identified in OMB’s reporting guidance. This made comparison of agency and IG results easier, and better highlighted discrepancies. For the most part and particularly where the CIO and IG offices coordinated their responses, the IG evaluations were consistent with what the agencies reported. However, there were areas where the CIO reviews and the IG evaluations did not agree in their assessments of the agencies’ progress in implementing the requirements of the reform provisions. Reasons cited include different interpretations of the law or guidance and the time lag between the audit reports the IG used for its evaluation and the possibly more current status reflected in the CIO’s review. However, perhaps the most important area of the IGs’ independent evaluations is their identification of the agency’s significant information security weaknesses for which they identified essentially known weaknesses including, but not limited to, those considered material weaknesses under reporting requirements for other legislation. To summarize these identified weaknesses, we also analyzed the results of IG and GAO audit reports published from July 2000 through September 2001, including the results of the IGs’ independent evaluations. These analyses showed significant information security weaknesses in all major areas of the agencies’ general controls—the policies, procedures, and technical controls that apply to all or a large segment of an entity’s information systems and help ensure their proper operation. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of weaknesses across the 24 agencies for the following six general control areas: (1) security program management, which provides the framework for ensuring that risks are understood and that effective controls are selected and properly implemented; (2) access controls, which ensure that only authorized individuals can read, alter, or delete data; (3) software development and change controls, which ensure that only authorized software programs are implemented; (4) segregation of duties, which reduces the risk that one individual can independently perform inappropriate actions without detection; (5) operating systems controls, which protect sensitive programs that support multiple applications from tampering and misuse; and (6) service continuity, which ensures that computer-dependent operations experience no significant disruptions. Our analysis shows that weaknesses were most often identified for security program management, access controls, and service continuity controls. For security program management, we found weaknesses for all 24 agencies in 2001 as compared to 21 agencies (88 percent) in a similar analysis in 2000. For access controls, we also found weaknesses for all 24 agencies in 2001—the same condition we found in 2000. For service continuity controls, we found weaknesses at 19 of the 24 agencies (79 percent) as compared to 20 agencies or 83 percent in 2000. Agencies identified challenges during their first-year implementation of the reform provisions, some of which, according to the agencies, limited the extent of their efforts. Perhaps most significantly, several agencies acknowledged that they had not been reviewing their systems according to existing requirements in OMB Circular A-130. As a result, they did not have system reviews they could use to help respond to review requirements of the reform provisions. In addition, several agencies sought contractor assistance, but said that delays in obtaining this help limited what they could do in time to meet the September 10 deadline for reporting to OMB. For example, one agency was still trying to obtain contractor services as late as July 2001 with the reporting deadline only 2 months away. Also, several agencies noted that late final guidance from OMB on reporting also limited what they could do to gather and report information. Many agencies also had not maintained data that OMB requested be reported, such as training statistics and actual performance measure results that would help them demonstrate the extent to which they had met security requirements. One final challenge emphasized by many agencies was the need for adequate funding to implement security requirements. Several agencies noted that funding limitations had directly affected their ability to implement existing security requirements and, thus, affected their compliance with the reform provisions. Although, in most instances, this issue involved a lack of funding, in at least one agency, CIO staff pointed to specific security funding the agency received as key to the improvement efforts it has undertaken in recent years. While citing funding as an implementation challenge, agencies apparently had difficulty identifying how much they spend related to information security. The security costs that OMB requested agencies to report were not provided in some cases. In addition, for costs that were provided, there was no detail as to what these costs consisted of or how they are actually reflected in agency budget submissions. Further, while most of the 24 agencies we reviewed reported that they had integrated security into their capital planning and investment control process, 19 (79 percent) reported that they had not included security requirements and costs on every fiscal year 2002 capital asset plan submitted to OMB. In addition to incomplete security cost data, costs that were reported to OMB varied widely. On the basis of the final costs shown in OMB’s report to the Congress, we present, in figure 2, the 24 agencies’ fiscal year 2002 security funding as a percentage of their total information technology spending. These percentages range from a high of 17.0 percent for the Department of Labor to a low of 1.0 percent for the Department of Agriculture. OMB reports that it assessed the agencies’ performance against the amount they spent and did not find that increased security spending equals increased security performance. As a result, it concludes that there is no evidence that poor security is a result of lack of money, and that improvements in security performance will come from agencies giving significant attention to the security weaknesses it describes in its report. While security funding might not always correlate with security performance, information security does involve costs, and OMB acknowledges the importance of this funding by requiring agencies to identify security funding in their budget submissions. We also agree with OMB that much can be done to cost-effectively address common weaknesses, such as security training, across government rather than piecemeal by agency. At the same time, however, agencies have specific weaknesses that they must correct. OMB has required agencies to identify these weaknesses and to indicate the level of resources required to correct them in their corrective action plans. From the IGs’ perspective, several have indicated that the requirement for an annual evaluation will represent a challenge because of their difficulty in obtaining adequate resources in today’s competitive market for information security professionals. Further, by conducting an evaluation every year, these IGs believe they will lose the ability to deploy current limited resources in other important areas and may have to limit the scope of their work. As I discussed previously, a number of improvement efforts have been undertaken in the past few years both at an agency and governmentwide level. Among these efforts and partially in response to the events of September 11, 2001, the president created the Office of Homeland Security, with duties that include coordinating efforts to protect critical public and private information systems within the United States from terrorist attack. The president also (1) appointed a special advisor for cyberspace security to coordinate interagency efforts to secure information systems and (2) created the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board to recommend policies and coordinate programs for protecting information for critical infrastructure. The board is to include a standing committee for executive branch information systems security, chaired by an OMB designee. These actions are laudable. However, given recent events and reports that critical operations and assets continue to be highly vulnerable to computer-based attacks, the government still faces a challenge in ensuring that risks from cyber threats are appropriately addressed in the context of the broader array of risks to the nation’s welfare. Accordingly, it is important that federal information security efforts be guided by a comprehensive strategy for improvement. In 1998, shortly after the initial issuance of Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 on protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure, we recommended that OMB, which, by law, is responsible for overseeing federal information security, and the assistant to the president for national security affairs work together to ensure that the roles of new and existing federal efforts were coordinated under a comprehensive strategy. Our more recent reviews of the National Infrastructure Protection Center and of broader federal efforts to counter computer-based attacks showed that there was a continuing need to clarify responsibilities and critical infrastructure protection objectives.As the administration refines the strategy that it has begun to lay out in recent months, it is imperative that it takes steps to ensure that information security receives appropriate attention and resources and that known deficiencies are addressed. First, it is important that the federal strategy delineate the roles and responsibilities of the numerous entities involved in federal information security and related aspects of critical infrastructure protection. Under current law, OMB is responsible for overseeing and coordinating federal agency security, and NIST, with assistance from the National Security Agency, is responsible for establishing related standards. In addition, interagency bodies—such as the CIO Council and the entities created under PDD 63 on critical infrastructure protection—are attempting to coordinate agency initiatives. Although these organizations have developed fundamentally sound policies and guidance and have undertaken potentially useful initiatives, effective improvements are not yet taking place. Further, it is unclear how the activities of these many organizations interrelate, who should be held accountable for their success or failure, and whether they will effectively and efficiently support national goals. Second, more specific guidance to agencies on the controls that they need to implement could help ensure adequate protection. Currently, agencies have wide discretion in deciding what computer security controls to implement and the level of rigor with which to enforce these controls. In theory, this discretion is appropriate since, as OMB and NIST guidance states, the level of protection that agencies provide should be commensurate with the risk to agency operations and assets. In essence, one set of specific controls will not be appropriate for all types of systems and data. Nevertheless, our studies of best practices at leading organizations have shown that more specific guidance is important. In particular, specific mandatory standards for varying risk levels can clarify expectations for information protection, including audit criteria; provide a standard framework for assessing information security risk; help ensure that shared data are appropriately protected; and reduce demands for limited resources to independently develop security controls. Implementing such standards for federal agencies would require developing a single set of information classification categories for use by all agencies to define the criticality and sensitivity of the various types of information they maintain. It would also necessitate establishing minimum mandatory requirements for protecting information in each classification category. Third, ensuring effective implementation of agency information security and critical infrastructure protection plans will require active monitoring by the agencies to determine if milestones are being met and testing to determine if policies and controls are operating as intended. Routine periodic audits, such as those required by the reform provisions, would allow for more meaningful performance measurement. In addition, the annual evaluation, reporting, and monitoring process established through these provisions, is an important mechanism, previously missing, to hold agencies accountable for implementing effective security and to manage the problem from a governmentwide perspective. Fourth, the Congress and the executive branch can use audit results to monitor agency performance and take whatever action is deemed advisable to remedy identified problems. Such oversight is essential for holding agencies accountable for their performance, as was demonstrated by the OMB and congressional efforts to oversee the Year 2000 computer challenge. Fifth, agencies must have the technical expertise they need to select, implement, and maintain controls that protect their information systems. Similarly, the federal government must maximize the value of its technical staff by sharing expertise and information. Highlighted during the Year 2000 challenge, the availability of adequate technical and audit expertise is a continuing concern to agencies. Sixth, agencies can allocate resources sufficient to support their information security and infrastructure protection activities. Funding for security is already embedded to some extent in agency budgets for computer system development efforts and routine network and system management and maintenance. However, some additional amounts are likely to be needed to address specific weaknesses and new tasks. OMB and congressional oversight of future spending on information security will be important to ensuring that agencies are not using the funds they receive to continue ad hoc, piecemeal security fixes that are not supported by a strong agency risk management process. Seventh, expanded research is needed in the area of information systems protection. While a number of research efforts are underway, experts have noted that more is needed to achieve significant advances. As the director of the CERT® Coordination Center testified before this subcommittee last September, “It is essential to seek fundamental technological solutions and to seek proactive, preventive approaches, not just reactive, curative approaches.” In addition, in its December 2001 third annual report, the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Gilmore Commission) recommended that the Office of Homeland Security develop and implement a comprehensive plan for research, development, test, and evaluation to enhance cyber security. In summary, first-year implementation of the reform provisions has resulted in a number of positive initiatives and benefits, and OMB, the agencies, and the IGs all undertook efforts to implement these provisions. However, faced with limited past efforts to implement security and other obstacles, agencies in their reviews did not provide the scope or depth of coverage intended, particularly in testing and evaluating controls. The IGs also had to rely primarily on their existing work for this first-year effort. Consequently, much work remains to be done to achieve the objectives of the reform legislation. In addition, OMB did not report to the Congress on key elements of the provisions, such as the adequacy of agencies’ corrective action plans and overall evaluation results for national security systems, or provide supporting information. We plan to continue to work with OMB in an effort to find workable solutions to obtain the information needed for congressional oversight. These factors limit congressional insight into the status of information security for the federal government, as well as its ability to perform its responsibilities for oversight and budget deliberations. Further, with the increasing threat to critical federal operations and assets and poor federal information security, as indicated by reform provision reviews and evaluations, it is imperative that the administration and the agencies implement a comprehensive strategy for improvement that emphasizes information security and addresses known weaknesses. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at this time. | Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 seek to minimize pervasive information security weaknesses that place federal operations at significant risk of disruption, tampering, fraud, and inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information. Increases in computer interconnectivity, especially in the use of the Internet, pose significant risks to computer systems and to the critical operations and infrastructures they support, such as telecommunications, power distribution, public health, national defense, law enforcement, and emergency services. Although federal agencies have taken steps to redesign and strengthen their information security programs, federal systems are not being adequately protected from computer-based threats, even though these systems process, store, and transmit enormous amounts of sensitive data and are indispensable to many federal agency operations. |
The ManTech Program is designed to enable DOD to develop advanced technologies to use in manufacturing weapon systems. Such technologies, in turn, should reduce weapon system costs and improve quality. ManTech projects address development of technology in areas such as metals, composite materials, electronics, munitions, as well as technology to sustain weapons systems. The users of the ManTech Program are service and DLA managers responsible for the development of new weapons systems and for the repair, maintenance and overhaul of fielded systems. However, the projects are executed through agreements or contracts with several types of organizations including defense contractors, government facilities, suppliers, consortia, centers of excellence, academia, and research institutes. The military services and DLA execute the ManTech Program under the general direction of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology), Office of Technology Transition. Each component has established a ManTech office within its organization to set policies and procedures for operating its ManTech program and determining which projects to fund. DOD established the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel, staffed by service and DLA ManTech office personnel, to set program objectives, promote effective integration and program management, conduct joint planning, and oversee program execution. It reports to and receives taskings from the Director of Defense Research & Engineering on manufacturing technology issues of multiservice concern and application. The panel organized the program into subpanels to serve as focal points for specific technology areas. ManTech Program appropriations have fluctuated significantly over the past several years, and annually since fiscal year 1991, the Congress has appropriated more funds to the program than the services requested in the Presidents’ budgets. The funding trends for the program since fiscal year 1991 are shown in figure 1. In addition, funding by DOD component has also fluctuated. Figure 2 shows the funding for the services from fiscal years 1997 to 2001. Users in the military services and DLA look to the ManTech Program to help meet certain needs related to weapons systems they are responsible for, such as developing technologies, products and processes that will reduce the total cost and improve the manufacturing quality of their systems. Users reported to us that the ManTech projects we selected in our analysis were generally addressing their needs. In addition, the military services and DLA have processes in place that include users in the project identification and selection process. Such processes increase the likelihood that projects will meet user needs. However, the extent to which some needs are being met is limited by factors related to each program, such as the amount of funding available. During fiscal years 1999 and 2000, DOD had a total of 234 active ManTech projects valued at about $372 million. From that list, we selected 52 projects in the DOD components valued at $206 million and discussed with users whether those projects were responding to their needs. These users told us that the ManTech Program is generally meeting their needs. The projects we selected resulted in improvements ranging from a project that developed new technology to reduce the time and cost required to produce submarine and surface ship propellers; to a project that increased the reliability of electrical circuits used in missile systems by protecting them against dirt and moisture; to a project that enabled the Air Force to replace 83 parts in its F-119 engine with one part and reduce the weight of the engine by 54 pounds. By implementing such projects, officials from the military services and DLA told us that they were able to save tens of millions of dollars. Table 1 provides detailed examples of projects that users reported to us met their needs. Congress has consistently provided more funding for DOD’s ManTech Program than requested in the President’s budget. For example, in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Army received an additional $66.5 million in ManTech funds, of which $45.5 million or nearly 70 percent was designated for the Army’s ManTech munitions efforts. These efforts included such projects as developing a more cost-effective and safer manufacturing process for an advanced explosive compound. The Congress believed such efforts were not receiving sufficient funds in the past. The extent to which the ManTech Program meets users needs is due partly to the process by which projects are identified and selected for funding. Furthermore, the statute requires the participation of the prospective technology users in establishing requirements for advanced manufacturing technology. The services and DLA have different planning cycles and criteria for project selection. However, they all have processes that include users in the identification and selection of projects. The processes generally include steps to determine and consolidate users’ needs, select the projects to be funded, and perform the work. The following figure depicts the generic ManTech project and identification and selection process. We found that the number of projects selected for inclusion in the ManTech Program differs from the number proposed because of funding limitations. Most of the funding each year is allocated to projects already underway that require multi-year funding. Only a few proposed projects are selected as new starts. Table 2 shows the number of projects proposed and selected for fiscal year 2001. Even though the services and DLA employ different types of selection mechanisms and criteria, they all include users in this process. For example, the Army and the Navy annually solicit ideas for projects from the major subordinate commands where weapons systems are managed. The Air Force encourages users to submit ideas for projects on a continuing basis. All three services require that before a project can be considered for funding, prospective users of the technology endorse the projects. DLA relies on regular dialog with its supply service centers to raise issues related to manufacturing technology for the programs for which it is responsible. Table 3 further details how the services and DLA identify, select, and fund their projects. Some factors limit the extent to which the services and DLA can respond to certain needs. Those limitations include canceling some projects that have not yet been started, terminating projects already underway, or postponing projects already approved for funding because of insufficient funding. For example, the Navy conducts its program through a network of Centers of Excellence and allocates program funding based on what each center received in the past. This strategy helps all of the centers remain viable through the life of their contracts, but demands for projects at a particular center in any given year may be greater than funding at that center. This outcome may result in some projects not being funded, and therefore some users’ most urgent ManTech needs may not be met. For example, for fiscal year 2001, two lower priority Naval Sea Systems Command projects were selected for funding because the command’s higher priority projects were for Centers of Excellence with insufficient funds to meet all demands. Also, several Army and one ManTech official in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense whom we talked to expressed concern about the Army’s requirement for a program manager cost share on certain projects and a validated cost analysis on all projects. Two of the officials believed that there were projects that would benefit Army weapons systems but would not be selected for funding because (1) it was not possible to obtain a program manager cost share, or (2) a validated cost analysis could not be done for projects with environmental, health, or safety benefits. According to the officials, these projects would help meet user needs by reducing the total cost of ownership or improving the quality of weapons systems. However, our review of a number of Army projects did not reveal any that fell into these categories. Another Army ManTech official and an official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense believed that validated cost analyses served a useful purpose in weeding out projects without measurable financial benefits. One official expressed concern about the extent to which the Army relies on validated cost analyses to select projects for funding. The other official did not think the cost analysis was the best or only way to screen projects. However, neither official had alternative suggestions. Additionally, Air Force ManTech officials expressed concern that users’ future needs may not be met to the same extent as they have been in recent years. This is because the Air Force Materiel Command may have to absorb a budget shortfall of $100 million in science and technology funding, which includes the ManTech program. As a result, the Materiel Command proposes reducing the Air Force ManTech Program by more than a quarter over the next 5 years between fiscal years 2003 and 2007 or $77.6 million in total. According to ManTech managers, the Air Force may have to terminate some on-going projects and/or cancel planned projects to address the funding shortfall. For the most part, the services and DLA awarded work performed under the ManTech Program using competitive procedures. Of the 36 contracting actions we reviewed, 10 were awarded without competition. In each case, there was a documented justification to award the work on a sole source basis. Table 4 further illustrates the extent to which the services and DLA award their projects competitively and details the rationale for specific sole source awards. DOD is not managing the ManTech Program as efficiently and effectively as possible. Specifically, it is not conducting as many joint projects as it could and therefore is missing opportunities to leverage the limited funding available for ManTech projects. Additionally, DOD does not effectively measure the program’s success. Joint projects are those that are jointly funded; have planned implementation benefiting more than one component; or are managed with joint decision-making. These projects allow the services and DLA to leverage their programs by sharing the financial and managerial burdens for projects that can benefit more than one defense component. This is especially important given the limited ManTech budget and the small number of new projects each year that are approved for funding. For example, one currently funded joint project is expected to achieve affordability goals for forged components used on fighter aircraft. The project is expected to benefit the Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy’s F/A-18, and the Air Force’s F-22. The Navy’s National Center for Excellence in Metalworking Technology is managing this project and both the Navy and the Air Force are providing ManTech funds. Another project is expected to achieve significant cost reductions by further developing composite friendly aircraft designs, simulation tools, and material and manufacturing processes. The Air Force, the Navy, and the Army are contributing funds for this project. In fiscal year 2001, joint projects represented 16 of 124 projects, or only 13 percent of all projects reviewed last year. Another 84 projects, or 68 percent, had potential to benefit more than one DOD component, but were not otherwise joint projects. For example, one project would improve, demonstrate, and implement a process for coating electrical circuits to seal them against dirt and moisture, which would increase the reliability of the circuits. This Army project would benefit a number of Army missile systems, such as the Javelin and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3, and the Program Executive Office for Army Tactical Missiles will contribute $750,000 over a 4-year period. In addition, the project could benefit various Air Force and Navy missile systems. Also, according to the Navy ManTech Director, more DOD-wide benefits could accrue through more joint participation in the Best Manufacturing Practices Center of Excellence. The objective of the center is to improve the quality, reliability, and performance of the U.S. defense industrial base. The center identifies and disseminates best practices used by industry to foster technology transfer and improve the competitiveness of the industrial base thereby improving cost, schedule and product performance. The Associate Director, Manufacturing Technology & Affordability, in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology), Office of Technology Transition agreed that more joint programs would help the services and DLA leverage their funding and would facilitate the transfer of technology resulting from ManTech efforts. The Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel, the organization DOD has charged with the joint oversight of the ManTech Program, recognizes the importance of jointly funded and managed programs. Annual reviews of on-going projects conducted by various subpanels include, among other things, identification of the degree to which all projects are joint. Current guidance does not require projects already funded and in process be reviewed for joint participation, but the panel is revising the guidance to include a review of projects that are being considered or have been selected for funding but have not yet started. However, the draft guidance states that these types of projects would not be rated for their degree of jointness. Proposed topics for review would include a discussion of competing technologies or approaches and related work underway or completed, but stops short of identifying potential projects for joint funding or management. DOD does not know the full extent of the success of the ManTech program because it does not track the outcomes past the initial implementation. Statute requires that DOD prepare an annual report for the Congress that includes, among other things, an assessment of the effectiveness of the ManTech Program, including a description of all completed projects and plans and status of implementation of the technologies and processes being developed under the program. For each project listed, the report lists the objective for the project, the completion date, the amount of ManTech funding for the year, the potential beneficiaries for the project, the implementation site, and the expected return on the investment in terms of future cost avoidance. Nevertheless, while the report responds to a congressional requirement, it falls short of validating the long-term benefits predicted for the ManTech program. And currently, DOD lacks a methodology and process for doing so. The ManTech Program could be assessed by providing contractors with a financial incentive to track and report project results or by evaluating project proposals based on a contractor’s plans to track and report on implementing it. In addition, DOD could periodically commission an independent survey or study. An external review of the ManTech Program in 1998 stated that while the data on the return on investment for selected projects was impressive, DOD should seek review by an independent third party of projects at the service and agency level. By tracking and validating the long-term benefits of the program, DOD would be able to measure the actual return on investment of a particular project. The department would also know what technologies had been successfully transferred and the extent to which the ManTech Program improved the quality of weapons systems. Without soliciting an independent review or developing a standard for quantifying benefits, DOD cannot be sure that the ManTech Program is providing the financial benefits that have been estimated or that users’ long-term needs are being met. Further, it will not have a reliable basis for making decisions on its budgetary priorities and tradeoffs. The Navy, Army, Air Force and DLA all have processes that include users in establishing requirements for ManTech programs. Each service and DLA, however, separately selects, funds, and implements their ManTech program. While users report that the program has been meeting their technology needs, some ManTech officials expressed concern that funding was insufficient. At the same time, however, DOD has not been fully taking advantage of opportunities to leverage funding by conducting joint projects. The Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel’s effort to revise its guidance on reviewing planned ManTech projects should provide an opportunity to identify candidates for joint funding and implementation. Finally, DOD does not currently have an effective means to measure the results of completed projects. Without a means for determining project benefits, DOD will not know whether the ManTech program is meeting the long-term needs of users. DOD and the services need to build on existing efforts to identify and conduct joint ManTech projects. The Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel’s proposal to get involved earlier and review the services’ planned projects is a constructive step forward toward facilitating more joint projects. We recommend that DOD develop additional measures to coordinate the services’ planning cycles, budgets, and project selection criteria to better position them to identify and conduct joint projects. We also recommend that DOD develop a more systematic means for determining the results of ManTech projects. This may be done, for example, by (1) using an award or incentive fees to motivate contractor tracking of ManTech benefits over time, (2) including a requirement to track and report implementation as an evaluation criterion for awarding ManTech work, or (3) conducting or contracting for periodic surveys and/or studies of the industrial base to quantify the impact of ManTech projects. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation on the need to build on existing efforts to conduct joint ManTech projects and concurred with our second recommendation on the need to develop a more systematic means to determine the results of ManTech projects. With respect to the first recommendation, DOD emphasized that the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel already provides an effective model for how to plan, coordinate, execute, fund, and implement joint ManTech activities and that this warrants positive recognition. DOD further stated that in comparison to other DOD programs that are overseen at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense level but funded by the military services and defense agencies, the implementation of “only” 16 joint projects should be viewed in a more positive context. However, DOD acknowledged that more could be done to improve the process for developing joint projects. Toward that end, the panel is modifying its process and will review projects that have not yet started or that have recently begun and will rate these projects on the degree to which they are joint. In addition, DOD stated the panel will review the services' and DLA's planning cycles to identify opportunities for more effective coordination of planned projects. We agree that the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel has helped to improve the coordination of the services and DLA programs and facilitate the implementation of certain joint projects. For example, the 16 jointly funded active projects are evidence that DOD does jointly plan and conduct ManTech projects. However, we continue to believe that additional opportunities exist for pursuing joint projects. This is reflected in the fact that the Panel identified another 84 active projects that could benefit more than one DOD component but were not jointly funded, planned, or managed. The Panel’s new review process is a step in the right direction to facilitate more joint projects. However, as with the old process, projects will be reviewed for jointness only after the services and DLA have already selected them for funding. This could limit the extent to which a project can be jointly planned, funded or managed since it is likely the requirements have already been determined. The action initiated by the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel to review the components' planning cycles is also a positive measure, provided that the results are used to facilitate more joint planning earlier in the process. DOD also provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report as appropriate. DOD’s comments appear in appendix II. We will send copies of the report to the Chairmen and the Ranking Minority Members of other appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or John Oppenheim at (202) 512-3111 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report were Myra Watts Butler, Cristina Chaplain, Dayna Foster, Gaines Hensley, and Stephanie May. To determine if projects funded by the program are responsive to the needs of the military services and the Defense Logistics Agency, we reviewed the processes, policy memoranda, and guidance for identifying manufacturing needs, prioritizing those needs and presenting them for consideration for funding at both the systems command ManTech program director level and the weapon system program office level. We discussed various manufacturing technology-related issues including overseeing responsibilities with officials from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology), Office of Technology Transition; the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology; the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology; the Office Naval Research; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Science, Technology, and Engineering. At the ManTech program director level, we reviewed memoranda, guidance, and processes for identifying manufacturing needs, prioritizing those needs and project formation. We also met with management officials responsible for implementing the ManTech Program. For example, we met with officials from the Office of Naval Research, Industrial and Corporate Programs Detachment, Manufacturing Technology Program Office, in Arlington, Virginia and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; the Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and Defense Logistics Agency at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. To further assess user’s satisfaction, we spoke directly with ManTech users concerning their involvement in the ManTech Program and whether the projects were meeting their needs. However, we did not validate reported successes of the program. We identified the users from a selected number of active projects in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 for the Navy, Army, Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency. Specifically, for the Navy, we met with officials of various program executive offices and program managers from the Naval Sea Systems Command at Arlington, Virginia; the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, Maryland; and the Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, Virginia. For the Army, we met with representatives from several missile and aviation weapon systems at the Army Aviation and Missile Command located in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; the Army Armaments Research and Development Center in Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey; the Army Materiel Command in Alexandria, Virginia; the Air and Missile Defense Program Executive Office in Huntsville, Alabama; the Aviation Program Executive Office at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; and Ground Combat Support Systems Program Executive Office at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. For the Air Force, we met with representatives from the Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile Program and the Joint Direct Attack Munitions Program at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; the Joint Strike Fighter Program, F-119 Engine Program, the Engine Directorate, and Air Force Materiel Command Logistics office at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. To determine whether work being performed under the ManTech Program is being awarded on a competitive basis, we first reviewed the guidance and policy for competitive awards. We interviewed contracting officials as well as engineers who manage ManTech projects to obtain their views concerning specific projects. To assess the degree to which projects are awarded competitively, we randomly selected a sample of ManTech projects from the above list of fiscal years 1999 and 2000 projects for the Army, Navy, Air Force and DLA based on levels of funding, length of the projects, and varying types of technologies and weapons systems. We then reviewed the contract files to determine whether competitive award procedures were used. Because of the way the Navy is organized, we also selected five of nine centers of excellence and reviewed their policies, guidance and processes on competing projects. Specifically, we visited the Center of Excellence for Composites Manufacturing Technology (South Carolina Research Authority) in North Charleston, South Carolina; Electronics Manufacturing Productivity Facility (American Competitiveness Institute) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Navy Joining Center (Edison Welding Institute) in Columbus, Ohio; National Center for Excellence in Metalworking Technology (Concurrent Technologies Corporation) in Johnstown, Pennsylvania; and Gulf Coast Region Maritime Technology Center (University of New Orleans College of Engineering) in New Orleans, Louisiana. We obtained the legal advice of our General Counsel on questionable sole source projects. | The Department of Defense (DOD) established the Defense Manufacturing Technology Program to develop and apply advanced manufacturing technologies to reduce the total cost and improve the manufacturing quality of weapon systems. By maturing and validating emerging manufacturing technology and transferring it to the factory floor, the program bridges the gap between technology invention and industrial application. The program, which has existed in various forms since the 1950's, received about $200 million in funding fiscal year 2001. DOD's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense provides guidance and oversight to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), but each establishes its own policies and procedures for running the program and determines which technologies to develop. Users told GAO that the program was responding to their needs by developing technologies, products, and processes that reduced the cost and improved the quality of weapons systems. To the extent practicable, DOD used competitive procedures to award the work done under the program. The Army, Air Force, and DLA competitively awarded most of the projects GAO reviewed for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and the remaining non-competitive awards were based on documented sole source justifications. DOD is missing opportunities to conduct more joint programs and lacks effective measures of program success. Joint projects would enable the services to address the funding issue by leveraging limited funding and integrating common requirements and approaches for developing manufacturing technologies. |
Telephone marketing, better known as telemarketing, is an approximately $720 billion business in the United States, according to the Direct Marketing Association (DMA). As telephone technologies become more advanced, it becomes more cost-effective for telemarketers to use these technologies to sell various products and services directly to consumers. Only a few households have not received a telemarketing call. However, with the expansion of the telemarketing business comes the expansion of telemarketing fraud. Although the vast majority of telemarketers are legitimate business people, there are other individuals and companies who violate existing laws and rules and bilk unsuspecting customers of $40 billion a year according to some estimates. In recent years, several federal laws that deal directly with telemarketing issues have been enacted. Each of the laws has a different focus relative to telemarketing, but all attempt to limit or prohibit certain abusive, fraudulent, or deceptive practices. Because both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are responsible for different aspects of telemarketing, both agencies were directed to promulgate regulations. The FCC generally covers consumers' privacy rights relative to telemarketing practices and the use of the telephone system by telemarketers to transmit information whether via facsimile machine, automated dialing mechanisms, recorded calls, or by a live person. The FTC is concerned more with the content and consequences of the call, and its regulations focus on whether certain sales practices are misleading, fraudulent, or deceptive. Individual states have passed laws relating to telemarketing practices within a state. The TCPA, P.L. 102-243 , was signed by President Bush on December 20, 1991. It was the first of the six federal laws passed dealing specifically with telemarketing issues. This act directed the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules balancing the fair business practices of telemarketers with the privacy concerns of consumers. Some of the provisions of the FCC rules resulting from this act are as follows: Telemarketing companies must maintain a do-not-call list for calls placed to residential telephone numbers. If a consumer requests that his/her name be placed on such a list, the company must honor the request for 10 years. Nonprofit and charitable organizations are exempted from this provision, and the rules do not apply to calls placed to business telephone numbers. If a consumer's name is on a company's do-not-call list and the company places more than one call to that consumer in the year after the consumer has been placed on the list, the consumer may, if he/she wishes, sue the telemarketer in state court, usually a small claims court. Should a consumer pursue court action, he/she should maintain records of all calls and contacts with the company. Telephone solicitations to private residences may only be made between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Use of autodialers or prerecorded (artificial) voice messages to call any emergency telephone line (911, hospital, medical office, health care facility, poison control center, police, or fire lines), a guest or patient room in a hospital, health care facility, or home for the elderly, any phone number assigned to a paging service or cellular telephone, or services for which the person called would be charged for the call are prohibited unless prior consent was given to receive such calls. Prerecorded (artificial) voice calls to private homes are prohibited. However, such calls are permitted if the person called has consented to receive such calls, the call is noncommercial (from a charitable, nonprofit, political, or polling organization or government agency), the entity calling has an established business relationship with person called, or the call is an emergency. Such calls to business numbers are permitted. Any person or entity making a telephone solicitation to a private home must provide the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or address where that person or entity may be contacted. Any person or business using autodialers or prerecorded (artificial) voice calls, including calls placed to businesses, must state its identity at the beginning of the message and its telephone number or address during or after the message. Autodialer calls may not lock onto a phone line. Within five seconds of a phone being hung up, the autodialer must release the phone line. In some areas of the country, due to different telephone system technologies, this release may take longer. Customers should check with their local telephone company for additional information. Calls transmitting unsolicited advertisements to home or business fax machines are prohibited unless permission has been granted to do so or there is an established business relationship. Any message sent to a fax machine must include the date and time the transmission is sent, identity of the sender, and the telephone number of the sender or the sending fax machine. The FCC's initial final rule can be found in the Federal Register of October 23, 1992, on pages 48333-36. After some modification, the rule was finalized in August 1995 and published in the Federal Register of August 15, 1995, on pages 42068-42069. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC provides information concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and telemarketing issues at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html (unwanted telemarketing calls), http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unwantedfaxes.html (unwanted faxes), or http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketscam.html (telemarketing scams). On September 12, 2002, the FCC announced that it would review its existing telemarketing rules due to changes in telemarketing practices and the introduction of advanced technologies, enabling new marketing techniques. The FCC noted that these new practices and technologies have increased concerns about consumer privacy. The commission sought public comment on issues such as the need to revise its rules to more effectively follow the directions of Congress provided in the TCPA concerning balancing privacy rights, public safety interests, and commercial freedom of speech; revising or adding to its rules concerning autodialers, prerecorded messages, and fax advertisements; the effectiveness of company do-not-call lists; and the creation of a national do-not-call list. The Federal Trade Commission also considered establishment of a national do-not-call list. However, since the FTC is prohibited by statute from regulating certain industries (banks, credit unions, savings and loans, common carriers, and insurance companies, for example), an FCC national do-not-call list applies to industries not covered by an FTC list. The FCC considered creation of a national do-not-call database during promulgation of TCPA rules in 1992. It decided not to create such a database at the time because of issues such as cost, maintaining the accuracy of such a system, security of telemarketer proprietary information, and privacy of telephone subscribers with unlisted or unpublished numbers. Instead, the FCC required companies to maintain their own do-not-call lists. A summary of the FCC's proposed rule review appeared in the Federal Register on October 8, 2002, on pages 62667-62681. Comments relating to the review were due by November 22, 2002. Following the Federal Trade Commission's December 18, 2002 announcement of its amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the FCC extended the reply comment period to January 31, 2003. The extension was to ensure that all interested parties could take the FTC actions into account before submitting their comments. On June 26, 2003, the FCC announced that it would establish a national do-not-call registry covering both interstate and intrastate calls. The FCC noted that its update of the TCPA rules does not require states to discontinue their individual do-not-call registries, but any state do-not-call registry must include the name of any of its residents that are in the national database. States may adopt more restrictive laws relating to intrastate telemarketing, but may not establish practices less restrictive than the federal regulations. As with the FTC rules, consumers may continue to request that their names be added to individual company do-not-call lists if they so choose. On the other hand, consumers may also provide written permission to specific companies from which they wish to receive telemarketing calls even if they are on the national registry. The registry became effective on October 1, 2003, when consumers could also begin registering complaints, if necessary. Telemarketers may continue to call consumers with whom they have an "established business relationship." The FCC definition of established business relationship would permit a company to contact a customer for 18 months following a business transaction and for three months following an inquiry or application. However, the company may not call the customer again if the customer requests to be put on the company's do-not-call list. The updated TCPA rules also included additional restrictions on predictive dialers in an attempt to reduce "dead air" and quick hang-up calls by requiring that no more than 3% of all calls placed and answered by a person may be abandoned. In addition, when a call is abandoned within the 3% range, the telemarketing company must provide a prerecorded message identifying the company. Also prohibited is the blocking of caller ID information. Under the new rules, before transmitting an unsolicited fax "advertisement," the sender must obtain written permission from the intended recipient before sending the fax. However, following the release of the new fax rule, many businesses and nonprofits felt that the language of the rule was vague and would require them to get written permission from every one of their customers and members before sending any kind of fax to them even if the customer or member expected and was used to getting faxes from the company or nonprofit. According to various companies and nonprofits, the cost of obtaining permission from thousands of customers or members would be quite high and an administrative burden. As a result, petitions were filed with the FCC to delay the implementation of the rule (scheduled to go into effect on August 25, 2003) and reconsider the language. On August 19, the FCC announced that it would postpone implementation of the fax rule until January 1, 2005. Only implementation of the fax rule was postponed. All other new telemarketing rules took effect as planned. As a result of pending congressional action concerning the fax rules, the FCC released an order on October 1, 2004, that extends its stay of the fax rules until June 30, 2005. Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations and calls concerning political and religious speech are exempt from the FCC's TCPA rules. In addition, consumers may still receive calls that are not commercial in nature or do not include unsolicited advertisements. Although banking, insurance, telecommunications, and airline companies were exempt from the FTC's rules, they are not exempt from these updated FCC Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules. Since the Federal Trade Commission had previously announced the establishment of a national do-not-call registry, the FCC will implement its rules in conjunction with the FTC. The FTC will administer the national database with both agencies coordinating enforcement activities. There will not be two separate national registries. The FCC provides information on the updated TCPA rules at its website at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/donotcall/ . A synopsis of the new FCC rules appeared in the Federal Register on July 25, 2003, pp. 44144-44179. On July 28, 2003, the American Teleservices Association (ATA) filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver ( American Teleservices Association v. Federal Communications Commission ) seeking a judicial review of the FCC rules establishing a national do-not-call registry. ATA claimed that implementation of the rule could cost the industry and the economy up to 2 million jobs and violated the First Amendment rights of telemarketers. The court, on September 26, 2003, denied the motion to stay the FCC's order. For further information on the court cases and state and national do-not-call registries, see CRS Report RL31642, Regulation of the Telemarketing Industry: State and National Do-Not-Call Registries , by Angie A. Welborn. P.L. 103-297 was signed by President Clinton on August 16, 1994. The act directed the Federal Trade Commission to establish rules to prohibit certain telemarketing activities. The FTC's final Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) was adopted on August 15, 1995. The rule covers most types of telemarketing calls and also applies to calls consumers make in response to material received in the mail, but it is not intended to affect any state or local telemarketing laws. The rule went into effect on December 31, 1995. Some of the provisions of the rule are the following: The rule restricts calls to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. It forbids telemarketers from calling consumers if they have been asked not to. Violations of this provision may be reported to the state attorney general. It requires certain prompt disclosures, prohibits certain misrepresentations and lying to get consumers to pay, and makes it illegal for a telemarketer to withdraw money directly from a checking account without the account holder's specific, verifiable authorization. Telemarketers calling consumers must promptly identify the seller of the product or service, that the purpose of the call is to sell something, the nature of the goods or services being offered, and, in the case of a prize promotion, that no purchase or payment is required to participate or win. In addition, prior to a consumer paying for any good or service, the consumer must be provided with material information that is likely to affect their choice of the good or service. Material information includes cost and quantity; restrictions, limitations, or conditions; refund policy; and, in the case of a prize promotion, information on the odds of winning, that there is no payment required to enter the promotion, how the consumer may enter the promotion without paying, and information on any material costs or conditions that may be required to receive or redeem any prize. Telemarketers and sellers are required to maintain certain records for two years from the date that the record is produced. Records includes items such as advertising and promotional materials, information about prize recipients, sales records, employee records, and all verifiable authorizations for demand drafts for payment from a consumer's bank account. There are exceptions to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. For example, calls initiated by a consumer that are not made in response to a solicitation, business-to-business calls (in most cases), and sales of 900-number (pay-per-call) services and franchises (covered by other FTC rules) are not covered. Certain types of businesses—banks, federal credit unions, federal savings and loans, common carriers (long-distance telephone companies and airlines), nonprofits, insurance companies, and many types of companies selling investments—are not covered by the rule because they are exempted from the FTC's jurisdiction and, in most cases, are regulated by other federal agencies. However, individuals or companies providing telemarketing services under contract for these companies are covered. The application of the rule can be complex. Consumers should check with state authorities or the FTC for clarification of coverage. With certain limitations, the FTC, the states, and private individuals may bring civil actions in federal district courts to enforce the rule. A statement of purpose and the text of the Telemarketing Sales Rule can be found in the August 23, 1995, Federal Register , pages 43842-438477. Additional FTC information concerning telemarketing is available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-tmark.htm . Complaints may be filed electronically at this site. During 2000, as required by this act, the FTC began conducting a review of the rule's effectiveness, its overall costs and benefits, and its regulatory and economic impact since its adoption. In addition, the FTC examined telemarketing and its impact on consumers over the past two decades. Results of the review will be reported to Congress. For further information, see http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/tsr/tsr-review.htm . On January 22, 2002, the FTC announced substantial proposed changes to the TSR. Among the FTC's proposed changes was the creation of a national do-not-call list. If enacted, consumers would place their name on the list by calling a toll-free telephone number. It would then be against the law for a telemarketer to call those consumers. Because certain businesses are exempt from the TSR (see above), notably those that consumers have given permission to contact them, placing a name on the list would not stop all telemarketing calls. Details concerning the procedures and operation of the national list were addressed during review of the FTC proposal. In addition, the FTC proposed that telemarketers be prohibited from blocking caller ID systems, that telemarketers be prohibited from obtaining a consumer's credit card or other account number from anyone but the consumer or from improperly sharing that number with anyone else for use in telemarketing, and that use of predictive dialers resulting in "dead air" (i.e., no one on the line) violates the TSR. The full text of the FTC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and additional information is available at this site: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/01/donotcall.htm . In addition, the notice was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2002, on pages 4491-4546. The FTC accepted comments on the proposed TSR rule changes until March 29, 2002. On May 24, 2002, the FTC announced that it had not yet made any final determination regarding the establishment of a national do-not-call registry. However, concerned with funding for operation of the registry should it be implemented, the FTC amended its January 22 proposal to include the assessment of user fees on all telemarketers that access or obtain data from any national do-not-call registry that might be established. The commission also reiterated that it is not proposing any charges to consumers for adding their names to the registry. Currently, the FTC estimates that development and implementation of a national list would cost approximately $5 million. Of that, approximately $3 million would come from user fees. According to the FTC, there are approximately 3,000 telemarketers that would be required to pay the user fee. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a national trade association serving the direct marketing industry, believes this amendment to the original proposal would be counterproductive to the industry's efforts at self-regulation and would be a financial burden to telemarketers. The DMA currently operates the DMA Telephone Preference Service, an industry-run national do-not-call list with 4.5 million names on the list. The full text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the proposed user fees may be found in the Federal Register of May 29, 2002, on pages 37362-37369. The FTC announcement of the notice with links to the text of the proposal may be found at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/05/fyi0229.htm . Comments on this issue were accepted until June 28, 2002. The FTC announced, on December 18, 2002, the creation of a national do-not-call registry and changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Extensive information on TSR changes is available at the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html . The FTC press release announcing the TSR changes may be found at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/12/donotcall.htm . The changes only affect companies regulated by the FTC and only those telemarketing calls crossing state lines. Individual state laws and regulations cover telemarketing practices within a state. Notably, long-distance phone companies, banks, credit unions, airlines, and insurance companies are not covered by FTC telemarketing regulations. However, with the FCC's June 26, 2003 announcement of its revised TCPA rules and national do-not-call registry, these categories of companies are covered by FCC telemarketing regulations. In addition, political solicitations are not covered by the revised TSR. The Final Amended Rule may be found on pages 4579-4679 of the January 29, 2003, Federal Register and also at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/12/tsrfinalrule.pdf , the FTC website. Some provisions of the amended rule became effective on March 31, 2003. However, the caller ID provisions did not have to be met until January 29, 2004, and the national do-not-call registry was not available until July 2003. Also, following petitions to the FTC, the effective date of some provisions was extended to October 1, 2003. Among the announced FTC changes was the National Do-Not-Call Registry. After reviewing more than 60,000 public comments, the FTC decided to establish a national do-not-call registry for consumers who want to stop most unwanted telemarketing calls. The registry was not implemented immediately because it required funding approval from Congress. Early in 2003, in two separate pieces of legislation, Congress provided the FTC with authorization to develop and implement the national do-not-call registry. P.L. 108-10 ( H.R. 395 ), the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, signed by President Bush on March 11, 2003, provided the FTC with the authorization for establishing the fees. In addition, this act permits the fees to be collected for FY2003 through FY2007; directs the FCC to issue a final rule in its Telephone Consumer Protection Act proceeding no later than 180 days after the enactment of the act; requires the FTC and FCC to issue reports to Congress on regulatory coordination between the two agencies within 45 days after the FCC issues its final rule; and requires annual reports to Congress from the FTC and FCC for FY2003 through FY2007. The annual reports must address the effectiveness of the national registry, the number of consumers participating, the number of persons paying fees to access the registry, the amount of the fees, an analysis of coordinating the operation of the national do-not-call registry with state do-not-call lists, FTC and FCC coordination, and a review of any FTC and FCC enforcement proceedings. In the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 ( H.J.Res. 2 , P.L. 108-7 ) signed by the President on February 20, 2003, Congress authorized the FTC to collect up to $18,100,000 to develop the national do-not-call registry. Following passage of this act, the FTC awarded a $3,500,000 contract to AT&T Government Solutions (a division of AT&T) to build and operate the registry. A separate registration must be completed for each phone number and, if using the toll-free number, a consumer must make the call from the number to be placed on the registry. A consumer with three telephone lines (cell phone numbers may be registered) would have to register each number separately. A number remains on the list for five years and the listing may be renewed. There will be no charge to consumers, but there will be a charge to telemarketers for access to the names on the list. Telemarketers who ignore the registry could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Adding a phone number to the registry will not stop all telemarketing calls. Under the original rule revision, telemarketers were to update their calling lists every three months to remove telephone numbers on the national registry from their calling lists. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 ( H.R. 2673 , P.L. 108-199 ), signed on January 23, 2004, directed the FTC to amend the TSR within 60 days of enactment of the act to require "scrubbing" of telemarketers' calling lists once a month. The FTC published a final rule requiring telemarketers to remove telephone numbers registered in the do-not-call registry from their call lists no more than 31 days prior to making a telemarketing call. The rule was in the Federal Register on March 29, 2004, on pages 16368-16374. There is an exemption in the amended TSR for telemarketers who have an established business relationship with a customer. The FTC states that there is an established business relationship "... if the customer has purchased, leased, or rented goods or services from the company within 18 months preceding the call, or if the consumer has submitted an application or made an inquiry to the company within the three months preceding the call." Even so, a consumer may still make a specific request to the company not to call. In addition, if a consumer wants to receive calls from a specific company, he/she may contact the company and give it permission to call even if the phone number is on the national registry. Companies will be required to continue their own do-not-call lists and must add names to that list if requested to do so by consumers. "Dead Air" Calls—According to the FTC, dead air calls (or call abandonment) violate the amended TSR. However, the FTC decided to give telemarketers a "safe harbor" on dead air calls if they meet specific requirements. "... businesses will not be liable for violating this provision of the rule if they: (1) ensure that no more than three percent of calls that are answered by a person are abandoned, measured per day per calling campaign; (2) allow each called consumer's telephone to ring for at least 15 seconds or four rings before disconnecting; (3) connect each call to a sales representative within two seconds of the consumer's greeting, or, if a sales representative is not available to speak with the consumer within two seconds of the call being answered, they play a recorded message stating the name and telephone number of the seller—the message cannot include a sales pitch; and (4) maintain records showing compliance with the requirements for abandonment rate, ring time and recorded message." This took effect October 1, 2003. Caller ID—Starting January 29, 2004, telemarketers must transmit their telephone number to a consumer's caller ID service. In addition, if technically possible, the telemarketer must transmit their company's name as well. Telemarketers have one year to come into compliance with the caller ID provisions. Billing Authorization—Telemarketers will be prohibited from receiving unencrypted consumer account numbers, except when used for processing a payment for goods or services or a charitable contribution according to the terms of a transaction approved by the consumer; unauthorized billing is prohibited without a consumer's informed consent; all material terms of any free trial period offer that involves some automatic charge at the end of the trial period must be disclosed; and any payment methods involving demand drafts, phone checks, charges to mortgage or utility accounts, or any other novel or unfamiliar method must be specifically and verifiably authorized by the customer. Charitable Solicitations—Telemarketers soliciting charitable contributions are exempt from complying with provisions of the national registry, but must not call consumers who have specifically contacted them and asked not to be called. However, those soliciting charitable contributions must promptly reveal the name of the organization making the call and that the purpose of the call is to raise money. The FTC announced, on July 29, 2003, an amendment to the TSR to establish fees for industry access to the National Do-Not-Call Registry. There will be no charge for the first five area codes of data. Access to a single area code will cost $25. The maximum annual fee will be $7,375 to access the entire country. Companies exempted from the TSR (political fund-raisers, charitable solicitations, and those conducting surveys) will be provided access to the registry at no cost to encourage them to voluntarily scrub their lists. Information on fees charged for access to the registry and a guide for telemarketers and sellers about the TSR may be found at the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/07/tsrfeesfrn.htm . A synopsis of the fee rule was published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2003, pp. 45134-45144. More extensive information on the amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including the text of the amended rule, is available from the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html . On January 29, 2003, the DMA filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Western Oklahoma ( U.S. Security v. Federal Trade Commission ), alleging that the FTC's actions violated the First Amendment right to advertise and that the FTC had overstepped its statutory authority with its proposal of the national do-not-call registry. The court, on September 23, 2003, found that the FTC had exceeded its statutory authority in creating a national do-not-call registry. The court upheld other provisions of the FTC's telemarketing sales rule. In response to the court's ruling, Congress passed a bill ( H.R. 3161 ) on September 25 to clarify the FTC's authority. On September 29, President Bush signed the legislation, which became P.L. 108-82 . Also, on January 29, 2003, the American Teleservices Association and two telemarketing companies filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Colorado ( Mainstream Marketing Services, TMG Marketing, and American Teleservices Association v. Federal Trade Commission ). On September 25, 2003, the U.S. District Court for Colorado ruled that the national registry, as established by the FTC, was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. The FTC filed on September 26 a motion for an emergency stay pending appeal, with the district judge issuing the order. The motion was denied on September 29. On that date, the same district judge issued a second order that warned the FTC not to assist the FCC with implementation of the national do-not-call registry. Also, on September 26, the FTC also filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver. On October 7, the court of appeals issued a stay pending appeal of the district court's order. The court of appeals did not reverse the district court's order and did not deal with the constitutionality of the do-not-call registry. The case continued in the court of appeals. Oral arguments were heard on November 10, 2003. As a result of the stay, FTC officials began enforcing the new telemarketing rules. On February 17, 2004, the Denver Appeals Court upheld the constitutionality of the national do-not-call list and found that the telemarketing rules were valid regulation of commercial speech. Opponents of the ruling appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected that appeal on October 4, 2004. For further information on the court cases and state and national do-not-call registries, see CRS Report RL31642, Regulation of the Telemarketing Industry: State and National Do-Not-Call Registries , by Angie A. Welborn. In addition, it has been reported that the telemarketing industry may have to pay millions of dollars for obtaining the FTC and separate state registries, new hardware and software, and training for sales personnel. Some in the telemarketing industry have said that very small firms may be forced out of business. This act was Title XXV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322 , and was signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. It included provisions that increased penalties for telemarketing fraud against people over 55 years old. Provisions of this law allow imprisonment up to an additional five years for certain telemarketing crimes or up to 10 additional years if 10 or more persons over the age of 55 were victimized or the targeted persons were over 55. Also, the act requires that full restitution be paid to victims and directs the U.S. Attorney to enforce any restitution order. P.L. 104-104 , signed by President Clinton on February 8, 1996, was a substantial amendment to the 62-year old Communications Act of 1934. Section 701 of the act closed a loophole that allowed information service providers and telemarketers to connect callers to "pay-per-call" services even though the callers had initially dialed a toll-free telephone number. P.L. 105-184 was signed by President Clinton on June 23, 1998, and attempts to deter fraudulent telemarketers by raising the federal criminal penalties for telemarketing fraud and permitting the seizure of a criminal's money and property to make restitution to victims. Also, if persons over the age of 55 were targets of the fraudulent telemarketing activities, criminals may be sentenced to additional prison time. President Clinton signed the Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act, P.L. 106-534 , on November 22, 2000. This act finds that an estimated 56% of the names on calling lists of illicit telemarketers are individuals aged 50 or older and that, as a result, older Americans are often the target of telemarketing fraud. Among other things, this act authorizes $1 million for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to be appropriated to the Attorney General (Department of Justice) for senior fraud prevention program(s) and directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the program(s). directs the Department of Health and Human Services to provide and disseminate within each state information that both educates and informs senior citizens about the dangers of fraud, including telemarketing fraud. This information may be distributed via public service announcements, printed matter, direct mailings, telephone outreach, or the Internet. instructs the Attorney General to conduct a study of crimes against senior citizens. Among other issues, the report must address the nature and extent of telemarketing fraud against seniors. directs the Attorney General, not later than two years after the date of enactment of this act, to include statistics relating to crimes against seniors in each National Crime Victimization Survey. expresses the sense of the Congress that state and local governments should incorporate fraud avoidance information and programs into programs that provide assistance to the aging. The Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act of 2001 was passed as Section 1011 of the Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), P.L. 107-56 , and was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Passed following the September 11 attacks, Section 1011 amends the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (see above) to expand the coverage of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule to apply to calls made to solicit charitable contributions. The rule had previously covered only calls made to sell goods and services. Charitable organizations are exempt from the rule. Although this law does not remove that exemption, it does permit the FTC to take action against a for-profit company that fraudulently, deceptively, or abusively solicits charitable contributions for charities. In addition, the act increases the penalty for impersonating a Red Cross member or agent. Simply say, "No, thank you. I'm not interested." No one has to make any special excuse or listen to the presentation of the person on the line. Consumers can go to a local library and ask for help in finding information on telemarketing and telemarketing scams. The library's Internet connection (if available) will provide access to the websites listed in this report. If no Internet connection is available, one may contact the FTC to request information about the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Federal Trade Commission Public Reference Branch Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 http://www.ftc.gov Contacting the local Better Business Bureau (BBB) to obtain information about telemarketing and the various types of telemarketing scams is another option. The Better Business Bureau also provides information at its website http://www.bbb.org/alerts/article.asp?ID=448 . If a letter or postcard arrives or there is a message on a home answering machine stating that someone has won a free trip or a prize or a sweepstakes, be cautious. Consumers should check the area code for the number that must be called to claim a prize or respond to a telemarketing call before they make the call. Most Caribbean countries and Canada have area codes that are integrated into the U.S. telephone system and may be reached by direct dialing without using separate country codes. Simply making a call to certain area codes may incur substantial long-distance charges. Those charges will depend upon the area code called, long-distance carrier, length of call, a customer's long-distance calling plan (or lack thereof), and other factors. The toll-free telephone prefixes used in the United States are 800, 877, 888, 866, and 855. A list of area codes and the state, territory, or country served by a particular area code may be viewed at the website of the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), the administrator of the North American telephone numbering plan. The website is http://www.nanpa.com/area_codes/index.html . Also, the front section of a local phone book usually contains maps and listings identifying area codes. If a particular code is not listed, customers should call the phone company to determine what area an unfamiliar area code serves. According to an FCC fact sheet, there are approximately 317 area codes in service today. About 207 of them are within the United States. Area codes are constantly being added or revised. If people respond to a prize announcement, they should not give out credit card, bank account, or Social Security numbers or send money to cover taxes, customs fees, etc., unless they completely understand all charges, procedures, and details concerning the offer. There are many different types of telemarketing scams involving many different types of products and services. For example, some of the known scams deal with stocks and other investments, automatic debit, charitable donations, easy credit, credit cards, credit repair, advanced fee loans, magazine subscriptions, international telephone calls, prizes, sweepstakes, work-at-home schemes, and travel. If there is doubt, people can request that written documentation explaining the prize, product, or service be forwarded to them. Any reputable telemarketer will send the information. Consumers should take their time and not be pressured into responding immediately. If a consumer believes that he/she is a victim of a telemarketing scam or that a telemarketing concern is violating existing rules, they should report the incident(s). First, contact a local or state consumer affairs office or the state attorney general's office. The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule permits local authorities to prosecute telemarketing scam operators who operate across state lines, and individual states may have passed their own laws or established regulations concerning telemarketing. Federal authorities may also be contacted. Victims of false or deceptive telephone solicitation sales practices may file a written complaint with the FTC by sending a description of their situation to: Federal Trade Commission Consumer Response Center Drop H285 Washington, DC 20580 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357)(toll-free) An electronic complaint form is available at the Do-Not-Call registry website https://www.donotcall.gov/Complain/ComplainCheck.aspx . Also, information on complaints is available at http://www.ftc.gov . Click on "File a Complaint" at the top of the screen. The information that is provided to the FTC may help the agency establish a pattern of violations that may require action. However, the FTC generally does not get involved in individual disputes with telemarketing companies. The FTC also provides information about telemarketing fraud through its Ditch the Pitch Campaign at its website. Information is provided for consumers on protecting themselves and for businesses on complying with FTC regulations. Complaints about telemarketing practices may be filed at this site; see http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/telemarketing/index.html . Suspected fraudulent telemarketing activities may also be reported to the National Fraud Information Center (NFIC), a private, nonprofit organization that assists consumers with telemarketing complaints. NFIC forwards all appropriate complaints to the FTC. One may obtain information on telemarketing or report suspicious incidents to NFIC via telephone, mail, or the Internet. National Fraud Information Center P.O. Box 65868 Washington, DC 20035 1-800-876-7060 http://www.fraud.org One may also contact the Federal Communications Commission if they believe violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act have occurred. Send a letter describing the complaint in detail to: Federal Communications Commission Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Complaints 445 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) Complaints may be filed online at the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html Information is available at the following FCC Web pages: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html (unwanted telemarketing calls) http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unwantedfaxes.html (unwanted faxes) http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketscam.html (telemarketing scams) If someone wants to be placed on a firm's or individual's do-not-call list, they should state clearly and firmly to the caller that their name is to be added to the list. The caller must take the name, add it to their list, and keep it there for 10 years. In addition, consumers should take down the name of the caller, the name of the firm or individual for whom they are making the call, and the address and telephone number where they can be reached. Note the date and time and keep a record of any additional calls that are received (if any) from the same source. If additional calls from the same source continue, a consumer may consider filing a suit in small claims court. Several individual states have passed laws establishing do-not-call lists within the state. Consumers should contact a local consumer affairs office, Better Business Bureau, or an appropriate state office to find out the particulars of their state's do-not-call list or if such a state list exists. In some cases, there may be a (monthly or annual) charge to be added to the list. If charges are assessed, state law, not FCC or FTC regulations, will determine the charges. The December 18, 2002, FTC announcement of a national do-not-call registry does not mean the end of individual state do-not-call lists. The FTC registry covers only interstate calls. Each state may regulate telemarketing practices within its borders. As a result, a particular state's list may cover telemarketing firms operating solely within the borders of the state, while the same firms would not be covered by the FTC's national registry since their calls do not cross state lines. Electronic transfer of individual state lists to the national do-not-call registry is possible. If such a transfer were done, individuals from a transferred state list may not need to register with the FTC. The transfer would automatically add names from a state list to the national registry. However, states are not required to transfer their lists to the FTC. For information on whether or not a state list has been transferred, contact state authorities. The FTC provides information on the sharing of state do-not-call list information between several states and the federal government at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt.htm . In addition, the DMA provides contact information for state do-not-call lists at its website http://www.the-dma.org/government/donotcalllists.shtml . The Direct Marketing Association, a national trade association serving the direct marketing industry, maintains a national do-not-call list. If someone adds their name to the national list, it will take a few months for it to take effect, and the name will go only to the companies who subscribe to the DMA's list service. Telemarketing companies are not required to subscribe to the service, and getting a name on any do-not-call list does not remove it from all telemarketers' lists. The list is updated four times per year, in January, April, July, and October. There is no charge to add a name to the list. Send name, address, and home telephone number (including area code) to: Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association P.O. Box 9014 Farmingdale, NY 11735-9014 http://www.dmaconsumers.org/consumerassistance.html In some instances, telemarketers use automated dialing mechanisms that call every number in a targeted geographic area or with a certain prefix. If someone is in one of those areas or has the designated telephone prefix, they will not escape the call even if their name is on a do-not-call list. Even unlisted numbers are called in these situations. The DMA has established operational guidelines for its members using automatic dialing equipment and software. The DMA also offers a free Mail Preference Service (MPS) for those who wish to receive less advertising mail at home. As with the Telephone Preference Service, to register for the MPS, a postcard or letter providing name, home address, and signature must be sent to the DMA. Mail Preference Service Direct Marketing Association P.O. Box 9008 Farmingdale, NY 11735-9008 http://www.dmaconsumers.org/consumerassistance.html On July 7, 1999, the DMA announced implementation of its " DMA Privacy Promise to American Consumers. " This effort requires all DMA members to adhere to a set of consumer privacy protection measures. These measures include disclosing to consumers when contact information about them may be shared with other marketers; providing a means for consumers to opt-out of any information sharing arrangement; honoring any individual consumer's request not to receive any further solicitations from the marketer; and requiring member companies to use the DMA's Mail Preference and Telephone Preference Services to maintain updated marketing lists of consumers who have chosen to place their names on these lists. DMA members were given reasonable time to comply, and through the use of secret shoppers, decoys, review of consumer complaints, and random staff contacts, the DMA seeks to assure that its members comply with these measures. If a member refuses to correct its procedures when asked to do so, the DMA board may expel the company and make its actions public. In addition, the DMA, in conjunction with the FTC and FCC, has developed a Web page providing advice to consumers who shop by phone. The site provides shopping tips, information on federal laws and regulations, and information on filing complaints http://www.dmaconsumers.org/ . The DMA also provides a website where complaints concerning receipt of telemarketing calls may be placed: http://www.the-dma.org/review/complaint.shtml . The Direct Marketing Association 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6700 [phone number scrubbed] The American Teleservices Association (ATA) is a national association representing call centers, trainers, consultants, and equipment suppliers in the telemarketing industry. ATA advocates for its members' interests in both federal and state legislative bodies, provides educational opportunities for its members, and acts as the industry's information clearinghouse. In addition, ATA has established a code of ethics for its members. American Teleservices Association 3815 River Crossing Parkway Suite 20 Indianapolis, IN 46240 [phone number scrubbed] http://www.ataconnect.org | In recent years, Congress has enacted several federal laws addressing telemarketing fraud and practices. As a result, both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have established regulations covering the $720 billion telemarketing industry in the United States. It is estimated that consumers lose over $40 billion a year to fraudulent telemarketers. Although the vast majority of telemarketers are legitimate business people attempting to sell a particular product or service, there are unscrupulous individuals and companies violating telemarketing rules and promoting various fraudulent schemes aimed at parting consumers from their money. The FCC, FTC, and several consumer groups and government/business partnerships identified in this report provide extensive information on telemarketing. This report provides summaries of the federal laws and regulations particular to telemarketing, the establishment of a national do-not-call registry, and on the options that are available to consumers to attempt to limit the calls that they receive from telemarketers and to report questionable telemarketing practices to local or federal authorities. The report also lists sources of additional information with addresses, phone numbers, and Internet sites (if available) and will be updated as legislation or news events warrant. |
LONDON (Reuters) - A French man who was running late for his flight from London to Los Angeles tried to delay it by calling police to say there was a bomb on board.
Librarian Jacob Meir Abdellak, who lives in east London, made the call eight minutes before his 5.47 a.m. Norwegian Air flight from Gatwick Airport was due to leave on May 11 because he was significantly late and airline staff had refused to allow him on board, a court heard.
His hoax meant passengers had to be re-screened and take-off was delayed by 90 minutes. An investigation by Gatwick revealed that the hoax call had been made using the same number linked to his booking.
When Abdellak returned to the airport to take another flight to the United States on May 22, he was arrested.
He initially claimed he had lost his phone’s SIM card but on Tuesday pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to communicating false information regarding a noxious substance likely to create serious risk to human health. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison.
“This was a quite ridiculous decision made by Abdellak, who fabricated an extremely serious allegation purely for his own benefit,” said Gatwick Police Chief Inspector Marc Clothier on Thursday.
“He was running late for his flight and thought it would be a good idea to call in a hoax bomb, however this turned out to be the worst decision he could have made.” ||||| An airline passenger made an anonymous hoax bomb threat to delay his flight because he was running late.
Librarian Jacob Meir Abdellak called police at 5.46am on 11 May - just eight minutes before the plane was due to set off from London's Gatwick Airport to Los Angeles in the US.
Officials were forced to postpone take-off for 90 minutes to carry out a full security screening.
Abdellak arrived "significantly late" and became abusive when he was prevented from boarding by airline staff and told to rearrange his trip for another date.
The Frenchman was arrested when he returned eleven days later on 22 May to catch another flight to the US.
Investigators had discovered the phone number used to make the bomb threat was the same one used to make the flight booking with Norwegian Airlines.
He admitted it was his number but claimed he had lost the SIM card a few days before the hoax call was made.
Abdellak, of Amhurst Park, Hackney, was charged with communicating false information regarding a noxious substance likely to create serious risk to human health.
He denied the offence until the day of his trial at Lewes Crown Court on Tuesday, when he changed his plea to guilty.
Abdellak was jailed for 10 months and ordered to pay a £140 victim surcharge.
UK news in pictures 50 show all UK news in pictures 1/50 16 August 2018 Students react as they receive their 'A' level results at Stoke Newington School and Sixth Form in London. Universities accepted thousands fewer students as pass rates hit lowest level since 2010 Reuters 2/50 15 August 2018 People gather on Market Street, Omagh, for the ceremony to mark the 20th anniversary of the Omagh bombing on 15 August 1998. The worst single atrocity of the Northern Ireland conflict killed 29, including a woman pregnant with twins PA 3/50 14 August 2018 Police arrest a man after he crashed a car into security barriers outside the Houses of Parliament Sky News 4/50 13 August 2018 Communities Secretary James Brokenshire today launched a £100 million pound government fund to end rough sleeping in England within the next decade. Brokenshire is pictured here at the central London headquarters for homelessness charity the Passage, where he launched the scheme PA 5/50 12 August 2018 Police officers stand guard at the scene of a shooting at Claremont Road in the Moss Side neighborhood of Manchester, Ten people were taken to hospital on August 12, 2018 after shots were fired in Manchester in northern England, police said. AFP/Getty 6/50 11 August 2018 Great Britain's Dina Asher-Smith reacts after she won gold in the women's 200m final at the European Athletics Championships in Berlin, completing the sprint double after she won the 100m just days before Getty/European Athletics 7/50 10 August 2018 Pedestrians walk past the entrance of the retail store House of Fraser in central London. The Chinese-owned UK department store chain, entered administration on August 10 only to be swiftly snapped up by retailer Sports Direct for £90 million ($115 million, 100 million euros) AFP/Getty 8/50 9 August 2018 Local people protest outside the Hillingdon Conservative Association office on August 9, 2018 in Uxbridge, England. Today's protest is being held following comments made by former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, against the wearing of Burkas by Muslim women in the United Kingdom. An independent panel will investigate complaints made regarding Mr Johnson's comments and possible breaches of the Conservative Party code of conduct. Getty 9/50 8 August 2018 Britain's Prince William, right, and Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May, walk past a German flag, left, and a Britain's flag as they leave the Amiens cathedral, northern France. Prince William and Theresa May are marking the somber centenary of the Battle of Amiens, in France, a short, bloody and decisive battle that heralded the end of World War I AP 10/50 7 August 2018 Great Britain's Jack Laugher and James Heatly pose with their Gold and Bronze medal's respectively won in the 1 metre springboard men's final at the European Diving Championships in Glasgow EPA 11/50 6 August 2018 England cricketer Ben Stokes arrives at Bristol Crown Court accused of affray. The 27-year-old all-rounder and two other men, Ryan Ali and Ryan Hale are jointly charged with affray in the Clifton Triangle area of Bristol on September 25 last year, several hours after England had played a one-day international against the West Indies in the city PA 12/50 5 August 2018 Great Britain's Laura Kenny celebrates after winning the Women's Elimination Race final at the European Championships in Glasgow 13/50 4 August 2018 Ben Stokes celebrates taking the wicket of India's Hardik Pandya with team mates during the first test at Edgbaston Action Images via Reuters 14/50 3 August 2018 French President Emmanuel Macron waves to people as he arrives at the Fort de Bregancon for a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May epa 15/50 2 August 2018 Brexit Minister Dominic Raab is welcomed by French Minister attached to the Foreign Affairs Minister Nathalie Loiseau prior to a meeting in Paris AFP/Getty 16/50 1 August 2018 Demonstrators against Tommy Robinson outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the former English Defence League leader has been freed on bail by the Court of Appeal after winning a challenge against a finding of contempt of court PA 17/50 31 July 2018 Friends of Lucy McHugh gather in Mansel Park, Southampton to release balloons in her memory. Lucy disappeared from her Southampton home last Wednesday and her body was later found in woodland near Southampton Sports Centre at 7.45am on Thursday PA 18/50 30 July 2018 Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt followed in the footsteps of his gaffe-prone predecessor Boris Johnson as he mistakenly referred to his Chinese wife as Japanese whilst on his first diplomatic mission to China AP 19/50 29 July 2018 Britain's Geraint Thomas, left, wearing the overall leader's yellow jersey and Britain's Luke Rowe hold the flag of Wales during the 21st and last stage of the 105th edition of the Tour de France cycling race between Houilles and Paris Champs-Elysees. Thomas is the first Welshman to win the Tour de France AP 20/50 28 July 2018 Passengers wait and queue following flight disruption at London Stansted Airport. The British National Air Traffic Services (Nats) placed temporary restrictions during the adverse weather on 27 July leading to flight cancellations and delays across Britain EPA 21/50 27 July 2018 The scene on the A96 between Huntly and Keith in Moray where a five people have died and five more were injured after a crash between a minibus and a car. PA 22/50 26 July 2018 Anti-Brexit campaigners parked a removal van outside the Foreign Secretary's official home in central London in protest of former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's continued residence there PA 23/50 25 July 2018 Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn during his visit to HS2 trains bidder Bombardier in Derby, following the launch of the party's new Build it in Britain campaign PA 24/50 24 July 2018 Great Britain's Geraint Thomas cleans his eyes after tear gas was thrown at the pelaton during a farmers' protest who attempted to block the stage's route, during the 16th stage of the Tour de France, between Carcassonne and Bagneres-de-Luchon. The race was halted for several minutes. AFP/Getty Images 25/50 23 July 2018 Crime scene investigators at the scene near the Hilton Hotel, Deansgate, Manchester where a woman with serious injuries to her neck was found in the morning. Six people have been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after the woman was attacked inside the hotel PA 26/50 22 July 2018 Italy's Francesco Molinari kisses the trophy after winning the 147th Open golf Championship at Carnoustie, Scotland AFP/Getty 27/50 21 July 2018 Great Britain's Tom Bosworth poses after winning the men's 3000m race walk with a new World Record time at the IAAF Diamond League athletics anniversary games meeting in London EPA 28/50 20 July 2018 British Prime Minister Theresa May delivers a keynote speech at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast. The Prime Minister is on a two-day visit to Northern Ireland. During her visit, focusing on Brexit and the deadlock at Stormont, she will visit the Irish border and discuss the potential impact of Brexit with Northern Irish businesses Getty 29/50 19 July 2018 Britain's newly appointed chief Brexit negotiator Dominic Raab, left, and EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier speak to the media ahead of a meeting at the European Commission in Brussels. Britain's chief Brexit negotiator David Davis resigned less than two weeks ago and his successor Raab met his EU counterpart Michel Barnier for the first time late Thursday. AP 30/50 18 July 2018 An emotional Sir Cliff Richard with his legal team outside the High Court in London after he was awarded £210,000 in damages in his privacy battle against the BBC over their coverage of a police raid of his home EPA 31/50 17 July 2018 Pro-EU demonstrators wave flags outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster. Reuters 32/50 16 July 2018 Theresa May arives to open the Farnborough Airshow Getty 33/50 15 July 2018 Novak Djokovic lifts the trophy after winning the men's singles final match against Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon AP 34/50 14 July 2018 Far-right protesters demanding the release of jailed EDL founder Tommy Robinson brought chaos to central London after blockading a bus being driven by a woman in a headscarf during the march The Independent 35/50 13 July 2018 US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa during their meeting at Chequers in Buckinghamshire Reuters 36/50 12 July 2018 US President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive in the UK Reuters 37/50 11 July 2018 England manager Gareth Southgate and his players look dejected after they lost their World Cup semi final match against Croatia at Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow Getty 38/50 10 July 2018 Serena Williams celebrates after winning against Camila Giorgi during their women's singles quarter-final match on the eighth day of Wimbledon. Williams won the match 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 Getty 39/50 9 July 2018 Britain's new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Dominic Raab leaves 10 Downing Street after it was announced he was appointed to the job. The former Housing Minister is to take up the post, after UK Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from the Cabinet and said Monday that he won't seek to challenge Prime Minister Theresa May's leadership AP 40/50 8 July 2018 Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel celebrates winning the British Grand Prix in front of second place finisher Lewis Hamilton at Silverstone Getty 41/50 7 July 2018 Gareth Southgate, manager of England, celebrates at the final whistle following his side's quarter final victory over Sweden at the World Cup in Russia Getty 42/50 6 July 2018 Forensic investigators wearing protective suits enter the rear of John Baker House, a supported housing scheme for the homeless in Salisbury after it was evacuated the previous day. Police are investigating the scene after a man and woman were exposed to nerve agent novichok and are in critical condition Reuters 43/50 5 July 2018 German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May in Berlin Reuters 44/50 4 July 2018 British police officers stand facing a residential property in Amesbury. British police have declared a "major incident" after two people were exposed to an unknown substance in the town, and are cordoning off places the people are known to have visited before falling ill AP 45/50 3 July 2018 England celebrate after beating Colombia on penalties in their round of 16 match at the World Cup in the Spartak Stadium, in Moscow AP 46/50 2 July 2018 Floral tributes left at Gorleston beach in Norfolk where a girl was fatally thrown from an inflatable on Sunday, as an MP calls for bouncy castles to be temporarily banned in public areas PA 47/50 1 July 2018 A firefighter carries a water hose past sheep close to scorched moorland as it burns during a fire at Winter Hill, near Rivington Reuters 48/50 30 June 2018 People march in central London to mark the 70th anniversary of the NHS PA 49/50 29 June 2018 People look at the damage to the outside of a high-rise block in Wellington Way, Mile End, in east London, after a fire broke-out in a 12th floor flat PA 50/50 28 June 2018 Prime Minister Theresa May holds up a Belgium football shirt given to her by Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, center left, during a round table meeting at an EU summit in Brussels. European Union leaders meet for a two-day summit to address the political crisis over migration and discuss how to proceed on the Brexit negotiations AP 1/50 16 August 2018 Students react as they receive their 'A' level results at Stoke Newington School and Sixth Form in London. Universities accepted thousands fewer students as pass rates hit lowest level since 2010 Reuters 2/50 15 August 2018 People gather on Market Street, Omagh, for the ceremony to mark the 20th anniversary of the Omagh bombing on 15 August 1998. The worst single atrocity of the Northern Ireland conflict killed 29, including a woman pregnant with twins PA 3/50 14 August 2018 Police arrest a man after he crashed a car into security barriers outside the Houses of Parliament Sky News 4/50 13 August 2018 Communities Secretary James Brokenshire today launched a £100 million pound government fund to end rough sleeping in England within the next decade. Brokenshire is pictured here at the central London headquarters for homelessness charity the Passage, where he launched the scheme PA 5/50 12 August 2018 Police officers stand guard at the scene of a shooting at Claremont Road in the Moss Side neighborhood of Manchester, Ten people were taken to hospital on August 12, 2018 after shots were fired in Manchester in northern England, police said. AFP/Getty 6/50 11 August 2018 Great Britain's Dina Asher-Smith reacts after she won gold in the women's 200m final at the European Athletics Championships in Berlin, completing the sprint double after she won the 100m just days before Getty/European Athletics 7/50 10 August 2018 Pedestrians walk past the entrance of the retail store House of Fraser in central London. The Chinese-owned UK department store chain, entered administration on August 10 only to be swiftly snapped up by retailer Sports Direct for £90 million ($115 million, 100 million euros) AFP/Getty 8/50 9 August 2018 Local people protest outside the Hillingdon Conservative Association office on August 9, 2018 in Uxbridge, England. Today's protest is being held following comments made by former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, against the wearing of Burkas by Muslim women in the United Kingdom. An independent panel will investigate complaints made regarding Mr Johnson's comments and possible breaches of the Conservative Party code of conduct. Getty 9/50 8 August 2018 Britain's Prince William, right, and Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May, walk past a German flag, left, and a Britain's flag as they leave the Amiens cathedral, northern France. Prince William and Theresa May are marking the somber centenary of the Battle of Amiens, in France, a short, bloody and decisive battle that heralded the end of World War I AP 10/50 7 August 2018 Great Britain's Jack Laugher and James Heatly pose with their Gold and Bronze medal's respectively won in the 1 metre springboard men's final at the European Diving Championships in Glasgow EPA 11/50 6 August 2018 England cricketer Ben Stokes arrives at Bristol Crown Court accused of affray. The 27-year-old all-rounder and two other men, Ryan Ali and Ryan Hale are jointly charged with affray in the Clifton Triangle area of Bristol on September 25 last year, several hours after England had played a one-day international against the West Indies in the city PA 12/50 5 August 2018 Great Britain's Laura Kenny celebrates after winning the Women's Elimination Race final at the European Championships in Glasgow 13/50 4 August 2018 Ben Stokes celebrates taking the wicket of India's Hardik Pandya with team mates during the first test at Edgbaston Action Images via Reuters 14/50 3 August 2018 French President Emmanuel Macron waves to people as he arrives at the Fort de Bregancon for a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May epa 15/50 2 August 2018 Brexit Minister Dominic Raab is welcomed by French Minister attached to the Foreign Affairs Minister Nathalie Loiseau prior to a meeting in Paris AFP/Getty 16/50 1 August 2018 Demonstrators against Tommy Robinson outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the former English Defence League leader has been freed on bail by the Court of Appeal after winning a challenge against a finding of contempt of court PA 17/50 31 July 2018 Friends of Lucy McHugh gather in Mansel Park, Southampton to release balloons in her memory. Lucy disappeared from her Southampton home last Wednesday and her body was later found in woodland near Southampton Sports Centre at 7.45am on Thursday PA 18/50 30 July 2018 Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt followed in the footsteps of his gaffe-prone predecessor Boris Johnson as he mistakenly referred to his Chinese wife as Japanese whilst on his first diplomatic mission to China AP 19/50 29 July 2018 Britain's Geraint Thomas, left, wearing the overall leader's yellow jersey and Britain's Luke Rowe hold the flag of Wales during the 21st and last stage of the 105th edition of the Tour de France cycling race between Houilles and Paris Champs-Elysees. Thomas is the first Welshman to win the Tour de France AP 20/50 28 July 2018 Passengers wait and queue following flight disruption at London Stansted Airport. The British National Air Traffic Services (Nats) placed temporary restrictions during the adverse weather on 27 July leading to flight cancellations and delays across Britain EPA 21/50 27 July 2018 The scene on the A96 between Huntly and Keith in Moray where a five people have died and five more were injured after a crash between a minibus and a car. PA 22/50 26 July 2018 Anti-Brexit campaigners parked a removal van outside the Foreign Secretary's official home in central London in protest of former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's continued residence there PA 23/50 25 July 2018 Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn during his visit to HS2 trains bidder Bombardier in Derby, following the launch of the party's new Build it in Britain campaign PA 24/50 24 July 2018 Great Britain's Geraint Thomas cleans his eyes after tear gas was thrown at the pelaton during a farmers' protest who attempted to block the stage's route, during the 16th stage of the Tour de France, between Carcassonne and Bagneres-de-Luchon. The race was halted for several minutes. AFP/Getty Images 25/50 23 July 2018 Crime scene investigators at the scene near the Hilton Hotel, Deansgate, Manchester where a woman with serious injuries to her neck was found in the morning. Six people have been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after the woman was attacked inside the hotel PA 26/50 22 July 2018 Italy's Francesco Molinari kisses the trophy after winning the 147th Open golf Championship at Carnoustie, Scotland AFP/Getty 27/50 21 July 2018 Great Britain's Tom Bosworth poses after winning the men's 3000m race walk with a new World Record time at the IAAF Diamond League athletics anniversary games meeting in London EPA 28/50 20 July 2018 British Prime Minister Theresa May delivers a keynote speech at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast. The Prime Minister is on a two-day visit to Northern Ireland. During her visit, focusing on Brexit and the deadlock at Stormont, she will visit the Irish border and discuss the potential impact of Brexit with Northern Irish businesses Getty 29/50 19 July 2018 Britain's newly appointed chief Brexit negotiator Dominic Raab, left, and EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier speak to the media ahead of a meeting at the European Commission in Brussels. Britain's chief Brexit negotiator David Davis resigned less than two weeks ago and his successor Raab met his EU counterpart Michel Barnier for the first time late Thursday. AP 30/50 18 July 2018 An emotional Sir Cliff Richard with his legal team outside the High Court in London after he was awarded £210,000 in damages in his privacy battle against the BBC over their coverage of a police raid of his home EPA 31/50 17 July 2018 Pro-EU demonstrators wave flags outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster. Reuters 32/50 16 July 2018 Theresa May arives to open the Farnborough Airshow Getty 33/50 15 July 2018 Novak Djokovic lifts the trophy after winning the men's singles final match against Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon AP 34/50 14 July 2018 Far-right protesters demanding the release of jailed EDL founder Tommy Robinson brought chaos to central London after blockading a bus being driven by a woman in a headscarf during the march The Independent 35/50 13 July 2018 US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa during their meeting at Chequers in Buckinghamshire Reuters 36/50 12 July 2018 US President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive in the UK Reuters 37/50 11 July 2018 England manager Gareth Southgate and his players look dejected after they lost their World Cup semi final match against Croatia at Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow Getty 38/50 10 July 2018 Serena Williams celebrates after winning against Camila Giorgi during their women's singles quarter-final match on the eighth day of Wimbledon. Williams won the match 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 Getty 39/50 9 July 2018 Britain's new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Dominic Raab leaves 10 Downing Street after it was announced he was appointed to the job. The former Housing Minister is to take up the post, after UK Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from the Cabinet and said Monday that he won't seek to challenge Prime Minister Theresa May's leadership AP 40/50 8 July 2018 Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel celebrates winning the British Grand Prix in front of second place finisher Lewis Hamilton at Silverstone Getty 41/50 7 July 2018 Gareth Southgate, manager of England, celebrates at the final whistle following his side's quarter final victory over Sweden at the World Cup in Russia Getty 42/50 6 July 2018 Forensic investigators wearing protective suits enter the rear of John Baker House, a supported housing scheme for the homeless in Salisbury after it was evacuated the previous day. Police are investigating the scene after a man and woman were exposed to nerve agent novichok and are in critical condition Reuters 43/50 5 July 2018 German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May in Berlin Reuters 44/50 4 July 2018 British police officers stand facing a residential property in Amesbury. British police have declared a "major incident" after two people were exposed to an unknown substance in the town, and are cordoning off places the people are known to have visited before falling ill AP 45/50 3 July 2018 England celebrate after beating Colombia on penalties in their round of 16 match at the World Cup in the Spartak Stadium, in Moscow AP 46/50 2 July 2018 Floral tributes left at Gorleston beach in Norfolk where a girl was fatally thrown from an inflatable on Sunday, as an MP calls for bouncy castles to be temporarily banned in public areas PA 47/50 1 July 2018 A firefighter carries a water hose past sheep close to scorched moorland as it burns during a fire at Winter Hill, near Rivington Reuters 48/50 30 June 2018 People march in central London to mark the 70th anniversary of the NHS PA 49/50 29 June 2018 People look at the damage to the outside of a high-rise block in Wellington Way, Mile End, in east London, after a fire broke-out in a 12th floor flat PA 50/50 28 June 2018 Prime Minister Theresa May holds up a Belgium football shirt given to her by Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, center left, during a round table meeting at an EU summit in Brussels. European Union leaders meet for a two-day summit to address the political crisis over migration and discuss how to proceed on the Brexit negotiations AP
Chief inspector Marc Clothier of Sussex Police said: “This was a quite ridiculous decision made by Abdellak, who fabricated an extremely serious allegation purely for his own benefit.
"He was running late for his flight and thought it would be a good idea to call in a hoax bomb, however this turned out to be the worst decision he could have made.
“His actions caused the flight to be delayed, and also caused a level of fear and distress among a number of staff and passengers on board that flight.
“The consequences of making allegations about bombs, guns or similar at densely populated locations such as airports are well documented, and Abdellak’s sentence serves as a warning to others that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated and offenders will be dealt with robustly.”
A Norwegian spokesperson said: “We treat all security threats very seriously and we work with the police and authorities to ensure the safety and security of our customers, crew and aircraft at all times.” | A librarian has been jailed after calling in a fake bomb threat so he wouldn't miss a flight. Per Reuters, Jacob Meir Abdellak, a Frenchman living in London, called in the hoax eight minutes before his Norwegian Airlines flight was slated to leave Gatwick Airport after staff wouldn't let him on board. The Independent reports officials postponed the flight for 90 minutes in order to screen for explosives following the May 11 call. Authorities reportedly traced the call back to Abdellak's phone. He was arrested on May 22. While Abdellak first claimed his SIM card was stolen, he has since pleaded guilty to "communicating false information regarding a noxious substance likely to create serious risk to human health" per Reuters. Abdellak was sentenced to 10 months in jail and will have to pay a fine. Gatwick Police Chief Inspector Marc Clothier ridiculed the librarian's decision-making in a statement Thursday. “This was a quite ridiculous decision made by Abdellak, who fabricated an extremely serious allegation purely for his own benefit,” he said. (Nonetheless, Abdellak is not alone in using over-the-top antics in order to make a flight.) |
Republican presidential candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich hands a pen back to a supporter after signing his autograph during a campaign stop at Hofstra University, Monday, April 4, 2016, in Hempstead,... (Associated Press)
Republican presidential candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich hands a pen back to a supporter after signing his autograph during a campaign stop at Hofstra University, Monday, April 4, 2016, in Hempstead, N.Y. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson) (Associated Press)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on campaign 2016 as voters in Wisconsin head to the polls for the state's presidential primary (all times Eastern Daylight Time):
8:20 p.m.
Wisconsin is projected to have its highest turnout in a presidential primary since 1980, but that hasn't translated into problems at the polls.
The state elections board projects turnout at 40 percent of eligible voters.
Board spokesman Mike Haas says clerks around the state had reported a busy pace but manageable lines throughout the day. The state is holding just its second election since voters were required to show photo identification, and Haas says his office hadn't heard of any major issues.
Neil Albrecht, executive director of Milwaukee's election commission, said wait times in the state's largest city didn't exceed 30 minutes even during peak voting. Albrecht estimated the city would have four to five times the same-day voter registration it had for the primary four years ago.
__
7:25 p.m.
Bernie Sanders offered few details on how he would break up big financial institutions during a recent interview with the New York Daily News.
The Vermont senator was pressed on how he would carry out his campaign pledge.
Sanders said some banks are too big and could be broken up either by "having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail."
But Sanders did not elaborate on how this would work. When asked how breaking up banks would affect jobs and assets at financial institutions, Sanders said it "is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision."
__
5:55 p.m.
A potential Donald Trump presidency inspires more excitement among Wisconsin's GOP primary voters than the other two remaining candidates — but also more fear.
About a quarter say they're excited about Trump, while less than 15 percent say that of either of his rivals. At the same time, nearly 4 in 10 say they're scared about what Trump would do as president, while only about 1 in 10 say that about either Cruz or Kasich, according to early results of exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.
In the case of a brokered convention, nearly 6 in 10 Republicans say the party should nominate the candidate with the most support in the primaries, while just 4 in 10 say it should nominate the candidate the delegates think would make the best nominee.
___
5:51 p.m.
Democratic voters in Wisconsin are divided on the effect of trade on unemployment, an issue that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has played up in a flood of television ads over the past few weeks.
About 45 percent of Democratic voters say trade with other countries takes away jobs in this country, while nearly 4 in 10 see trade as beneficial, according to early results of exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research. Only about 10 percent see trade as having no effect on job in the United States.
The polls indicate a mixed response on an issue that Sanders has put at the center of some of his most-aired television ads.
Over the past month, Sanders has poured about $2.4 million into radio and television ads in Wisconsin and one of his top aired ads has tucked in several subtle jabs at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's record on trade, according to data from political advertising tracker Kantar Media.
One Sanders ad touts the senator as standing with American workers, linking jobs losses to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Clinton initially supported but has since said she opposes.
___
5:49 p.m.
Ted Cruz continues to outmaneuver Donald Trump at local conventions, this time in Colorado.
Two of Colorado's congressional districts held conventions over the weekend and party officials say Cruz won all six delegates at stake. Cruz has also done well at local conventions in North Dakota and Louisiana.
Colorado has a unique system for awarding delegates. There is no statewide primary. Instead, delegates are elected at congressional district conventions and at the state convention on Saturday.
If delegates commit to a presidential candidate when they are running, they must vote for that candidate at the party's national convention this summer. If they don't commit, they are free to support the candidate of their choice.
Colorado has a total of 37 delegates, including the state's three Republican National Committee members.
The AP delegate count heading into the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday:
Trump: 737.
Cruz: 481.
John Kasich: 143.
Needed to win: 1,237.
___
5:42 p.m.
Bernie Sanders will appear on the Democratic primary ballot in the District of Columbia after lawmakers approved legislation clarifying that he met the filing deadline.
A mix-up between the city's Democratic Party and its elections board had left open the possibility that Sanders would be left off the primary ballot. Sanders paid a fee to get on the ballot, but the party didn't submit paperwork to the elections board until the day after the deadline. That led a local activist to file a challenge arguing that Sanders should be left off the ballot.
The District's primary is June 14, the last one before the Democratic convention.
The D.C. Council approved a bill Tuesday that guarantees Sanders' place on the ballot, and Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser says she'll sign it.
___
5:26 p.m.
Republican and Democratic voters in Wisconsin say the economy is weighing heavily on their minds as they head to the polls Tuesday.
Nearly three quarters of Democratic voters say they are worried about the direction of the country's economy, according to early results of exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research. More than a third say the economy and job is the most important issue facing the country and 3 in 10 consider income inequality to be of paramount concern.
The Republicans who came out to vote are even more troubled by the direction of the economy, the early exit polls show. More than 9 in 10 say they are either very or somewhat worried.
Similar to the Democrats, about 30 percent of Republicans consider the economy and jobs the country's top problem, and just about as many consider government spending the most important issue.
___
5:16 p.m.
Hillary Clinton is emphasizing her New York ties during a Tuesday campaign stop — and suggested that Donald Trump doesn't share his home city's values.
Appearing in Brooklyn, Clinton referenced the owner of Trump Tower and said: "The fellow who's from New York? I wish he'd get out of one of his towers and walk the streets."
Clinton, who represented the state for eight years in the Senate, later said she believes "the values of New York are the values of America."
Clinton's campaign is stressing the need to get a win in her adopted home state and has emphasized turning out African-American voters. She was joined onstage by minority women, including activists, elected officials and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio's wife, Chirlane McCray.
___
4:54 p.m.
Hillary Clinton is stressing her fight for more rights for women, including equal pay, during a New York City campaign stop.
Clinton eschewed going to Wisconsin, which is holding its primary on Tuesday and where she is down in the polls to Bernie Sanders. Instead, she is focusing on the next contest, which is being held in her adopted home state of New York in two weeks.
The ex-secretary of state appeared at Medgar Evers College, a public school named after the slain civil rights activist, in Brooklyn. Clinton pledged to "tirelessly fight" for women's causes, including abortion rights, and praised local officials for their efforts to help working women, especially the recent increase of the state's middle wage.
She also said she "loved" the U.S. national women's soccer team's lawsuit alleging wage discrimination.
___
2:50 p.m.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says the outcome of Wisconsin's election is important, not just for the individual who wins the delegates, but to the outcome of the race in general.
Priebus said in an interview Tuesday on WTMJ radio in Milwaukee that the outcome of Wisconsin's primary will play an important role in whether there is a contested GOP convention this summer in Cleveland. A win by Ted Cruz would make it more difficult for front-runner Donald Trump to get the 1,237 delegates needed by the end of the primary season to secure the nomination.
But Priebus says the outcome in Wisconsin is also important "on the narrative side." He says since no other state is voting Tuesday, the focus has been on Wisconsin for two weeks and how the outcome will influence the race going forward.
___
2:40 p.m.
Republican Ted Cruz is continuing his call for Ohio Gov. John Kasich to get out of the presidential race.
Cruz said in an interview Tuesday on WTMJ radio in Milwaukee that any candidate who doesn't have a path to winning should end their campaign.
"At this point," he said, "Kasich has been mathematically eliminated."
Cruz's comments come as Wisconsin voters cast ballots in that state primary. Cruz was leading in the polls, but Kasich was trying to win in at least one congressional district. The statewide winner gets 18 delegates, while three delegates are awarded to the winner of each of the state's eight congressional districts.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump has also called on Kasich to get out of the race. Both Cruz and Trump see their chances improving without Kasich taking votes, and delegates, away from them.
___
12:30 p.m.
President Barack Obama is responding to questions about Donald Trump's proposal to cut off billions of dollars in remittances sent by Mexican immigrants living in the U.S.
"Good luck with that," Obama said in a press briefing Tuesday, citing the dangers of what he described as "half-baked notions."
Obama told journalists that the proposal is "one more example of something that is not thought through and primarily put forward for political consumption."
Obama warned of the ramifications such a plan would have on the Mexican economy which, in turn, would drive more immigrants to flee to the U.S. in search of jobs.
"People around the world... don't expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can't afford that."
According to a memo released by his campaign Tuesday, Trump would try to cut off funds sent to Mexico through money transfers known as remittances to compel its government to pay for a wall along the Southern border.
___
10:00 a.m.
Voters are lining up across Wisconsin to cast their ballots in the state's presidential primary.
The stakes are high in Tuesday's contest as candidates from both parties fight to win enough delegates to become their party nominees. Early polling signaled a tight race for both parties, with Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Bernie Sanders are angling for victories.
Paul Lorentz, a 42-year-old project manager for Affiliated Engineers, was in line at 6:30 a.m. in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, to cast a vote for Republican John Kasich. Lorentz says he typically votes Democratic in the general election and Republican in Wisconsin's open primary, in order to sway that side to a better candidate.
Carrie-Ann Todd, a 39-year-old mother saddled with student debt, is voting for Bernie Sanders due to his efforts to address the cost of college.
"I'm paying more on my student loans than I am on my cars," Todd said.
___
8:30 a.m.
Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall by threatening to cut off billions of dollars in remittances sent by immigrants living in the U.S.
According to a memo released by his campaign Tuesday, Trump would try to compel Mexico to pay for a 1,000-mile wall if he becomes president.
In his proposal, Trump threatened to change a rule under the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law, to cut off funds sent to Mexico through money transfers known as remittances. Trump said he would withdraw the threat if Mexico makes "a one-time payment of $5-10 billion" to finance the wall."
The billionaire businessman has estimated his proposed wall would cost between $10 billion and $12 billion, and has argued that it would protect the country from illegal border crossings as well as halting drug shipments.
The release of the memo was first reported by the Washington Post early Tuesday.
___
3:30 a.m.
Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Bernie Sanders are angling for victories in Tuesday's Wisconsin presidential primaries that could give their campaigns a needed boost but still leave them with mathematically challenging paths to their parties' nominations.
While Sanders remains a powerful force in the Democratic primary, a win over Hillary Clinton would do little to significantly cut into her delegate lead. The stakes are higher for Cruz, who trails Donald Trump but sees Wisconsin as a crucial part of his effort to push the GOP race toward a convention fight.
Leaders in both parties are eager to turn their attention toward the general election. Clinton would enter the fall campaign saddled with persistent questions about her trustworthiness, but also demographic advantages that Democrats believe would be magnified against Trump. ||||| Bernie Sanders arrives at a campaign rally at the Wisconsin Convention Center on April 4, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wis. | Getty Bernie Sanders wins Wisconsin Democratic primary
Bernie Sanders has won the Wisconsin Democratic primary, according to three television networks.
The Vermont senator, who led former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by slim margins in the state’s most recent public polling, had been barnstorming the state in recent days as he sought to shore up his support among working-class voters.
Story Continued Below
With Tuesday’s win, Sanders will have claimed victory in seven of the last eight contests, but he faces a tougher road ahead with a series of closed primaries that are not as well suited for his candidacy.
Sanders also still faces a significant delegate gap with Clinton, who leads in not just pledged delegates but also superdelegates.
For Democrats, Wisconsin awards its 86 pledged delegates on a proportional basis.
View full results: http://politi.co/1oGcEFv
2016 delegate tracker: http://politi.co/2176fPm | Just one state voted Tuesday, but there was still plenty at stake in Wisconsin for both parties—and it was a good night for Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, Cruz scored an easy victory over Donald Trump and John Kasich, reports CNN. With 97% or results in, Cruz has 48%, Trump 35%, and Kasich 14%. On the Democratic side, Sanders comfortably defeated Hillary Clinton 56% to 43%. Wisconsin has 42 delegates at stake for Republicans, and even though it's not winner-take-all, the Cruz victory will be a boost in his quest to keep Trump from securing the necessary number of delegates ahead of the GOP convention. "Tonight is a turning point," Cruz told supporters after the race was called. "It is a rallying cry." He's winning, he added, because his campaign is uniting the Republican party. Sanders, meanwhile, can now boast of winning seven of the last eight contests, with delegate-rich New York up for grabs on April 19, reports Politico. In his own speech to supporters, Sanders emphasized the "momentum" of his campaign. "Real change never, ever takes place from the top on down," he said. "It always takes place from the bottom on up." For Democrats, 86 delegates were at stake on Tuesday. The AP reports that turnout was projected to be about 40% of eligible voters, the highest in a presidential primary in the state since 1980. |
Brutally cold weather has iced plans for scores of events in the Northeast from New Year's Eve through New Year's Day. But the show will go on in New York City, where people will start gathering in Times Square up to nine hours before the famous ball drop.
Authorities are warning revelers to dress in layers, cover exposed skin, lay off the booze and bring some hand warmers. They say it could be one of the coldest New Year's Eve ball drops on record.
The coldest New Year's Eve in Times Square was in 1917, when it was 1 degree at midnight. This year, the forecast is for 11 degrees with a wind chill around zero, which would tie for second with 1962.
Extra New York Fire Department personnel are going to be on hand to provide medical support.
Meanwhile, frigid conditions in Boston are taking their toll on the nation's fifth-largest transit system.
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has spent heavily to winterize what's known as the "T'' since it was crippled by record-breaking snowfall in 2015. But the agency reported "severe delays" on one of its lines Friday, citing a broken piece of track and a disabled train among other problems.
Keolis Boston operates the commuter rail system for the MBTA and reported delays on several of its lines.
A company spokesman says crews worked through the night to repair cracked rails and broken switches ahead of the morning commute, but he says it's not always enough to deal with the extreme conditions.
Commuters were advised to dress in layers to stay warm while waiting on platforms.
Across the U.S., the toll from record-breaking snowfalls and temperatures across the U.S. is starting to pile up. Bitter temperatures and snow squalls have been blamed for a handful of deaths.
Already winter-weary parts of the nation are dealing with a mounting number of weather-related headaches, from highway pileups to frozen pipes and a rash of car thefts. Police in the Cincinnati area said a half-dozen cars have been stolen in recent days after being left running unattended by owners trying to warm them up.
In Erie, Pennsylvania, a five-foot snowfall is now frozen in place, with residents marooned underneath it.
Homeless shelters in Chicago were jammed with people like Lee Lane. Imagine a person without this," Lane said. "I can't even imagine that. You would pretty much die in the street. You would freeze to death."
Along Cape Cod, three thresher sharks have washed up frozen since Wednesday.
In Boston, Mayor Martin Walsh warned this weekend will be arctic. "The only thing I know to guarantee is the ice sculptures will not melt for the next three days," Walsh said. ||||| CLOSE Over Christmas weekend, Erie Pennsylvania received record breaking snowfall, and it looks like another holiday storm is already on its way. Veuer's Sam Berman has the full story. Buzz60
Workers unload the numerals 1 and 8 as they arrive in Times Square ahead of the New Year's Eve celebration. (Photo: Drew Angerer, Getty Images)
It's going to be a frigid fest in Times Square this year.
With temperatures forecast for 11 degrees at midnight in the heart of New York's New Year's Eve celebrations, partygoers may have to weather the second-chilliest ball drop on record.
To get you ready for staying warm for the New Year's bash, USA TODAY got a few tips from the party's planners, emergency management officials and extreme weather legend Al Roker of NBC's Today show.
Here's your guide to staying warm in Times Square this New Year's Eve:
What should I wear?
Layers, layers, layers.
"Folks should start with a base layer of long underwear of merino wool and then use a number of lighter layers, finishing with a good warm coat," Roker said.
More: New Year's Eve revelers: Get ready for one polar party
For your hands, Roker suggests insulated mittens, not gloves. Your fingers will stay warmer when they're not separated by fabric.
"And warm, insulating socks with a great boot like a Sorel are a must. If your feet get cold, all is lost," Roker added.
Try not to have any skin exposed to the cold air, said Herman Schaffer, assistant commissioner for community outreach at NYC Emergency Management.
Consider synthetics, too — like Gor-Tex and polypropylene jackets — as well as wind-and water-resistant clothing, the Times Square Alliance, which co-coordinates the New Year's Eve bash, recommends.
Bundling up in layers and staying dry is one of the best things you can do to stay safe this winter. https://t.co/t18DZLimyl#WinterSafetypic.twitter.com/FlZF787JPm — NOAA (@NOAA) December 28, 2017
What should I bring (other than warm clothes)?
Backpacks and other large bags won't get through security, according to the Times Square Alliance, so make sure you pack smart.
A portable phone charger can't hurt, either.
More: Arctic blast over much of nation is a holiday guest not leaving soon
Schaffer also recommends bringing extra hand and foot warmers. "If you don't use them, someone else will appreciate them."
What about booze? Won't that warm me up?
Don't even think about it.
Not only is it illegal to drink in the street, but it also could be dangerous.
"The booze may go down all warm and tingly," Roker said. But "it dilates your blood vessels and brings your blood closer to the skin surface and all that frigid air, making you feel colder."
So save the bubbly for when you make it home.
What if the cold gets serious?
Even if the forecast doesn't look too daunting, Schaffer warned that hypothermia and frostbite could be serious concerns.
AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Paul Walker predicts it will feel up to minus 10 degrees at midnight in Times Square with winds reaching 20 mph.
If you notice yourself or your friend shivering, slurring speech or feeling low energy, it may be time to go inside. Schaffer said you may notice your muscles freezing up as the first sign of hypothermia.
The symptoms often start gradually, according to the Mayo Clinic, so it could be hard to tell if someone is at risk. Some also experience confusion, which can exacerbate the problem.
Emergency medical staff will be all around Times Square, Schaffer said, so don't hesitate to seek care if you think you may be at risk.
"It's not something (you) should be playing around with," Schaffer said. "As much fun as it is to see the ball drop, you need to take care of yourself first."
How long will I have to wait outside?
Most partygoers will have to wait outside for hours before the drop as the Times Square Alliance is expecting one million people this year.
Schaffer said most tourists and first-time partygoers don't expect the wait to last as long as it does each year. "It's going to take you some time to get to a warm spot."
The Times Square Alliance recommends arriving early in the afternoon for the best view, but knowing the perfect time to show up is impossible. Police will close nearby streets off at 3 p.m., and if you arrive before they barricade off viewing areas, they may ask you to move.
Some shops and restaurants nearby may be open, but it'll be up to each location to decide, the Times Square Alliance said.
And don't bank on getting your spot back if you have to peel off.
Contributing: John Bacon
Follow Ryan Miller on Twitter @RyanW_Miller.
Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE N.C. officials urge people to stay home | 0:46 Even after the storm blew off shore, North Carolina officials urged people to stay home while crews worked on roads made treacherous by the storm. (Jan. 18) AP 1 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Thawing ice spells trouble after U.S. deep freeze | 1:18 Warmer weather is causing new problems in the US. Ice fell off tall buildings in Houston. Thawing pipes are leaking in Louisiana, leading to water conservation and boil advisories. Maine residents worry that frozen rivers may thaw and flood. (Jan. 19) AP 2 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Deep snow, power outages in North Carolina | 0:55 North Carolina is dealing with up to 10 inches of snow and thousands of power outages after Wednesday's storm. Montgomery, Alabama firefighters contended with the frigid weather as they battled a fast food restaurant blaze early Wednesday. (Jan. 18) AP 3 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Frigid air brings snow and ice to the South | 1:09 The frigid air that brought snow and ice to the South has ushered in record-breaking low temperatures for New Orleans, Louisiana, as well as other cities in the South. (Jan. 17) AP 4 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE South Slammed Again with Arctic Mix | 1:30 The South awoke Wednesday to another Arctic mess. First came a thin blanket of snow and ice, and then below-zero wind chills from Atlanta to New Orleans. (Jan. 17) AP 5 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Hundreds of flights delayed, canceled because of Atlanta snow | 1:13 Despite the cancellations, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport says "we're remaining efficient." USA TODAY 6 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Frigid cold following snow to southern states | 1:05 The South awoke on Wednesday to a two-part Arctic mess. First came a thin blanket of snow and ice, and then came the below-zero wind chills. Dangerous, icy roads are reported from Texas and Louisana east to Georgia and North Carolina. (Jan. 17) AP 7 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Ice covering areas of northern New England | 0:56 The National Weather Service says rivers dropped back below flood stage in northern New England, after heavy rain and ice jams covered large areas with ice over the weekend. The region could get seven inches of snow by Wednesday. (Jan. 16) AP 8 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Ice jams cause Conn. town to evacuate | 0:53 Flooding is reported on several swollen Connecticut rivers, causing problems around the state. In Kent, ice jams on the Housatonic River prompted the private boarding school the Kent School to send more than 500 students home. (Jan. 15) AP 9 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Winter storm Hunter threatening most of U.S. with blizzards and ice | 1:06 It's expected to hit an area from Washington State to Mississippi and the Northeast Time 10 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE 5 ways to improve your Winter mood | 1:00 Beat those cold weather blues. Buzz60 11 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Another big snowstorm is coming for the U.S. this week | 1:05 Now it’s the Midwest’s turn for extreme winter weather. Time 12 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Hypothermic sea turtles rescued during cold snap | 1:34 Protected sea turtles across the South Texas coast are being paralyzed by the sudden cold weather. Texas Parks & Wildlife officials have rescued hundreds of turtles. Animalkind 13 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Frozen floodwaters form street of solid ice near Boston | 0:41 That's not just snow. Floodwaters froze over and trapped cars as the "bomb cyclone" pushed through Revere, Massachusetts. USA TODAY 14 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Coastal Mass. Town Reels from Winter Flooding | 1:04 Residents in the coastal community of Scituate, Massachusetts spent the day cleaning up after suffering from major flooding as a result of Thursday's fierce winter storm. (Jan. 5) AP 15 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Historic coastal floods swamp New England | 0:59 People in coastal areas of New England are cleaning up from massive floods that covered streets from Massachusetts to Maine as a gigantic winter storm pushed through the area. AP 16 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE When it's cold out dating apps heat up | 0:55 The New Year brings new opportunities for love and dating app users are logging in more often in January. Tony Spitz has the details. Buzz60 17 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE New England Battles Frigid Temps After Storm | 1:29 Frigid temperatures, some that could feel as cold as minus 30 degrees, moved across the East Coast on Friday as the region attempted to clean up from a massive winter storm. (Jan. 5) AP 18 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Bitter Cold Strikes NY Region | 0:58 Bitter cold air sweeping across the New York region is slowing the process of digging out from Thursday's major snowstorm that blanketed the region. (Jan. 5) AP 19 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Cars trapped in water, roads submerged in Boston | 0:50 A 'bomb cyclone' sweeping the Northeast triggered flooding in Boston and unprecedented high tides along the Massachusetts coast. USA TODAY 20 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE East coast storm grounds nearly 5,000 flights | 1:19 The flight-tracking site FlightAware reports nearly 5,000 canceled flights across the U.S. due to the massive winter storm, disrupting travel nationwide. That includes over two-thirds of flights in and out of New York City and Boston airports. (Jan. 5) AP 21 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE 'Bomb cyclone' slams East Coast | 0:38 Old Man Winter's first big breath brought similar snowy scenes all along the East Coast. Meteorologists say the strengthening storm has already surpassed the criteria for a "bomb cyclone." USA TODAY 22 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Monster storm hits East Coast, record cold next | 1:37 A massive winter storm roared up the East Coast on Thursday, threatening to dump as much as 18 inches of snow from the Carolinas to Maine, unleashing hurricane-force winds and damaging flooding. (Jan. 4) AP 23 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Cape May ferry travels through extreme, icy conditions | 0:40 The Cape May Lewes Ferry cruised through icy waters as the Northeast battles a violent "bomb cyclone" that could produce blizzard conditions. The 17-mile journey ended in Lewes, Delaware. USA TODAY 24 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Bomb cyclone fails to impress New Yorkers | 0:46 While New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told New Yorkers to stay off the roads, many braved the storm to get to work, or like Caylee Betts, just to see what all the chatter was about. (Jan. 4) AP 25 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE South revels in rare snow as north gets hit hard | 2:12 A brutal winter storm smacked the U.S. coast Wednesday. Savannah, Georgia saw their heaviest snowfall in three decades, Virginia Beach saw snow instead of the usual rain, and Philadelphia's streets are covered as the storm brews on. (Jan. 4) AP 26 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Navigating the storm in Times Square | 2:19 A massive winter storm roared into the East Coast on Thursday, dumping as much as 18 inches of snow from the Carolinas to Maine. In New York City, visitors and workers in Times Square were taking it all in stride. (Jan. 4) AP 27 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE 'Bomb cyclone' winter storm hits the East Coast | 0:40 High winds and snow usher in the first major winter storm of 2018. Brrrr! USA TODAY 28 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE What is a 'bomb cyclone'? | 0:44 Whether you call it a "snow hurricane" or "bombogenesis", this storm packs a punch worthy of its namesake. USA TODAY 29 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Cities prepare for brutal cold, major snowstorms | 2:01 Cities across the U.S. are bracing for extreme cold weather and major snowstorms. (Jan. 3) AP 30 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Winter storm shows some their first-ever snow | 1:44 A winter storm smacked the coastal Southeast with rare snow and ice Wednesday. Savannah, Georgia had their heaviest snowfall in nearly three decades. Forecasters warned that the same system could soon strengthen as it rolls up the East Coast. (Jan. 3) AP 31 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Niagara Falls partially frozen over in North American cold snap | 0:47 Niagara Falls partially frozen over in North American cold snap Video provided by AFP Newslook 32 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Gigantic winter storm reaches Times Square | 0:54 The massive winter storm that's moved up the eastern seaboard is dropping snow in New York's Times Square on Thursday. The storm has canceled flights, shuttered schools and businesses and sparked fears of coastal flooding and power outages. (Jan. 4) AP 33 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Brutal winter storm marching up the coast | 0:48 A brutal winter storm is smacking Southern cities such as Savannah and Charleston with a rare blast of snow and sleet. Forecasters warn that the same system could soon strengthen into a "bomb cyclone" as it rolls up the East Coast. (Jan. 3) AP 34 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Big winter storm reaches Mid-Alantic states | 0:45 The winter storm moving up the east coast reached the Mid-Atlantic states, dropping snow in coastal areas of Maryland and Delaware. It made roads dangerous in North Carolina and could drop over 8 inches of snow on the Boston area on Thursday. (Jan. 4) AP 35 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Massive storm pours snow on New Jersey | 0:57 Snow fell and piled up quickly before dawn in Long Branch on the New Jersey coastline on Thursday. A massive winter storm is moving up the U.S. Atlantic coast towards New York City and New England. It could drop 14 inches of snow on Boston. AP 36 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE 5 ways to keep your house warm during the cold weather | 2:03 Much of the U.S. celebrated the beginning of 2018 in the grip of record-breaking cold temperatures Time 37 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Snow freezes S.D. waterfall, surprises Florida | 1:01 A brutal winter storm dumped snow, sleet and freezing rain from normally balmy Florida up the Southeast seaboard Wednesday, delivering a white coating that some cities hadn't seen in decades. (Jan. 3) AP 38 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Disney, Universal Studios & SeaWorld close parks for cold weather | 0:52 Disney World, Universal Studios and SeaWorld have closed their water parks in Orlando, Fla. due to cold weather. Buzz60 39 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Leaking pipe creates incredible frozen waterfall | 0:25 Water from the leaking pipe froze over and covered the side of an abandoned building in China with a 30 feet of ice. USA TODAY 40 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Floridians revel in rare snow | 0:50 Sunshine State residents savored every snowflake during an unusual winter storm in Tallahassee, Florida. USA TODAY 41 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Monster 'bomb cyclone' forecast to move up East Coast | 1:40 Meteorologists say a monster storm called a "snow hurricane" or "bomb cyclone" is expected to bring wintry weather to Florida and Georgia on Wednesday. Forecasters expect it to make the East Coast even colder and drop heavy snow on New England. AP 42 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Big storm brings winter to Florida, Georgia | 0:53 Media reports from Jacksonville, Florida say frozen precipitation is already falling from a massive winter storm that's expected to move north. Jacksonville could get sleet and possibly snow. Blizzard conditions could reach New England by Friday. AP 43 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Alaska basks in warm temps as nation shivers | 0:50 A large swath of the U.S. is freezing under Alaska-like weather, but parts of the nation's northernmost state itself are basking in balmy conditions. Tuesday's official temperature tied a record 44 degrees in Anchorage. (Jan. 2) AP 44 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Bone-chilling cold shatters longtime U.S. records | 1:23 Bone-chilling cold gripped much of the U.S. as 2018 began, breaking century-old records and leading to several deaths that authorities attributed to exposure to the dangerously low temperatures. (Jan. 2) AP 45 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE 2018 is shaping up to be a cold winter | 1:09 These cities have already seen record-cold temps. Time 46 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Watch: Bubble crystallizes in frigid weather | 0:19 During cold weather, bubbles will become frozen after a few seconds. The Green Bay area is under a wind chill advisory until noon Jan. 2, 2018. Sarah Kloepping/USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin 47 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Frigid temps, icy roads blanket much of U.S. | 1:18 From north to south, cold weather is affecting much of the United States. Niagara Falls is covered in snow, parts of Texas near Houston battle dangerous icy roads, and Hollywood, Florida deals with strong winds and colder-than-usual temperatures. (Jan. 2) AP 48 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Lakes turn to ice, and people still jump in | 0:51 While ice and snow are pretty to look at, they can be dangerous. We do not recommend jumping into anything frozen. USA TODAY 49 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Survive the cold with these winter wardrobe hacks | 0:45 Cold weather worries be gone. Buzz60 50 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Hundreds enjoy Coney Island Polar Bear plunge | 1:03 An annual Coney Island tradition, the Polar Bear Club plunge, took place as scheduled Monday, despite a forecast high of only 19 degrees. Hundreds start off the new year at the famed beach by jumping into the Atlantic Ocean. They've never canceled because of the cold. (Jan. 1) AP 51 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Ice forms on Duluth Harbor in extreme cold | 0:42 Ice can be seen forming on Lake Superior around Duluth Harbor in Minnesota. The wind chill was 36 below zero there on Monday. WDIO-TV reports that more ships than usual are in the harbor because the cold slows down some cargo loading equipment. (Jan. 2) AP 52 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Thousands brave cold at Philly's Folk Parade | 0:39 Thousands of marchers have braved bone-chilling temperatures and wind chills to take part in Philadelphia's annual Mummers Parade, the oldest continuous folk parade in the country. (Jan. 1) AP 53 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Extreme cold temperatures in much of U.S. | 0:56 Chunks of ice floated down the Mississippi River and fountains froze in Texarkana, Arkansas as wind chill advisories stretched South Texas to Canada and from Montana and Wyoming through New England. (Jan. 2) AP 54 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE 2017's year-end arctic blast has turned deadly | 0:44 2017's year-end arctic blast has turned deadly. Both a man and a dog have frozen to death in Ohio. USA TODAY 55 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Very cold New York Times Square ball drop | 1:13 Throngs of revelers ushered in 2018 in New York's frigid Times Square as the glittering crystal ball dropped. The temperature was only 10 degrees in New York City at midnight. It was the second-coldest ball drop on record. Only 1917 was colder. (Jan. 1) AP 56 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Science says climate change is real despite cold spells | 1:30 The critics are loud, but weather experts still say sub-freezing temperatures do not discredit global warming theories. USA TODAY 57 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Watch what happens to boiling water in the freezing cold | 0:16 Temperatures at the Mount Washington Observatory are -31 degrees. That's cold enough to turn boiling water to ice, instantly! USA TODAY 58 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Bundle up! Here's what extreme cold does to your body | 0:56 An Arctic Blast has the U.S. in the deep freeze, but what does it really mean when your body starts to shiver? Tony Spitz has the details. Buzz60 59 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE These are the coldest cities in the U.S. | 1:12 Using data from NOAA, these are the five coldest cities in the United States. Buzz60 60 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Meteorologists predict very cold storms for New Years | 0:39 Over Christmas weekend, Erie Pennsylvania received record breaking snowfall, and it looks like another holiday storm is already on its way. Veuer's Sam Berman has the full story. Buzz60 61 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Extreme cold in northern New England | 0:50 Extreme cold temperatures spread from the Midwest to Northern New England, with record lows reported in Maine and New Hampshire on Thursday. (Dec. 29) AP 62 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Erie, Pennsylvania snowfall over 65 inches | 0:55 People in Erie, Pennsylvania, continue to dig out from a storm that brought more than 65 inches of snow in just a few days. Strong winds blew the snow in from Lake Erie. (Dec. 28) AP 63 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Michigan man skis behind Amish horse and buggy | 0:21 He's making us feel a little guilty for complaining about our icy commutes. USA TODAY 64 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Warm weather winter getaways | 2:27 Looking for a holiday in the sun? Here are some tips on getting the most out of your tropical vacation. USA TODAY 65 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE U.S. deep freeze expected to stretch into New Year | 1:07 Forecasters say the freezing temperatures in the northern U.S. could stretch into the new year. They are warning about hypothermia and frostbite. People who work outdoors in Burlington, Vermont have some ideas about dealing with the cold. (Dec. 28) AP 66 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE Raw: Extreme cold in northern Minnesota | 0:47 The National Weather Service says International Falls, Minnesota, known as the "Nation's Icebox," set a record low temperature of 37 degrees below zero on Wednesday. Hibbing, Minnesota was 28 below. More ice formed along Lake Superior in Duluth. (Dec. 28) AP 67 of 68 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE This cold snap poses far greater health risks than just the flu | 0:54 Doctors say that cold weather could be far more deadly than you think. Tony Spitz has the details. Buzz60 68 of 68 Last VideoNext Video N.C. officials urge people to stay home
Thawing ice spells trouble after U.S. deep freeze
Raw: Deep snow, power outages in North Carolina
Frigid air brings snow and ice to the South
South Slammed Again with Arctic Mix
Hundreds of flights delayed, canceled because of Atlanta snow
Frigid cold following snow to southern states
Ice covering areas of northern New England
Raw: Ice jams cause Conn. town to evacuate
Winter storm Hunter threatening most of U.S. with blizzards and ice
5 ways to improve your Winter mood
Another big snowstorm is coming for the U.S. this week
Hypothermic sea turtles rescued during cold snap
Frozen floodwaters form street of solid ice near Boston
Coastal Mass. Town Reels from Winter Flooding
Raw: Historic coastal floods swamp New England
When it's cold out dating apps heat up
New England Battles Frigid Temps After Storm
Bitter Cold Strikes NY Region
Cars trapped in water, roads submerged in Boston
East coast storm grounds nearly 5,000 flights
'Bomb cyclone' slams East Coast
Monster storm hits East Coast, record cold next
Cape May ferry travels through extreme, icy conditions
Bomb cyclone fails to impress New Yorkers
South revels in rare snow as north gets hit hard
Navigating the storm in Times Square
'Bomb cyclone' winter storm hits the East Coast
What is a 'bomb cyclone'?
Cities prepare for brutal cold, major snowstorms
Winter storm shows some their first-ever snow
Niagara Falls partially frozen over in North American cold snap
Raw: Gigantic winter storm reaches Times Square
Brutal winter storm marching up the coast
Big winter storm reaches Mid-Alantic states
Raw: Massive storm pours snow on New Jersey
5 ways to keep your house warm during the cold weather
Snow freezes S.D. waterfall, surprises Florida
Disney, Universal Studios & SeaWorld close parks for cold weather
Leaking pipe creates incredible frozen waterfall
Floridians revel in rare snow
Monster 'bomb cyclone' forecast to move up East Coast
Big storm brings winter to Florida, Georgia
Alaska basks in warm temps as nation shivers
Bone-chilling cold shatters longtime U.S. records
2018 is shaping up to be a cold winter
Watch: Bubble crystallizes in frigid weather
Raw: Frigid temps, icy roads blanket much of U.S.
Lakes turn to ice, and people still jump in
Survive the cold with these winter wardrobe hacks
Hundreds enjoy Coney Island Polar Bear plunge
Raw: Ice forms on Duluth Harbor in extreme cold
Thousands brave cold at Philly's Folk Parade
Raw: Extreme cold temperatures in much of U.S.
2017's year-end arctic blast has turned deadly
Very cold New York Times Square ball drop
Science says climate change is real despite cold spells
Watch what happens to boiling water in the freezing cold
Bundle up! Here's what extreme cold does to your body
These are the coldest cities in the U.S.
Meteorologists predict very cold storms for New Years
Raw: Extreme cold in northern New England
Raw: Erie, Pennsylvania snowfall over 65 inches
Michigan man skis behind Amish horse and buggy
Warm weather winter getaways
U.S. deep freeze expected to stretch into New Year
Raw: Extreme cold in northern Minnesota
This cold snap poses far greater health risks than just the flu
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2BV4v6Y | The 1 million revelers expected to flood Times Square on Sunday night are in for a seriously frigid start to 2018. CBS News reports the current forecast of 11 degrees with a wind chill close to zero will tie 2017 with 1962 for New York City's coldest New Year's Eve celebration. The coldest ever was in 1917, when it was 1 degree at midnight. With people expected to start gathering up to nine hours before the ball drops, the Today show's Al Roker has some suggestions for keeping warm. "Folks should start with a base layer of long underwear of merino wool and then use a number of lighter layers, finishing with a good warm coat," he tells USA Today. He also warns that while "booze may go down all warm and tingly," it will ultimately make "you feel colder." So keep that champagne corked until, let's say, August. |
Although the American people expect world-class public services and are demanding more of government, the public’s confidence in the government’s ability to address its demands remains all too low. The government’s successful implementation of information technology could improve this confidence. Indeed, according to the Council for Excellence in Government, “Electronic government can fundamentally recast the connection between people and their government. It can make government far more responsive to the will of the people and greatly improve transactions between them. It can also help all of us to take a much more active part in the democratic process.” Government use of Internet-based services is broadening and becoming more sophisticated. In particular, public sector agencies are increasingly turning to the Internet to conduct paperless acquisitions (electronic malls), provide interactive electronic services to the public, and tailor or personalize information. However, the government must still overcome several major challenges to its cost-effective use of information technology. At the beginning of this year we issued a series of reports—our Performance and Accountability Series—devoted to framing the actions needed to support the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable federal government. To the extent that the billions of dollars in planned IT expenditures can be spent more wisely and the management of such technology improved, federal programs will be better prepared to meet mission goals and support national priorities. However, we identified seven continuing IT challenges that are key to achieving this goal: strengthening agency information security, improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government information, pursuing opportunities for electronic government, constructing sound enterprise architectures, fostering mature systems acquisition, development, and operational practices, ensuring effective agency IT investment practices, and developing IT human capital strategies. Until these challenges are overcome, agencies are likely to continue to have fundamental weaknesses in their information resources and technology management and practices, which can negatively affect mission performance. Since 1990, we have also periodically reported on government operations that we have assessed as high risk because of their greater vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. In January of this year, in the information resources and technology management area, we designated information security and three agency IT modernization efforts as high risk. We have reported governmentwide information security as high risk since 1997, and the three major modernization efforts since 1995. The federal government’s information resources and technology management structure has its foundation in six laws: the Federal Records Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer Security Act of 1987, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998. Taken together, these laws largely lay out the information resources and technology management responsibilities of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agencies, and other entities, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In general, under the government’s current legislative framework, OMB has important responsibilities for providing direction on governmentwide information resources and technology management and overseeing agency activities in these areas, including analyzing major agency information technology investments as part of the federal budget process. Among OMB’s responsibilities are ensuring agency integration of information resources management plans, program plans, and budgets for acquisition and use of information technology and the efficiency and effectiveness of interagency information technology initiatives; developing, as part of the budget process, a mechanism for analyzing, tracking, and evaluating the risks and results of all major capital investments made by an executive agency for information systems;directing and overseeing implementation of policy, principles, standards, and guidelines for the dissemination of and access to public information; encouraging agency heads to develop and use best practices in information technology acquisition; reviewing proposed agency information collections to minimize information collection burdens and maximize information utility and benefit; and developing and overseeing implementation of privacy and security policies, principles, standards, and guidelines. Federal departments and agencies, in turn, are accountable for the effective and efficient development, acquisition, and use of information technology in their organizations. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 require agency heads, acting through agency CIOs, to better link their information technology planning and investment decisions to program missions and goals; develop and implement a sound information technology architecture; implement and enforce information technology management policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines; establish policies and procedures for ensuring that information technology systems provide reliable, consistent, and timely financial or program performance data; and implement and enforce applicable policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines on privacy, security, disclosure, and information sharing. Another important organization in federal information resources and technology management—the CIO Council—was established by the President in July 1996—shortly after the enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act. Specifically, Executive Order 13011 established the CIO Council as the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices on such matters as the design, modernization, use, sharing, and performance of agency information resources. The Council, chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management with a Vice Chair selected from among its members, is tasked with (1) developing recommendations for overall federal information technology management policy, procedures, and standards, (2) sharing experiences, ideas, and promising practices, (3) identifying opportunities, making recommendations for, and sponsoring cooperation in using information resources, (4) assessing and addressing workforce issues, (5) making recommendations and providing advice to appropriate executive agencies and organizations, and (6) seeking the views of various organizations. Because it is essentially an advisory body, the CIO Council must rely on OMB’s support to see that its recommendations are implemented through federal information management policies, procedures, and standards. With respect to Council resources, according to its charter, OMB and the General Services Administration are to provide support and assistance, which can be augmented by other Council members as necessary. The information issues confronting the government in the new Internet- based technology environment rapidly evolve and carry significant impact for future directions. To effectively address these issues, we believe that the government’s current information resources and technology management framework could be strengthened by establishing a central focal point, such as a federal CIO. Increasingly, the challenges the government faces are multidimensional problems that cut across numerous programs, agencies, and governmental tools. Clearly, departments and agencies should have the primary responsibility and accountability for decisions related to IT investments and spending supporting their missions and statutory responsibilities. But governmentwide issues need a strong catalyst to provide substantive leadership, full-time attention, consistent direction, and priority setting for a growing agenda of government issues, such as critical infrastructure protection and security, e-government, and large-scale IT investments. A federal CIO could serve as this catalyst, working in conjunction with other high-level officials, to ensure that information resources and technology management issues are addressed within the context of the government’s highest priorities and not in isolation from these priorities. During the period of the legislative deliberations on the Clinger-Cohen Act, we supported strengthened governmentwide management through the creation of a formal CIO position for the federal government. In September 2000 we also called for the Congress to consider establishing a formal CIO position for the federal government to provide central leadership and support. As we noted, a federal CIO would bring about ways to use IT to better serve the public, facilitate improving access to government services, and help restore confidence in our national government. With respect to specific responsibilities, a federal CIO could be responsible for key functions, such as overseeing federal agency IT activities, managing crosscutting issues, ensuring interagency coordination, serving as the nation’s chief IT spokesman internationally, and maintaining appropriate partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. A federal CIO could also participate in establishing funding priorities, especially for crosscutting e-government initiatives, such as the President’s recently proposed e-government fund (estimated to include $100 million over three years), which is expected to support interagency e-government initiatives. Consensus has not been reached within the federal community on the need for a federal CIO. Department and agency responses to questions developed by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs regarding opinions about the need for a federal CIO found mixed reactions. In addition, at our March 2000 Y2K Lessons Learned Summit, which included a broad range of public and private-sector IT managers and policymakers, some participants did not agree or were uncertain about whether a federal CIO was needed. Even individuals or organizations that support a federal CIO disagree on the structure and authorities of this office. For example, as you know, the last Congress considered two proposals to establish a federal CIO: H.R. 4670, the Chief Information Officer of the United States Act of 2000, introduced by Representative Turner, and H.R. 5024, the Federal Information Policy Act of 2000, which you introduced. These bills shared a common call for central IT leadership from a federal CIO but they differed in how the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the position would be established. H.R. 5024 vested in the federal CIO the information resources and technology management responsibilities currently assigned to OMB, as well as oversight of related activities of the General Services Administration and promulgation of information system standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. On the other hand, H.R 4670 generally did not change the responsibilities of these agencies; instead, it called on the federal CIO to advise agencies and the Director of OMB and to consult with nonfederal entities, such as state governments and the private sector. Senator Lieberman also plans to introduce an e-government bill, which is expected to include a provision establishing a federal Chief Information Officer. Different federal CIO approaches have also been suggested by other organizations. For example, in February, the Council for Excellence in Government recommended that the President (1) name an Assistant to the President for Electronic Government with cabinet-equivalent rank, who would chair a Public/Private Council on Electronic Government and (2) designate OMB’s Deputy Director for Management as Deputy Director for Management and Technology. The Council also called for the Deputy Director for Management and Technology, in turn, to create an Office of Electronic Government and Information Policy to be headed by a presidentially appointed, senate-confirmed federal CIO. In March, the GartnerGroup—a private research firm—called on the President to appoint a cabinet-level federal CIO within the Executive Office of the President. Some key areas that the GartnerGroup stated that the federal CIO should focus on include (1) advising the President on technology-related public policy, (2) developing and implementing federal e-government plans, (3) managing appropriated “seed money” for cross- agency e-government initiatives, and (4) developing standards for e- government interoperability and other IT-related transformation initiatives. CIOs or equivalent positions exist at the state level but no single preferred model has emerged. The specific roles, responsibilities, and authorities assigned to the CIO or CIO-type position vary, reflecting the needs and priorities of the particular government. However, some trends are apparent. Namely, according to the National Association of State Information Resource Executives (NASIRE), half the states have a CIO in place who reports directly to the governor. (Only eight states reported such an arrangement in a 1998 survey.) All but one of the remaining CIOs report to a cabinet-level officer or an IT board. In addition, some state CIOs work in conjunction with an advisory board or commission, and many of them serve as chair of a council of agency-level CIOs. As a former president of the National Association of State Information Resource Executives noted in prior testimony, “IT is how business is delivered in government; therefore, the CIO must be a party to the highest level of business decisions . . . needs to inspire the leaders to dedicate political capital to the IT agenda.” With respect to CIOs’ responsibilities, according to the NASIRE, the vast majority of states have senior executives with statewide authority for IT. In addition, state CIOs are usually in charge of developing statewide IT plans and approving statewide technical IT standards, budgets, personnel classifications, salaries, and resource acquisitions, although the CIO’s authority depends on the specific needs and priorities of the governors. In some cases, the CIO is guided by an IT advisory board. Examples of the diversity in CIO structures that states reported in 2000 to the Government Performance Project—administered by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University in partnership with Governing Magazine—are as follows. A model in which the CIO has a strong link to the state’s highest official is Missouri’s Chief Information Officer who reports to the Governor’s office. Missouri’s CIO is responsible for, among other things, IT strategic planning and policy, IT procurement, e-government, and facilitating IT resource sharing across agencies. The CIO is also the liaison representing Missouri on national issues affecting IT functions of the state. Kansas uses a model in which the CIO has multiple reporting responsibilities, including reporting to an IT council and the Governor. The Kansas Chief Information Officer serves as the Executive Branch Chief Information Technology Officer reporting to the Information Technology Executive Council, Governor and the Secretary of Administration. The Kansas CIO (1) establishes project management standards, (2) approves bid specifications, (3) approves IT projects over $250,000, (4) reports project status, and (5) manages the Strategic Information Management 3-year plan. Kansas also has Chief Information Technology Officers for its legislative and judicial branches that also report to the Information Technology Executive Council, as well as to the Legislative Coordinating Council and Office of Judicial Administration, respectively. Finally, in the model used by Michigan, the CIO reports to the head of an executive agency—the Department of Management and Budget. The duties of the Michigan CIO include developing a statewide information technology architecture and standards, developing and managing a statewide telecommunications network, and coordinating and reengineering business processes throughout the state government. Certain key principles and success factors can provide insight into the establishment of a successful CIO organization—including at the federal level. In February we issued an executive guide that includes a framework of critical success factors and leading principles (see figure 1). We developed this framework based on interviews with prominent private- sector and state CIOs, as well as other research. Mr. Chairman, what may be of particular interest to this Subcommittee is that CIOs of leading organizations we interviewed described a consistent set of key principles of information management that they believed contributed to the successful execution of their responsibilities. These principles touch on specific aspects of their organizational management, such as formal and informal relationships among the CIO and others, business practices and processes, and critical CIO functions and leadership activities. While focused on the use of CIOs within organizations, many of the principles of the framework are applicable to a federal CIO position. Let me explain some of the key characteristics of the six fundamental principles described by CIOs we interviewed and important parallels that can be made to the establishment of a federal CIO. Recognizing the business transformation potential of IT, executives of leading organizations position their CIOs as change agents with responsibility for applying technology to achieve major improvements in fundamental business processes and operations. With CEO support, the CIOs are in a good position to significantly affect not only IT, but the entire business enterprise. Similarly, it is important that a federal CIO be assigned a prominent role in the government’s decisionmaking to create and set a clear agenda and expectations for how information management and information technologies can be effectively used to help improve government operations and performance. Diversities in corporate missions, structures, cultures, and capabilities prohibit a prescriptive approach to information management leadership. Instead, executives in leading organizations ensure that their CIO models are consistent with the business, technical, and cultural contexts of their enterprises. In conjunction with determining their CIO models, senior executives of leading organizations clearly define up front the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of their CIOs for enterprisewide information management, better enabling their CIOs to operate effectively within the parameters of their positions vis-à-vis those of their senior management counterparts (i.e., CFO, COO). These senior executives also provide their CIOs with the authority they need to effectively carry out their diverse responsibilities. The federal government is large, complex, and diverse. Indeed, many federal departments and agencies easily rival in size and complexity some of our nation’s largest corporations. In addition, virtually all the results that the federal government strives to achieve require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more agencies. These are the types of issues that are important to consider when establishing a federal CIO. For example, while it may not be realistic for a federal CIO to have explicit responsibility for agency IT investments, a federal CIO could be an important broker of solutions that require cross-agency cooperation and coordination. CIOs in leading organizations recognize that providing effective information management leadership and vision is a principal means of building credibility for their CIO positions. In addition, CIOs often outline plans of attack or roadmaps to help guide them in effectively implementing short- and long-term strategies. Further, CIOs participate on executive committees and boards that provide forums for promoting and building consensus for IT strategies and solutions. These types of responsibilities can effectively translate to a federal CIO as well. A federal CIO can help set and prioritize governmentwide IT goals, provide leadership for the governmentwide CIO Council, and actively participate in other advisory organizations, such as the CFO Council, the Procurement Executives Council, and the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. While there is no standardized approach to performance measurement, leading organizations strive to understand and measure what drives and affects their businesses and how to best evaluate results. Leading organizations use performance measures that focus on business outcomes such as customer satisfaction levels, service levels, and, in some instances, total requests satisfied. In addition, to properly collect and analyze information, leading organizations develop measurement systems that provide insight into their IT service delivery and business processes. Establishing an information feedback system allows organizations to link activities and functions to business initiatives and management goals. The Government Performance and Results Act is results-oriented legislation that is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. A key role for a federal CIO could be to help formulate consensus and direction on performance and accountability measures pertinent to information management in the federal government. Moreover, a federal CIO could help establish goals and measures for major governmentwide efforts, including for the CIO Council, and create a mechanism to report on the government’s progress in meeting these goals. This is a particularly important role since managers at the organizations we studied cautioned that IT performance measurement is in its infancy and measurement techniques are still evolving, partly due to changes in technology. In lieu of establishing either completely centralized or decentralized CIO organizations, leading organizations manage their information resources through a combination of such structures. In this hybrid, the CEO assigns central control to a corporate CIO and supporting CIO organization, while delegating specific authority to each business unit for managing its own unique information management requirements. This model is particularly appropriate for the federal government since the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires executive agencies to appoint CIOs to carry out the IT management provisions of the act and the broader information resources management requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Accordingly, a federal CIO could help ensure overall IT policy direction and oversight for the government, and agency CIOs would be responsible for carrying out these policies, as appropriate for their agencies. In addition, a federal CIO could play a role in suggesting, through formal and informal means, how the government information resources and technology management structure should be organized, with particular emphasis on how such a structure can achieve cross-cutting functionally oriented government services. High-performance organizations have long understood the relationship between effective “people management” and organizational success. Accordingly, we found that leading organizations develop human capital strategies to assess their skill bases and recruit and retain staff who can effectively implement technology to meet business needs. Such strategies are particularly important since studies forecast an ever-increasing shortage of IT professionals, presenting a great challenge for both industry and the federal government. Complicating the issue further, serious concerns are emerging about the aging of the federal workforce, the rise in retirement eligibility, and the effect of selected downsizing and hiring freeze initiatives. Since human capital concerns are a governmentwide concern, this is one area in which a federal CIO could have a tremendous impact. Working with the Office of Personnel Management and OMB, the CIO could explore and champion initiatives that would aid agencies in putting in place solid IT workforce management and development strategies. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while information technology can help the government provide services more efficiently and at lower costs, many challenges must be overcome to increase the government’s ability to use the information resources at its disposal effectively, securely, and with the best service to the American people. A central focal point such as a federal CIO can serve in the essential role of ensuring that attention to information technology issues is sustained and improves the likelihood that progress is charted and achieved. Although our research has found that there is no one right way to establish a CIO position, critical success factors we found in leading organizations, such as aligning the position for value creation, are extremely important considerations. Finally, the experiences of statewide CIOs offer a rich set of experiences to draw on for ideas and innovation. As a result, it is critical that a federal CIO, as well as agency-level CIOs, develop effective working relationships with state CIOs to discuss and resolve policy, funding, and common systems and technical infrastructure issues. Such relationships are of growing importance as public entities work to establish effective e- government initiatives. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at this time. For information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Felipe Colon, Jr., and Linda Lambert. (310411) | The rapid pace of technological change and innovation has offered unprecedented opportunities for both the government and commercial sectors to use information technology (IT) to improve performance, reduce costs, and enhance service. A range of issues have emerged about how to best manage and integrate complex information technologies and management processes so that they are aligned with mission goals, strategies, and objectives. Although IT can help the government provide services more efficiently and at lower costs, many challenges must be overcome to increase the government's ability to use the information resources at its disposal effectively, securely, and with the best service to the American people. A central focal point such as a federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) can help ensure that attention to IT issues is sustained and increase the likelihood that progress is charted and achieved. Although GAO's research has found that there is no one right way to establish a CIO position, critical success factors GAO found in leading organizations, such as aligning the position for value creation, are extremely important considerations. Finally, the experiences of statewide CIOs offer a rich set of experiences to draw on for ideas and innovation. A federal CIO, as well as agency-level CIOs, must develop effective working relationships with state CIOs to discuss and resolve policy, funding, and common systems and technical infrastructure issues. |
This report provides an overview of the process for filling positions to which the President makes appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS positions). It also specifies, for the 108 th Congress, all nominations to full-time positions in the 15 executive departments, including the then-new Department of Homeland Security, which came into existence on January 24, 2003. A profile of each department identifies full-time positions requiring Senate confirmation and, if applicable, their pay levels. The profiles also track nominations to these positions during the 108 th Congress, providing information on Senate activity (i.e., confirmations, rejections (of which there were none), returns to the President, and elapsed time between nomination and confirmation) as well as further related presidential activity (i.e., withdrawals and recess appointments). The President and the Senate share the power to appoint the principal officers of the United States. The Constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) empowers the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint the principal officers of the United States. Three distinct stages mark the appointment process: selection, clearance, and nomination by the President; consideration by the Senate; and appointment by the President. In the first stage, the White House selects and clears a nominee before sending the formal nomination to the Senate. There are a number of steps in this stage of the process for most Senate-confirmed positions. First, with the assistance of, and preliminary vetting by, the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, the President selects a candidate for the position. Interested parties, including Members of Congress, may have input during this process. It could be argued that Senators are constitutionally entitled, by virtue of the advice and consent clause noted above, to provide advice to the President regarding his selection; the extent of this entitlement is a matter of some debate. As a practical matter, in general, a nomination is likely to fare better if the Administration has first consulted Senators on the committee of jurisdiction. During the clearance process, the candidate prepares and submits several forms: the "Public Financial Disclosure Report" (Standard Form (SF) 278), the "Questionnaire for National Security Positions" (SF 86), and the White House "Personal Data Statement Questionnaire." The Office of the Counsel to the President oversees the clearance process, which often includes background investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Office of Government Ethics (OGE), and an ethics official for the agency to which the candidate is to be appointed. If conflicts are found during the background check, OGE and the agency ethics officer may work with the candidate to mitigate the conflicts. Once the Office of the Counsel to the President has cleared the candidate, the nomination is ready to be submitted to the Senate. The selection and clearance stage is often the longest part of the appointment process. There can be lengthy delays, particularly if many candidates are being processed, as they are at the beginning of an Administration, or if conflicts need to be resolved. Candidates for higher-level positions are often accorded priority in this process. In an effort to reduce the elapsed time between a new President's inauguration and the appointment of his or her national security team, amendments to the Presidential Transitions Act of 1963, enacted at the end of 2004, encourage a President-elect to submit, for security clearance, potential nominees to high-level national security positions as soon as possible after the election. A separate provision of law, enacted as part of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, lengthens, during presidential transitions, the potential length of a temporary appointment by at least 90 days. Although this provision might give some additional flexibility to an incoming President, it might also lengthen the appointment process for some positions by, in effect, extending the deadline by which a permanent appointment must be completed. For positions located within a state (e.g., U.S. attorney, U.S. marshal, and U.S. district judge), the President, by custom, normally nominates an individual recommended by the Senator or Senators (if they are from the same party as the President) from that state. If neither Senator is from the President's party, he usually defers to the recommendations of party leaders from the state. Occasionally, the President solicits recommendations from Senators of the opposition party because of their positions in the Senate. Before making a nomination to a federal position at the state or national level, the President must consider how it will fare in the confirmation process. A nominee has no legal authority to assume the duties and responsibilities of the position; the authority comes with Senate confirmation and presidential appointment. A nominee who is hired by the agency as a consultant while awaiting confirmation may serve only in an advisory capacity. If circumstances permit and conditions are met, the President may give the nominee a recess appointment to the position (see below). Recess appointments may have political consequences, however, particularly if Senators perceive that an appointment is an effort to circumvent their constitutional role. Some Senate-confirmed positions, such as many of those in the executive departments, may also be temporarily filled under the Vacancies Act. In the confirmation or second stage, the Senate alone determines whether or not to confirm a nomination. The way the Senate acts on a nomination depends largely on the importance of the position involved, existing political circumstances, and policy implications. Generally, the Senate shows particular interest in the nominee's views and how they are likely to affect public policy. Two other factors may also affect the scrutiny with which a nominee's personal and professional qualities are examined: whether or not the President's party controls the Senate and the degree to which the President becomes involved in supporting the nomination. The Senate confirmation process is centered at the committee level. Committee nomination activity generally includes investigation, hearing, and reporting stages. As part of investigatory work, committees may draw on information provided by the White House as well as information collected by the committees. Hearings provide a public forum to discuss a nomination and any issues related to the program or agency for which the nominee would be responsible. Even if confirmation is thought to be a virtual certainty, hearings may provide Senators and the nominee with an opportunity to go on the record with particular views or commitments. Senators may use hearings to explore a nominee's qualifications, articulate a policy perspective, or raise related oversight issues. Some committees hold hearings on nearly all nominations; others hold hearings for only some. The committee may discontinue acting on a nomination at any point—upon referral, after investigation, or after a hearing. If the committee votes to report the nomination back to the full Senate, it has three options: it may report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation. If the committee elects not to report a nomination, the Senate may, under certain circumstances, discharge the committee from further consideration of the nomination in order to bring it to the floor. The Senate historically has confirmed most, but not all, executive nominations. Rarely, however, does a rejection occur on the Senate floor. Nearly all rejections occur in committee, either by committee vote or by committee inaction. Rejections in committee occur for a variety of reasons, including opposition to the nomination, inadequate amount of time for consideration of the nomination, or factors that may have nothing to do with the merits of the nomination. If a nomination is not acted upon by the Senate by the end of a Congress, it is returned to the President. Pending nominations also may be returned automatically to the President at the beginning of a recess of 30 days or longer, but the Senate rule providing for this return is often waived. In the final stage, the confirmed nominee is given a commission signed by the President, with the seal of the United States affixed thereto, and is sworn into office. The President may sign the commission at any time after confirmation. Once the appointee is given the commission and sworn in, he or she has full authority to carry out the responsibilities of the office. The Constitution also empowers the President to make limited-term appointments without Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess. Such recess appointments expire at the end of the next session of Congress. Appendix C provides a table showing the dates of the Senate recesses for the 108 th Congress and the number of recess appointments during each recess. Presidents have occasionally used the recess appointment power to circumvent the confirmation process. In response, Congress has placed restrictions on the President's authority to make a recess appointment. Under 5 U.S.C. § 5503(a), if the position falls vacant while the Senate is in session and the President fills it by recess appointment, the appointee may not be paid from the Treasury until he or she is confirmed by the Senate. The salary prohibition does not apply: (1) if the vacancy arose within 30 days before the end of the session; (2) if a nomination for the office (other than the nomination of someone given a recess appointment during the preceding recess) was pending when the Senate recessed; or (3) if a nomination was rejected within 30 days before the end of the session and another individual was given the recess appointment. A recess appointment falling under any one of these three exceptions must be followed by a nomination to the position not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session of the Senate. For this reason, when a recess appointment is made, the President generally submits a new nomination for the nominee even when an old nomination is pending. Section 5503 of Title 5 has been interpreted by the Department of Justice to preclude payment of an appointee who is given successive recess appointments to the same position. Although recess appointees whose nominations to a full term are subsequently rejected by the Senate may continue to serve until the end of their recess appointment, a recurring provision of the funding bill for the Department of the Treasury and other agencies may prevent them from being paid after their rejection. Congress has provided limited statutory authority for the temporary filling of vacant positions requiring Senate confirmation. It is expected that, in general, officials holding PAS positions who have been designated as "acting" are holding their offices under this authority or other statutory authority specific to their agencies. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, when an executive agency position requiring confirmation becomes vacant, it may be filled temporarily in one of three ways: (1) the first assistant to such a position may automatically assume the functions and duties of the office; (2) the President may direct an officer in any agency who is occupying a position requiring Senate confirmation to perform those tasks; or (3) the President may select any officer or employee of the subject agency who is occupying a position for which the rate of pay is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay at the GS-15 level, and who has been with the agency for at least 90 of the preceding 365 days. The temporary appointment is for 210 days, but the time restriction is suspended if a first or second nomination for the position is pending. In addition, during a presidential transition, the 210-day restriction period does not begin to run until either 90 days after the President assumes office, or 90 days after the vacancy occurs, if it is within the 90-day inauguration period. The act does not apply to positions on multi-headed regulatory boards and commissions and to certain other specific positions that may be filled temporarily under other statutory provisions. During the 108 th Congress, the President submitted to the Senate 166 nominations to executive department full-time positions. These include the initial nominations to the newly created Department of Homeland Security, which came into existence at the beginning of the 108 th Congress, on January 24, 2003. Of these 166 nominations, 120 were confirmed; eight were withdrawn; one was returned to the President at the end of the first session; and 37 were returned to him at the end of the second session of the 108 th Congress. President Bush made a total of 18 recess appointments to the departments during this time. Of those 18, three were made during the recess between the first and second sessions of the 108 th Congress ( intersession recess appointments). The remaining 15 were made during recesses within the first or second session of the 108 th Congress ( intrasession recess appointments). Table 1 summarizes this appointment activity. The length of time a given nomination may be pending in the Senate varies widely. Some nominations are confirmed within a few days; others may not be confirmed for several months; and some are never confirmed. This report provides, for each executive department nomination that was confirmed in the 108 th Congress, the number of days between nomination and confirmation ("days to confirm"). These counts exclude days during August recesses and between sessions of Congress. This cutoff point is suggested by the Senate rules, which provide that "if the Senate shall adjourn or take recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon" shall be returned to the President, although this rule is often waived. The 31 days during the August 2003 recess, the 41 days between the first and second sessions of the 108 th Congress, and the 46 days during the August 2004 recess were subtracted from the "days to confirm" for those nominations that spanned one or more of these recesses. The sole exception was a 35-day recess during October and November 2004. In order to maintain consistency with similar reports for previous Congresses, no days were subtracted for this recess. Each of the 15 executive department profiles provided in this report is organized into two parts: a table identifying full-time PAS positions and associated pay levels as of the end of the 108 th Congress, and a table listing nominations and appointments to these positions during the 108 th Congress. Data for these tables were collected from several authoritative sources. The appointment action table provides, in chronological order, information concerning each nomination and recess appointment. It shows the name of the nominee, position involved, date of nomination or appointment, date of confirmation, and number of days between receipt of a nomination and confirmation. Actions other than confirmation (i.e., nominations returned to or withdrawn by the President) are also noted. Some nominees were nominated more than once for the same position, either because the first nomination was returned to the President or because of a recess appointment. When a nominee is awaiting Senate action and he or she is given a recess appointment, a second, follow-up, nomination is usually submitted to comply with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 5503(b). Each appointment action table provides the average "days to confirm" in two ways: mean and median. The mean is determined by calculating, for each confirmed nomination, the number of days between the nomination and confirmation dates, determining the cumulative total of these days, and dividing the result by the number of nominations confirmed. The median is the middle number when the "days to confirm" data for all the confirmed nominations are arranged in numerical order. Appendix A presents a table of all nominations and recess appointments to positions in executive departments, alphabetically organized and following a similar format to that of the department appointment action tables. It identifies the agency involved and the dates of nomination and confirmation. The table also indicates if a nomination was confirmed, withdrawn, or returned. The mean and median numbers of days taken to confirm a nomination are also provided, calculated as described above. Appendix B provides a table with summary information on appointments and nominations, by department. For each of the 15 executive departments discussed in this report, the table provides the number of positions, nominations, individual nominees, confirmations, nominations returned, nominations withdrawn, and recess appointments. The table also provides the mean and median numbers of days to confirm a nomination. Appendix C provides a table showing the dates of the Senate recesses for the 108 th Congress and the number of recess appointments during each recess. A list of department abbreviations can be found in Appendix D . Appendix A. Nominations and Recess Appointments, 108 th Congress Appendix B. Appointment Action, 108 th Congress Appendix C. Senate Recesses a for the 108 th Congress Appendix D. Abbreviations of Departments | During the 108th Congress, the President submitted to the Senate 166 nominations to executive department full-time positions. Of these 166 nominations, 120 were confirmed; eight were withdrawn; one was returned to the President at the end of the first session; and 37 were returned to him at the end of the second session of the 108th Congress. For those nominations that were confirmed, an average of 98 days elapsed between the time of the nomination and the nomination's receipt and confirmation. The median number of days elapsed was 83. These statistics do not include the days during which the Senate was adjourned for its August recesses and between sessions of Congress. President Bush made a total of 18 recess appointments to the departments during this time. Of those 18, three were made during the recess between the first and second sessions of the 108th Congress (intersession recess appointments). The remaining 15 were made during recesses within the first or second session of the 108th Congress (intrasession recess appointments). Information for this report was compiled from data from the Senate nominations database of the Legislative Information System http://www.congress.gov/nomis/, the Congressional Record (daily edition), the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, telephone discussions with agency officials, agency websites, the United States Code, and the "Plum Book" (United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions). This report will be updated as necessary. |
9:48 p.m. Cruz and Rubio are still locked in a tight race for second place.
9:45 p.m.Ted Cruz spoke with supporters from his South Carolina headquarters Saturday. "Friends, once again, we have made history," Cruz said, noting that "right now we are effectively tied for second place" with rival Marco Rubio.
He addressed Bush's withdrawal from the race at the beginning of his speech, saying the former Florida governor "brought honor and dignity" to the race. Cruz said Bush was "a man who didn't go to the gutter and engage in insults and attacks."
"We don't know the exact results right now," he said, "Right now, we are effectively tied for second place."
9:32 p.m.Speaking to supporters in Wakefield, Massachusetts, Ohio Gov. John Kasich addressed the results coming out of South Carolina's Republican primary Saturday night.
"We came roaring out of New Hampshire," Kasich said, referring to his strong second-place finish behind Donald Trump in the first-in-the-nation primary state. "And tonight one more time, we have defied and overcome expectations in the state of South Carolina."
"For all the people watching -- you fasten your seatbelts, please," he said.
Kasich is trailing in fifth place in South Carolina, with just eight percent of the vote, according to CBS News exit polls. Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is the only candidate behind him, with seven percent of support.
9:23 p.m. Marco Rubio came out to speak to his supporters even though the race between him and Cruz was still too close to call. They are both battling for second place.
"This has been a three-person race and we will win the nomination," said Rubio, who congratulated Bush on a hard-fought campaign and called him "the greatest governor in the history of Florida."
Rubio said the 2016 campaign has been a "long road" and there were many people on the campaign when it first kicked off.
"Practically speaking, it's down to three," he said, adding that his campaign provides the best chance to unify the GOP and unify the country.
8:54 p.m. Donald Trump addresses his supporters in South Carolina.
"We are going to start winning for our country," Trump said.
"It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's vicious. It's beautiful. When you win, it's beautiful," he added of campaigning.
The businessman said he was headed to Nevada to campaign Sunday and predicted he would do "terrific" both there and in the SEC primary, the collection of southern states that vote on Super Tuesday.
While he congratulated rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio by name, he neglected to mention another opponent: Jeb Bush, who withdrew from the White House race Saturday night.
Trump was joined by several family members on the stage, including wife Melania Trump.
"He will be the best president," Mrs. Trump told South Carolina supporters.
After Trump congratulated rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio for doing "a very good job," the audience booed. But then he promised, "We go back to war tomorrow morning."
The billionaire's victory in South Carolina's GOP primary can be explained in part by the way he edged out his opponents in key demographic groups.
Donald Trump projected to win South Carolina GOP primary
Trump won among men (35 percent) compared to Cruz's 24 percent and Rubio's 22 percent. Interestingly, he also did better than all his opponents among women, winning 28 percent of the vote to Cruz and Rubio's 24 percent respectively.
Three-quarters of those who turned out in the primary were 45 years of age or older. Among these older voters, Trump won 33 percent to Rubio and Cruz who split evenly at 22 percent each.
Another key constituency that helped catapult Trump to victory is those who have less than a college education. Forty-six percent of those who turned out do not have a college degree and of those voters, 40% supported Trump compared with 27 percent for Cruz and 17 percent for Rubio.
Finally, Trump did very well with white evangelicals who make up a key voting group in South Carolina's Republican party. While Cruz was expected to do very well with this group, Trump edged him out 32 percent to 27 percent.
8:40 p.m. Jeb Bush drops out of the White House race.
"I am proud of the campaign that we have run to unify our country and to advocate conservative solutions that would give more Americans the opportunity to rise up and reach their god given potential," he told his supporters after South Carolina's GOP primary. "But the people of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken and I really respect their decision so tonight I am suspending my campaign."
Bush was joined by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Columba Bush on stage in Columbia, South Carolina.
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush (L) is applauded by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R) as he arrives to announce that he is ending his campaign for the White House by suspending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination at his South Carolina primary night party in Columbia, South Carolina, February 20, 2016. REUTERS
8:28 p.m. More than 70 percent of voters said South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's endorsement of Rubio was not an important factor in their vote while a quarter said it was an important factor.
8:21 p.m. GOP voters see Trump as the candidate who is in the best position to handle the economy. Forty-four percent said Trump would handle it best while 20 percent said the same for Cruz and 14 percent for Rubio.
8:00 p.m. Cruz and Rubio are locked in a tight battle for second.
7:50 p.m. About three-quarters of GOP voters described themselves today as born-again or evangelical Christians. Of that group, Trump won slightly more of the vote, 30 percent, than Cruz, who got 29 percent.
Trump also did better than any of the other candidates with those voters who aren't evangelical or born-again.
7:36 p.m. Cruz and Rubio are now battling for second place.
7:30 p.m. CBS News now projects that Trump will win South Carolina's GOP primary.
7:29 p.m. CBS News reports Trump has a narrow edge over Cruz and Rubio.
7:19 p.m. More than half of Republican voters, 53 percent, said they feel betrayed by their own party. Forty-four percent said they don't feel betrayed.
7 p.m.Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and and Marco Rubio are locked in a three-way race, far ahead of the rest of the pack, according to CBS News exit polling.
6:09 p.m. Forty-one percent of voters said Trump is running the most unfair campaign while a third said the same of Ted Cruz.
5:58 p.m. More than half of Republicans said they made up their mind about who they were going to support last month, or even before that. On the other hand, 45 percent said they decided in the last week, 24 percent decided in the last few days and 14 percent made their decision today.
5:52 p.m. More than 95 percent of GOP primary voters said they are either somewhat or very concerned about the future of the nation's economy. Two percent said they are not concerned with the economy.
5:44 p.m. More than half of GOP voters, 53 percent, said they support offering illegal immigrants working in the U.S. the chance to apply for legal status. Forty-three percent, meanwhile, said those who are in the U.S. illegally should be deported and sent back to their country of origin.
5:41 p.m. GOP voters in South Carolina are almost evenly split on whether they prefer a candidate from the establishment vs. a political outsider. Forty-eight percent said they prefer that the candidate has experience and 46 percent said they prefer someone from outside the establishment. This closely mirrors what voter in New Hampshire told pollsters.
5:33 p.m. Three-quarters of GOP primary voters support Donald Trump's proposal to block Muslims from entering the United States. Twenty-three percent, on the other hand, said they oppose the proposed ban.
5:27 p.m. More than half of voters said they are dissatisfied with the way the government is working and 40 percent said they are angry. Only 7 percent said they are satisfied with how the federal government is working.
5:23 p.m. More than three quarters of voters in the South Carolina primary say it matters either a great deal or somewhat that a candidate share his religious values. Less than a quarter, by contrast, say it doesn't matter at all.
5:00 p.m. Early exit polling results is beginning to come in from South Carolina's GOP primary soon. The state's Republican voters have been showing up to their polling sites throughout the day to cast ballots in the GOP's third presidential nominating contest.
Early exit polls in South Carolina suggest that voters see terrorism as the most important issue facing the country (32 percent), followed by those who see the economy (28 percent) and government spending (27 percent) as the most critical issues. In contrast only one out of 10 respondents said that immigration is the most important issue facing the nation.
Voters are choosing among Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson and John Kasich.
Polls are slated to close at 7 p.m. EST. Meanwhile, the results are coming in quickly from Nevada's Democratic caucuses.
Trump has consistently led the GOP pack in South Carolina, though some recent polls have indicated a tightening race. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll released Friday, for example, found he now only leads his closest rival, Cruz, by five percentage points with 28 percent support. A Bloomberg Politics pollreleased Wednesday found Trump with a 19-percentage-point advantage over Cruz. Thirty-six percent said they back Trump and 17 percent support Cruz.
A CBS News national poll released Thursday found Trump with a 17-percentage-point lead over Cruz.
Cruz won the Iowa caucuses earlier this month, and Trump won New Hampshire's GOP primary.
CBS News Poll Analyst Jeanne Zaino and Reena Flores contributed to this story. ||||| Donald Trump swept to victory in the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday, putting him in a commanding position as the race shifts to a slew of delegate-rich contests.
Jeb Bush, though, abruptly suspended his campaign after a distant finish, leaving unclear to whom his supporters will gravitate.
But Trump, at his victory rally, seemed to dismiss the notion that other candidates would benefit from Bush's exit.
"[The pundits] don't understand that as people drop out, I'm going to get a lot of those votes," Trump said.
He said the primary race lately has been "mean" and "vicious" but: "When you win, it's beautiful."
He closed by saying, "Let’s put this thing away, and let’s make America great again."
Trump's victory is not by the big double-digit margin that pre-election polls had suggested. Still, this makes back-to-back victories for Trump, who more than doubled the vote of his closest competitor in New Hampshire last week.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio remain locked in a battle for second place.
With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Rubio is narrowly leading Cruz with just over 22 percent. Trump leads with 33 percent.
Both candidates were staying confident.
"After tonight, this has become a three-person race, and we will win the nomination,” Rubio told supporters.
Rubio placed third in Iowa, but stumbled in New Hampshire following a rough debate performance. He vowed to bounce back, and entered the South Carolina contest enjoying support from the state's popular governor, Nikki Haley, and other state leaders.
Senior Cruz aides maintained the Texas senator remains “well-positioned” going into looming Southern state primaries, since he won Iowa and placed third in New Hampshire.
Lagging far behind Saturday were the three other candidates – Ohio Gov. John Kasich, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Bush, all of whom appear to be stuck in single digits.
While Bush suspended his campaign, Carson vowed to stay in, as did Kasich.
The GOP race heads next to Nevada and after that to Super Tuesday, representing a delegate gold mine. Even South Carolina, with 50 delegates, is the most valuable GOP primary to date. As the winner, Trump would get the lion's share.
South Carolina, historically, also is a prized contest for Republican candidates as it has a knack for picking the eventual nominee – the primary winner has gone on to claim the nomination in every race since 1980, except for 2012 when Newt Gingrich won.
The state has a reputation as well for bringing out bare-knuckle campaign tactics, and this year was no exception. Charges of dirty politics flew on all sides in the lead-up to Saturday’s primary, with robo-calls and misleading websites surfacing about the candidates.
The race tightened in the final days, but not enough to shake Trump's long-time advantage there.
Trump had enjoyed a 13-point lead in the latest average of pre-election polls by Real Clear Politics. Fox News exit polls indicate significant numbers of late-deciding voters ended up supporting Cruz and Rubio, causing both candidates to perform more strongly than pre-election polling suggested.
Trump, according to exit polls, was still the overwhelming favorite among voters who said they’re angry with the federal government. Cruz, though, had the edge among voters who said their top issue is terrorism.
But of the three other candidates, only Kasich has made it onto the leaderboard in the three opening contests. With Bush out, he's the last governor standing in the race.
Bush, the former Florida governor, entered the 2016 presidential race as an early favorite, but fell in the polls steadily, despite having had a couple strong debate performances in recent weeks.
“The presidency is bigger than any one person. It is certainly bigger than any candidate,” he said in suspending his campaign.
SOUTH CAROLINA GOP PRIMARY RESULTS
Kasich, who placed second in New Hampshire, had low expectations in South Carolina. He is looking toward more moderate states that vote later in March.
Trump's victory, meanwhile, could foreshadow a solid performance in the collection of Southern states that vote on March 1. Victories in those Super Tuesday contests could put the billionaire in a commanding position in the delegate count, which determines the nomination.
Trump won in South Carolina after the Democrats held caucuses earlier in the day in Nevada, where Hillary Clinton was projected the winner.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. ||||| Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., center, pauses for photos with hotel workers as he is joined by his wife, Jane, right, at MGM Grand hotel and casino Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016,... (Associated Press)
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The Latest on the 2016 presidential election and two crucial contests Saturday: South Carolina's Republican primary and Nevada's Democratic caucuses (all times are Eastern Standard Time):
7:25 p.m.
Donald Trump has won the South Carolina Republican primary, a second-straight victory for the billionaire real estate mogul after his first-place finish in New Hampshire.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are in close race for second.
Exit polls taken in South Carolina found that about three-quarters of Republican voters support a temporary ban on Muslims who are not American citizens from entering the United States. That's one of Trump's signature proposals.
A majority of voters looking for an outsider candidate supported Trump, providing a boost to the first-time candidate for office.
___
7:10 p.m.
Bernie Sanders' campaign says it raised more than $21 million in January, bringing its total for the campaign to almost $95 million.
That's according to fundraising reports through Jan. 31 that Sanders campaign is filing on Saturday.
The campaign says the average donation amount was $27.
Sanders has made campaign finance reform and ending what he calls corruption in politics a major focus of his campaign.
Rival Hillary Clinton's campaign says it raised roughly $15 million in January.
___
7:00 p.m.
Nevada's Democratic party's initial estimates are showing that 80,000 Democrats caucused on Saturday, about 10,000 more than most party insiders expected.
Still, it was well below the nearly 120,000 who showed up in 2008 for Hillary Clinton's contest against Barack Obama.
Clinton beat rival Bernie Sanders in the state's Democratic caucuses Saturday, earning her a second win in the nomination process.
___
6:50 p.m.
With her husband, former President Bill Clinton, standing by her side, Hillary Clinton has told her supporters that "we're in this together."
"This is your campaign and it is a campaign to break down every barrier that holds you back," she said. "We're going to build ladders of opportunity in their place so every American can go as far as your hard work can take you."
Though she never mentioned Sanders by name, Clinton cast her rival as offering a narrow economic message that wouldn't tackle the full range of problems facing the country. Rattling off promises to lower student debt, reform the immigration system, combat systemic racism and improve education, Clinton promised a country of new opportunities.
"There's so much more to be done," she said. "The truth is we aren't a single issue country. We need more than a plan for the big banks."
___
6:45 p.m.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says "the wind is at our backs" despite his loss to Hillary Clinton in the Nevada caucuses.
Sanders says Clinton ran a very aggressive and effective campaign in Nevada that led to her victory in the Democratic caucuses Saturday.
He congratulated her for her victory and praised her effort.
But Sanders is suggesting he beat expectations because he started far behind Clinton and gained significant ground.
Sanders said he's heading now to South Carolina and that he has an "excellent chance" to win many of the states voting on Super Tuesday.
Sanders said the election will result in one of the greatest political upsets in U.S. history.
___
6:20 p.m.
Hillary Clinton says Americans are "right to be angry," but also hungry for what she calls "real solutions."
Clinton is using her victory speech after the Nevada caucuses to draw contrasts with Bernie Sanders. She says the truth is that the U.S. isn't a single-issue country. Clinton spent much of the run-up to the Nevada caucuses portraying Sanders as singularly focused on economic issues.
Clinton says many doubted her in Nevada but that she and her supporters never doubted each other. She says to Nevadans: "This one is for you."
___
6:10 p.m.
About four in 10 South Carolina Republican primary voters say that an important quality in a candidate is that they "shares my values."
A poll conducted by voters in Saturday's primary showed that being an instrument of change and electability in November are also important qualities.
The voters are split on whether the next president should be an outsider or a member of the political establishment. Nearly half said they prefer someone who has experience in politics and about the same numbers would rather see someone from outside the political establishment.
Four in 10 voters see the campaign of Donald Trump as most unfair, and a third said that of Texas Sen. Cruz's campaign. Less than 10 percent selected Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich.
The survey was conducted for AP and the television networks by Edison Research with voters leaving 35 randomly selected precincts throughout South Carolina.
___
6:05 p.m.
For South Carolina Republican primary voters, terrorism is the top issue that mattered — selected by about a third.
The economy and government spending were each picked by nearly three in 10. Even so, three-quarters of the voters said they were very worried about the direction of the nation's economy, and more than 4 in 10 said billionaire Donald Trump would be best at handling the economy.
However, Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz are both seen as candidates who would best handle an international crisis by about a quarter of voters.
Only about 10 percent selected immigration as the most important issue. Asked specifically what should be done with illegal immigrants working in the United States, the voters were evenly divided. Republican voters were far less divided on the issue of allowing Muslims into the country. About three-quarters support a temporary ban on Muslims who are not American citizens from entering the United States.
The survey was conducted for AP and the television networks by Edison Research with voters leaving 35 randomly selected precincts throughout South Carolina.
___
5:55 p.m.
John Kasich says if he spent the day in South Carolina he'd be doing nothing more than yelling at people on their way into the polls saying "Hey, vote for me."
With that in mind, he's campaigning in Massachusetts and Vermont instead. The two states hold primaries on March 1.
"If somebody yelled at me as I was going to the polls, I'd vote against them," he joked with reporters after a town hall in Worcester, Massachusetts.
He says he wishes he could have spent more time in South Carolina, but that he and his team "did everything we could do."
___
5:50 p.m.
Bernie Sanders is conceding the race in Nevada in a phone call with Hillary Clinton.
The Vermont senators said in a statement Saturday that he congratulated Clinton on her victory. He says he's proud of his campaign and expects to leave Nevada with a "solid share of the delegates."
Sanders is touting his campaign's work to bring working people and young voters into the process. He says he believes his campaign has "the wind at ours backs" heading to the Super Tuesday contests.
Sanders is thanking Nevadans for their support.
___
5:45 p.m.
Hillary Clinton's aides cast her victory in Nevada's Democratic caucuses as a sign that her new focus on increasing opportunities for minorities and poorer Americas — what her team calls her "breaking barriers" agenda — was resonating.
As the race has turned to primary contests in states with more diverse Democratic electorates, Clinton has increasingly decried the issue of "systemic racism" and highlighted her plans to combat the problem.
She started the week with a policy address in Harlem focused squarely on issues impacting the African-American community. In Nevada, she's worked to woo Latino voters with promises to tackle immigration reform in the first 100 days of her administration, should she win the White House.
___
5:35 p.m.
Hillary Clinton's win in Nevada means she will pick up most of the state's delegates.
With 35 at stake, Clinton will gain at least 18. Sanders will pick up at least 14. Three delegates remain to be allocated, based on votes in the congressional districts.
The results of the caucus are the first step in determining delegates who are expected to support candidates at the national convention.
To date, Clinton remains far ahead in the overall delegate count due to early endorsements from superdelegates, or party leaders who can support the candidate of their choice, no matter whom voters back in primaries and caucuses.
Including superdelegates, Clinton now has at least 501 delegates and Sanders at least 69.
It takes 2,383 delegates to win the nomination.
___
5:25 p.m.
As a small gathering of Nevada supporters waited for her appearance in a Caesar's Palace ballroom, Hillary Clinton took to Twitter to say thanks.
"To everyone who turned out in every corner of Nevada with determination and heart: This is your win," she wrote.
Back at her Brooklyn headquarters, aides cheered as she was announced the winner. Her campaign manager, Robby Mook, ran her 2008 effort in the state, giving the contest special significance for some of the staff.
___
5:15 p.m.
Hillary Clinton has won the Nevada Democratic caucuses, rebounding after a second-place finish to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire.
The victory for the former secretary of state over the Vermont senator gives her two wins to one in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton eked out a win in the Iowa caucuses before Sanders posted an overwhelming victory in New Hampshire's primary.
Surveys of caucus-goers taken as they entered caucus sites showed that older women turned out in force to support Clinton, pushing her to victory despite her continued struggles to attract young women.
The competition heads next to South Carolina, which holds its Democratic primary next Saturday.
___
4:30 p.m.
South Carolina polls close in a few hours, but for Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio it's never too late to pick up another endorsement.
The latest is Rep. Joe Wilson, the South Carolina congressman who gained national attention in 2009 when he yelled "You lie!" at President Barack during the chief executive's first annual address to Congress.
Wilson told The Post and Courier newspaper of Charleston on Saturday that he cast his ballot for Rubio. Wilson praised Rubio's positions on national defense and said the Florida senator can "bring positive change" to Washington.
Rubio is looking for a strong performance in South Carolina after a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire. In South Carolina, he's also picked up high-profile nods from Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy.
___
4:15 p.m.
John Kasich is assuring voters he's tough enough to be president after a woman in Worcester, Massachusetts, told him she worries he's "too nice" to fend off his GOP rivals and world leaders like Vladimir Putin.
Kasich is trumpeting a positive-only message on the campaign trail, refusing to attack his rivals. But he says that doesn't mean he can't take on the Russians and the Chinese.
He tells the crowd: "I don't want you to have the wrong impression: It's possible to be kind and at the same time very tough."
Kasich says he'd sit Putin down and tell him "no more nonsense" and tells the crowd he was the "first one" to say the Islamic State group needs to be destroyed.
And, Kasich tells the crowd, he's been known to be "brusk" and "tough" in his home state of Ohio.
___
4:00 p.m.
As caucusing got under way for Democrats in Nevada, voters weighed in on their picks for the party's presidential nominee.
Marley Anderson, 21, a junior from Las Vegas, said she turned out at her first caucus Saturday to support Bernie Sanders because of his stands on social issues.
"He stands for the middle-class," Anderson said, adding that Sanders is "definitely the most trustworthy of the candidates."
Marvin Teske, 53, a security guard at a Reno casino, is backing Hillary Clinton because he worries Sanders would have trouble winning in the fall.
"All the stuff he is promising is never going to happen," Teske said. "I've always liked Hillary."
___
3:30 p.m.
A flood of Democratic caucus-goers trying to get into a room at Caesars Palace became such a problem that it briefly brought the process to a standstill.
People had to register as Democrats before they could vote. But it was taking so long to register the hundreds of casino workers that they were in danger of exceeding their paid break times and having to return to work.
First, Democratic party officials said the caucus would begin with-or-without those who had been waiting in line. A few minutes later they reversed themselves, rushed everyone inside the room and said they will register voters while the caucus is under way.
___
3:20 p.m.
Early results of an entrance poll of Nevada Democratic caucus-goers are showing that about half said they think the next president should generally continue President Barack Obama's policies.
About 4 in 10 say they want the next president to have more liberal policies.
Among those who want a continuation of Obama's policies, most are planning to support Clinton. Among those who want more liberal policies, most support Sanders.
The survey was conducted for AP and the television networks by Edison Research as voters arrived at 25 randomly selected sites for Democratic caucuses in Nevada.
___
3:15 p.m.
Bernie Sanders is making an impromptu stop at a Las Vegas high school, walking past a long line of caucus-goers and answering questions about his campaign.
Sanders asks at Western High School, "Any questions I can answer?"
He is talking to voters about health care and getting big money out of politics. He jokes, "It's a never ending line!"
A reporter asked Sanders how he's feeling on caucus day. He replied: "The bigger the turnout, the better I feel."
___
3:05 p.m.
Early results of an entrance poll of Nevada Democratic caucus-goers are showing that Hillary Clinton captured the support of voters for whom electability and experience are of paramount importance.
Bernie Sanders is doing best with voters who are looking for a candidate who cares and is honest.
Voters who say the economy is most important in their vote decision were evenly divided between the candidates.
Clinton has received two-thirds of the voters who care most health care, while Sanders is dominating by 6 in 10 voters who says income inequality is most important.
Those who said the economy was their top issue split about evenly between the two candidates, while those whose top issue was health care tended to support Clinton and those who said income inequality tended to support Sanders.
Caucus-goers were slightly more likely to say they preferred Clinton than Sanders to handle Supreme Court nominations.
The survey was conducted for AP and the television networks by Edison Research as voters arrived at 25 randomly selected sites for Democratic caucuses in Nevada.
___
3:00 p.m.
Early results of an entrance poll of Nevada Democratic caucus-goers is showing that Hillary Clinton was backed by a majority of women, college educated voters, those with annual incomes over $50,000.
The survey also showed that moderates, voters aged 45 and older, voters living in union households, suburbanites and non-white voters mostly backed Clinton.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders did best with men, voters under 45, those less affluent and educated.
Sanders did particularly well with the quarter of Democratic caucus voters who identify themselves as independents, getting 7 in 10 of their votes. He also was backed by nearly 6 in 10 of the 3 in 10 voters who consider themselves very liberal.
Overall, whites were split in the Nevada democratic caucuses: more than half of white women preferred Clinton while about 6 in 10 white men supported Sanders.
The survey was conducted for AP and the television networks by Edison Research as voters arrived at 25 randomly selected sites for Democratic caucuses in Nevada.
___
2:45 p.m.
Hundreds of voters are lining up to see Ohio Gov. John Kasich — in Massachusetts, not South Carolina.
Kasich is spending the day of the South Carolina Republican primary campaigning in Massachusetts and Vermont, states that vote on March 1. He's about to kick off an afternoon town hall in Worcester, Mass., following a morning meeting with in Burlington, Vermont. He'll watch the South Carolina primary results with supporters in Boston.
A cultural center in Worcester is packed with a standing-room only crowd waiting for Kasich and a line of voters is still waiting outside to enter the venue.
___
2:30 p.m.
A major Muslim civil rights group says Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's telling of a discredited story about a U.S. general shooting Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs' blood could incite violence.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations National Executive Director Nihad Awad says in a statement that Trump's "inflammatory rhetoric has crossed the line from spreading hatred to inciting violence."
Trump was defending his support of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques at a rally in South Carolina Friday night when he told the largely unsubstantiated tale of Gen. John Pershing allegedly halting Muslim attacks in the Philippines in the early 1900s by shooting them with bullets dipped in pigs' blood.
Pigs are considered unclean by Muslims and some other religious groups.
___
2:15 p.m.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is questioning whether President Barack Obama would have attended Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's funeral Mass "if it were held in a mosque."
Trump says on Twitter that it's "very sad" that Obama didn't attend Saturday's service in Washington.
Vice President Joe Biden represented the administration. Obama visited the court on Friday to view Scalia's flag-draped casket. The White House says Obama's decision about the Mass was a "respectful arrangement" that took into account his large security detail.
Trump has raised questions about Obama's birthplace and religion, falsely suggesting that Obama was born outside the United States and is a Muslim.
Trump's tweet came as South Carolina was holding its GOP primary.
___
2 p.m.
Close call.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders almost crossed paths just before Nevada's Democratic caucuses get underway.
First it was Sanders who stopped by an employee cafeteria at Harrah's casino in Las Vegas. Just minutes after he left, Hillary Clinton came in and was greeted with cheers.
Unionized casino workers are an important constituency in the caucuses. Their union has ensured that a room at each casino is open for employees to caucus in during special, two-hour paid breaks.
___
1 p.m.
Bernie Sanders is kicking off his caucus day in Nevada with culinary workers at the MGM Grand casino in Las Vegas.
Sanders tells reporters that "if there's a large turnout I think we're going to do just fine. If it's a low turnout, that may be another story."
Sanders drew cheers from union workers at the casino hotel's cafeteria. He shook hands and posed for photos and asked workers if they planned to attend the caucuses.
___
11:40 a.m.
John Kasich's presidential campaign is already claiming a victory of sorts in South Carolina.
A top strategist, John Weaver, tells reporters that however the Republican candidate does in Saturday's primary, Kasich's showing will be enough to "drive somebody else out of the race."
Weaver says he's expecting two candidates to drop out over the next week — including Jeb Bush. Weaver says that "for all practical purposes, there's no path forward" for the former Florida governor.
Kasich finished second in the New Hampshire primary, but the expectations are lower for his performance in South Carolina.
The Ohio governor hasn't ignored South Carolina, but he has focused resources on states in the Midwest and Northeast that host contests in March.
___
10:45 a.m.
Ted Cruz has taken time away from campaigning in South Carolina to attend the funeral Mass in Washington for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Republican presidential candidate plans to be back in South Carolina later Saturday to await the results. Voting ends at 7 p.m.
The Texas senator has a personal connection to the high court: In the late 1990s, he served as a law clerk for a year to then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
___
10:10 a.m.
Jeb Bush says he's "excited where we stand" as he faces a critically important test in South Carolina's Republican presidential primary.
Bush says he's going to "work hard for the day" and await results after the polls close at 7 p.m. He says "it's interesting that a lot of people claim they're undecided this late."
The former Florida governor entered the 2016 presidential race as an early favorite. But he may need a third-place finish — if not better — in South Carolina in order to remain a viable candidate.
Bush tells reporters outside a polling location in Greenville that "to be able to beat expectations would be helpful. I think we'll do that."
And his take on the prospects of a President Donald Trump? Bush says the billionaire businessman "can't win, plain and simple."
___
9:15 a.m.
Will there by a "Haley effect" in South Carolina' Republican presidential primary?
Jason Sims — a teacher from Mount Pleasant — says he made a last-minute decision to vote for Marco Rubio, and that Gov. Nikki Haley's endorsement was "a big deal."
Sims say he was "kind of riding the fence" until Haley said she was backing the Florida senator.
Rubio is trying to rebound after a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire — and he's hoping the popular governor's endorsement will be a big boost.
Rubio wants to emerge as the go-to candidate for mainstream Republicans — and the chief alternative to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the race.
___
8:40 a.m.
There's a lot of attention on Jeb Bush as South Carolina Republican vote in their presidential primary.
The former Florida governor entered the 2016 presidential race as an early favorite. But he may need a third-place finish — if not better — on Saturday in order to remain viable in the race.
Bush finished sixth in Iowa's leadoff caucuses and fourth in New Hampshire.
He's trying to break out as the establishment alternative to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. But Bush has competition on that front, chiefly from Marco Rubio and John Kasich.
Without a strong showing in South Carolina, the Bush campaign may have a hard time competing in Nevada next week and then in the large number of states voting on March 1. ||||| The third primary contest in the Republican presidential nomination handed Donald Trump his second victory in a race that has seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent and a dozen candidates drop out.
The real estate mogul and reality television host won the first-in-the-South primary in South Carolina Saturday, adding legitimacy to a campaign that many wrote off since even before he officially announced in June.
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed Trump: 'Nothing easy' about running for president 0:49 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
The tight battle for second place was finally called with nearly every vote counted. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio edged out Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for a second-place finish.
But second and third place mean little Saturday night because Trump won so handily, picking up every Congressional district, that he won all fifty available delegates.
Meanwhile, Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who entered the race amid high expectations, is out of money and out of ideas on how to win the nomination in a year where outsiders have trumped the conventional.
Bush suspended his campaign Saturday after a finish far behind the leaders, garnering just 8 percent of the vote in a state that has been loyal to the Bush family for three decades.
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed Looking Back at the Highs and Lows of Jeb Bush's 2016 Campaign 2:08 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
Despite slipping in the polls in the Palmetto State over the final days, Trump was able to hold on for a victory that gives him an added boost as he heads to the Nevada caucuses in three days and Super Tuesday one week after that.
“There’s nothing easy about running for president I can tell you. It’s tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's vicious, it’s beautiful. When you win it’s beautiful. We’re going to start winning for our country," Trump said Saturday night with his family flanked at this sides.
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed Trump Triumphant in South Carolina 14:32 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
His supporters booed when he congratulated competitors Cruz and Rubio for running a tough race. They cheered, however, when he repeated his promise that Mexico would pay for a wall on the Southern border.
Trump's win is his second of the cycle, coming off a win in New Hampshire that reignited his campaign. He placed a disappointing second in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1 behind Cruz, whose savvy ground organization propelled the Texas senator to victory there.
South Carolina is said to be the state where presidents are made. The candidate that won there went on to the nomination in every Republican primary since 1980, except for the last one.
Whether the voters there have predicted the nominee this year is unknown, but it’s one more step in a contest where candidates must obtain a majority of the 2,570 delegates before clinching the nomination. After South Carolina, only 103 delegates have been awarded.
Rubio's campaign touted a potential win in South Carolina several weeks ago, but Saturday they insisted that they are pleased with their finish.
After locking up critical South Carolinian endorsements that included Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, Rubio rallied his supporters. He sounded optimistic and energized when he told an enthusiastic crowd, "After tonight this has become a three-person race and we will win the nomination."
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed Marco Rubio: This is Now a 3-Way Race 10:23 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
Ohio Gov. John Kasich disagrees with Rubio. He emailed supporters that it's a four-person race. And the last governor standing headed to Massachusetts to begin implementing his northern and midwestern strategy to win the nomination.
Republican voters went to the polls in South Carolina on the same day as Democrats in Nevada caucused, giving Hillary Clinton a victory there.
South Carolina is the third contest of the primary but the first window into the South in a competitive Republican presidential race that began with 15 major candidates that has whittled down to six as the polls opened Saturday.
Living up to its reputation, the race in South Carolina turned dirty in the final days, especially between the three leaders. Robocalls, push polls, name-calling and threatened lawsuits defined the last week of campaigning in a state where the stakes were high. ||||| Donald Trump sealed his front-runner status. Marco Rubio revitalized his campaign. And Jeb Bush faced the reality that South Carolina voters harshly delivered.
Trump crushed the rest of the GOP field in the state's primary Saturday night, giving the real estate mogul major momentum and wounding the more experienced governors and senators who are struggling to keep pace.
Story Continued Below
Rubio, down and out after finishing fifth in New Hampshire, appeared to be elbowing past Ted Cruz and vanquished another rival.
Bush, the one-time establishment frontrunner who was trailing in a distant fourth in the early results and facing a dire cash crunch, abruptly ended his campaign Saturday night, acknowledging that the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina had now spoken. Choking up, he said he was proud that he stayed true to the guiding principles of his campaign.
“Despite what you might’ve heard, ideas matter, policy matters. And I truly hope that these ideas that we’ve laid out will serve as a blueprint for a generation of conservative leaders,” Bush said in his remarks, which did not include a direct mention of Trump, who played a big role in dashing his chances. “In this campaign I have stood my ground, refusing to bend to the political winds.”
Trump, taking the stage at his victory celebration moments after Bush left the stage, relished another decisive win.
“When you win it’s beautiful,” said Trump, flanked by his family and claiming additional momentum heading into the March 1 SEC primary. “I think we’re going to do terrific there and the SEC is going to be very exciting,” Trump said. “We expect to do very well there.”
Saturday night offered a repeat performance for Trump, who also dominated the New Hampshire primary 11 days ago, handing him victories in two states with a history of boosting candidates who go on to become the eventual presidential nominee.
After stirring controversy and fending off unrelenting attacks during the last volatile week of campaigning across rough and tumble South Carolina, the billionaire-turned-blue-collar champion is only cementing his status as the clear GOP frontrunner in a winnowing field.
“I just want to congratulate the other candidates,” Trump said. “There’s nothing easy about running for president.”
He held a double-digit advantage over both Rubio and Cruz, leading with 33 percent of the vote. Rubio, meanwhile, held a slight edge over Cruz, 22.3 percent to 22.2 percent. with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Roughly 1,000 votes separated the two rivals.
“The children of the Reagan revolution are ready to assume the mantle of leadership,” Rubio said, flanked by a trio of South Carolina’s ascendant generation of GOP stars: Governor Nikki Haley, Senator Tim Scott and Congressman Trey Gowdy.
Rubio began his speech with a tribute to Bush. But, as he neared the end, he relished having knocked his mentor — and biggest obstacle — from the race.
“Now, practically speaking, it’s down to three,” Rubio said.
The failure to deliver a stronger showing was a big blow to Cruz, who is betting big on the South. In his remarks to supporters Saturday night, the Texas senator reminded voters he has still done something that Rubio and the other remaining candidates have not.“We are the only campaign that has beaten and can beat Donald Trump,” Cruz said.
The Texas senator managed to win just 26 percent of white evangelicals, whereas Trump secured the support of 34 percent of that powerful voting bloc — a fundamental problem that isn't likely to go away as the race moves forward to Super Tuesday.
"Trump is a brick on his head and he can't grow and can't win kinds of states he needs to get delegates," a GOP operative said as the results came in.
With 94 percent of precincts reporting, Bush was in a virtual tie for fourth place with John Kasich, both receiving roughly 8 percent of the vote even though Bush gave South Carolina all he had this week, bringing in his brother and mother to stump with him, while Kasich lowered expectations and spent time campaigning in other states.
The outcome of the South Carolina primary and Bush’s exit could break the dam of establishment support that has held behind the former Florida governor. It will likely drive mainstream Republicans looking for a single standard-bearer to challenge Trump and Cruz to consolidate behind the young Florida senator.
Bush, who had hoped to generate momentum from George W. Bush’s first campaign appearance in North Charleston on Monday and to win Haley’s endorsement, was trying desperately to finish ahead of Rubio, or at least close enough to justify continuing on to Nevada and perhaps Super Tuesday. But in the final 48 hours, he had been dogged by questions about whether his campaign is running out of money and whether he would quit.
As POLITICO reported Friday, many of Bush’s most loyal supporters were ready to lean on the candidate to consider quitting if he didn’t finish ahead of Rubio Saturday night.
But Rubio will still have to contend with Kasich, who plans to continue on and make a stand in the Midwestern states that vote in early March, potentially taking delegates that could otherwise enable Rubio to catch up to Trump.
In an email Saturday night, John Weaver, Kasich’s strategist, didn’t mince words, asserting that the results effectively end the campaigns of Bush and Ben Carson who was in a distant sixth with 7 percent.
"Tonight it became a four-person race for the nomination,” Weaver wrote in an email to supporters. “Only four candidates have top-three finishes in any of the early states and can justify staying in. At the same time, John Kasich has now won the so-called 'Governors Bracket' by continuing to run strong and beat expectations.”
As the winner in South Carolina, Trump will take at least 29 of the state’s 50 delegates; and he could also win the remaining 21, which will be divided among the seven congressional districts, will go to the winners in those regions.
Trump’s second straight victory adds to his momentum heading into Super Tuesday on March 1, when 12 states vote, many of them in the South. The real estate mogul is quickly positioning himself as the candidate to beat in what may still be a long nomination fight. | Donald Trump has officially won the South Carolina primary, report the AP, CBS News, NBC News, and Fox News, with 32.25% of the vote. It's the second victory in a row for the billionaire, and a key one in the South, where Ted Cruz invested heavily. This in spite of exit polls that showed that some four in 10 voters made up their minds at the last minute and many broke for Cruz and Marco Rubio; with all votes counted, Rubio edged out Cruz 22.5% to 22.3% in a tight race for second place, reports Politico. Jeb Bush finished a distant fourth with 7.8% of the vote in a state that has favored his family for three decades, leading him to drop out. Adding insult to injury were John Kasich at 7.6% and Ben Carson at 7.2%. Carson spoke early to his supporters to assure them that he's not dropping out. "There's nothing easy about running for president I can tell you," Trump said in his victory speech. "It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's vicious, it's beautiful. When you win it's beautiful. We're going to start winning for our country." |
Products liability, which is primarily governed by state law, concerns the civil liability of a manufacturer, seller, or other party along a product's manufacturing or distribution chain for personal or property damages caused by a product to a consumer or third-party user of that product. In a typical products liability lawsuit, a plaintiff brings a claim for damages against a manufacturer for injuries sustained while using the product. Damages that a plaintiff typically seeks are for the recovery of medical expenses, disability, pain and suffering, lost earnings and earning capacity, property damage, emotional harm, and even punitive damages, which are intended to punish a defendant's particularly outrageous conduct. To obtain relief from the courts, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that she used the product in a reasonable or foreseeable manner, and that the product either contained an unnecessary or unreasonable hazard or was improperly marketed, resulting in the harm. Over time, product defects have been generally grouped into three categories—manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects, which are described in more detail below. Various causes of action may be relied upon by a plaintiff who seeks to recover against a manufacturer, seller, or other third-party defendant. The causes of action reviewed in this report include strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and tortious misrepresentation. A manufacturing defect is a mistake that occurs in the manufacturing process such that the product fails to meet the manufacturer's design specifications, resulting in an error that causes an injury to a consumer or other third party. As demonstrated by the case below, products that are physically flawed, damaged, or incorrectly assembled are common examples of manufacturing defects. There are two key characteristics to a manufacturing defect claim that tend to benefit a plaintiff's case. First, as this type of lawsuit only contests the correct manufacturing of a single unit out of the entire product line, it is commonly less costly to litigate than a design or warning defect claim, where an entire product line may need to be challenged. Second, as most jurisdictions closely adhere to a "strict liability" standard when evaluating a manufacturing defect case, it may be easier for a plaintiff to prevail on her claim because she may likely face a lower burden of proof. The "strict liability" standard is discussed in more detail below (see " Strict Liability "). Because consumers generally expect that the products they purchase will be free of dangerous defects, a manufacturer may be more amenable to settling a case if it is persuaded that a physical flaw in its product injured a claimant. On the other hand, a manufacturer may be more apt to litigate if it believes that the product was not defective; if the plaintiff's harm was caused by something else; or, even if the product did cause the harm, something other than the manufacturer caused the product's defectiveness after it left the manufacturer's control; or the plaintiff's damage claim is unreasonable. Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc. , provides an example of a plaintiff, acting on behalf of herself and her injured child, who proceeded against the defendant on a manufacturing defect claim, after her child suffered severe burns on his body from playing with a disposable lighter that was manufactured with a "child guard" safety latch. The lighter at issue no longer had the child-resistant safety latch when the police retrieved it. In pursuing her manufacturing defect claim, the court stated that under the applicable state law, a plaintiff must "show that a specific product unit was defective as a result of 'some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship, or because defective materials were used in construction,' and that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff's injury." The court did not dismiss the plaintiff's manufacturing defect claim, finding there was sufficient evidence from which a jury might "reasonably conclude that the subject lighter was a lemon and the safety latch just fell out or was otherwise removable with the slightest tug." A design defect is a mistake in a product's design that results in undue risk to a consumer or other third party that could have been reasonably prevented by a safety device or other design alternatives. Design defect claims are the most commonly asserted type of products liability claim against a manufacturer. For example, much of automotive products liability litigation challenges the design of motor vehicles. Unlike a manufacturing defect claim, which examines an individual product, a design defect claim may be more problematic for a manufacturer because it examines the safety of an entire product line, which may need to be modified or removed from the market should the court make a declaration against the manufacturer. As even the best-designed product can be dangerous if used incorrectly, an ongoing challenge for courts has been how to best determine what constitutes a design defect. Courts generally evaluate the adequacy of a product's design upon one of two standards, or a combination thereof. The first is a "consumer expectations" test, which asks whether the design meets the safety expectations of users or consumers. The second is a "risk-utility" test, which asks whether the safety benefits of designing away foreseeable danger exceed the resulting costs. Today, most jurisdictions have moved away from the consumer expectations test and, instead, employ some form of the risk-utility or cost-benefit standard. The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability reflects this shift, as it has primarily adopted a cost-benefit liability standard for design defectiveness. Young v. Pollock Engineering Group Inc. , serves as an example of a design defect case. In Young , the plaintiff worked as a "die man," whereby he loaded die into a die changer. The plaintiff's coworker accidentally activated the die changer while the plaintiff was loading the die, from which he sustained severe injuries to his left hand. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the die changer for design defectiveness, as the plaintiff's employer was able to install a "barrier guard" around the die changer subsequent to the accident. The court stated that under the applicable state law, a plaintiff asserting a design defect claim must establish that the product "was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its intended use." For a court to determine whether there is enough evidence to submit the claim to a jury, the court is required to "balance the likelihood of harm, and the gravity of harm if it happens, against the burden of the precaution which would be effective to avoid the harm." On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's design defect claim, finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of a defective design of the product at issue. A warning defect is one where a manufacturer fails to provide appropriate information about a product's known hazards and how to avoid them, resulting in undue risks to a consumer that could have been reasonably prevented. A manufacturer's general "duty to warn" can be viewed as encompassing two distinct obligations. One is the "duty to warn," where a manufacturer must inform buyers and users of hidden dangers in a product; the second obligation is the "duty to instruct," where a manufacturer must inform buyers on how to avoid a product's dangers in order to use it safely. Warnings are generally regarded by manufacturers as a relatively inexpensive means through which to improve product safety; this view is perhaps reinforced by plaintiffs, who often raise warning defect claims, viewing them as both less expensive and easier to prove in court than a design defect. However, despite the apparent cost benefits that warning defect claims bring to both manufacturers and plaintiffs, courts do not readily require that manufacturers warn of all product dangers. Rather, a central issue posed by a warning defect claim is "adequacy." Although courts will generally not require a manufacturer to warn about obvious defects that would be apparent to ordinary consumers, whether a warning is adequate may depend on a variety of factors. These may include "the severity of the danger; the likelihood that the warning will catch the attention of those who will foreseeably use the product and convey the nature of the danger to them; the intensity and form of the warning; and the cost of improving the strength or mode of the warning." In Carruth v. Pittway Corporation , for example, the plaintiffs, who were estate administrators for the decedents, brought a warning defect claim against the manufacturer of a smoke detector. In Carruth , the plaintiffs had installed a smoke detector in their home two days prior to a fire that led to the decedents' death. The plaintiffs alleged that the literature accompanying the smoke detector did not properly warn users about the dangers of installing the smoke detector in "dead air space," an area near the top of the wall and corners of a room where smoke will not easily circulate. As a result, the smoke detector was improperly installed and did not properly function during the fire. In addressing the failure-to-warn claim, the court stated that "the law does not require that necessary warnings be conveyed in the best way possible, ... but does require that they not be conveyed in a manner that effectively 'prevents a consumer from reading them and being warned.'" In this instance, the court noted that while the manufacturer's pamphlet referenced the dangers of "dead air space," it did so within a seven-page pamphlet with small and tight print, which included a significant number of warnings but gave little emphasis to specific dangers. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had presented enough substantial evidence from which a jury could find that the warning was inappropriately given, as it was not adequately designed to attract the user's attention. A plaintiff may assert a number of causes of action in her products liability lawsuit to support her product defect claim, regardless of whether she is asserting a manufacturing, design, or warning defect claim. Each of these causes of action has a unique set of factors that a plaintiff must prove in order to obtain relief, as well as defenses that may protect a manufacturer from liability. When bringing a products liability lawsuit, a plaintiff must take these factors and defenses into consideration in determining the appropriate claim(s) to assert and the likelihood of success. Although products liability law derives from common law judicial decisions, many states have enacted legislation that codifies causes of action based on different theories of liability and/or that places limits on when or against whom claims are to be asserted. The following section provides a broad overview of the four types of tort claims that a plaintiff may typically assert in her products liability lawsuit. Contemporary products liability litigation is most often associated with the theory of strict liability. Under the doctrine of strict liability, anyone who sells or manufactures an unreasonably dangerous product that causes physical injury or property damage to the consumer will be found liable for those damages, even if the seller or manufacturer took all possible steps to ensure the safety of that product. An action for strict liability does not require the plaintiff to prove negligence or wrongdoing by the seller or manufacturer; instead, the plaintiff simply needs to prove that she purchased the product from the manufacturer or seller and was later injured by the product. As a result, the strict liability standard makes it substantially easier for a plaintiff injured by a defective product to recover damages when compared to other causes of action described below. Advocates of applying a strict liability standard in products liability actions have long argued that this standard ensures adequate compensation for injured consumers, deters manufacturers from producing dangerous or low-quality products, and ensures judicial efficiency by avoiding lengthy litigation. Following the publication of the treatise Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1965, most courts promptly adopted the strict liability standard set forth in Section 402A for nearly all products liability lawsuits in the 1960s and 1970s. However, standards have since shifted, and many courts now apply a strict liability standard to manufacturing defect claims while evaluating design and warning defect claims under a negligence standard. Although the subsequent publication of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability reflects this approach taken by the courts, many courts continue to cite Section 402A jurisprudence for the proposition that they are applying a "strict" liability standard to product defect claims. It has been observed that "courts have created a disjunction between what they say and what they do," and it appears that "courts for many years will continue to apply principles of negligence to design and warning defect claims while purporting to apply the 'strict' liability doctrine spawned by § 402A." Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. , was a landmark case from 1963 where the court "constructed a new doctrine of strict products liability." It is thus illustrative of how a court may evaluate a product defects case under a strict liability standard. In Greenman , the plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his forehead when a piece of wood unexpectedly flew out while he was using a power tool as a wood lathe, a use for which the tool had been designed and marketed. Despite the lower court's finding that the manufacturer had not acted negligently or maliciously and that the plaintiff had not given the manufacturer proper notice of the damages he suffered from the power tools—which were necessary elements for liability under the existing state law—the Supreme Court of California held that the manufacturer was liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court declared, "A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being." It reasoned that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products should be borne by the manufacturer, regardless of fault, instead of the injured party, who had no means through which to protect himself. According the court, a manufacturer is always liable whenever a plaintiff, while using the product in its intended way, is injured due to a manufacturing defect for which the plaintiff did not receive adequate warning. A classic cause of action under tort law, negligence is defined as a harm to another resulting from a "failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation." While the increased application of a strict liability standard in the 1960s and 1970s displaced the role of negligence as the principal cause of action in products liability litigation, negligence remained as an alternative means through which a plaintiff could recover damages, and it has regained importance since the 1980s. There are four factors that a plaintiff generally needs to prove in a negligence action: (1) the defendant had a legal duty to act; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was both a cause-in-fact and proximate cause to the plaintiff's injuries; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages which can be recovered in court. In applying these factors to a products liability lawsuit for negligence, a plaintiff generally must prove that (1) the manufacturer produced an unreasonably dangerous product; (2) the unsafe product caused injury to the plaintiff; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages which can be recovered in court. Because a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence to show that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care in designing and/or manufacturing the product, the negligence standard may be seen as more favorable to manufacturers than strict liability. Courts generally determine whether a manufacturer has acted negligently by balancing the cost to the manufacturer of taking additional safety precautions against the benefits provided by those precautions. If the product creates high risks, a manufacturer would likely be required to take greater care in mitigating those risks; whereas if a product creates only small risks, a manufacturer would likely be required to only take minor precautions. Importantly, negligence claims do not require that a manufacturer create a product that is perfectly safe, but only a product that is reasonably safe for its intended purpose. In Ford Motor Co. v. Bartholomew , for example, the plaintiff commenced a negligence suit against the manufacturer of her car after she was severely injured when her car rolled backwards due to a design defect in the car's transmission system. At trial, the plaintiff brought in an expert witness who testified that the plaintiff's car model was manufactured with a defect in the transmission system which, when certain events occurred, would appear to be in the "Park" position, but had not fully engaged. The plaintiff also introduced evidence to demonstrate that the car manufacturer was aware of the defect and had modified it in subsequent models. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the transmission system was not safe for its intended use because a reasonably prudent driver would have been led into a "false sense of security" by believing the transmission to be fully engaged in the "Park" position. A products liability lawsuit where a breach of warranty action is asserted by a plaintiff closely resembles an action for breach of contract. In essence, a products manufacturer has obligations under the law when it makes assertions about a product. If a consumer reasonably relies upon these assertions, the assertions become part of what the consumer bargained for when she purchased the product. As a result, a consumer may bring an action for breach of warranty against the manufacturer if the assertion is proven untrue. Breach of warranty lawsuits are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), a model statute that was adopted by most state legislatures in the 1950s. The UCC recognizes two principal types of warranties—express and implied. An express warranty is an assertion made directly by the manufacturer or seller about the performance, quality, or characteristics of a product. In contrast, an implied warranty is a promise or representation, even if the statement is not directly asserted, about a product's minimal standard of quality that the law attributes to anyone selling a product. Similar to a strict liability action, a plaintiff need not show negligence or wrongdoing by the manufacturer or seller in an action for breach of warranty—whether express or implied. While the specific elements needed to impose liability will vary depending on the type of warranty given, a manufacturer or seller could be held liable so long as the plaintiff demonstrates that a warranty was made, relied upon, and breached. The plaintiff in Forbes v. General Motors Corp. brought a products liability suit claiming breach of an express warranty after being severely injured when her car's air bag failed to deploy during a strong front-end accident. The plaintiff argued that (1) the product breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which she relied; (2) the "defective condition" rendered the air bag and car unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff; and (3) the dangerous condition caused the plaintiff's injuries. At trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence that the car owner's manual stated that the air bag would deploy in an accident and that she paid a higher price for a model equipped with an air bag after a salesman emphasized the importance of this feature during the sales process. Under the state law for breach of express warranty, the plaintiff was not required to present evidence of product defectiveness. Rather, the plaintiff need only demonstrate that the product did not live up to its warranty, that is, that, upon impact, the car's air bag did not deploy. On appeal, the court found that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the car manufacturer was liable for breach of an express warranty. In contrast, the plaintiff in Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co . asserted a products liability claim for breach of an implied warranty. The plaintiff brought suit against the seller and manufacturer of a pair of high heels that collapsed the second time the plaintiff wore them. She suffered a serious injury that required surgery to correct. Under the state's law, a plaintiff is required to prove that (1) the goods bought and sold were subject to an implied warranty of merchantability; (2) the goods did not comply with the warranty in that the goods were defective at the time of sale; (3) the plaintiff's injury was due to the defective nature of the goods; and (4) damages were suffered as a result. During trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence that the heels of the shoe were made of plastic without any interior support and could easily give way when excessive pressure was applied. On appeal, the court concluded that this evidence could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the seller and manufacturer had breached an implied warranty, as the shoes did not appear to be suitable for the purpose for which they were designed and were defective at the time sold. Tortious misrepresentation is another cause of action by which a plaintiff can recover when harmed by reasonably relying on a manufacturer's representation about a product that is later shown to be false. Tortious misrepresentation cases usually fall within one of two categories: (1) intentional or fraudulent misrepresentation—that is, cases where the manufacturer knows that the assertion is false—or (2) negligent misrepresentation—that is, cases where the manufacturer should have known that the statement was false. A plaintiff bears the burden of proving the various elements of her fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation claim. Misrepresentation claims generally do not require a plaintiff to show that the product was defective at the time of sale. However, due to the somewhat subjective nature of these elements, such as demonstrating that the manufacturer was aware of the falsity of his statement and that the plaintiff's reliance on the statement was reasonable, it may be difficult for a plaintiff to succeed in her case. Furthermore, a plaintiff often faces a heightened standard for her pleading requirement to the court, and must satisfy a "clear and convincing evidence" standard when bringing a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. As a result, it appears that a plaintiff rarely attempts to recover damages under tortious misrepresentation, especially if the products liability claim can be pursued through another cause of action. An example of a products liability case brought under a tortious misrepresentation cause of action is First National Bank v. Brooks Farms . The plaintiffs in Brooks Farm were a group of dairy farmers who had purchased a silo that failed to adequately preserve cattle feed, leading to a number of economic losses because milk production from the cattle decreased. At trial, the plaintiffs introduced evidence of the manufacturer's promotional material, which indicated that the silos would prevent oxygen from contacting the feed and preserve the feed's nutritional value. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that the manufacturer had knowledge that these representations were false by submitting the manufacturer's internal memoranda as well as testimony from the manufacturer's engineers, which confirmed its knowledge. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's finding that the manufacturer intentionally misrepresented information about the product upon which the plaintiffs relied and subsequently suffered damages. Federal involvement in the products liability area can be traced back to the Interagency Task Force on Product Liability (Task Force) begun by the Ford Administration in 1976. The Task Force's final report in 1977 found a dramatic increase in costs of products liability and sparked various working groups that examined the issue of products liability and tort reform throughout the 1970s and 1980s. As products liability has traditionally been an area governed by state law (see "Overview of State Action" Text Box below), federal reform efforts have raised questions on the propriety of federal legislation in the area. Current jurisprudence suggests that products liability legislation would be permissible so long as it falls within Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Nonetheless, it may be unconstitutional for Congress to enact products liability legislation that does not substantially affect interstate commerce. For a more in-depth analysis of the constitutionality of federal products liability and other tort-reform legislation, see CRS Report 95-797, Federal Tort Reform Legislation: Constitutionality and Summaries of Selected Statutes , by [author name scrubbed]. Federal tort reform bills have generally been limited in scope, many of which have been principally aimed at protecting those who sell particular types of products or commit particular types of negligence. This trend has been particularly apparent since 1996, when Congress did not override President Clinton's veto of broad products liability legislation ( H.R. 956 , 104 th Congress). Consumer representatives and plaintiffs' attorneys generally oppose measures that would effectively limit an injured party's ability to recover in products liability suits. They consider the tort system necessary to provide incentives for the manufacture of safe products and to ensure adequate compensation for injured workers and consumers. Conversely, insurance companies and product manufacturers have supported federal products liability reform, hoping to reduce the amounts paid due to products liability lawsuits, and seeking national uniformity in products liability law. A federal statute could bring about national uniformity with respect to some products liability issues. For example, past proposals would have included a federal statute of limitations or a federal statute of repose for products liability suits. The possibility of national uniformity, however, should not be overestimated. For instance, other past proposals, such as one that would establish a standard of conduct for the award of punitive damages, could likely be subject to varying interpretations by every federal and state court absent a Supreme Court decision establishing a national interpretation. Even if the Supreme Court issues such an interpretation, such a provision's application to the facts of particular cases may vary among jurisdictions. When Congress wants to create standards or regulate in the area of products liability, it sometimes will enact laws that bar liability for certain causes of action by having a federal law "preempt" state law. Preemption doctrine has its constitutional basis in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal statutes enacted in accordance with the Constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Supreme Court has long held that, under the Supremacy Clause, a state law interfering with or running contrary to a federal law is preempted by it and is thus invalid. The Court has further concluded that federal statutes can impose requirements that potentially conflict with state common law, which includes much of product liability law, thus warranting an analysis under the preemption doctrine. Examples of federal laws that have been found by the Supreme Court to preempt state law include the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA). Under the FCLAA, Congress provided that "[n]o requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of [the] Act[.]" The Supreme Court held that the FCLAA preempted state "failure to warn" and "fraudulent misrepresentation" claims that were based on cigarette advertising or promotion when the product manufacturer complied with the required federal regulations. Similarly, the FFDCA forbids states from establishing requirements for medical devices that are "different from, or in addition to" those established by the act and "which relate to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under [the] Act." The Supreme Court held that the federal regulations for catheters, enacted pursuant to the FFDCA, preempted a state law claim alleging that the catheter was "designed, label[ed] and manufactured in a manner that violated ... New York common law." While Congress enacted a number of products liability laws in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been little legislation in recent years. The following section provides a brief overview of federal products liability statutes enacted from the 97 th Congress through the present. For specific terms related to tort, see the Appendix . During President Reagan's Administration, the 97 th Congress enacted the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981. This act sought to lower insurance costs by permitting businesses to form self-insurance pools. Subsequently, the 98 th Congress enacted the Clarification of the Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981. This statute was intended to permit "product manufactures, sellers, and distributors to purchase … insurance on a group basis or to self-insure through insurance cooperatives called 'risk retention groups.'" Federal legislation was necessary to accomplish this because many states have laws that would make the formation of such groups impractical on an interstate basis. The federal statute therefore exempts purchasing groups and risk retention groups from most regulation by states other than ones in which they are chartered. Furthermore, the 99 th Congress enacted the Risk Retention Amendments of 1986, which expanded the scope of Product Liability Risk Retention Act of 1981 to enable risk retention groups and purchasing groups to provide all types of liability insurance, not only products liability insurance. It renamed the act the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986. The 99 th Congress also enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. As amended, the act requires most persons suffering vaccine-related injuries, prior to filing a tort action, to file a claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for no-fault compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program established by the act. Under the program, compensation for pain and suffering is limited to $250,000. A party not satisfied with the compensation awarded under the program may file a tort action under state law, but subject to some limitations. Although recovery under the program is limited, it was hoped that "the relative certainty and generosity of the system's awards [would] divert a significant number of potential plaintiffs from litigation." During President Clinton's Administration, the 103 rd Congress in 1994 enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act, which established an 18-year statute of repose for planes with fewer than 20 seats that are not used in scheduled service at the time of the incident. With exceptions, this law prevents civil actions against the manufacturers of such an aircraft or aircraft components to be brought if any of their products are 18 years or older at the time of the accident. The 104 th Congress also enacted the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which limits civil liability for a person or gleaner ("a person who harvests for free distribution to the needy"), except in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct, who donates apparently wholesome food or an apparently fit grocery product "in good faith to a non-profit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals." It also limits liability of the nonprofit organization that receives the donation, except in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. In addition, the 104 th Congress passed H.R. 956 , the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. During the remainder of Clinton's tenure, other laws passed include the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 during the 105 th Congress. This act limits the products liability under state law of biomaterials suppliers, which it defines as an entity that supplies a component part or raw materials for use in the manufacture of an implant. In 1999, the 106 th Congress enacted the Y2K Act, which limits contractual and tort liability under state law in suits, other than those for personal injury or wrongful death, "in which the plaintiff's alleged harm or injury arises from or is related to an actual or potential Y2K failure…." During President George W. Bush's Administration, the 107 th Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002, three sections of which limit the products liability of various defendants. Section 304 immunizes manufacturers and administrators of smallpox vaccine from liability. Section 863 limits the liability of sellers of antiterrorism technology, and Sections 1714-1717 limit the liability of manufacturers and administrators of the components and ingredients of vaccines. Sections 1714-1717 of this act were repealed when the 108 th Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Division L, Section 102. In 2005, the 109 th Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It prohibits "a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding," except in six circumstances, against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a trade association, for damages "resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm or ammunition. Section 5 of the PLCAA is a separate provision called the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005. With exceptions, it requires a "secure gun storage or safety device" (as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(34)) on handguns, and provides that a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses such a device, is entitled to the same immunity as granted to gun manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations by the PLCAA. The 109 th Congress also enacted the Public Readiness Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Division C of the PREP Act limits liability with respect to pandemic flu and other public health countermeasures upon a declaration by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of a public health emergency or the credible risk of such emergency. In lieu of suing, victims may accept payment under the "Covered Countermeasure Process Fund" if Congress appropriates money for this fund. The extent to which each of the following concepts is applicable in particular products liability lawsuits depends upon the relevant state law. Alteration of product. A possible contributing cause to an injury that may be performed by a plaintiff or a third party, such as a plaintiff's employer; it may reduce or eliminate a defendant's liability. Assumption of risk. A form of contributory fault by a plaintiff; it may reduce or eliminate a defendant's liability. Breach of warranty. A basis for liability that permits the defendant to raise certain contract law defenses to avoid liability, but does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. Collateral source. A source, such as an insurance company or governmental entity, that compensates an injured party for the injury, and may, through subrogation, be entitled to recover such compensation paid out to the injured party. Collateral source rule. The rule that a plaintiff's damages will not be reduced by amounts she recovered from sources other than the defendant, such as health insurance benefits. Comparative negligence. The rule that plaintiff's recovery will be reduced in proportion to the degree that her own negligence (or other fault) was responsible for his injury. In its modified form, recovery is barred if the plaintiff's responsibility exceeds a specific degree, such as 50%. Contributory negligence. Negligence (or other fault) on the part of the plaintiff that is wholly or partially responsible for his injury. In a few states, any degree of contributory negligence will totally bar recovery. Design defect. A defect resulting from a product that, although manufactured as it had been designed, was not designed as safely as it should have been. Economic damages. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the plaintiff, such as medical bills or loss of income. Failure to warn. A defect consisting of the defendant's failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of its product. Government contractor defense. A rule established by the Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500 (1988), that enables a defendant whose product complied with federal government contract specifications to avoid liability in some cases. Government standards defense. A rule in a few states enabling a defendant whose product complied with government safety standards to avoid liability or to establish a presumption that its product was not defective. Joint and several liability. The rule that each defendant who contributes to causing a plaintiff's injury may be held individually liable for the total damages. Lawyers' contingent fees. Fees payable only upon recovery of damages, based upon a percentage of the recovery. Manufacturing defect. A defect resulting from a product's not having been manufactured as it had been designed. Compare with "Design defect," supra . Market share liability. Liability for the percentage of a plaintiff's damages equal to the defendant's market share of the injury-causing product; a few cases have held market share liability applicable where a plaintiff cannot prove that a particular defendant manufactured the injury-causing product. Misuse of product. A form of contributory fault by a plaintiff; it may reduce or eliminate a defendant's liability. Negligence. Breach of a duty to exercise duty care; it is the traditional nonintentional tort standard in cases not based upon strict liability. No-fault recovery. Recovery permitted in the absence of fault; it is not the law in any state with respect to products liability. If adopted in the products liability context, it would permit recovery in the absence not only of negligence (as strict tort liability does), but in the absence of a product defect. Noneconomic damages. Damages payable for items other than out-of-pocket expenses such as pain and suffering or punitive damages. Statutory caps on noneconomic damages, however, are generally distinct from statutory caps on punitive damages. Patent danger rule. The rule that a manufacturer is not liable for an injury caused by a design defect if the danger should have been obvious to the product user. Periodic payments of future damages. Payments by a defendant for a plaintiff's future expenses on a periodic basis rather than in lump sum. Post-manufacturing improvements. Improvements in a product's design that occur after an injury and which plaintiffs seek to introduce in court as evidence that an injury-causing product was defective. Punitive damages. Damages awarded, in addition to economic damages and other noneconomic damages, to punish a defendant for willful or wanton conduct. (Also called "exemplary damages.") Restatement (Second) Torts. A statement of tort law written by legal scholars; Section 402A, which provides for strict tort liability for injuries caused by defective products, has been adopted by most states. On May 20, 1997, the American Law Institute adopted Restatement of the Law (3d), Torts: Product Liability , which is intended to replace section 402A. State of the art defense. The defense that permits a defendant to avoid liability in a design defect case if at the time of manufacture there was no feasible safer design available, or in a failure-to-warn case if at the time of manufacture there was no reasonable way that the defendant could have known of the danger he failed to warn against. Statute of limitations. A statute specifying the number of years after injury occurs, or is discovered, or its cause is discovered, within which suit must be filed. Statute of repose. A statute specifying the number of years after a product is first sold or distributed within which suit must be filed; it supplements the statute of limitations. Manufacturers favor statutes of repose because they preclude recovery when products are old; consumers oppose them because they result in suits being barred before injuries even occur. Strict tort liability. Liability established if a plaintiff proves that a product defect caused an injury; the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant was negligent. Subrogation. The right of a collateral source, such as an insurance company or governmental entity, that compensates an injured party to recover the amount paid to injured party by taking over the injured party's right to recover from the person who caused the injury. Useful life limitation. A period of time set forth by statute after which a product's useful life is deemed over and suit is barred or a presumption that the product was not defective is created; this is similar to a statute of repose. Workers' compensation. Statutes in every state providing for limited no-fault compensation against employers by workers injured on the job. Receipt of such compensation ordinarily precludes an employee from suing his employer; it does not preclude him from suing a product manufacturer. | Products liability generally refers to the civil liability of a manufacturer or seller for injury caused by its product to the person or property of a buyer or third party. Legal developments starting in the 1960s, particularly the adoption of strict tort liability, have made it substantially easier for persons injured by defective products to recover for damages. Starting in the 1980s, however, many states enacted tort reform legislation that effectively places limits on an injured party's ability to recover. Advocates for consumers and plaintiffs view strong products liability law as necessary to ensure adequate compensation for injured workers and consumers and to furnish an incentive for the manufacture of safe products. Manufacturers and their insurers, by contrast, contend that many products liability judgments are unwarranted or excessive and that national uniformity in products liability law is needed. They have favored replacing the 50-state products liability laws with one federal law. While bills that are narrowly focused on a particular product or industry have been occasionally considered by Congress, no major products liability bills have been introduced during the 113th Congress. This report will be updated as circumstances warrant. |
Before VERA was implemented during fiscal year 1997, VA based its allocation of resources primarily on facilities’ historical expenditures. By the 1990s, the share of the veteran population in the Northeast and Midwest declined while the share of the veteran population in the South and West increased. However, resources continued to be allocated based on historical expenditures, resulting in inequitable resource allocations to some VA networks. VERA was intended to correct these regional inequities. VERA allocates nearly 90 percent of VA’s medical care appropriation. These allocations are for six categories of expenses: complex patient care, basic patient care, equipment, nonrecurring maintenance, education support, and research support. Resources for the first four categories are allocated on the basis of patient workload and account for approximately 96 percent of the resources VERA allocates. Allocations for education support and research support are based on workload measures specific to those activities within the VA health care system. As VERA was being implemented, two major changes in VA health care occurred as a result of the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996. First, by eliminating certain restrictions preventing VA from treating some veterans in outpatient care settings, the act allowed VA to begin delivering care, where appropriate, in outpatient rather than inpatient settings—a practice consistent with care delivery throughout the health care industry. Second, VA introduced an enrollment system to manage access to VA health care in relation to available resources. As required by the act, VA established seven priority categories for enrollment. Higher priority for enrollment is given to veterans with service-connected disabilities, lower incomes, or other statuses such as former prisoners of war. Priority 7, the lowest priority level, is given primarily to veterans without a service-connected disability, who have higher incomes. VERA’s design is a reasonable approach to resource allocation and has helped promote more comparable resource allocations for comparable workloads in VA. Consistent with the literature and expert views on resource allocation, VERA allocates resources primarily on the basis of network patient workload, attempts to adjust network resources for factors beyond the control of network management, and provides protection to patients against network budget shortfalls. As a result, VERA has shifted substantial resources among regions to better reflect workload. VERA is a reasonable approach because it allocates resources to networks primarily based on workload. Each network receives an allocation based on a predetermined dollar amount per veteran served. This is consistent with how other federal health care payers, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, allocate resources to managed care plans for their patient workload. Because VERA uses workload to allocate resources, networks that have more patients generally receive more resources than networks that have fewer patients. By receiving funding based on workload, VA’s health care networks have an incentive to focus on aligning facilities and programs to attract patients rather than focusing on maintaining existing operations and infrastructure regardless of the number of patients served. In addition, VERA adjusts network allocations for cost differences beyond the networks’ control. VERA does this through adjustments for networks’ case mix by classifying patients into one of three categories—complex care, basic vested care, and basic “non-vested” care—which are based on the level of patient health care need and the costs associated with that care. Complex care comprises about 4 percent of VA’s workload and includes patients who generally require significant high-cost inpatient care as an integral part of their rehabilitation or functional maintenance. Basic vested care and basic non-vested care patients—who compose 84 percent and 12 percent of VA’s workload, respectively—include patients whose health care needs are more routine and can be met in an outpatient setting. These patients typically require significantly fewer resources than complex care patients. However, basic vested care patients rely primarily or completely on VA for meeting their health care needs, while basic non-vested care patients receive only part of their care through VA and have not undergone comprehensive medical evaluations by VA practitioners. In fiscal year 2001, the capitation amount—or dollar amount per patient served—was $42,765 for complex care, $3,126 for basic vested care, and $121 for basic non-vested care. In addition, VERA adjusts for cost differences beyond networks’ control by applying a price adjustment factor to each network’s allocation to account for uncontrollable geographic price differences. The adjustment lowers the VERA allocation for networks located in lower cost areas and increases the allocation for networks located in higher cost areas. Also contributing to the reasonableness of VERA’s approach is that it provides protection to patients against network budget shortfalls. VERA does this by providing supplemental resources through the National Reserve Fund to networks that have difficulty operating within their available resources. These supplemental allocations protect patients from the risk that a health care network would be unable to provide services if its expenditures exceeded available resources. Since fiscal year 1999, resources distributed through the National Reserve Fund have supplemented VERA allocations in six networks and averaged approximately 1 percent of total VERA allocations. As a result of VERA’s approach, resources have shifted among regions to better reflect workload. Consequently, resources moved primarily from networks located in the Northeast and Midwest to networks located in the South and West. In fiscal year 2001, VERA shifted approximately $921 million among networks compared to what the allocations would have been if networks received the same proportion of funding they received in fiscal year 1996, the year before VERA was implemented. VERA shifted the most resources in fiscal year 2001 to Network 8 (Bay Pines)— approximately $198 million—and the most resources from Network 3 (Bronx)—approximately $322 million—compared to what allocations would have been if both networks had received the same proportion of funding they received in fiscal year 1996. Although VERA’s overall design is a reasonable approach to equitably allocate resources, we identified weaknesses in its implementation that compromise the achievement of its goal of allocating comparable resources for comparable workloads. To correct these weaknesses we made several recommendations that, if implemented, would better align approximately $200 million in resources with workloads in VA’s health care networks. Specifically, we recommended that VERA improve its workload calculations to include all veterans served—including Priority 7 veterans, the most rapidly growing proportion of VA’s workload. We also recommended that VA improve its adjustment for cost differences beyond network control by incorporating more categories into VERA’s case-mix adjustment to more accurately account for the differences in networks’ patient health care needs. Finally, we recommended that VA improve its process to protect patients from network budget shortfalls by determining the extent to which different factors cause networks to need supplemental resources in order to address factors, such as inefficiency, that may cause budget shortfalls. To improve its network workload calculation, VERA should account for all veteran workload served—including Priority 7 veterans, who have higher incomes and no service-connected disabilities. By excluding most Priority 7 veterans from VERA’s workload calculation, networks with a higher proportion of Priority 7 veterans have fewer resources per patient to treat veterans than networks with a lower proportion of Priority 7 veterans. For example, in fiscal year 2001, Network 3 (Bronx) had the highest proportion of Priority 7 veterans, 37 percent, and Network 20 (Portland) had the lowest proportion, 14 percent. Nationally, VA’s proportion of Priority 7 veterans was 22 percent of total workload in fiscal year 2001. When VERA was established, the number of higher income veterans without service-connected disabilities that VA treated was about 4 percent of the total number of veterans treated in fiscal year 1996. VA decided not to include most of these Priority 7 veterans in VERA’s basic care workload calculations because of their small numbers and the expectation that collections from copayments, deductibles, and third-party insurance would cover most of their costs. However, Priority 7 veterans accounted for 22 percent of VA’s workload in fiscal year 2001—a substantial increase from 107,520 patients in fiscal year 1996 to an estimated 827,722 patients in fiscal year 2001. In addition, VA projects that the growth in Priority 7 patients will continue at least through fiscal year 2010. Although VA initially expected to cover the majority of Priority 7 patient costs through collections, VA collected only 24 percent of Priority 7 veterans’ costs in fiscal year 2000. As a result, networks pay for most of the costs of Priority 7 services through VERA allocations made for the service-connected and low-income veteran workloads. Inclusion of Priority 7 veterans in VERA’s basic vested care workload would increase the comparability of resources among networks’ per patient treated. If VERA were to have funded Priority 7 basic vested veterans at 50 percent of their costs, as VA had considered, resources would have moved from networks with smaller proportions of Priority 7 veterans to networks with larger proportions of Priority 7 veterans based on our simulation (see fig. 1). VERA allocations would have increased to 9 networks in the Northeast and Midwest and decreased to 10 networks in the South and West in the fiscal year 2001 VERA allocation. To improve its adjustment for cost differences beyond networks’ control, we also recommended that VERA use more case-mix categories to adequately adjust for differences in patients’ health care needs across networks. Based on the results of our simulation, this change to VERA would have the largest effect on resource allocation. VERA’s three case- mix categories—complex, basic vested, and basic non-vested—are based on 44 patient classes. Because average costs of patients in the classes within the VERA categories vary significantly and can be dramatically higher or lower than their capitation amounts for the three case-mix categories, VERA’s ability to allocate comparable resources for comparable workloads is limited. The wide variation in cost between home-based primary care and ventilator-dependent care—two of the patient classes in complex care—illustrates this point. The national average cost for home- based primary care in fiscal year 2000 was about $24,000, roughly $18,000 less than the $42,153 capitation amount for complex care. In contrast, the average patient cost for ventilator-dependent care in that year was about $163,000, roughly $121,000 more than the complex care capitation amount. As a result of VERA’s having only three case-mix categories, networks with proportionately more workload in less expensive patient classes, such as home-based primary care, receive more resources relative to their costs than other networks. Similarly, networks with more workload in more expensive patient classes, such as ventilator-dependent care, receive fewer resources relative to their costs. If VERA were to use VA’s current 44 patient classes rather than the three case-mix categories, resources would move from networks having proportionately fewer patients in expensive patient classes to networks having proportionately more patients in expensive patient classes. As figure 2 shows, based on our simulation, there would be a significant movement of resources—an average of 2 percent per network. The combined effect of including basic vested Priority 7 veterans in VERA’s workload and using all 44 VA patient classes in VERA’s case-mix adjustment would provide additional resources to some northeastern and midwestern networks and reduce resources for some southern and western networks (see fig. 3). The allocation change would represent about 2 percent of networks’ budgets but would be more substantial for some networks. The two networks with the largest percentage change are Network 1 (Boston) with an approximate 5 percent increase and Network 20 (Portland) with an approximate 5 percent decrease. While VA concurred with our recommendations to better align VERA’s measure of workload with actual workload served and to incorporate more (not necessarily 44) categories into VERA’s case-mix adjustment, it plans to wait for further study before making a decision about modifications to VERA for the fiscal year 2003 allocation. VA and others have conducted various studies on including all Priority 7 workload in VERA and increasing the number of VERA case-mix categories. Given the extensive studies by VA and others of VERA’s workload and case-mix measures, we believe that VA should make needed improvements to VERA for the fiscal year 2003 allocation and further refine VERA as needed in subsequent years. To improve its process to protect patients from network budget shortfalls, we also recommend that VA’s supplemental funding process determine to what extent networks need supplemental resources due to such factors as imperfections in VERA, lack of network efficiency, or lack of managerial flexibility to close or consolidate programs or facilities. VA’s supplemental funding processes have not collected the information necessary to make these determinations. As a result, VA cannot provide adequate assurance that supplemental allocations are appropriate or correct problems that cause networks to have budget shortfalls. VA has focused its process for providing supplemental funding from the National Reserve Fund almost solely on providing supplemental resources to networks to get through a fiscal year, but it has not included in this process an examination of the root causes of networks’ needs for additional resources. From fiscal years 1999 through 2001, VA used different approaches for evaluating networks’ supplemental funding requests and distributing a total of approximately $323 million in supplemental resources to six networks. However, in none of these approaches has VA collected adequate information for determining the extent to which certain factors cause budget shortfalls. For example, in fiscal year 2001, about half of the supplemental resources provided to networks was for “inflation and miscellaneous program adjustments.” All networks experienced inflation, however, and VA did not distinguish between the level of inflation in networks that requested supplemental resources and those that did not. VA concurred with our recommendation to improve the supplemental funding process. For fiscal year 2002, VA developed a different approach to providing supplemental resources to networks, one that it indicates will better identify factors, such as inefficiency, VERA imperfections, or other factors, that cause networks to require supplemental resources. However, the actions VA discussed to improve the process do not address our recommendation to identify the relative contributions of such factors to network budget shortfalls. Until VA implements our recommendation, it cannot provide assurance that supplemental resources are appropriate or take needed actions to reduce the likelihood of network shortfalls in the future. VERA’s design is a reasonable approach to resource allocation and has had a significant effect on promoting more comparable resource allocations for comparable workloads in VA. Yet VA needs to correct weaknesses in VERA’s implementation to better align resources with workload and to adequately account for important variations in health care needs among networks. Our analysis shows that doing so would better allocate about $200 million annually. Although most of the reallocation at this time would result from better case-mix adjustments in VERA to reflect differences in health care needs among networks, the importance of including all Priority 7 veterans in VERA workload could increase in the future because the number of Priority 7 veterans is projected to continue to increase at least through fiscal year 2010. Making changes to address these weaknesses in VERA will add some complexity to how VA allocates resources, but delaying these needed improvements to VERA will perpetuate inequities that currently exist. In addition, VA has not used the supplemental funding process to improve VERA allocations and management of VA’s resources. The amount of resources provided to networks through the supplemental funding process for the National Reserve Fund has continued to increase, yet VA has not been able to determine the relative contribution of factors such as imperfections in VERA, network inefficiency, or lack of managerial flexibility to close or consolidate programs or facilities to the need for supplemental resources. Because VA has not identified the relative contribution of factors that could cause network budget shortfalls, it is unable to ensure that the supplemental funds provided are appropriate or correct problems that cause networks to have budget shortfalls. Without knowing the extent to which VERA imperfections or other factors are responsible for budget shortfalls, stakeholders may lose confidence in VERA’s ability to allocate resources equitably. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-7101 or James Musselwhite at (202) 512-7259. Marcia Mann and Thomas Walke also contributed to this statement. | The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $21 billion in fiscal year 2001 to treat 3.8 million veterans--most of whom had service-connected disabilities or low incomes. Since 1997, VA has used the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system to allocate most of its medical care appropriation. GAO found that VERA has had a substantial impact on network resource allocations and workloads. VERA shifted $921 million from networks primarily in the northeast and midwest to networks in the south and west in fiscal year 2001. VERA, along with other VA initiatives, has provided an incentive for networks to serve more veterans. In GAO's view, VERA's overall design is a reasonable approach to allocating resources according to workloads. It provides a predetermined dollar amount per veteran served to each of VA's 22 health care networks. This amount varies depending upon the health care needs of the veteran served and local cost differences. However, GAO identified weaknesses in VERA's implementation. First, VERA excludes about one fifth of VA's workload in determining each network's allocation. Second, VERA does not account well for cost differences among networks resulting from variation in their patients' health care needs. Third, the process for providing supplemental resources to networks through VA's National Reserve Fund has not been used to analyze how the need for such resources is caused by potential problems in VERA's allocation, network inefficiency, or other factors. This testimony is based on an April report (GAO-02-338). |
Thomas B. Shea/AFP/Getty Images
In case you hadn’t picked up the latest goalpost shift from the losing Sen. Marco Rubio campaign, we have an update: Winning a majority of delegates doesn’t seem to be something it expects to do, especially after another ho-hum night on Super Tuesday. The goal now is to deny Trump from reaching an outright majority of delegates and then oust him after the first ballot at the convention. This isn’t just the backup plan anymore; it is the plan. This means that it might be better for all of the non–Donald Trump candidates to stay in the race and pick off potential wins from Trump here and there.
Jim Newell Jim Newell is a Slate staff writer.
Interesting theory. And definitely one born out of necessity, since Super Tuesday’s results made clear that the field won’t consolidate any time soon. But does it work?
Advertisement
“Rubio and his advisers have described an ugly, drawn-out path to the Republican nomination,” Politico reported on Tuesday. “Their strategy relies on picking off enough delegates to hold Trump below the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination on the first ballot at the convention.” Politico also reported that Terry Sullivan, a top Rubio adviser, told donors, lobbyists, and other members of the dying Republican establishment in a Tuesday morning meeting “that it would be mathematically impossible for Donald Trump to get to 1,237 delegate votes by the end of April, according to multiple attendees.” (Sullivan must be aware that there are contests in May and June, including a small state called “California,” but maybe the dopey donors aren’t.)
If blocking Trump from winning a majority of bound delegates is the goal, then it could make sense in the short term to keep everyone in the race, since any delegates that Trump doesn’t win count as a victory. Rubio would not have defeated Trump in Texas, so it was useful for Cruz to stay in and take a majority of those delegates for himself. Rubio won’t be able to defeat Trump in Ohio, so Kasich can handle that task. A split field makes it impossible for one candidate to gain a majority over Trump. But it helps to stop Trump himself from getting a majority.
Get Slate in your inbox.
The “everyone stay!” strategy appeared to have some adherents Tuesday night. As Time’s Zeke Miller points out, if the goal is to stop Trump from hitting 1,237, a split field can be of use through March 15.
But then there are the problems.
Advertisement
Even if some contests allocate delegates proportionately starting March 15, most of them don’t. They simply do not. So Trump would win most winner-take-all states with pluralities in a field split between Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich. Even if the field did winnow to a one-on-one, Trump would probably still win enough of those contests to secure a majority. This is what it means to be a dominating front-runner: You’ve closed off all paths for your challengers. ||||| Donald Trump Donald TrumpClinton buries Trump in negative ads Hardliners shrug off Trump’s softer tone on immigration Ramos call for media bias against Trump unethical, compromising MORE has been leading the Republican presidential field for more than seven months, and he has a clear path to winning the GOP nomination.
How did this happen? There are many reasons, and they will be studied by political historians in the years to come.
How long will the Trump phenomenon last? Can he effectively pivot to a general-election strategy following the raucous GOP primary? Will he succeed Barack Obama Barack ObamaActing Democratic Party chief: Trump’s ‘delusional’ on blacks Five takeaways from Clinton, Trump finance reports Trump brings mothers of children killed by undocumented immigrants on stage MORE as the 45th president? The pundits say that is unlikely, but they have been consistently wrong since Trump launched his campaign on June 16, 2015.
Here are seven reasons why Trump is dominating the Republican field:
The laws of political gravity do not apply to Trump. He publicly battled with the Pope, said Sen. John McCain John McCainGeneral calls McCain's Bergdahl comments 'inappropriate' Clinton enjoying edge over Trump in Silicon Valley Five takeaways from Clinton, Trump finance reports MORE (R-Ariz.) isn’t a war hero and had to fend off a Ku Klux Klan controversy recently. There have been many other eyebrow-raising comments that triggered media predictions of Trump’s demise. But yet, he thrives on adversity, and his poll numbers indicate he is a Teflon candidate who has no peer.
No candidate knows how to deal with the media better than Trump. The real-estate mogul knows how to handle the political media. Trump often publicly attacks media outlets that he claims treat him unfairly. Critics say Trump is too thin-skinned and that could hurt him in the general election, but his media strategies have only boosted him in the GOP primary. While other candidates such as Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio Marco RubioCoulter: Trump's 'softening' on immigration remark a panic move Poll: Trump holds narrow lead over Clinton in Florida Clinton enjoying edge over Trump in Silicon Valley MORE (R-Fla.) ducked interviews, Trump has been ubiquitous on the airwaves since the summer.
Last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper said, “[Trump has] been offering himself up when a lot of these other candidates would not do interviews at all.”
Unlike other candidates, Trump doesn’t deliver the same stump speech, and he usually feeds the political media’s voracious appetite with some new news. And, of course, the celebrity entertainer knows how to put on a show, whether that’s taking kids for rides in helicopters or publicly giving out Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey GrahamThe Trail 2016: Clinton’s ups and downs Graham: GOP being 'left behind' under Trump Thousands of Soros docs released by alleged Russian-backed hackers MORE’s (R-S.C.) cellphone number.
Campaign slogan. Ronald Reagan had “Morning in America.” Obama employed “Hope and Change.” And Trump has “Make America Great Again.” All three are simple, straightforward and easy to remember. What was Bush’s? How about Scott Walker’s? Neither of them had one.
Trump’s GOP rivals and Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham ClintonClinton buries Trump in negative ads Hardliners shrug off Trump’s softer tone on immigration Ramos call for media bias against Trump unethical, compromising MORE have chided his slogan, which has only gained it more attention. Clinton, who has struggled to come up with an overarching message, has just recently repeated Trump’s message, with a slight tweak: “Make America Whole Again.”
Trump picked the right time to run. Republican voters, who usually pick the next guy in line, are rebelling. The GOP establishment has called Trump a joke and says he has no chance of winning the White House. Yet, primary voters have tuned out party kingmakers and soundly rejected the next guy in line: Bush.
During a private speech at the Entrust Investment Summit last week in New York City, former President George W. Bush was asked about his brother’s failed bid. Several sources said the former president responded, “Sometimes, you lose it on the first tee — there are just some environments you can’t win in.”
The bottom line: Timing is everything in politics, and the 2016 cycle is Trump’s time.
Trump got better as a candidate. Trump’s launch speech in Trump Tower was rambling, but he tightened his message over the summer as his competitors foolishly waited for him to wilt.
He somehow recovered from calling Communion “wine” and “a little cracker” last August and subsequently won over the party’s evangelical voters.
The 69-year-old businessman focused on a populist message, going after Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and the Obama trade agenda. Contrary to other Republican White House hopefuls, Trump has refused to raise the eligibility age of Social Security. He also ripped the 43rd president’s handling of the Iraq War, a message that resonated with war-weary voters.
The focus of his immigration policy has been border security and attacking Rubio’s comprehensive immigration bill. Political observers on both sides of the aisle have ripped Trump’s lack of specifics on fighting ISIS, replacing ObamaCare and cutting the nation’s debt. Fact-checkers have assailed many of the assertions he has made on the campaign trail. But for the most part, voters have shrugged.
Trump has a knack for hitting his opponents’ weaknesses. Once he got in the race, Trump had one main target: Bush. He called him “low energy,” a label which immediately stuck to the former Florida governor.
Trump stared down the GOP field and dominated the first debate, which was surprising given that the most of the other candidates were far more experienced in verbal combat.
When Ted Cruz Ted CruzThe Trail 2016: Control the Alt-Right Shift Trump: Rick Perry would 'do well' against Cruz Conway, Kelly clash over Trump’s use of personal insults MORE rose in the polls, Trump went after the senator's most glaring weakness: likability. Trump and Rubio both repeatedly called Cruz a liar amid his questionable campaign tactics and the Texan's campaign stalled.
In the days leading up to Super Tuesday, Rubio started trying to out-Trump Trump by directing personal attacks at the front-runner. But the results indicate that strategy didn’t work.
Voters are tired of gridlock. Cruz’s ill-fated ObamaCare strategy led to the government shutdown of 2013. Rubio’s immigration bill died in the House and he doesn’t have a clear, major accomplishment in the Senate.
Trump, meanwhile, has touted his deal-making abilities. The electorate is clearly frustrated with Washington, which has been mired in gridlock for years. Congressional approval ratings are abysmal, so it’s clear voters want something different. Trump’s pitch is that he can iron out good deals and make Washington work. Interestingly, this is a very similar message that former President Bill Clinton Bill ClintonFive things to know about the Clinton Foundation and its donors FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump in Tampa, Florida Aide: Trump's donation to Clinton Foundation wasn't 'pay to play' MORE is making about the likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee. ||||| Donald J. Trump won the vote of a 59-year-old cabdriver in the Boston suburbs who said he lost his trucking business after immigrants began delivering cargo for less.
In Loudoun County, Virginia, one of the country’s wealthiest, he won the backing of a newly separated mother and a longtime Democrat who spoke of the possibility of another terrorist attack, saying, “I don’t think we feel safe right now.”
And Mark Harris, a 48-year-old owner of an antiques shop in Canton, Ga., said he did not much care for Mr. Trump’s ego and worried that his impolitic speech could derail American diplomacy.
But Mr. Harris voted for Mr. Trump, too.
“He’s not afraid to get in the trenches and fight for you,” Mr. Harris said. “He’s going to be a bully, and he’s going to tell them what he thinks, and he’s going to push to get it done. He don’t care who he makes mad in the process.” ||||| The cultural and ideological fissures opening in the party could take a generation to patch, according to Republican leaders, historians and strategists — and many are convinced that Mr. Trump will guarantee Democrats another four years in the White House. “Nominating Donald Trump would be the best gift the Republican Party could give to Hillary Clinton,” Bobby Jindal, the former Louisiana governor, said in an interview on Tuesday.
Democrats are now poised to exploit a fortuitous intersection of forces: an improving economy with low unemployment; a Democratic president with a nearly 50 percent approval rating; a Supreme Court battle in which Republicans are energizing liberal voters with vows of obstruction; and now, what is likely to be a relatively smooth nomination process that will give Mrs. Clinton a chance to bring together the party’s disparate strands.
Of course, Mrs. Clinton, should she prevail in the primary campaign, has plenty of repair work left to do: wooing the thousands of liberal supporters whose feelings of alienation with the Democratic establishment drew them to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. She began that effort on Tuesday night, in a victory speech that focused heavily on the Sanders campaign theme of economic justice. And there is little indication, so far, that these voters will spurn Mrs. Clinton for a Republican.
And Mrs. Clinton needs to navigate a series of potentially damning investigations into her use of a private email server that have raised enduring questions about her judgment and management. Those inquiries have introduced a level of unpredictability that her campaign can do little to control.
But officials in both parties acknowledge that Democrats are now better positioned to capture the presidency in November.“The Democrats are having a loud squabble, but the party is broadly unified behind certain themes,” said David Axelrod, the Democratic strategist. “The Republicans are engaged in a full-out civil war, fundamentally riven by mistrust, and it is very hard to see how they put the pieces back together once this fight is done.” ||||| Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said "the loser of the night was Marco Rubio" during his celebratory speech on Super Tuesday. "At least you can say that Ted has won something," the frontrunner said. (Video: Reuters/Photo: Jabin Botsford)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said "the loser of the night was Marco Rubio" during his celebratory speech on Super Tuesday. "At least you can say that Ted has won something," the frontrunner said. (Video: Reuters/Photo: Jabin Botsford)
The window for stopping Donald Trump closed almost completely Tuesday night, leaving the demoralized anti-Trump forces with two weeks and no agreed-upon strategy for denying the New York billionaire the Republican presidential nomination.
Trump pulled out victories in seven of the 11 contests that made up the biggest single primary-caucus night of the nominating season. His remaining rivals — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — and their allies were left to cling to the flimsiest of hopes that a reversal of his fortunes still lies on the near horizon.
For Rubio, the hope of many in the establishment, Super Tuesday turned into a super disappointment. He made a run at Trump in Virginia but fell short. Late Tuesday, he was declared the winner in the Minnesota caucuses. Still, that left his win-loss record this year at 1-14. Meanwhile, he was running third in at least half the states, and in some of those states his percentage of the vote was low enough that he was in danger of winning few or no delegates.
Rubio has been described by many as the future of his party. His performance to date instead has reinforced his image as a politician who has not lived up to that potential. Were it not for the Washington suburbs in Northern Virginia, where a well-educated and government-connected electorate gave him support strong enough to place second, his bad day would have been even more dispiriting.
Despite five days of relentless attacks on Trump, which started at last week’s GOP debate in Houston and carried through a raucous weekend of campaigning, Rubio was not able to deliver significant results. He scored well among late-deciding voters; in Virginia they favored him over Trump by about 20 points. But there were not enough of them to overcome the hold Trump has on anti-establishment Republicans who remain in control of the nominating battle.
Cruz did more than enough to argue that he should become the main challenger to Trump, carrying his home state of Texas, as he had long predicted, as well as Alaska and Oklahoma. Along with his victory in the Iowa caucuses at the beginning of last month, he remained through much of Tuesday night the only Republican who could say he had defeated the party’s front-runner anywhere.
Months ago, Cruz envisioned that Super Tuesday, with its Southern flavor, would be the day he took command of the GOP nominating contest. Instead, it was the day he managed to preserve his candidacy, although he remains at a distinct disadvantage against Trump, particularly with Rubio and Kasich still in the race. Which was why he said Tuesday night that the only way to stop Trump is for the anti-Trump forces to get behind a Cruz candidacy.
Cruz can now claim, with more credibility, the mantle of the true conservative in a conservative party against a front-runner with no clear ideology and views at odds with GOP orthodoxy. But whether he is capable of taking down Trump in Northern states remains in question.
Kasich came in second behind Trump in tiny Vermont, but he, too, remains a distinct underdog as the campaign heads to Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine on Saturday. None of those states looks hospitable to Kasich’s work-across-the-aisles message. He has pinned his hopes on next Tuesday’s Michigan primary and, crucially, the Ohio primary March 15.
For the GOP establishment, Super Tuesday had nightmarish qualities. Not only did Trump tighten his grip on the nomination, but the only candidate who has been able to beat him more than once so far is Cruz, the nemesis of Republican congressional leaders and what the Texas senator likes to call the “Washington cartel.” In a choice between Trump and Cruz, many who could be counted as part of that establishment would be hard-pressed to declare a preference.
What is remarkable is that the anti-Trump forces only recently awoke to the reality that Trump was on track to take the nomination. Instead, Trump has awakened a voting bloc that has soured on the party leadership. As he has continued to win, his support has continued to grow. In Georgia, Alabama and Massachusetts, he was winning with more than 40 percent of the vote.
For months, the party elite dismissed Trump, seeing him as a candidate who would burn himself out before the end of 2015. When he proved capable of surviving mistakes and misstatements that hurt most normal candidates, they then assumed that, when the primaries began, voters would reject him in favor of one of any number of establishment candidates who were then in the race.
1 of 38 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Photos: What Super Tuesday looked like around the country View Photos Voters headed to the polls and cast ballots.. Caption Voters headed to the polls and cast ballots. Donald Trump speaks alongside New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie during a campaign press event at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue.
Today, those desperate to prevent Trump from hijacking the party recognize his strength and his seeming inevitability but seem powerless to stop him.
Some believe that the most realistic scenario for stopping Trump begins with victories by Cruz, Kasich and Rubio in their home states. Cruz managed that Tuesday; Rubio and Kasich face those tests March 15. Theoretically, that could lock up enough delegates against Trump to prevent him from winning a majority before the Republican convention and force a battle in Cleveland in July for the nomination.
Another scenario calls for two of the three remaining viable candidates to quit the race, allowing the party to consolidate around a single remaining challenger. People have been talking about that for months. When he quit the race last year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said others should follow his lead in order to bring the anti-Trump forces together early enough to make a difference. What’s to say that will happen in time to make a difference in the trajectory of the race?
The fallacy of all this talk was underscored by former Utah governor Mike Leavitt.
“There’s this fallacy that some small group can get together and decide the outcome of this,” he said. “That does not exist. This is a marketplace of political ideas. The party is responsible for its structure but cannot dictate the outcome.”
Trump’s victories Tuesday seemed an echo of his win in South Carolina on Feb. 20. In the Palmetto State, he survived a debate in which he accused former president George W. Bush of lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction as the pretext for invading Iraq and also praised Planned Parenthood for providing health-care services to millions of women.
On Tuesday, he survived not only the attacks from both Rubio and Cruz but also managed to win the majority of contests, despite a major controversy when he declined to denounce the Ku Klux Klan during an interview Sunday on CNN.
Trump predicted Tuesday night that establishment money will come pouring in against him over the next two weeks as he seeks knockout blows against Rubio in Florida and Kasich in Ohio. Up to now, that opposition has been scattered and inconsistent. They are loading up now for what could be one last effort to prevent something unimaginable to them when this campaign began. ||||| Donald Trump’s optimism came on a night in which he once again demonstrated his strength across broad swathes of the Republican Party, winning the majority of the Super Tuesday contests. | AP Photo Trump's Super Tuesday win sets off GOP alarm bells Republicans in close races fear their party's new standard-bearer will wipe them out in November.
PALM BEACH, Fla. — Donald Trump greeted his dominant Super Tuesday wins with triumphant confidence, promising to unify the Republican Party and handily beat Hillary Clinton in November.
“I think that’s frankly going to be an easy race,” declared Trump from the stage of a banquet hall at Mar-a-Lago, his palatial residence and private club here, where the New York billionaire also congratulated Ted Cruz on winning Texas and dismissed Marco Rubio’s viability.
Story Continued Below
Trump’s optimism came on a night in which he once again demonstrated his strength across broad swathes of the Republican Party, winning seven of 11 Super Tuesday contests — including blowouts in Alabama and Massachusetts — and in the running to win two more by the time he left the stage on Tuesday night.
The opulent space and soaring tone gave the event the air of a coronation, with friends and family gathered in the first two-rows of gold-hued chairs, followed by six rows of reporters and a wall of cameras, underneath three enormous chandeliers and surrounded by intricate gold-painted plaster-work — including winged cherubs.
“I feel awfully good,” said Trump, flanked by 10 American flags and facing two large, artificially aged Versailles-style mirrors built into the wall at the back of the room.
But many leaders of the party Trump seeks to unify did not feel so good about the day's results — or about their prospects of winning races under his leadership in November.
Trump's romp was dominant enough to alarm and depress many in the mainstream wing of the party, which was hoping that Marco Rubio would do well enough to blunt his momentum heading into the heart of the GOP primary calendar.
And though Trump appeared to be "sanding off the rough edges," as former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau put it, of his usual sharp-edged vows to keep out Mexicans and torture America's enemies, Republicans in key states saw their party's new standard-bearer as a threat to their survival.
In the nation’s Southwest, where Trump's impact could be felt the most keenly in November, Republicans greeted his strong day by girding for a likely nominee who could motivate Hispanic Democrats, depress suburban turnout and undermine fellow party members with whom he’ll share a ballot.
“That could have a very devastating down-ticket effect in terms of our U.S. Senate seat here,” said Bob List, former Republican governor of Nevada, where Harry Reid’s retirement gives the party an opportunity to pick up a Senate seat, but where supporters of Rep. Joe Heck worry Trump could undermine his chances of capturing that seat and others.
“The U.S. Senate could be lost if there were to be such a phenomenon,” said List. “Who knows, we could lose 30, 40 seats in the House and here in Nevada our legislature is in play.”
“Joe Heck has done an excellent job throughout his congressional career of reaching out to minority voters,” said Brian Seitchik, an Arizona-based Republican consultant who has run races across the Southwest. “If they go into the booth angry, it’s hard not to think how Joe Heck and other folks could end up paying for the sins of Donald Trump.”
As Trump boasted about how he had "expanded the party" and would "win big with Hispanics," party leaders and operatives pointed to other races out West where he could shift the playing field against them.
In Arizona, consultant Brian Murray, a former executive director of the state Republican Party, pointed out that Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who is within striking distance of unseating John McCain in recent polls, has just begun airing ads attacking the senator for saying he will support Trump should the businessman become the nominee. “If it becomes a referendum on Trump and the things he says, it could become disastrous for the Republican Party,” Murray said.
In California, Seitchik, who served as chief staff to former California Rep. Dan Lungren, compared the potential effect of a Trump nomination to Prop 187, a 1994 ballot initiative aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration that he blamed for his party’s poor showing across the state in recent decades. “I saw how galvanized anti-Republican sentiment was among Latino voters,” Seitchik said. “Trump’s impact on congressional races and other down ticket races could be disastrous.”
Donald Trump: 'I am a unifier'
Jamie Fisfis, a San Francisco-based Republican strategist, said that House members that have made inroads with Hispanic voters, like David Valadao, whose district is in California’s San Joaquin Valley, may have to disavow Trump. “He has the potential to be forced to make a choice or some sort of comment on the presidential race to maintain those relationships or bonds of trust that he’s created,” Fisfis said of Valadao.
Representatives of Trump’s campaign did not comment on such concerns, but during introductory remarks, New Jersey governor and Trump endorser Chris Christie assured the assembled reporters that the businessman was not a divider. “The American people are listening to him and he is bringing the country together,” Christie said.
The candidate himself also dismissed widespread angst among party leaders about his likely nomination. “I’m a unifier,” Trump said. “I know people are going to find that a little bit hard to believe.”
Western Republicans who find that hard to believe worried not just that Hispanics would vote against Trump but that many Republican voters, especially suburban women, would stay home and that other might drift to a third-party candidate.
On Tuesday night, Trump said he was not especially concerned about party loyalists abandoning him. “They could always do that and then they would just lose everything and that would be the work of a loser,” he said.
But Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico who is running for president as a Libertarian, said he believed Hispanic voters in his home state would be motivated to vote against Trump and that many Republicans would seek an alternative.
“I’m not Hispanic and I would be doing those thing based on what he has to say,” Johnson said. “If I were Hispanic it would likely be even closer to the heart.”
Authors: ||||| The Left rages against Democratic ‘superdelegates’; the Right must envy them
If you want to annoy a conservative pedant, describe the United States as a “democracy.” Tut-tut: Not a democracy, a republic.
The distinction is important, not least because the best features of the American system of government — the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, the pre–17th Amendment Senate, the filibuster, the congressional committee system — are not only undemocratic but, to varying degrees, antidemocratic. It does not matter a whit whether 1 percent of the voting public or 99.9 percent of the voting public supports freedom of the press or due-process requirements: These protections are built into the Constitution because they are unpopular, not in spite of it.
The antidemocratic features of the American order are linked to the Founding Fathers’ belief that the fundamental rights of men come not from states — even representative states — but from God, and hence are unalienable. And unalienable means unalienable: by one man, by a dozen men, by a million, by a majority, by a supermajority, by a unanimous vote. This arrangement constituted, at the time, a rather extreme expression of ideological liberalism, which was foisted upon the people by — oh, pardon me for noticing! — the elites. Mr. Jefferson’s hifalutin francophilia and Mr. Madison’s Princeton-cultivated dread of popular passions shaped our founding documents, not the earthy wisdom of the Pennsylvania farmer, however hard-won.
RELATED: The Populism of Trump and Sanders Is High Fantasy
Madison’s favored adjective for destructive democratic enthusiasms was “spiteful,” and it was with political spite in mind that he sought to limit the opportunities for mob-ocracy. This was why he sought to give the federal government “compleat authority” in inherently national questions, such as trade and immigration, lest the states “harrass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest.” But the states are not the only entities that seek to harass and disadvantage one another through fights over trade policy and immigration, which of course brings us to our current political moment.
Political parties are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, but for most of our history they played an essential role in moderating those spiteful popular passions that so worried Madison and other founders, including John Adams, who described “democracy” as a system that soon “murders itself.” In our modern political discourse, we hear a great deal of lamentation about deals made in “smoke-filled rooms,” but in fact that horse-trading led to some pretty good outcomes. Vicious demagogues such as Donald Trump and loopy fanatics such as Bernie Sanders were kept from the levers of power with a surprisingly high degree of success. Sure, you got the Corrupt Bargain and Teapot Dome, but you didn’t have unfunded welfare liabilities equal to the value of literally (literally, Mr. Vice President!) all the money in the world.
RELATED: ’Burn It All Down’ Is Not the Answer, Trump Fans
The difference between the American system and European parliamentary systems, it has been remarked, is that we form our coalitions before elections, while the Europeans form their coalitions after elections. The parties — and the dreaded “establishments” that ran them — helped make that happen. There is, after all, no deep reason why the gay-marriage voters and the Teamsters ought to be in the same party, but the Democrats found ways to make them work together. Likewise the free-trade voters and the immigration reformers on the right.
It is a little ironic that at the very moment when railing against the “establishment” of either party is so very fashionable, the parties are in fact shells of what they once were. To the extent that there is a Republican-party establishment, it plainly does not have the power to, e.g., call down anathema upon a potential Republican-party presidential nominee. The day before yesterday, Marco Rubio was the anti-establishment, tea-party insurgent; today he is the establishment, if the doggie-treat salesmen on the radio are to be believed. If that leads you to believe that the word “establishment” does not actually mean anything, you are correct.
RELATED: Trump’s Cult of Personality Is Corrupting Conservatism
It was democracy that did the parties in, of course. One of the harebrained progressive reforms foisted upon our republic is the so-called open primary, which amounts to something close to the abolition of political parties as such. If anybody can vote in the Republican primary — Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, independent, etc. — then membership in the party does not mean very much, and, hence, the party itself does not mean very much. Instead of two main political parties, we have two available channels for the communication of populist spite; the parties themselves are mere conveniences for political entrepreneurs and demagogues. Trump might as easily have run as a Democrat — he is a longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, and he raves about the wonderful things the butchers at Planned Parenthood do — but the opening was more attractive on the R side.
The Progressives weren’t monsters, and they did not intend to unleash demagoguery on the republic. But they did.
The Progressives weren’t monsters, and they did not intend to unleash demagoguery on the republic. But they did. They believed that a stronger central state could be tamed by making it more democratic, and hence more accountable. The same line of thinking was applied to the parties: Not only would open primaries make the parties more accountable, but they would make them more moderate, too, as though moderation for its own sake were worthwhile. There’s a bit of irony in that: The open-primary system was pushed by, among others, the Republican-party establishment in the Northeast, as a way of bringing in more voters to dilute the influence of ascendant conservatives. Changes in the media, new communication technology, the rise of the ever-more-imperial presidency, and the increasing subjugation of the states to Mr. Madison’s beloved central power have combined to make our national institutions much more democratic, in the worst sense of that word, and hence more vulnerable to demagoguery, with the results that we see before us.
The political parties are not public agencies. We have constitutional guarantees of freedom of association, and the parties ought to be able to simply reject a candidate. They might not be able to simply select a nominee, but they could exercise, with complete propriety, a veto power. Under such a system, Trump would be free to run for president in any manner he saw fit, but not under the Republican banner, unless the Republican party itself consented. As it stands, the parties supply enormous quantities of infrastructure that can be hijacked by practically anybody, including a batty real-estate heir with a seven-word vocabulary who doesn’t know how a bill becomes a law.
If the alternative to vicious demagoguery is back-room deals negotiated by party insiders, then bring on the back-room deals.
— Kevin D. Williamson is the roving correspondent at National Review. | The Super Tuesday results delivered what more than one analyst is calling a nightmarish scenario for the Republican elite: big wins for Donald Trump, major disappointments for Marco Rubio, and enough Ted Cruz victories for him to credibly claim he's the only real alternative to Trump. A round-up of coverage: The Washington Post looks at ways that the GOP could still stop Trump from having the nomination locked down by March 15. Some analysts believe the best way will be for all of Trump's rivals to stay in the race, while some are calling for the opposite strategy. The New York Times speaks to Trump voters around the country and finds a "surprising depth and diversity of support" that rivals may find impossible to overcome. Slate looks at the possibility of an "establishment coup" to install Marco Rubio, and at why this would be a terrible idea. The Hill explains the reasons for Trump's rise, which "will be studied by political historians in the years to come." National Review, having apparently soured on the whole modern primary process, is calling for a return to "smoke-filled rooms." The split in the GOP just widened to a chasm, according to the New York Times, which looks at the party's current identity crisis and how it is great news for the Democrats. Politico reports on how Republican candidates in close races—especially in the Southwest—fear they will be wiped out if Trump become the nominee. |
IRS believes that taxpayers are more likely to voluntarily comply with the tax laws if they believe that their return may be audited and unpaid taxes identified. In concert with audits, IRS uses other enforcement and nonenforcement methods. For example, IRS uses computers to match information returns filed by banks and other third parties with individual tax returns so it can identify unreported income. In recent years, IRS has also emphasized taxpayer education and assistance to encourage voluntary compliance. As part of its audit approach, IRS has established 10 audit classes for individual returns based on taxpayer income—5 involving returns without business income, and 5 involving returns with business income from self-employment. IRS tracks audit results by these audit classes and also by various audit sources—programs and techniques used to select potentially noncompliant returns for audit. Audit sources include, among others, suspected tax shelters, IRS and non-IRS referrals, compliance projects, and computer matches of third party information. One of the major audit sources—discriminant function (DIF)— involves returns selected solely because of a computer score designed to predict individual tax returns most likely to result in additional taxes if audited. This scoring provides an objective way to select returns and has helped IRS avoid burdening potentially compliant taxpayers with an audit. Traditionally, IRS has done two types of face-to-face audits from its district offices to review taxpayers’ books and records in support of a filed return: (1) field audits, in which an IRS revenue agent visits an individual taxpayer who has business income or a very complex return and (2) office audits, in which a tax auditor at an IRS office is visited by an individual taxpayer who has a less complex return. Tax examiners at IRS service centers also review returns and third-party information, and contact taxpayers concerning potential discrepancies on their returns. These discrepancies include such items as unreported income, as well as unallowable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit (EIC). Starting in fiscal year 1994, IRS decided to include all service center contacts by tax examiners as audits. IRS attributed this change to the fact that such contacts are part of its overall efforts to correct inaccurate returns. Unlike traditional field or office audits, these contacts usually involve a single tax issue on the return and do not involve a face-to-face audit. IRS is also counting other nontraditional types of work as audits, such as recent reviews of nonfilers done by district office auditors. After reviewing a taxpayer’s support for the return, IRS auditors decide whether to recommend changes to tax liability. If a tax change is recommended, the taxpayer has the right to either agree with the recommended tax change or to appeal it through IRS’ Office of Appeals or the courts. Depending on the outcome of such appeals, additional recommended tax revenue may or may not ultimately be assessed and collected. Our objectives were to provide information on the overall trend in IRS’ individual audit rates and on the overall results of IRS’ most recent individual audits. We did the audit rate analysis for fiscal years 1988 through 1995 because published data were readily available for this period. We did the audit results analysis for fiscal years 1992 through 1994 because this was the most recent readily available data. To determine the trend in IRS’ audit rates, we reviewed IRS’ annual reports for fiscal years 1987 through 1994 as well as unpublished data for fiscal year 1995. We collected information on the overall annual audit rates by type of taxpayer. We also collected information on the number of returns filed and the number of returns audited each year by IRS’ regions and by the district offices within those regions. We reviewed this information to identify IRS’ overall published audit rates for fiscal years 1988 through 1995, which included a combination of district office audits and service center contacts. To show what the overall rates would have been based solely on traditional district office audits, we recalculated these rates excluding service center contacts. We also used this information to calculate regional audit rates, both including and excluding service center contacts, as well as audit rates for each district office. To determine the specific results of IRS’ audit efforts for fiscal years 1992 through 1994, we analyzed IRS Audit Information Management System (AIMS) data. IRS uses AIMS to track its audits of tax returns, including the resources used and any additional taxes recommended. We obtained copies of AIMS tapes for each year from fiscal year 1992 through 1994 and did various analyses to generate overall results for each year by (1) 10 individual audit classes, (2) 15 major audit sources, (3) 3 types of audit staff, and (4) 4 broad categories of audit closures. For each of these analyses, we determined the number and percentage of audited returns as well as the total direct hours and the total additional tax recommended for each year. From this information, we computed the direct hours per return, the taxes recommended per return, and the taxes recommended per direct hour for each year. Other than reconciling totals from the AIMS database to IRS’ annual reports, we did not verify the accuracy of the AIMS data. Nor did we attempt an in-depth analysis to identify the reasons for the audit rate trends and audit results. Rather, we asked IRS Examination officials at the National Office to review our analysis of the audit rate trends and the audit results and provide explanations. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On March 26, 1996, several IRS Examination Division officials, including the Acting Assistant Commissioner (Examination); Director, Management and Analysis; and, Team Leader, Management and Analysis, as well as a representative from IRS’ Office of Legislative Affairs, provided us with both oral and written comments. Their comments are summarized on page 14 and have been incorporated in this report where appropriate. We performed our audit work in Washington, D.C., between August 1995 and February 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Between fiscal years 1988 and 1993, IRS’ audit rate for individuals decreased from 1.57 percent to 0.92 percent. IRS Examination Division officials told us that they attributed the decrease to more returns being filed by taxpayers; more time spent auditing complex returns by IRS auditors; and, an overall reduction in examination staffing. During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the audit rate increased, reaching 1.67 percent by 1995. IRS officials told us they attributed this increase to the involvement of district office auditors in pursuing nonfiler cases and the increasing number of EIC claims reviewed by service center examination staff. Starting in fiscal year 1994, IRS decided to include all service center contacts by tax examiners in its audit rates. As a result, when the annual statistics for fiscal years 1993 and 1994 were published, IRS also recomputed its audit rates for fiscal years 1988 through 1992 to include all service center contacts. Counting such work as part of the audit rate, coupled with IRS recent nonfiler and EIC emphasis, tended to produce higher audit rates, as most of this work takes less time to do than traditional face-to-face audits. Figure 1 shows the trend in individual audit rates from fiscal years 1988 through 1995, based on rates that both include and exclude service center results. In analyzing the audit results from fiscal year 1992 through 1994, we did an in-depth review of various sources of IRS’ audits. Our analysis of these sources illustrated the shift from traditional audits to other types of work. Over these 3 years, four sources accounted for over half of IRS’ audits. As shown in figure 2, two of these—returns selected because of DIF or potential tax shelters—declined by at least half, while the other two—returns involving potential nonfilers or unallowable items—at least tripled. The first two sources reflect traditional audits and the latter two sources reflect nontraditional work, such as the nonfiler initiative and EIC claims, respectively. IRS’ individual audit rates varied widely by geographic location, regardless of whether service center contacts and other nontraditional audits were included. As figure 3 shows, for fiscal year 1995 the rates tended to be highest in the western regions of the country and lowest in the middle regions. IRS Examination Division officials told us that these trends were consistent with TCMP data, which showed higher taxpayer noncompliance in IRS’ Western and Southwest Regions and lower taxpayer noncompliance in its Central and Midwest Regions. With few exceptions, these regional patterns largely held true from fiscal years 1988 through 1995. (See table I.1 for our analysis of regional audit rates.) Throughout this period, audit rates also varied widely by district office. (See table I.2 for our analysis of district office audit rates.) Our analysis of the audit rates and audit results also identified patterns related to income reported by taxpayers. Our analysis focused on individuals who reported significant amounts of business income and individuals who did not report such income, (i.e., nonbusiness), particularly those that were in the lowest- and highest-income groups. Figure 4 shows that the IRS reported audit rates from fiscal years 1988 to 1995 (1) increased in the last 2 fiscal years among those in the lowest-income group (less than $25,000), particularly for business individuals, for whom the rate more than doubled, and (2) decreased among those in the highest-income group ($100,000 or more), particularly for nonbusiness individuals, for whom the fiscal year 1995 rate dropped to about one-fourth of what it had been in fiscal year 1988. IRS Examination Division officials said they attributed the increase in audit rates for the lowest-income groups, which generally occurred in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, to the nonfiler initiative and the recent emphasis on EIC. They said the decrease in audit rates for the highest-income nonbusiness individuals was due to an overall reduction in examination staffing coupled with an increase in the number of returns filed for this income group. (See table I.4 for our analysis of the audit rate trends for all income groups.) Concerning audit productivity measured by income groups, differing patterns emerged. In general, audits of the highest-income groups resulted in as much as 4 to 5 times more additional tax recommended per return—for both nonbusiness and business individuals—than did audits of the lowest-income groups. As figure 5 shows, from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1994, additional taxes recommended per return (1) decreased among business individuals for the lowest-income group and increased for the highest-income group and (2) increased among nonbusiness individuals for the lowest-income group and decreased for the highest-income group. IRS Examination officials said the increases or decreases in additional taxes recommended from fiscal years 1992 to 1994 for both the highest-income business and nonbusiness individuals were affected by the small number of individual tax returns that IRS audited as part of its Coordinated Examination Program. This program is designed to audit the largest corporations; individual taxpayers audited under this program are usually corporate officers or shareholders. Another measure of audit productivity is the amount of additional taxes recommended for each direct audit hour used to complete the audit. Whereas from fiscal years 1992 to 1994, the amount of additional taxes recommended per direct hour was similar to the amount of additional taxes recommended per return for nonbusiness individuals; however, these amounts differed for business individuals. As figure 6 shows, from fiscal years 1992 to 1994, taxes recommended per direct hour (1) among business individuals increased for both the lowest- and highest-income groups and (2) increased among nonbusiness individuals for the lowest-income group and decreased for the highest-income group. (See tables II.1 through II.3 for an overall analysis of the results of audits by income classes.) We provide more detailed information from our analyses of various other elements of both the audit rates and the audit results in appendixes I and II. Such elements include audit rates by IRS district offices (tables I.2 and I.3), audit results on whether or not the IRS auditor recommended additional taxes, and if so, whether the taxpayer appealed the additional taxes recommended (tables II.10 through II.12), and the no-change rate for selected audit sources (table II.13). We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or her designated representative. Responsible IRS Examination Division officials, including the Acting Assistant Commissioner (Examination); Director, Management and Analysis; and, Team Leader, Management and Analysis, as well as a representative from IRS’ Office of Legislative Affairs provided IRS’ comments in a March 26, 1996, meeting. They basically agreed with the information presented in the report and provided additional explanations for some of the audit trends and results, such as (1) the downward trend in overall audit rates, as well as the rate for the highest-income nonbusiness individuals, from fiscal years 1988 to 1993; (2) the increases or decreases in additional taxes recommended for the highest-income business and nonbusiness individuals from fiscal years 1992 to 1994; (3) the decrease in additional taxes recommended for the lowest-income business individuals from fiscal years 1992 to 1994; and (4) the amount of additional tax recommended per direct hour for the highest-income individuals compared to that for the lowest-income individuals. In response to their comments, we have incorporated the additional explanations in the report where appropriate. As agreed with you, unless you announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to various congressional committees, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon request. The major contributors to this report are listed in Appendix III. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9044. This appendix presents our analysis of the trend in IRS’ individual audit rates from fiscal year 1988 through fiscal year 1995. The audit rate is the percentage of individual tax returns that IRS has audited of the total number of individual tax returns filed. The appendix includes a comparison of IRS’ published annual audit rates, which include both district office and service center results, with recomputed audit rates that we derived by excluding service center results. It also presents trends in individual audit rates by geographic location as well as by various income groups. Audit rate by fiscal year (continued) This appendix presents our analysis of the results of IRS’ individual audits from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1994. It includes information on the number of individual returns audited; the amount of direct hours and additional taxes recommended resulting from these audits; and a computation of the direct hours per return, as well as the additional taxes recommended per return and per direct hour, for the following four categories: (1) taxpayer income groups, (2) audit sources, (3) types of audit staff, and (4) types of audit closures. Table II.7: Number of Individual Returns Audited by Audit Sources, FYs 1992 Through 1994 Note 1: See glossary for definition of terms used in this table. Note 2: Percentages are the percent of total audits for the year and have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. Note 1: See glossary for definition of terms used in this table. Note 2: Dollars rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Table II.13: Number of Audits Resulting in No Change Without Adjustment, FYs 1992 Through 1994 Note 1: See glossary for definition of terms. Note 2: Percentages are the percent of individual audits resulting in No Change Without Adjustments by the specific audit source for the year, rounded to the nearest whole percent. Returns involving an audit of an amended return in which the taxpayer has claimed a refund. Returns identified through IRS’ information gathering projects. Returns selected on the basis of a computer generated score (the scoring is based on an analysis technique known as discriminate function). Related returns from prior or subsequent years for the same taxpayer identified during the audit of a DIF-source return. Related returns identified during an audit of a DIF-source return, other than returns from prior or subsequent years. Related returns from prior or subsequent years for the same taxpayer, when the initial source was other than a DIF-source return. Audits initiated against known taxpayers who did not file a return with IRS. Over 25 other audit sources, such as referrals from other IRS Divisions, which were not one of the 10 largest sources during the period of our review. Manually selected returns for audit that do not result from other specified audit sources. Returns identified for audit due to questionable tax practitioners. Returns involving self-employment tax issues initiated by IRS service center examination staff. Returns identified through service center projects initiated by the IRS National Office. Returns identified from various state sources, generally under exchange agreements between the IRS and the states. Related returns of partners, grantors, beneficiaries, and shareholders identified during audits of either partnerships, fiduciaries, or Subchapter S corporations involving potential tax shelter issues. Total income, such as wages and interest, reported on a tax return prior to any deductions or adjustments. Returns involving refundable credits and dependency exemptions, such as the Earned Income Credit, initiated by service center examination staff. 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 Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) audits of individual taxpayers, focusing on: (1) IRS audit rates for individual returns; and (2) the overall results of IRS most recent audits of individual returns. GAO found that: (1) while the audit rate for individuals decreased between fiscal years (FY) 1988 and 1993 from 1.57 percent to .92 percent, it increased to 1.67 percent by FY 1995; (2) between FY 1992 and FY 1994, the number of audited computer-selected returns and returns with potential tax shelters declined by half, while the number of audited returns with potential nonfilers and returns with unallowable items tripled; (3) audit rates varied by region and district office; (4) between FY 1988 and FY 1995, audit rates were highest in the western region of the country and lowest in the central United States; (5) between FY 1988 and FY 1995, audit rates increased among those in the lowest-income group and decreased among those in the highest-income group; (6) audits of the highest-income group yielded the most recommended additional tax per return; and (7) between FY 1992 and 1994, additional taxes recommended for each direct audit hour increased for business individuals in the lowest and highest-income groups and nonbusiness individuals in the lowest-income group, and decreased for nonbusiness individuals in the highest-income group. |
As in past disasters, the Secretary of HUD issued a number of waivers to permit local communities to redirect their existing HUD housing and community development grant funds to meet their emergency needs shortly after the storm. Waivers were issued for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program , the HOME Investments Partnerships Program (HOME), the Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESG), and the Housing for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA). Waivers issued ranged from extensions in the amount of time grantees had to spend their funds to easing of benefit eligibility requirements. HUD also issued $2 million in base program funding as "Imminent Threat" funding to Indian Community Development Block Grant recipient communities affected by the storm. The Administration was proactive in making existing housing programs and assistance available to victims of Katrina. Immediately after the storm, HUD created a toll-free number that allowed displaced HUD-assisted families (e.g., public housing residents and Section 8 rental housing voucher holders) to reestablish their benefits. In conjunction with that number, HUD identified a number of vacant units across the country in which to house displaced tenants, both formerly assisted and unassisted. HUD also issued a notice summarizing waivers available to public housing authorities (PHAs), including suspensions of reporting deadlines, loosening of quality standards and income determination rules, and increases in subsidy limits for public housing authorities affected by the storm. The department also made emergency capital reserve funds available to local PHAs to repair damaged public housing units. FEMA-HUD Joint Initiative . On September 24, 2005, the Secretaries of HUD and Homeland Security announced a joint transitional housing assistance initiative for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. The initiative provided two types of assistance, both funded by emergency funds provided to FEMA in a supplemental appropriation shortly after the storm. The first was a type of individual and household grant administered by FEMA. Displaced homeowners and renters (except for HUD-assisted renters) received a cash grant of $2,358 to be used for housing-related expenses. The amount was meant to represent three months of housing costs and was calculated using the national average fair-market rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment. The assistance could be extended for up to 18 months. Second, for families who were homeless or receiving HUD assistance before the storm, FEMA initially provided funding to HUD, through a mission assignment, to administer the HUD Katrina Disaster Housing Assistance Program (KDHAP). It provided ongoing rental assistance, for up to 18 months, to displaced HUD-assisted renters (including Section 8 voucher holders, families who had lived in public housing, and families who had lived in other forms of HUD-assisted rental housing) and displaced homeless families. It was administered by local PHAs and was calculated at 100% of the local area FMR. Families were required to pay any difference between the rental assistance amount and the actual rent for the unit they selected. This program had no income eligibility or targeting requirements, and families' eligibility was determined after they registered for FEMA assistance and contacted HUD. Disaster Voucher Program . Language included in the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act ( P.L. 109-148 ) transferred $390 million in FEMA funds to HUD to administer a modified form of KDHAP called the Disaster Voucher Program. The act also included administrative provisions permitting housing authorities to combine their public housing and Section 8 voucher funds, and directed the Secretary, to the extent feasible, to preserve all assisted housing damaged by the storm. On August 31, 2005, HUD issued mortgagee letter 2005-33, reminding HUD-approved lenders that when the President declares a disaster, as in the case of Hurricane Katrina, it automatically triggers certain procedures with regard to FHA-insured mortgages in the affected areas. The following procedures become effective for one year from the date of declaration: (1) a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days from the date of declaration ; (2) lenders are encouraged to offer special forbearance, mortgage modification, refinancing, and waiver of late charges to affected borrowers; (3) families whose residences were destroyed or severely damaged are eligible for 100% financing under the Section 203(h) program for the cost of reconstruction or replacement; (4) damaged properties become eligible for Section 203(k) financing, under which costs to purchase and rehabilitate the property are included in one loan and HUD waives the requirement that the property has been completed for more than one year prior to application for the mortgage; (5) underwriting guidelines are relaxed to permit disaster victims to qualify for loans even if their total monthly debt, including the proposed mortgage, would equal 45% of gross income; and (6) lenders must ensure that hazard claims are expeditiously filed and settled, and lenders may not retain hazard insurance proceeds to make up an existing arrearage without written consent of the borrower. The Section 203(h) program is available for borrowers who already own homes in the affected area. The loans are limited to the FHA loan limit for the area, subject to the provision that the loan may not exceed 100% of the appraised value of the property. In some cases it may not be possible to obtain 100% financing. It may often be the case that the cost to repair or replace the property exceeds the appraised value of the property. This is the reason that most lenders require borrowers to obtain hazard insurance that covers the replacement cost of the property instead of its appraised value. The Section 203(k) program permits borrowers who do not already own homes to purchase and rehabilitate properties in the area that are either abandoned by owners, or are being sold by owners who do not want to repair them and remain in the area. The current FHA underwriting guidelines provide that a prospective borrower's total debt, including the proposed mortgage payment, may not exceed 41% of the borrower's gross monthly income. In recognition of the fact that borrowers in these programs (§203 (h) and (k)) may have to incur debt to replace personal property, the underwriting guidelines are relaxed to permit loans to borrowers whose total debt is up to 45% of gross monthly income. The limit may even be exceeded if justified by compensating factors. On December 5, 2005, HUD announced the Mortgage Assistance Initiative (MAI), under which HUD will make mortgage payments for up to 12 months on behalf of borrowers who have FHA-insured mortgages on their homes and who have been displaced or are unemployed because of the recent disasters. Eligible borrowers must: (1) have homes that are repairable and are located within parts of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas declared eligible for individual assistance as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma; (2) have missed between four and 12 payments on an FHA-insured home loan; (3) be temporarily unable to make mortgage payments but have the expectation to resume full mortgage payments; and (4) the homes must be the primary residences of the borrowers and the borrowers must be committed to continued occupancy of the properties as primary residences. No interest is charged on the MAI loans, and repayment is not required until the original FHA-insured loans are repaid. The program is scheduled to expire18 months after it began, and is expected to assist about 20,000 families. FHA notes that more than 52,000 FHA-insured loans were delinquent due to the storms. In April 2005, before Hurricane Katrina struck, HUD augmented its existing 203(k) program by announcing the "Streamline(k) Limited Repair Program" to facilitate the purchase of properties needing minor rehabilitation (HUD Mortgagee Letter 2005-19). Eligible properties were those needing repairs costing at least $5,000 but not more than $15,000. The program was amended in December to, among other changes, eliminate the minimum repair cost, increase the maximum repair cost to $35,000, and make lead-based paint stabilization an eligible work item (HUD Mortgagee Letter 2005-50). The Streamline(k) program is not directed specifically at properties damaged by Katrina, but could facilitate the purchase and repair of such properties that meet program requirements. Congress enacted several emergency supplemental funding bills following the hurricanes, two of which provided CDBG funds to affected communities. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006 ( P.L. 109-148 ) provided $11.5 billion for CDBG for "necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the most impacted and distressed areas" in the five states impacted by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The act allowed the affected states to use up to 5% for administrative costs; HUD to grant waivers of program requirements (except those relating to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment); Mississippi and Louisiana, the most affected states, to use up to $20 million for local community development corporations; and the Governor of each state to designate multiple entities to administer either a portion or all of a state's share of the $11.5 billion. The act also lowered the income targeting requirement for activities benefitting low- and moderate-income persons from 70% to 50% of the state's allocation; limited the maximum amount of assistance any of the five states may receive to no more than 54% of the total amount appropriated; and required each state to develop, for HUD's approval, a plan detailing the proposed use of funds, including eligibility criteria and how the funds will be used to address long-term recovery and infrastructure restoration activities. On January 25, 2006, HUD announced its allocation of the funds. Using data from FEMA and several other agencies, HUD calculated the extent of each state's unmet housing needs and areas of concentrated distress for each of the five states. HUD allocated 55% of the funds based on each state's unmet housing needs and the remaining 45% on the degree of concentrated distress as measured by each state's share of damaged and destroyed housing stock, and business and infrastructure damage. On February 13, 2006, HUD published a notice of allocations, waivers, and alternative requirements governing the CDBG disaster recovery assistance. In addition to providing waivers allowing the states to allocate funds to CDBG entitlement communities and directly administer the program, the notice also included language stating that "Funds allocated are intended by HUD to be used toward meeting unmet housing needs in areas of concentrated distress." The language included in the act did not restrict the use of these funds to unmet housing needs. Rather, the act provided some level of flexibility allowing funds to be used for long-term recovery and infrastructure restoration in the areas most affected by the Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005. On June 15, 2006, the President signed P.L. 109-234 , a second emergency supplemental appropriations act, providing funds for Gulf Coast recovery efforts. The law included $5.2 billion in additional CDBG assistance for the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. It limited the amount that any one state could receive to $4.2 billion, and encouraged states to target assistance to infrastructure reconstruction and activities that would spur the redevelopment of affordable rental housing, including federally assisted housing and public housing. The law contained provisions regarding the use and administration of funds, including most of the provisions that applied to the funds authorized by P.L. 109-148 , as well as provisions that required that at least $1 billion of the CDBG amount be used for repair and reconstruction of affordable rental housing in the impacted areas; ensured that each state's plan gives priority to activities that support infrastructure development and affordable rental housing activities; required each state to file quarterly reports with House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing the use of funds; required HUD to file quarterly reports with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees identifying actions by the department to prevent fraud and abuse, including the duplication of benefits; and prohibited the use of CDBG funds to meet matching fund requirements of other federal programs. On July 11, 2006, HUD announced that $4.2 billion of the $5.2 billion supplemental appropriation for CDBG would be allocated to Louisiana, and on August 18, it announced how funds would be distributed to the remaining states (see Table 1 ). HUD determined the distribution of funds for Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas based on unmet need, analyzing data from FEMA and the Small Business Administration. It then invited each state to provide their own data on remaining recovery needs in order to make its decision. Two important developments related to HUD's role in response to the 2005 hurricanes occurred after the initial response period that is the focus of this report. First, in July 2007, FEMA announced it would transfer responsibility for ongoing housing assistance for families displaced by the 2005 hurricanes to HUD, noting HUD's expertise in assisting families with long-term housing needs through its existing infrastructure of PHAs. Additional funding related to this added responsibility was provided to HUD in FY2008 and FY2009, as shown in Table 2 and Table 3 . Second, in November 2007 Congress provided another $3 billion in emergency supplemental CDBG funding to Louisiana for its recovery needs ( P.L. 110-116 ). | The catastrophic devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005, and to a lesser degree, Hurricanes Wilma and Rita, led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of families. Following the storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took primary responsibility for meeting the emergency housing needs of displaced families. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the nation's housing agency, also played a role. HUD modified its existing grant programs—primarily through waivers—to make them more flexible for communities wishing to serve displaced families. The department also took steps to aid displaced families that had been homeless or receiving HUD assistance prior to the storm by developing a new voucher program, and by issuing guidance to lenders offering protections for homeowners with FHA-insured mortgages. Finally, Congress has used HUD programs, particularly the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, as a conduit for providing relief and recovery funds to devastated communities. This report details HUD's efforts to provide assistance to affected families and communities immediately after the storm and in the initial rebuilding stages. It will not track HUD's role in the longer-term rebuilding of the devastated areas. |
The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) is being considered for reauthorization. The HEAwas last reauthorized by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 ( P.L. 105-244 ). Title IV of theact authorizes the major federal student aid programs, including the federal student loan programs,which provide more direct aid to support students' postsecondary educational pursuits than any othersource. In FY2003, the federal student loan programs provided $45.8 billion in new loans tostudents and their parents. This report discusses issues concerning the student loan programs thatare likely to be considered during reauthorization. The report is organized in the following manner. First it provides background informationon the student loan programs and their loans. Then it provides an overview of many of the issueslikely to receive attention in the reauthorization. (1) The federal government operates two major student loan programs: the Federal FamilyEducation Loan (FFEL) program, authorized by Part B of Title IV of the HEA, and the WilliamD. Ford Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized by Part D of Title IV of the HEA. (2) These programs provide loansto undergraduate and graduate students and the parents of undergraduate students to help them meetthe costs of postsecondary education. Under the FFEL program, loan capital is provided by private lenders, and the federalgovernment guarantees lenders against loss through borrower default, death, permanent disability,or, in limited instances, bankruptcy. Under the DL program, operated through the U.S. Departmentof Education (ED), the federal government provides the loans to students and their families, usingfederal capital (i.e., funds from the U.S. Treasury). The two programs rely on different sources ofcapital and different administrative structures, but essentially disburse the same set of loans. (3) The DL program, established in 1993, was intended to streamline the student loan deliverysystem and achieve cost savings. While the DL program was originally introduced to graduallyexpand and replace the long-standing FFEL program, the 1998 HEA amendments removed theprovisions of the law that referred to a "phase in" of the DL program. Currently both programs areauthorized and the two programs compete for student loan business. In FY2003, these programsprovided $45.8 billion in new loans to students and their parents. In that year the FFEL programprovided 8,429,000 new loans averaging approximately $4,009 each and the DL program provided2,937,000 new loans averaging approximately $4,075 each. The FFEL and DL programs provide the following types of loans to students and theirparents: Stafford loans (subsidized and unsubsidized): Lowinterest, variable rate loans available to undergraduate and graduate students. The interest rates onsubsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans adjust annually, based on a statutorily established,market-indexed, rate setting formula, and may not exceed 8.25%. To qualify for a subsidized Stafford loan, astudent must establish financial need. The federal government pays the interest on the borrower'sbehalf on the subsidized Stafford loans while the borrower is in school (on at least a half-time basis)and during grace periods and deferment periods. PLUS loans: Variable rate loans available to parentsof dependent undergraduate students. The interest rates on these loans adjust annually, based on astatutorily established, market-indexed, rate-setting formula, and may not exceed9%. Consolidation loans: Loans that provide borrowersrefinancing options. A consolidation loan may be comprised of one underlying loan or multipleunderlying loans. Consolidation provides borrowers with multiple loans the opportunity to simplifythe repayment of loans by combining multiple loans into one. Consolidation loans also enableborrowers to lower monthly payments by extending the repayment period. Additionally,consolidation loans afford borrowers the opportunity to pursue a more favorable long term interestrate through locking in a fixed interest rate on their student loans, based on the weighted average ofthe interest rates in effect on the loans being consolidated rounded up to the nearest one-eighth of1%, capped at 8.25%. (4) Prior to discussing individual reauthorization issues, it may be helpful to note that there arecertain underlying tensions inherent in the current design of the loan programs that affect many ofthe reauthorization issues considered in this report. One pertains to program cost. It is generally thecase that enhancements to borrower benefits increase federal subsidy costs. For instance, in theFFEL program, where the government insures and subsidizes loans made by private lenders, federalsubsidy costs increase when less revenue is derived from borrower fees and when interest subsidypayments to lenders are increased (lenders receive a subsidy payment that ensures they receive thedifference between the statutorily set borrower rate and a fair market rate). In the DL program,where the government acts as lender, federal subsidy costs are increased when borrower fees orrepayment revenues paid to the government are reduced. Another tension stems from dissimilarities in FFEL and DL program loan terms andconditions. The two programs disburse the same set of loans, but loan terms and conditions are notperfectly parallel across the two programs. Each program has its supporters. Some favor promotingmore parallel terms and conditions, others do not if parallel terms and conditions are achieved byreducing a benefit currently available in only one of the two programs. (5) Interest Rates on Stafford and PLUS Loans. TheStafford and PLUS loans currently being disbursed are variable rate loans. As of July 2006, undercurrent law, new Stafford and PLUS loans will carry fixed interest rates. The desirability of thisplanned switch has been the subject of considerable debate. Student loan interest rates were a focal issue in the 1998 reauthorization. The statutory ratesetting formulas, which are used to establish rates for loans disbursed from July 1, 1998 through June30, 2006, were initially enacted in June 1998 and extended in the HEA amendments of 1998. The formula for calculating interest rates on Stafford loans is based on the 91-day Treasurybill rate plus 1.7% while the borrower is in school, and plus 2.3% when the borrower is inrepayment. Stafford rates are capped at 8.25%. The formula in effect for calculating interest rateson PLUS loans is based on the 91-day Treasury bill rate plus 3.1%, and the PLUS rates are cappedat 9%. (6) The current rate setting formulas were adopted as a result of deliberations that centered onhow to replace so called "comparable maturity rates" that were set to take effect July 1, 1998. Thecomparable maturity rate-setting formula was initially enacted in the Student Loan Reform Act(SLRA) of 1993, the legislation that created the DL program. The formula afforded the Secretaryof Education a great deal of latitude in establishing borrower rates. (7) The decision to move toward a comparable maturity rate was made in 1993 within thecontext of the assumption that the DL program would be phased in over a series of years andultimately replace the guaranteed loan system. In years following the enactment of the SLRA,Congressional support emerged for sustaining both loan programs and, within this context,considerable attention was devoted to replacing the comparable maturity rate structure before it tookeffect. This led to the adoption of the rate setting formulas currently in effect. However, due to costconsiderations under prevailing budget scoring rules, the HEA amendments of 1998 were only ableto install the current formula until June 30, 2003, after which the comparable maturity rates wereonce again set to take effect. The interest rate issue was revisited in 2002 with the passage of P.L. 107-139 . This measureextended the existing variable rate setting formulas through June 30, 2006. Additionally, it installedfixed interest rates of 6.8% for Stafford loans and 7.9% for PLUS loans disbursed thereafter. In the upcoming reauthorization of the HEA it is likely that borrower interest rates will onceagain receive consideration. Some feel that the 6.8% fixed rate set to take effect for new loans madeon or after July 1, 2006 is a good rate in comparison to historical borrower rates in the program, andthat a fixed rate provides the borrower with a set of predictable monthly payments which manyborrowers desire. Others feel that a borrower is better served under a variable rate formula wherethe borrower is able to take advantage of low market rates when available (such as the 3.37%repayment rate being charged this year) but still receive protection against high rates thanks to the8.25% interest cap. It is likely that student loan interest rates will be hotly debated. Part of the debate is likelyto focus on enhancing or preserving borrower benefits. There will also likely be concerns about thefederal subsidy cost. This is because, in the FFEL program, lenders are provided a federal interestsubsidy payment (discussed later) when the statutorily set borrower rate fails to provide lenders amarket rate of return. In the DL program, where the federal government acts as lender, federalsubsidy costs increase when repayment revenues are reduced. Across both programs, more generousborrower benefits generally increase federal costs. Borrower Fees. Several proposals have beenforwarded recently that call for reductions in borrower fees. Currently, Stafford borrowers in the DLprogram pay a 3% origination fee that goes to the federal government to help offset program costs. Statutory provisions call for DL borrowers to pay a 4% origination fee, but ED reduced the fee forStafford DL borrowers effective August 15, 1999. DL PLUS borrowers pay a 4% origination fee. In the FFEL program, the origination fee for PLUS and Stafford borrowers is 3% which goesto the federal government. Lenders may opt to pay the fee or a portion of the fee on the borrower'sbehalf in order to secure loan business. Additionally, FFEL borrowers may be required to pay a 1%insurance premium. This fee goes to guaranty agencies to help offset loan insurance costs. Guarantors may wave the fee, and if the fee is assessed lenders may opt to pay the fee or a portionof the fee on the borrower's behalf. It is likely that a reduction in borrower origination fees (particularly for student borrowers)will be considered in reauthorization. Helping students by reducing charges is a goal upon whichmany can agree, but finding offsetting revenues from other sources is often a challenge. In FY2003,borrower origination fees generated approximately $1.3 billion in revenue across the two programs.Additionally, attention may be devoted to examining the comparability of borrower fees chargedacross and within the two loan programs. Loan Limits. To limit the federal government'ssubsidy costs, and to limit the amount of debt incurred by borrowers, annual and aggregate Staffordborrowing caps have been established. Considerable interest has surfaced in the adequacy of theexisting loan limits. The current caps for undergraduate students, which were enacted in the HigherEducation Amendments of 1992 ( P.L. 102-325 ), are as follows. Table 1. Annual and Aggregate Stafford LoanLimits Source: HEA, Section 428 (20 U.S.C. § 1078). As Table 1 shows, dependency status is a key determinant of a student's personal borrowinglimits. (8) It is assumed thatdependent students and the parents of dependent students will co-finance the postsecondaryeducation of the dependent students. Dependent students are therefore afforded lower personalborrowing limits than independent students. At the same time, parents of dependent students areafforded the opportunity to take out federal PLUS loans to support dependent students. (9) Some have questioned,however, whether dependent students in particular are being provided adequate borrowingopportunities if they have to self finance their studies. In general, those in favor of expanding loan limits suggest loan limits have not kept pace withtuition increases and thus constrain students' ability to finance their education, adversely affectingstudent access, choice, and persistence. Those opposed suggest it is undesirable for students to incurmore debt, and question whether the expansion of borrowing opportunities will have any positiveeffect on access, choice or persistence -- particularly for lower income students. Also at issue arefederal subsidy costs, because as borrowing opportunities are expanded so are federal subsidy costs. Repayment Plans. Issues concerning repaymentplans that surface with some regularity relate to differences between options made available toborrowers in the DL program and those made available to borrowers in the FFEL program. A briefsummary of the repayment options available in each program is offered below. All FFEL borrowers are allowed to choose among standard, graduated, and income sensitiverepayment plans. For new borrowers on or after October 7, 1998, who accumulate (after such date)outstanding loans totaling more than $30,000, a fourth repayment option is available -- an extendedrepayment plan. Like FFEL borrowers, all DL borrowers are allowed to choose among standard and graduatedrepayment plans. In addition, all DL borrowers are allowed to choose extended repayment (thereare no restrictions similar to those in FFEL). Income contingent repayment (as opposed to incomesensitive repayment) is available to all DL unsubsidized and subsidized Stafford borrowers. (10) One of the things likely to garner some attention is the difference in the repayment termsavailable in each program. In FFEL, all repayment plans offer a 10-year repayment term with theexception of extended repayment under which repayment must occur within a time period not toexceed 25 years. In DL, standard repayment offers a 10-year term. Under the income contingentrepayment plan, repayment must occur over a period not to exceed 25 years. Repayment periods forDL extended and graduated repayment plans vary with the size of the loan. It is likely that some attention may be devoted to adopting more comparable repaymentoptions across the two programs. Additionally, some interest exists in adding a new "interest only"repayment option. Under such an option, a borrower would have low "interest-only" payments intheir initial years after graduation, but would also delay the point at which they begin paying downloan principal. Consolidation Loan Interest Rates. In recentyears, several congressional hearings have focused on the fixed rate benefit on consolidation loans. In general, the debate pertaining to the fixed rate benefit centers on its cost. Consolidation loans were originally introduced in the HEA Amendments of 1986 ( P.L.99-498 ). They were initially intended to simplify repayment for borrowers, simplify loan repaymentservicing for lenders, and offer relief in the form of extended repayment to those borrowers seekinglower monthly payments. As the consolidation loan interest rate formula has been modified byCongress, consolidation loans have evolved into a refinance benefit as well (i.e., a benefit thatenables a borrower to pursue a better interest rate). The current consolidation loan interest rate formula affords borrowers the opportunity tosecure a fixed rate equal to the weighted average of the rates in effect on underlying (variable rate)loans being consolidated rounded up to the nearest one eighth of 1%. In the recent low interest rateenvironment consolidation volume has grown dramatically as borrowers have sought to lock in aspermanent the favorable rates currently in effect on their variable rate loans. This has enabled a largenumber of borrowers to secure a valuable refinance benefit. Currently, a borrower who consolidateswhile in the grace period can secure a 2.88% interest rate. Over the last two years, in which very lowrates have been available, an estimated $63 billion in loan volume has been consolidated. Whenborrowers exercise their option to lock in low rates permanently the federal government is potentiallyexposed to high subsidy costs. In the FFEL program, this is so because the government hasguaranteed the lenders a market rate of return, and must make up the difference between the rate theborrower is paying and the rate the lender is guaranteed. In the DL program, subsidy costs increasewhen repayment revenue is reduced. Those in favor of the existing fixed rate setting formula assert that in the current low interestrate environment the fixed rate amounts to a valuable benefit to borrowers. At a time of escalatingstudent loan debt it provides important repayment relief and sends a signal to students and potentialstudents that repayment will be manageable. Further, proponents of the existing rate setting formulasuggest that eliminating the opportunity to lock in a fixed rate would be tantamount to taking awaya benefit that was available when borrowers received their Stafford loans and that they are countingon utilizing once they enter repayment. The removal of this benefit in a low interest environmentwould amount to dropping a large share of the interest subsidy currently available to borrowers. Those opposed to sustaining the existing rate setting formula suggest it offers an overlygenerous borrower benefit that is costly to the point of placing future aid in jeopardy. They alsoquestion whether it is necessary to offer a refinance benefit when the rate is already subsidized onStafford loans. Further they question whether a benefit received in the years after postsecondaryschooling contributes in any way to students' postsecondary access, persistence, or choice. They notethe repayment period subsidy is provided without regard to need, over a lengthy period potentiallyextending up to 30 years beyond schooling, and disproportionately benefits students who attendedfour-year private institutions and/or graduate programs. Reconsolidation. In many ways the debate on"reconsolidation" is an extension of the debate on the fixed rate benefit. Borrowers who have lockedin fixed rates through consolidation in high interest periods sometimes miss out on moreadvantageous variable rates that they would have had on underlying loans. This introduces a facetof the fixed rate benefit some find troubling -- some borrowers fare worse under the high fixed ratesthey lock in. This raises concern, particularly with regard to those using consolidation for repaymentrelief (i.e., extended repayment), because these borrowers may have to consolidate in years in whichthe fixed rate is disadvantageous. One way to address this situation is through offering borrowers multiple refinanceopportunities (i.e., offering borrowers with relatively high fixed rates the prospect of securing abetter rate). Any added interest benefit for a borrower, however, would likely expand federal subsidycosts. Another way to address this is to eliminate consolidation loans' fixed rate benefit. Thiswould prevent borrowers from locking in disadvantageous rates in the future, but would not offerassistance to those having already done so. Borrowers' Ability to Choose AmongConsolidators. A complex set of provisions has been enacted to regulatecompetition for consolidation loan refinance business among loan holders within the FFEL programand across the DL and FFEL programs and to protect borrowers -- ensuring they are affordedequitable refinancing options. In effect, some of these provisions constrain borrowers' ability tochoose among consolidators. FFEL borrowers whose loans are held by one holder must first attempt to consolidate theirloans with that holder. (11) If a consolidation loan is unavailable from that lender or thelender does not provide the borrower with an income sensitive repayment plan acceptable to theborrower, then the borrower may pursue other FFEL consolidation loans. Other FFEL borrowers,with loans from more than one FFEL lender, may seek a consolidation loan through any FFELlender. If FFEL borrowers certify that they are unable to secure a consolidation loan through FFELlenders, or that they are unable to secure a FFEL consolidation loan with income sensitive repaymentterms (deemed to be acceptable by the borrower), (12) the borrower may pursue a DL consolidation loan. (13) DL borrowers may pursue consolidation loans within the DL program. DL borrowers arealso able to consolidate their loans through FFEL lenders. It is likely that proposals calling for the elimination of provisions that constrain borrowers'choice among consolidators will receive consideration during reauthorization. Those in favor ofsuch changes suggest it is important to afford all borrowers, not just some, the opportunity to shopamong consolidators. Some FFEL lenders object to making a change in this area, asserting they offersome up front discounts on Stafford and PLUS loans based on the assumption they will be able tohold the loan over its life, and their anticipated level of income from the loan will be jeopardized ifthe borrower can consolidate elsewhere. Comparable Consolidation Loan Benefits Across the FFEL andDL Programs. Interest is often expressed in promoting greater comparability amongFFEL and DL consolidation benefits. There are several ways in which consolidation loan benefitsdiffer across the FFEL and DL programs. One of the primary ways (discussed above) pertains toconstraints placed on a borrower's ability to choose among consolidators. Some of the otherprincipal differences are as follows. In School consolidation: Borrowers seeking a FFEL consolidation loan are eligible to pursueconsolidation when the borrowers have entered the repayment or grace period on each loan they areseeking to consolidate. In contrast, borrowers seeking a DL consolidation loan may consolidate anyeligible loans that have been fully disbursed even if the borrowers have not yet entered a repaymentor grace period (i.e., the borrower may still be in their in-school period when consolidating). Inpractical terms this affords DL consolidation borrowers a broader time period in which they can lockin as permanent an in-school rate which is lower than the repayment rate (T-bill + 1.7% as opposedto T-bill +2.3%). This affords borrowers greater opportunity to lock in as permanent favorablevariable rates in effect in years when the borrowers are still in school. Repayment term : Borrowers with less than $7,500 in outstanding loans seeking toconsolidate in FFEL may receive a maximum repayment term of 10 years. A 12-year repaymentterm is available to borrowers with that level of debt in DL. Joint Consolidation. Married persons, each ofwhom has eligible loans, are eligible for a joint consolidation loan. Only one of the borrowers mustmeet the full set of individual eligibility requirements for a new consolidation loan. However, eachagrees to become jointly and severally liable for repayment of the note regardless of any changes inmarital status. It is likely that proposals to eliminate joint consolidations will receive considerationin the reauthorization. While joint consolidation can simplify repayment for a married couple, concerns have beenraised in recent years about disadvantages that may be associated with joint consolidation for someborrowers. For instance, borrowers with a joint consolidation loan must both meet the requirementsfor a deferment or forbearance in order to receive those benefits. Had the loans not been joined, eachborrower could qualify for these benefits based upon their own status. Additionally, concerns havebeen raised about complications that may ensue for unsuccessful marriages given that both partiesagree to be liable for the total repayment of the joint consolidation loan. Also, in instances involvinga spouse who becomes permanently disabled, a disability discharge is provided for that spouse(covering the proportion of the loan attributable to their underlying debt), but each spouse remainsliable for repayment of the remaining loan amount. Guaranty Agencies. Guaranty agenciesadminister the federal government's loan guarantee. The role guarantors play within the FFELprogram has evolved a good deal since the program's inception. Initially, the federal governmentintended to encourage the growth of state loan insurance programs. Over time the federalgovernment assumed the role of providing the insurance and now guaranty agencies service thefederal guarantee and perform various program administrative tasks. In the 1998 reauthorization ofthe HEA considerable attention was devoted to more clearly defining the role guaranty agencies playwithin the FFEL program and insuring clear linkages exist between financing streams and tasksperformed. Changes adopted during the 1998 reauthorization focused on strengthening therelationship between revenues and activities, and improving efficiency. The 1998 amendments adopted a "risk sharing" approach. Under this approach, uses ofreserves are restricted, and guarantors are afforded flexibility in the use of their operating funds. There is a clearer distinction between reserves and operating funds, and clearer direction about wherevarious revenue streams are to be deposited -- and ultimately about how these sources of revenueare to be used. Under this arrangement reserves are held in a guarantor's Federal Fund which is theproperty of the federal government, and other funds are held in a guaranty agency's Operating Fundwhich is the property of the guarantor. It is likely that some attention will be devoted to the solvency of Federal Funds (i.e., locallyheld federal reserve funds) and the size of Operating Funds -- which can be used to support agencyoperations and also for discretionary student financial aid expenditures. An overarching issue herepertains to the adequacy of revenues flowing into each fund. Some concerns have been raised aboutshrinking reserves and robust Operating Funds. Some proposals have already called for mandatinginsurance premiums to strengthen reserves. Some observers have suggested guarantor fees for loancollections and defaulted loan rehabilitation work may be too high thus inflating Operating Funds. Excess Interest Provisions. As has been noted,the federal government provides lenders with a loan subsidy known as a special allowance payment(SAP). The SAP amount is determined on a quarterly basis by a statutory formula which is tied toa financial index and ensures lenders receive, at a minimum, a specified level of interest income onloans. The SAP is designed to compensate lenders for the difference between the below-market,statutorily set interest rate charged to borrowers and a market set interest rate that is intended as fairmarket compensation on the loan asset. (14) In some instances lenders receive interest income from borrowers exceeding the amountcalled for by the SAP calculation. The amount of income lenders receive above the government SAPrate is often called "floor income." The SAP affords lenders necessary protection in high interest environments during which thestatutorily established borrower rate may provide lenders insufficient below-market rate returns. However, in low interest environments, the statutorily established borrower rate has the potential ofproviding lenders with above-market rate returns (i.e., returns above the market-indexed SAP rate). Some argue that since the SAP is designed to approximate fair market compensation it isunnecessary to compensate lenders at levels that exceed the SAP rate. It is often noted that in anearlier period, "excess interest provisions" were adopted that essentially installed the SAP rate as thesole lender reimbursement rate for loans. Several recent proposals have called for reducing federalsubsidy costs by establishing the SAP rate as the sole lender reimbursement rate and having lenders'floor income refunded to the federal government. 9.5% Floor Loans. Some FFEL program loanswhich are made or purchased with tax exempt funds provide lenders a guaranteed interest rate of atleast 9.5% (hereafter, these loans are referred to as 9.5% floor loans). This guarantee is provided inthe SAP formula applied to these loans, which requires the federal government to supplementborrower interest payments so as to insure a minimum 9.5% rate for lenders. There seems to bebroad Congressional support for curbing this rate guarantee for future loans. The legislativedevelopments that led to the enactment of the guarantee are briefly described below. As part of an effort to ensure the FFEL program would be fully capitalized in the program'searly years, provisions that served to encourage the issuance of tax-exempt student loan bonds wereincluded in the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Such bonds are exempt from federal taxation, and are usedby states to finance below market interest rate loans for students. (15) In essence, through theissuance of bonds with low tax-exempt interest rates, state authorities are able to raise "low cost"funds, and then re-lend the funds at higher rates. Soon after these provisions were passed, student bond volume began to grow rapidly, andconcerns about the profitability of tax exempt student loans surfaced. The 1980 HEA amendmentstook steps to curb the profitability of tax-exempt loans by reducing by half the SAP rate on loansoriginating from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds. However, to ensure that student loan authoritieswere always able to cover their operating costs, the amendments also established minimum SAPs,for loans disbursed on or after October 1, 1980, which ensure a minimum return of 9.5% on theseloans. (16) The discourse on the profitability of tax-exempt student loans continued through the 1980son into the early 1990s. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ( P.L. 103-66 ) containeda provision eliminating the floor on tax-exempt loans supported through tax-exempt financing forissuances on or after October 1, 1993. These loans were afforded the same SAP rates as wereavailable for taxable loans. However, different provisions were retained with regard to loans made or purchased with tax-exemptfunds obtained by holders from obligations originally issued on or after October 1, 1980 and priorto October 1, 1993. These loans retained the 9.5% floor reimbursement structure. The statutory provisions adopted in P.L. 103-66 and ensuing regulatory guidance from EDhave served to establish funds (derived from debt originally issued in the aforementioned period) thatcan be used by holders to finance 9.5% floor loans on an ongoing basis. In recent years lenders havebeen using a variety of refinancing techniques, and also invested earnings from existing 9.5% floorloans to make or purchase new ones. While 9.5% floor loans comprise a relatively small percentage of all outstanding loans, inrecent years they have accounted for a very large proportion of federal SAP subsidies. There appearsto be a general consensus that no federal policy objective is served now by continually guaranteeinglenders a minimum return of 9.5%. However, there is some debate about how best to phase out theguarantee for nonprofit lenders. The Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-409 );signed October 30, 2004, curbs growth in 9.5% loans, for one year, by eliminating the 9.5%guarantee on new loans stemming from any new refinancing of obligations originally issued on orafter October 1, 1980 and prior to October 1, 1993. However, it does not curtail the 9.5% guaranteeon new loans stemming from "recycling"of proceeds from outstanding 9.5% loans. These proceedscan be used to finance new 9.5% loans. A phase out of the 9.5% guarantee would produce savings in mandatory spending. Thesesavings could be used to offset new expenditures. | The federal government operates two major student loan programs: the Federal FamilyEducation Loan (FFEL) program, authorized by Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act(HEA), and the William D. Ford Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized by Part D of Title IV of theHEA. These programs provide loans to undergraduate and graduate students and the parents ofundergraduate students to help them meet the costs of postsecondary education. Together, theseprograms provide more direct aid to support students' postsecondary educational pursuits than anyother source. In FY2003, they provided $45.8 billion in new loans to students and their parents. The HEA is being considered for reauthorization. This report discusses issues concerningthe FFEL and DL student loan programs that are likely to be considered during reauthorization. Issues that are expected to receive attention include borrower interest rates, loan fees,refinance opportunities, and annual and aggregate loan limits. Additionally, it is likely thatconsiderable attention will be devoted to promoting greater comparability between the loan termsand conditions made available to borrowers in the FFEL and DL programs. In general, helping students by enhancing their benefits is a goal upon which many can agree,but finding offsetting revenues is often a challenge. It is therefore likely that some effort will bemade to identify savings in the loan programs' mandatory spending that could be used to offset costsassociated with enhancements in borrower benefits, or that could be used to finance other studentaid expenditures. This report will be updated as events warrant. |
Gender Male 53% of voters Trump +23 2 21 22 8 45 1
Female 47% Tie 2 29 25 12 29 2
Age 18-24 6% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
25-29 8% Not enough data - - - - - -
30-39 14% Cruz +4 3 33 22 10 29 3
40-49 16% Trump +17 2 24 17 13 41 1
50-64 30% Trump +12 1 21 27 8 39 2
65 or over 25% Trump +18 2 24 22 9 42 1
Age 18-44 35% of voters Trump +2 3 29 25 11 31 1
45+ 65% Trump +18 1 22 23 9 41 2
Race White 93% of voters Trump +13 2 25 24 9 38 2
Black 3% Not enough data - - - - - -
Hispanic/Latino 1% Not enough data - - - - - -
Asian 1% Not enough data - - - - - -
Other 2% Not enough data - - - - - -
Education High school or less 17% of voters Trump +26 3 23 16 8 49 1
Some college/assoc. degree 36% Trump +18 1 26 20 5 44 2
College graduate 31% Trump +3 2 27 26 11 30 3
Postgraduate study 16% Kasich +14 2 19 37 18 23 -
Education by race White college graduates 44% of voters Kasich +2 2 25 30 14 28 2
White non-college graduates 49% Trump +21 2 25 19 6 46 1
Non White college graduates 3% Not enough data - - - - - -
Non White non-college graduates 4% Not enough data - - - - - -
2015 total family income: Under $30,000 14% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
$30,000 - $49,999 23% Trump +21 1 22 22 6 43 4
$50,000 - $99,999 33% Cruz +2 2 34 21 9 32 -
$100,000 - $199,999 23% Trump +1 4 17 33 13 34 -
$200,000 or more 7% Not enough data - - - - - -
No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a: Democrat 7% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
Republican 62% Trump +9 1 28 22 10 37 1
Independent or something else 31% Trump +9 2 22 27 9 36 3
On most political matters, do you consider yourself: Very conservative 28% of voters Cruz +3 1 38 14 11 35 1
Somewhat conservative 47% Trump +13 2 23 24 11 37 1
Moderate 22% Trump +1 3 12 36 8 37 3
Liberal 3% Not enough data - - - - - -
On most political matters, do you consider yourself: Conservative 75% of voters Trump +7 2 29 20 11 36 1
Moderate or liberal 25% Trump +5 2 13 34 8 39 3
Would you describe yourself as a born-again or evangelical Christian? Yes 54% of voters Trump +5 2 32 19 9 37 2
No 46% Trump +9 2 17 30 10 39 1
White evangelical or white born-again Christians White evangelical or white born-again Christian 48% of voters Trump +5 2 32 19 8 37 2
All others 52% Trump +10 2 18 28 11 38 1
How much does it matter to you that a candidate shares your religious beliefs? A great deal 22% of voters Cruz +10 1 34 22 16 24 3
Somewhat 33% Tie 3 32 24 8 32 1
Not much 20% Trump +9 - 16 30 10 39 2
Not at all 24% Trump +34 2 13 21 7 55 0
How much does it matter to you that a candidate shares your religious beliefs? A great deal or somewhat 54% of voters Cruz +3 2 32 23 11 29 2
Not much or not at all 44% Trump +23 1 14 25 8 48 1
Which ONE of these four issues is the most important facing the country? Immigration 8% of voters Trump +41 - 21 9 7 62 1
Economy/Jobs 35% Trump +10 2 20 28 9 38 2
Terrorism 21% Trump +15 2 24 22 10 39 3
Government spending 32% Cruz +2 2 31 24 12 29 0
Which ONE of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted today? Can win in November 11% of voters Trump +8 1 28 22 9 36 -
Shares my values 34% Cruz +2 2 34 32 16 12 3
Tells it like it is 23% Trump +52 0 14 15 3 67 1
Can bring needed change 30% Trump +22 3 21 22 8 44 2
Which best describes your vote today? I strongly favor my candidate 52% of voters Trump +28 1 21 19 9 49 1
I like my candidate but with reservations 29% Tie 1 34 18 10 34 3
I dislike the other candidates 18% Kasich +23 3 23 46 12 12 1
Overall, would you say trade with other countries: Creates more U.S. jobs 32% of voters Tie 3 29 29 10 29 -
Takes away U.S. jobs 55% Trump +23 1 22 20 9 45 3
Has no effect on U.S. jobs 8% Not enough data - - - - - -
How worried are you about the direction of the nation's economy in the next few years? Very worried 62% of voters Trump +15 2 27 18 9 42 2
Somewhat worried 31% Kasich +3 2 23 33 10 30 1
Not too worried 5% Not enough data - - - - - -
Not at all worried 2% Not enough data - - - - - -
How worried are you about the direction of the nation's economy in the next few years? Very or somewhat worried 92% of voters Trump +12 2 26 23 9 38 2
Not too or not at all worried 8% Not enough data - - - - - -
Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be: Offered a chance to apply for legal status 56% of voters Tie 2 25 29 13 29 1
Deported to the country they came from 37% Trump +31 3 22 17 5 53 -
How do you feel about temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S.? Support 63% of voters Trump +21 2 25 19 7 46 0
Oppose 32% Kasich +11 2 24 35 15 20 4
Which best describes your feelings about the way the federal government is working? Enthusiastic 2% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
Satisfied, but not enthusiastic 9% Not enough data - - - - - -
Dissatisfied, but not angry 55% Trump +1 3 28 24 13 29 3
Angry 32% Trump +26 2 24 17 6 50 -
Which best describes your feelings about the way the federal government is working? Enthusiastic or satisfied 11% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
Dissatisfied or angry 87% Trump +10 2 27 21 10 37 2
Would you say you feel betrayed by politicians from the Republican Party? Yes 58% of voters Trump +14 2 27 21 6 41 2
No 39% Trump +6 2 21 27 15 33 2
Would you like the next president to: Have experience in politics 41% of voters Kasich +10 2 32 42 15 5 2
Be from outside the political establishment 50% Trump +50 2 16 10 5 66 1
If Ted Cruz won the nomination, would you be: Satisfied 55% of voters Cruz +23 2 44 20 11 21 1
Dissatisfied 42% Trump +29 2 0 29 8 58 2
If Marco Rubio won the nomination, would you be: Satisfied 48% of voters Cruz +1 4 29 28 20 16 1
Dissatisfied 47% Trump +38 0 20 18 0 58 2
If Donald Trump won the nomination, would you be: Satisfied 50% of voters Trump +59 1 14 9 2 73 -
Dissatisfied 48% Kasich +2 3 36 38 18 1 3
Do you think Ted Cruz is honest and trustworthy? Yes 57% of voters Cruz +17 3 41 18 12 24 1
No 37% Trump +28 1 2 30 7 58 -
Do you think Marco Rubio is honest and trustworthy? Yes 53% of voters Cruz +9 3 34 25 17 20 1
No 40% Trump +37 1 14 23 1 60 -
Do you think Donald Trump is honest and trustworthy? Yes 47% of voters Trump +60 1 12 12 2 72 -
No 50% Cruz +2 3 36 34 17 6 2
Which ONE of these four candidates do you think ran the most unfair campaign? Ted Cruz 25% of voters Trump +45 2 8 20 5 65 0
John Kasich 5% Not enough data - - - - - -
Marco Rubio 16% Not enough data - - - - - -
Donald Trump 41% Cruz +9 2 40 31 18 7 1
If these had been the only candidates on the ballot today, would you have voted for: Ted Cruz 43% of voters Cruz +33 3 55 22 15 2 2
Donald Trump 41% Trump +72 1 1 12 2 84 1
Would not have voted 12% Not enough data - - - - - -
If these had been the only candidates on the ballot today, would you have voted for: Marco Rubio 41% of voters Cruz +10 3 40 30 24 1 2
Donald Trump 46% Trump +67 1 11 9 0 78 1
Would not have voted 10% Not enough data - - - - - -
When did you finally decide for whom to vote in the presidential primary? Just today 11% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
In the last few days 16% Kasich +15 2 28 43 14 12 -
Sometime last week 11% Not enough data - - - - - -
In the last month 24% Cruz +4 1 39 14 10 35 -
Before that 37% Trump +45 3 15 10 8 60 2
Population City over 50,000 6% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
Suburbs 71% Trump +13 2 22 26 9 39 2
Small city and Rural 23% Trump +3 3 32 18 11 35 2
Region Wayne County 10% of voters Not enough data - - - - - -
Oakland/Macomb 24% Trump +15 1 18 27 9 42 1
Southeast 22% Trump +15 2 25 23 7 40 3
Southwest 22% Cruz +6 3 33 23 13 27 1 ||||| Voters in four states will head to the polls today to pick a presidential nominee.
Interested in ? Add as an interest to stay up to date on the latest news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest
Of these four states, the stakes are significantly higher in Michigan.
Here’s why:
Delegate Jackpot
Michigan is the biggest prize today for both Republican and Democratic candidates.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will be fighting for 147 delegates, while the remaining four Republican candidates will be vying for 59 delegates.
It’s the largest amount of delegates for the taking since Super Tuesday.
Sanders Needs a Win
As of now, Hillary Clinton has 1,130 delegates, including pledged delegates and superdelegates, while Bernie Sanders only has 499.
With Clinton expected to sweep the Mississippi primary -- the only other Democratic contest today -- Sanders needs a win in Michigan to narrow the delegate gap between him and Clinton.
Michigan officials anticipate voter turnout to reach historic highs, The Associated Press reports, and Sanders believes, “if there is a large turnout, we are going to win here in Michigan.”
Kasich’s Strategy
Ohio Gov. John Kasich is still in the race because he believes he can win his home state, which holds its primary on March 15.
But Michigan, Ohio’s neighboring state, is essential for the struggling candidate, who has yet to score a win and has the smallest amount of delegates.
"The road to Ohio in this case leads through Michigan," Kasich’s chief strategist John Weaver told ABC News in February.
During the South Carolina primaries, Kasich was already focusing on Michigan, campaigning heavily there and pouring a lot of resources into the state.
Michigan's primary was once the do-or-die moment for Kasich. Back in Feb. 15, at a town hall in Allendale, Michigan, Kasich told Grand Valley State University students: “We have to do really, really well in this state, I mean -- or I have to roll up the carpets and go back.”
Now, his campaign is blasting out the narrative that Kasich is surging in Michigan, pointing to his performance in Thursday’s GOP debate in Detroit, hosted by Fox News.
Kasich has acknowledged that Donald Trump might win the primary, but he’s hoping for a second place finish.
Rubio Stuck in Third Place
The Florida senator’s chances of being the Republican alternative to Trump may have slipped away this past weekend.
Despite nabbing a (much needed) win in Puerto Rico, earning him 23 delegates, Rubio’s main rival, Ted Cruz, solidified his second place spot in the GOP race after coming out on top in Kansas and Maine.
In an NBC/WSJ/Marist poll released Sunday, the Florida senator takes third place in the Wolverine State with 17 percent support, compared to Trump’s 41 percent and Cruz’s 22 percent.
While Rubio isn’t expected to win any of today’s state primaries and caucuses, he is confident his campaign will succeed in his home state of Florida.
Robocalls From One (Former) Governor, For Another
Mitt Romney, who was born in Michigan and whose father was a popular governor there, recorded robocalls this morning to encourage Michigan voters to cast ballots for Kasich.
“Hello, this is Mitt Romney calling, and I’m calling on behalf of Kasich for America,” the recording starts out. “Today, you have the opportunity in Michigan to vote for a Republican nominee for president. These are critical times that demand serious, thoughtful commander in chief.”
While the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP presidential candidate hasn’t formally endorsed any candidate, his efforts show the GOP establishment goal is to stop Trump from becoming the nominee.
“If we Republicans were to choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for safe and prosperous future would be greatly diminished,” Romney says in the recording.
ABC’s Alana Abramson and Ben Gittleson contributed to this report. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — Michigan is the crown jewel Tuesday as voters in four states deliver verdicts on the presidential campaign. It's the first big industrial state to weigh in, and should offer clues about how the candidates will play in important Midwest contests to come. But it will be Wednesday on the East Coast before the night's final prize gets awarded in Hawaii.
What to watch for on Tuesday night:
THE TIMELINE
The night's first polls close in Mississippi at 8 p.m. EST, with primary results for both parties. Michigan's primary results for both parties follow at 9. Both of those states will have exit poll data to poke through, helping to explain who voted for whom and why. Idaho's Republican-only primary closes at 11 p.m., and Hawaii's GOP caucuses close at 1 a.m. Results from Democrats living abroad also will filter in at some point. In all, there are 150 GOP delegates at stake, and 179 Democratic delegates to be doled out.
___
MICHIGAN MARGINS
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are favored. But keep an eye on the winners' margins of victory: That's what determines the allocation of delegates, which is key at this point in the campaign. Both front-runners are trying to pad their delegate leads to make their claims on the nomination seem inevitable.
___
AUTO IMMUNITY
The Michigan results may reveal how successful Bernie Sanders was in fighting back against Clinton's late criticism of him for opposing a 2009 bill that provided billions to rescue the auto industry. The Vermont senator is stressing that he opposed the provision because it was part of a large bailout package for Wall Street. He said he supported an earlier, separate bill to aid the carmakers.
___
PIVOT POINT?
Check out the post-election speeches by Clinton and Trump to see if they're still focusing on their primary election opponents or pivoting toward an anticipated general-election matchup. In recent days, both have started to pay more attention to one another. And Clinton on election eve served notice that she hopes Sanders will support her if she wins the nomination, "the way I supported President Obama when I dropped out." Hint, hint.
___
JUST BREATHE
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a distant fourth in the GOP delegate chase, has spent significant time in Michigan and is hoping to get a big boost from his neighboring state. He's been moving up in recent Michigan polls, but it's always wise to play down expectations. So when reporters asked on Monday if he needed to finish in the top 2 in Michigan, Kasich responded: "I don't feel like I have to do anything except breathe and take care of my family."
___
SANDERS' APPEAL
The exit polls from Michigan and Mississippi will offer clues about whether Sanders is making any progress in expanding support beyond his devoted followers in the under-30 crowd, and making any inroads in the overwhelming support that Clinton has enjoyed with black voters. Without doing both of those, he'll have a hard time catching up to Clinton in the delegate chase.
___
RUBIO'S MAP
Marco Rubio, struggling to stay in the GOP game, has made recent campaign appearances in Idaho and Michigan, and would love to get a little buzz there. But his heart already is in Florida, where early voting is under way for the March 15 winner-take-all primary. With just two wins in 20 elections so far, the Florida senator has linked his survival to a victory in Florida.
___
CONSIDERING CRUZ
With Rubio lagging, more Republicans may be looking to Cruz as a strong alternative to Trump. The Texas senator added last-minute appearances Monday in Mississippi and Michigan, and has campaigned recently in Idaho. The vote margins should provide more clues about whether the anti-Trump crowd is coalescing around Cruz.
___
THE MATH
New delegate allocations will trickle out over the course of the night. Here's where the count stood heading into Tuesday's voting: For the Democrats, Clinton 1,134 and Sanders 499, including superdelegates, with 2,383 delegates needed to win. For the Republicans, Trump 384, Cruz 300, Rubio 151 delegates and Kasich 37, with 1,237 delegates needed to win the GOP nomination.
___
AP writers Steven Ohlemacher and Hope Yen in Washington and David Eggert in Lansing contributed to this report.
___
Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/nbenac | Tuesday night's "crown jewel," as the AP puts it, is Michigan, and Donald Trump is king of the evening on the GOP side. Polls closed at 9pm EST, and NBC News called the race for Trump shortly after. With more than 99% of the vote in, Trump has 36.5% of the vote, giving him 25 of the state's 59 delegates. The race for second was a close one, but Ted Cruz edged John Kasich 24.9% to 24.3%, giving each man 17 delegates each, per the Washington Post. Marco Rubio is fourth with 9.3%, well below the 15% threshold required to win any delegates. Michigan had been teed up as Kasich's big test: He's long had his eye on his home state of Ohio, which votes on March 15. And as his chief strategist told ABC News last month, "The road to Ohio in this case leads through Michigan." The Detroit Free Press reports that turnout was huge, with at least 2.4 million people casting ballots, up from the record set in 1972, when 1.9 million voted in the state's presidential primaries. (Sanders was projected to win Michigan on the Democrat side; Trump and Hillary Clinton won Mississippi earlier.) |
Vast sums of money funnel into America’s higher education system each year through student financial aid programs authorized by Title IV of HEA, as amended. In 1995, about $35.2 billion in aid was made available to almost 7 million students to attend postsecondary institutions, with aid available projected to reach $40 billion in 1997. As funding for Title IV programs has increased, so have losses to the federal government from honoring its guarantee on student loans. In 1968, the government paid $2 million to cover loan defaults; in 1987, default payments exceeded $1 billion; and by 1991, default claim payments reached a staggering $3.2 billion. In 1992, GAO listed the student loan program as 1 of 17 high-risk federal program areas especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. More specifically, we found, among other things, that (1) schools used the program as a source of easy income with little regard for students’ educational prospects or the likelihood of their repaying loans and (2) management weaknesses plagued the Department that prevented it from keeping on top of these problems. The proprietary school sector has been associated with some of the worst examples of program abuse. In the United States, 5,235 proprietary schools represent about 50 percent of all postsecondary institutions. Most are small, enrolling fewer than 100 students, and offer occupational training of 2 years or less in fields ranging from interior design to computer programming. Proprietary schools enrolled more than 1 million students in fall 1993—about 10 percent of all undergraduates. Compared with nonprofit institutions, proprietary schools enroll higher percentages of women, minorities, and low-income students. About 67 percent of proprietary school students receive federal student aid under Title IV. While average default rates for all postsecondary institutions reached an all-time high of 22 percent in 1990, the default rate for proprietary schools exceeded 41 percent. This disparity has triggered numerous investigations. Congressional investigations, for example, discovered evidence of fraud and abuse by proprietary school owners. The Congress found that some proprietary schools focused their efforts on enrolling educationally disadvantaged students and obtaining federal funds rather than on providing meaningful training or education. The Congress also concluded that the regulatory oversight system of Title IV programs provided little or no assurance that schools were educating students efficiently or effectively. Several recommendations emanating from these findings were included in the 1992 amendments to HEA. The Title IV regulatory structure includes three actors—the Department of Education, states, and accrediting agencies—known as the “triad.” Because of concern about federal interference in school operations, curriculum, and instruction, the Department has relied on accrediting agencies and states to determine and enforce standards of program quality. HEA recognizes the roles of the Department, the states, and the accrediting agencies as providing a framework for a shared responsibility for ensuring that the “gate” to student financial aid programs opens only to those institutions that provide students with quality education or training worth the time, energy, and money they invest. The Department plays two roles in gatekeeping. First, it verifies institutions’ eligibility and certifies their financial and administrative capacity. In verifying institutional eligibility, the Department reviews documents provided by schools to ensure their compliance with state authorization and accreditation requirements; eligibility renewal is conducted every 4 years. In certifying that a school meets financial responsibility requirements, the Department determines whether the school can pay its bills, is financially sound, and that the owners and employees have not previously been convicted of defrauding the federal government. In certifying that institutions meet administrative requirements, the Department determines whether institutions have personnel resources adequate to administer Title IV programs and to maintain student records. Second, the Department grants recognition to accrediting agencies, meaning that the Department certifies that such agencies are reliable authorities as to what constitutes quality education or training provided by postsecondary institutions. In deciding whether to recognize accrediting agencies, the Secretary considers the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. The advisory committee consists of 15 members who are representatives of, or knowledgeable about, postsecondary education and training. Appointed by the Secretary of Education, committee members serve 3-year terms. The advisory committee generally holds public meetings twice a year to review petitions for recognition from accrediting agencies. The Department’s Accrediting Agency Evaluation Branch is responsible for reviewing information submitted by the accrediting agencies in support of their petitions. Branch officials analyze submitted materials, physically observe an accrediting agency’s operations and decision-making activities, and report their findings to the advisory committee. States use a variety of approaches to regulate postsecondary educational institutions. Some states establish standards concerning things like minimum qualifications of full-time faculty and the amount of library materials and instructional space. Other state agencies define certain consumer protection measures, such as refund policies. In the normal course of regulating commerce, all states require postsecondary institutions to have a license to operate within their borders. Because of concerns about program integrity, the Congress, in amending HEA in 1992, decided to strengthen the role of states in the regulatory structure by authorizing the creation of State Postsecondary Review Entities (SPRE). Under the amendments, the Department would identify institutions for review by SPREs, using 11 criteria indicative of possible financial or administrative distress. To review institutions, SPREs would use state standards to assess such things as advertising and promotion, financial and administrative practices, student outcomes, and program success. On the basis of their findings, SPREs would recommend to the Department whether institutions should retain Title IV eligibility. The Congress terminated funding for SPREs in 1995. The practice of accreditation arose as a means of having nongovernmental, peer evaluation of educational institutions and programs to ensure a consistent level of quality. Accrediting agencies adopt criteria they consider to reflect the qualities of a sound educational program and develop procedures for evaluating institutions to determine whether they operate at basic levels of quality. As outlined by the Department of Education, the functions of accreditation include certifying that an institution or program has met established standards, assisting students in identifying acceptable institutions, assisting institutions in determining the acceptability of transfer credits, creating goals for self-improvement of weaker programs and stimulating a general raising of standards among educational institutions, establishing criteria for professional certification and licensure, and identifying institutions and programs for the investment of public and private funds. Generally, to obtain initial accreditation, institutions must prepare an in-depth self-evaluation that measures their performance against standards established by the accrediting agency. The accrediting agency, in turn, sends a team of its representatives to the institution to assess whether the applicant meets established standards. A report, containing a recommendation based on the institution’s self-evaluation and the accrediting agency’s team findings, is reviewed by the accrediting agency’s executive panel. The panel either grants accreditation for a specified period of time, typically no longer than 5 years, or denies accreditation. Once accredited, institutions undergo periodic re-evaluation. To retain accreditation, institutions pay sustaining fees and submit status reports to their accrediting agencies annually. The reports detail information on an institution’s operations and finances and include information on such things as student enrollment, completion or retention rates, placement rates, and default rates. In addition, institutions are required to notify their accrediting agencies of any significant changes at their institutions involving such things as a change in mission or objectives, management, or ownership. Accrediting agencies judge whether institutions continue to comply with their standards on the basis of the information submitted by institutions and other information such as complaints. Whenever an accrediting agency believes that an institution may not be in compliance, the agency can take a variety of actions. For example, agencies may require institutions simply to provide more information so that they can render a judgment, conduct site visits to gather information, require institutions to take specific actions that address areas of concern, or, in rare instances, ultimately revoke accreditation. Recent information points to some favorable trends regarding the participation of proprietary schools in the Title IV program. Fewer proprietary schools participate in Title IV programs now than 5 years ago, a trend reflected in decreased numbers of schools accredited by the six primary accrediting agencies. Proprietary schools receive a much smaller share of Title IV aid dollars now than in the past. And, while the default rates for proprietary school students are still far above those associated with nonprofit institutions, the rates have declined over the past few years. For the six agencies we contacted, we observed a trend toward accrediting fewer institutions since 1992 (see table 1). Agency officials pointed out a number of reasons for the decreases, including recent changes in Title IV regulations, more aggressive oversight by accrediting agencies, school closures, and the fact that schools once accredited by two or more agencies are now accredited only by one. We observed no clear trends in other accreditation decisions such as an increasing or decreasing propensity to grant, deny, or revoke school accreditation over the past few years. Some accrediting agency officials told us that because they effectively prescreen institutions applying for accreditation, they would not expect to see much change in the number of cases in which accreditation is denied or applications are withdrawn. Proprietary schools’ share of Title IV aid has steadily declined since the late 1980s. For example, about 25 percent of all Pell grant dollars went to students attending proprietary schools in 1986-87, but by 1992-93 that figure declined to about 18 percent (see fig. 1). While total Pell grant expenditures rose from $3.4 billion to $6.2 billion over these years, the amount retained by proprietary schools only increased from $.9 billion to $1.1 billion. For the subsidized Stafford loan program, the proprietary school share declined from nearly 35 percent of all dollars in 1986-87 to about 10 percent in 1992-93. In the Federal Family Education Loan Program, total dollars increased from $9.1 billion to $14.6 billion between 1986-87 and 1992-93, but dollars going to proprietary schools fell from $3.2 billion to $1.7 billion. The proportion of proprietary school students receiving Title IV aid has been declining as well, although these students remain more likely than others to receive aid. The proportion receiving aid fell from nearly 80 percent in 1986-87 to about 67 percent in 1992-93, while the proportion of students receiving aid at the public and private nonprofit schools remained steady. Furthermore, for proprietary school students who receive aid, the average dollar amount has risen more slowly than for students in other sectors. Average aid received by proprietary school students went up by 20 percent between 1986-87 and 1992-93; in contrast, the increase was 34 percent for public school students and 47 percent for private nonprofit school students. Loan default rates for proprietary school students have been declining in recent years, from 36.2 percent in 1991 to 23.9 percent in 1993 (see fig. 2), while default rates in other sectors have not changed. However, students at proprietary schools are still more likely than others to default on student loans. The most recent rates for 2- and 4-year nonprofit schools were 14 and 7 percent, respectively. One new measure adopted in the 1992 HEA amendments to help tighten eligibility for Title IV student financial aid programs was the so-called 85-15 rule. This provision prohibits proprietary schools from participating in Title IV programs if more than 85 percent of their revenues come from these programs. The presumption under the rule is that if proprietary schools are providing good services, they should be able to attract a reasonable percentage of their revenues from sources other than Title IV programs. In other words, the 85-15 rule is based on the notion that proprietary schools which rely overwhelmingly on Title IV funds may be poorly performing institutions that do not serve their students well and may be misusing student aid programs, and therefore should not be subsidized with federal student aid dollars. Since the 85-15 rule went into effect last July, proprietary schools that fail to meet the standard must report this to the Department within 90 days following the end of their fiscal year. Schools that meet the standard must include a statement attesting to that fact in their audited financial statements due to the Department within 120 days following the end of their fiscal year. The period has now elapsed for the vast majority of schools. Thus far, however, only four proprietary schools have notified the Department of their failure to meet the 85-15 standard. This finding may have a variety of possible explanations. For example, it may be that very few schools actually had more than 85 percent of their revenues coming from Title IV when the rule became law or that most such schools adjusted their operations to meet the standard when it took effect. Conversely, the actual number of schools that failed to meet the 85-15 standard could be substantially higher. According to the Department, about 25 percent of the 830 proprietary schools that submitted financial statements during the past 2 months have not properly documented whether they met the 85-15 standard. These schools may have met the 85-15 standard but misunderstood the reporting rules, or they may have failed to meet the 85-15 standard and intentionally not reported this fact in an attempt to avoid or postpone losing their Title IV eligibility. At the Chairman’s request, we recently initiated a study to address the core of this issue: Is there a clear relationship between reliance on Title IV revenues and school performance? Using data from national accrediting associations, state oversight agencies, and the Department, we will attempt to determine whether greater reliance on Title IV funds is associated with poorer outcomes, such as lower graduation and placement rates. Annually, students receive over $3 billion from Title IV programs to attend postsecondary institutions that offer occupational training without regard to labor market circumstances. While Department regulations stipulate that proprietary schools—the principal vendors of occupational education and training under Title IV—provide instruction to “prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation,” schools are not required to consider students’ likelihood of securing such employment. Students who enroll in occupational education programs, obtain grants, and incur significant debt often risk being unable to find work because they have been trained for fields in which no job demand exists. Proprietary school students are particularly vulnerable in this situation because, according to current research, unlike university graduates, they are less likely to relocate outside of their surrounding geographic region. The Department’s Inspector General (IG) recently estimated that about $725 million in Title IV funds are spent annually to train cosmetology students at proprietary schools, yet the supply of cosmetologists routinely exceeds demand. For example, in 1990, 96,000 cosmetologists were trained nationwide, adding to a labor market already supplied with 1.8 million licensed cosmetologists. For that year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 597,000 people found employment as cosmetologists, about one-third of all licensed cosmetologists. In Texas, the IG also found that, not surprisingly, the default rate for cosmetology students exceeded 40 percent in 1990. At the Chairman’s request, we have also initiated a study to address this issue. States have information readily available to project future employment opportunity trends by occupation. We are analyzing its usefulness in identifying occupations that, in the short term, have an over- or undersupply of trained workers. Using this data in conjunction with databases from the Department, we hope to determine the pervasiveness of this problem and the Title IV costs associated with it. We expect to report our results on this matter to you early next year. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and, as I mentioned, we will be reporting to you in the near future on the results of our ongoing work for the Subcommittee. I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. For more information about this testimony, please call Wayne B. Upshaw at (202) 512-7006 or C. Jeff Appel at (617) 565-7513. Other major contributors to this testimony included Ben Jordan, Nancy Kinter-Meyer, Gene Kuehneman, Carol Patey, Jill Schamberger, Tim Silva, and Jim Spaulding. 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 examined whether proprietary schools receiving Title IV funding are providing students with quality educational programs. GAO found that: (1) fewer proprietary schools have been accredited since 1992 because of increases in school closures and oversight by accrediting agencies; (2) the proportion of proprietary school students receiving Title IV aid fell from 80 percent in the 1986-87 school year to 67 percent in the 1992-93 school year; (3) loan default rates fell, but remained substantially higher than those for students attending nonprofit institutions; (4) the 1992 Higher Education Act Amendments adopted a rule prohibiting schools from participating in Title IV programs if they receive more than 85 percent of their revenue from Title IV programs; (5) since the so-called 85-15 rule went into effect, only four proprietary schools have notified the Department of Education of their failure to meet the 85-percent standard; (6) schools not meeting the standard had more than 85 percent of their revenue coming from Title IV funding, improperly documented their eligibility, misunderstood the reporting rules, or intentionally misrepresented their findings; and (7) proprietary school students incur significant debt and are often unable to find jobs in their fields. |
The new Italian study has already been seized by some UK nutritionists as evidence that carbohydrates have been “unfairly demonised”.
George Pounis, the paper’s lead author, said: “We have seen that consumption of pasta, contrary to what many think, is not associated with an increase in body weight, rather the opposite.
“Our data shows that enjoying pasta according to individuals’ needs contributes to a healthy body mass index, lower waist circumference and better waist-hip ratio.”
Many previous studies have demonstrated how a Mediterranean diet, with its heavy emphasis on fruit, vegetables, fish and whole grains, is one of the healthiest nutritional regimes in the world.
However, very little research has studied the specific role of pasta.
Licia Lacoviello, head of molecular and nutritional epidemiology at the Neuromed Institute, said the current trend of people cutting out pasta from their diets in an effort to lose weight was unjustified.
“In light of this research, we can say that this is not a correct attitude,” she said.
“We’re talking about a fundamental component of Italian Mediterranean tradition, and there is no reason to do without it.
“The message emerging from this study, is that Mediterranean diet, consumed in moderation and respecting the variety of all its elements, is good to your health.” ||||| SORA, Italy, July 4 (UPI) -- Is a "pasta diet" craze on the horizon? Probably not. But a new study may help repair the reputation of pasta in the dieting world.
Diet and nutrition researchers in Italy said the nation's most famous carbohydrate has gotten a bad rap. Pasta is often a no-no for people trying to lose weight.
Researchers at Istituto Neurologico Mediterraneo Neuromed I.R.C.C.S. said their findings suggest pasta consumption is associated with a lower body mass index, or BMI.
After reviewing the data from two significant epidemiological studies, researchers determined that pasta consumption was not linked to a higher rate of obesity. They found the opposite.
"By analyzing anthropometric data of the participants and their eating habits," researcher George Pounis explained in a news release. "We have seen that consumption of pasta, contrary to what many think, is not associated with an increase in body weight."
Pounis is the first author of the new paper outlining the research, published this week in the Nature journal Nutrition & Diabetes.
"In popular views, pasta is often considered not adequate when you want to lose weight," added Licia Iacoviello, who heads Neuromed's Laboratory of Molecular and Nutritional Epidemiology. "And some people completely ban it from their meals. In light of this research, we can say that this is not a correct attitude."
Iacoviello says that followers of the Mediterranean diet can consume pasta as they would other components of the diet -- in moderation.
Previously, science-minded pasta-defenders have pointed to the fact that pasta's role as a dietary staple in Italy and the Mediterranean predates the modern obesity and diabetes epidemics. If there is a problem with pasta, some carb-friendly nutritionists say, is that it's too often a vehicle for overly salty, sugary, fatty sauces. ||||| Citation: Nutrition & Diabetes (2016) 6, e218; doi:10.1038/nutd.2016.20
Published online 4 July 2016
G Pounis1, A Di Castelnuovo1, S Costanzo1, M Persichillo1, M Bonaccio1, A Bonanni1, C Cerletti1, M B Donati1, G de Gaetano1 and L Iacoviello1 on behalf of the Moli-sani and INHES investigators2
As a traditional component of MeD, pasta consumption was negatively associated with BMI, waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio and with a lower prevalence of overweight and obesity.
Higher pasta intake was associated with better adhesion to MeD in both genders ( P for both<0.001). In the Moli-sani study, after multivariable analysis, pasta-energy residuals were negatively associated with BMI in women but not in men (β-coef=−0.007, P =0.003 for women and β-coef=−0.001, P =0.58 for men). When pasta intake-body weight residuals were used, pasta intake was significantly and negatively associated with BMI in crude and multi-adjusted models (including adhesion to MeD) in both genders and Moli-sani and INHES studies (for all β-coef<0, P <0.05). In the Moli-sani study, pasta-body weight residuals were significantly and negatively associated with waist and hip circumference and waist-to-hip ratio (for all β-coef<0, P <0.05).
A total of 14 402 participants aged 35 years randomly recruited from the general population of the Molise region (Moli-sani cohort) and 8964 participants aged >18 years from all over Italy (Italian Nutrition & HEalth Survey, INHES) were separately analyzed. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-food frequency questionnaire and one 24-h dietary recall were used for dietary assessment. Weight, height, waist and hip circumference were measured in Moli-sani or self-reported in INHES. Residuals methodology corrected for either total energy intake or body weight was used for the analysis of pasta intake.
Pasta as a traditional component of Mediterranean diet (MeD) in Italy has not been studied in detail in the management of body weight. This study aimed at evaluating the association of pasta intake with body mass index (BMI) and waist-to-hip ratio, in two large epidemiological datasets.
Top of page Introduction The traditional Mediterranean diet (MeD), a healthy eating behavior model, might be the basis for establishing nutrition guidelines as an outcome of health policies.1, 2 Its health benefits in primary and secondary prevention of chronic diseases has long been studied since middle 50s3, 4, 5 and confirmed by meta-analysis.6, 7, 8 Major components of the MeD are foods with high content of complex carbohydrates and fiber such as legumes, rice and cereals.1 The latter represent the main source of carbohydrates in the diet and in Italy, they are consumed mainly in the form of pasta.9 In the last decades in Italy, despite the strong effort to promote MeD, a progressive change occurred in eating habits.10, 11 Pasta consumption has been decreased,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 as a concept of low carbohydrate and high protein diet against obesity emerged. However, the debate of hypo-caloric high protein diets versus low fat and standard carbohydrate diets in the management of body weight and the health implications (that is, kidney function, bone health) is still open.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 On the contrary, adherence to the MeD according to epidemiological and clinical evidence has a protective role on overweight and obesity,21, 22, 23 in parallel with important health benefits against chronic diseases and related comorbidities.5, 6 Despite this fact, the components of MeD have not been studied in deep for their association with body weight and obesity. In particular, epidemiological data about the association of pasta consumption with body mass index (BMI) and prevalence of overweight and obesity are still limited. This work aimed at evaluating the association of pasta intake with BMI, waist and hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and prevalence of overweight and obesity in the context of MeD adherence. Data from two different large epidemiological studies with different methodology in dietary and anthropometric assessment have been used.
Top of page Subjects and methods Study populations Moli-sani participants The cohort of the Moli-sani Project was randomly recruited in the Molise region (Italy) from city hall registries by a multistage sampling, as previously described.24, 25 Between March 2005 and April 2010, 24 325 subjects were enrolled. Participants who had incomplete medical (n=235) or dietary questionnaires (n=1917) or were not caucasians or not born in Italy (n=332) were excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, persons who were under a special diet or a diet for the control of diabetes, hypertension or hyperlipidemia (n=6262) were excluded as these conditions may lead to changes in their usual diet. The final study sample included in this analysis consisted of 14 402 subjects (7216 women and 7186 men). The Moli-sani project was approved by the Catholic University Ethical Committee. All participants provided written informed consent. INHES participants The Italian Nutrition & Health Survey (INHES) project is a telephone-based survey on nutrition and health specifically designed to collect information on the dietary habits (quality, quantity and patterns), food choice determinants, and food health awareness of the Italian population according to geographical distribution, age, gender and socioeconomic profile. Between November 2010 and November 2013, 9319 women and men aged 5 years from all over Italy were enrolled. First, subjects (n=9106) in the age range 35–79 years, recruited in the 2008–2012 wave of the Cardiovascular Epidemiologic Observatory (participation rate 53%, from 40 to 85% in the different regions)26, 27 were invited to participate in the INHES survey. Once they accepted, participants were asked to invite one relative older than 79 or younger than 35 years to join the survey. Finally, 5385 (59.1%) from the original population and 3754 from their relatives were included in the survey. The sampled subjects were distributed in the four seasons (excluding Christmas, Easter and middle August periods). The survey calendar was organized to capture an adequate proportion of weekdays and weekend days at group level. The recruitment was performed using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI): 1-day 24-h dietary recall,9 the Italian version of the European Food Propensity Questionnaire,28 questionnaire of nutrition-related behavior, anamnestic questionnaire on health status, risk factors and anthropometry, and SF12 questionnaire on health perception29 were administered. For the purpose of the present study, the adult (18–96 years) population of 8964 (4782 women and 4182 men) was analyzed. The INHES study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Catholic University of Rome. Dietary assessment Moli-sani population The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-food frequency questionnaire, specifically adapted for the Italian population, was used to determine usual nutritional intakes during the previous year.12 A computer program, NAF,30 was developed by the Epidemiology and Prevention Unit, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan to convert questionnaire dietary data into frequencies of consumption and average daily amounts of foods (grams per day) and energy intake (kcal per day). NAF was linked to the Italian FTC for the energy assessment.31 INHES population Each participant received by mail a short photograph atlas and guidance notes to estimate portion sizes (with instructions to quantify the portions used by children) developed on the basis of EPIC-SOFT picture book32 and a hard-copy diary structured by meal, where all the information on food consumption the day before the telephone interview was self-recorded. All foods and drinks consumed (including tap and bottled water), both at and outside home, were recorded. The day after, participants were interviewed by telephone by trained and standardized interviewers, starting from the self-recorded diary, by using a computer-based 24-h dietary recall interview software. For every eating occasion, subjects were asked to carefully record and recall: time, place of consumption, detailed description of foods (or beverages), quantity consumed and brand (for manufactured foods). Portion sizes were reported by subjects with the help of a picture booklet. Moreover, it was asked whether they were following a particular diet and whether the consumption they had reported differed from their usual consumption. The data management system INRAN-DIARIO 3.1 developed by INRAN9, 33 in previous surveys9, 34 was used for data coding, data entry and data processing. This software includes several checkpoints to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data recorded and allows each interviewer to create new temporary food codes for all the food items and recipes that are not present in the databanks. Four databases were used to transform the data reported by subjects into the weight of single foods, raw ingredients and into the amounts of nutrients consumed. The portions estimated by subjects with the help of the picture booklet are linked to the specific weight of each food item. This database contains a total of 9450 entries (weight of standard portions of specific dishes or units of measurement) for 2460 foods, that is, on average approximately four entries per food. Any missing food consumed during the survey was added to the food composition database. For both studies, pasta consumption was calculated and expressed as grams per day and g kcal−1 of daily energy intake. Adherence to MeD was evaluated by applying a dietary score ranging from 0 to 11, that have been specifically developed for the Italian population.34 The increase in that score was associated with higher adherence to MeD. Measurements and definition of factors Moli-sani population Socioeconomic status was defined as a score based on eight variables ranging from 0 to 8; the higher the score, the higher the level of socioeconomic status.24 Physical activity was assessed by a structured questionnaire and expressed as daily energy expenditure in MET-h.24, 35 Body weight and height were measured while the subjects wore no shoes and light underwear and BMI (kg m−2) was calculated. Categories of BMI '<25 kg m−2', '25–29.9 kg m−2' and ' 30 kg m−2' were considered as 'under/normal weight', 'overweight' and 'obese', respectively, according to WHO guidelines.36 Moreover, waist circumference, in cm, was measured in the middle between the twelfth rib and the iliac crest and hip circumference, in cm, was measured around the buttocks. The waist-to-hip ratio was then calculated. INHES population Participants reported the type of their profession as 'manual', 'non manual', 'housewife' (only for women), 'retired' and 'student or unemployed' and their marital status as 'single', 'married', 'separated' and 'widow'. They were also asked about their physical activity and grouped to the categories of 'physically active' or 'inactive'. Body weight and height were self-reported and BMI (kg m−2) was calculated. Self-reported BMI data tend to over- or under-estimate in proportion to measured BMI. Categories of BMI were calculated as above. Both physical activity and anthropometric assessment37, 38 were under self-reporting biases. Statistical analysis Descriptive analysis The normality of continuous variables was tested graphically. Continuous data are presented as mean (standard deviation) and categorical variables as frequencies. Comparisons of continuous variables between two groups of study were performed using the Student’s t-test. Comparisons of continuous variables within more than two groups were carried out using the analysis of variance F-test. Associations between food group intake and score of adherence to MeD were tested using the Spearman’s rho, while associations of categorical variables were tested using Pearson’s X2-test. Two-sided P-value<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. STATA version 9 software was used for all calculations (STATA Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Statistical modeling step 1 Crude linear regression models stratified by gender were generated with main outcome the BMI (kg m−2) and independent factor, the pasta consumption (grams per day) in both Moli-sani and INHES populations. Statistical modeling step 2 The energy residuals methodology, previously used in the study of the association of food group intake with BMI,39 was used to overcome bias related to the over- or under-estimation of dietary data in both Moli-sani and INHES datasets. In particular, linear regression was used to 'predict' individual pasta intakes on the basis of total energy intake (kcal per day), and the residual value for each regression was calculated by subtracting the observed value from the predicted value (resulting in the 'Pasta-energy residuals'). The latter was used as an independent variable in regression models with BMI (dependent variable) in crude and multi-adjusted level in both Moli-sani and INHES datasets. Multi-adjusted models were calculated by adjusting crude models for age, social status, physical activity level, energy intake and adherence to the MeD in the Moli-sani dataset; and for age, marital status, occupation, physical activity, energy intake and adherence to the MeD in the INHES dataset. Statistical modeling step 3 Crude linear regression models stratified by the quintiles of body weight of the subjects were generated with BMI (kg m−2) as main outcome and pasta consumption (grams per day) as independent factor, in both Moli-sani and INHES populations. As this stratification significantly affected the association of BMI with pasta intake (from positive un-stratified association to negative associations in different body weight groups after stratification), further regression analysis was performed. Standardized residuals (that is, 'pasta-body weight residuals') were predicted in both datasets, using linear regression analysis with main outcome as pasta intake (grams per day) and independent variable as body weight (kg). The generated pasta-body weight residuals were standardized by dividing them by their estimated standard error and produced to be mathematically independent from body weight. This way of correcting pasta intake by the body weight takes into account in a generic way the individual’s need. Crude and multi-adjusted models stratified by gender were generated with main outcome the BMI (Kg m-2) and independent factor, the predicted pasta-body weight residuals in both Moli-sani and INHES datasets. Multi-adjusted models were calculated by adjusting crude models for age, social status, physical activity level, energy intake and adherence to the MeD in the Moli-sani dataset; and for age, marital status, occupation, physical activity, energy intake and adherence to the MeD in the INHES dataset. Stratified linear regression analysis by groups of MeD adherence (that is, quartiles of MeD index) was performed to assess any interaction of MeD on the association of pasta with BMI. Statistical modeling step 4 Linear regression analysis using the same adjustment scheme was performed with main outcome the waist or hip circumference (cm) or waist-to-hip ratio and independent factor the pasta-energy and -body weight residuals in the Moli-sani population. Linear regression assumptions testing For all models, normality of residuals, homoscedasticity and multiple co-linearity were evaluated by plotting standardized residuals against the predicted values and these assumptions tend to be fulfilled.
Top of page Discussion Despite the evidence supporting the role of MeD adherence in the management of a favorable body weight,21, 22, 23 according to the best of our knowledge, there is no study evaluating this association for pasta as a MeD component. Our findings show a negative association of pasta consumption with general and central obesity in two methodologically and geographically different, large Mediterranean populations. Pasta as a product of cereals has been since ancient times consumed in the Mediterranean area and it has been considered as one of MeD’s traditional components, placed at the basis of the pyramid.1, 2 Our comparative analysis of data from two different Mediterranean populations supports that pasta intake is negatively associated with both indexes of obesity status and prevalence of overweight and obesity. Our results are in agreement with a relatively recent study examining food and nutrient intakes in association with BMI in 1794 US middle-aged adults, showing that pasta intake among other food groups is negatively associated with BMI.39 Moreover, evidence from Greek islands supports a favorable role of carbohydrate intake on central and general obesity.40 On the other hand, bias of over-estimation or under-estimation presented generally in dietary data was evident also in the present datasets especially in women. As a result, pasta intake expressed as grams per day, seemed to be positively associated with BMI in crude analysis. However, to overcome the related bias, the correction of food group consumption by total caloric intake using the 'energy residual methodology' was elaborated as a relatively frequent procedure in dietary analysis.41 The association changed direction and from positive became negative. To strengthen our results, we also performed multiple approaches in dietary analysis. In fact, we used both 'energy residual methodology' and residual methodology for correcting pasta intake for body weight of the subjects. This approach was derived from the observation that in both Moli-sani and INHES datasets, the association of pasta intake as grams per day with BMI from positive became negative after stratification for the body weight of the subjects. Standardized residuals were predicted in both datasets, using linear regression analysis with main outcome pasta intake (grams per day) and independent variable body weight (kg). The generated pasta-body weight residuals were produced to be mathematically independent from body weight. This was evident because the standardized residuals (that is, 'pasta-body weight residuals') that were predicted by using linear regression analysis with main outcome pasta intake (grams per day) and independent variable body weight (kg) are mathematically independent from body weight. Again, pasta-body weight residuals were negatively associated with BMI in both populations and in both genders. Altogether, these different approaches strengthen the negative association of pasta intake with obesity indexes. The measurement of body weight, as carried out in the Moli-sani study, is a simple physical examination that has limited systematic or random errors and might result in a reduction in overall error because the reported energy intake can be under miss- or over-reporting bias. The evidence that with both methodologies the negative association of pasta intake with obesity status was confirmed is possibly an indicator of the validity of the proposed methodology, although further investigation in prospective studies is needed. During the last decades, a progressive increase in red meat consumption, fats, dairy products and simple sugars has been recorded in Italy.10, 42 The adherence to the MeD that may offer weight management advantages is significantly lowered.42 Pasta consumption has been modified, because it is frequently considered as a dietary factor that should be restricted in a weight loss program. In this work, pasta intake was positively associated with the intake of other important food groups included in MeD such as tomatoes, tomato sauce, onions, garlic, olive oil, seasoned cheese and rice.5, 6, 21, 22, 23 However, it was interesting that the negative association of pasta intake with BMI was independent from MeD adherence and total daily caloric intake. Indeed, the negative association was not affected by either the addition of both MeD adherence index and total daily caloric intake into multivariate analysis or by the stratification for MeD adherence level. From an epidemiological and clinical perspective, it could be important to evaluate the role of other food groups associated with pasta consumption on the management of body weight. The study of dietary patterns such as MeD or others not 'a-priori' defined in association with human anthropometry would be useful to understand the effect of the combination of pasta with other food group intake on the management of body weight. The debate of hypo-caloric high protein diets versus low fat and standard carbohydrate diets in the regulation of body weight is still on the surface of nutrition research,15, 22, 23 especially because health implications of high protein diets have been discussed (that is, kidney function, bone health).17, 18, 19, 20 Our results support that MeD, and pasta as one of its major components, should be further investigated for their role in decreasing the risk for overweight and obesity. Another novelty of the present work is the comparative assessment of the study hypothesis in both Moli-sani and INHES datasets. In fact, the results derived from the two analyses were almost identical, despite the large differences in participant’s recruitment methodology and in dietary assessment. This demonstrates the reproducibility of the present associations among studies with relative diversity in their methodologies. In particular, the Moli-sani population is a cohort study based on face-to-face interviews and clinical examinations, while INHES is a telephone-based survey. In addition, Moli-sani recruited a representative sample of the Molise region in Italy while the population of INHES is spread all over the country. Also, the dietary evaluation was performed by using the EPIC-food frequency questionnaire in the case of Moli-sani and one 24-h dietary recall in INHES. Even the prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in INHES population because the anthropometric assessment and the age range differed. Moli-sani monitors made the measurements during the clinical assessment, while in INHES, the body weight and height were self-reported and under related bias of underreporting. Beyond the relevance of the findings of the present work, limitations do exist. First, because both Moli-sani and INHES are cross-sectional studies, they do not allow to provide cause–effect considerations in the observed associations. Prospective anthropometric data on these populations are still missing and limit the clinical significance of the present conclusions. In addition, bias of over- or under-estimation by the use of the dietary methodologies and for the extracted data (that is, pasta intake, adherence to MeD) should be acknowledged for both studies. The co-linearity presented in food group intake data (that is, pasta intake with other food groups) limits also the present analysis. In the Moli-sani study, although adequate from a broad epidemiological perspective, a food frequency questionnaire is less accurate at the individual level than other measurement methods. In addition, dietary information was retrieved only once and, thus, may be prone to recall bias and seasonal variation. Possible errors because of misreporting by the participating subjects should also be acknowledged. However, to rule out the possibility that the associations found were dependent on either changes in lifestyle (particularly in dietary habits) as a consequence of a disease or to the presence of less healthy food intake in healthy people, we had preliminarily excluded from our analyses all subjects with previous CVD or cancer and participants under special diets. Furthermore, the cross-sectional analysis design does not allow for concluding on the causality of the present associations. Limitations are evident also for INHES study. The one 24-h dietary recall could not be considered as representative of the dietary habits of an individual. The telephone-based interviews are under the limitation of misreporting or under/over-estimation of food consumption. The body weight and height was self-reported and under the related bias. In conclusion, this study for the first time has observed a negative association of pasta consumption and central and overall obesity in a large sample of Mediterranean population. Pasta as the traditional component of MeD was studied for its association with obesity indexes. The comparative assessment of two different epidemiological datasets and the similarities revealed in the studied associations provide reliability and support to the present results.
Top of page Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Top of page References Willett WC, Sacks F, Trichopoulou A, Drescher G, Ferro-Luzzi A, Helsing E et al. Mediterranean diet pyramid: a cultural model for healthy eating. Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 61 : 1402S–1406S. | PubMed | ISI | CAS | Willett WC. The Mediterranean diet: science and practice. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9 : 105–110. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | Keys A, Taylor HL, Blackburn H, Brozek J, Anderson JT, Simonson E. Coronary heart disease among Minnesota business and professional men followed fifteen years. Circulation 1963; 28 : 381–395. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Nestle M. Mediterranean diets: historical and research overview. Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 61 : 1313S–1320S. | PubMed | CAS | de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjaud I, Delaye J, Mamelle N. Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction: final report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study. Circulation 1999; 99 : 779–785. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Sofi F, Cesari F, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Casini A. Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008; 337 : 1344. | Article | OpenURL | Dauchet L, Amouyel P, Hercberg S, Dallongeville J. Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Nutr 2006; 136 : 2588–2593. | PubMed | ISI | CAS | Gandini S, Merzenich H, Robertson C, Boyle P. Meta-analysis of studies on breast cancer risk and diet: the role of fruit and vegetable consumption and the intake of associated micronutrients. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36 : 636–646. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Leclercq C, Arcella D, Piccinelli R, Sette S, Le Donne C, Turrini A. INRAN-SCAI 2005-06 Study Group. The Italian National Food Consumption Survey INRAN-SCAI 2005-06: main results in terms of food consumption. Public Health Nutr 2009; 12 : 2504–2532. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | Bonaccio M, Di Castelnuovo A, Bonanni A, Costanzo S, De Lucia F, Persichillo M et al. Decline of the Mediterranean diet at a time of economic crisis. Results from the Moli-sani study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014; 24 : 853–860. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Sofi F, Innocenti G, Dini C, Masi L, Battistini NC, Brandi ML et al. Low adherence of a clinically healthy Italian population to nutritional recommendations for primary prevention of chronic diseases. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2006; 16 : 436–444. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Pisani P, Faggiano F, Krogh V, Palli D, Vineis P, Berrino F. Relative validity and reproducibility of a food frequency dietary questionnaire for use in the Italian EPIC centers. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26 : 152–160. | Article | OpenURL | Corrêa Leite ML, Nicolosi A, Cristina S, Hauser WA, Pugliese P, Nappi G. Dietary and nutritional patterns in an elderly rural population in Northern and Southern Italy: (I). A cluster analysis of food consumption. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57 : 1514–1521. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | CAS | International Pasta Organization. Annual Survey on World Pasta Industry. 2012. available online at http://www.internationalpasta.org/resources/report/IPOreport2012.pdf (accessed November 2015). Santesso N, Akl EA, Bianchi M, Mente A, Mustafa R, Heels-Ansdell D et al. Effects of higher-versus lower-protein diets on health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr 2012; 66 : 780–788. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | Eisenstein J, Roberts SB, Dallal G, Saltzman E. High-protein weight-loss diets: are they safe and do they work? A review of the experimental and epidemiologic data. Nutr Rev 2002; 60 : 189–200. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr 2004; 23 : 373–385. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | Roughead ZK. Is the interaction between dietary protein and calcium destructive or constructive for bone? J Nutr 2003; 133 : 866S–869S. | PubMed | Ginty F. Dietary protein and bone health. Proc Nutr Soc 2003; 62 : 867–876. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Rizzoli R, Bonjour JP. Dietary protein and bone health. J Bone Miner Res 2004; 19 : 527–531. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Shai I, Schwarzfuchs D, Henkin Y, Shahar DR, Witkow S, Greenberg I et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 : 229–241. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD et al. Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 : 859–873. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Esposito K, Kastorini CM, Panagiotakos DB, Giugliano D. Mediterranean diet and weight loss: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2011; 9 : 1–12. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | Iacoviello L, Bonanni A, Costanzo S, De Curtis A, Di Castelnuovo A, Olivieri M et al. The Moli-Sani Project, a randomized, prospective cohort study in the Molise region in Italy, design, rationale and objectives. Ital J Public Health 2007; 4 : 110–118. Centritto F, Iacoviello L, di Giuseppe R, De Curtis A, Costanzo S, Zito F et al. Dietary patterns, cardiovascular risk factors and C-reactive protein in a healthy Italian population. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2009; 19 : 697–706. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Giampaoli S, Palmieri L, Donfrancesco C, Noce CL, Pilotto L, Vanuzzo D, Osservatorio Epidemiologico Cardiovascolare / Health Examination Survey Research Group. Cardiovascular health in Italy. Ten-year surveillance of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors: Osservatorio Epidemiologico Cardiovascolare / Health Examination Survey 1998-2012. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2015; 22 : 9–37. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Laurendi G, Donfrancesco C, Palmieri L, Vanuzzo D, Scalera G, Giampaoli S, Osservatorio Epidemiologico Cardiovascolare / Health Examination Survey 2008-2012. Association of lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors with lung function in a sample of the adult Italian population: a cross-sectional survey. Respiration 2015; 89 : 33–40. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Illner AK, Harttig U, Tognon G, Palli D, Salvini S, Bower E et al. Feasibility of innovative dietary assessment in epidemiological studies using the approach of combining different assessment instruments. Public Health Nutr 2011; 14 : 1055–1063. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 : 1171–1178. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS | Pala V, Sieri S, Palli D, Salvini S, Berrino F, Bellegotti M et al. Diet in the Italian EPIC cohorts: presentation of data and methodological issues. Tumori 2003; 89 : 594–607. | PubMed | ISI | Italian Food Composition Tables. Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Q20 Nutrizione http://www.inran.it/646/tabelle_di_composizione_degli_alimenti.html (accessed March 2015). Van Kappel AL, Amoyel J, Slimani N, Vozar B, Riboli E. EPIC-SOFT Picture Book for Estimating Portion Sizes . IARC Press: Lyon, France, 1994. Sette S, Le Donne C, Piccinelli R, Arcella D, Turrini A, Leclercq C. INRAN-SCAI 2005-6 Study Group. The third Italian National Food Consumption Survey, INRAN-SCAI 2005-06-part 1: nutrient intakes in Italy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2011; 21 : 922–932. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Agnoli C, Krogh V, Grioni S, Sieri S, Palli D, Masala G et al. A priori-defined dietary patterns are associated with reduced risk of stroke in a large Italian cohort. J Nutr 2011; 141 : 1552–1558. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET inten- sities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32 : 498–504. | Article | OpenURL | Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio Report of a WHO Expert Consultation. Geneva; 2011, pp 8–11. Nyholm M, Gullberg B, Merlo J, Lundqvist-Persson C, Rastam L, Lindblad U. The validity of obesity based on self-reported weight and height: Implications for population studies. Obesity 2007; 15 : 197–208. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Keith SW, Fontaine KR, Pajewski NM, Allison DB. Use of self-reported height and weight biases the body mass index-mortality association. Int J Obes 2011; 35 : 401–408. | Article | ISI | OpenURL | Shay CM, Van Horn L, Stamler J, Dyer AR, Brown IJ, Chan Q et al. Food and nutrient intakes and their associations with lower BMI in middle-aged US adults: the International Study of Macro- / Micronutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP). Am J Clin Nutr 2012; 96 : 483–491. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | CAS | Tyrovolas S, Psaltopoulou T, Pounis G, Papairakleous N, Bountziouka V, Zeimbekis A et al. Nutrient intake in relation to central and overall obesity status among elderly people living in the Mediterranean islands: the MEDIS study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2011; 21 : 438–445. | Article | PubMed | OpenURL | Brown CC, Kipnis V, Freedman LS, Hartman AM, Schatzkin A, Wacholder S. Energy adjustment methods for nutritional epidemiology: the effect of categorization. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 139 : 323–338. | PubMed | ISI | CAS | Sofi F, Vecchio S, Giuliani G, Martinelli F, Marcucci R, Gori AM et al. Dietary habits, lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors in a clinically healthy Italian population: the 'Florence' diet is not Mediterranean. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59 : 584–591. | Article | PubMed | ISI | OpenURL | CAS |
Top of page Acknowledgements The authors’ contributions were as follows: GP: hypothesis generation, data management, analysis of the data and writing of the paper; ADC, SC, MP, MB: data management, analysis of the data and writing of the paper; CC: data collection and writing of the paper; MBD, GdG, LI: hypothesis generation and writing of the paper; LI: data handling and analysis. The enrollment phase of the MOLI-SANI Project was conducted at the Research Laboratories of the Catholic University in Campobasso (Italy) and supported by research grants from Pfizer Foundation (Rome, Italy), the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR, Rome, Italy)–Programma Triennale di Ricerca, Decreto no.1588 and IL LABORATORY, Milan, Italy. The INHES study was funded by Barilla Spa and by the MISE (Italian Ministry of Economic Development) within the frame of the ATENA program MI01_00093 – New Technologies for Made in Italy (D.I. PII MI 6/3/2008). The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of manuscripts and in the decision to submit the article for publication. All Authors were and are independent from funders. ||||| Una ricerca dell’I.R.C.C.S. Neuromed di Pozzilli mostra come, contrariamente a quanto molti credono, il consumo di pasta non contribuisce all’obesità, ma è invece associato con una diminuzione dell’indice di massa corporea
Negli ultimi anni la pasta si è ritrovata addosso una cattiva reputazione: farebbe ingrassare. Cosa che ha spinto molte persone a decidere di limitare il suo consumo, spesso nel quadro di una di quelle aggressive diete “fai da te”. Ora una ricerca condotta dal Dipartimento di Epidemiologia dell’I.R.C.C.S. Neuromed di Pozzilli rende giustizia a questo fondamentale elemento della Dieta mediterranea, mostrando come il consumo di pasta sia in realtà associato a una riduzione dell’obesità, considerando sia quella generale che quella specificamente addominale.
La ricerca, pubblicata sulla rivista scientifica Nutrition and Diabetes, ha preso in esame oltre 23.000 persone inserite in due grandi studi: Moli-sani e INHES (Italian Nutrition & HEalth Survey), condotti dallo stesso Dipartimento. “Analizzando i dati antropometrici dei partecipanti e le loro abitudini alimentari – spiega George Pounis, primo autore del lavoro – abbiamo visto che il consumo di pasta, diversamente da quello che molti pensano, non si associa a un aumento del peso corporeo. Al contrario: i nostri dati mostrano che mangiare pasta si traduce in un più salutare indice di massa corporea, una minore circonferenza addominale e un miglior rapporto vita-fianchi”.
Dai numerosi studi già condotti, la Dieta Mediterranea emerge chiaramente per i suoi effetti benefici sulla salute, compreso il controllo del peso. Molto poco, invece, si sapeva del ruolo specifico di un componente basilare come la pasta. I dati dello studio Neuromed, ora, vanno a colmare questa lacuna, confermando alcune osservazioni recentemente condotte negli Stati Uniti e in Grecia.
“La pasta – dice Licia Iacoviello, Capo del Laboratorio di Epidemiologia Molecolare e Nutrizionale del Neuromed – è spesso considerata un fattore da limitare quando si segue una dieta per perdere peso. C’è chi la elimina completamente dai suoi pasti. Alla luce di questa ricerca, possiamo dire che non è un atteggiamento corretto. Stiamo parlando di un componente fondamentale della tradizione mediterranea italiana, e non c’è ragione per farne a meno. Il messaggio che emerge da questo studio, come da altri lavori scientifici già emersi nell’ambito dei progetti Moli-sani e INHES, è che seguire la Dieta Mediterranea, nella moderazione dei consumi e nella varietà di tutti i suoi elementi, la pasta in primis, rappresenta un vantaggio per la salute”.
http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v6/n7/full/nutd201620a.html
Lo studio è stato parzialmente supportato da Barilla S.p.a. through the MISE (Italian Ministry of Economic Development) within the frame of the ATENA program MI01_00093 – New Technologies for Made in Italy (D.I. PII MI 6/3/2008) and Epicomed Research S.r.l.
Il Progetto Moli-sani
Partito nel marzo 2005, ha coinvolto circa 25.000 cittadini, residenti in Molise, per conoscere i fattori ambientali e genetici alla base delle malattie cardiovascolari e dei tumori. Lo studio Moli-sani, oggi basato nell’IRCCS Neuromed, ha trasformato un’intera Regione italiana in un grande laboratorio scientifico.
Il Progetto INHES
Il Progetto INHES (Italian Nutrition & HEalth Survey) è un programma di ricerca pensato per acquisire informazioni sulle abitudini alimentari, sui fattori che influenzano la scelta dei cibi e sulla consapevolezza relativa al rapporto tra alimentazione e salute nella popolazione italiana. Attraverso interviste telefoniche, sono stati raccolti dati nutrizionali e sulla salute di 9,319 cittadini di tutte le regioni italiane. | People who blame pasta for weight gain have missed the message about the Mediterranean diet, according to Italian researchers. The team from IRCCS Neuromed Institute in Italy crunched the numbers from earlier studies involving more than 20,000 Italians and discovered that pasta intake was associated both with lower obesity rates and healthier waist-to-hip ratios. "We have seen that consumption of pasta, contrary to what many think, is not associated with an increase in body weight," researcher George Pounis says in a press release. The team's research was published this week in the Nature journal Nutrition & Diabetes. The researchers say their findings show that people trying to lose weight are wrong to completely banish pasta from their diets, reports UPI, which notes that pasta sometimes gets the blame for weight gain when it's used as a "vehicle for overly salty, sugary, fatty sauces." A nutrition professor at the University of Reading tells the Telegraph that the results appear solid, with pasta intake in this case demonstrating adherence to the Mediterranean diet. "These results clearly show that it is wrong to demonize carbohydrates as the data clearly show that consumption of a carbohydrate-rich food such as pasta does not have an adverse effect on body weight," he says. (Physicists have invented a new pasta shape.) |
Under the national military strategy, the military services are required to maintain enough ammunition for wartime needs and for peacetime needs, such as training. The Defense Planning Guidance lays out general guidelines for the services to determine how much ammunition they need to conduct operations under the strategy. Ammunition that exceeds these requirements is to be shared among the services or disposed of through sale to other nations, recycling, or demilitarization. In 1977, the Army, through its Operations Support Command (formerly Industrial Operations Command), assumed single manager responsibility for managing, storing, and disposing of the services’ ammunition. The Command’s Defense Ammunition Center provides the Command and the military services a variety of ammunition related services, including training, technical assistance, and logistics support. The Army demilitarizes excess ammunition at its ammunition depots, plants, and centers. The Army has used open burning and detonating processes as well as the more environmentally friendly processes to demilitarize excess ammunition. Open burning and detonating processes, which may release airborne gases, particles, and other contaminants that are carried downwind of the demilitarization sites, have been the topic of public concerns regarding possible health risks to civilian populations. Environmentally friendly processes use demilitarization technologies that do not release contaminants into the atmosphere. The government-owned locations that demilitarize excess ammunition using environmentally friendly processes are shown in figure 1. During the 1980s, the amount of excess ammunition needing to be demilitarized was generally stable, holding at about 100,000 tons. However, in the early 1990s, with the end of the Cold War and other worldwide changes, a general reshaping of military resources and budgets began as the United States shifted from a strategy of preparing for a global war to a strategy of preparing for regional conflicts and crises. As a consequence, the services’ ammunition requirements were significantly reduced, and by 1993 the Operation Support Command’s reported backlog of ammunition awaiting demilitarization was 354,000 tons. Because excess and needed ammunition were being stored together, the Command was concerned that the excess ammunition could impede access to needed ammunition and hinder the Command’s ability to effectively support contingency operations. To address this concern, Congress increased the amount of funding available for ammunition demilitarization from $35 million in fiscal year 1993 to almost $71 million in fiscal year 1994 and to an average of nearly $92 million annually in fiscal years 1995-2000. In addition, the Command set a goal of reducing the backlog to 100,000 tons by 2004. In October 1998, the Army extended its goal to reduce the demilitarization stockpile to less than 100,000 tons in fiscal year 2004 to the end of fiscal year 2010. On May 10, 1993, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense requested that DOD increase its use of environmentally safe destruction processes and technologies and phase out its use of open burning and detonating destruction processes as soon as possible. The Chairman also requested that DOD look to the private sector for environmentally friendly processes that could be used to help demilitarize excess ammunition. In 1994, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Army to accelerate, where possible, the award of contracts that make use of environmentally friendly demilitarization processes. The Operations Support Command enacted a variety of initiatives to help the demilitarization program respond to the congressional requests. These initiatives included optimizing work assigned to government facilities; increasing the use of environmentally friendly technology at government facilities to recover, recycle, and reclaim usable elements of ammunition; and awarding contracts to commercial firms that used environmentally friendly processes to demilitarize portions of the stockpile. DOD’s reported stockpile of excess ammunition has grown, and it does not include all excess ammunition; as a result, the government’s financial liability for demilitarizing excess ammunition is understated. To reduce the stockpile, the Operations Support Command enacted a variety of initiatives, and for fiscal years 1993 through 2000, it demilitarized 745,000 tons of excess ammunition from the stockpile. Despite these efforts, the reported stockpile grew from 354,000 tons in 1993 to 493,000 tons at the end of 2000 and is projected to be at 403,000 tons in 2004 (see fig. 2). According to the Operations Support Command, there are multiple factors that affect the number of tons in the reported stockpile from year to year. These factors include transferring ammunition from the stockpile to meet critical needs of the military services, the amount of demilitarization funding received from Congress, and the amount of excess ammunition that gets turned in to the stockpile. For example, the increase in the stockpile in fiscal year 1999 was largely due to the 289,000 tons entering the stockpile that year. According to the Command, the downward trend for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 is due to a combination of forecasted increases in demilitarization funding and forecasted decreases in quantities of ammunition becoming excess. Several factors outside the Command’s control contributed to the growth of the stockpile: downsizing of forces, which resulted in the need for less ammunition; replacing weapon delivery systems, which created obsolete ammunition; replacing older ammunition with newer, better versions, which created obsolete ammunition; transferring certain ammunition that was not planned for the stockpile (such as non-self-destruct antipersonnel land mines) to the stockpile; and reducing reliance on open burning and detonating processes to demilitarize ammunition in conjunction with public pressure to use more environmentally friendly methods. The Operations Support Command recognized that these factors would prevent it from meeting its goal of reducing the stockpile to 100,000 tons by 2004. Current Command projections show that the stockpile will instead be at about 403,000 tons by 2004. In October 1998, the Army extended its goal to reduce the demilitarization stockpile to less than 100,000 tons in fiscal year 2004 to the end of fiscal year 2010. In addition, the Operations Support Command’s reported stockpile does not include all excess ammunition needing demilitarization. The reported stockpile only includes excess ammunition located at storage sites belonging to the Command (see fig. 1). Our analysis of the services’ inventory records showed that there are additional quantities of excess ammunition needing demilitarization that were not included in the demilitarization stockpile. Specifically, we identified additional demilitarization liabilities associated with 94,030 tons of ammunition located overseas and 54,770 tons of unusable or unneeded ammunition at other military storage sites in the United States. Army Materiel Command officials explained that, in managing the demilitarization program, the Army estimates what ammunition is expected to require demilitarization in a reasonable time. Therefore, to plan and budget, it uses the quantities in the reported demilitarization stockpile plus forecasts of excess ammunition it expects the services to turn in to the stockpile. The officials agreed that the services’ inventory records showed additional quantities of excess ammunition needing demilitarization that were not included in the demilitarization stockpile and estimated that if all known and forecasted excess ammunition were recognized, the demilitarization liability for the Army could be as much as 2.9 million tons. The Command estimates the cost to demilitarize a ton of ammunition to be about $1,034. Using this estimate, the disposal liability could potentially be as great as $3 billion, but DOD’s financial statement does not reflect any demilitarization liability even though federal financial accounting standards require recognition and reporting of liabilities associated with disposal. DOD’s omission of its demilitarization liability is representative of the needed financial management reforms on which we testified before the Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform, stating that DOD still faces significant challenges to implement the federal accounting standards requiring recognition and reporting of liabilities associated with disposal. In recent years, the Operations Support Command has worked to allocate 50 percent of its excess ammunition demilitarization budget to contractors that used environmentally friendly demilitarization processes. However, at the same time the Command retained and underutilized environmentally friendly demilitarization capabilities at government facilities. The Army could have benefited from examining whether it was maximizing its demilitarization capabilities with the most cost-effective mix of public and private environmentally friendly capabilities. We noted that in some instances the Army incurred additional costs in contracting with the private sector for ammunition demilitarization and retained underutilized environmentally friendly demilitarization processes at its facilities. From 1993 to 1996 the Operations Support Command awarded 18 demilitarization contracts to private firms to demilitarize 76,527 tons of ammunition at a cost of about $48.2 million. During this 4-year period, the private sector received about 16 percent of the Command’s demilitarization budget. Although congressional instructions did not specify how much demilitarization work should go to the private sector, in February 1996, the Army Materiel Command required that the demilitarization budget for 1997 be split 50/50 between government facilities and private companies. Army Materiel Command officials said the directive was issued to force the Operations Support Command to move a larger portion of its demilitarization workload to private firms and that the 50/50 split seemed appropriate (even though the government facilities having environmentally friendly processes were being underused at the time). The Operations Support Command adopted this policy for fiscal year 1997 and subsequent years. While the actual ratio varied each year, over time the Command planned to spend its ammunition demilitarization funds equally between government facilities and private firms. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the Command awarded 21 contracts to private companies to demilitarize 56,739 tons of ammunition at a cost of about $45.8 million. During this 2-year period, the private sector received about 25 percent of the Command’s demilitarization budget. To eliminate the administrative burden associated with awarding and monitoring 21 contracts, beginning in fiscal year 2000 the Operations Support Command awarded two 5-year contracts, potentially worth an estimated total of $300 million, to General Dynamics Armament Systems and PB/Nammo Demil LLC. Subsequently, General Dynamics Armament Systems was awarded a task order under the contract to demilitarize 12,000 tons of ammunition at a price of $34.8 million for the first year and PB/Nammo Demil LLC was awarded a task order under the contract to demilitarize 12,000 tons of ammunition at a price of $25.9 million for the first year. PB/Nammo Demil LLC entered into agreements with three government facilities for a portion of this work. In addition, the firm subcontracted with other companies in the United States and overseas for the remainder of the work. According to Army Materiel Command and Operations Support Command officials, when implementing congressional direction to involve the private sector in environmentally friendly demilitarization of excess ammunition, the Army did not emphasize cost-effectiveness in terms of dollars saved and costs avoided. As a result, the Army incurred additional costs in contracting with the private sector for ammunition demilitarization. For example, according to the contracts, the Command is required to pay for packaging, crating, handling, and transportation costs to move ammunition from a government facility to the contractor demilitarization site. The Command considers these costs necessary to doing business with contractors. Since 1997 the Operations Support Command paid from $8 million to $14 million a year for packaging, crating, and handling excess ammunition and for transporting the ammunition, mostly from government facilities to contractor sites for demilitarization using environmentally friendly demilitarization processes. According to Command officials, a small percentage was spent to move excess ammunition from one government facility to another, but the majority of these expenditures were for moving ammunition from government sites to contractor sites. In some cases, government facilities with excess ammunition in storage had environmentally friendly demilitarization processes and facilities that could have been used to demilitarize the ammunition without incurring the shipping cost, leaving the funds available to demilitarize additional ammunition. For example, at one facility we visited, the Command paid $50,000 during fiscal year 2000 to ship excess ammunition from a storage site at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant to contractor demilitarization sites when the McAlester plant had environmentally friendly capabilities to demilitarize the ammunition. The Command could have avoided $50,000 in shipping costs by allocating this work to McAlester. Other costs were incurred under the Operations Support Command’s two contracts awarded in May 1999 that could have been avoided had the work been assigned to a government facility. For example, in one instance where the Command contracted for ammunition demilitarization, the contractor, in turn, entered into agreements with three government facilities to have them perform the demilitarization work. In essence, the government paid a contractor to have the ammunition demilitarized by government employees. This occurred when the contractor entered into three separate agreements for demilitarization services with government facilities at McAlester, Oklahoma; Crane, Indiana; and Tooele, Utah. The total value of the agreements for the first year was $8.6 million (including about $1.9 million to upgrade the demilitarization capabilities at the three government facilities). In addition, information provided by the contractor and by one government facility indicates that one government facility could have demilitarized the ammunition for less cost than was incurred by the Command’s contract with this firm. The Operations Support Command attributed the decision not to use the available environmentally friendly capacity at government facilities for demilitarization purposes to the Army Materiel Command’s interpretation of congressional instructions to use the private sector to destroy excess ammunition and the Materiel Command’s mandate that 50 percent of the demilitarization budget go to private firms. While increasing reliance on contracted demilitarization, the Operations Support Command has retained environmentally friendly processes that are not being fully utilized. Projections for fiscal year 2001 show that 16,550 tons of incineration capacity at four government facilities will not be used. These same projections show that government facilities will operate at only 20 percent of their overall capacity to recover and reuse 81,100 tons of excess ammunition (see table 1). Currently, the Army is conducting a congressionally mandated study of potential alternative disposal methods that do not release contaminants into the atmosphere. The study will address the possibility of phasing out open burning and detonating processes in favor of environmentally friendly processes, technologies currently in existence and under development, and the cost and feasibility of constructing facilities employing these technologies. According to Operations Support Command officials, the results of this study, which will not be available until September 2001, could potentially lead to expanding the government’s environmentally friendly capabilities. DOD’s conventional ammunition policies and procedures require the military services to routinely check excess ammunition awaiting demilitarization before purchasing new ammunition. Available information indicates that the stockpile may contain ammunition that may be usable for training purposes, but more analysis is required to evaluate the condition of the ammunition. Although neither the services nor the Operations Support Command systematically compares the contents of the excess ammunition stockpile to the training needs of the active and reserve forces, the Command checks the stockpile for such items if a critical shortage occurs or if the needed ammunition cannot be purchased. For example, in the last 2 years quantities of 155-millimeter, 105-millimeter, and 30-millimeter ammunition have been pulled from the stockpile and given to the active forces. The Department of Defense Single Manager of Conventional Ammunition (Implementing Joint Conventional Ammunition Policies and Procedures) 5160.65-M requires the military services to routinely check all alternative sources before purchasing ammunition for its weapon systems. Excess ammunition awaiting demilitarization in the stockpile is an alternative source. However, the Command believes that a routine comparison of planned purchases to the stockpile is unnecessary because (1) when the excess ammunition has been offered to these groups before it was placed in the stockpile, they declined it, and (2) it would have to spend money to conduct an evaluation of the condition of the excess ammunition. Also, a Command official responsible for managing the stockpile stated that a 1996 Army analysis of the excess ammunition in the stockpile found that there were no items in the stockpile that could be used for training. According to a Defense Ammunition Center official, the services’ needs may change over time and usable excess ammunition potentially could be recalled from the stockpile to prevent concurrent procurement and demilitarization. Our analysis showed that the Army has recently purchased 10 types of ammunition, particularly small caliber ammunition, when quantities of the same items were also in the stockpile and identified in the Army’s records as being of sufficient quality (either new or in like-new condition) for training purposes. Examples of excess ammunition that the Army purchased in fiscal year 2000 for training exercises at the same time there were quantities in the stockpile reported to be in usable condition are shown in table 2. A disposal liability of potentially up to $3 billion is not reflected in DOD’s financial statements. If all excess ammunition is not accurately reflected in DOD’s financial statements and made available for congressional budget deliberations, then DOD and Congress cannot clearly understand the present and future financial liability associated with demilitarizing the excess ammunition. Additionally, indications are that the allocation of 50 percent of the excess ammunition demilitarization budget to contractors may have increased the cost of demilitarizing excess ammunition. Also, excess capacity involving environmentally friendly demilitarization processes exists at government facilities. While it may be appropriate to rely on the private sector to enhance demilitarization capabilities, the continued use of the private sector to demilitarize excess ammunition at the same time the government facilities have excess capacity raises the question of whether the Army is sponsoring too much capacity. At the same time, an on-going study effort examining the potential to expand environmentally friendly demilitarization capabilities at government facilities raises additional questions about the appropriate mix of public/private sector capacity needed to demilitarize excess ammunition. Whether excess ammunition in the demilitarization stockpile could be used for training needs is unclear because the Command does not systematically compare the contents of its stockpile to the training needs of the active and reserve forces. DOD requires such a comparison before purchasing ammunition. Records indicate that the Army is buying ammunition when potentially usable ammunition is available in the stockpile, suggesting that checking the stockpile could be cost-effective by avoiding concurrent procurement and demilitarization and could put the Army in a better position of buying what it actually needs. To improve the financial reporting, economy, and efficiency of demilitarizing excess ammunition, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the Secretary of the Army to 1. identify and include the total liability (domestic and overseas) associated with demilitarizing excess ammunition in the Department’s annual consolidated balance sheet; 2. develop a plan in consultation with Congress that includes procedures for assessing the appropriate mix of public/private sector capacity needed to demilitarize excess ammunition and the cost-effectiveness of using contractors versus government facilities to demilitarize excess ammunition, with specific actions identified for addressing the capacity issue; and 3. comply with DOD’s policy to routinely compare planned purchases of ammunition for training with usable ammunition in the stockpile and require the single manager for conventional ammunition to prepare periodic reports to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, documenting such comparisons and showing the quantities and types of ammunition reclaimed from the stockpile. The Director of Strategic and Tactical Systems in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics provided written comments to a draft of this report. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. DOD also provided separate technical comments that we have incorporated in this report where appropriate. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations and pointed out that it is taking actions that it believes will address our recommendations. However, additional actions will likely be needed to fully address the recommendations. In commenting on our recommendation for dealing with the liability associated with demilitarizing excess ammunition, DOD stated that determining an accurate demilitarization liability is a difficult task and that it believes that a reasonable estimate of the demilitarization stockpile plus the forecast of new generations expected to be added to the stockpile for the next 5 years should meet the intent of our recommendation. However, this proposal does not recognize a liability for excess ammunition overseas (even though a portion of the demilitarization budget each year is used to demilitarize ammunition overseas) nor does the proposal recognize any demilitarization liability for excess Army-owned war reserve ammunition, excess retail ammunition, and excess ammunition not stored at an Army installation. Therefore, we believe DOD should recognize the total liability associated with demilitarizing excess ammunition rather than its proposal to recognize only a portion of its demilitarization liability and have revised our recommendation accordingly. In commenting on our recommendation for a plan and procedures for assessing the public/private sector mix of demilitarization capacity, DOD stated that the Army is preparing a report to Congress, due September 30, 2001, on the feasibility of replacing open burning and detonation with closed disposal technologies. DOD said that this report could also be used to address the mix of public/private sector capacity needed to demilitarize excess ammunition. DOD also stated that the Army has a computer-modeling tool that can be used to identify the costs associated with changing the public/private sector percentages. We recognize that the report and computer-modeling tool can provide information that the Army can use to determine the mix of public/private sector capacity needed to demilitarize excess ammunition, but DOD’s response does not address the substance of our recommendation which is to state how it plans to rationalize the public/private mix and minimize excess capacity at government facilities. Accordingly, we have made no change to our recommendation. Our draft report included a recommendation that DOD determine the feasibility of establishing a process to periodically compare planned purchases of ammunition for training with usable ammunition in the stockpile. DOD stated that an existing regulation and procedures require the Army to screen excess ammunition for use prior to procurement. However, our work showed that the Operations Support Command checks the stockpile for ammunition only if a critical shortage occurs or if the needed ammunition cannot be purchased. This suggests the need for additional oversight to ensure such assessments occur on a more frequent basis. Therefore, we have revised our recommendation to require the Army to comply with DOD’s policy to routinely compare planned purchases of ammunition for training with usable ammunition in the stockpile and to require the single manager for conventional ammunition to prepare periodic reports documenting such analyses and showing the quantities and types of ammunition reclaimed from the stockpile. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfield, Secretary of Defense; the Acting Secretary of the Army, Joseph W. Westphal; the Acting Secretary of the Navy, Robert B. Pirie, Jr.; the Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Lawrence J. Delaney; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. To determine the extent to which the excess ammunition stockpile has been reduced and whether the liability associated with excess ammunition has been fully identified, we reviewed the composition of the Army’s reported stockpile of excess ammunition and obtained inventory records showing the condition and location of the services’ ammunition. We also reviewed policies and procedures governing the demilitarization of excess ammunition and the requirements for reporting the financial liability of ammunition awaiting demilitarization. We met with officials and performed work at the U.S. Army Operations Support Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illinois; the U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center, McAlester, Oklahoma; Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), Washington, D.C. To assess the extent that the Army used contractors to demilitarize excess ammunition and its impact on the utilization of environmentally friendly demilitarization processes at government facilities, we met with officials at the Operations Support Command; McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, Oklahoma; and PB Nammo Demil LLC, New York, N.Y. We selected the McAlester plant because it was one of three government facilities having an agreement with PB Nammo Demil LLC to perform demilitarization work. We reviewed the Command’s contracts with private firms and assessed packaging, crating, and handling expenses associated with transporting ammunition to contractor sites. We also obtained and reviewed contractor agreements with government facilities to have them perform the demilitarization work and evaluated information provided by the contractor and by one government facility to determine if the government facility could have demilitarized the ammunition for less cost than was incurred by the Command’s contract with this firm. We obtained Army data on the government facilities’ capabilities to demilitarize excess ammunition and compared the Army’s demilitarization plans to these capabilities. This allowed us to identify and calculate excess capacity situations. We also obtained information from the Army Materiel Command and the Operations Support Command involving an on-going study of the possibility of phasing out open burning and detonating processes in favor of environmentally friendly processes, technologies currently in existence and under development, and the cost and feasibility of constructing facilities employing these technologies. To determine the feasibility of using excess ammunition for training needs, we met with officials at the U.S. Defense Ammunition Center and discussed the Center’s capability to compare the contents of the excess ammunition stockpile to the services’ needs for ammunition to perform training operations. We compared the services’ fiscal year 2000 training ammunition purchases to ammunition awaiting disposal to verify that ammunition matching the services’ training needs is located in the stockpile. We did not look at opportunities to dispose of excess ammunition in the stockpile through sale to other nations. We used the same computer programs, reports, records, and statistics that DOD and the military services had used to manage excess ammunition. For example, we used Operations Support Command’s inventory records to show the reported amounts of excess ammunition in the stockpile. We did not independently determine the reliability of all these sources. For historical perspective and illustrations of past problems, we reviewed the results of prior Defense studies and audit reports. We performed our review from August 2000 through February 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) letter dated March 26, 2001. 1. DOD’s comment and our evaluation are included in the body of the report. 2. The examples of costs that could have been avoided that we cite in our report relate to contracts awarded for fiscal year 2000. The examples illustrate the need for DOD to develop a plan that includes procedures for assessing the appropriate mix of public/private sector capacity by considering the cost-effectiveness of using contractors versus government facilities to demilitarize excess ammunition. Such a plan would help better ensure that cost-effective decisions are made. Our report also recognized that factors beyond the Army’s control have affected its efforts to demilitarize excess ammunition. Further, our recommendation states that the plan should be developed in consultation with Congress. 3. Our analysis suggests the Army has excess environmentally friendly demilitarization capacity considering the capacity available at government facilities and under contract. This suggests the need to rationalize the capacity being supported by DOD. 4. The example cited by DOD illustrates the need for it to examine why the Army continues to incur costs to maintain 24,000 tons of capacity at this site with only 2,200 tons of ammunition available on site to be demilitarized. 5. Our analysis indicates that in recent years DOD’s funding plan for ammunition demilitarization has significantly exceeded its funding level. The intent behind the plan called for in our recommendation is not to arbitrarily restrict use of the private sector percentages. Rather, we believe there is a need for DOD to develop a plan and business case analysis of the appropriate mix of public/private sector capacity by considering the cost-effectiveness of using contractors versus government facilities to demilitarize excess ammunition. 6. Our report focuses on excess capacity involving environmentally friendly demilitarization process that exists at government facilities and highlights that the Army has not determined the most cost-effective mix of public/private sector capacity for environmentally friendly demilitarization methods. Our report recognizes DOD’s efforts to decrease emphasis on open burning and detonating methods. 7. Our report does not state that there is no apparent benefit to using private industry. Our report stresses the need for a greater emphasis on cost effectiveness in deciding the appropriate mix of public and private environmentally friendly capabilities instead of assigning a predetermined amount of demilitarization funds to the private sector as the Army presently does. 8. The applicable section of the report was modified to include DOD’s position that its regulations and procedures require the Army to screen excess ammunition for use prior to procurement. 9. Our analysis was based upon data from the Army’s Defense Ammunition Center, which we shared with the Army during the course of our review. Our report emphasized that potentially usable ammunition was available in the stockpile and recognized that further analysis was needed to determine the usability of the excess ammunition. In addition to those named above, Jimmy Palmer, Joanna McFarland, and John Brosnan made key contributions to this report. | This report reviews the Department of Defense's (DOD) management practices for demilitarizing excess ammunition. Specifically, GAO evaluates (1) the extent to which the excess ammunition stockpile has been reduced and whether the liability associated with excess ammunition has been fully identified, (2) the Army's reliance on contracted demilitarization and the impact of doing so on government facilities that use similar environmentally friendly processes, and (3) the feasibility of using excess ammunition for U.S. training needs. GAO found that DOD's reported stockpile of excess ammunition has grown rather than decreased, rising from 354,000 tons in 1993 to 493,000 tons at the end of 2000. In addition, the reported stockpile does not include all excess ammunition, which understates DOD's ultimate liability for demilitarizing ammunition. In recent years, the Army has devoted 50 percent of its excess ammunition demilitarization budget to contractors that use environmentally friendly demilitarization processes. Although a congressional directive resulted in greater emphasis on contractor demilitarization, the Army began and later expanded this effort without considering the effect it would have on government facilities. With increased contractor demilitarization, the Army has retained and underutilized environmentally friendly demilitarization capabilities in government facilities. Finally, some excess ammunition potentially could be used to meet training needs, but further analysis by the Army is needed to fully evaluate the potential. |
Washington (CNN) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has always been a Washington outsider. Now, as he attempts to turn back a Donald Trump surge among Iowa voters, he's further playing up his outsider status by unloading on Beltway Republicans.
"Think about this, we were told by Republican leaders during the campaign cycle last year that we just needed a Republican Senate to be elected to repeal Obamacare. Well, here we sit, you know both chambers of the United States Congress have been controlled since January by Republicans and yet there's not a bill on the President's desk to repeal Obamacare," Walker said.
For Walker, who works hard to stick to his talking points, the comments marked a noticeable change just a week after businessman Donald Trump surged to the top in Iowa polls and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson claimed second place.
Walker teased some of that message during an interview with Fox News last week, and then let it rip Monday at the Iowa State Fair.
"I think part of the reason why we see some of the things we see across this country are because people want to send a message," Walker said in Des Moines. "I talk to voters all the time in this state and around the country who said, 'We want to send a message to Republican leaders in Washington that when you make promises on the campaign trail, we wanna see it.' Whether it's repealing Obamacare or standing up against illegal immigration."
By his first major policy roll out Tuesday, Walker sought to up his conservative credentials even further, priming the crowd with a story of taking on Republican lawmakers in his own state.
"I said to them, the voters had told us they wanted is to be big and be bold. As you can imagine, at the time, there were some Republican lawmakers who were kind of uneasy with the idea of taking on the status quo," Walker said, recounting how he put Wisconsin Republicans on notice after winning his first term in office in 2010.
Photos: Scott Walker's career Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker dropped out of the presidential race on Monday, September 21. He was seeking the Republican Party's nomination. Hide Caption 1 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker fields questions from Bruce Rastetter at the Iowa Agriculture Summit on March 7, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. Hide Caption 2 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference at National Harbor, Maryland, outside Washington, D.C. on February 26, 2015. Hide Caption 3 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit on January 24, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. Hide Caption 4 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks at his election night party November 4, 2014, in West Allis, Wisconsin. Walker defeated the Democratic challenger Mary Burke. Hide Caption 5 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker shakes hands with Democrat challenger Mary Burke before facing off in a debate at the WMVS-TV studios October, 17, 2014, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 6 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker has a scarf put on his head during a special service at the Sikh Religious Society of Wisconsin for the victims of the shooting at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin the previous day, on August 6, 2012, in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 7 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks during the Republican Jewish Coalition spring leadership meeting at The Venetian Las Vegas on March 29, 2014. Hide Caption 8 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Scott Walker (left) shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping (center) before a meeting as Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (right) looks on at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on April 15, 2013. Hide Caption 9 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker poses with a woman during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 28, 2012, in Tampa, Florida. Hide Caption 10 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker prepares to cast his ballot at Jefferson School to vote in the gubernatorial recall election June 5, 2012, in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 11 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker (right) listens to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speak as they campaign at the Waukesha Victory Center on May 24, 2012, in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 12 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker addresses the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum April 13, 2012, in St. Louis, Missouri. Hide Caption 13 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker stands on the North Lawn of the White House before making remarks to the news media after a meeting of the National Governors Association with President Barack Obama on February 27, 2012. Hide Caption 14 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career President Barack Obama receives a Milwaukee Brewers baseball jersey from Walker (left) as he disembarks from Air Force One upon arrival at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, February 15, 2012. Hide Caption 15 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker listens during the 2011 Governors Summit of U.S. Chamber of Commerce June 20, 2011, in Washington, D.C. Hide Caption 16 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Members of Code Pink (left to right) Medea Benjamin, Liz Hourican and Tighe Barry, hold signs to protest as Walker (center) takes his seat during a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee April 14, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Hide Caption 17 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker holds a letter from democratic State Sen. Mark Miller, one of the fourteen Wisconsin state senators who fled the state over two weeks ago, during a press conference on March 7, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 18 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker holds up a 'Wisconsin is open for business' bumper sticker as he speaks during a ceremonial bill signing outside his office at the Wisconsin State Capitol on March 11, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 19 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker delivers his budget address to a joint session of the legislature at the capitol March 1, 2011 in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 20 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks at a news conference inside the Wisconsin State Capitol February 21, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 21 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career President Obama receives a Green Bay Packers NFL football team jersey with 'Obama #1' written on it from Walker (left) at Austin Straubel International Airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on January 26, 2011. Hide Caption 22 of 22
"I said it's put up or shut up time," he said.
Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, said the new Walker tone matches messaging that conservative megaphones Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have long used -- the bashing of Washington Republicans.
And while many within the GOP banked on Trump's support fading, the new calculation is he's here to stay, Levesque said. The smart candidates, he said, are now looking at and analyzing Trump and figuring out how to make that model work for them.
"I think that's kind of thing it's not straight impression of Donald Trump, but I think he's trying to capitalize on it," said Levesque, who is hosting Walker Friday morning for a "Politics and Eggs" talk. ||||| Facebook
Twitter
Google Plus
Embed 1:06 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker brought a new tone and new targets to the campaign trail this week now that his Iowa lead has dissipated
Walker, who had resisted talking about Donald Trump, adjusted his tactics to more directly appeal to voters swayed by outsider candidates like the billionaire GOP frontrunner.
"I think it's a reflection of people that are extremely frustrated with Washington," Walker said in an interview with NBC News. "I think it's just important for us to identify that and acknowledge that and we share that frustration."
But Walker also predicted the strength Trump shows in polling could be more a sign of protest than genuine support. "I talk to Americans all across the country who say I may not end up voting for this candidate but I'm gonna say in polls that I'm for them because I'm tired of politicians in Washington not listening to me," Walker said.
The second-term Republican governor who survived a recall election has spent his entire professional life in elective office but said he can still position himself for the anti-politician voter,
"It's not about the job you've held, it's about what you've done in that job that matters," Walker said "People can identify that anger, but I think I'm the best candidate in the race to actually do something about it."
A core of the Walker candidacy has been for him to become the figure who could be the eventual establishment choice while connecting the tea party and social conservative wings of the Republican party.
Walker, who has invoked the Reagan 11th commandment to "not speak ill of another Republican," is now broadly hitting GOP power brokers in Washington. Walker said voters expected more: "They thought electing a Republican Senate and electing, continuing to have, a Republican House would mean that at least there'd be a bill on the president's desk to repeal Obamacare. There's not, and I think that part of the frustration."
Born in Iowa and governing a neighboring state, Walker has been seen as a likely potential winner of the caucuses next February until Trump and Dr. Ben Carson began to catch fire in the Hawkeye state.
Walker recounted past election cycles where summer surge candidates flamed out. Walker suggested he is not panicked, "I think it's still open, " Walker said, "I think the key is staying power. You want to make sure you keep coming back over and over again." ||||| Scott Walker has sought to reassure jittery donors and other supporters this week that he can turn around a swift decline in the polls in Iowa and elsewhere by going on the attack and emphasizing his conservatism on key issues.
In a conference call, one-on-one conversations and at a Tuesday lunch, the Wisconsin governor and favorite of anti-union conservatives told backers that his campaign is shifting to a more aggressive posture and will seek to tap into the anti-establishment fervor fueling the rise of Donald Trump and other outsider candidates.
During a conference call with top fundraisers Monday afternoon, Walker and his campaign manager were relatively candid in their assessment of the campaign’s shortcomings, according to notes of the conversation taken by a participant. Walker said the campaign will strive to do better in three areas: protest, passion and policy.
“We need to step it up and remind people that we didn’t just take on the unions and Democrats, we had to take on my own party establishment, those who did not want to take on the status quo,” Walker said on the call, according to the notes.
He added later: “One thing I heard about the first debate was: ‘You were fine, you did no wrong, but people want to feel the passion.’ ”
Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker unveiled a new health-care proposal that calls for repealing Obamacare. (Reuters)
The steps mark a clear shift for a candidate who has long positioned himself as a potential bridge between the party’s conservative and establishment wings. Walker now intends to focus his energy primarily on challengers from the right — a constituency that is particularly important in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which aides consider a must-win contest for him.
Despite Walker’s strong and consistent start earlier this year, he has quickly lost ground in recent weeks and put in an underwhelming performance at the first GOP debate, on Aug 6. He went from double-digit standings in most national polls in July to single digits in several recent surveys. In the most recent poll of Iowa — where he has led for most of the summer — he was third behind Trump and tea party underdog Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon.
At the same time, Walker has veered to the right on abortion and other social issues, worrying some top backers. Stanley S. Hubbard, a conservative billionaire who oversees a Minnesota broadcasting company and has donated to Walker’s campaign, said the candidate has promised that he would not push a “social agenda” as president and is simply expressing his personal beliefs when asked.
“If he’s smart, he will get back to basics and get back to what he did in Wisconsin [and] get off the social issues,” said Hubbard, who had lunch on Tuesday with Walker and other campaign supporters. “No one is asking him to change the morals of America.”
Hubbard strongly opposes one immigration measure pushed by Trump this week: a call to stop giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States. Walker said in an interview Monday that he would support ending birthright citizenship, then said other reforms might make that unnecessary.
Hubbard said that he “might really quickly change my allegiance” if Walker pushed for such a repeal, and that he “did not get a real straight answer” from the candidate at his Tuesday lunch. But Hubbard, who came away ready write more checks to help Walker, added: “I got the feeling that he is not at all anxious to talk about taking away those rights.”
Walker for months has pitched himself as a Washington outsider, but his candidacy has become overshadowed by non-politicians such as Trump, Carson and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, who have connected with voters who are angry at those in office.
Republican presidential candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, center, holds a part in his hand as he tours Cass Screw Machine Products with company president Steve Wise, right, before presenting his health care plan, Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2015, in Brooklyn Center, Minn. (AP Photo/Jim Mone) (Jim Mone/AP)
Walker said on the conference call Monday that he wants to win over those voters, pitching himself as just as much of an outsider — but one with experience leading a state government.
“Instead of going after Trump, we need to go after his voters,” Walker said on the call. “True frustration — how we handle that is not by knocking him, but saying that we, too, share that frustration.”
Walker has in recent days adopted the rhetoric of the emerging outsider candidates along with some of their policy positions. Like Fiorina, Walker now says that he is frustrated that the Republican majorities in Washington have not delivered on their promises to voters. Walker said Monday that his immigration stances are “very similar” to those of Trump, who several months ago accused the Wisconsin governor of stealing his slogan “Make America great again.”
Walker also is trying to replicate the feisty anti-establishment tone Trump and others have shown on the campaign trail. The attempt was on full display on Monday morning when Walker spent 20 minutes on the political soapbox at the Iowa State Fair — a rite of passage for those dreaming of becoming president. The appearances regularly attract protesters, and Walker’s experience was no different.
There was shoving in the audience between Walker supporters and liberal activists. There was heckling and booing. Yellow signs popped up in the crowd reading: “Warning: Don’t let Scott Walker do to America what he did to Wisconsin.”
Walker regularly encounters detractors on the campaign trail and usually ignores them. But on Monday, he yelled at one protester in the crowd: “I’m not intimidated by you, sir, or anyone else out there. I will fight for the American people over and over and over and over again. You want someone who’s tested? I’m right here.”
The moment seemed out of character for a candidate who describes himself as “aggressively normal.” But the crowd loved it, and Twitter filled with praise from supporters.
Walker boasted about the interaction later that day during a stop in northern Iowa, although he exaggerated by saying that protesters were rushing the stage. On Tuesday afternoon, the campaign wrote in a mass fundraising e-mail that “the left wing special interests are back with even uglier attacks” against Walker, who “is not shaken easily.”
“People are upset, and they want to see some passion,” said Jonathan Burkan, a Walker fundraiser and financial services executive from New York who was on the Monday conference call. “That can be very positive. It’s important to show people that you can get fired up.”
Anthony Scaramucci, a New York investor and Walker fundraiser who also was on the call, said Walker and his team have quickly recognized that this contest will be much different than previous ones. The electorate is angry, and the campaign reflects that.
“A good candidate has to adapt to what’s going on,” Scaramucci said. “The candidate has to reflect the reality and the circumstances he’s in.”
Tom Hamburger contributed to this report. | After falling to third place in the Iowa polls, Scott Walker has decided it's time to steal from Donald Trump's playbook. Stories in the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News report on how Walker is testing out a much more aggressive strategy this week. He's not only trying to emphasize his conservative credentials but looking to benefit from the anti-establishment sentiment that has lifted Trump. In a conference call with fundraisers, the Post quotes the Wisconsin governor as saying, “We need to step it up and remind people that we didn’t just take on the unions and Democrats, we had to take on my own party establishment, those who did not want to take on the status quo." He promised supporters more passion. On the campaign trail this week in Iowa, Walker specifically called out Republican leaders for not doing enough to repeal ObamaCare, comments that CNN says "marked a noticeable change just a week" after Trump and Ben Carson took first and second place in the latest Iowa polls. Both men he's trailing in the state are non-politicians running for office, but Walker—a lifelong politician—tells NBC that he can appeal to their supporters. "It's not about the job you've held, it's about what you've done in that job that matters," he says. "People can identify that anger, but I think I'm the best candidate in the race to actually do something about it." |
HOMS, Syria — The international community is lauding a United Nations-brokered deal to provide relief to Homs' long-blockaded Old City, but the aid plan is far from universally welcome in this battle-scarred and profoundly divided city.
The relief effort has stirred deep animosities among many government supporters, who view it as a sellout to opposition forces — "terrorists," in official terms — hunkered down in the ruins of the Old City.
"This is basically giving the terrorists food and medicine and letting them go free," said Rihab Ismael, a dairy worker who lives in the Zahra district, a sniper-plagued zone less than a mile from what remains of the rebel-controlled Old City. "We desperately need help here too. Why is everything concentrated on the ones who made our lives unbearable?"
More than 600 people were evacuated Sunday from Old Homs under U.N. auspices, an exodus that unexpectedly included 130 fighting-age men, many accompanied by their families. The initial deal applied only to civilians and stipulated that any men ages 16 to 54 who chose to leave could face a judicial process.
Some Syrian soldiers providing security were visibly dismayed to see men who could be their rebel adversaries apparently headed to freedom under U.N. patronage.
The possibility that rebels were among the evacuees seemed likely to complicate the Old City aid process — and to further stoke fury among those who already view the deal as a betrayal.
Nowhere is the outrage more evident than in Zahra, where most residents are Alawites, the sect of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Syria's Alawite minority is generally fiercely loyal to the government; likenesses of Assad and the Syrian flag are ubiquitous in Zahra. As the Syrian conflict has turned more sectarian, many Alawites view the war as a question of survival against Sunni Islamist militants who regard Alawites and members of other Muslim sects as apostates. Rebels clutching the severed heads of Alawite men as gruesome war trophies have become a staple of opposition images posted on the Internet.
Hundreds of civilians in Zahra have been killed by sniper fire or shelling originating from the Old City and other rebel-held districts, residents say; others have been kidnapped and never heard from again. Many also have perished serving in the army and security services.
Stylized color posters of "martyrs" line the streets of Zahra; one image mourns a family that lost 19 members to "terrorists," including several allegedly kidnapped and executed.
The accounts of rebel atrocities mirror those from pro-opposition activists who accuse government forces of massacres of Sunni Muslim families and bombardments of Sunni districts.
Contrary to the widely disseminated narrative of a rebellion that began with peaceful protests, many in Zahra recall a wave of violence engulfing Homs amid a chilling rebel slogan: "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin!" As the war ground on, Alawites who say they faced expulsion or death in other areas fled to Zahra for safety, swelling the population.
Syrian forces have gradually pushed the rebels back in Homs; the Old City, now surrounded by government troops, is one of two remaining strongholds inside the city limits. Government forces keen to cut rebel supplies have kept aid out of the encircled Old City. Two truckloads of food, medicine and other supplies delivered Saturday were the first outside assistance to reach the Old City in 20 months.
On Sunday, the third and last day of the U.N. aid operation in the Old City, six would-be evacuees were killed in a mortar strike, said Yacoub El Hillo, U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Syria. The day before, four people were killed in strikes. It was not clear who fired the deadly mortar rounds, El Hillo said.
Cease-fire violations occurred on all three days of the aid operation. Officials were mulling a possible extension, El Hillo said.
The extensive street fighting and shelling have reduced the Old City and a number of areas, including the adjacent Khalidiya district, to ghostly, rubble-strewn wastelands. Along the remaining commercial strips in Homs, street stalls hawk appliances, furniture and other items looted from abandoned and ransacked homes.
Homs, Syria's third-largest city, shuts down in the evening amid the thud of mortars and the crackle of gunfire.
For more than two years, all streets from the Old City east to Zahra have been blocked with alternating rows of makeshift anti-sniper barriers built of cinder blocks, metal dumpsters, sand bags and other material. The barriers, the tallest about 30 feet high, are pockmarked from bullets and shelling. They are placed like huge dominoes along the vulnerable thoroughfares.
"That man is in danger of being sniped," Mustafa Abbout, mukhtar or district leader of one area of Zahra, told a reporter Sunday, pointing to an elderly man using a cane to navigate a street exposed by a gap between two cinder-block walls. "We've tried to arrange the barriers to connect the streets, so children going to school can pass safely. But it's still not completely safe."
Like other Zahra residents interviewed, Abbout is shocked that the Syrian government, under international pressure, is allowing food and other staples into the Old City. He acknowledges that some of the estimated 2,000 civilians inside are being forced by the rebels to remain there as "human shields," a deterrent against military bombardment. But he and others interviewed in Zahra insist that most inside the warren of rubble-strewn streets and alleys are rebels or their families, people who back the rebellion and deserve no mercy.
"Anyone who wasn't with them left a long time ago," said Abbout, 41, who pulled back a cracked cinder block from one barrier to expose a sliver of the devastated Old City, a cemetery in the foreground, unseen snipers somewhere in the blasted cityscape.
Inside Abbout's nearby apartment, a wall in the living room has become a shrine to a younger brother, Amer Abbout, whose smiling visage gazes down from a photograph. A taxi driver, Amer was kidnapped two years ago, the family says; he hasn't been heard from since.
"He's inside the Old City somewhere; we don't know if he's alive or dead," said Abbout, as his elderly mother gazed forlornly at the image of her lost son. "He is in God's hands."
The mukhtar leads visiting journalists to the roof of his five-story building, offering panoramic views of the skeletal remains of Homs' ancient quarter. Safety dictates staying low, moving quickly and crouching behind satellite dishes that provide some cover from snipers. Chickens scamper about, pecking at decaying bits of lettuce and other greens left on the roof; people started keeping fowl when it was too dangerous to go out for food, Abbout explains. A clutch of pigeons takes wing as a shell detonates in the distance.
"We suffer and no one helps us, but the terrorists inside are getting everything they need," says Abbout. "I don't see any justice in that."
[email protected]
Special correspondent Nabih Bulos contributed to this report. ||||| HOMS, Syria—Hundreds of the sick and starving trapped here by civil war were rescued this weekend after a United Nations convoy rolled through mortar shells and sniper bullets into this besieged city, setting a grim tone for peace talks Monday.
The Syrian regime and opposition blamed each other for deadly attacks on the operation, which was intended to build trust toward a diplomatic solution to the country's civil war, and the recriminations extended to the evacuation's ground rules.
In one instance, tensions flared at a makeshift receiving center for evacuees when soldiers discovered that about a dozen fighting-aged men were among those leaving. When the soldiers whisked them away into a government bus to be interrogated for suspected ties to rebel groups a shouting match erupted between a U.N. official and two security officials.
"There are men between the age of 16 and 54 that asked to leave and they are ready to regularize their status and they are also ready to bear the consequences if they are wanted by the law," Homs Governor Talal al-Barazi said.
The U.N.-led mission evacuated hundreds of civilians in the rebel-held old quarter of Homs and delivered aid and medicine to hundreds of others who remained trapped inside.
Still, the convoy's shelling amid a cease-fire cast a pall over the already volatile Geneva talks, as both sides arrived in Switzerland after a nearly two-week pause.
Both sides agree the talks should create a transitional government to end the nearly three-year-old conflict, but the opposition insists it be without President Bashar al-Assad, a scenario the regime rejects.
Opposition activists said at least four civilians waiting to be evacuated were killed in mortar attacks on Sunday, shortly after the U.N. convoy entered the zone, and at least five were killed on Saturday amid intense shelling and sniper attacks.
In interviews, some U.N. employees and an aid worker blamed the attacks on forces loyal to Mr. Assad's regime, though the U.N. officially didn't cast blame. "It is deliberate targeting, which is unacceptable," said Valerie Amos, who heads the U.N.'s global relief efforts.
The regime said the attack was carried out by rebels who didn't want civilians to leave.
The U.N.'s top official in Syria, Yacoub El Hillo, who was part of the team attacked on Saturday, appeared to challenge the regime's assertions that rebels in Homs's old quarter were holding civilians as human shields and preventing them from leaving. "We spent 10 hours inside and saw nothing to indicate that," he told reporters.
He also rejected accusations by Syria's government and security forces that a field hospital inside was only being used to treat combatants. "The impression that the field hospital is for armed people is untrue, there are civilian cases that will make your heart bleed, these are people waiting to die," he said.
One Western diplomat cautioned it was "important not to jump to conclusions about who was behind the attacks."
The three-day U.N.-led aid operation, which ended on Sunday, was intended to bring relief to the rebel-held old quarter, an area that has been under siege by pro-Assad forces for more than 18 months. The operation called for daily 12-hour cease-fires to permit the delivery of desperately needed food and medicine and the evacuation of people who want to leave.
U.S. officials on Sunday were struggling to get clarity on what had happened on the ground in Homs. "This just underscores how important a negotiated political transition is," a senior administration official said.
But many Syrian military and security officials said the U.N. operation was a public relations exercise by the international community that these people said they only helped carry out due to orders from Damascus.
Both Russia and Iran, the regime's main international patrons, have pressured the Assad regime to cooperate during the Geneva process, Western diplomats say.
"These are the orders of the leadership," said one senior Syrian officer, who said the U.N. was part of a "conspiracy" against Syria. "If it was up to me, I would not let any food in or allow anyone out."
Many Alawites in Homs, who belong to Mr. Assad's ruling sect, had said last month when the convoy was planned that it should be attacked. Most of the Shiite-affiliated Alawites here belong to a paramilitary group known as the National Defense Force that opposes the mainly Sunni-Muslim opposition.
Remaining opposition members in Homs's old quarter were fearful the regime intended to wage an all-out offensive after the civilian evacuation.
"This is forced displacement, we are demanding that the siege be lifted not people driven out," said Abu Bilal, an activist in the old quarter in a Skype interview.
Sunday's events began shortly after midday when the U.N. and Syrian Arab Red Crescent vehicles drove to a front line separating government and rebel forces northwest of the city. They said they were determined to deliver the remainder of the food they had been prevented from taking on Saturday, which Mr. El Hillo called "a day in hell."
Multiple explosions went off ahead of them in a rebel-held area, sending dust and smoke into the air. No one from the U.N. or other aid agencies was harmed.
When the attacks stopped, the U.N. began organizing the evacuation of all civilians wanting to leave the besieged area with several chartered coach buses.
By nightfall on Sunday, a total of 611 people, including women, men and children, had been hauled out, bringing the total of those evacuated since Friday to almost 700. Before the evacuation the U.N. said it believed there were more than 2,500 civilians inside.
Many of the evacuees were taken to Waer, a trench-encircled neighborhood in Homs that the U.N. says houses about 400,000 displaced people from Homs province that government soldiers are restricting.
Mr. El Hillo said the 12 men that were whisked away were part of a group of 130 that were being held with their families at a school in a regime-controlled part of Homs where they were being interrogated.
The Syrian government said its accord with the U.N. gives it the right to question men of this age group to determine if they are wanted for links to armed groups. Those deemed guilty have a chance to seek amnesty if they renounce ties to the rebels, said Syrian government officials in Homs and the capital Damascus. A U.N. official acknowledged that arrangement.
Despite the weekend's events, delegations of the opposition and government were due to meet on Monday in Geneva for a second round of talks. Those first talks failed to secure an agreement from the regime on an interim government.
Instead, the U.N.'s special representative to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, focused on securing an agreement from both sides on providing safe passage for aid convoys to Homs.
"We will point out to Brahimi tomorrow the violations of the regime, to put that on record," said Monzer Akbik, a senior member of the opposition's delegation in Geneva. "But at the same time we came for a second round of talks to discuss the critical issue of transition and to see the regime's response. We know there will be disappointments, but we must pursue this to the end."
Western diplomats involved in the Geneva talks said they were monitoring the situation in Homs closely to see if the aid workers manage to complete their deliveries to besieged populations.
"So far, I'm not picking up any negative impact on the atmosphere in Geneva," the Western diplomat said.
Opposition delegates are trying to focus the talks on political transition, and they don't want to see the meetings become bogged down in arguments over what happened in Homs, according to an adviser to the opposition.
—Maria Abi-Habib, Joe Lauria, Stacy Meichtry
and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption In Homs, terrified civilians run towards UN vehicles as bombs fall
Some 300 Syrians have fled Homs after both sides agreed to extend a three-day truce in the Old City, which has been under siege for 18 months.
The Syrian Red Crescent confirmed the latest evacuations on Twitter.
Hundreds of civilians were allowed to leave at the weekend after the local governor agreed a truce with the UN.
Meanwhile, government and opposition negotiators have resumed peace talks in Geneva. Analysts say that little progress is expected.
Analysis The tide of people continued - elderly men and women on stretchers or crutches, exhausted mothers in tears, children who went straight into the arms of waiting aid officials from the UN and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society. Water, bread, even polio vaccinations were provided on the spot. Many residents who have finally escaped speak of having only grass and olives to eat. Today, the temporary ceasefire wasn't shattered by mortar attacks and gunfire that temporarily halted but did not stop a humanitarian mission at the weekend. But here in Damascus fighting caused the suspension of another food distribution in the besieged suburb of Yarmouk. These breakthroughs are small glimmers of light in a dark and devastating war. But they are only a start. Only a peace deal will end Syria's humanitarian crisis, and for now, there is no sign of that.
The opposition wants the government to commit in writing to the 2012 Geneva Communique, which called for the formation of a transitional administration with full executive authority.
President Bashar al-Assad's government has ruled out any transfer of power.
The first round of talks ended last month with no firm agreements and both sides trading insults.
The second round opened on Monday with preliminary discussions aimed at thrashing out an agenda, but the two sides have not yet met face-to-face.
Syria's civil conflict has claimed more than 100,000 lives since 2011 and has driven 9.5 million people from their homes.
'Absolutely scandalous'
During the first three-day ceasefire in Homs, hundreds of civilians were allowed to leave.
The evacuations took place amid mortar fire and shooting, which both sides blamed on each other. Activists say several people were killed.
Although the situation in Homs was discussed during the first round of talks in Geneva, the truce was actually agreed between Homs governor Talal Barazi and the UN resident co-ordinator in Syria.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Aid groups appear to have extended a truce allowing people to be evacuated from Homs
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Civilians, including a man with crutches, walk towards a meeting point to be evacuated
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Civilians gather before being evacuated at crossing points
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Efforts are also being made to provide more relief supplies to those still trapped in the city
Mr Barazi said on Sunday that talks were going on to extend the ceasefire for another three days.
UN aid chief Valerie Amos later confirmed in a statement that the truce had been extended for three days.
Image copyright Reuters Desperation of Palestinian refugees
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said France and other countries would present a resolution at the UN calling for greater access for humanitarian aid.
"We are asking for stronger action as far as the humanitarian side is concerned, that medicines and food supplies are handed out in cities," he told French radio.
"It is absolutely scandalous that there have been discussions for quite a while and that people are still being starved every day, and so along with a number of other countries we will present a resolution at the UN along those lines."
But China and Russia did not turn up to preliminary discussions on the draft.
Russian diplomats had already dismissed the idea of a so-called humanitarian resolution.
The Syrian government has acknowledged that some of those evacuated from Homs on Sunday were detained after they left.
A Syrian information ministry spokesman told the BBC that 103 "militants" had been detained for security checks, but had since been released.
But other reports suggest the men have not been released, and are still being detained with their families.
In other developments: | A UN convoy seeking to bring aid to, and evacuate civilians from the rebel-held "Old City" section of Homs came under mortar and sniper fire yesterday, in violation of a negotiated ceasefire. At least four civilians awaiting evacuation were killed in the attack, but the convoy ultimately managed to get 611 people out, while sustaining no UN casualties. Accusations flew afterward. The UN didn't officially blame anyone, but some UN employees tell the Wall Street Journal that regime loyalists were responsible. Many Alawites, the sect to which Bashar al-Assad belongs, had opposed the convoy, arguing that it would help the rebels escape. The regime blames the rebels, saying they didn't want civilians to leave—though the UN says there's no evidence backing regime claims that the rebels are using human shields. Once the convoy was out, a dispute broke out because 130 fighting-age men were among the evacuees. The government seized the men for interrogations—the original deal allowing the convoy had stipulated that men aged 16 to 54 would face a "judicial process" if they left, the LA Times reports. The government tells the BBC that 103 "militants" were detained, and then released. |
American employers added more workers to payrolls in October than forecast by economists, betting that the world’s largest economy would weather the impact of the federal government shutdown.
The addition of 204,000 workers followed a revised 163,000 gain in September that was larger than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 91 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an increase of 120,000. The jobless rate rose to 7.3 percent from an almost five-year low.
The figures indicate companies adhered to hiring plans with an outlook for stronger sales in the aftermath of the 16-day budget impasse and a debate over raising the nation’s debt ceiling. Treasuries fell on speculation the report will prompt the Federal Reserve to accelerate a withdrawal of stimulus.
“The government shutdown really didn’t have a material impact on employment,” said Brian Jones, senior U.S. economist at Societe Generale in New York, whose forecast for a payroll gain of 175,000 was the highest in the Bloomberg survey. “The labor market is actually quite healthy, regardless of what people may think. The economy is doing better.”
Treasuries lost the most in two months, pushing up the yield on the 10-year note 13 basis points, or 0.13 percentage point, to 2.74 percent at 9:32 a.m. in New York. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose 0.2 percent to 1,750.53.
Photographer: Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg Employee Teron Stewart works on a Ford Motor Co. Focus at the company's Michigan... Read More Employee Teron Stewart works on a Ford Motor Co. Focus at the company's Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Michigan, U.S., on Monday, Oct. 7, 2013. Close Close Open Photographer: Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg Employee Teron Stewart works on a Ford Motor Co. Focus at the company's Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Michigan, U.S., on Monday, Oct. 7, 2013.
Factory Jobs
Payrolls increased at manufacturers by the most since February, retailers added about twice as many workers as the month before, and leisure and hospitality employment was the strongest in six months.
Animated Graphic: What the Jobs Report Really Means
Among those finding work was Blair Landen, 22, who was hired in October after her one-month internship at rehabilitation-product maker Saebo Inc.
She had been looking for positions since the spring, before her graduation from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. When applying and interviewing for jobs yielded little, she started networking, creating a spreadsheet with about 70 contacts that eventually helped her find her current position.
“It was a very frustrating process,” said Landen, who now lives in Charlotte. “When you talk to 10 people, you might have one person who has a lead on a company that’s hiring right now - - maybe. It’s kind of like a never-ending cycle.”
Holiday Hiring
Retailers boosting hiring ahead of the holiday shopping season include Amazon.com Inc. The world’s largest online retailer is creating more than 70,000 full-time seasonal jobs in its U.S. fulfillment centers and expects to convert “thousands” of those positions to permanent roles after the season ends as it did in 2012, according to a statement.
Bloomberg survey estimates ranged from increases of 50,000 to 175,000. Revisions to prior reports added a total of 60,000 jobs to overall payrolls reports in the previous two months. The report, delayed by the shutdown, was originally slated for Nov. 1.
The difference between today’s outcome on payrolls and the average estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 3.4 times larger than the poll’s standard deviation, or the average divergence between what each economist forecast and the mean. That was the biggest surprise since April.
Jobless Rate
The unemployment rate, derived from a separate Labor Department survey of households rather than employers, was forecast to rise to 7.3 percent from September’s 7.2 percent, according to the Bloomberg survey median. The household figures showed more Americans dropped out of the labor force.
As many as 800,000 federal workers were furloughed during last month’s government shutdown. The Labor Department, in its survey of 60,000 households, extrapolated the effects of the impasse to arrive at the unemployment rate. Americans who weren’t working during the week spanning Oct. 6 to Oct. 12 were counted in the household survey as unemployed, even if they received, or anticipated getting, pay retroactively, based on a statement from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“You really want to see how the job market does in November before making any assessments about the underlying health of the job market,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania, who correctly projected the rise in the unemployment rate to 7.3 percent. “There are a lot of things pushing and pulling on the October numbers.”
Pay Period
The separate survey of employers asked about the pay period that includes the 12th of the month, and anyone receiving pay for any part of the period was counted as part of the payroll tally, the Labor Department said.
The participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, decreased to 62.8 percent, the lowest since March 1978, from 63.2 percent a month earlier.
Private employment, which excludes government agencies, rose 212,000 after a revised advance of 150,000. They were projected to rise by 125,000, the survey showed.
Factories added 19,000 workers in October, reflecting in part gains in the automobile industry. Retailers added 44,400 jobs and employment in the leisure industry climbed 53,000.
Government employment decreased by 8,000 in October as federal agencies cut payrolls.
Average hourly earnings increased by 0.1 percent to $24.10 in October from the prior month, and climbed 2.2 percent over the past 12 months.
The average work week for all private workers held at 34.4 hours in October.
Federal Contractors
Workers at America’s top federal contractors were among those affected by the lapse in appropriations. Lockheed Martin Corp., which had $36.9 billion in government contracts in 2012, put 2,400 workers on leave the second week of October.
URS Corp., a provider of engineering and construction services, furloughed about 3,000 employees, saying the total includes employees idled by the closing of a government facility where they work as well as those directed by U.S. officials to halt operations or cut staffing.
A report yesterday showed household purchases and business spending on equipment slowed in the third quarter, even as buildup in inventories unexpectedly boosted the pace of economic growth.
The 2.8 percent annualized gain in gross domestic product followed a 2.5 percent increase in the prior three months, Commerce Department figures showed. Final sales, which exclude unsold goods, rose 2 percent in the third quarter as consumer spending climbed at the slowest pace since 2011 and corporate investment fell.
In the three months ended in September, payrolls climbed 143,000 on average, less than the 195,000-a-month gain in the first half of 2013. Through September, the U.S. had recovered 7 million of the 8.7 million jobs lost as a result of the 18-month recession that ended in June 2009.
Fed policy makers said last week they needed to see more evidence the economy will continue to improve before they trim $85 billion in monthly purchases of Treasury and mortgage debt. Fiscal policy “is restraining economic growth,” the Federal Open Market Committee said Oct. 30 at the end of a two-day meeting in Washington.
To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Stilwell in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at [email protected] ||||| WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. economy added 204,000 jobs in October, double Wall Street’s forecast, despite a government shutdown that was expected to put a damper on hiring.
Hiring for September and August was revised up by a combined 60,000 jobs, the Labor Department said Friday. The revised gains along with the big increase in hiring in October suggested the economy might have more strength than previously thought.
Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected an increase of 100,000 jobs in October. In recent action, U.S. stock markets rose, after investors decided that the strong employment report probably won’t spur the Federal Reserve to taper its bond-purchase program much sooner than expected.
Most economists expect the Fed to scale back its stimulus in early 2014, though the latest increased in jobs raises the odds of the bank moving in December.
“We believe that this report is significant enough to increase the probability of a December taper to around 35% if November’s economic data show a continuation of this trend,” predicted Doug Handler, chief U.S. economist of IHS Global Insight.
Bloomberg
The unemployment rate ticked up to 7.3% from 7.2% in what was likely a residue of the government shutdown. Federal workers were classified as unemployed under the government’s method for calculating the unemployment rate. Indeed, the number of people who said they were temporarily laid off soared by 448,000 in October, an unusually large increase that probably will revert back to normal in November.
The shutdown also contributed to a 720,000 decline in the size of the labor force, which tugged the participation rate down to 62.8% from 63.2%. That’s the fewest percentage of able-bodied people 16 or older looking for work since March 1978.
The largest slice of hiring in October took place at retailers, bars, restaurants and hotels — lower-paying establishments that tend to boost hiring temporarily for the holiday season. Those industries added a combined 97,000 jobs.
Yet almost every industry aside from government added workers, the Labor Department reported. Manufacturers added 19,000 positions in a reflection of rising demand for heavy-duty products. Professional and technical jobs rose by 21,000 and the steadily growing health-care sector hired 15,000 people as the nation prepares for the launch of President Obama’s health-care law.
“U.S. businesses largely shrugged off the government shutdown and ramped up hiring in October, suggesting more underlying strength in the U.S. economy than we thought,” said Sal Guatieri, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.
Government was one of the few losers. The number of federal jobs fell by 12,000, cutting government employment by 94,000 over the past year.
Still, the surprising increase in overall jobs raises questions about whether the shutdown distorted the government’s normal process of collecting data. Read: How believable is the jobs report?
Labor officials said the response rate to its establishment survey used to determine the number of jobs created was higher than normal because they had more time to collect responses. That could mean the preliminary number is more accurate than usual and won’t change as much when the report undergoes further revisions in the next two months.
Click to Play WSJ analysis: October jobs report Job creation accelerated in October as payrolls advanced by 204,000, exceeding economists' expectations. WSJ's economics team takes a look at the numbers and how they could impact Fed policy, plus, an update on the markets. Photo: Getty Images.
A more telling sign that the economy is showing greater resilience than most economists believed were the revisions for September and August. The number of new jobs created in September was raised to 163,000 from 148,000, while August’s figure was increased to 238,000 from 193,000.
The job gains in October and August were the second and third strongest performances of the year. Over the past three months, the U.S. has added an average of 202,000 jobs, the best stretch of hiring since the end of 2012 and early 2013.
More hiring, however, hasn’t translated into much faster wage growth, probably since the bulk of new jobs have been created in lower-wage industries. Average hourly wages edged up 2 cents to $24.10, putting the year-over-year increase at 2.2%. That’s just slightly faster than the rate of inflation.
The average workweek was unchanged at 34.4 hours. ||||| National Archives
Yes, it’s that time again, folks. For one ever-so-brief moment the interests of Wall Street, Washington and Main Street are all aligned on one thing: Jobs.
A fresh update on the U.S. employment situation for October hit the wires at 8:30 a.m. New York time offering one of the most important snapshots on how the economy fared last month. The economy added 204,000 jobs in October, well above economists’ expectations for 120,000 new jobs created. The unemployment rate ticked up to 7.3%, from 7.2%.
Here at MoneyBeat HQ, we’ll be offering color commentary and tracking the markets before and after the data crosses the wires. Feel free to weigh-in yourself, via the comments section. And while you’re here, why don’t you sign up to follow us on Twitter .
Enjoy the show. ||||| The U.S. economy added 204,000 jobs in October, an unexpected burst of hiring during a month in which the federal government was partially shut down for 16 days.
The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate rose to 7.3 percent from 7.2 percent in September, likely because furloughed federal workers were counted as unemployed. The report noted that the shutdown did not affect total jobs.
Employers also added 60,000 more jobs in the previous two months than earlier estimated.
The figures show hiring has picked up in the fall. Employers added an average of 202,000 jobs from August through October, up from 146,000 from May through July.
Stock futures fell after the report was released at 8:30 a.m. EDT, and the yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose. That suggests investors are worried that the better job numbers will prompt the Federal Reserve to pull back on its stimulus efforts sooner than expected.
One troubling detail in the report: the percentage of Americans working or looking for work fell to a fresh 35-year low. But that figure was likely distorted by the shutdown, too.
About 800,000 government workers were furloughed for all or part of the shutdown, which lasted from Oct. 1 through Oct. 16. Many were counted as unemployed and on temporary layoff for purposes of the unemployment rate.
But the furloughed workers were still counted as employed by the government's survey that counts jobs because they were ultimately paid for their time off. Federal government jobs fell only 12,000 last month.
Some reports have hinted that hiring was improving. Retail stores, shipping companies, and other services firms stepped up hiring in October, according to private survey of service firms.
And the number of people seeking unemployment benefits has fallen back to pre-recession levels after four weeks of declines. Unemployment benefit applications are a proxy for layoffs. The steady decline suggests companies are cutting fewer jobs.
Economic growth accelerated in the July-September quarter to an annual rate of 2.8 percent, the government said Thursday. That's up from 2.5 percent in the April-June quarter.
But greater restocking by businesses drove much of the increase, a trend that may not be sustainable. Consumers and businesses both cut back on spending over the summer. | Last month's government shutdown was supposed to throw a wet blanket on this morning's jobs numbers, but they turned out to be fairly strong. The economy added 204,000 jobs in October, almost double what analysts expected, reports the AP, which calls it an "unexpected burst of hiring." The unemployment rate, meanwhile, ticked up slightly from 7.2% to 7.3%, but it's the payroll numbers drawing the most attention. They're a "startling surprise," writes Prabha Natarajan at the Wall Street Journal. MarketWatch calls the report "stunning" in its headline but notes the downside: Because it suggests the economy is doing better than expected, investors fear that could cause the Fed to change its tapering policy accordingly. As a result, the markets aren't expected to react kindly. "The government shutdown really didn’t have a material impact on employment," an economist tells Bloomberg. "The labor market is actually quite healthy, regardless of what people may think. The economy is doing better." |
This secrecy is common among women undergoing reduction to a singleton. Doctors who perform the procedure, aware of the stigma, tell patients to be cautious about revealing their decision. (All but one of the patients I spoke with insisted on anonymity.) Some patients are so afraid of being treated with disdain that they withhold this information from the obstetrician who will deliver their child.
Photo
What is it about terminating half a twin pregnancy that seems more controversial than reducing triplets to twins or aborting a single fetus? After all, the math’s the same either way: one fewer fetus. Perhaps it’s because twin reduction (unlike abortion) involves selecting one fetus over another, when either one is equally wanted. Perhaps it’s our culture’s idealized notion of twins as lifelong soul mates, two halves of one whole. Or perhaps it’s because the desire for more choices conflicts with our discomfort about meddling with ever more aspects of reproduction.
No agency tracks how many reductions occur in the United States, but those who offer the procedure report that demand for reduction to a singleton, while still fairly rare, is rising. Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, one of the largest providers of the procedure, reported that by 1997, 15 percent of reductions were to a singleton. Last year, by comparison, 61 of the center’s 101 reductions were to a singleton, and 38 of those pregnancies started as twins.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
That shift has made some doctors in the field uneasy, and many who perform pregnancy reductions refuse to go below twins. After being rebuffed by physicians close to home, Jenny went online and found Dr. Joanne Stone, the highly regarded head of Mount Sinai’s maternal-fetal-medicine unit. Jenny traveled thousands of miles to get there. She still resents the first doctor back home who told her she shouldn’t reduce twins and another who dismissively told her to just buck up and buy diapers in bulk.
Even some people who support abortion rights admit to feeling queasy about reduction to a singleton. “I completely respect and support a woman’s choice,” one commentator wrote on UrbanBaby.com, referring to a woman who said she reduced her pregnancy to protect her marriage and finances. One fetus was male, the other female, and the woman eliminated the male because she already had a son. “Something about that whole situation just seemed unethical to me,” the commentator continued. “I just couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I terminated my daughter’s perfectly healthy twin brother.”
Dr. Mark Evans, an obstetrician and geneticist, was among the first to reduce a pregnancy. He quickly became one of the procedure’s most visible and busiest practitioners, as well as one of the most prolific authors on the topic. Early on, Evans decided the industry needed guidelines, and in 1988, he and an ethicist with the National Institutes of Health issued them. One of their central tenets was that most reductions below twins violated ethical principles.
Two years later, as demand for twin reductions climbed, Evans published another journal article, arguing that reduction to singletons “crosses the line between doing a procedure for a medical indication versus one for a social indication.” He urged his colleagues to resist becoming “technicians to our patients’ desires.”
The justification for eliminating some fetuses in a multiple pregnancy was always to increase a woman’s chance of bringing home a healthy baby, because medical risks rise with every fetus she carries. The procedure, which is usually performed around Week 12 of a pregnancy, involves a fatal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal chest. The dead fetus shrivels over time and remains in the womb until delivery. Some physicians found reduction unnerving, particularly because the procedure is viewed under ultrasound, making it quite visually explicit, which is not the case with abortion. Still, even some doctors who opposed abortion agreed that it was better to save some fetuses than risk them all.
Through the early 1990s, the medical consensus was that reducing pregnancies of quadruplets or quintuplets clearly improved the health of the woman and her offspring. Doctors disagreed about whether to reduce those to triplets or twins and about whether to reduce triplet gestations at all. But as ultrasound equipment improved and doctors gained technical expertise, the procedure triggered fewer miscarriages, and many doctors concluded that reducing a triplet gestation to twins was safer than a triplet birth. Going below twins, though, was usually out of the question.
In 2004, however, Evans publicly reversed his stance, announcing in a major obstetrics journal that he now endorsed twin reductions. For one thing, as more women in their 40s and 50s became pregnant (often thanks to donor eggs), they pushed for two-to-one reductions for social reasons. Evans understood why these women didn’t want to be in their 60s worrying about two tempestuous teenagers or two college-tuition bills. He noted that many of the women were in second marriages, and while they wanted to create a child with their new spouse, they did not want two, especially if they had children from a previous marriage. Others had deferred child rearing for careers or education, or were single women tired of waiting for the right partner. Whatever the particulars, these patients concluded that they lacked the resources to deal with the chaos, stereophonic screaming and exhaustion of raising twins.
Evans’s new position wasn’t just a reaction to changing demographics. The calculus of risks had also changed. For one thing, he argued, in experienced hands like his, the procedure rarely prompted a miscarriage. For another, recent studies had revealed that the risks of twin pregnancies were greater than previously thought. They carried an increased chance of prematurity, low birth weight and cerebral palsy in the babies and gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia in the mother. Marking what he called a “juncture in the cultural evolution of human understanding of twins,” Evans concluded that “parents who choose to reduce twins to a singleton may have a higher likelihood of taking home a baby than pregnancies remaining with twins.” He became convinced that everyone carrying twins, through reproductive technology or not, should at least know that reduction was an option. “Ethics,” he said, “evolve with technology.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Many doctors, including some who do reduction to a singleton, dispute Evans’s conclusions, pointing out that while twin pregnancies carry more risks than singleton pregnancies, most twins (especially fraternal) do just fine. Dr. Richard Berkowitz, a perinatologist at Columbia University Medical Center who was an early practitioner of pregnancy reduction, says: “The overwhelming majority of women carrying twins are going to be able to deliver two healthy babies.” Though Berkowitz insists that there is no clear medical benefit to reducing below twins, he will do it at a patient’s request. “In a society where women can terminate a single pregnancy for any reason — financial, social, emotional — if we have a way to reduce a twin pregnancy with very little risk, isn’t it legitimate to offer that service to women with twins who want to reduce to a singleton?”
Berkowitz gave me a short history of reduction. Perinatology’s goal is to improve pregnancy outcomes, he said. Reduction began as part of that effort: losing some fetuses for the sake of others. But its role evolved into something quite different, as patients requested elective reduction to a singleton. “The only reason we’re the ones doing that is because we’re the ones who have the skills to do it, but that’s not why we got those skills,” he said. “It didn’t start with people who conceived twins and said, ‘I only want one’; it ended up with that.”
Other doctors refuse to reduce below twins unless the pregnancy presents unusual medical concerns. Among them is Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia and another reduction pioneer. Sometime in the late 1990s, when Wapner practiced in Philadelphia, he received his first two-to-one request. “She said, ‘Either reduce me to a singleton, or I’ll end the pregnancy.’ ” He consulted his staff, all women, and they concluded that if a woman can choose to end a pregnancy, she can reduce from two to one. Besides, in this case, the team would be saving a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.
As word spread, a stream of patients called Wapner’s office, scheduling reductions to a singleton. A few months later, after the last patient of the day left, the sonographer who had worked with Wapner for nearly 20 years stopped at his office. She told me what happened next, on condition of anonymity because she doesn’t want her relatives to know everything her work entails: “I told him I just wasn’t comfortable doing a termination of a healthy baby for social reasons, and that if we were going to do a lot of these elective reductions, I thought he should bring in someone else who was more comfortable. From the beginning, I had wrestled with the whole idea of doing reductions, because I was raised in the church. And after a lot of soul searching, I had decided there were truly good medical reasons to reducing higher-order multiples to twins. But I had a hard time reconciling doing reductions two to one. So I said to Dr. Wapner, ‘Is this really the business we want to be in?’ ”
Wapner immediately called a meeting with his staff. Every one of them — the sonographer, the genetic counselors, the schedulers — supported abortion rights, but all confessed their growing unease with reductions to a singleton. “There’s no medical justification in a normal twin pregnancy to reduce to one,” Wapner said. “So we decided to allocate our resources to those who would get the most benefit. We were in the business to improve pregnancy outcomes, and those reductions didn’t fit the criteria.” He hasn’t done an elective two-to-one reduction since.
Evans estimates that the majority of doctors who perform reductions will not go below twins. Shelby Van Voris was pregnant with triplets when she discovered this for herself. After she and her husband tried for three years to get pregnant, they went to a fertility doctor near their home in Savannah, Ga. He put Shelby, then 30, on fertility drugs, and when that didn’t work, he ramped things up with injections. By then, her husband, a 33-year-old Army officer, had been deployed to Iraq. He left behind three vials of sperm, and she was artificially inseminated. “You do weird things when mortars are flying at your husband’s head,” she said. She soon found out she was carrying triplets. Frantic, she yelled at the doctor: “This is not an option for us! I want only one!”
Her fertility specialist referred her to a doctor in Atlanta who did reductions. But when Shelby called, the office manager told her that she would have to pay extra for temporary staff to assist with the procedure, because the regular staff refused to reduce pregnancies below twins. She contacted three more doctors, and in each case was told: not below two. “It was horrible,” she says. “I felt like the pregnancy was a monster, and I just wanted it out, but because we tried for so long, abortion wasn’t an option. My No. 1 priority was to be the best mom I could be, but how was I supposed to juggle two newborns or two screaming infants while my husband was away being shot at? We don’t have family just sitting around waiting to get called to help me with a baby.”
Eventually, she heard about Evans and flew to New York for the procedure. “I said, ‘You choose whoever is going to be safe and healthy,’ ” she says. “I didn’t give him any other criteria. I didn’t choose gender. None of that was up for grabs, because I had to make it as ethically O.K. for me as I could. But I wanted only one.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
She paid $6,500 for the reduction and left Evans’s office incredibly relieved. “I went out on that street with my mother and jumped up and down saying: ‘I’m pregnant! I’m pregnant!’ And then I went and bought baby clothes for the first time.”
Today, her daughter is 2½ years old. Shelby intends to tell her about the reduction someday, to teach her that women have choices, even if they’re sometimes difficult. “I am the mother of a very demanding toddler,” she says. “I can’t imagine this times two, and not ever knowing if I’d have another person here to help me. This is what I can handle. I’m good with this. But that’s all.”
Who doesn’t want to create a more certain and comfortable future for themselves and their children? The more that science makes that possible, the more it has inflated our expectations of what family life should be. We’ve come to believe that the improvements are not only our due but also our responsibility. Just look at the revolution in attitudes toward selecting egg or sperm donors. In the 1970s, when sperm donation took off, most clients were married women with infertile husbands; many couples didn’t want to know about the source of the donation. Today patients in the United States can choose donors based not only on their height, hair color and ethnicity but also on their academic and athletic accomplishments, temperament, hairiness and even the length of a donor’s eyelashes.
Sheena Iyengar, a social psychologist at Columbia Business School and the author of “The Art of Choosing,” suggests that limitless choice is a particularly American ideal. In a talk at a TED conference last year in Oxford, England, Iyengar said that “the story upon which the American dream depends is the story of limitless choice. This narrative promises so much: freedom, happiness, success. It lays the world at your feet and says you can have anything, everything.” Nevertheless, she subsequently told me, “we are in the midst of a choice revolution right now, where we’re trying to figure out where the ethical boundaries should be.”
Photo
Reduction is hardly the only area in which reproductive innovation has outpaced cultural consensus. Americans disagree bitterly about abortion. They also debate the ethics of egg donation, sex selection, gestational surrogacy and menopausal women being impregnated with younger women’s fertilized eggs. And yet all these options are now available, at least to those who are well heeled or well insured.
The ability of women to control their fertility has created all kinds of welcome choices. “But the dark lining of that otherwise very silver cloud is that you make the choice of when to get pregnant, and so you feel really responsible for its consequences, like do you have enough money to do it well, and are you going to be able to provide your child with everything you think you ought to provide?” says Josephine Johnston, a bioethicist at the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., who focuses on assisted reproduction. “In an environment where you can have so many choices, you own the outcome in a way that you wouldn’t have, had the choices not existed. If reduction didn’t exist, women wouldn’t worry that by not reducing, they’re at fault for making life more difficult for their existing kids. In an odd way, having more choices actually places a much greater burden on women, because we become the creators of our circumstance, whereas, before, we were the recipients of them. I’m not saying we should have less choices; I’m saying choices are not always as liberating and empowering as we hope they will be.”
Consider the choice of which fetus to eliminate: if both appear healthy (which is typical with twins), doctors aim for whichever one is easier to reach. If both are equally accessible, the decision of who lives and who dies is random. To the relief of patients, it’s the doctor who chooses — with one exception. If the fetuses are different sexes, some doctors ask the parents which one they want to keep.
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.
Until the last decade, most doctors refused even to broach that question, but that ethical demarcation has eroded, as ever more patients lobby for that option and doctors discover that plenty opt for girls. Some patients, like Shelby Van Voris, want no part in the decision. Others say that as much as they hate the idea of choosing based on sex, if there’s a choice to be made, they want to be the ones to make it.
Society judges reproductive choices based on the motives behind them. Though roughly half of Americans identify as “pro-choice” and half as “pro-life,” polls also show the distinction blurs depending on why the woman is aborting. If a woman is the victim of incest or rape, or if her health is threatened, far more people — including abortion opponents — understand her choice to end the pregnancy. Support falls off if a woman aborts for financial reasons and is lowest of all if she aborts because of the fetus’s sex.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Think about the common reaction to a woman who aborts because contraception failed versus a woman (and her partner) who took no precaution at all. “It changes our judgment of the moral character of the individual making the abortion decision,” says Bonnie Steinbock, a philosophy professor at SUNY Albany who is on the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. “In the first case, it wasn’t her ‘fault’; in the second, it was. It doesn’t mean the careless person shouldn’t have the right to an abortion, but it does mean we’re going to have a very different reaction to that choice.” Likewise, people may judge two-to-one reductions more harshly because the fertility treatment that yielded the pregnancy significantly increased the chance of multiples. “People may think, You brought this about yourself, so you should be willing to take some of the risk,” Steinbock says.
Women who reduce to singletons sometimes think the same thing. “Most of the two-to-one patients have gone to incredible lengths to get pregnant,” Donna Steinberg, a clinical psychologist in Manhattan who specializes in counseling infertility patients, says. “They’ve paid a lot of money and put their bodies through tremendous stress, and they’ve gotten what they wanted — and now they’re going to reduce? Outsiders think, How is that possible? And that’s also where the patients’ guilt comes from.”
It’s not only the parents who may feel guilty. Even if parents work hard to conceal it, the child may discover the full story of his or her origins, and we don’t know what feelings of guilt or vulnerability or loss this discovery might summon.
The doctors who do reductions sometimes sense their patients’ unease, and they work to assuage it. “I do spend quite a bit of time going through the medical risks of twins with them, because it takes away a little bit of the guilt they feel,” says Stone, the Mount Sinai doctor. Sometimes, she says, couples disagree about whether to reduce a twin pregnancy, and she encourages them to see a therapist so they can be at peace with whatever they decide.
One of Stone’s patients, a New York woman, was certain that she wanted to reduce from twins to a singleton. Her husband yielded because she would be the one carrying the pregnancy and would stay at home to raise them. They came up with a compromise. “I asked not to see any of the ultrasounds,” he said. “I didn’t want to have that image, the image of two. I didn’t want to torture myself. And I didn’t go in for the procedure either, because less is more for me.” His wife was relieved that her husband remained in the waiting room; she, too, didn’t want to deal with his feelings.
In some ways, the reasons for reducing to a singleton are not so different from the decision to abort a pregnancy because prenatal tests reveal anomalies. In both cases, the pregnancies are wanted, but not when they entail unwanted complications — complications for the parents as much as the child. Many studies show the vast majority of patients abort fetuses after prenatal tests reveal genetic conditions like Down syndrome that are not life-threatening. What drives that decision is not just concern over the quality of life for the future child but also the emotional, financial or social difficulty for parents of having a child with extra needs. As with reducing two healthy fetuses to one, the underlying premise is the same: this is not what I want for my life.
That was the thinking of Dr. Naomi Bloomfield, an obstetrician near Albany who found out she was pregnant with twins when her first child was not quite a year old. “I couldn’t have imagined reducing twins for nonmedical reasons,” she said, “but I had an amnio and would have had an abortion if I found out that one of the babies had an anomaly, even if it wasn’t life-threatening. I didn’t want to raise a handicapped child. Some people would call that selfish, but I wouldn’t. Parents who abort for an anomaly just don’t want that life for themselves, and it’s their prerogative to fashion their lives how they want. Is terminating two to one really any different morally?”
I was eight weeks pregnant when my husband and I, with our 2-year-old daughter in tow, visited friends who had recently had twins. Our friends, two of the most laid-back parents we knew, looked exhausted, beaten, overrun. Between their infants and their 3-year-old, it seemed someone was always hungry, howling or filling a diaper. The second my husband and I stepped into our car to drive home, we said in unintentional unison, “Thank God we’re not having twins.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
One week later, I began to cramp and bleed, so my midwife did an ultrasound to see if I had miscarried. The fetus was fine. It wasn’t, however, alone. “Twins,” the midwife announced cheerfully. My terror was instantaneous, and for the next few days, I could not seem to grab enough oxygen to breathe. Aborting half the pregnancy didn’t occur to us — who knew it would even be doable? — but for a few panicky hours, we wondered if it was possible to give one up for adoption.
I was right to be afraid. Studies report enormous disruption in families with multiples, and higher levels of social isolation, exhaustion and depression in mothers of twins. The incessant demands of caring for two same-aged babies eclipse the needs of other children and the marriage. It certainly did for us. There’s no doubt that life with twins and a third child so close in age has often felt all-consuming and out of control. And yet the thought of not having any one of them is unbearable now, because they are no longer shadowy fetuses but full-fledged human beings whom I love in a huge and aching way.
Plenty of infertility patients who conceive twins are ecstatic from the start about getting a two-for-one deal; some studies indicate that the majority of I.V.F. patients prefer twins. Though most doctors don’t believe reduction below twins is medically justified, they do argue that it is best to avoid a multiple pregnancy from the outset. Fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization both markedly increase the chance of multiples. About 5 to 20 percent of pregnancies from fertility drugs turn out to be twins or higher, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and half of babies conceived through I.V.F. are part of a multiple pregnancy. Perinatologists and obstetricians have lobbied fertility specialists to use ovulation-inducing drugs more judiciously and to transfer fewer embryos into their patients. Over the past few years, the campaign has resulted in fewer pregnancies of triplets and up, but the number of twin pregnancies continues to climb. Clearly there is room for improvement. The problem is that for all the choices and opportunities that fertility treatments offer, there is still a lot that doctors cannot control.
A. and her partner had been together 15 years when they decided to get serious about having children. Because both women were 45, they tried to double their already slim chances by both being inseminated. They each tried it three times; nothing took. At their doctor’s suggestion, they chose an egg donor in her mid-20s. Both women went through I.V.F., each with two embryos transferred. Both women got pregnant, but A. quickly miscarried. Her partner (who did not want to be identified, even by an initial) gave birth to a healthy boy, whom they adore. A. did another round of I.V.F. with frozen embryos, hoping to provide their son with a sibling. It didn’t work. So when their boy was nearly a year old, both women underwent I.V.F. again. Given A.’s fertility history, the doctor predicted she had just a 5 percent chance of getting pregnant.
On their son’s first birthday, both women found out they were pregnant, both with twins. Four in all. “In our wildest expectations, we never imagined being in this situation,” A. said. “We both went through I.V.F. before, and we came out with one baby. We did it exactly the same way as last time, so we never expected this.”
A. and her partner were sick, physically and emotionally. Because A. had already miscarried once, her doctor worried she might not carry two to term; if she reduced, the doctor said, she had a better chance of taking a baby home. The women were tempted to reduce both pregnancies, so each woman would carry one, in part to ensure that even if one miscarried, they would have at least one baby. “But we discovered that the reality of having two pregnant moms when you have a 14-month-old is insane. We’ve both been very ill from the pregnancies, and it’s been hard to give him what he needs. At 14 months, they’re inquisitive and energetic, and it was becoming harder and harder to chase him and get him up and down the slide. There were days I’d be in the bathroom throwing up, she’d be on all fours with him, and then we’d switch. We all think we can conquer the world, but then reality hits you, and you realize you have limitations.”
For the sake of the boy they already had, they decided to reduce A.’s pregnancy to one, and right after that A.’s partner lost her whole pregnancy. “I don’t wish this on anyone,” A. says. “I’m very grateful that we had this option at our disposal, that it can be done safely and in a legal way, but it was very difficult for both of us. I still wonder, Did we choose the right one? — even though I wasn’t the one who chose. That idea, that one’s gone and one’s here, it’s almost like playing God. I mean, who are we to choose? Even as it was happening, I wondered what the future would have been if the doctor had put the needle into the other one.”
The women have told no one in their families, no colleagues and only one friend.
I asked A. what would happen if she wound up losing the pregnancy after all.
“We’ve talked a lot about it,” she said, after a bit. “I’ve come to realize there’s only so much we can control. There’s a point where you just have to let nature take its course.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Their baby is due in December. ||||| What's worse than an abortion? Half an abortion.
It sounds like a bad joke. But it's real. According to Sunday's New York Times Magazine, demand is rising for "reduction" procedures in which a woman carrying twins keeps one and has the other aborted. Since twin pregnancies are generally safe, these abortions are largely elective.
Across the pro-choice blogosphere, including Slate, the article has provoked discomfort. RH Reality Check, a website dedicated to abortion rights, ran an item voicing qualms with one woman's reduction decision. Jezebel, another pro-choice site, acknowledged the "complicated ethics" of reduction. Frances Kissling, a longtime reproductive rights leader, wrote a Washington Post essay asking whether women should forgo fertility treatment rather than risk a twin pregnancy they'd end up half-aborting.
Advertisement
In comments on these articles, pro-choice readers express similar misgivings. "Even as a woman who has terminated a pregnancy, I totally understand the author's apprehension … something about it just doesn't feel right," says a Slate reader. A commenter at Jezebel writes that "if I were put in the position and decided to/needed to abort a single fetus, I could. But if I knew that I was keeping the baby and it turned out to be twins, I don't think I could have a reduction."
To pro-lifers and hardcore pro-choicers, this queasiness seems odd. After all, a reduction is an abortion. If anything, reduction should be less problematic than ordinary abortion, since one life is deliberately being spared. Why, then, does reduction unsettle so many pro-choicers?
For some, the issue seems to be a consumer mentality in assisted reproduction. For others, it's the deliberateness of getting pregnant, especially by IVF, without being prepared to accept the consequences. But the main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the center of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort.
Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."
This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."
Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.
Sophie's Choice is a common theme in abortion decisions. To give your existing kids the attention and resources they'll need, you have to terminate your fetus. This rationale fits the pro-choice calculus that born children are worth more than unborn ones. But in the case of reduction, the child for whom you're reserving attention and resources is equally unborn. She is, and will always be, a living reminder of what you exterminated.
This is what tortures pro-choicers. "I just couldn't sleep at night knowing that I terminated my daughter's perfectly healthy twin brother," says a commenter in the Times story. A Jezebel reader worries about "all the poor surviving twins who will one day find out that their other is missing." Another Jezebel reader writes:
I'd have a much easier time aborting a single baby or both twins than doing a reduction. When you reduce, the remaining twin will remain a persistent reminder of the unborn child. I think that, more than anything would make killing that fetus feel like killing another human, even though it wasn't fully developed. It would feel that way because you would have a living copy of the person you killed.
That's the anguish of reduction: watching the fetus you spared become what its twin will never be. And knowing that the only difference between them was your will.
Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Human Nature's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:
Latest Twitter Updates Follow William Saletan on Twitter.
Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. ||||| Anyone who spends a lot of time researching infertility and its treatments has at some point waded into the controversy surrounding selective reduction. Whether it's the doctor who implants three or more embryos during in vitro fertilization, just hoping to improve the odds that one will implant, or the over-stimulation of eggs during an intrauterine insemination that results in the cases of sextuplets or octuplets that never make the news, any woman undergoing treatment knows about the possibility of more embryos or fetuses than she hoped, and the likely need to reduce via abortion in order to make for a greater chance for a healthier pregnancy that will result in full term, healthy babies.
The possibility of needing abortion, just like the possibility or failure, or of miscarriage, is always in the back of a woman's mind.
So it doesn't bother me per se to read an article about a woman who is choosing to abort one twin, despite both fetuses being healthy and the result of round after round of fertility treatments.
That is, until I read this section:
“Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
If she had gotten pregnant on her own, she would have been willing to keep both twins, but since it was already "so consumerish" she didn't feel like the same "rules" applied? I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone would abort a twin just because of the way the pregnancy was conceived. If you feel that it was somehow part of the "natural order" for twins without intervention, why would medical assistance change that mindset?
Am I overreacting? Maybe I'm alone in this? Let me know in the comments.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty ||||| Be fruitful and subtract?
The First Commandment
“Be fruitful and multiply,” the first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve, is a frequent subject of interpretation by Christians as our understanding of the world and the conditions that face humanity have changed over time.
Modern technology --safe, reliable birth control and safe and legal abortion--has made it possible to multiply judiciously and create new persons thoughtfully. Additionally, those who want to have children but are not ‘fruitful” are now able, through a range of modern and not so modern methods from surrogacy to ART (assisted reproductive technologies), to have children.
Single people, gay couples; almost all can now become parents. But new ethical dilemmas arise daily. Remember Octomom -Nadya Suleman who gave birth to a set of octuplets in January 2009 and conceived through in vitro fertilization from a donor? Suleman became one of the most reviled women in America with popular reaction condemning her as irresponsible. Not only did she have eight kids at once, but also she already had six and was experiencing financial hardship. Professional ethicists and policy makers called for limits on the number of embryos that could be implanted during ART to prevent future extreme multiple births.
Natural vs. ‘Artificial’ Pregnancy
This week’s Sunday New York Times Magazine is likely to generate comparable reactions and reflection. “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” details the use of selective reduction by women who are pregnant with twins. The Times notes that selective reduction, usually is “performed around week 12 of a pregnancy [and] involves a fatal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal chest. The dead fetus shrivels over time and remains in the womb until delivery.” The procedure has long been used in cases where ART results in multiple fetuses, reducing three or more fetuses to twins. Such procedures were medically indicated to increase the chance of successful full term delivery of healthy babies. The Times piece describes the shift from multiple reduction to requests for selective reduction of twins to singles from women who are carrying twins naturally conceived as well as those conceived through ART.
No doubt the women profiled in the story are going to be judged, probably harshly for their decisions. There is little sympathy or understanding of what pregnancy and child rearing means for women. While small families are the American norm, there is a cultural attraction to the “Eight Is Not Enough” way of thinking with several reality TV shows demonstrating how easy it is to be happy and healthy with a slew of kids. The fact that the women in the Times story feared that twins would be “too much” is likely to be considered wimpy at best; selfish at worst
In the opening story, the Times article details a twin pregnancy that resulted from ART and a middle-aged couple who already had grade school children. Twins, the couple felt, would “soak up” the attention needed by the existing children.
But more complicated factors played into and perhaps sealed the mother Jenny’s decision. She notes, “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner - in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me - and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
Control a Virtue or Vice?
These are big ethical questions - a “natural order” one would not challenge ( yet many naturally-conceived pregnancies are aborted); reproduction reduced to the exercise of consumer choice including the ability to extend your reproductive years and even the definition of infertility itself. Jenny, after all, had children when she was younger but for unexplained reasons wanted more after menopause; so much so that she underwent multiple ART interventions over six years before becoming pregnant this time. The drive to have or not be pregnant and to mother is incredibly strong. And finally, that very ugly word - control. Control over fertility. Control over sexuality. Control. Is control over reproduction a virtue or a vice? And in either case are there limits and boundaries?
For most of human history our control over reproduction and even the survival of the children we created was limited. If we chose to have sex - and most humans did - multiplication was inevitable.
When the personal or social pressures of reproduction became too much, infants and children were deliberately drowned or left in the woods, on a mountain ledge to die. Even without intention, significant numbers of children died simply because there were too many of them in a family to be sustained or their mothers died in bearing them. Most women accepted the unrelenting cycle of pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, pregnancy, ad infinitum that governed their reproductive lives, although historical narratives are filled with the fear pregnancy and childbirth held for women. Futile efforts to figure out how to prevent pregnancy and dangerous efforts to abort some of the pregnancies they failed to prevent are part of the narrative of women’s lives. Dead women were a tragic routine result of “multiplying.” Men simply took another wife. Women were urged by church and state to keep multiplying.
When advocates of reproductive choice confront the ethical dilemmas that selective reduction of twin pregnancies raise, they are likely to retreat to the mantra of choice.
After all, if it is moral to decide for the abortion of one fetus or many for whatever reason a woman considers adequate, then why are we troubled, if we are, by deciding to end the life of one of two fetuses?
But many supporters of legal abortion do grapple with the ethical dimensions of reproduction. That which is legal -and should be legal - may not be ethical. Every decision a woman makes is not ipso facto the best decision - or necessarily a decision that should be lifted up as in the common good. The Times story creates a special dilemma for feminists. We are loath to analyze the decisions individual women make. We fear stigmatizing both the individual woman and all others who might consider making or who have made similar decisions. And yet, most ethical inquiry arises from personal narratives. We learn from our own difficult dilemmas and the experiences of others.
New Moral Responsibilities
As I read the stories of the Times women, I struggled with my desire to embrace both respect for the value of even early human life and the right or women and men to decide when and how to form families and to have - or not have - children. Neither of those two values is absolute. The women, men and couples in the Times story are all part of the middle class or above, are all well educated and thoughtful people. Their decision-making process after conceiving twins involved serious consideration of the effect having twins would have on them, on the twins if born, and on existing children. Those who conceived through assisted technologies had gone through the usual hell of such processes, many attempts, failures, miscarriages, etc.
Yet, one question never seemed to have crossed their minds. It is a well-known fact that ART results in multiple pregnancies. Did they consider what they’d do if they had a multiple pregnancy as a result of ART? And, is the desire for a child - a child you will no doubt raise well and with love - a high enough good to justify taking the life of another fetus in pursuit of that goal? Are there times when the only ethical thing to do is not get pregnant?
Perhaps no one can or should make that decision for another. It is indeed an awesome decision women make no matter how they conceived a child. It is why most Americans do not want abortion to be illegal. But most Americans think abortion is a serious decision and requires moral justification and reflection. What seems missing is an equal concern about the morality of having children. The number of women who will face the awesome decision about whether to abort one of two fetuses as a result of ART will be small but we will accord it disproportionate attention to the attention we pay to the decision women and men make every day about whether or not to get pregnant and have a baby. The most urgent ethical questions we face are not about abortion. They are about our personal and social responsibility to bring children into the world that have a chance to lead a meaningful life, reasonably free of suffering. Not only should parents be fruitful; their children should have an opportunity for a rich and fertile life.
Frances Kissling | Aug 12, 2011 4:45 PM
???initialComments:true! pubdate:08/12/2011 16:45 EDT! commentPeriod:6! commentEndDate:8/18/11 4:45 EDT! currentDate:5/5/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:false! displayComments:true! ||||| Call me a cynic but my first thought when I read a piece like this one is “This has got to have been written by a pro-life commentator to show the overall menace of an unqualified right to choose…” But I’m afraid I may be wrong.
As an expecting mother of twins, this article hit close to home. But in trying to think of all the reasons why reduction is wrong, I could not come-up with arguments that were not already applicable to abortion in general. In the words of a so-called “reduction pioneer” – there’s a title you want to hang on a shingle — quoted in the article:
“He consulted his staff, all women, and they concluded that if a woman can choose to end a pregnancy, she can reduce from two to one. Besides, in this case, the team would be saving a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.”
What is more immoral or unethical about reduction than straight-up abortion? What this case illustrates is one of the steps down the slippery slope of commodification, that even with a wanted live baby kicking and growing inside you, you may still view your children’s lives not as something you created but as something you own. The tone of the article, all about the women and their doctors with a passing mention of children as being disruptive and twins as being hell, shows very well that when it comes to so-called reproduction rights, it’s all about the grown-ups.
_____________________
Andrea adds: This quote took me by surprise. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.” It’s so forthright about what happens when we make reproduction into a choice. Almost as if to act as an example of what not to do.
No related posts. ||||| Ultrasound at 12 Weeks
Blogs | Aug. 12, 2011
What Pro-Choice Intellectual Honesty Looks Like
I hope that everyone who is pro-choice reads this article from Wednesday’s New York Times, because it highlights a seldom-discussed side of the abortion debate: When women abort some of their children after conceiving multiple babies through reproductive technology.
The article starts with the story of a woman named Jenny, who is choosing to “reduce” her twins pregnancy to one child at 14 weeks gestation. (It’s worth noting that babies at that age can clench their fists and exercise their facial muscles. Their genitals have fully formed and their livers have begun to produce bile.) After noting that Jenny did not want to watch the abortion occur on the overhead ultrasound screen, the author writes:
She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment—and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt. “Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner—in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me—and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
It reminds me of a 2004 piece, also in the Times, where a women name Amy Richards talked about aborting two of her children after she’d naturally conceived triplets, mainly because she didn’t want the lifestyle changes that would come with three children:
My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to? I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ‘‘Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?’’ The obstetrician wasn’t an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.
Here’s the weird part: Some pro-choice people are uncomfortable with this kind of thing.
The article from this week noted that many doctors who perform these “selective reductions” refuse to go below twins. Dr. Mark Evans, a doctor who help pioneer the procedure and still performs these kind of abortions, once spoke out against reductions to fewer than two children. However, he recently reversed his stance since many of his clients are in their 40s:
Evans understood why these women didn’t want to be in their 60s worrying about two tempestuous teenagers or two college-tuition bills. He noted that many of the women were in second marriages, and while they wanted to create a child with their new spouse, they did not want two, especially if they had children from a previous marriage.
But not everyone is able to get as comfortable with it as Evans has. When a woman posted on an internet forum that she aborted her son in a male-female twins pregnancy because she already had a son, one commenter responded, undoubtedly speaking for many:
I completely respect and support a woman’s choice. Something about that whole situation just seemed unethical to me. I just couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I terminated my daughter’s perfectly healthy twin brother.
When another selective reduction pioneering doctor asked his staff what they thought of twins-to-singleton procedures, “every one of them—the sonographer, the genetic counselors, the schedulers—supported abortion rights, but all confessed their growing unease with reductions to a singleton.”
What’s there to be uneasy about? The entire pro-choice position rests on the idea that these “fetuses” are not human beings; they’re merely clumps of tissue, with no rights of their own. To use Planned Parenthood’s words, here is how they explain to women what happens during an abortion:
A tube is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. Either a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus. Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check that the uterus is empty.
An abortion is merely a process of “emptying the uterus” of “tissue”—so what’s the big deal if there are multiple pieces of tissue and the doctor only eliminates one? According to the tenets of the pro-choice position, this should be completely fine.
I am thankful that Jenny and Amy Richards shared their stories. As hard as it is to read about what they did, I don’t think they deserve special condemnation for their actions. They were merely following the pro-choice worldview to its logical conclusions. And if others who share their views are uncomfortable with it, I hope they’ll do some soul searching about why it bothers them.
I realize that almost everyone who supports abortion does so out of good intentions; all the pro-choice people I know are compassionate folks who are trying to do the right thing. But, as I’ve said before, I think that their misguided compassion leads them to overlook some critical facts, and that this is brought into relief when you really think through all the implications of saying that life in the womb is not human. I hope they read those articles linked above, and listen to the stories of women going to abortion specialists and choosing sons over daughters, letting lifestyle considerations lead them to reduce three heartbeats on a screen to one. Because that is what pro-choice intellectual honesty looks like. ||||| Three years ago my husband and I welcomed our twin boys into the world. We weren’t sure we’d ever be able to have children, but thanks to in vitro fertilization we now have the family we’d always wanted. So it was with great interest that I read the piece by Ruth Padawer in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine about women who get IVF, become pregnant with two babies, and decide to selectively reduce to one. Here’s how a woman featured in the article, “Jenny,” describes her choice:
If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.
Advertisement
Jenny’s reasoning leaves me deeply unsettled. We struggled with infertility for years. Ours was the dreaded “unexplained” type. Our tests all came back fine, but month after month no baby. We did many types of less invasive treatments, all unsuccessful, before we decided on IVF.
IVF worked for us on the very first try with my husband’s sperm and my own eggs. We were (still are) elated. Pregnant at last! And then we learned we were having two. I’m not going to lie—even though we implanted two “great quality” embryos, finding out there were two babies was still a shock. But for me, it was shocking in the best possible way. Two babies! We felt doubly blessed.
My heart breaks for this lady for the choice she has to live with. Still, I get a lump in my throat over her description of the IVF process as “consumerish.” I’m not sure if it’s the way she belittles the whole process, likening it to a shopping experience, or the fact that she never would have reduced the pregnancy if it had occurred “naturally” that bothers me more. Sure, my pregnancy involved test tubes, lab coats, and teams of doctors all rooting for us, but it never felt unnatural to me. The science takes only you so far. Once the embryos were transferred back into my belly, it was a leap of faith. It’s not a given that IVF will result in a baby. Or two. I have plenty of friends who have lived through that painful truth. No, after the science, it’s nature or God or luck—or whatever you believe—that takes control. There’s nothing artificial about that. | Pro-choicers are in favor of abortion rights—but when a mother-to-be selectively aborts just one of her two fetuses, even pro-choicers get uncomfortable. A recent New York Times Magazine article on the increased demand for twin reductions highlights this discomfort. In reactions to the piece, a blogger wondered if such a practice were "morally wrong"; the former president of Catholics for Choice asked whether women who would make such a choice would be better off forgoing fertility treatment entirely; even an abortion rights website writer was bothered by one particular scenario presented in the article. In Slate, William Saletan attempts to unravel the reasons behind the discomfort. At least two pro-life writers have expressed befuddlement: If you are OK with abortion, why aren't you OK with selective reduction? "After all, a reduction is an abortion," Saletan writes. But it all comes down to the "bifurcated mindset [that] permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are 'activated eggs.' A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy." With a reduction, you can no longer have that distinction, because both a wanted and an unwanted fetus exist in the same pregnancy. And someday, the wanted fetus will be walking around outside your body, "a living reminder of what you exterminated." |
Local police suggest Rebecca Dykes, whose body was reportedly found on the side of a motorway, was murdered
A woman who worked at the UK embassy in Beirut has been found dead.
The body of Rebecca Dykes was reportedly found on the side of a motorway in the early hours of Saturday morning. The circumstances surrounding her death were unclear, but local police officials suggested she had been strangled.
Her body was found without any identity papers on the Metn highway, which leads out of Beirut to the north-east suburbs. A forensic examination suggested she had died at around 4am on Saturday.
A Lebanese judicial source told the Guardian that Dykes, who is believed to be 30, had spent the evening in the company of friends at a cafe in Gemmayze, a district of Beirut known for its cafes, bars and restaurants. She is thought to have left on her own at around midnight.
Police circulated a description on Saturday, hoping to identify her.
The British ambassador to Lebanon, Hugo Shorter, tweeted: “The whole embassy is deeply shocked, saddened by this news. My thoughts are with Becky’s family, friends and colleagues for their tragic loss.
“We’re providing consular support to her family and working very closely with Lebanese authorities who are conducting police investigation.”
A family spokesman said: “We are devastated by the loss of our beloved Rebecca. We are doing all we can to understand what happened. We request that the media respect our privacy as we come together as a family at this very difficult time.”
Dykes worked as a programme and policy manager with the Department for International Development (DfID) and as a policy manager with the Libya team at the Foreign Office, according to her LinkedIn page.
She had previously worked as an Iraq research analyst with the Foreign Office. She had a degree from Manchester University and a masters in international security and global governance from Birkbeck, University of London.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “Following the death of a British woman in Beirut, we are providing support to the family. We remain in close contact with local authorities. Our thoughts are with the family at this difficult time.”
The information branch of Lebanon’s internal security forces, the intelligence department of the police, is conducting the investigation.
A DfID spokesman said: “There is now a police investigation and the FCO is providing consular support to Becky’s family and working with the local authorities.” ||||| 1/51 11 April 2018 Seasonal winds washed tons of debris ashore at Matahari Terbit beach, near Sanur, Bali, Indonesia. Reuters
2/51 10 April 2018 Syrian onlookers gather around rescue teams clearing the rubble at the site of an explosion of unknown origin which wrecked a multi-storey building the previous night in the war-battered country's northwestern city of Idlib. The cause of the explosion in the jihadist-held city, which killed more than a ten people and wounded 80, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group, was not immediately clear. AFP/Getty
3/51 9 April 2018 Protesters try to block French gendarmes during an evacuation operation in the zoned ZAD (Deferred Development Zone) in Notre-Dame-des-Landes, near Nantes, France. Reuters
4/51 8 April 2018 Competitors cross the start line at the annual Pyongyang Marathon. AFP/Getty
5/51 7 April 2018 The body of journalist Yasser Murtaja, 31, is carried during his funeral in Gaza city. He was shot by Israeli troops while reporting on Palestinian protests on the Gaza-Israel border. Reuters
6/51 6 April 2018 Supporters of the former South African president Jacob Zuma rally prior to his appearance in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court on corruption charges in Durban. Zuma, 75, arrived to face corruption charges linked to a multi-billion dollar 1990s arms deal. The graft case against him was postponed until June 8 after a brief 15-minute hearing. AFP/Getty
7/51 5 April 2018 Palestinian protesters run during clashes with Israeli troops at Israel-Gaza border. Reuters
8/51 4 April 2018 Presidents Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Vladimir Putin of Russia pose before their meeting in Ankara. Reuters
9/51 3 April 2018 South African school children pause next to a portrait of the late South African anti-apartheid campaigner Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, wife of African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela, at her house in Soweto. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa paid tribute to Winnie, who died on April 2, saying that Nelson Mandela's former wife was a "voice of defiance" against white-minority rule. AFP/Getty
10/51 2 April 2018 Jewish priests and civilians take part in the Cohanim prayer during the Passover holiday at the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem. AFP/Getty
11/51 1 April 2018 Pope Francis greets the crowd at St Peter's square after the Easter Sunday Mass in the Vatican. Christians around the world are marking the Holy Week, commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, leading up to his resurrection on Easter. AFP/Getty
12/51 31 March 2018 Mourners hold back a relative of Palestinian Hamdan Abu Amshah, who was killed along the Israel border with Gaza, during his funeral in Beit Hanoun town. Reuters
13/51 30 March 2018 Israeli soldiers shot tear gas grenades towards the Palestinian tent city protest commemorating Land Day. The day marks the killing of six Arab Israelis during 1976 demonstrations against Israeli confiscations of Arab land. AFP/Getty
14/51 29 March 2018 An emotional Steve Smith is comforted by his father Peter as he fronts the media at Sydney International Airport. Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were flown back to Australia following investigations into alleged ball tampering in South Africa. Getty
15/51 28 March 2018 French gendarmes escort the coffin of the late Lieutenant Colonel Arnaud Beltrame transported by car during a funeral procession leaving the Pantheon as part of a national tribute in Paris. The French President will lead a national commemoration to hostage-swap policeman Arnaud Beltrame killed in jihadist attack. AFP/Getty
16/51 27 March 2018 Russian President Vladimir Putin visits a memorial made for the victims of a fire in a multi-story shopping center in the Siberian city of Kemerovo. Officials say that the fire escapes were blocked and a PA system was turned off during the fire that killed over 50 people. Kremlin Pool Photo via AP
17/51 26 March 2018 At least 64 shoppers have been killed in fire at a shopping centre in Russia. A further 16 people were still missing after flames broke out at the four-storey Winter Cherry mall in the city of Kemerovo in Siberia, according to Russian Emergencies Minister Vladimir Puchkov. The fire was extinguished in the morning after burning through the night. Parts of the building were still smouldering and the floors of the cinema hall had caved in in places, another emergency official said. Russian Emergencies Ministry via Reuters
18/51 25 March 2018 Syrian civilians gathering for their evacuation from the town of Arbin in the Eastern Ghouta region on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, following a deal with the regime. The deal is expected to see some 7,000 people bussed from Arbin and Zamalka towns and the district of Jobar to a rebel-dominated part of northern Syria. AFP/Getty
19/51 24 March 2018 Students attend the ‘March For Our Lives’ in Washington. In the wake of the Florida attack, there has been a widespread effort to ban assault rifle. Getty
20/51 23 March 2018 Police at the scene of a hostage situation in a supermarket in Trebes. An armed man took hostages in a supermarket in southern France, killing three and injuring about a dozen others, police said. A French minister confirmed the gunman had been shot dead by police. Reuters
21/51 22 March 2018 A boy rows his boat in the polluted waters of the Brahmaputra river on World Water Day in Guwahati, India. Reuters
22/51 21 March 2018 Kosovo's opposition lawmakers release a teargas canister inside the country's parliament in before a vote for an agreement to ratify or not a border demarcation deal signed in 2015 with Montenegro. AFP/Getty
23/51 20 March 2018 People carrying luggage leave the Russian Embassy in London and board a van bearing diplomatic plates. Dozens of people including adults with children arrived at the Russian embassy in the morning and then left carrying luggage in vehicles bearing diplomatic registration plates. Britain last week announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats over the spy poisoning row, prompting a tit-for-tat response from Moscow. AFP/Getty
24/51 19 March 2018 The Soyuz MS-08 spacecraft is mounted on the launch pad at the Russian-leased Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan AFP/Getty
25/51 18 March 2018 President Vladimir Putin walks out of a voting booth at a polling station during Russia's presidential election in Moscow. AFP/Getty
26/51 17 March 2018 People take part in a pensioners protest to demand decent pensions in Barcelona. Thousands of people across the country took part in mass demonstrations called by main Spanish workers unions demanding rises of state pensions in accordance with the consumer price index AFP/Getty
27/51 16 March 2018 Russian President Vladimir Putin visits the Almazov National Medical Research Centre in Saint Petersburg. AFP/Getty
28/51 15 March 2018 Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting with members of the Security Council in Moscow. Reuters
29/51 14 March 2018 German Chancellor Angela Merkel is sworn in by the President of the German lower house during the government's swearing-in ceremony at the Bundestag in Berlin. Merkel, head of the Christian Democratic Party CDU, starts her fourth term as German chancellor, capping months of political uncertainty as she bartered with her rivals of the SPD to help govern Europe's top economy in a "grand coalition". AFP/Getty
30/51 13 March 2018 Nepali students of University of Dhaka light candles in memory of the victims of the US-Bangla aircraft crash in Nepal, Bangladesh. Reuters
31/51 12 March 2018 Rescuers work to save passengers from a plane crash at Kathmandu airport in Nepal. AP
32/51 11 March 2018 French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron pose for photographs as they visit the Taj Mahal. AFP/Getty
33/51 10 March 2018 France’s far-right party Front National (FN) president Marine Le Pen applauds former US President advisor Steve Bannon after his speech during the Front National party annual congress, in Lille, northern France. AFP/Getty
34/51 9 March 2018 A television screen showing pictures of US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un at a railway station in Seoul. AFP
35/51 8 March 2018 Protesters form triangles with their hands during a demonstration for women’s rights in Bilbao, Spain. Reuters
36/51 7 March 2018 A labourer works on a salt pan in the outskirts of the Nagaur district in the Indian state of Rajasthan ahead of International Women’s day. AFP/Getty
37/51 6 March 2018 Sri Lanka's army soldiers and police personnel stand near a vandalised building in Digana, a suburb of Kandy. Extremists Buddhist mobs swept through the town on Monday, burning at least 11 Muslim owned shops and homes. Sri Lanka's president declared a state of emergency Tuesday amid fears that anti-Muslim attacks in the central hill town could spread. AP
38/51 5 March 2018 Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives for the opening of the first session of the 13th National People's Congress (NPC) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. The NPC has over 3,000 delegates and is the world's largest parliament or legislative assembly though its function is largely as a formal seal of approval for the policies fixed by the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party. The NPC runs alongside the annual plenary meetings of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), together known as 'Lianghui' or 'Two Meetings'. EPA
39/51 4 March 2018 Female protestor stands up with the words 'Berlusconi Sei Scaduto' written on her body, translating as 'Berlusconi, you’ve expired', as Silvio Berlusconi stands during voting of the political and regional elections in Milan, Italy. Rex
40/51 3 March 2018 Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a rally to support his bid in the upcoming presidential election at Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow. Reuters
41/51 2 March 2018 A light turns red outside of Germany's Krupp Mannesmann steel factory. German officials and industry groups warned U.S. President Donald Trump that he risks sparking a trade war with his closest allies if he goes ahead with plans to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. AP
42/51 1 March 2018 People dance during Holi festival celebrations in Kathmandu, Nepal. EPA
43/51 28 February 2018 Indian fans watch as the funeral procession of the late Bollywood actress Sridevi Kapoor passes through Mumbai. AFP/Getty
44/51 27 February 2018 Candles are left in tribute to murdered Slovakian investigative reporter Jan Kuciak, 27, and his fiancee Martina, 27, at Slovak National Uprising Square in Bratislava. A leading Slovak newspaper says organised crime may have been involved in the shooting death that shocked Slovakia. The bodies of Kuciak and Kusnirova were found Sunday evening in their house in the town of Velka Maca, east of the capital. AP
45/51 26 February 2018 Colosseum during a heavy snowfall in Rome, Italy. REUTERS/Alberto Lingria
46/51 25 February 2018 Family members of victims of the sunken South Korean naval ship Cheonan by a North Korean attack hold up defaced portraits of Kim Yong Chol, vice chairman of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party Central Committee, during a rally against his visit near the Unification bridge in Paju, South Korea. A North Korean high-level delegation led by Kim arrived to attend the closing ceremony of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. The signs read: " Let's punish Kim Young Chol." Getty
47/51 24 February 2018 Ivanka Trump (C) cheers while sat between former Olympic US bobsledders Shauna Rohbock (L) and Valerie Fleming (R) as the United States beat Sweden in their Men's Gold Medal Curling match at the Gangneung Curling Centre in Gangneung, South Korea. Ivanka Trump is on a four-day visit to South Korea to attend the closing ceremony of the PyeongChang Winter Olympics. Getty
48/51 23 February 2018 David Allen Turpin (C), who along with Louise Anna Turpin is accused of abusing and holding 13 of their children captive, appears in court with attorneys David Macher (L) and Alison Lowe in court in Riverside, California. According to Riverside County Sheriffs, David Allen Turpin and Louise Anna Turpin held 13 malnourished children ranging in age from 2 to 29 captive in their Perris, California home. Deputies were alerted after a 17-year-old daughter escaped by jumping through a window shortly before dawn, carrying a de-activated mobile phone from which she was able to call 911 for help. Responding deputies described conditions in the home as foul-smelling with some kids chained to a bed and suffering injuries as a result. Adult children appeared at first to be minors because of their malnourished state. The Turpins were arrested on charges of torture and child endangerment. Getty
49/51 22 February 2018 The Elephanta Island, home to the famous Elephanta Caves, finally gets electricity after a wait of 70 years. Seventy years after Independence, a 7.5-km long undersea cable has finally brought electricity to the world-famous Gharapuri Isle, which houses the UNESCO World Heritage site Elephanta Caves, about 10-km from Mumbai, India. Getty
50/51 21 February 2018 Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pays his respects at the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar. Trudeau and his family are on a week-long official trip to India. Getty ||||| The whole embassy is deeply shocked, saddened by this news. My thoughts are with Becky’s family, friends and colleagues for their tragic loss. We're providing consular support to her family & working very closely with Lebanese authorities who are conducting police investigation. ||||| Image copyright Family handout
Police in Lebanon have arrested an Uber driver in connection with the murder of a British woman in Beirut.
The body of Rebecca Dykes, who worked at the British Embassy in the city, was found by a motorway on Saturday.
The arrested man was 35 and has served several prison sentences, a senior Lebanese security source told the BBC.
Ms Dykes had been sexually assaulted and strangled, and the man is expected to be charged with rape and murder later this week, police sources said.
Her family said in a statement: "We are devastated by the loss of our beloved Rebecca. We are doing all we can to understand what happened."
Ms Dykes, who is believed to have been 30, had been working in Beirut as the programme and policy manager for the Department for International Development since January 2017.
It is thought she spent Friday evening at a going-away party for a colleague in the popular Gemmayzeh district of Beirut.
After leaving the bar at about midnight it appears she was abducted. Her body was found close to a motorway on the outskirts of the city.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption The body of Rebecca Dykes was found near a main road outisde Beirut
The Foreign Office said it was in contact with the Lebanese authorities and confirmed an arrest had been made.
The suspect was arrested in the early hours of Monday morning after police reportedly traced his car on traffic management CCTV.
An official told the Reuters and AFP news agencies the preliminary investigation had showed Ms Dykes's killing "was not politically motivated".
International community stunned
By Martin Patience, BBC Middle East correspondent, Beirut
The Gemmayzeh district of Beirut where Rebecca Dykes was last seen alive is well-known for having some of the city's best and most expensive bars and restaurants.
There is normally a relaxed atmosphere. It is a neighbourhood where foreign aid workers, diplomats and journalists mingle with wealthy Lebanese often into the early hours of the morning.
Despite the chaos seen elsewhere in the region, Beirut in recent years has been regarded as relatively safe. That is why this murder has left the international community so shocked.
After a late night out, many people would previously have thought nothing of catching one of the cabs that ply the streets, or calling for an Uber.
For a short while, anyway, that is likely to change. People will be more careful about how they get home. Beirut may be relatively safe but - as in any big city across the world - this murder is a reminder of the dangers.
Josie Ensor, the Daily Telegraph's correspondent in Beirut, says the case has left foreign residents in the city unsettled.
Speaking to the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme, she said Beirut was a "very tight-knit community, so when something happens to one person, it feels quite close".
Ms Ensor, who was due to attend the same party on Friday evening, added Ms Dykes "had just landed on her feet in Beirut and was starting to make friends and getting to know the city".
Hugo Shorter, the British Ambassador to Lebanon, said the whole embassy was "deeply shocked" and "saddened" by the news.
Tributes were paid to Ms Dykes in the House of Lords on Monday.
Former Conservative MP Lady McIntosh said: "The loss of Rebecca Dykes in these circumstances is felt very deeply.
"And can we pay tribute to the work that she and the all Dfid team do, often in very dangerous circumstances, particularly at this time of year, for humanitarian purposes?"
The International Development Minister Lord Bates added: "It's obviously a very distressing time, particularly for Becky's family, but also for the people who worked with her.
"It reminds us of the sacrifice which is made by over 1,200 Dfid personnel who work around the world, often in the most difficult and dangerous of environments."
A Dfid spokesman said: "Our thoughts are with Becky's family and friends at this very upsetting time.
"There is now a police investigation and the Foreign Office is providing consular support to Becky's family and working with the local authorities."
Who was Rebecca Dykes?
Image copyright Family handout Image caption Rebecca Dykes had been working in Beirut since January 2017
Prior to her posting in Beirut, Ms Dykes worked with the Foreign Office as a policy manager for its Libya team and as an Iraq research analyst.
According to her LinkedIn profile, she studied anthropology at the University of Manchester, and had a master's in International Security and Global Governance from Birkbeck, University of London.
She was a former pupil of Malvern Girls' College and Rugby School, and had also taught English at a Chinese international school.
Ms Dykes had reportedly been due to fly back to the UK for Christmas. She says on social media that she is from London. | A 30-year-old British diplomat was found dead on the side of a highway in Beirut Saturday. Senior police sources in Lebanon told the BBC that Rebecca Dykes was strangled before being left by the Metn Highway in the nation’s capital. The Guardian reports that an initial exam revealed she died around 4am Saturday. Dykes was last seen at a party with friends in central Beirut’s nightlife district before leaving the bar by herself around midnight. She worked at the UK embassy in Beirut as a program and policy manager with the Department for International Development and as a policy manager with the Foreign Office’s Libya team. Following the tragic news, British Ambassador Hugo Shorter said a palpable sense of sorrow was felt throughout the embassy. “The whole embassy is deeply shocked, saddened by this news,” Shorter tweeted. “My thoughts are with Becky’s family, friends and colleagues for their tragic loss.” Per the Independent, a spokeswoman for the foreign office noted that they are providing support to Dykes’ family and are working closely with the Lebanese authorities conducting the investigation. “Our thoughts are with the family at this difficult time,” she said. Dykes’ family released a statement requesting privacy from the media as they process the shocking news. “We are devastated by the loss of our beloved Rebecca,” it read. “We are doing all we can to understand what happened.” |
The cop in the Wildwood beach arrest that went viral on video was a temporary officer. Jersey Shore towns use them every summer
The cop in the Wildwood beach arrest that went viral on video was a temporary officer. Jersey Shore towns use them every summer Jun 1
A Narcan kit that emergency responders use to save the lives of those who overdose from opioids.
A rant about the opioid crisis went viral after a Middlesex County, N.J., funeral director created a post on his business website titled ‘F— you, Opioids.’
Peter Kulbacki, 60, put his frustrations in words and posted them this week on his website for the Brunswick Memorial Funeral Home in East Brunswick. He said he believes that the drug crisis is far worse than the public realizes and that the statistics fall short of the real story behind deaths that are often ruled accidental or suicide.
“Those who know me know I’m not prone to profanity, and as the consummate professional, I cannot say this to the parents, children, siblings, friends, and neighbors that we serve in the aftermath of opioid addiction. But I want to scream it out loud. F— you heroin,” Kulbacki wrote in his post.
“Folks, we have a problem, a very real problem right here in our backyard, in every town. Every month we get overdose calls, and from personal experience I’m telling you it’s truly getting worse. Middlesex County is ranked one of the top four counties in New Jersey for opioid overdoses. I speak to local police officers who are issued two doses of Narcan at the beginning of their shifts, and have to come back to the station before their shift is over because they’ve already used the initial two doses. True story.
“I am witness to the parents left with inexplicable grief. I am witness to the spouses left to carry the emotional and economic burden of raising a family alone. I am witness to the children who are left wondering, ‘Why?’ ”
In an interview Wednesday, Kulbacki, who said he has been in the funeral home business about 40 years, said it pains him to see the senseless loss of life from an out-of-control drug crisis. He said he does not have the answers, but believes the medical community and pharmaceutical industry have to join police and emergency response teams who are seeing the face of death on a regular basis. One woman, he said he had been told by authorities, survived 10 times from overdoses after she was given the life-saving drug that blocks the effects of opioids.
He has become passionate about the issue as the number of overdose funerals increased sharply. About five years ago, he said, his business averaged a handful of overdose deaths annually. Now it is making arrangements for several overdose deaths in some months that surpass what had been yearly numbers.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nationwide, there were 52,404 drug deaths in 2015 (26.3 per 100,000) and 34,162 (10.6 per 100,000) were caused by opioids. According to the New Jersey Office of the State Medical Examiner, there were 1,587 drug deaths across the state in 2015. In Pennsylvania, the CDC reported 4,642 drug deaths across the state in 2015.
Another funeral director, Charles A. Castiglia, is president of the trade organization International Order of the Golden Rule, which published a guide called. “Opioid Epidemic: How Funeral Directors Can Respond.” Two years ago, Castiglia, who has two locations outside Buffalo, N.Y., got his first call about an overdose on Thanksgiving. While celebrating Thankgiving, the family learned that their friend’s son died of an overdose the day before he was to enter a rehabilitation center. The next fatal overdose was on Easter. The number of overdoses is now one or two a week, he said.
It has taken a toll on his staff, as the business is part of the community and many of the deaths are family friends of the staff, “and we’re not used to this,” he said.
The deaths are mostly white men in their 30s and 40s, he said.
“We’re losing a generation. That’s what it feels like,” Castiglia said Wednesday.
Kulbacki’s post, although written as a “frustration piece,” immediately garnered attention. Kulbacki received interview requests from reporters across the region – among the first to report the post was NJ.com. Kulbacki said he was glad that it attracted widespread attention with people talking about the problem and solutions.
“I see the emotional devastation left behind. I am pained to hear these tragic stories. The failed stints in rehab. The relapses. The torn and wrecked families. I’m distressed to walk family and friends to a casket containing the broken dreams of a life lost. I’m tired of getting calls from people I personally know telling me their son or daughter was found somewhere having OD’d,” he wrote. “I know addiction is a disease. It doesn’t respect title, your station in life, your socioeconomic status, or anything else. Trust me … I’ve seen it all. F— you opioids.”
The bottom of the blog commended the people and groups affected by addiction and advocating for providing help to those who need it. Some of those included the East Brunswick Police Department’s Police-Assisted Addiction Recovery Initiative (PAARI), which provides outreach to township residents who have had struggles with addiction, and Immaculate Conception Church’s “A Safe Place” support group for families dealing with the aftermath of opioid addiction.
He ended: “We have to stand and fight as a community. We have to beat this horrible monster.” ||||| EAST BRUNSWICK — A Middlesex County funeral director minced no words in a post about opioid addiction.
Not known as a man to swear, the usually even-tempered Peter Kulbacki of Brunswick Memorial Funeral Home posted an essay titled "F**k you, Opioids" to express his frustration at the increase in deaths he has handled because of substance abuse and addiction.
"What am I supposed to say when we get a call from someone telling me that a loved one has passed from an overdose? I’m sorry? Please accept my condolences? Yeah, that’s what I say, but you know what? My visceral response when I hang up the phone is F**K you opioids," wrote Kulbacki, whose family can trace their family lineage back to when the township was first incorporated in 1860.
The post has been shared by countless people online.
Kulbacki said he has seen a "notable increase" in the number of addiction related deaths and said in the last three or four weeks he has handled three
Kulbacki, told New Jersey 101.5 he was inspired by a similar piece written for an industry journal he said was far more graphic than his article. And by the fact that Middlesex County is ranked one of the top four counties in New Jersey for opioid overdoses, according to the state Department of Human Services Report on substance abuse for 2016.
"We're not in Trenton. We're not in Newark. We're not in Camden ... We're in East Brunswick. We're in Middlesex County, a fairly affluent area. The deaths we're handling are from good families. From good parents. People that I know, that as far as I can tell, they did a good job. So where did the addiction come from? Where did the poison come from? It's insane. It's really insane."
The essay was posted before Tuesday's announcement by President Trump in Bedminster. The president vowed that "we will fight this deadly epidemic and the United States will win."
Trump did not announce any new policy, but vowed to work with health professionals and law enforcement on the crisis. He said federal drug prosecutions have dropped but promised he would "be bringing them up rapidly."
He also said, "We're very, very tough on the Southern border, where much of this comes in."
Gov. Chris Christie's federal drug commission recently called on Trump to declare a national emergency to deal with the opioid crisis. The commission says the approximately 142 deaths each day from drug overdoses mean the death toll is "equal to September 11th every three weeks."
On Tuesday, the New Hampshire attorney general filed a lawsuit against Cranbury-based OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma. Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies also are being sued by the state of Missouri.
Kulbacki said it goes beyond just numbers.
"How many deaths are there that are listed as a suicide? Whether it's by hanging, whether it's by gunshot or by other means. But sitting with the families and making arrangements we hear the back story and we hear this person had problems and was fighting the devil. This is what the net result was. The death certificate doesn't say addiction or overdose, it says something else."
Kulbacki is not sure how he can get grieving families on board to be more honest about the cause of death. Sometimes the death of a child who is addicted brings a sense a relief to the family because they know where their child is.
"There's that relief that they have tried to help their children. They're tried to do what they can and whether they're adults or adolescents, it's so readily available.
Funeral homes are on the front lines in the battle against addiction, according to Kulbacki, who met his wife while he was a member of an EMS squad.
"We know a lot of first responders so we know a lot of the stories that other people don't know. It's far worse than people would like to believe. It really is an epidemic. It's really a problem," Kulbacki said.
A study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that emergency room treatment for cases involving opioid abuse increased by 99 percent between 2005 and 2014.
In an interview with New Jersey 101.5 last week, Dr. Michael Gerardi, emergency physician at Morristown Medical Center, said that ER physicians were among the first people to realize that opioid abuse was a growing problem.
“It’s emblazoned in our consciousness and our souls that we want to see this epidemic stopped," he said.
Peter Kulbacki's full message:
What am I supposed to say when we get a call from someone telling me that a loved one has passed from an overdose? I’m sorry? Please accept my condolences? Yeah, that’s what I say, but you know what? My visceral response when I hang up the phone is F**K you opioids. Those who know me know I’m not prone to profanity, and as the consummate professional, I cannot say this to the parents, children, siblings, friends, and neighbors that we serve in the aftermath of opioid addiction. But I want to scream it out loud. F**K you heroin. I write this as a son, spouse, parent, brother, grandfather, neighbor, friend, and funeral director. Folks, we have a problem, a very real problem right here in our backyard, in every town. Every month we get overdose calls, and from personal experience I’m telling you it’s truly getting worse. Middlesex County is ranked one of the top 4 counties in New Jersey for opioid overdoses. I speak to local police officers who are issued 2 doses of Narcan at the beginning of their shifts, and have to come back to the station before their shift is over because they’ve already used the initial 2 doses. True story. I am witness to the parents left with inexplicable grief. I am witness to the spouses left to carry the emotional and economic burden of raising a family alone. I am witness to the children who are left wondering, “why?” I see the emotional devastation left behind. I am pained to hear these tragic stories. The failed stints in rehab. The relapses. The torn and wrecked families. I’m distressed to walk family and friends to a casket containing the broken dreams of a life lost. I’m tired of getting calls from people I personally know telling me their son or daughter was found somewhere having OD’d. I know addiction is a disease. It doesn’t respect title, your station in life, your socioeconomic status, or anything else. Trust me…I’ve seen it all. F**K you opioids. And, to the victim’s families who are brave enough to share their story in hopes that it will save just one life… to the countless friends, neighbors, and programs that offer support to the families stricken by this disease both near and far…. to East Brunswick Police Department’s Police-Assisted Addiction Recovery Initiative (PAARI) that provides outreach to township residents who have had struggles with addiction…. to Immaculate Conception Church’s, “A Safe Place” Support Group that offers support to families dealing with the aftermath of opioid addiction…. we applaud you for your strength and courage, and hope it helps others deal with this terrible epidemic. We have to stand and fight….as a community. We have to beat this horrible monster.
Get help for addition in New Jersey by calling 844-732-2465 or at ReachNJ.gov. For an immediate emergency dial 911.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Contact reporter Dan Alexander at [email protected] .
More from New Jersey 101.5: ||||| A New Jersey funeral director's brutally honest post about opioid abuse is drawing a lot of attention.Peter Kulbacki wrote a blog called F**k you, Opioids on the Brunswick Memorial Funeral Home website.He said the "emotional devastation" and "inexplicable grief" that he's watched over the years prompted him to speak out.Kulbacki added that Middlesex County is one of the top four counties in New Jersey for opioid overdoses, and he witnessed one."It was an incident where police had to Narcan a driver, Kulbacki said. "A driver while operating a vehicle overdosed. I personally witnessed this. Incidents like that kind of drove me to the point of frustration where I felt I had to vent about it."Kulbacki says he's mostly received positive feedback on his post.He admits he does not know how to solve the opioid crisis, but says talking openly about it is a good start. ||||| I am on both sides of the coin You see I have been having Surgeries since I was 5 to 6 year’s old and it has followed me into my late 50’s. The doctor’s broke both of my Leg’s and both Hip’s. I was in an cast trying to heal but the staff of the Nurses would always have a problem with picking me up and that’s when my Leg’s and Hip’s would break and it was a very tough trying time. So after 2 year’s they took off the cast from the waist down and that’s when I had to learn how to walk all over again and that was tough. Being at that age and at that time they would give me Pain Medication’s now and mind you those Medication’s back then we’re stronger than they are now in this time. Then by the time I was about 10 to 11 year’s old there I was again having more Surgeries and bare in mind that I have been on the Pain Medication’s still all this time and the doctor told my parents that they didn’t know if and when I can get off of this Medication’s okay Let’s skip to 1992 to the present time now. I have had 4 failed back surgeries and with 6-6 inch Bolt’s and 4-4 inch Rod’s placed in the middle of the lower back then at first I thought that the Pain was gone but after doing all the physical therapy and exercises and I really thought that the Pain Medication’s were gone also but after 13 month’s one of the Bolt’s broke so here we are going back into surgery and they had to take everything out and start from the beginning and yes in the mean time I was still taking the Pain Medication’s and still the doctor would say the same thing as before that I will recover and then No more Pain Medication’s. Now we are 11 month’s since the first replacement another one of the Bolt’s broke and this time here we go again with doing the same thing as before So now 12 month’s later back with the same thing happening again and this time Two of the Bolt’s bent so back into surgery we go and now the doctor is saying the same thing again with all the Physical Therapy treatment’s I should be able to get off these Medication’s and boy I was so very happy to hear the doctor say today is the day I can get off the Pain Medication’s but that didn’t last long at all because here we go again the forth back surgery and this time the surgery failed so with 4 back Surgeries which they all have Failed and with this situation since I was 5 year’s old. Now here I am with all the Surgeries that I had failed and all this time being on the Pain Medication’s and now the doctor is saying that I will be on this Pain Medication’s for the rest of my life. Now my point is that some of us need these Pain Medication’s to be able to have a life and if that means that I have to take the Medication’s then I will but all these people who are abusing These Medication’s are making the people who have to take those types of Medication’s in a situation where as the doctor’s are afraid of writing out scripts for these types of Medication’s and that’s where a lot of people who are in this type of situation that need the Medication’s to live a semi normal production existing life.and I still don’t understand why if you’re following the directions from the doctor it shouldn’t be a problem and we shouldn’t have to be made and/or forced to live in a lot of Pain because people are abusing These Medication’s. Thank you for letting me vent. Be Well and Safe | A New Jersey funeral director heartbroken and overwhelmed at the opioid deaths he's seen in his line of work minced no words in a blog post he published on the funeral home's website this week. "F**k you, Opioids," reads the headline of the post on the Brunswick Memorial Funeral Home's page. "What am I supposed to say when we get a call from someone telling me that a loved one has passed from an overdose? I’m sorry? Please accept my condolences?" writes Peter Kulbacki. "Yeah, that’s what I say, but you know what? My visceral response when I hang up the phone is F**K you opioids." Kulbacki, who describes himself as a "consummate professional" not normally prone to swearing, says there's a problem—particularly in his county. He recounts stories of police officers who have to return to the station for more Narcan mid-shift because they've already used the initial two doses they take on patrol with them, and families devastated by addiction turned fatal. "We have to stand and fight….as a community," the post concludes. "We have to beat this horrible monster." The post has gone viral, and Kulbacki tells ABC 7 he's received mostly positive feedback. He tells NJ 101.5 he felt he had to write about it after the "notable increase" in overdose deaths he's seen. He's been in the funeral business 40 years, and he tells Philly.com he hopes the conversation around his piece will lead to some solutions. |
GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after transmittal of the President’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an agency’s longer-term goals and mission and day-to-day activities. Annual performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance reports, due this year by March 31, represents a new and potentially more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs in the future. NSF’s mission is to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense. NSF carries out its mission primarily by making merit-based grants and cooperative agreements to individual researchers and groups in partnership with colleges, universities, and other public and private institutions. For fiscal year 2001, NSF has a budget of $4.4 billion and a staff of about 1,200 government employees to accomplish its mission. Implementing GPRA has been a challenge for NSF, whose mission involves funding research activities, because the substance and timing of research outcomes are unpredictable and research results can be difficult to report quantitatively. With OMB’s approval, NSF uses an alternative format—a qualitative scale for the assessment of outcomes—for which it relies on independent committees of scientific experts. These committees determine the level of NSF’s success in achieving its goals. NSF uses quantitative goals for its management and investment process goals. This section discusses our analysis of NSF’s performance in achieving the selected key outcomes, as well as the strategies it has in place— particularly strategic human capital management and information technology strategies—for achieving these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes, we have also provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to which NSF has provided assurance that the performance information it is reporting is accurate and credible. NSF, in its fiscal year 2000 performance report, states that it met its discoveries outcome and cites numerous examples of its achievements in such scientific fields as mapping the Arctic Ocean floor and extra-solar planetary discovery. NSF judged its performance as successful on the basis of assessments by independent committees of scientific experts. In compiling committee members’ scores and aggregating their comments, NSF took into account only those reports with substantive comments and ratings that were clearly justified. NSF officials told us that, for the scientific discoveries outcome goal, all of the committees judged NSF as successful in achieving it and justified their assessments. However, the performance report did not provide information on the specific numbers of reports it included and excluded in reaching its judgments for this outcome or any of the other outcomes. Furthermore, NSF discussed the independent scientific committees’ results for only one of the scientific discoveries five areas of emphasis—namely, the balance of innovative, risky, and interdisciplinary research area. Instead of providing a more complete analysis of the scientific committees’ assessments, NSF contracted with an external third party—PricewaterhouseCoopers—to make an independent assessment of the performance results. PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that NSF’s fiscal year 2000 results were valid and verifiable. NSF’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan included a new section on the means and strategies for success related to this outcome that includes strategies that generally are clear and reasonable. To implement its outcome goal, NSF has both (1) process strategies, such as supporting the most promising ideas through merit-based grants and cooperative agreements, and (2) program strategies, such as supporting programmatic themes identified as areas of emphasis. However, NSF’s plan generally does not address key components of strategic human capital management, although its “people” and “management” outcome goals include such human capital initiatives as workforce diversity, an NSF Academy for workforce training, and a survey on the work environment. NSF is in the process of developing a 5-year strategic plan on its workforce needs that must be submitted to OMB by July 20, 2001. This strategic plan will guide NSF’s future effort in this area. NSF reported that it made substantial progress, achieving most of its performance goals related to the award and administration of research grants. While not listed as an outcome goal, the administration of grants includes many of NSF’s management and investment process goals. For example, NSF exceeded by 21 percent one of its management performance goals—to receive at least 60 percent of full grant proposal submissions electronically through a new computer system called FastLane. NSF also exceeded by 5 percent another management goal that at least 90 percent of its funds will be allocated to projects reviewed by appropriate peers external to NSF and selected through a merit-based competitive process. NSF continued to miss one of its investment process goals—to process 70 percent of proposals within 6 months of receipt—dropping from 58 percent to 54 percent in fiscal year 2000. As part of its review of NSF, PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that NSF’s fiscal year 2000 processes were valid and verifiable and relied on sound business processes, system and application controls, and manual checks of system queries to confirm the accuracy of reported data. NSF’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan generally includes strategies for achieving NSF’s performance goals that appear to be clear and reasonable. However, in some cases, the strategies are vague, and how NSF will use them to achieve its performance goals is unclear. For example, one of NSF’s three strategies for identifying best management practices for its large infrastructure projects is to ensure input from members of the external community who build, operate, and utilize research facilities. Furthermore, while NSF has strategies for the process of funding awards, it does not generally address the oversight needs to ensure that funding recipients meet the awards’ requirements. NSF’s 5-year workforce strategic plan is addressing concerns regarding the management of a growing portfolio of program activities with relatively flat personnel levels—a key issue for developing strategic human capital management strategies. For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements or remaining weaknesses in NSF’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report and (2) fiscal year 2002 performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also discusses the degree to which the agency’s fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan address concerns and recommendations by NSF’s Inspector General. NSF improved its fiscal year 2000 performance report, making major changes to address the weaknesses we reported in the prior year’s performance report. Our prior year’s review noted that NSF did not discuss either its reasons for falling short of a performance goal or its strategies for attaining the goal in the future. NSF’s 2000 report corrected this weakness. For example, regarding the technology-related goal to submit, review, and process proposals electronically, the report states that the reason for not achieving the goal was due to the technological, financial, and legal issues related to electronic signatures. The strategy for addressing the technological issue was to demonstrate the paperless review capability by conducting 10 pilot paperless projects in 2001 that manage the review process in an electronic environment. We also questioned the quality of the information in the 1999 performance report, noting that it provided virtually no assurance that the information was credible. As mentioned earlier, NSF contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers to review aspects of its GPRA data collection efforts and its performance assessment results. PricewaterhouseCoopers found no basis for questioning the integrity of the results. NSF can improve its future reports in several ways. The results of the independent committees’ reviews would benefit from more detailed information, such as including all of the areas of emphasis and the results. In addition, last year, we noted that the 1999 performance report did not describe NSF’s financial role in the examples of scientific successes presented. Such information, we said, would help to judge the extent of NSF’s role in achieving these successes. NSF officials maintain that determining NSF’s financial role in these successes would be extremely difficult and would take a considerable effort. NSF officials told us that the successes they identified for this outcome were primarily due to NSF awards. That statement would have been useful in assessing the 2000 performance report. NSF made improvements to its fiscal year 2002 performance plan. For example, last year, we reported that the performance plan contained little useful information about NSF’s intended strategy to achieve its goals, including a discussion of the problems. The 2002 plan includes a new section on the means and strategies for success. For example, for its new goal of award oversight and management, NSF will ensure that the internal committee reviewing the oversight activities for large infrastructure projects has broad disciplinary expertise and experience in managing facilities. As previously mentioned, NSF is also addressing data quality concerns, providing confidence that future performance information will be credible. Furthermore, NSF revised its outcome goal such that it does not have to succeed in demonstrating significant achievement in discoveries that advance the frontiers of science, engineering, or technology. Rather, discoveries is now one of six performance indicators for which NSF will consider itself successful when a majority is achieved. Last year, we also reported that the strategies for achieving the goals were not clearly discussed. NSF includes a new section on the means and strategies for success under each goal. NSF can improve its future performance plans by addressing its resource needs. Last year, we noted that the plan did not clearly discuss the resources for achieving the goals or the specific links between the resources and the areas of emphasis. The 2002 performance plan still does not do so. As discussed earlier, NSF’s 5-year workforce strategic plan is expected to address human capital issues, providing a basis for addressing this issue in next year’s performance plan. GAO has identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human capital management and information security. Regarding strategic human capital management, we found that NSF’s performance plan generally did not have goals and measures related to strategic human capital management, and NSF’s performance report did not explain its progress in resolving strategic human capital management challenges. However, as mentioned earlier, NSF is developing a 5-year workforce strategic plan. With respect to information security, we found that NSF’s performance plan had a goal and measures related to information security. While NSF’s performance report did not explain its progress in resolving information security challenges, it did indicate that NSF has internal management controls that continually monitor data security. We provided NSF and the Office of the Inspector General with a draft of this report for their review and comment. We met with NSF officials, including the Chief Information Officer and the Inspector General. The NSF officials generally agreed with the report. However, they noted that the fiscal year 2000 performance report did not respond to some of the Inspector General’s management challenges primarily because these challenges were identified in a November 30, 2000, letter. The Inspector General agreed that some of these management challenges were new. The NSF officials recognize that certain challenges not in the current plan and report are important, and they noted that these challenges are being addressed through internal management controls and processes. They added that NSF will continue to consider these challenges for incorporation in future performance plans. The NSF officials also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. Our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA, the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to agencies from OMB for developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2), previous reports and evaluations by us and others, our knowledge of NSF’s operations and programs, GAO’s identification of best practices concerning performance planning and reporting, and our observations on NSF’s other GPRA-related efforts. We also discussed our review with NSF officials in the Office of Information and Resource Management; the Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management; the Office of Integrative Activities; and the Office of Inspector General. The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as important mission areas for NSF and do not reflect the outcomes for all of NSF’s programs or activities. The major management challenges confronting NSF, including the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management and information security, were identified by (1) our January 2001 high-risk update and (2) NSF’s Office of Inspector General in November 2000. We did not independently verify the information contained in the performance report and plan, although we did draw from other GAO work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of NSF’s performance data. We conducted our review from April through June 2001 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 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional committees; the Director, NSF; and the Director of OMB. Copies will also be made available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report were Richard Cheston, Alan Stapleton, Elizabeth Johnston, and Sandy Joseph. The following table discusses the major management challenges confronting the National Science Foundation (NSF), including the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management and information security, identified by our January 2001 high-risk update and NSF’s Office of Inspector General (IG) in November 2000. The first column of the table lists the management challenges identified by our office and NSF’s IG. The second column discusses NSF’s progress, as discussed in its fiscal year 2000 performance report, in resolving these challenges. The third column discusses the extent to which NSF’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes performance goals and measures to address each of these challenges. We found that while the fiscal year 2000 performance report discussed NSF’s progress in resolving most of its major challenges, it did not discuss NSF’s progress in resolving the following challenges: (1) addressing strategic human capital management issues regarding strategic human capital planning and organizational alignment, leadership continuity and succession planning, and creating results-oriented organizational cultures; (2) developing appropriate data security controls to reduce the ever increasing risk of unauthorized access; (3) developing a more coherent award administration program that ensures that grantees comply with NSF’s award requirements; (4) ensuring that NSF grantees meet their cost-sharing obligations; and (5) providing the science, operations, and logistics support needed to manage the U.S. Antarctic Program. Of NSF’s 10 major management challenges, its fiscal year 2002 performance plan (1) had goals and measures that were directly related to 5 of the challenges; (2) had goals and measures that were indirectly applicable to 1 challenge; (3) had no goals and measures related to 1 challenge but discussed strategies to address it; and (4) did not have goals, measures, or strategies to address 3 challenges. | This report reviews the National Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance report plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act. Specifically, GAO discusses NSF's progress in addressing several key outcomes that are important to NSF's mission. NSF reported that it made substantial progress in achieving its key outcomes. Although the planned strategies for achieving these key outcomes generally are clear and reasonable, some are vague and do not identify the specific steps for achieving the goals. NSF's fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan reflect continued improvement compared with the prior year's report and plan. Although the 2002 performance plan does not substantially address NSF's human capital management, NSF is developing a five-year workforce strategic plan to address strategic human capital management issues that must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget by July 20, 2001. NSF's performance report did not explain its progress in resolving information security challenges, but NSF indicated that it has internal management controls that continually monitor data security. |
Photo: Benbatt, Getty Image 1 of / 32 Caption Close
Image 1 of 32 An Italian baby fed a strict vegan diet was on the edge of survival when he arrived at a hospital in Milan on July 2, 2016. (This is a stock image meant to represent the story.) An Italian baby fed a strict vegan diet was on the edge of survival when he arrived at a hospital in Milan on July 2, 2016. (This is a stock image meant to represent the story.) Photo: Benbatt, Getty
Image 2 of 32 What's the difference between vegan and vegetarians? Click through to see. What's the difference between vegan and vegetarians? Click through to see. Photo: Leander Baerenz, Getty Images
Image 3 of 32 Vegetarians and vegans don't eat meat. Ever. Not even on Thanksgiving. Vegetarians and vegans don't eat meat. Ever. Not even on Thanksgiving. Photo: Leander Baerenz, Getty Images
Image 4 of 32 Folks who opt out of red meat, pork and poultry and eat mostly veggies but still choose to eat fish are called pescatrians. Folks who opt out of red meat, pork and poultry and eat mostly veggies but still choose to eat fish are called pescatrians. Photo: Adam Gault, Getty Images
Image 5 of 32 Those who choose to stick to poultry but opt out of pork and red meats aren't vegetarians or vegan either, they're just considered health-conscious. Those who choose to stick to poultry but opt out of pork and red meats aren't vegetarians or vegan either, they're just considered health-conscious. Photo: Oli Kellett, Getty Images
Image 6 of 32 Vegans and vegetarians often utilize tofu, a soy product, to imitate meat. Vegans and vegetarians often utilize tofu, a soy product, to imitate meat. Photo: Jessica Boone, Getty Images
Image 7 of 32 Serious vegetarians and vegans view cooking tofu as an art form. It's also a great source of protein. Serious vegetarians and vegans view cooking tofu as an art form. It's also a great source of protein. Photo: Annabelle Breakey, Getty Images
Image 8 of 32 While vegetarians don't eat meat, they still may partake in other animal products like dairy, eggs and gelatin. While vegetarians don't eat meat, they still may partake in other animal products like dairy, eggs and gelatin. Photo: Chris Stein, Getty Images
Image 9 of 32 Vegan's, on the other hand, don't drink milk, or consume any dairy for the matter. They will search out milk alternatives such as soy, almond, flax and coconut "milk." Vegan's, on the other hand, don't drink milk, or consume any dairy for the matter. They will search out milk alternatives such as soy, almond, flax and coconut "milk." Photo: Jamie Grill, Getty Images
Image 10 of 32 Chia seeds, popular among vegans, can be soaked in water until they reach a gelatin consistency and then whipped into baked recipes as an egg substitute. They are comparable to eggs as a source of protein. Chia seeds, popular among vegans, can be soaked in water until they reach a gelatin consistency and then whipped into baked recipes as an egg substitute. They are comparable to eggs as a source of protein. Photo: Kristin Duvall, Getty Images
Image 11 of 32 Beans are also a huge protein source for non-meat eaters... Beans are also a huge protein source for non-meat eaters... Photo: John Block, Getty Images
Image 12 of 32 ...as well as nuts. ...as well as nuts. Photo: Plush Studios, Getty Images
Image 13 of 32 Both vegans and vegetarians eat wheat, rice, pasta and grains like quinoa, often using them to construct meat substitutes like meatballs. burgers and "sausage." Both vegans and vegetarians eat wheat, rice, pasta and grains like quinoa, often using them to construct meat substitutes like meatballs. burgers and "sausage." Photo: BRETT STEVENS, Getty Images
Image 14 of 32 So whether it's in the name of animal rights... So whether it's in the name of animal rights... Photo: David Aubrey, Getty Images
Image 15 of 32 Or for the health benefits... Or for the health benefits... Photo: Cultura Science/Sigrid Gombert, Getty Images
Image 16 of 32 Vegan and vegetarians alike steer clear of meat and get pretty creative with their fruits and veggies. Vegan's are just a little pickier than vegetarians about everything else. Vegan and vegetarians alike steer clear of meat and get pretty creative with their fruits and veggies. Vegan's are just a little pickier than vegetarians about everything else. Photo: Maximilian Stock Ltd., Getty Images
Image 17 of 32 Kristen Bell
The actress is open about her
The actress is open about her healthy vegan lifestyle Kristen Bell
The actress is open about her The actress is open about her healthy vegan lifestyle
Image 18 of 32 Beyonce
The superstar is kind of a vegan. In 2015, she announced she is a part-time vegan but
The superstar is kind of a vegan. In 2015, she announced she is a part-time vegan but still eats meat Beyonce
The superstar is kind of a vegan. In 2015, she announced she is a part-time vegan but The superstar is kind of a vegan. In 2015, she announced she is a part-time vegan but still eats meat
Image 19 of 32 Russell Brand
The comedian has been a vegetarian most of his life, and switched to a vegan lifestyle in 2011,
The comedian has been a vegetarian most of his life, and switched to a vegan lifestyle in 2011, which he credits as helping him beat his heroin addiction. Russell Brand
The comedian has been a vegetarian most of his life, and switched to a vegan lifestyle in 2011, The comedian has been a vegetarian most of his life, and switched to a vegan lifestyle in 2011, which he credits as helping him beat his heroin addiction. Photo: Alan Chapman, FilmMagic
Image 20 of 32 Jessica Chastain
The actress was PETA's 2012 Sexiest Vegetarian and recently
The actress was PETA's 2012 Sexiest Vegetarian and recently bought her mom a food truck so she can turn veganism into a business. Jessica Chastain
The actress was PETA's 2012 Sexiest Vegetarian and recently The actress was PETA's 2012 Sexiest Vegetarian and recently bought her mom a food truck so she can turn veganism into a business.
Image 21 of 32 Bill Clinton
The former POTUS went
The former POTUS went vegan for health reasons years ago. Bill Clinton
The former POTUS went The former POTUS went vegan for health reasons years ago. Photo: Matt Rourke, Associated Press
Image 22 of 32 Ellen Degeneres
The comedian has been open about her vegan diet, but recently came under fire for l
The comedian has been open about her vegan diet, but recently came under fire for l aunching a line of leather goods Ellen Degeneres
The comedian has been open about her vegan diet, but recently came under fire for l The comedian has been open about her vegan diet, but recently came under fire for l aunching a line of leather goods Photo: Kevin Winter, Getty Images
Image 23 of 32 Al Gore
The politician announced he had gone
The politician announced he had gone vegan in 2013 Al Gore
The politician announced he had gone The politician announced he had gone vegan in 2013 Photo: Chris Jackson, Getty Images
Image 24 of 32 Ariana Grande
The singer made headlines when she The singer made headlines when she licked a donut at a pastry shop, but she usually stick to a vegan diet. Ariana Grande
The singer made headlines when she The singer made headlines when she licked a donut at a pastry shop, but she usually stick to a vegan diet. Photo: Jon Shapley, Staff
Image 25 of 32 Woody Harrelson
The actor
The actor told Esquire Magazine that a random encounter with a girl on a bus when he first moved to New York City made him go vegan. Woody Harrelson
The actor The actor told Esquire Magazine that a random encounter with a girl on a bus when he first moved to New York City made him go vegan. Photo: Evan Agostini
Image 26 of 32 Jared Leto
The actor musician was
The actor musician was PETA's Sexiest Vegetarian of 2014 and has been a vegan/vegetarian for over 20 years. Jared Leto
The actor musician was The actor musician was PETA's Sexiest Vegetarian of 2014 and has been a vegan/vegetarian for over 20 years. Photo: Michael Buckner, Getty Images For Fast Company
Image 27 of 32 Tobey Maguire
The actor is a long-time vegan. He even once
The actor is a long-time vegan. He even once sent back a Mercedes that has leather seats. Tobey Maguire
The actor is a long-time vegan. He even once The actor is a long-time vegan. He even once sent back a Mercedes that has leather seats. Photo: Charles Sykes
Image 28 of 32 Ellen Page
The actress was named
The actress was named PETAs 2014 Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrity alongslide Jared Leto. Ellen Page
The actress was named The actress was named PETAs 2014 Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrity alongslide Jared Leto. Photo: JABIN BOTSFORD, STF / Washington Post
Image 29 of 32 Joaquin Phoenix
The devout vegan has
The devout vegan has spoken out against eating turkeys on Thanksgiving. Joaquin Phoenix
The devout vegan has The devout vegan has spoken out against eating turkeys on Thanksgiving. Photo: Jordan Strauss
Image 30 of 32 Natalie Portman
The actress publicly went vegan in 2010, writing an editorial of the The actress publicly went vegan in 2010, writing an editorial of the Huffington Post. Natalie Portman
The actress publicly went vegan in 2010, writing an editorial of the The actress publicly went vegan in 2010, writing an editorial of the Huffington Post. Photo: Francois G. Durand, Getty Images
Image 31 of 32 Alicia Silverstone
The actress claims she started her vegan lifestyle out of animal compassion, but now
The actress claims she started her vegan lifestyle out of animal compassion, but now raves about veganism and weight loss Alicia Silverstone
The actress claims she started her vegan lifestyle out of animal compassion, but now The actress claims she started her vegan lifestyle out of animal compassion, but now raves about veganism and weight loss ||||| A 14-month-old Italian baby, who was reportedly fed a vegan diet, has been removed from his parents after arriving at a Milan hospital seriously malnourished.
The baby, whose name has not been released, was taken to hospital by his grandparents a week ago and doctors were shocked to see the poor state of the baby’s health and a body weight only just slightly higher than a newborn.
Blood tests revealed the child, who was born in May 2015, was severely malnourished with calcium levels barely adequate to survive. The baby was also suffering from a congenital heart condition which required emergency surgery. He is now recovering in hospital. |||||
(Dixie D. Vereen/For The Washington Post)
When an Italian baby was taken to hospital in Milan earlier this month by his grandparents, doctors there were shocked by the baby’s condition. At 14 months old, he weighed only slightly more than a 3-month-old, according to the Local Italy.
Upon further examination, a more harrowing picture began to take shape. The baby, whose parents allegedly kept him on a vegan diet without providing dietary supplements, was found to be severely malnourished, suffering from dangerously low calcium levels. Complicating matters, the baby had to undergo an emergency operation because of a congenital heart condition, which was aggravated by his low calcium levels.
The Local reported that hospital staff reported the case to social services and that the baby’s parents have lost the custodial rights to their child.
The case “forces us to reflect on uncommon feeding regimes,” Luca Bernardo, director of pediatrics at the hospital, told the Daily Telegraph.
He was careful not to take sides on the issue of what constitutes an optimal diet for a baby, however. “It is not a problem to choose different or unusual kinds of nutrition, and we certainly do not want to enter into a discussion of the merits of the decision. But since birth, the baby should have had support in this case with calcium and iron,” Bernardo said.
In recent months, Italy has seen multiple cases of children on vegan diets being hospitalized for malnutrition. In June, a 2-year-old girl was brought to a hospital in Genoa, where she spent several days in intensive care after doctors found her to be suffering from vitamin deficiencies and low levels of hemoglobin. And last June, an 11-month-old baby, whose parents are vegans, was treated for severe malnutrition at a hospital in Florence.
[Ranch becomes cow sanctuary thanks to vegan wife]
Similar cases have played out in other countries as well. In 2007, a vegan couple were given life sentences after their 6-week-old baby boy died of starvation in 2004. They had fed the baby a diet of mainly soy milk and apple juice, and a jury found the couple guilty of murder, manslaughter and cruelty to children. And in 2011, a French vegan couple were charged with child neglect after their 11-month-old baby died from vitamin deficiencies.
It’s not necessarily the case that veganism leads to malnourished young children, of course, as a 2007 op-ed in the New York Times titled “Death by Veganism” seemed to suggest, drawing a furious reaction from some vegans, including articles with such titles as “Veganism is Not Child Abuse.”
“Holy guacamole — can we all just stop the madness when it comes to ill-informed journalists claiming that vegan diets harm/kill babies?!” said a broadside in the Your Daily Vegan. “Every year or so, an article enters the world with inflammatory headlines and content about how dangerous a vegan diet can be for infants and children.”
As an article in the Spectator last year argued, it isn’t veganism that harms children — it’s neglectful parenting. Veganism, if done right, can give kids all the nutrients they need for healthy growth, experts say.
[Video: Macaroni and cheese at Woodlands Vegan Bistro]
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics agrees that “well-planned vegetarian and eating patterns are healthy for infants and toddlers,” according to its publication, “Eat Right.” For breast-feeding mothers and for infants who don’t consume milk products and eggs, it recommends supplements or fortified foods for vitamins B12, vitamin D, calcium and iron and advises parents to consult a dietitian.
Britain’s National Health Service makes similar recommendations.
“It’s not a problem if parents want to raise their children using alternative or even unusual diets,” the hospital’s head pediatrician told the Corriere, the Local reported.
“But care needs to be taken to make up for any nutritional shortfalls using supplements. For example, the 1-year-old child we are treating should have been taking iron and calcium supplements.”
As Slate’s parenting advice columnist put it: “Can kids be vegan and be healthy? Of course they can. Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are undoubtedly good for growing bodies, and research even suggests an association between veganism and a reduced risk for cancer.”
But there’s a caveat: Veganism requires a lot of extra work. Parents and caregivers, the Slate columnist writes, “have to ensure that their children are getting the calories and wide variety of nutrients they need — not a small feat when dealing with typically fussy, food-neophobic kids.” | Veganism is on the rise in Italy, and while it's been shown to be the best diet for weight loss, a few babies who are also on a strict no-animal-products diet appear to be paying a price. A 14-month-old was rushed to a Milan hospital this month by his grandparents and found to be so severely malnourished that he weighed what most babies weigh at 3 months, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. His calcium and iron levels were extremely low, which in turn exacerbated a congenital heart condition for which he had to undergo emergency surgery. And while the surgery was successful and the boy is recovering, a Milan court ruled that his parents, who refused to give the baby animal products or dietary supplements, would not be given custody of the child while an investigation is underway. The extraordinary case appears to be growing more common as a 2-year-old was hospitalized in Genoa in June for malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies, while an 11-month-old was treated for similar problems in Florence last June, reports the Washington Post. These cases are forcing doctors "to reflect on uncommon feeding regimes," Luca Bernardo, director of pediatrics at the Milan hospital, tells the Telegraph. "It is not a problem to choose different or unusual kinds of nutrition ... but since birth, the baby should have had support in this case with calcium and iron." Media reports estimate that nearly 3% of Italy is now vegan. (The mother of the vegan climber who died on Everest wants answers.) |
FILE - In a Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016 file photo, gormer U.S. President Jimmy Carter delivers a lecture on the eradication of the Guinea worm, at the House of Lords in London. A spokeswoman for Jimmy Carter... (Associated Press)
FILE - In a Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016 file photo, gormer U.S. President Jimmy Carter delivers a lecture on the eradication of the Guinea worm, at the House of Lords in London. A spokeswoman for Jimmy Carter... (Associated Press)
ATLANTA (AP) — Jimmy Carter announced Sunday that he no longer needs treatment for cancer, less than seven months after revealing he had been diagnosed with melanoma that spread to his brain.
Carter, 91, shared the news at one of his regular Sunday School classes at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia.
Carter always starts his lessons with a brief update on his recent activities. This week, Carter told the class, he received an MRI lasting more than 2 hours.
"And then the doctors determined that I didn't need any more treatment," Carter said in a video posted by WXIA-TV. "So I'm not going to have any more treatment."
He smiled as the audience applauded.
Carter's spokeswoman Deanna Congileo said in an email Sunday that his doctors will continue to perform scans to ensure cancer cells have not returned, and Carter will "resume treatment if necessary." A spokesman for Emory University's Winship Cancer Institute, where Carter has been treated, declined to comment on Sunday, citing patient privacy.
Carter's treatment plan for the aggressive form of cancer including a round of targeted radiation at several tumors on his brain and doses of an immune-boosting drug every three weeks from August through February. The drug, Keytruda, was approved not long before Carter's announcement and helps his body seek out and destroy cancer cells.
Medical experts have called Keytruda and similar immune therapy drugs "game-changing" for patients with melanoma. But the drugs are relatively new, and doctors are still learning about how they should be used and for how long, said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. He is not involved in Carter's treatment.
"Some people believe they should be continued as long as a patient is doing well, some feel the drugs should continue for a period of time and then be stopped," Lichtenfeld said. "This is clearly a (decision) based on individual evidence specific to the president and made with his doctors."
Dr. Douglas Johnson, a melanoma specialist at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center who is not treating Carter, said the FDA did not provide a specific end-date for patients who see improvement while taking the drugs. Patients who see results may want to stop but battle with fear that the cancer could return, he said.
"That has become a very difficult question," Johnson said. "We can say that patients who have stopped treatment have continued to do very well, but the drug has been around less than 10 years. Whether all patients have the same results, we don't know."
Carter made another unexpected announcement about his health at a December class, telling the audience that a recent scan of his brain detected no sign of cancer. At the time, Carter told the group that he planned to continue receiving doses of Keytruda every three weeks. He has said the drug caused few side effects.
Jill Stuckey, a Maranatha Baptist Church member, said in a phone interview that Carter's updates have become "a pattern for our church."
"President Carter comes in, tells us phenomenal news and we all applaud," Stuckey, also a close friend of the Carters, said. "We're all on pins and needles wondering how things are going, because you never know from looking at somebody."
Carter has remained active throughout his treatment, including participating in a building project with Habitat for Humanity. He also continued work at the Carter Center, the human rights organization he founded after leaving the White House, contrary to his initial plans to step back during treatment.
Tim Turnham, executive director of the Melanoma Research Foundation, said Carter's age or busy schedule may have been a factor in deciding to stop the treatment.
"When you have a drug that's working to keep cancer at bay, it's a hard decision to stop," Turnham, who is not involved with Carter's treatment, said. "It really becomes a conversation between the patient and their doctor." ||||| Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy From 1977 to 1981, Jimmy Carter served as the 39th President of the United States. Click through the gallery to look back at moments from his life and career. Hide Caption 1 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter, 6, poses with his sister Gloria in their hometown of Plains, Georgia, in 1931. Hide Caption 2 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy on June 5, 1946, after completing the accelerated wartime program. Hide Caption 3 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter shovels peanuts in the 1970s. Carter was the son of a peanut farmer, and he took over the family business in 1953 before his political career took off. Hide Caption 4 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter gets a haircut during his first year as governor of Georgia. He was inaugurated on January 12, 1971. Hide Caption 5 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy After becoming the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in 1976, Carter raises hands with running mate Walter Mondale at the Democratic National Convention in New York. Standing to Carter's right is his wife, Rosalynn, and their daughter, Amy. Carter ran as a Washington outsider and someone who promised to shake up government. Hide Caption 6 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter and US President Gerald Ford debate domestic policy at the Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia in September 1976. It was the first of three Ford-Carter presidential debates. Hide Caption 7 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter embraces his wife after receiving news of his election victory on November 2, 1976. Carter received 297 electoral votes, while Ford received 241. Hide Caption 8 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Chief Justice Warren Burger swears Carter into office on January 20, 1977, while Rosalynn Carter looks on. Hide Caption 9 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter, second from left, and his brother Billy, left, visit Georgia's St. Simons Island in 1977. Hide Caption 10 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in January 1978. "Government cannot solve our problems," he said. Anti-government sentiment at the time was brought on by economic pessimism along with the end of the Vietnam War and the unraveling of the Watergate saga. Hide Caption 11 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Three days before his birthday in 1978, Carter blows out candles on a birthday cake presented to him at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee. Hide Caption 12 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter jogs on the South Lawn of the White House in December 1978. Hide Caption 13 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, right, listens to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on September 6, 1978, at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland. With Carter's help, terms of a peace accord were negotiated at Camp David. A formal treaty was signed in Washington on March 26, 1979, ending 31 years of war between Egypt and Israel. It was one of the highlights of Carter's presidency. Hide Caption 14 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy A blindfolded American hostage is paraded by his captors at the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran, in November 1979. Carter's inability to successfully negotiate the release of the hostages became a major political liability. The hostages were freed on January 20, 1981, the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration. Hide Caption 15 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Outgoing President Carter, left, sits with President-elect Ronald Reagan en route to Reagan's inauguration in January 1981. Hide Caption 16 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Before departing for Georgia following Reagan's inauguration, Carter holds his crying daughter as his wife blows a kiss at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Hide Caption 17 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy The Carters wear glittering garlands and a turban given to them by Pakistani tribesmen at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in November 1986. They also received a pair of rams. Hide Caption 18 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter addresses a United Nations interfaith service at New York's Trinity Church in September 1991. His speech was entitled "The Present Role of the United Nations in a Changing World." Hide Caption 19 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy From left, former President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, Carter and Vice President Al Gore attend the Presidents' Summit for America's Future in Philadelphia in 1997. They helped clean up local neighborhoods as part of the effort to encourage volunteer service. Hide Caption 20 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Clinton presented Carter with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, on August 9, 1999. Carter was recognized for his diplomatic achievements and humanitarian efforts. Hide Caption 21 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter works at a construction site sponsored by the Jimmy Carter Work Project in Asan, South Korea, on August 6, 2001. The Carters have been involved with the nonprofit Habitat for Humanity since 1984. Hide Caption 22 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Cuban President Fidel Castro calls for time as Carter prepares to throw the first pitch at a baseball game in Havana, Cuba, in May 2002. Hide Caption 23 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Students at the University of Havana listen to Carter outline his vision for improved relations between the United States and Cuba on May 14, 2002. The speech was broadcast live and uncensored on Cuban state television. Hide Caption 24 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, in December 2002. He was recognized for his many years of public service, and in his acceptance speech he urged others to work for peace. Hide Caption 25 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter adjusts his headphones at a news conference in Caracas, Venezuela, in January 2003. He proposed a referendum on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's presidency or an amendment to the constitution as a way to end the political crisis in the South American nation. Hide Caption 26 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean speaks beside Carter during a campaign stop in Plains, Georgia, in January 2004. Hide Caption 27 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Rosalynn Carter smashes a bottle of champagne against the sail of the USS Jimmy Carter during the submarine's christening ceremony in Connecticut on June 5, 2004. Hide Caption 28 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy The Carters wave to the audience at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. Hide Caption 29 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter checks his notes while observing a polling station in Maputo, Mozambique, in December 2004. Since 1989, the Carter Center has been observing elections around the world to determine their legitimacy. The nonprofit organization was founded by Carter and his wife to advance human rights across the globe. Hide Caption 30 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy In February 2007, Carter speaks to children in Ghana on the seriousness of eradicating guinea worm disease. Hide Caption 31 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy The Carters arrive for President Barack Obama's inauguration in January 2009. Hide Caption 32 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter testifies in May 2009 during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on energy independence and security. Hide Caption 33 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Hamas leader Ismail Haniya speaks in June 2009 during a joint news conference with Carter in Gaza. Carter denounced the deprivations facing Palestinians in Gaza as unique in history, asserting that they are being treated "like animals." Hide Caption 34 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter walks out of the Hall of Remembrance at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem in August 2009. The Elders, an independent council of retired world figures, kicked off a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in a bid to encourage Middle East peace efforts. Hide Caption 35 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter delivers a speech in Seoul, South Korea, after receiving an honorary doctorate degree from Korea University in March 2010. During a four-day visit to South Korea, Carter urged direct talks with North Korea, saying a failure to negotiate nuclear disarmament might lead to a "catastrophic" war. Hide Caption 36 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter greets South African leader Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg in May 2010. Hide Caption 37 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter hugs Aijalon Mahli Gomes at Boston's Logan International Airport in August 2010. Carter negotiated Gomes' release after he was held in North Korea for crossing into the country illegally in January 2010. Hide Caption 38 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter and other former Presidents, including Clinton and both George Bushes, attend the Points of Light Institute Tribute to Former President George H.W. Bush in March 2011. Hide Caption 39 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Cuban President Raul Castro greets Carter and his wife at the Revolution Palace in Havana on March 30, 2011. Carter was the first former US President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution. Hide Caption 40 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy In April 2011, Carter addresses students at the Pyongyang University of Foreign Studies in Pyongyang, North Korea. Hide Caption 41 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy As part of the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, Carter answers a question during a panel discussion at the University of Illinois in Chicago in April 2012. Hide Caption 42 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy From left, President Obama, Carter, first lady Michelle Obama and Clinton wave from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2013. It was the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, which is best remembered for Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Hide Caption 43 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter talks with reporters in Chicago at a signing for his book "A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power" in March 2014. In the book, Carter argues that the abuse and subjugation of women and girls is one of the biggest challenges the world faces. Hide Caption 44 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter teaches Sunday School on Easter Sunday 2014 at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia. Carter teaches Sunday School at the church several times a year. Hide Caption 45 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter signs his book "A Full Life: Reflections At Ninety" in Pasadena, California, in July 2015. Hide Caption 46 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter talks about his cancer diagnosis during a news conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta in August 2015. Carter announced that his cancer was on four small spots on his brain and that he would immediately begin radiation treatment. In December 2015, Carter announced that he was cancer-free. Hide Caption 47 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter delivers a lecture on the eradication of guinea worm disease at the House of Lords in London in February 2016. Hide Caption 48 of 50
Photos: Jimmy Carter's legacy Carter and his wife arrive for the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017. Hide Caption 49 of 50 | Jimmy Carter's battle with cancer appears to have ended in a knockout victory for Jimmy Carter. The 91-year-old former president, who was diagnosed with melanoma on the brain last summer and declared cancer-free in December, told the Sunday school class he teaches in Georgia that he no longer needs treatment for the disease, which he feared would kill him within weeks of the initial diagnosis, CNN reports. Carter, who will continue to receive scans to make sure the disease has not returned, was treated with radiation, surgery, and a form of immune-boosting treatment that experts have called a game changer for patients with melanoma. "It's a treatment called immuno-therapy and it removed the obstacles to my own immune system to fight against cancer, basically—it's kind of complicated," Carter told the class at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, per WXIA. "But it's worked very well for me and I had an MRI for two hours and 10 minutes and then the doctors determined that I didn't need any more treatment." An American Cancer Society spokesman tells the AP that Carter was treated with Keytruda, a relatively new immune-boosting drug, and the decision to stop treatment was clearly "based on individual evidence specific to the president and made with his doctors." |
Dylann Roof is pictured in this undated booking photo provided by the Lexington County Sheriff’ Department. Roof, 21, is accused of killing nine people at a historic African American church in Charleston, S.C. He was arrested June 18, and officials are investigating the attack as a hate crime. (Lexington County Sheriff’ Department via Reuters)
Dylann Roof, the man accused of a shooting spree that left nine people dead at a historic black church in Charleston on Wednesday night, should not have been able to get a gun.
Federal law prohibits people with pending felony charges from obtaining firearms. In February, Roof was arrested and later charged with felony possession of Suboxone, a narcotic prescription drug. He was released, and the case is pending.
Because of his criminal record, Roof would not have been able to buy a gun from a store. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks on gun purchasers, and Roof’s pending charges should have turned up as a red flag.
But Roof didn’t need to go to a dealership. According to his uncle, Roof received a .45-caliber pistol from his father in April for his birthday, Reuters reports.
After a shooting at a Charleston, S.C., AME church that left nine people dead, the conversation turned to gun laws in the state—and around the country. (Pamela Kirkland/The Washington Post)
South Carolina is one of 40 states that do not require background checks for private gun transactions, like the one that allegedly took place between Roof and his father. Gun control activists call this the “private sale” loophole.
It’s illegal to give guns to felons or people with felony indictments — but that’s only if you know about their criminal records. In South Carolina, you don’t have to ask, so private citizens can more or less freely exchange guns.
If prosecutors can show that the father knew about Roof’s indictment but gave him the gun anyway, Roof’s father could face up to 10 years in prison.
In contrast, ten states and the District of Columbia have closed the private sale loophole by requiring background checks for nearly all gun transfers. Anyone trying to sell or give Roof a gun would have had to take him to a licensed dealership or a law enforcement office to complete the transaction. (Many of these states have exceptions for people giving guns to family members, though.)
During his news conference addressing the shooting of nine people in a Charleston, S.C. church, President Obama issued a stern message on gun violence in America, saying, "it is in our power to do something about it." (AP)
Other states deal with private transactions by requiring buyers to get a gun purchasing license, which involves passing a background check. Private sellers are supposed to check for this license before they sell a gun to someone.
It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.
In a speech today, President Obama criticized the laws that make guns easily available in South Carolina. “Once again, innocent people were killed because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” he said.
The National Rifle Association recently changed its mind on universal background checks, coming out against them. “Background checks will never be ‘universal’ because criminals will never submit to them,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in 2013.
Yet according to a Johns Hopkins poll released that same year, 74 percent of NRA members and 89 percent of Americans support the policy.
This post has been updated with more details about background check laws. ||||| (CNN) Dylann Roof heard words of forgiveness from families of some of the nine people he's accused of killing.
His response: A blank expression.
Wearing a striped inmate jumpsuit, the 21-year-old appeared Friday afternoon by video feed at a bond hearing in Charleston, South Carolina. He stood motionless while listening to the anguished words of relatives of victims he gunned down Wednesday night at a Bible study at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church
"I will never be able to hold her again, but I forgive you," a daughter of Ethel Lance said. "And have mercy on your soul. You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people but God forgives you, and I forgive you."
Felicia Sanders -- mother of victim Tywanza Sanders and a survivor of the church shooting herself -- said that "every fiber in my body hurts, and I will never be the same."
"As we said in the Bible study, we enjoyed you," she said of Roof. "But may God have mercy on you."
The families got the attention of President Obama, who tweeted: "In the midst of darkest tragedy, the decency and goodness of the American people shines through in these families."
In the midst of darkest tragedy, the decency and goodness of the American people shines through in these families. https://t.co/aYtAKrWwCY — President Obama (@POTUS) June 19, 2015
JUST WATCHED Charleston victim's relative: I forgive you Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Charleston victim's relative: I forgive you 00:33
Roof's family spoke out for the first time Friday, extending its "deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims," according to a statement issued by his public defender.
"Words cannot express our shock, grief and disbelief as to what happened that night. We are devastated and saddened by what occurred. We offer our prayers sympathy for all of those impacted by these events," the statement says. It ends asking for privacy for the Roof family.
Roof barely spoke at the hearing, answering the judge's questions about his unemployment with a "yes, sir" and "no, sir" and stating his age as 21. The video feed meant Roof could hear, but not see, people in the courtroom, according to court employees. People in the courtroom could see and hear Roof.
Magistrate James B. Gosnell Jr. drew fire on social media by opening the hearing by expressing sympathy for Roof's family.
He spoke about how Charleston would embrace all the crime victims and said: "There are victims on this young man's side of the family. Nobody would have ever thrown them into the whirlwind of events that they were thrown into. ... We must find it in our hearts at some point in time to not only help those who are victims but to help his family as well."
Tweeted Desiree P. Urquhart @CBMaiden, "Magistrate James Gosnell Jr is an example of white southern bigotry, ignorant pontification & a good ole boy's entitlement to say anything."
Magistrate James Gosnell Jr is an example of white southern bigotry, ignorant pontification & a good ole boy's entitlement to say anything. — Desiree P. Urquhart (@CBMaiden) June 19, 2015
Elizabeth Bradbury @isabellabc tweeted, "For those who don't understand why blacks in America are still angry just watch Judge Gosnell's lecture to the court at Roof's hearing."
For those who don't understand why blacks in America are still angry just watch Judge Gosnell's lecture to the court at Roof's hearing. — Elizabeth Bradbury (@isabellabc) June 19, 2015
Gosnell set bail at $1 million on a weapons possession charge. A circuit judge will hold a bond hearing later on the nine murder charges, but it's unlikely Roof will be allowed to leave jail.
The suspect actually is being held in the North Charleston jail. Authorities didn't want him to appear at the bond hearing in person for security reasons.
Roof also may be prosecuted by federal authorities if it's determined he committed a hate crime. The Justice Department issued a statement Friday saying, "This heartbreaking episode was undoubtedly designed to strike fear and terror into this community, and the department is looking at this crime from all angles, including as a hate crime and as an act of domestic terrorism."
Roof admits he did it, sources say
Roof admits he shot and killed the people he'd sat with for Bible study at the historically black church, two law enforcement officials said.
But why? To start a race war.
That's what Roof told investigators, according to one of the officials.
A moment of prayer #CharlestonShooting #CNN A photo posted by Catherine Shoichet (@catherinecnn) on Jun 18, 2015 at 5:00pm PDT
CNN's Evan Perez and Wesley Bruer were the first to report Roof's confession. Others earlier gave a glimpse into the twisted motivation -- including at the time and site of the shooting.
There, a survivor told Sylvia Johnson that Roof answered one man's pleas to stop by saying, "No, you've raped our women, and you are taking over the country ... I have to do what I have to do."
CNN Charlotte affiliate WBTV, citing a source, says Roof told investigators in Shelby, North Carolina, where he was arrested, that he had researched the church and targeted it because it turned out to be a "historic African-American church."
A friend recalled a drunken Roof ranting one night about his unspecified six-month plan "to do something crazy" in order "to start a race war." And the Berkeley County, South Carolina, government tweeted a picture of him in a jacket with flags from apartheid-era South Africa and nearby Rhodesia, a former British colony that was ruled by a white minority until it became independent in 1980.
Photos: Charleston church shooting Photos: Charleston church shooting In this image from the video uplink from the detention center to the courtroom, Dylann Roof appears at a bond hearing June 19, 2015, in South Carolina. Roof is charged with nine counts of murder and firearms charges in the shooting deaths at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina on June 17. Hide Caption 1 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old charged with murdering nine people in a church shooting on Wednesday, June 17, is escorted by police in Shelby, North Carolina, on Thursday, June 18. Hide Caption 2 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Law enforcement officers in Charleston, South Carolina, stand guard near the scene of the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Hide Caption 3 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting A police officer directs a police vehicle in front of the church on June 18. Hide Caption 4 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Two law enforcement officials said Roof confessed. Roof said he wanted to start a race war, one of the officials said. Hide Caption 5 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Police in Charleston close off a section of Calhoun Street early on June 18, after the shooting. The steeple of the church is visible in the background. Hide Caption 6 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Charleston police officers search for the shooting suspect outside the church on Wednesday, June 17. Hide Caption 7 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting People in Charleston pray following the shooting on June 17. Hide Caption 8 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting A woman joins a prayer circle on June 17. Hide Caption 9 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting A man kneels across the street from where police gathered outside the church on June 17. Hide Caption 10 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Police gather at the scene of the shooting on June 17. The church was formed in 1816. Hide Caption 11 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting People pray in a hotel parking lot across the street from the scene of the shooting on June 17. Every Wednesday evening, the church holds a Bible study in its basement. Hide Caption 12 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting An armed police officer moves up Calhoun Street on June 17. Hide Caption 13 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting People gather after the shooting. Hide Caption 14 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Police stand outside the church. Hide Caption 15 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Police close off a section of Calhoun Street near the scene of the shooting. Hide Caption 16 of 17 Photos: Charleston church shooting Police in Charleston released this security-camera image that they say shows Roof entering the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Hide Caption 17 of 17
By telling authorities his aim, Roof admitted he attacked unarmed civilians for political purposes in an act of terror.
What led the South Carolinian to adopt this reasoning and take such actions Wednesday night? Did anyone else help him or even know about his plans? And what is his general mental state? All are major, looming questions. Another is what American society should or will do now, if anything, to prevent similar tragedies.
In the meantime, nine families are left to mourn and a community is left to come together, ideally, to heal.
"This hateful person came to this community with some crazy idea that he would be able to divide," Mayor Joseph Riley said. "And all he did was make us more united, and love each other even more."
Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Thousands of people march on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in Charleston, South Carolina, on Sunday, June 21. People crossed the bridge, which spans the Cooper River, from Mount Pleasant to Charleston, joining hands in a unity chain to mourn the Emanuel AME Church shooting. Police arrested Dylann Storm Roof in the slayings of nine people at a prayer meeting at the church. Hide Caption 1 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Protesters stand on the South Carolina State House steps during a rally to take down the Confederate flag, on Saturday, June 20, in Columbia. Hide Caption 2 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Louise Brown walks down King Street during a "Black Lives Matter" march on June 20 in Charleston, South Carolina. Hide Caption 3 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting The men of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity lead a prayer outside Emanuel AME Church, Friday, June 19. Hide Caption 4 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Young people grieve outside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June 19. Hide Caption 5 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Parishioners applaud during a memorial service on Thursday, June 18, at Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Hide Caption 6 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Olina Ortega, left, and Austin Gibbs light candles at a sidewalk memorial in front of Emanuel AME Church on June 18. Hide Caption 7 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting The Rev. Jeannie Smalls becomes emotional during a prayer vigil held at Morris Brown AME Church on June 18. Hide Caption 8 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting A woman places flowers outside the church on June 18. Hide Caption 9 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Mourners gather for a community prayer service at Second Presbyterian Church in Charleston on June 18. Hide Caption 10 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Walter Jackson, the son of Susie Jackson who died in the church shooting, recalls stories about his mother with his niece Cynthia Taylor at Jackson's home in Charleston on June 18. Hide Caption 11 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting The Rev. Al Sharpton wipes away a tear after praying outside the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston on June 18. Hide Caption 12 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting People sit on the steps of Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston while services are held June 18. Hide Caption 13 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting A woman wipes her eyes at a makeshift memorial near the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston on June 18. Hide Caption 14 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting The Rev. Keith McDaniel, pastor of Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church, is surrounded by others in prayer on June 18 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Hide Caption 15 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Tyler Francis, right, hugs Shondrey Dear after praying together June 18 at a makeshift memorial near the Emanuel AME Church. Hide Caption 16 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting A group of women prays together at a makeshift memorial on the sidewalk in front of the Emanuel AME Church on June 18. Hide Caption 17 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, pauses while speaking in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, June 18, on the church shooting in Charleston. Hide Caption 18 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Members of the U.S. Congress gather in front of the Capitol Building in Washington on June 18, during a moment of silence for the nine killed in a church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. Hide Caption 19 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting South Carolina state Sen. Vincent Sheheen gets emotional on June 18 as he sits next to the draped desk of Sen. Clementa Pinckney at the statehouse in Columbia, South Carolina. Pinckney was one of the nine people killed in the church shooting. Hide Caption 20 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Charleston resident Noah Nicolaisen kneels at a makeshift memorial down the street from the church on June 18. Hide Caption 21 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Kim Hamby prays with her daughter Kayla as they lay flowers at a makeshift memorial in Charleston on June 18. Hide Caption 22 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting A man leans against a light pole as he visits a memorial in Charleston on June 18. Hide Caption 23 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Chaplain James St. John leads senators in prayer June 18 at the statehouse in Columbia. Hide Caption 24 of 25 Photos: Reactions to Charleston church shooting Sandra Bridges lays a card at a memorial on June 18. Hide Caption 25 of 25
Roof faces a long legal road ahead.
It could end in his execution, assuming he's convicted and prosecutors seek (and are granted) such a death sentence, according to South Carolina law . Gov. Nikki Haley indicated that's what she wants, while Charleston's mayor -- while he doesn't support the death penalty personally -- thinks it's inevitable.
"If you're going to have a death penalty," Riley said, "then certainly this case will merit it."
Friend: Roof wanted 'white with white, and black with black'
How did Dylann Roof get to the point of being accused of one of the most hateful, violent race-related crimes in recent memory?
His uncle, Carson Cowles, told the Washington Post that Roof's mother "never raised him to be like this." Those who knew him, though, paint a picture of someone who has long voiced racist sentiments, even if they never anticipated he'd act on them like this.
John Mullins recalls "racist slurs in a sense" that Roof made while the two attended White Knoll High School in Lexington, South Carolina, though he also remembers him having black friends.
"He would say it just as a joke," Mullins told CNN. "I never took it seriously. But ... maybe (I) should have."
JUST WATCHED Who is church shooter Dylann Roof? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Who is church shooter Dylann Roof? 02:37
That sentiment was echoed by Joey Meek, who told CNN that he hadn't seen his old classmate for five years until the two became roommates about a month ago. He recalled Roof being quiet and keeping to himself since then, except for one night when he drank a liter of vodka and talked about his vague plans to start a race war.
"He wanted it to be white with white, and black with black," Meek said, adding that he took Roof's gun as a precaution that night only to put it back the next morning. "He had it in his mind, and he didn't really let nobody know (what he was going to do)."
Meek said he told Roof then that he "didn't agree with his opinion at all," but he didn't talk to authorities until Thursday, when he noticed surveillance photos and called a police hotline.
"Dylann wasn't a serious person, no one took him serious," Meek said. "But if someone had taken him serious, this all would all have been avoided."
Officials: Suspect bought gun in April
It's one thing to talk of stirring racial hatred, another to act on it to kill nine innocent people -- including the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, a state senator who had welcomed Roof into the Bible study session.
One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.
JUST WATCHED New video shows church group moments before shooting Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH New video shows church group moments before shooting 01:15
He apparently didn't hint at his intentions when he went to the historic church Wednesday. A Snapchat video shows him at a table with a small group, not anything to suggest the carnage to come.
An arrest warrant says Roof entered the church at 8:06 p.m. wearing a fanny pack. "After approximately an hour of studying," the warrant says, "the defendant stood up and with malice and aforethought pulled out a handgun and began shooting at the parishioners inside the hall striking nine victims. All victims were hit multiple times."
From what Johnson heard, Roof reloaded his gun five times. Six women died at the scene, as did two men -- with a third, the Rev. Daniel Simmons Sr., passing away later during surgery. Johnson said her friend played dead, lying in the blood of her slain son.
Before Roof left the church, he asked one of the elderly members whether he had shot her, and she said no.
"And he said, 'Good, because we need a survivor because I'm going to kill myself,' " Johnson told CNN.
Woman spotted, followed suspect's car
Roof then took off, hopping into his car and heading north.
"I don't know what drew my attention to the car," Dills told CNN. "In my mind I'm thinking, 'That can't be.' ... I never dreamed that it would be the car."
JUST WATCHED Woman who spotted shooting suspect: 'I was very nervous' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Woman who spotted shooting suspect: 'I was very nervous' 04:22
She followed him more than 30 miles, keeping authorities updated along the way.
Police in Shelby, North Carolina -- about 245 miles (395 kilometers) from Charleston -- pulled him over and took him into custody. He waived extradition and returned to South Carolina late Thursday.
The Charleston Police Department also got help from Roof's family. The arrest warrant says: "The father and the uncle of the defendant contacted CPD and positively identified the defendant and his vehicle as those they saw in the photographs. Further, the defendant's father told investigators that his son owns a .45-caliber handgun."
Federal authorities have opened a hate crime investigation into the shooting at the oldest AME church in the South, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Charleston's mayor said that society should continue to talk about issues pertaining to race and try to educate people more, such as through an African-American history museum planned for a Charleston site where slaves used to land to be sold in the United States. But, he added, it may not be realistic to think you'll be able to change the minds of all racists.
"There's a lot of things we can do, in our country, to enhance the dialogue about race," Riley said. "But to get (hateful thoughts) out of the minds of very evil people ... is very difficult." ||||| Gov. Nikki Haley addresses a full church during a prayer vigil on Thursday held at Morris Brown AME Church for the victims of Wednesday’s shooting at the church.
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said Friday afternoon that it’s too early for discussions about the death penalty, despite calls from Gov. Nikki Haley for the accused gunman to face execution in the fatal shootings at Emanuel AME Church.
“My first obligation is to these victims’ families. They deserve to know the facts first; they deserve to be involved in any conversation involving the death penalty,” Wilson said. “Now is not the time to have those conversations with them. They need the time and the space to mourn and to grieve and we’re going to give them that.”
Dylann Storm Roof, 21, of Eastover is accused of going to the Calhoun Street church on Wednesday night and opening fire, killing nine people who were attending a Bible study.
“We will seek the death penalty,” Haley said outside the church Friday morning. “You will absolutely pay the price.
“This is pure hate.”
The FBI has said that it was investigating the shooting as a hate crime. Roof is white. The victims were black.
“There’s a very evil kid out there that we need to blame,” Haley said. “I talked to my investigators (Thursday) and they looked pure evil in the eye.”
Roof was flown to Charleston on Thursday night after he was captured earlier in the day in Shelby, N.C.
He remained in Charleston County’s jail Friday morning.
Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said in a separate news conference Friday that he isn’t a proponent of the death penalty.
“That’s law in South Carolina, so it no doubt will be,” he said. “I think if you’re going to have a death penalty, then certainly this case merits.”
Wilson did not say much regarding the prosecution of the case, instead vowing to work quietly “behind the scenes” to deliver justice.
“As chief prosecutor, I’m not here to pontificate (or) convict, there are many who will and already have done that for you, I’m sure,” she said. “As for me and my staff, we will serve. We will serve justice.”
She said that her office is working closely with the Department of Justice and that information would not be as free-flowing as it was in previous days.
“As we move through this prosecution, the rules are different than when we have an investigation and we have an emergency situation,” she explained. “The rules limit what I can say, what I should say, and I intend to abide by those rules.”
Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen echoed her sentiments and said the department would only be as transparent and open as the ongoing investigation allows.
“We’re not going to be able to give out information as quickly and as freely as we were yesterday (Thursday),” he said. “Our role now and our primary focus now is a successful prosecution, and we’re not going to jeopardize that by releasing information prematurely.”
In her comments outside the church, Haley said it was her job to pull the people of the Palmetto State back together.
“The grief is overwhelming,” she said. “But you know we are a strong state and we’ll get through this.”
Reach Melissa Boughton at 937-5594 or at Twitter.com/mboughton. Reach Andrew Knapp at 937-5414 or twitter.com/offlede. Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711. ||||| CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — A former friend who had reconnected with the man accused of a shooting massacre inside a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, said Dylann Storm Roof had become an avowed racist.
Gary and Aurelia Washington, center left and right, the son and granddaughter of Ethel Lance who died in Wednesday's shooting, leave a sidewalk memorial in front of Emanuel AME Church comforted by fellow... (Associated Press)
Olina Ortega, left, and Austin Gibbs light candles at a sidewalk memorial in front of Emanuel AME Church where people were killed by a white gunman Wednesday during a prayer meeting inside the historic... (Associated Press)
Olina Ortega, left, and Austin Gibbs light candles at a sidewalk memorial in front of Emanuel AME Church where people were killed by a white gunman Wednesday during a prayer meeting inside the historic... (Associated Press)
Joey Meek reconnected with Roof a few weeks ago and said that while they got drunk together on vodka, Roof began complaining that "blacks were taking over the world" and that "someone needed to do something about it for the white race."
Roof, 21, is accused of fatally shooting nine people during a Bible study at The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston on Wednesday night, ripping out a piece of South Carolina's civic heart and adding to the ever-growing list of America's racial casualties.
Police captured Roof in Shelby, North Carolina, after a motorist spotted him at a traffic light on her way to work. His apprehension ended an intense, hours-long manhunt.
Roof waived extradition and was back in Charleston on Thursday night with a bond hearing pending, authorities said.
Charleston officials announced a prayer vigil for Friday evening. The city's mayor described the shooting at the church as an act of "pure, pure concentrated evil."
The victims included a state senator who doubled as the church's minister, three other pastors, a regional library manager, a high school coach and speech therapist, a government administrator, a college enrollment counselor and a recent college graduate — six women and three men who felt called to open their church to all.
President Barack Obama called the tragedy yet another example of damage wreaked in America by guns.
NAACP President and CEO Cornell William Brooks said "there is no greater coward than a criminal who enters a house of God and slaughters innocent people." Others bemoaned the loss to a church that has served as a bastion of black power for 200 years, despite efforts by white supremacists to wipe it out.
"Of all cities, in Charleston, to have a horrible hateful person go into the church and kill people there to pray and worship with each other is something that is beyond any comprehension and is not explained," said Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr. "We are going to put our arms around that church and that church family."
Surveillance video showed the gunman entering the church Wednesday night, and Charleston County Coroner Rae Wilson said he initially didn't appear threatening.
"The suspect entered the group and was accepted by them, as they believed that he wanted to join them in this Bible study," she said. Then, "he became very aggressive and violent."
Meek called the FBI after recognizing Roof in the surveillance footage, down to the stained sweatshirt he wore while playing Xbox videogames in Meek's home the morning of the attack.
"I didn't THINK it was him. I KNEW it was him," Meek told The Associated Press after being interviewed by investigators.
Meek said during their reunion a few weeks ago, Roof told him that he had used birthday money from his parents to buy a .45-caliber Glock pistol and that he had "a plan." He didn't say what the plan was, but Meek said it scared him enough that he took the gun out of Roof's car and hid it in his house until the next day.
It's not clear whether Roof had any connection to the 16 white supremacist organizations operating in South Carolina, but he appears to be a "disaffected white supremacist," based on his Facebook page, said Richard Cohen, president of Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama.
On his Facebook page, Roof displayed the flags of defeated white-ruled regimes, posing with a Confederate flags plate on his car and wearing a jacket with stitched-on flag patches from apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, which is now black-led Zimbabwe.
His previous record includes misdemeanor drug and trespassing charges.
Spilling blood inside a black church — especially "Mother Emanuel," founded in 1816 — evoked painful memories nationwide, a reminder that black churches so often have been the targets of racist violence.
A church founder, Denmark Vesey, was hanged after trying to organize a slave revolt in 1822, and white landowners burned the church in revenge, leaving parishioners to worship underground until after the Civil War. The congregation rebuilt and grew stronger, eventually winning campaigns for voting rights and political representation.
Its lead pastor, state Sen. Clementa Pinckney — among the dead — recalled his church's history in a 2013 sermon, saying "we don't see ourselves as just a place where we come to worship, but as a beacon and as a bearer of the culture."
"What the church is all about," Pinckney said, is the "freedom to be fully what God intends us to be and have equality in the sight of God. And sometimes you got to make noise to do that. Sometimes you may have to die like Denmark Vesey to do that."
Pinckney, 41, was a married father of two and a Democrat who spent 19 years in the South Carolina legislature after he was first elected at 23, becoming the youngest member of the House.
The other victims were Cynthia Hurd, 54; Tywanza Sanders, 26; Myra Thompson, 59; Ethel Lance, 70; Susie Jackson, 87; and the reverends DePayne Middleton Doctor, 49; Sharonda Singleton, 45; and Daniel Simmons Sr., 74.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the attack would be investigated as a hate crime.
___
Contributors include Alex Sanz, Meg Kinnard and David Goldman in Charleston, South Carolina; Mitch Weiss in Columbia, South Carolina; Jay Reeves in Birmingham, Alabama; Eric Tucker in Washington; and Jacob Jordan in Atlanta. | Authorities have charged Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof, 21, with nine counts of murder after what investigators claim was his attempt to incite a race war. Roof, who is also charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, has already confessed to carrying out the murders for political purposes, investigators tell CNN. Roof is set to make his first court appearance during a bond hearing at 2pm ET today, but will likely appear via video link. Gov. Nikki Haley tells the Post and Courier the officials who spoke to Roof "looked pure evil in the eye," and "we will seek the death penalty. ... You will absolutely pay the price." Joey Meek, a friend of Roof's, says the suspect bought a .45-caliber Glock pistol using birthday money from his parents a few weeks ago and said he had a "plan," but never explained what it was. Meek—who played video games with Roof on the morning of the shooting, the AP reports—says the comments rattled him so much he took the gun from Roof's car and hid it for a day. "I think he wanted something big like Trayvon Martin," he tells ABC News. "He wanted to make something spark up the race war again." How Roof got the gun remains a bit murky: The Washington Post yesterday noted that a person who has pending felony charges against them (which Roof did) is barred from purchasing a gun; previous reports said Roof's dad bought it for him. |
With Fewer Legal Tools In Hand, Justice Department Prepares To Monitor Election
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images Alex Wong/Getty Images
The U.S. Justice Department says it will have more than 500 monitors and observers out Tuesday watching polling sites in 28 states. They'll be looking for any voting rights violations, such as whether voters are discriminated against because of their race or language.
"The bedrock of our democracy is the right to vote, and the Department of Justice works tirelessly to uphold that right, not only on Election Day, but every day," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.
This number of observers and monitors is about two-thirds the number of people the department had watching the polls in 2012. The reduction is due to the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling striking down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, which the department says authorized the use of DOJ observers in states and other jurisdictions covered by the law. Those areas were under federal oversight because of past discrimination against voters.
The change also means that of the 500 personnel, fewer DOJ personnel will be stationed inside polling places as official poll observers. Instead, more will be monitoring the election from outside, which gives federal authorities less opportunity to spot irregularities and correct them while individuals are voting.
The department will not release a breakdown of how many observers versus monitors there will be on Election Day.
But Vanita Gupta, assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement: "In most cases, voters on the ground will see very little practical difference between monitors and observers. We work closely and cooperatively with jurisdictions around the country to ensure that trained personnel are able to keep an eye on the proceedings from an immediate vantage point."
Some civil rights groups are concerned about the reduction in observers, in light of increased tensions in this year's elections. Republican candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly said he thinks the election is rigged, and he called on his supporters to go watch the polls for possible cheating. This has raised fears of intimidation of voters, especially minorities.
In addition, a number of states have new voting requirements — such as strict voter ID laws — that civil rights advocates say could cause confusion at the polls and lead to some individuals being denied a chance to vote.
DOJ says it will have people watching voting sites in 67 jurisdictions around the country, including many in Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania.
The agency says voters should report any disruptions at polling places to election officials or local law enforcement authorities, then to DOJ. The department will have staff members taking complaints on a toll-free hotline, 1-800-253-3931, and by email at [email protected].
Numerous other groups will have people watching the polls for problems, including civil rights organizations and groups that say they're on the lookout for any fraudulent voting. In addition, most polling places will have official poll watchers, often one Democrat and one Republican, sitting inside to help ensure that the process is fair. ||||| WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said on Monday that it would deploy more than 500 people in 28 states on Tuesday to monitor Election Day practices and guard against intimidation and disruptions.
The number is a sharp decrease from the 2012 presidential election, when the Justice Department had more than 780 personnel in place on Election Day at the close of what was a much less tumultuous campaign.
Officials placed blame for the shrinking federal presence on a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that limited their ability under the Voting Rights Act to deploy observers in jurisdictions — mainly in the South — with a history of voting discrimination.
In announcing the assignment of monitors and observers, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, “We will continue to have a robust election monitors program in place on Election Day.” She said the personnel “will perform these duties impartially, with one goal in mind: to see to it that every eligible voter can participate in our elections to the full extent that federal law provides.” ||||| Executive Summary Direction of Country Pessimism about the direction of the country is considerably higher today (74%) than it was at this time during the 2012 presidential race, when 57% of the public said the country was off on the wrong track. Americans are more likely to say that things veered off track some time ago than to believe it occurred in the last few years (44% vs. 30%).
A majority (53%) of Americans approve of how President Barack Obama is handling his job as president, up from a 38% job approval rating just before the 2014 midterm elections. Americans are divided about whether American culture and way of life have changed for worse (51%) or better (48%) since the 1950s. About seven in ten likely voters supporting Donald Trump (72%) say American society and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while seven in ten likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton (70%) say things have changed for the better.
A majority (56%) of white Americans say American society has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while roughly six in ten black (62%) and Hispanic (57%) Americans say American society has changed for the better.
Class differences among whites are pronounced. A majority (56%) of white college-educated Americans say American society is generally better now than it was in the 1950s, while nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans say things are now worse.
No group has a dimmer view of American cultural change than white evangelical Protestants: nearly three-quarters (74%) say American culture has changed for the worse since the 1950s. Leadership: Authoritarianism, Political Correctness, and Gender Americans are closely divided over the question of authoritarian leadership. Forty-six percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right,” compared to 52% who disagree. A majority (55%) of Republicans agree we need such a leader, while a majority (57%) of Democrats disagree. Nearly six in ten (57%) Americans say it is important to speak frankly about sensitive issues and problems facing the country even if certain people are offended. About four in ten (39%) say it is important to avoid using language that is hurtful and offensive to some people when discussing sensitive issues. Nearly seven in ten (68%) Republicans say it is important to speak openly about problems facing the country even if some people are offended, while only about four in ten (41%) Democrats agree. Most (58%) Americans believe the country would be better off if there were more women serving in public office. More than three-quarters (77%) of Democrats say the U.S. would benefit from more women serving in political leadership roles. Fewer than four in ten (37%) Republicans—including only 42% of Republican women—believe the country would be better off with more women holding public office. More than six in ten (62%) Republicans disagree. There is broader consensus among the public about the achievement double standard women face in employment. Two-thirds (67%) of all Americans, including 80% of women and 54% of men, agree women often have to be more qualified than men to be considered for the same job. Roughly one in three (32%) disagree. The Candidates and Political Parties More than six in ten (61%) Americans say neither political party represents their views anymore. Dissatisfaction with America’s two major parties has risen significantly since 1990, when fewer than half (48%) of Americans believed neither political party represented their views. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to have historically low favorability ratings with fewer than half of the public viewing each candidate positively (41% vs. 33%, respectively). Clinton is viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party (49%), but Trump’s low favorability rating is more consistent with the Republican Party’s low favorability (36%). The public is more likely to attribute a number of positive qualities to Clinton than to Trump. The public is divided over which presidential candidate is more honest and trustworthy (45% Clinton, 44% Trump) and over who is a stronger and more decisive leader (47% Clinton, 47% Trump). But on every other attribute, Clinton has a substantial advantage over Trump, including having “the right temperament and personality” (61% Clinton, 33% Trump) and having “the right background and experience” (64% Clinton, 31% Trump). Confidence in the Electoral Process Fewer than half (43%) of the public say they have a great deal of confidence that their vote will be counted accurately. Roughly four in ten (38%) Americans report having only some confidence, while close to one in five (17%) say they have little confidence their vote will be accurately counted. There are stark differences among likely voters, with 70% of Clinton supporters—but only 41% of Trump supporters—reporting a great deal of confidence their votes will be counted accurately. Americans are almost evenly divided over what constitutes the more significant problem with U.S. elections today: People casting votes who are not eligible (37%) or eligible voters being denied the right to vote (41%). Roughly one in ten (9%) Americans volunteer that voter apathy is the most significant problem. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Republicans believe voter fraud is a bigger problem than voter disenfranchisement, compared to only 19% of Democrats. More than six in ten (62%) Democrats say eligible voters being denied access is the bigger problem facing the election system. A majority (57%) of Americans agree politics and elections are controlled by people with money and by big corporations so it doesn’t matter if they vote, compared to roughly four in ten (42%) who disagree. Partisan Segregation in Social Circles and Congregations In 2016, Americans’ social networks are strongly segregated by party loyalties. Three-quarters of black Americans (75%) and a majority of Hispanic Americans (56%) report having no close friend or family member who is supporting Trump, compared to only 24% of white Americans. Nearly half (46%) of white working-class Americans report that they do not have a single person among their immediate family and friends who is supporting Clinton, while only 22% of white college-educated Americans say the same. There is also evidence that American churches are highly segregated by party. More than eight in ten (83%) Trump supporters who attend religious services at least weekly estimate that most of their fellow church members are supporting Trump. Similarly, more than three-quarters (78%) of Clinton supporters who attend religious services at least weekly estimate that most of their fellow church members are supporting Clinton. Campaign Issues No issue is viewed by more Americans as important today than terrorism, with seven in ten (70%) Americans, including 83% of Republicans and 65% of Democrats, saying it is a critical issue to them personally. In fact, a majority (53%) of Americans report they are at least somewhat worried that they or someone in their family will be a victim of terrorism. There are major partisan divides on other issue priorities. Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to say the federal deficit (66% vs. 37%, respectively) and immigration (60% vs. 37%, respectively) are critical issues. By contrast, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the growing gap between rich and poor (70% vs. 29%, respectively) and race relations (61% vs. 31%, respectively) are critical to them personally. Americans are closely divided about the benefits of free trade. Forty-three percent of the public say free trade agreements are mostly helpful because they open markets to U.S. companies and allow Americans to buy goods more cheaply. Half (50%) of Americans take the opposite view: free trade agreements are mostly harmful because they send jobs overseas and drive down wages in the U.S. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans, compared to only 40% of Democrats, believe free trade is generally harmful. Nearly six in ten (57%) Americans say the decline in American manufacturing jobs was caused by government policies and poorly negotiated trade deals, while only 37% blame globalization and technological advances. A majority of Republicans (71%) and independents (57%) say manufacturing declines in the country are primarily the result of bad deals and policies. Democrats are about equally as likely to blame government decision-making (46%) as they are to blame globalization and technological advances (48%). The public is split over whether the U.S., as a member of NATO, should use military force to defend any member country when it is attacked or whether the U.S. should only use military force if its immediate security is threatened (49% vs. 45%, respectively). There are no significant partisan differences in views about NATO. Americans are divided over the cultural contributions immigrants make to American society. Close to half (46%) of Americans say the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values, while 44% say these immigrants strengthen our society. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Republicans report the growing number of newcomers threatens American customs and values, while only 29% of Democrats say the same. More than six in ten (63%) Democrats say immigrants strengthen American society. Roughly four in ten (41%) Americans favor building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, while nearly six in ten (58%) are opposed. Support for this policy has remained unchanged since May 2016. Roughly three-quarters (73%) of Republicans favor this policy compared to fewer than four in ten (38%) independents and only about one in five (19%) Democrats. Most (56%) Americans reject a policy of temporarily banning Muslims from other countries coming to the U.S., although a sizeable minority (43%) express support for the policy. Seven in ten (70%) Republicans favor a policy of temporarily banning Muslims from other countries from entering the U.S., compared to only 23% of Democrats. A majority (52%) of Americans agree that police officers generally treat nonwhite and white Americans the same, while 47% disagree. This represents an 11-point increase from 2015, when only 41% of the public said police officers treat nonwhite and white people the same. Roughly eight in ten (79%) black Americans and more than six in ten (62%) Hispanic Americans reject the idea that police officers treat everyone the same. In stark contrast, nearly two-thirds (64%) of white Americans, including strong majorities of white working-class (66%) and white college-educated Americans (59%), agree that police officers are generally evenhanded in their treatment of nonwhite and white Americans.
that police officers are generally evenhanded in their treatment of nonwhite and white Americans. Fully eight in ten (80%) Republicans, but only about one-third (32%) of Democrats, agree police officers generally treat blacks, other minorities, and whites the same. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans agree that people who have been convicted of felonies should be allowed to vote after they complete their sentences. Roughly one-quarter (26%) disagree. Support for restoring voting rights for felons after they serve their sentence is high across all segments of American society. Majorities of Democrats (83%), independents (73%), and Republicans (62%) agree with this policy, as do strong majorities of blacks (85%), Hispanics (78%), and whites (71%).
I. The State of the Nation Direction of the Country Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the direction of the country. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans say things in this country have gotten seriously off on the wrong track, compared to just one-quarter (25%) who say things are generally going in the right direction. More than nine in ten (92%) Republicans say America is headed down the wrong track, a view shared by about eight in ten (79%) independents and close to six in ten (57%) Democrats. Pessimism about the direction of the country is considerably higher today than it was at this time during the 2012 presidential race, when 57% of the public said the country was off on the wrong track.1 However, Americans are much more likely to say things got off track a long time ago (44%) than in the last few years (30%). There are substantial partisan differences about when the country veered off track. Republicans are roughly divided about whether the country got off on the wrong track a long time ago (42%) or just in the last few years (49%). Democrats are more likely to say the country took a wrong turn a long time ago (36%) than more recently (21%). Independents are more than twice as likely to say the country took a wrong turn a long time ago (53%) than in the last few years (25%). *Note: Full question text is: “Do you think things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously o on the wrong track? And do you think things have gotten o track in just the last few years or do you think things have been o track for a long time?” One percent of respondents who said “wrong track” did not provide a time estimate. They are not shown in chart above. Critical Issues No issue is viewed by more Americans as important today than terrorism, with seven in ten (70%) saying it is a critical issue to them personally. About six in ten (61%) say jobs and unemployment is a critical concern, while majorities also cite crime (54%) and the growing gap between rich and poor (52%) as critical issues. Nearly half of Americans view the federal deficit (49%) and race relations (47%) as issues of critical importance, and roughly four in ten say the same about the issues of immigration (44%) and the fairness of presidential elections (41%). Only one-third (33%) of Americans say trade agreements with other countries are critically important to them. Issue priorities vary substantially by race and ethnicity. Nearly eight in ten (79%) black Americans say crime is a critical issue to them personally, a view shared by only about half of Hispanic (53%) and white Americans (50%). Blacks (73%) are also somewhat more likely than Hispanics (65%) and whites (57%) to view jobs and unemployment as a critical issue. Similarly, more than seven in ten (72%) blacks and a majority (54%) of Hispanics cite race relations as a critical concern, while only about four in ten (41%) whites say the same. And while two-thirds (67%) of blacks and a majority (53%) of Hispanics view the growing gap between rich and poor as critical, less than half (48%) of whites hold this view. Notably, Hispanics are the most likely to view immigration as critical (53%), a view shared by 45% of whites and fewer than four in ten (37%) blacks. The issue concerns of white Americans are not monolithic, however. White working-class Americans are significantly more likely than white college-educated Americans to say a range of issues are personally critical to them. For example, white working-class Americans are more likely than white college-educated Americans to cite terrorism (76% vs. 62%, respectively), crime (59% vs. 38%, respectively), immigration (51% vs. 39%, respectively), the fairness of presidential elections (44% vs. 28%), and trade agreements with other countries (39% vs. 25%, respectively) as critical issues. Unsurprisingly, the issue priorities of partisans also differ markedly. Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to say terrorism (83% vs. 65%, respectively), the federal deficit (66% vs. 37%, respectively), immigration (60% vs. 37%, respectively), and trade agreements with other countries (42% vs. 28%, respectively) are critical issues. In contrast, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to list the growing gap between rich and poor (70% vs. 29%, respectively) and race relations (61% vs. 31%, respectively) as critical to them personally. Concerns about Personal Safety and Security Americans report a number of concerns about their personal safety and security. More than six in ten Americans say they are at least somewhat worried they or someone in their family will be a victim of violent crime (61%) or that someone in their household will become unemployed (61%). A majority (53%) of Americans report they are at least somewhat worried they or someone in their family will be a victim of terrorism. And more than one-third (36%) say they are at least somewhat worried about the Zika virus. Fears about personal safety and security cut across the political divide, with Republicans, independents, and Democrats all about as likely to express concerns on these issues. Is the U.S. Too Politically Correct? Most of the country generally rejects the idea that greater sensitivity is required when discussing controversial subjects. Nearly six in ten (57%) Americans say it is important to speak frankly about sensitive issues and problems facing the country even if certain people are offended. About four in ten (39%) say it is important to avoid using language that is hurtful and offensive to some people when discussing sensitive issues. Compared to black and Hispanic Americans, white Americans are less likely to say it is important to avoid using language others may find offensive when discussing sensitive issues. Six in ten (60%) whites—including 69% of white men and 52% of white women— believe it is important to speak frankly about sensitive subjects even if some are offended; only 35% of whites say it is important to avoid using hurtful language. Nonwhite Americans are much more divided on this question. While about half of black (50%) and Hispanic (51%) Americans agree it is important to speak frankly, even if some people are offended, 46% of both blacks and Hispanics say it is important to avoid using hurtful language when discussing sensitive issues. Attitudes on the importance of being sensitive to the views of others when discussing delicate subjects differ markedly among partisans. Nearly seven in ten (68%) Republicans say it is important to speak openly about problems facing the country even if some people are offended, while only about four in ten (41%) Democrats agree. A majority (55%) of Democrats say it is important to avoid hurtful language that could offend others when discussing sensitive topics. The Current Political Climate Obama Job Approval A majority (53%) of Americans approve of how President Barack Obama is handling his job as president, up from a 38% job approval rating just before the 2014 mid-term elections.2 Views of Obama’s job performance are highly polarized by race and ethnicity. Nearly nine in ten (88%) black Americans say they approve of the way Obama has handled his job as president, as do nearly seven in ten (69%) Hispanic Americans. In contrast, only about four in ten (42%) white Americans approve of Obama’s performance as president, while a majority (57%) disapprove. Among white Americans, class differences in attitudes about Obama’s performance are considerable. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of white working-class Americans disapprove of Obama’s job performance, compared to only 35% who approve. By contrast, a majority (54%) of white college-educated Americans approve of how President Obama has performed as president, while 45% disapprove. Nearly nine in ten (89%) Republicans disapprove of Obama’s presidential performance, while a nearly identical number (90%) of Democrats approve. Independents are closely divided: 51% approve, 48% disapprove. Dissatisfaction with the Political System The Need for an Authoritarian Leader Americans are closely divided over the question of authoritarian leadership. Forty-six percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right,” compared to 52% who disagree. There are only modest racial and ethnic differences in attitudes about the type of leadership the country needs. A slim majority (51%) of Hispanic Americans say America is in need of a leader who will break rules because things have gotten so off track, a view shared by 49% of black Americans and 45% of white Americans. White Americans, however, are divided by class on this leadership question. A majority (55%) of white working-class Americans agree America needs a leader who would be willing to break rules to get things back on track, while 44% disagree. In sharp contrast, seven in ten (70%) white college-educated Americans disagree things are so off track in America that we need a rule-breaking leader to make things right, and only about three in ten (29%) agree with the statement. Partisans also differ considerably in their preference for a leader who will break rules, with Republicans expressing the strongest support for such a leader. A majority (55%) of Republicans believe that because things are so off track in America, we need a leader willing to break some rules to set things right, while a nearly identical number of Democrats (57%) disagree. The views of independents closely mirror the views of Americans overall. Frustration with the Parties and Elections Most Americans do not feel well-represented by either of the major political parties. More than six in ten (61%) Americans say neither political party represents their views anymore, while fewer than four in ten (38%) disagree. Dissatisfaction with America’s two major parties has risen significantly since 1990, when fewer than half (48%) of Americans believed neither political party represented their views. More than six in ten Hispanic (62%) and white Americans (61%) say their views are not reflected by either major political party, while a slim majority (52%) of black Americans say the same. Notably, white Americans’ level of dissatisfaction with the two parties does not differ by class. Unsurprisingly, independents are more likely than Democrats and Republicans to say their views are not reflected by the two parties, though large numbers of partisans from both sides of the aisle also express this opinion. Nearly eight in ten (77%) political independents and a majority (54%) of Republicans believe neither major political party represents their views today. Fewer than half (46%) of Democrats agree, while a majority (52%) of Democrats disagree with this statement. America’s Best President No one president stands out as the singular favorite among Democratic and Democratic-leaning Americans.3 More than one-third (35%) of Democrats cite President Barack Obama as their favorite president, while about one in five name John F. Kennedy (21%) or Bill Clinton (20%) and another 15% name Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Only five percent of Democrats say Jimmy Carter is their favorite president, and one percent each select Lyndon Johnson or Harry Truman. President Obama is especially popular with black and Hispanic Democrats. A majority (57%) of black Democrats and a plurality (41%) of Hispanic Democrats say Obama is their favorite Democratic president. White Democrats, in contrast, are roughly evenly divided in support for Obama (24%), Kennedy (23%), Roosevelt (22%), and Clinton (19%). President Obama also wins out among young Democrats. Close to half (44%) of Democratic young adults (age 18-29) list Obama as their favorite Democratic president, with Kennedy (19%), Roosevelt (16%), and Clinton (14%) finishing far behind. By contrast, Democratic seniors (age 65 and older) are largely divided among Kennedy (26%), Roosevelt (23%), and Obama (19%). On the Republican side, Ronald Reagan is far and away the most popular president. Nearly seven in ten (69%) Republicans and Republican leaners say Reagan is their favorite president, while George W. Bush (12%) finishes in a distant second. Seven percent of Republicans name Dwight Eisenhower as their favorite Republican president, five percent select George H.W. Bush, two percent select Richard Nixon, and just one percent select Gerald Ford. Reagan is the overwhelming favorite among every major demographic group of Republicans. Notably, Republican young adults are the only demographic group in which a majority do not select Reagan: 45% of Republican young adults cite Reagan as their favorite Republican president, followed by George W. Bush at 28%.
II. The 2016 Election Views of the Candidates Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fare poorly in the eyes of the public, but Clinton continues to retain a modest advantage over her opponent. Roughly four in ten (41%) Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, while 57% view her unfavorably. Only one-third (33%) of Americans view Trump favorably, while nearly two-thirds (65%) express a negative opinion of him. Neither candidates’ favorability ratings have changed significantly since they captured their respective party’s nominations. Notably, Clinton is viewed less favorably by the public than the last two Democratic presidents, each of whom have net positive favorability ratings. A majority (54%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama, while more than half (52%) of the public report a favorable view of former president Bill Clinton. The public’s views of the Democratic Party are more divided (49% favorable vs. 48% unfavorable). Trump also is viewed far less favorably than George W. Bush (45% favorable vs. 53% unfavorable), the last Republican president, but his favorability ratings are comparable to the low favorability ratings of the Republican Party (36% favorable vs. 60% unfavorable). Candidate Traits While the public is roughly divided over whether being honest or trustworthy or whether being a strong and decisive leader best describes Clinton or Trump, across a range of other attributes, Americans are more likely to ascribe positive qualities to Clinton. The public is divided over which presidential candidate is more honest and trustworthy (45% Clinton, 44% Trump) and over who is a stronger and more decisive leader (47% Clinton, 47% Trump). Perceptions of the candidates’ honesty varies significantly by race, ethnicity, and class. A majority (53%) of white Americans say Trump is the more honest and trustworthy candidate, a view sharply at odds with black and Hispanic Americans, who say this better describes Clinton (71% and 59%, respectively). Nearly six in ten (59%) white working-class Americans believe Trump is the more honest and trustworthy candidate; white college-educated Americans are divided, with nearly equal numbers saying this attribute describes Clinton (45%) as it does Trump (43%). Clinton has an advantage over Trump in being perceived as having strong religious beliefs (50% vs. 36%, respectively). Notably, white evangelical Protestants are much more likely to say having “strong religious beliefs” better describes Trump than Clinton (58% vs. 28%, respectively). Americans are also more likely to perceive Clinton as being someone who “cares about people like you” than Trump (52% vs. 40%, respectively). A majority of black (76%) and Hispanic (68%) Americans believe Clinton is the candidate who cares more about people like them, while white Americans are divided by class. A majority (56%) of white working-class Americans say Trump cares more about people like them, while roughly as many white college-educated Americans (55%) say Clinton is the candidate who most cares about people like them. The public overall is more likely to believe Clinton, rather than Trump, is likely to use American military power responsibly (55% vs. 39%, respectively). Clinton has a similarly-sized advantage over Trump in perceptions that she better understands the problems of poor Americans (57% vs. 35%, respectively). Finally, Americans are roughly twice as likely to say Clinton is better described as having the right background and experience (64% vs. Trump’s 31%) and having the right temperament and personality (61% vs. Trump’s 33%). Understanding the Problems of People Like You Few Americans believe either Clinton (35%) or Trump (25%) better understands the problems that people like them face. In fact, a plurality (39%) say neither candidate really understands the problems of people like them. Perceptions of the candidates’ ability to understand average Americans’ problems vary widely by race and class. More than six in ten (63%) black Americans say Clinton is the candidate who better understands their problems, while just five percent say the same of Trump. Hispanics are also more likely to say Clinton, rather than Trump, has a better understanding of the problems they face (40% vs. 12%, respectively). White Americans are more divided. Twenty-eight percent of whites say Clinton better understands their concerns, while one-third (33%) say Trump has a better understanding. Nearly four in ten (38%) whites say neither candidate really understands the challenges they face. There is a sizable class division among white Americans. White working-class Americans are more likely to believe Trump understands the challenges that people like them are facing (36% vs. Clinton’s 22%). White college-educated Americans are more likely to say Clinton, rather than Trump, has the better grasp of their problems (37% vs. 26%, respectively). Single Most Important Trait this Election By far the most important trait Americans believe a presidential candidate should possess is honesty. Nearly four in ten (39%) Americans name honesty is the single most important candidate quality. More than one in five (22%) say experience is the most important quality, while slightly fewer (16%) mention strength. Fewer than one in ten Americans say an “even temperament” (9%) or compassion (6%) is the most critical characteristic. There are sharp divisions between partisans in views about the most important candidate attribute. A majority (54%) of Republicans say honesty is the most important quality for a presidential candidate to possess, while only about half as many (25%) Democrats agree. Republicans are also much more likely than Democrats to stress the importance of strength (28% vs. 10%, respectively). Conversely, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to emphasize the importance of experience (35% vs. 7%, respectively) and an even temperament (15% vs. 3%, respectively). Relatively few Democrats (8%) and Republicans (3%) say compassion is a singularly important quality in a candidate. Confidence in the Election System Fewer than half (43%) of the public say they have a great deal of confidence that their vote will be counted accurately. Roughly four in ten (38%) Americans report having only some confidence, while close to one in five (17%) say they have little confidence their vote will be accurately counted. Confidence in the voting system varies substantially by race and class. Close to half (46%) of white Americans have a great deal of confidence that their vote will be counted compared to roughly four in ten black (42%) and Hispanic Americans (38%). However, blacks are about twice as likely as whites (28% vs. 15%, respectively) to say they have hardly any confidence that their vote will be counted properly. Roughly one in five (22%) Hispanics say they have hardly any confidence. Class divisions are even more stark. Only about one-third (35%) of white working-class Americans report having a great deal of confidence in the voting system, while more than six in ten (61%) white college-educated Americans say the same. Democrats are more likely than Republicans and independents to report a high degree of confidence in the voting system (55% vs. 44% and 35%, respectively). There are stark differences among likely voters, with 70% of Clinton supporters—but only 41% of Trump supporters—reporting a great deal of confidence their votes will be counted accurately. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, Americans are roughly evenly divided over what constitutes the more significant problem with U.S. elections today: people casting votes who are not eligible (37%) or eligible voters being denied the right to vote (41%). Roughly one in ten (9%) Americans volunteered that voter apathy is the most significant problem. The issue of voter fraud sharply divides the public along political lines. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Republicans believe voter fraud is a bigger problem than voter disenfranchisement. More than six in ten (62%) Democrats say eligible voters being denied access is the bigger problem facing the election system, compared to only 19% who say voter fraud is the bigger problem. Independents reflect the views of the public overall. Americans also express considerable frustration with the power of money and big corporations in politics. A majority (57%) of Americans agree politics and elections are controlled by people with money and by big corporations so it doesn’t matter if they vote, compared to roughly four in ten (42%) who disagree. There is rough agreement among Americans across racial and ethnic divides. The political cynicism of white Americans does vary considerably by social class, however. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of white working-class Americans agree elections are controlled by those with money so it doesn’t matter if they vote, a view shared by only about four in ten (42%) white college-educated Americans. A majority (57%) of the white college educated reject this idea. Independents express more cynical views of the political system than both Democrats and Republicans. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of independents say voting is ineffective because elections are controlled by big corporations and the wealthy, while slim majorities of Republicans (53%) and Democrats (51%) say the same. Nearly half of both Democrats (49%) and Republicans (47%) disagree. Additionally, young adults (age 18-29) are significantly more jaded than seniors (age 65 and older) in their attitudes about the futility of voting. About two-thirds (66%) of young adults believe politics and elections are controlled by corporations and those with money so their vote does not matter, an opinion shared by fewer than half (49%) of seniors. The 2016 Vote At this stage in the campaign,4 Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump among likely voters by a significant margin (49% vs. 41%, respectively).5 The motivations of likely Clinton and Trump voters varies. Nearly six in ten (57%) Trump voters report that their primary reason for supporting Trump is to oppose Clinton. Only 42% of Trump voters say their vote is primarily about supporting the Republican nominee. A slight majority (52%) of voters who support Clinton say their vote is mostly about opposing Trump; close to half (48%) of Clinton voters say their vote is about supporting Clinton. Who is Motivated, and Who Will Win? Feeling Motivated to Vote Likely voters appear quite engaged in the campaign. More than eight in ten (85%) voters say they feel highly motivated to vote this year, while 15% say they do not feel that highly motivated. Each candidate’s supporters report being about equally motivated to vote this year. More than eight in ten Donald Trump supporters (89%) and Hillary Clinton supporters (86%) say they are highly motivated to turn out. There are only modest differences in motivations among voters by race and ethnicity. Nearly than nine in ten (88%) white voters, 82% of Hispanic voters, and 76% of black voters say they are highly motivated to vote. Predicting the Winner By a margin of nearly two to one, more Americans say Clinton is more likely than Trump to win the presidential election (63% vs. 34%, respectively). Partisans are much more likely to say their respective nominee will win the election, but Democrats are more confident in Clinton’s chances than Republicans are about the likelihood of a Trump victory (86% vs. 64%, respectively). Independents closely resemble Americans overall. Partisan Segregation In 2016, Americans’ social networks are strongly segregated by party loyalties. More than three in ten (31%) Americans say there is no one among their close friends and family who is supporting Hillary Clinton, while a similar proportion (36%) say no one among their close friends and family is supporting Donald Trump. The degree of political segregation varies widely by race and ethnicity. Three-quarters of black Americans (75%) and a majority of Hispanic Americans (56%) report having no close friend or family member who is supporting Trump. In contrast, fewer than one in four (24%) white Americans say their social network does not include a Trump supporter. Whites are more likely to have a member of their immediate social circle who is supporting Trump than Clinton (75% vs. 60%, respectively). However, these patterns vary significantly by class. White college-educated Americans are much more likely than white working-class Americans to have a close friend or family member who is supporting Clinton (76% vs. 50%, respectively). White working-class Americans are more than twice as likely as white college-educated Americans to report that they do not have a single member of their immediate social network who is supporting Clinton (46% vs. 22%, respectively). Among religious groups, nearly half (48%) of white evangelical Protestants and more than four in ten white mainline Protestants (41%) say they have no one in their immediate social network who is supporting Clinton. In contrast, nearly eight in ten (77%) black Protestants, 61% of Hispanic Catholics, 45% of religiously unaffiliated Americans, and 43% of members of non-Christian religions say they have no one in their immediate social network who is supporting Trump. Partisans also have highly segregated social networks. A majority (56%) of Democrats report that they do not have a close friend or family member who is supporting Trump. Similarly, a majority (52%) of Republicans do not have a single close friend or family member who is supporting Clinton. Democratic and Republican Churches? Roughly half (45%) of Americans who attend religious services at least a few times a year report that most members of their church or place of worship are supporting Clinton. Nearly an equal number (42%) report that most of their congregation is supporting Trump. However, the politics vary markedly by religious affiliation. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of white evangelical Protestants and a majority (53%) of white mainline Protestants who attend services at least occasionally say most of their fellow congregants are supporting Trump. By contrast, nine in ten (90%) black Protestants say most of their fellow congregants will be supporting Clinton. More than eight in ten (83%) Trump supporters who attend religious services at least weekly estimate that most of their fellow church members are supporting Trump. Similarly, more than three-quarters (78%) of Clinton supporters who attend religious services at least weekly estimate that most of their fellow church members are supporting Clinton.
III. Progress, Nostalgia, and Cultural Change Looking Back: Evaluating Cultural Changes Since the 1950s Americans are divided about whether American culture and way of life have changed for worse (51%) or better (48%) since the 1950s. This assessment has been relatively stable over time, though there are notable differences based on political affiliation, race, class, age, and gender. Democrats take a decidedly more positive view about the cultural changes that have occurred over the last 60 years. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Democrats say American culture has generally changed for the better since the 1950s, while roughly two-thirds of Republicans (68%) and a majority of independents (55%) say American society and way of life has only gotten worse. Supporters of each presidential candidate are divided along similar lines. About seven in ten likely voters supporting Donald Trump (72%) say American society and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while seven in ten likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton (70%) say things have changed for the better. There are profound differences in views about the direction the country has taken since the 1950s by race, ethnicity, and class. A majority (56%) of white Americans say American society has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while roughly six in ten black (62%) and Hispanic (57%) Americans say American society has changed for the better. Class differences among whites are pronounced. A majority (56%) of white college-educated Americans say American society is generally better now than it was in the 1950s, while nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans say things are now worse. White Christians are more likely than members of other religious groups to say recent changes in American culture have been, on balance, bad for the country. No group has a dimmer view of American cultural change than white evangelical Protestants: Nearly three-quarters (74%) say American culture has changed for the worse since the 1950s. Nearly six in ten white mainline Protestants (59%) and white Catholics (57%) also believe the American way of life has taken a turn for the worse over the past 60 years. In contrast, at least six in ten religiously unaffiliated Americans (66%), members of non-Christian religions (66%), Hispanic Catholics (65%), and black Protestants (60%) say American society has mostly changed for the better since the 1950s. Looking Forward: Evaluating America’s Future A similar picture emerges when Americans are asked if the country’s best days are ahead of us (48%) or behind us (50%). Views are largely unchanged from late 2015, and divisions in the American public follow expected patterns, with Republicans and the white working class expressing the most pessimistic views about America’s future. White Americans, especially white working-class Americans, are more likely than black and Hispanic Americans to believe America’s best days are in the past. A majority (54%) of whites say that the country’s best days are behind us, compared to only 47% of Hispanic and 40% of black Americans. The views of white Americans diverge sharply by social class. More than six in ten (61%) white working-class Americans believe America’s best days have passed, a view shared by only 43% of white college-educated Americans. A majority (57%) of white college-educated Americans say country’s best days are yet to come. Perspectives on America’s future are polarized by partisan identity, with Republicans holding a much bleaker view than Democrats. Sixty-one percent of Republicans and a majority (54%) of independents say America’s best days are in the past, while only 38% of Democrats believe that to be true. More than six in ten (61%) Democrats say the country has yet to experience its best days. Women in Political Leadership and Gender-based Double Standards Most (58%) Americans believe the country would be better off if there were more women serving in public office. Four in ten (40%) Americans disagree that the country would necessarily be better off. Democrats and Republicans have sharply contrasting views about the importance of women serving in politics. More than three-quarters (77%) of Democrats say the U.S. would benefit from more women serving in political leadership roles. Fewer than four in ten (37%) Republicans—including only 42% of Republican women—believe the country would be better off with more women holding public office. More than six in ten (62%) Republicans disagree. Predictably, the views of men and women are also substantially different when it comes to the benefits of female leadership in politics. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of women, but only half (50%) of men, say it would be better for the country if more women served in public office. Americans overall acknowledge that there is an achievement double standard against women. Two-thirds (67%) of Americans agree women often have to be more qualified than men to be considered for the same job. Roughly one in three (32%) disagree. There is general consensus across the political divide that qualification requirements for women are higher than they are for men, although there is some variation in the strength of agreement. A majority (57%) of Republicans, nearly two-thirds (65%) of independents, and eight in ten (80%) Democrats agree women often need greater qualifications to be considered for the same job as men. There is a notable gender gap on this question. Eight in ten women (80%), but only 54% of men, agree women often have to be more qualified than men to be considered for the same job. Evaluating America’s Economic Future and Upward Mobility Pessimism about Next Generation Americans express notable but declining pessimism about their children’s economic future. Nearly four in ten (39%) Americans—a plurality—believe their generation is better off financially than their children’s generation will be. More than one-third (36%) say the next generation will be in a similar financial situation and only about one-quarter (24%) say their generation is worse off than their children’s generation will be. Although relatively few believe that their generation is worse off than their children’s generation will be, the number of Americans saying their generation is better off has declined. In 2013, a majority (52%) of Americans said their generation was better off than their children’s would be, while roughly one in five (18%) said they would be in about the same financial situation. Interestingly, Americans today are not any more likely to think they are worse off than their children will be. In 2013, a similar number (26%) of people reported that their generation was worse off than their children’s generation would be. Older Americans are more likely than young adults to say their generation is financially better off than the one following it. A slim majority (51%) of seniors (ages 65 and older) believe their generation is in a better financial situation than their children’s generation will be. In contrast, fewer than one in four (23%) young adults (age 18-29) believe their generation is in better shape financially than the one to follow. *Note: For respondents without children, question was asked about “the next generation of young people.” Does Hard Work Guarantee Success? Most Americans express doubts about whether a key element of the American Dream—working hard is enough to get ahead—still holds true. A majority (57%) of Americans say hard work and determination do not guarantee success for most people, while 42% say it does. While this skepticism is widely shared among the public, there are key political, racial, ethnic, and class divisions. More than six in ten (62%) Democrats and 58% of independents do not believe hard work alone is enough to guarantee success. Fewer than half (46%) of Republicans agree with this pessimistic view. A majority (54%) of Republicans disagree with the idea that hard work does not always yield success. Skepticism about the connection between hard work and success spans racial and ethnic divides. More than six in ten black (65%) and Hispanic Americans (63%) and a majority of white Americans (54%) agree hard work is not a surefire path to success for most people. Nearly six in ten (58%) members of the white working class agree that hard work doesn’t always result in success. White college-educated Americans are divided in their views; nearly half (49%) agree, while a similar number (50%) disagree.
IV. Trade and Foreign Policy Americans are closely divided about the benefits of free trade. Forty-three percent of the public say free trade agreements are mostly helpful because they open markets to U.S. companies and allow Americans to buy goods more cheaply. Half (50%) of Americans take the opposite view: free trade agreements are mostly harmful because they send jobs overseas and drive down wages in the U.S. There are modest differences in views about free trade by race and ethnicity. However, white Americans are divided sharply by class. Six in ten (60%) white working-class Americans say free trade agreements are mostly harmful, a view shared by only about four in ten (42%) white college-educated Americans. Democrats and Republicans sharply diverge over the benefits of free trade. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans believe free trade is generally harmful. By contrast, only 40% of Democrats see free trade agreements as mostly harmful, while a majority (54%) say free trade agreements are mostly helpful because they open markets and lower the price of goods. Political independents mirror views of the general public. Among Democrats, views about free trade vary considerably by region. Midwestern Democrats are much less likely to see the benefit of free trade than those in the Northeast and South (44% vs. 59% and 58%, respectively). Western Democrats are somewhat divided with close to half (49%) expressing a positive view about the benefits of free trade and four in ten (40%) expressing a negative view. Republican views on free trade are not significantly different across regions. Most Americans believe the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is primarily the result of poorly negotiated trade deals and government policy as opposed to the rise of globalization and technological advancements. Nearly six in ten (57%) Americans say the decline in American manufacturing was caused by government policies, while only 37% blame globalization. A majority of Republicans (71%) and independents (57%) say manufacturing declines in the country are primarily the result of bad trade deals and government policy. Democrats are about equally as likely to blame government decision-making (46%) as they are to blame globalization and technological advances (48%). There are striking divisions among Americans by educational attainment on this issue. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans with a high school education or less believe government policy is largely responsible for the decline in American manufacturing jobs. Four-year college graduates are evenly divided over the culprit, with as many citing government policy (47%) as globalization (47%). In contrast, six in ten (60%) Americans with a post-graduate degree fault globalization and technological advances for the decline in American manufacturing jobs. There are also sharp contrasting views among different generations. Young adults (age 18-29) are more likely than any other age group to say that manufacturing jobs have declined due to globalization. Nearly half (48%) of young adults say globalization and technological advancement precipitated the decline, a view shared by only one-third (33%) of seniors (age 65 and older). Defending NATO Allies The public is split over whether the U.S., as a member of NATO, should use military force to defend any member country when it is attacked or whether the U.S. should only use military force if its immediate security is threatened (49% vs. 45%, respectively). There are no significant political differences in views about NATO. The issue divides Republicans, Democrats, and independents about equally. A majority (53%) of Republicans and nearly half of independents (49%) and Democrats (48%) support the use of military force in defense of NATO allies. Fewer than half of Republicans (44%), independents (46%), and Democrats (47%) say military force should only be employed if America’s immediate security is threatened. There is a pronounced gender divide about when the use of military force is required. A majority (56%) of men say the U.S. should defend any NATO ally with military force, while only 42% of women agree. A majority (52%) of women say the U.S. should only use military force if its own immediate security is threatened.
V. Immigration and Protectionist Policies Views of Immigrants Americans are divided over the cultural contributions immigrants make to American society. Close to half (46%) of Americans say the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values, while 44% say these immigrants strengthen our society. There are notable racial, ethnic, and class divisions in perceptions of immigrants. A majority of Hispanic Americans (56%) say newcomers strengthen American culture, while 37% say they threaten it. Black Americans are evenly divided over the contributions immigrants make to society: equal numbers say immigrants threaten American culture (46%) as say strengthen it (46%). A slim majority (51%) of white Americans say immigrants are a threat to American culture, while 40% believe immigrants contribute positively to American culture. However, whites are divided sharply by class. More than six in ten (62%) white working-class Americans say immigrants threaten American culture, compared to only about one-third (34%) of white college-educated Americans. A majority (54%) of white college-educated Americans believe immigrants are a source of strength for American society. There are stark partisan differences over whether Americans perceive immigrants as a threat or a source of strength. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Republicans report the growing number of newcomers threatens American customs and values, while only 29% of Democrats say the same. More than six in ten (63%) Democrats say immigrants strengthen American society. Independents mirror the general population. Protectionist Policies: Building a Wall and Banning Muslims Building a Wall on the U.S.-Mexico Border Most Americans reject the proposal that the U.S. should build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Roughly four in ten (41%) Americans favor building a wall, while nearly six in ten (58%) are opposed. Support for this policy has remained unchanged since May 2016. Public attitudes are highly polarized by race, ethnicity, and class. Roughly three-quarters of Hispanic (76%) and black (74%) Americans are opposed to building a wall. In contrast, white Americans are more divided over the policy: 52% oppose; 47% favor. There is notable disagreement among whites by social class. A majority (56%) of white working-class Americans favor building a wall, a view shared by only 35% of white college-educated Americans. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white college-educated Americans are opposed to the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. There is a substantial partisan divide in support for building a wall along the Mexican border. Roughly three-quarters (73%) of Republicans favor this policy compared to fewer than four in ten (38%) independents and only about one in five (19%) Democrats who say the same. More than six in ten (62%) independents and eight in ten (80%) Democrats oppose building a wall along the southern U.S. border. The gap between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters dwarfs partisan disagreement over the proposal. More than eight in ten (86%) Trump supporters favor the construction of a wall, a position favored by only 12% of Clinton backers. Nearly nine in ten (88%) Clinton supporters say they do not support building a wall along the border, including 61% who strongly oppose it. Banning Muslims from Entering the U.S. Most (56%) Americans reject a policy of temporarily banning Muslims from other countries coming to the U.S., although a sizeable minority (43%) express support for the idea. A similar pattern emerges among Americans by race, ethnicity, and social class. More than seven in ten (72%) black Americans and more than six in ten (62%) Hispanic Americans oppose banning foreign Muslims from other countries from entering the U.S. White Americans are split on the issue, with a slim majority (51%) opposing such a ban and 47% favoring it. Notably, a majority (56%) of white working-class Americans favor a temporary ban on Muslims from entering the U.S., compared to roughly one-third (35%) of white college-educated Americans. Republicans and Democrats are also deeply divided over the proposal. Seven in ten (70%) Republicans favor a policy of temporarily banning Muslims from other countries from entering the U.S., while fewer than three in ten (29%) oppose such a policy. In contrast, three-quarters (75%) of Democrats oppose banning Muslims from entering the country, while fewer than one in four (23%) favor this policy. Independents mirror the general population on this issue. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump supporters also register diametrically opposed views on this issue. Close to eight in ten (78%) Trump supporters favor a temporary ban on Muslims, while fewer than one in five (18%) Clinton supporters endorse the idea. Eighty percent of Clinton supporters reject such a ban. The issue also divides Americans by religious affiliation. A majority of white evangelical Protestants (62%) and white mainline Protestants (54%) favor the temporary ban on Muslims. White Catholics are split in their views of the proposal, with about equal numbers expressing support (48%) as opposition (49%). Conversely, a majority of Hispanic Catholics (62%), black Protestants (68%), members of non-Christian religions (70%), and religiously unaffiliated Americans (74%) reject a temporary ban on Muslims.
VI. Raising the Minimum Wage, Free College Tuition, and Taxation Increasing the Minimum Wage to $15 The public expresses fairly strong support for raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Six in ten (60%) Americans favor more than doubling the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $15 per hour, while approximately four in ten (39%) are opposed to such a hike. Support for a $15 minimum wage is unchanged from last year. Support for a minimum wage increase varies considerably by race and ethnicity. Eight in ten (80%) black Americans and nearly three-quarters (73%) of Hispanic Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. White Americans, in comparison, are more divided: a majority (53%) favor a $15 minimum wage, while 46% are opposed. Notably, whites’ strength of support for a minimum wage increase is steady across social classes. A majority of both white working-class (55%) and white college-educated Americans (52%) favor raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Eight in ten (80%) Democrats favor increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $15 per hour, compared to roughly one-third (35%) of Republicans. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans oppose such an increase. The views of independents mirror those of the general public. Americans are also more likely to say raising the minimum wage helps rather than hurts the economy. A majority (54%) of Americans say raising the minimum wage generally helps the economy because it allows more workers to pay for basic goods and services without government help, while four in ten (40%) Americans say minimum wage increases generally hurt the economy by making it more difficult for small businesses to pay and hire new workers. Democrats and Republicans diverge in their views about the relative economic benefit or harm of raising the minimum wage. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Democrats say raising the minimum wage helps the economy by allowing workers to pay for basic goods and services, while fewer than three in ten (27%) Republicans say the same. Two-thirds (67%) of Republicans believe minimum wage increases hurt the economy by making it difficult for small businesses to hire new workers. College Tuition Americans express strong support for eliminating tuition for public university students whose families make less than $125,000 annually. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans agree tuition to public colleges and universities should be free for all students whose families make less than $125,000 per year; fewer than four in ten (36%) Americans disagree. More than eight in ten black (83%) and Hispanic Americans (81%) believe students whose families make less than $125,000 annually shouldn’t have to pay tuition at public colleges and universities, while fewer than six in ten (57%) white Americans say the same. There are divides among white Americans by class, however. More than six in ten (62%) white working-class Americans agree tuition to public colleges and universities should be free for those who came from families making less than $125,000 per year, compared to a slim majority (51%) of white college-educated Americans. Half (50%) of the white college educated do not support this policy. More than eight in ten (83%) Democrats support making tuition free at public colleges and universities for all students whose families make less than $125,000 per year. In contrast, roughly four in ten (42%) Republicans support such a proposal, while a majority (57%) are opposed. There is considerable support for this policy across generations, although young adults voice the strongest support. Nearly seven in ten (68%) young adults (age 18-29) and a majority (57%) of seniors (age 65 and older) agree tuition should be eliminated for students at public colleges and universities whose families make less than $125,000 annually. Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy The public overwhelmingly supports raising taxes on wealthier Americans. More than seven in ten (72%) Americans favor increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $250,000 per year, while fewer than three in ten (27%) are opposed. Support for increasing taxes on the wealthy has risen since 2014, when 57% favored such a policy. ||||| Warning darkly of a stolen election, Donald J. Trump has called on supporters to turn out in droves on Election Day to monitor polling places, telling them they need to be vigilant against widespread voter fraud and a rigged outcome.
“Voter fraud is all too common, and then they criticize us for saying that,” he said at a rally Tuesday in Colorado Springs. “But take a look at Philadelphia, what’s been going on, take a look at Chicago, take a look at St. Louis. Take a look at some of these cities, where you see things happening that are horrendous.”
His language has stirred increasing fears of intimidation of minorities inside polling places, where their qualifications to vote could be challenged, or outside, where they would face illegal electioneering.
But as Mr. Trump casts doubt on the integrity of the presidential election, there are no signs of a wave of Trump poll watchers building. Like much else about his campaign, his call to “get everybody to go out and watch” the polls seems to be a Potemkin effort, with little or no organization behind it. | The US Justice Department will be deploying election monitors and observers in 28 states to help things run smoothly and look for any disruptions or signs discrimination when Americans go to the polls on Tuesday, NPR reports. Around 500 observers will be deployed, which is actually less than were used in 2012; the Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act reduced the Justice Department's authority to conduct oversight operations, the New York Times reports. The observers will be in an important position, especially as Donald Trump continues to repeat his dogged accusation that the election will be rigged. Trump has encouraged his supporters to conduct independent monitoring, the New York Times reported last month, a plan that some Democrats say is a "thinly veiled" attempt at voter intimidation. Despite all these efforts to ensure a fair election, a recent poll found that just 43% of voters feel there's a high probability their vote will be properly counted, while 17% have little confidence their vote will be counted accurately. |
A plodding storm that dumped heavy snow on the unsuspecting Mid-Atlantic region left roads slippery and slushy in the Northeast for Monday's commute while travel disruptions continued rippling across the country days after the same system first began wreaking havoc in the skies.
Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Emmanuel Sanders (88) dances into the end zone on a five-yard touchdown pass play during the first quarter of an NFL football game against the Miami Dolphins in Pittsburgh,... (Associated Press)
Miami Dolphins fans watch an NFL football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Miami Dolphins in a snow storm at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013. (AP Photo/Don Wright) (Associated Press)
Philadelphia Eagles' Nick Foles warms up as snow falls before an NFL football game against the Detroit Lions, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke) (Associated Press)
Detroit Lions head coach Jim Schwartz walks the sidelines as snow falls during the first half of an NFL football game against the Philadelphia Eagles, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt... (Associated Press)
Ice forms on holly leaves as sleet falls in Richmond, Va., Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013. A powerful storm system that spread hazardous snow, sleet and freezing rain widely across the nation's midsection rumbled... (Associated Press)
A stranded motorist stands near his vehicle that slid off of State Route 3 near King's Highway in Stafford County, Va., Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013. Snow, sleet and freezing rain pelted the Fredericksburg region... (Associated Press)
A light snow falls over visitors to the White House in Washington, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013, as snow followed by freezing rain and sleet is expected in the Washington region. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (Associated Press)
A runner makes his way down Main Street, despite the cancellation of the St. Jude Memphis Marathon, in Memphis, Tenn. Saturday, Dec. 7, 2013. The weather forced the cancellation of the marathon, which... (Associated Press)
Fans are bundled against the cold as they watch Rutgers play South Florida in an NCAA college football game in Piscataway, N.J., Saturday, Dec. 7, 2013. Rutgers won 31-6. (AP Photo/Mel Evans) (Associated Press)
A person walks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Dec. 9, 2013, as rain, snow, sleet and freezing rain affected most of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region on Sunday and into Monday. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (Associated Press)
Montana head coach Mick Delaney walks along the sidelines in the first half of an NCAA college football playoff game against Coastal Carolina in Missoula, Mont., Saturday, Dec. 7, 2013. (AP Photo/Michael... (Associated Press)
A basketball net and backboard are frozen solid Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013 in Dallas, Texas. Icy conditions were expected to last through the weekend from Texas to Ohio to Tennessee, and Virginia officials... (Associated Press)
Kelly Felts, left, Nolan Felts, second from left, Tara Kilpatrick, second from right, and Erin Simmons, all of Richmond, Va., try to figure out a running route outside of Autozone Park, despite the cancellation... (Associated Press)
Emergency personnel respond to the scene of an accident on Interstate 94 south of Milwaukee, near Racine, Wis., on Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013. Snow is causing treacherous driving conditions in southeastern... (Associated Press)
A light snow falls as Meryl Dann, left, Michelle Kalicki, and Abigail Walsh react while looking at a cell phone photo of themselves in their elf costumes by the White House in Washington, Sunday, Dec.... (Associated Press)
A Minnesota Vikings fan tries to catch snowflakes on his tongue as he watches players warm up before an NFL football game between the Vikings and the Baltimore Ravens, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013, in Baltimore.... (Associated Press)
The storm that coated parts of Texas in ice struck with unexpected force Sunday on the East Coast, blanketing some spots in a foot of snow, grinding highways to a halt, causing power outages, and closing schools or delaying start times. The federal government was allowing workers to arrive up to two hours later than normal Monday or take unscheduled leave as freezing rain fell.
"Getting snow and ice off the car was the hardest thing," said Brian Holmes, 63, of Alexandria, Va. "I couldn't find my scraper. I had to improvise with my broken snow shovel."
In Washington, cab driver Mahdi Abdi said he had been driving since around midnight and the main roads were clear. But side streets were a different story.
"The small streets, a lot of them are icy," said Abdi, 52. "I don't even go in."
The storm canceled more than 2,800 flights Sunday and delayed thousands more, according to estimates from the website Flightaware.com. More than 1,200 flights Monday were already canceled, the greatest share from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which was still reeling from the effects of the ice storm that brought North Texas to a standstill. About 650 people were stranded there Sunday night, down from Friday night when about 4,000 travelers were stranded, airport spokesman David Magana said.
The forecast for Monday remained up in the air for the Northeast, depending on how quickly the system moves and temperatures rise, according to the National Weather Service.
The expectation overnight was for another weather system moving out of Virginia to follow the same path as Sunday's storm. It was forecast to dump icy drizzle and eventually freezing rain through the New York City area and into Boston, National Weather Service meteorologist Greg Heavener said.
Indeed, slippery conditions were reported overnight in the New York City area: One crash involving about 20 vehicles closed southbound lanes of Interstate 95 in Greenwich, Conn., for a couple of hours. No serious injuries were reported.
Forecasters said air travel would likely remain a hassle, too.
"I think the further north you look, departures and arrivals could be affected because of icy issues," Heavener said.
What was forecast in the Philadelphia area to be a tame storm with about an inch of snow gradually changing over to rain mushroomed into a full-blown snowstorm. A foot of snow was reported in Newark, Del. Philadelphia International Airport received 8.6 inches, more than it had all of last year. Other areas received far less: a little over an inch was reported in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, which usually is hit harder than downtown Philadelphia.
Sunday's snow fell so heavily in Philadelphia that yard markers at Lincoln Financial Field _ where the Eagles beat the Detroit Lions _ were completely obscured. It was almost as bad in Pittsburgh, where the snow intensified after the opening kickoff.
Philadelphia fan Dave Hamilton, of Ivyland, layered up for the game in Eagles gear.
"Twenty-seven years I've been a season-ticket holder, I've never seen snow at the game like this," he said. "It just kept coming down."
Heavy snow in the Philadelphia area led to a number of accidents, including a fatal crash on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that spawned fender-benders involving 50 cars, stranding some motorists for up to seven hours. More than two dozen vehicles were involved in another series of crashes on nearby Interstate 78.
Paul Jones, 24, a youth hockey coach from Warminster in the Philadelphia suburbs, was on his way to a game in Lancaster when he got stuck _ along with his fiancee, another coach and three players _ in a major backup on the turnpike.
The roadway was "snow-covered, slick," Jones said by phone from the car, where he was a passenger and had been at a standstill for more than an hour.
"People are in and out" of their vehicles, he said. "Kids are having a snowball fight on the side of the road, making snow angels, people are walking their dogs."
Stacey Jackson, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia airport, said Sunday a number of passengers were expected to remain in the airport overnight since area hotels had been full for several days. She said staff would hand out pillows and blankets to travelers to make them "feel at home even though they are not."
Air passengers in the Washington-area experienced increasing delays at both Dulles International and Ronald Reagan Washington National airports.
Power outages were reported in Virginia, parts of West Virginia, Maryland and the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area following freezing rain, wet snow and sleet. Parts of northwest and southwest Virginia and southern West Virginia got snow, while sleet and freezing rain prevailed west and north of Richmond.
In Maryland, a chain-reaction accident on Interstate 81 in Washington County involving more than 20 vehicles delayed snow removal efforts for hours. The highway was closed for more than three hours after a tractor-trailer ran into the median to avoid cars that had spun out. It was hit by another tractor-trailer that overturned and spilled its load. Several other tractor-trailers ran off the road and jackknifed as their drivers tried to avoid the crash.
But the nasty weather wasn't limited to the East Coast. Nebraska and Iowa saw snow; multiple weather-related crashes were reported in Wisconsin, including two that were fatal; and thousands of customers lost power in Mississippi because of sleet and freezing rain.
A snowstorm that hit along the Utah-Arizona border left hundreds of travelers stranded on Interstate 15 overnight into Sunday. The Arizona Highway Patrol said passengers in about 300 vehicles became stranded after up to 10 inches of snow and slick road conditions prompted the closure of part of the highway. There were no immediate reports of serious injuries.
___
Rubinkam reported from Pennsylvania. Associated Press writers Steve Szkotak in Richmond, Va., Matthew Barakat in Falls Church, Va., Jessica Gresko and Ben Nuckols in Washington, D.C., Samantha Henry in Newark, N.J., and Diana Heidgerd in Dallas contributed to this report. ||||| (CNN) -- Frigid weather that gripped much of the United States created a crisis in northwest Nevada, where rescue teams have been searching a mountainous area for two adults and four children.
James Glanton, 34, and Christina MacIntee, 25, are missing, along with a 10-year-old, two 4-year-olds and a 3-year-old, the Pershing County Sheriff's Office said. The six set out Sunday for Seven Troughs mountain range and haven't been seen since.
Fears for their safety grew as the temperature was expected to hit 6 below zero Tuesday night.
Amanda Fitzpatrick, mother of the 10-year-old, Shelby Fitzpatrick, told CNN's Piers Morgan in a telephone interview that she'd joined the search. Rescue teams have tried to stay positive, she said.
"It's been extremely hard, probably the hardest 24 to 36 hours of my life," she said. "It's my baby girl."
The relationship between the two adults and the other children was unclear.
At least 15 people have died because of the weather, mostly in traffic accidents. Eight died in Oklahoma alone, including a 6-year-old who fell through ice on a creek in Tulsa and men who died in house fires in Westville and Tulsa, the state Department of Emergency Management reported on Monday.
Temperatures across the country are expected to stay very low, usually 10 to 20 degrees below normal, for the rest of the week in regions struggling after days of wintry weather, according to the National Weather Service.
Dallas is still trying to shake off the effects of a weekend ice storm and had about 20,000 customers without power on Monday, according to power company Oncor. Anchorage, Alaska, has been warmer than St. Louis and Denver.
"It's very unusual," CNN meteorologist Dave Hennen said. "This literally spreads across the entire U.S., and we're 12 days from the official start of winter."
Even if snow leaves, the cold will remain. More sleet, snow and freezing rain will smack Washington on Tuesday morning. The storm will move off the East Coast in the afternoon and night, the National Weather Service said, but the mercury won't rise above freezing until Friday. The forecast is about the same for Philadelphia and New York City, though those cities won't see temperatures above 32 until days later.
Portland, Oregon, should have more snow and freezing rain this week; Chicago, too.
The nation's airports appear to be getting back to normal. The website Flightaware.com says only 304 flights have been canceled for Tuesday, up from 1,700 on Monday and 2,600 on Sunday.
Florida is pretty much the only place in the country to escape the cold, with Punta Gorda, a town on the Gulf Coast, reporting Sunday's national high temperature of 87 degrees. Mimi Huddleston, a bartender at Harpoon Harry's, has a message for the rest the country, and to her credit, it's not "nyah nyah."
"We live in paradise," she said Monday. "Snowbirds" from the North who come in for a drink are always talking about the weather back home. "They say it's too cold for them and they like it here."
The country's coldest spot on Monday was Daniel, a community of about 150 people in western Wyoming. It registered 29 degrees.
Rachel Grimes of the Sublette County Chamber of Commerce said people are busy "recreating" on skis and snowmobiles. "We normally don't get cold weather like this until after the holidays," she said. "The wind is blowing today, so it feels colder."
Tuesday's storm in the East could drop up to 5 inches of snow in Virginia before moving out to sea, the National Weather Service said. Much of the Plains and Rocky Mountains will stay very cold through Wednesday, with the lowest temperatures probably found in the higher elevations of the Great Basin eastward through the Dakotas and into Minnesota.
Travel will remain hazardous in spots.
In Arizona, a Saturday night snowstorm stranded 300 vehicles along Interstate 15. Rigs jackknifed and passenger cars slid into rigs, causing chain-reaction crashes and an enormous backup, Arizona Department of Public Safety Officer Bart Graves said. Authorities shut the interstate for more than 12 hours to clear it.
"We had travelers running out of gas. They provided them food, water and blankets," Graves said.
Some residents in the Dallas suburb of Plano had to deal with an unusual danger: sheets of ice cascading from buildings to the sidewalks and streets.
"The apocalypse has started," one man said shortly before layers of ice fell onto cars.
Late Sunday night in New York, there was a 20-car pileup on the Bronx River Parkway. Forty people were injured, none seriously, authorities said.
Along Interstate 95 outside Stamford, Connecticut, Paul Lee captured frightening video of cars sliding and spinning across ice.
Freezing rain is expected to fall from central Virginia to southeast New York on Monday. Some parts could see up to a quarter-inch of ice.
CNN's Indra Petersons, Judson Jones, Ed Lavandera, Dave Alsup and Emily Minner contributed to this report. ||||| A big winter storm is taking aim at a large swath of the country, with winter weather advisories posted Monday night from Washington to Philadelphia to New York. NBC's Tom Costello reports and the Weather Channel's Mike Seidel has the forecast.
A blast of winter weather knocked out power to thousands and wiped hundreds flights off the boards Monday after causing dozens of wrecks, including one that tangled up about 50 cars, on snowy and icy roads in the Northeast.
Major cities along the East Coast faced a tough commute to start the workweek, and they were in for a second round of winter weather on Tuesday. Forecasters said that Washington could get 3 to 5 inches of snow, Philadelphia 1 to 3 inches and New York at least an inch.
“It will be quite a 48 hours for that region,” said Kevin Roth, a lead meteorologist at The Weather Channel.
Full coverage from weather.com
The first round of weather came from Texas and the Mid-South, where marathons were canceled in Dallas and Memphis, Tenn., over the weekend and dozens more holiday events had to be scrapped. Upwards of 22,000 Dallas-area residences and businesses were still without power Monday, the electric utility Oncor told the Associated Press.
There hasn't been a break in the freezing temperatures as a storm stretched from coast to coast, Texas to Minnesota, and some residents took their skates to the streets. The Weather Channel's Mike Seidel reports.
As the system moved northeast, it wrought havoc on the roads. The biggest tie-up was on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, where a driver got out of his car after a minor accident and then was struck and killed himself.
That set off a chain reaction of crashes behind him, ultimately involving about 50 cars and shutting down part of the turnpike for seven hours.
In New Jersey, a car slid off Interstate 78, killing two people. Icy roads triggered a 24-car pileup late Sunday night just north of New York City, causing scattered minor injuries, police said.
And a 20-car crash early Monday closed southbound lanes of Interstate 95 for two hours near Greenwich, Conn.
A foot of snow fell Sunday in Newark, Del., 11 inches in Penns Grove, N.J., and 10 inches in Charlestown, Md., the National Weather Service said.
Snow coated four NFL games. There was so much at the Philadelphia Eagles’ game against the Detroit Lions that workers had to use snowblowers to clear the yard markers, and the referee told teams during the pregame coin toss that he would improvise if the coin landed on an angle.
Fatal accidents have been reported across the Midwest and thousands of flights have been canceled due to dangerous winter weather. NBC's Dylan Dreyer reports.
More than half of the country’s flight cancellations Monday were at Dallas-Fort Worth, the biggest hub for American Airlines. DFW was trying to clear its backlog from the weekend, but the effort was complicated by freezing fog.
Across the country, there have already been more than 6,100 flight cancellations since Saturday, according to FlightStats.com — including more than 2,800 by American or its American Eagle regional airline.
As the East tried to navigate its tricky commute, a second blast of arctic air was close behind. Temperatures in the single digits or lower covered the map Monday morning as far west as Oregon, east to Wisconsin and south to Arizona and Missouri.
“I don’t think things are going to warm up anytime soon,” said Bruce Sullivan, a National Weather Service meteorologist.
Tom Niziol, a winter weather expert at The Weather Channel, said that the low-dipping jet stream would move east and accelerate, with such strong upper-level winds that it would become known as a “jet streak.”
Scott Anderson / The Journal Times via AP Authorities patrol the vacant southbound lanes on Interstate 94 in northern Racine County, Wisconsin, after the southbound lanes were shut down due to numerous accidents on Sunday.
The result was expected to be another day of hazardous driving and flight cancellations in the Northeast on Tuesday.
Forecasters said that snow, sleet and freezing rain would slicken the roads again just in time for the Tuesday morning commute. By early Wednesday, Washington could get as much as 5 inches of snow, with lesser amounts in Philadelphia, New York and Boston.
“They went from a snowstorm on Sunday to ice on Monday to another snowstorm on Tuesday,” Roth said. “The morning commute into D.C. is going to be pretty tough, and obviously air travel will be hampered.”
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
This story was originally published on | It's not often the whole US feels serious winter weather at once—but that's what's happened over the past few days, meteorologists say. "This literally spreads across the entire US, and we're 12 days from the official start of winter," one tells CNN. Yesterday, 2,800 flights were canceled, the AP reports; today, the number is almost 1,500. Meanwhile, Anchorage, Alaska, is seeing warmer temperatures than St. Louis; the Midwest has wind chills of 40 degrees below zero; and Philadelphia had a daily record snowfall of about eight inches yesterday (another one to three could come tomorrow), requiring snowblowers during an Eagles-Lions game. Federal agencies had two-hour delayed openings in Washington, which could see another three to five inches tomorrow, NBC News notes. Some 20,000 remain without power around Dallas-Fort Worth. At least seven people have died in connection with the storms in Arkansas, New Mexico, and Texas, mostly in car accidents. New Jersey saw two killed in a road accident; the Pennsylvania Turnpike suffered a 50-car pileup in the wake of a fatal accident. Forty were injured in a New York pileup. "It will be quite a 48 hours" for the Northeast, says a meteorologist. |
The scolecodont material is preserved as bedding plane specimens and includes three rock slabs with semi-articulated clusters. The specimens are preserved in a pale beige-greyish mud/wackstone host rock in which cm-sized rugosan corals also occur. Most jaw elements are preserved as (negative) moulds whereas in some specimens parts of the original organic jaw walls are still present. Many specimens show some post mortem deformation, and where original jaw walls are preserved those are usually brittle and fragmented. However, the assemblages seem to have undergone relatively little post mortem transport; some paired elements are preserved together or in close proximity, which also facilitates assessment of general jaw apparatus architecture.
The material is housed in the Invertebrate Palaeontology Section, Department of Natural History at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada (repository; ROM, followed by digits). This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank (http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:54C9B58F-1F96-4543-BCC8-D0D7FFEBCBD1).
Specimens were photographed using a Canon EOS 550D digital camera, with a EFS 60 mm f/2.8 Macro USM objective, mounted on a table set-up with four external light sources, and through a Olympus SZX16 microscope equipped with an Olympus SC30 digital camera and operated by cell Sens Standard software.
Micro-CT scanning, using a Nikon HMX ST 225 system, housed at the University of Bristol, UK, was employed and allowed detection of additional scolecodonts concealed in the host rock. 3141 projections were collected for each scan and reconstructed using a modified Feldkamp back projection algorithm39 in CT Pro (Nikon Metrology, Tring, UK). The data were then visualised using volume rendering in Drishti40.
Systematic Palaeontology
Phylum ANNELIDA Lamarck, 1809
Subclass ACICULATA Rouse & Fauchald, 1997
Family Incertae Familiae
Discussion. The family affinity of the new taxon described below remains uncertain for the time being (see also species remarks below)
Genus WEBSTEROPRION gen. nov.
Type and only species. Websteroprion armstrongi gen. et sp. nov.
Diagnosis. Asymmetrical jaw apparatus with maxillae that can grow to >10 mm in size; forceps-like, sub-symmetrical, denticulated MI, with prominent fang and anteriorly spaced, large denticles; MII with shank representing c. 1/2 of jaw length, anteriorly paucidentate dentary and pointed, sub-triangular ramus. Denticulated, short, sub-triangular basal plate.
Discussion. In addition to the diagnosed elements, some anterior maxillae and accessory elements were recorded (see description).
Etymology. Named after Alex Webster – a ‘giant’ of a bass player – combined with ‘prion’ meaning saw.
Websteroprion armstrongi sp. nov. (Figs 1,2 and 3)
Figure 1: Photographs of Websteroprion armstrongi gen. et sp. nov. (a) Cluster ROM63122, holotype, bedding plane specimens preserved in dorso-ventral view as negative moulds (except for small black pieces of original jaw wall, see posteriormost tip of right MI); (b) Same specimen (ROM63122) flipped 180 degrees and with alternate lighting making the specimens appear positive (as an alternative to making peels with the risk of damaging the fragile specimens); (c–i) ROM63121; (c) Slab overview with white arrows indicating specimens enlarged in (d–i); (d) Part of cluster, note basal plate situated in bight of right MI (indicated by arrow); (e) Right MI in lateral view. (f) Fragmentary right MII in dorsal view and right(?) MI in ventro-lateral view; (g) Imprint of MII (next to MI in (d)); (h) Crushed maxillae; (i) Fang with cutting edge of right MI (same as in (e)); (j–n) ROM63120; (j) Slab overview with white arrows indicating specimens enlarged in (k–n); (k) Right MI; (l) Left MI; (m) Right MII in ventral view; (n) Unknown maxillae and to the right an anterior maxilla. Scale bars 1 mm except (c,j) 5 mm. Full size image
Figure 2: Websteroprion armstrongi gen. et sp. nov. CT-scanning reconstructions of specimens detected on (n,o) and concealed within (remaining figures) slab ROM 63120; (a–d) Laterally strongly compressed left MII in (a) left lateral, (b) right lateral, (c) ventral, (d) dorsal view; (e–h) Right MII (posteriormost tip might be missing) in (e) dorsal, (f) ventral, (g) left lateral, (h) right lateral view; (i–l) Lateral or intercalary tooth in different views; (m) Right MII (same specimen as in (e–h)) on top of unknown element and an anterior right maxilla; (n) Left MI in ventral view (same specimen as in Fig. 1l); (o) Right MI in ventro-lateral view (same specimen as in Fig. 1k); (p) Right MI (same specimen as in (o)) and left MII (same specimen as in (a–d)); (q) Right MI in dorsal view. Scale bars 1 mm. Full size image
Figure 3 (a) Phylogenetic position of Websteroprion armstrongi gen. et sp. nov., based on the discussion in Paxton44; (b) Schematic drawing of the dorsal maxillary apparatus of W. armstrongi, showing the main elements. Full size image
Diagnosis. As for genus.
Description. Right MI, dorsal view. Length 11.1–13.5 mm (note that specimen in Fig. 2q is incomplete and might be even larger than this size spectrum), width c. 1/4 to slightly less of jaw length; maximum width in posterior 1/3 of jaw. Strongly elongate jaw tapering anteriorly and terminating in well-developed, gently curved and dorso-laterally directed fang (or hook) that is nearly circular in anterior cross-section. Distinct cutting edge visible on outer face of fang when original jaw wall is preserved (Fig. 1i). Posterior part of jaw sub-rectangular and bulky (Figs 1d and 2q). Inner margin runs nearly straight posteriorly and sub-parallel to outer margin but bends gently inwards at approximately mid-length only to continue posteriorly and terminating in short shank with postero-sinistal directed end. Shank represents 1/5 or less of jaw length. Inner wing thin to insignificant. Posterior jaw termination characterized by sub-triangular bight for fitting of basal plate. Relatively deep basal furrow, widest in posterior and tapering off anteriorly. Dentary, which consists of c. 15–17 sub-conical and posteriorly slanting denticles, occupies anterior c. 0.75 or more of jaw length (fang included). Anteriorly, dentary situated along inner margin, posteriorly from c. 1/4 it curves gently onto slightly elevated ridge on dorsal face and continues sub-parallel to inner margin. Anteriormost 6 denticles relatively large, evenly distributed and paucidentate. Posterior remaining denticles smaller, more tightly packed, and gently and evenly decrease in size posteriorly, ending at undenticulated ridge, transition to which is indistinct in specimens at hand (which hampers precise measurement of extension of dentary). Outer margin runs almost straight posteriorly from fang; at approximately mid-length curves gently outwards, bends and continues postero-dextrally and then antero-laterally into bight; giving rise to characteristic, sub-angular ramus. In ventral view precise morphology of myocoele opening difficult to assess but seems strongly enclosed, representing c. 0.22 of jaw length, based on CT data (Fig. 2o).
Left MI, dorsal view. Jaw similar to mirror image of right MI with some features differing, particularly posteriorly. Length 10.0–13.2 mm, width c. 1/4 of jaw length; maximum width in posterior c. 1/4–1/5 portion. Strongly elongate, sub-triangular jaw tapering anteriorly and terminating in well-developed, gently curved and dorso-laterally directed fang (or hook). Inner margin runs nearly straight and sub-parallel to outer margin posteriorly from falcal arch. Posteriormost jaw termination lacks bight and is transversely cut forming a nearly straight to slightly undulating posterior margin with basal angle of c. 35° against length axis. Paucidentate dentary, housing 14–16(?) rather large, gently posteriorly slanting, sub-conical and evenly spaced denticles spread near inner margin in anterior portion of jaw. Posteriorly dentary seems to move inwards onto dorsal face and slightly further away from inner margin. Anteriormost denticle, c. 0.5 of fang length, followed by second, usually largest, denticle. Posteriorly, denticles decrease very gently and evenly in size. Posteriormost denticles tightly packed, elevated on ridge, which anteriorly becomes very discrete. As for right MI transition to undenticulated ridge difficult to discern. Based on CT data (Fig. 2n) posterior c. 1/6 part of jaw characterized by short, anteriorly rounded sub-triangular inner wing, tapering posteriorly. Similar ‘outer wing’ present on opposite side. Distinct but short basal furrow left of posterior denticulated ridge. Outer margin subparallel to inner margin anterior of outer wing and continues to form part of fang. In ventral view, based on CT-data, myocoele opening is strongly enclosed (Fig. 2n), representing c. 0.2 of jaw length.
Right MII, dorsal view. Length 6.6–6.8 mm, width c. 0.45 of jaw length. Dentary arranged along inner margin in straight to vaguely and convexly curved fashion, holding 19 sub-triangular, posteriorly slanted denticles (including cusp). Relatively large sickle-shaped, single cusp pointing laterally and slightly dorsally, followed by 2–3 widely spaced, sub-triangular denticles. Following these are normal-sized denticles that rapidly decrease in size and become more tightly packed posteriorly. Posteriormost 7–8 denticles extremely small and tightly packed (see broken off posteriormost extremity; Fig. 1m). Shank occupying c. 1/2 of jaw length with sub-parallel sides and tapering slightly posteriorly. Bight shallow, anteriorly straight to slightly concave; bight angle near 90°. Ramus moderately long, terminating laterally in sub-triangular extremity (partly concealed in Fig. 1m). Undenticulated ridge insignificant. Anterior outer margin straight to slightly sigmoidal, curves and continues into cusp. Inner wing insignificant. In lateral view dentary straight and maximum jaw width at approximately mid-length. In ventral view extension of myocoele opening difficult to discern but seemingly follows anterior part of ramus across jaw, thus representing slightly more than 1/2 of jaw length (Fig. 2f).
Left MII, dorsal view. Only one, laterally strongly compressed, left MII was identified using CT-scanning, i.e., element fully concealed in host rock (Fig. 2a–d). Length c. 10.8 mm, measured width 0.12 of jaw length (but estimated as >0.25 of length in laterally uncompressed elements); maximum width at tip of ramus. Elongate element with dentary arranged on elevated ridge, particularly pronounced in middle of jaw, close to outer margin. Moderately large, postero-dorsally curved single cusp followed by 11(?) denticles that decrease evenly and gently in size posteriorly. First 3 post-cuspidal denticles rather widely spaced, posteriorly denticles become more tightly packed. Transition to undenticulated ridge indistinct and minute denticles might be present in posteriormost c. 1/4 of jaw, otherwise this part is undenticulated. Triangular and pointed ramus with straight posterior margin; bight represents c. 0.47 of jaw length; shank long, slender tapering posteriorly. In lateral view jaw gently sigmoidally curved. In ventral view extension of myocoele opening difficult to discern but seemingly follows anterior part of ramus across jaw, thus representing c. 0.49 of jaw length.
Anterior maxillae. Cluster 63120 (Fig. 1n) hosts partial anterior element, possibly right MIV. Sickle-shaped as preserved with c.7 denticles decreasing in size posteriorly. CT-scanning revealed another anterior element (Fig. 2m), possibly right MIV; Posteriorly bent cusp followed by diastema and 6 (visible) rather tightly packed denticles, seemingly 1/2 cusp length. Ramus seems short and anteriorly situated.
Basal plate. Small, sub-triangular (partly crushed) element situated in bight of right MI in ROM 63121 (Fig. 1d). Representing c. 0.17 of jaw length of right MI this element holds 6 relatively large, conical denticles of near equal size, distributed along straight inner margin. Outer margin runs straight postero-dextrally from cusp, bends sharply at approximately mid-length and continues towards, and finally merges with, posteriormost part of dentary, giving rise to overall sub-triangular element outline.
Lateral/intercalary tooth. CT-scanning revealed one small element probably representing lateral or intercalary tooth (Fig. 2i–l); its relative size and morphology correspond well to remaining maxillae. Length c. 2.6 mm, width c. 0.3 of jaw length; maximum width in posteriormost 1/3 of jaw. Sub-conical, slender and vaguely curved element tapering towards and terminating with pointed, dorsally bent apex.
Etymology. Named after Derek K. Armstrong, who found and collected the first specimens in the field.
Holotype. ROM63122 (Fig. 1a,b); incomplete jaw apparatus, collected July 7, 1994. Remaining illustrated specimens (ROM63120 and ROM63121; Figs 1 and 2) designated paratypes.
Occurrence. Upper Emsian-Lower Eifelian Kwataboahegan Formation at Rabbit (Askaskawayau) Ridge, Ontario, Canada.
Remarks. Despite difficulties in determining the full morphology of the jaw apparatus and individual jaws because of the state of preservation, this unambiguously represents a new taxon based on the unique combination of characters. It cannot be excluded that the element designated as the left MII might constitute a single left MIII. Most likely W. armstrongi deserves the establishment also of a unique family; however, pending the discovery of additional material, it is left in open nomenclature at the family level.
Whereas the combination of element morphologies is unique for Websteroprion, the MI and MII in particular share some characters with those of hadoprionids, paulinitids, ramphoprionids, and kielanoprionids21,41,42,43. For example, whilst the MI of hadoprionids are reminiscent of those of Websteroprion in being elongate and sturdy with anterior hooks and paucidentate dentary, the remaining anterior maxillae are very different with their long, straddling denticles. The MI of paulinitids are more forceps-like and dorso-ventrally flattened and the right MI has a shallower bight with a fused, small basal plate compared to that of Websteroprion. The paulinitid MII are, however, similar in general appearance to those of Websteroprion. Among ramphoprionids the similarities pertain to the larger-sized genera Ramphoprion and Megaramphoprion, with which Websteroprion shares the prominent, elongate MI with a posteriorly truncated termination of the left MI and also, to some extent, the dentary. The anterior dentary of the MI of kielanoprionids can be paucidentate, resembling that of Websteroprion. However, the elements are overall bulkier and, similar to those of paulinitids, have a dentary that is more inwards projected, or facing the opposing element. Moreover, the right MI of kielanoprionids lacks a distinct bight and basal plate.
Thus W. armstrongi is intermediate also between the eulabidognath and labidognath type of jaw apparatus architecture sensu Paxton44. Additional jaw elements (particularly the carriers), and in better state of preservation, are needed in order to unambiguously designate the apparatus type. However, the denticulated and unfused basal plate and accessory element (putative intercalary/lateral tooth) suggest that W. armstrongi belongs to the labidognath type (Fig. 3a,b). Extant eulabidogaths, Onuphidae and Eunicidae, are generally accepted as descending from the extinct family Paulinitidae21,45, an ancestral eulabidognath sensu Paxton44.
It is noteworthy also that the MI of W. armstrongi is similar to the larval MI of extant onuphids and eunicids (see Paxton & Safarik46, Fig. 1F; Paxton & Eriksson47, Figs 1b and 3). Whilst adult onuphids and eunicids possess an undeticulated MI46, the larval left MI possesses prominent denticles and a similar gross morphology to the MI of W. armstrongi. Thus the appearance of the larval MI of these two modern eunicidan families appears to recapitulate the ancestral adult morphology47, which also strengthens the case of Websteroprion being related to the extant Eunicidae and Onuphidae (Fig. 3).
The serendipitous discovery of multiple specimens from a monospecific assemblage in limited sample volume may suggest that W. armstrongi was a common species at this particular locality of the Kwataboahegan Formation. The specimens likely represent ‘snap-shot assemblages’ of deceased individuals that were rapidly entombed by sediment and subjected to limited transport. It is, however, puzzling that no mandibles (which also are expected to have been huge) were found associated with the maxillary clusters. This might be related to structural and/or slight biochemical differences that were less suitable for preservation in this particular environment. Alternatively, this indicates that the maxillae represent shed specimens and the animal (with the continuously growing mandibles) died elsewhere.
W. armstrongi adds to the list known Devonian polychaete taxa and also suggests that eunicidan diversity and disparity were high during this time.
Feeding habits
Websteroprion armstrongi was a raptorial feeder sensu Fauchald & Jumars3. Such polychaetes use their buccal apparatus, consisting of a muscular ventral or axial pharynx, to snatch food items1,3. Eunicidans and phyllodocidans use their jaws to capture live animals as carnivores, to rip off pieces of algae, as herbivores, or to grasp dead and decaying organic matter, as scavengers. Although it would perhaps be easy to assume that W. armstrongi had a predatory, carnivorous mode of feeding based on the ‘fierce’ appearance of the jaws, it has been shown that extant jaw-bearing polychaetes exhibit a wide range of feeding habits1,3 and, thus, that jaw morphology does not necessarily reflect specific modes of feeding. Moreover, in many active predators antennae and palps are present on the prostomium1 and such soft-body features are obviously not known for W. armstrongi, although they are assumed to have been present based on their presence in the extant eulabidognaths Eunicidae and Onuphidae2. Therefore, without evidence of preserved gut content and/or soft body structures, more precise knowledge of the feeding habits of W. armstrongi remains elusive for the time being.
Size estimates of Websteroprion and polychaete gigantism
The jaws of Websteroprion are colossal in size compared to most scolecodonts known from the fossil record and also compared to the jaws of most extant aciculates. Scolecodonts are typically found in the size range of 0.1–2 mm, although exceptions beyond both ends of this spectrum exist. Only some 30 specimens are known from the fossil record – distributed primarily among ramphoprionids, paulinitids, polychaetaspids, hadoprionids, and atraktoprionids – with a size of 3.5 mm (arbitrarily chosen upper limit) or more (electronic Supplementary Material, Table S1). By contrast, the MI of W. armstrongi reach >13 mm in length. In the published literature (Table S1) there is an interesting record of one partial specimen, described by Eller48 as Arabellites longiformis from the Devonian of Ontario Co., New York. Eller measured the specimen to 8 mm and estimated that if intact it could have reached 14 mm in length. Based on the rudimentary drawing it shows similarities to the (anterior part of) the MI of W. armstrongi. However, Eller’s specimen only comprises the anterior portion of an MI which are undiagnostic and usually homeomorphic between many taxa, even at genus and family level. Therefore, as the specimen could belong to any number of taxa, A. longiformis should be regarded as a nomen dubium.
Based on the fossil record data (Table S1) there seems to be no general trend towards a maximum size increase with time towards the Devonian, suggesting that W. armstrongi is a genuine aberration. Whilst it is uncertain if the exceptional size of the jaws of W. armstrongi represents pathological or gerontic stages, the presence of multiple individuals of similar size is congruent with the interpretation that attaining large size was characteristic of the species. Size and morphology of the maxillae indicate that the individuals are adults44,47 and given that that some polychaetes grow continuously throughout life it is possible that adults could have grown bigger still. The absence of smaller individuals may indicate that adults and juveniles had different environmental preferences, as is the case in some extant eunicidans. Nevertheless, it is clear that the maxillae of W. armstrongi are the largest known from the fossil record.
In order to assess the full body size for W. armstrongi based on the size of its jaws, comparisons with now-living, jaw-bearing polychaetes are needed. This is, however, not an entirely straight-forward task. Firstly, W. armstrongi is extinct and the precise phylogenetic relationships of Palaeozoic scolecodont taxa to the modern eunicidan diversity are currently poorly constrained. Secondly, the relationship between the size of the jaws (maxillae and/or mandibles) and the full worm body size (length and/or width) is unclear or ambiguous even from the neontological literature. When the jaw apparatuses in extant worms are at all measured and described in conjunction with the systematic descriptions of soft tissue characters, they are usually related to the number of chaetigers (or setigers) and not necessarily to body length. In many eunicidan polychaetes replacement of the maxillary jaws have been suggested and/or recorded from more or less frequent moulting during ontogeny19,44. Moreover, the moult increments during continuous shedding are not necessarily consistent within a single taxon, and it may vary between species. For example, Paxton & Safarik46 noted that the jaw apparatus growth rate and moult frequency in the onuphid Diopatra aciculata slow down with increasing age.
Despite these problems there are some published data that can be used for comparison, in order to acquire an estimate of the body size of W. armstrongi. Ieno et al.49 found a positive correlation between jaw size and body length for the ragworm Laeonereis acuta. Extrapolating their results would result in a total body length of W. armstrongi in the excess of 4.1 m. By sharp contrast, however, using the data of Brenchley50 (p. 308, Table 6) for Platynereis bicanaliculata and Nereis brandti, results in an extrapolated body length of W. armstrongi of 0.42 m and 0.73 m, respectively. This highlights the difficulties in assessing the body length based on jaws using modern examples. Note, moreover, that these examples are phyllodocidans, whose continuously growing jaws are of a different composition than those of the eunicidan W. armstrongi.
Among extant eunicidans we find some of the largest and smallest polychaete species known51. Particularly within the family Eunicidae and the genus Eunice there are taxa commonly referred to as ‘giant eunicids’52,53,54,55, but gigantic worms also are found in Onuphidae, the sister taxon of Eunicidae56,57. Members of the Eunicidae and Onuphidae have jaw apparatuses of eulabidognath type sensu Paxton44, similar in architecture to that of W. armstrongi (Fig. 3). Leland57 studied the relationship between the size of the mandibles (which by contrast to the maxillae grow continuously throughout life and thereby form a more reliable aging structure) and body parameters of giant Australian beach worms (species of the onuphid Australonuphis) and found a positive correlation. Australonuphis mandibles correspond in length approximately to that of the carriers and first maxilla combined (H. Paxton, Sydney, pers. commun., 2016). Thus a conservative conversion for the length of our MI (c. 2/3 of putative mandible size) and using the calculations of Leland57 (Figs. 15, 17, Table 3) for A. teres and A. parateres would result in a massive body length of W. armstrongi in excess of 4.8 and 8.3 m, respectively. However, as for the phyllodocidan examples above, these are (perhaps unlikely) extrapolated values and neglect the significant possibility of changes in trajectory in the relationship between mandible length and body length in considerably larger/older specimens.
For the species-rich genus Eunice, where the largest forms are found today, there are published claims of individuals reaching 6 m in length53,58; however, some authors have argued that they are rather in the order of 3 m54. These large eunicids have a wide distribution in modern tropical and temperate seas55. The largest species known is the famous ambush predator Eunice aphroditois (colloquially and rather infamously referred to as the ‘Bobbit worm’), but it must be emphasized that the taxonomy of this species (or species complex) is controversial and in need of revision55,58,59. For comparison, we received some size data measured (by Luis F. Carrera-Parra, Mexico – pers. commun., 2016) on two giant eunicid species, E. ‘aphroditois’ and E. roussaei, stored at the National Museum of Natural History (Washington DC, USA), in which the jaws are directly related to full body length. In these specimens, an MI length of 0.92–1.2 cm corresponds to body a length of 0.79 to >1.2 m (Table S2). Using these as modern analogues suggests again that W. armstrongi could have attained a full body length in excess of one metre.
Although the available data allow for a broad range of inferred sizes, comparison with closely related extant taxa indicates a body length in the region of 1–2 metres. Body sizes much smaller or much in excess of this range are derived either from outgroup taxa with jaws that are not homologous (e.g. Nereididae) or extrapolation from close relatives whose maxillae do not attain such a large size (e.g. Australonuphis).
The extraordinarily large jaws and inferred body length of W. armstrongi demonstrate that eunicidan worm gigantism had appeared already in the Devonian, some 400 million years ago. Very large body size, or gigantism, in animals is an alluring and ecologically important trait, usually associated with advantages and competitive dominance60. It is known among several living clades as well as throughout the fossil record, with an increase in body size trajectory towards the present61, but driving mechanism/s are difficult to discern and vary60,61,62. For W. armstrongi, it could be related to intrinsic factors (e.g., unique physiology, predation pressure and/or interspecific competition) and/or extrinsic (physical/chemical environmental) factors (e.g., the availably of oxygen, nutrients, food resources) during the time of deposition of the Kwataboahegan Formation in the Rabbit Ridge area. Precise knowledge of the palaeoenvironmental and palaeoecological scenario at Rabbit Ridge is unfortunately limited and the remote locality is difficult to access. By comparison, it is noteworthy that examples of giant conodonts (with elements reaching centimetre-size rather than sub-millimetre-size) are known from unusual environmental (and ecological) settings, now preserved as Lagerstätten; e.g., the Upper Ordovician Soom Shale Lagerstätte of South Africa63 and more recently the Middle Ordovician Winneshiek Lagerstätte of Iowa, USA, the strata of which were deposited in a meteorite impact crater64. However, while representing an ancient ‘Bobbit worm’ and a case of primordial eunicidan worm gigantism, the specific driving mechanism/s for W. armstrongi to reach such a size remains ambiguous. ||||| Feb. 21 (UPI) -- A storage closet at the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada has yielded a new species.
The ancient worm fossil has been hiding the closet since the mid-1990s after it was excavated from the Kwataboahegan Formation, a fossil-rich strata in Ontario representing the Devonian period.
Analysis of the rediscovered fossil revealed the massive jawed worm to be one-of-a-kind. The 400 million-year-old specimen boasts the largest jaws of its kind. Based on measurements of the worm's jaw and comparisons to related species, scientists estimate the worm would have grown to lengths in excess of three feet.
The jawed worm, Websteroprion armstrongi, would have been big and powerful enough to take down fish, squids and octopuses. Like its relative the Bobbit worm, another aquatic predatory polychaete worm, Websteroprion armstrongi was likely an ambush predator, emerging from a burrow in the ocean floor to attack its prey.
Researchers described the species in a new paper, published this week in the journal Scientific Reports.
"Gigantism in animals is an alluring and ecologically important trait, usually associated with advantages and competitive dominance," Mats Eriksson, a researcher at Lund University in Sweden, said in a news release. "It is, however, a poorly understood phenomenon among marine worms and has never before been demonstrated in a fossil species. The new species demonstrates a unique case of polychaete gigantism in the Palaeozoic, some 400 million years ago." | Scientists have discovered a giant worm—no, not this guy—that terrorized fish, octopuses, and squids with its comparatively massive jaws 400 million years ago. UPI reports the fossil was dug up at Canada's Kwataboahegan Formation back in the mid-1990s and had been in storage at the Royal Ontario Museum since then. When scientists finally got their hands on it, they found a water-going relative of earthworms and leeches that had the biggest jaws ever seen in a bristle worm, according to a press release. Most bristle worm jaws are a scant few millimeters long and require a microscope to see; this worm's jaws were longer than a centimeter and could be seen with the naked eye. Scientists published their findings Tuesday in Scientific Reports. While the fossils of ancient worms typically contain only their jaws, as their bodies are too soft to be preserved well, scientists can extrapolate that this new species of aquatic worm grew to more than 3 feet long. The giant, large-jawed worm has been named Websteroprion armstrongi after Derek Armstrong, who originally found the fossil, and Alex Webster, bass player for death metal band Cannibal Corpse. It seems the three scientists who discovered the worm are big music fans and amateur musicians. (This new species looks like an ant and a bee had a baby.) |
Much hand-wringing has occurred recently over the future of the conservative movement, but the truth is there really is a strong bench. Much hand-wringing has occurred recently over the future of the conservative movement, but the truth is there really is a strong bench.
Following are seven top conservative "power players" to keep an eye on in 2010. Each person listed has an impressive list of accomplishments with many productive years ahead of them. The list includes bloggers, public relations gurus, and organization leaders -- most of whom the average American has never heard of -- but all of whom have dramatically impacted the political climate.
(Note: My goal is to introduce you to emerging, behind-the-scenes "power players," so you won't see household names such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Tucker Carlson, or organizations like The Club for Growth. Nor will you see names of other "power players," Robert George among them, who have recently been profiled in major publications .)
In no particular order, here are seven important conservative names you should know.
1) Arthur Brooks -- Imagine if one of the guys from Freakonomics were hired to run a major conservative think tank. Now you can picture Arthur Brooks. In fact, Brooks has occasionally -- Imagine if one of the guys from Freakonomics were hired to run a major conservative think tank. Now you can picture Arthur Brooks. In fact, Brooks has occasionally guest blogged on the Freakanomics blog , and he does run The American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Brooks seems, perhaps, too hip to oversee a think tank, much less the oldest and one of the most respected such organizations in the nation, where prominent conservatives like Newt Gingrich, Elizabeth Cheney, and former Ambassador Josh Bolton presumably spend time thinking.
Brooks' resume is by no means ordinary. He is an accomplished musician (he was a professional French horn player), a social scientist, and an economist. His recent books include, "Who Really Cares:The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," and "Gross National Happiness, Why Happiness Matters for America-and How We Can Get More of It."
What to expect from Arthur Brooks in 2010: He will release a book titled "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books). At AEI, Brooks plans to focus on making the case (backed by data analysis) for why capitalism is a positive force in the world.
2) Leonard Leo -- If another Supreme Court seat opens up during the Obama presidency, which seems likely, nobody on the right will be more influential than Leonard Leo.
Leo is executive vice president of the Federalist Society. Founded by conservatives such as Ed Meese, Ted Olson, and Robert Bork, it is a social network of about 46,000 conservative and libertarian lawyers who foster the principles of limited government.
But it's not Leo's official title that makes him one of the most powerful behind-the-scenes conservatives in Washington. Over the years, he has assiduously cultivated relationships with numerous organizations, senators, and D.C.-based reporters.
In recent years, conservative organizations, which grew frustrated after Judge Robert H. Bork's appointment to the Supreme Court was blocked in 1987, formed an independent coalition to manage the nomination process for Bush's nominees and to oppose future liberal nominees who might want to legislate from the bench. Leo was chosen to head the effort. He also was frequently called upon to provide advice and guidance on the Supreme Court process to senators and the Bush White House.
Leo headed Catholic outreach for Bush's 2004 campaign and was chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican National Committee. He currently serves as chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Religious Freedom, an independent federal agency that makes recommendations to the president and secretary of state. In that capacity, he has become a frequent critic of what he sees as the administration's failure to make human rights and freedom of religion a top foreign affairs priority.
What to expect from Leonard Leo in 2010: Look for another Supreme Court Justice retirement (likely John Paul Stevens) to touch off a firestorm on the right. If that happens, count on Leonard Leo being in the thick of the battle.
3) Smart Girl Politics -- With a cool logo and an army of feisty, young conservative ladies
Besides an online presence, SGP has regional directors and state coordinators. In 2009, members participated in the first Tea Party and registered voters at more than 75 events around the country. An event in Nashville in October included Liz Cheney, Michelle Malkin, and Michelle Bachmann. -- With a cool logo and an army of feisty, young conservative ladies Smart Girl Politics (SGP) is the place for conservative online women. It all started when stay-at-home mom Stacy Mott noticed a lot of women posting comments on her blog. She asked her audience if they wanted to team with her. The group quickly flourished online, thanks to Twitter (#SGP is their hashtag), Facebook, and social media in general, and in the grassroots. On November 10, SGP celebrated its one-year anniversary and is closing in on 24,000 members.Besides an online presence, SGP has regional directors and state coordinators. In 2009, members participated in the first Tea Party and registered voters at more than 75 events around the country. An event in Nashville in October included Liz Cheney, Michelle Malkin, and Michelle Bachmann.
The group continues to expand at a furious clip. It has an e-magazine called The group continues to expand at a furious clip. It has an e-magazine called Smart Girl Nation , and just added two radio shows to the broadcasting lineup . SGP leadership includes co-founders Mott and Teri Christoph. Rebecca Wales, a former political operative, serves as SGP's communications director.
What to expect from SGP in 2010: The organization is expanding its online training classes, as well as sponsoring training seminars around the nation. SGP will also be a co-sponsor at the upcoming Tea Party Convention, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and Tax Day Tea Party events. In addition, SGP will host its second annual Smart Girl Summit in Washington, D.C., at the end of September. And next year, it will launch a major voter registration drive with an all-volunteer team.
4) Erick Erickson -- Two things tell you a good deal about 34-year-old -- Two things tell you a good deal about 34-year-old RedState editor in chief Erick Erickson's significance and chutzpah: Rush Limbaugh describes him as a friend, and he once asked his readers to participate in a protest against Sen. Mitch McConnell for "spreading a cancer of capitulation throughout the Senate Republican Conference."
Erickson's rise as an online conservative personality has been nothing short of meteoric. Just a few years ago, at the age of 30, Erickson quit his job as a lawyer to blog full time at RedState. In a recent post, he described how he informed his wife of this decision: "Three weeks before my wife gave birth to our first child, after much prayer, I told her I was quitting law to blog. The reaction was what you would expect."
Residing in Macon, Ga., Erickson frequently travels to D.C. and New York (where he is a regular guest on "The Great American Panel," on FOX News' cable show "Hannity," ) but I suspect living outside the Beltway allows him the freedom to say what needs to be said. (Unlike the last generation of conservative leaders who -- because of the limits of communications and technology -- were essentially forced to live in Washington, D.C., or New York, technology has allowed many of the up-and-coming leaders to reside outside the two power cities.)
Erickson does not shy away from controversy. As his Twitter bio reads, "We fight the left and clean up the right." Indeed, Erickson has made enemies on the right and on the left with his blunt, conservative rhetoric. He is so influential that the liberal site Erickson does not shy away from controversy. As his Twitter bio reads, "We fight the left and clean up the right." Indeed, Erickson has made enemies on the right and on the left with his blunt, conservative rhetoric. He is so influential that the liberal site Media Matters is constantly going after him. It even has a blog titled, "RedState, so dumb it hurts."
I've known Erickson for years. For his courage and sticking to his values, Erickson is indeed one of the people I most admire in this business.
What to expect from Erick Erickson in 2010: Look for him to have a major impact on Republican primary campaigns for U.S. Congress, where his endorsement has tremendous weight. Also, don't be surprised if he lands a cable show or a radio show of his own this year.
5) Greg Mueller -- Every movement requires a PR guru who can connect members with the mainstream media, and Mueller is one of the best and most connected conservative public relations professionals in America.
Having worked on three presidential campaigns, served as lead communications strategist for Swift Boat Veterans, and spearheaded external communications for the Alito and Roberts Supreme Court confirmation battles, Mueller's resume is impressive. He's also a co-founder and president of CRC, a public relations firm with more than 30 staffers comprised of vets from journalism and politics and energetic 20 and 30 somethings.
What to expect from Greg Mueller in 2010: Look for Mueller and CRC to combine their already vast expertise in traditional media -- including a Rolodex of the nation's top columnists, producers, editors, bloggers, and talking heads -- with an aggressive emphasis on New Media tools like Facebook and Twitter.
6) Andrew Breitbart -- No blogger had a bigger impact in fighting the Obama administration in 2009 than Andrew Breitbart. A protégé of Matt Drudge, he helped design and launch -- No blogger had a bigger impact in fighting the Obama administration in 2009 than Andrew Breitbart. A protégé of Matt Drudge, he helped design and launch The Huffington Post before making a huge splash with conservative sites Breitbart TV Big Hollywood , and Big Government . In recent months, the liberal Media Matters has credited Breitbart with helping oust former White House "green jobs" adviser Van Jones, getting National Endowment for the Arts communications director Yosi Sergant "reassigned," and for helping distribute the anti-ACORN videos filmed by James O'Keefe and Hanna Giles.
What to expect form Andrew Breitbart in 2010: He will launch his newest Web site, Big Journalism, in January.
7) Tim Phillips -- There are two conservative movements today. Many of the old guard leaders are still active. But there's also a new energy out there driving things, and Tim Phillips is helping lead it. While most conservative organizations were founded in the 1970s, Phillips' group, Americans for Prosperity, came together in 2004, and is, perhaps, the most significant modern group to arise on the right in decades.
In 2006, Phillips was named president of both In 2006, Phillips was named president of both Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Under his leadership, AFP now has chapters and staff in 25 states. This past year, Phillips has overseen two initiatives, the "Hot Air Tour" and the NoStimulus.com petition, both aimed at limiting the size and scope of government. ||||| My name is Sara and I have YouTube channel with 211k subscribers.
I think most people are aware of how I went from 4000 subscribers to close to 90 to 100 thousands YouTube subscribers. You more interesting story to be told as high up from 0 to 4000. A few days ago I had a need up and I got to chance to me a lot of you amazing human being.
The big question was:
How do I get started on YouTube How do I start Trevor might create a passion is withers for tired feet video on different platforms.
I'm gonna share some tips on how to get your first hundreds Subscribers on YouTube
First we're going to take a stroll through memory lane and I'm gonna go through my old videos and had a point out at what point still ahead 100 subscribers 5000 subscribers. When was there a plateau when were the breakthrough. Because it is that I've been watching a lot of my whole video and it's fun to reminisce sometimes but other times it's just cringe inwardly really.
Let's go back to my first video ever. I flushing tarp for over 10 years and so during that time I had bought and sold a lot of guitar and amplify. What I wanted to settle this one specific a fuzz pedal. I took to the internet there was a forum. That's really good for guitar and gear. I have people know what it sounds. I gotta make a video where does one make a video on YouTube. In September my first you do video ever and it was me in demo weighing 8 guitar pedal I had for sell.
I use my dad's canon that I have use for some school projects. I was a terrible filmer and I understood editing just play around. This was time when it was really cool everyone had DS waters made love to zoom in and out of things thank god I found over placers noticing people watching us, random people that didn't see the link on the forum. I really got like thousands of people watching this video that I did not that I was listening to friends and family. Also, I inserted a video in Facebook. For high-quality promotion in Facebook, use the link: kccatl.com. I was confused, but I was glad. View my video with illustrations and proofs:
I started to upload a just like videos on YouTube. It took me honestly. I think one or 2 years to post my next video. The next video that is public on my profile is the law of supply and demand music video. That I made for economics project. There were a few videos and between modern now deleted by and between my old demo and also a Taylor Swift concert I had my first 100 subscribers. I didn't know about it in a way where I was like YouTube. I want views, I want subscribers, I want people watching my stuff. YouTube is kind of there to solve a problem that I have before. How I got a thousand subscribers, I think truly enemy in your first 100 subscribers can go one of 2 ways one your stuff is searchable. People are kind of stumbling upon it and saying Hey. This is good I might stick around. The second way is look you want to do this video thing you want to dive in YouTube hard work to your first 100 subscribers email text right your friends and family a letter however you can get in touch with people do it by any means. Everyone you've ever met hopefully there are 100 people like that. After that I started to get more serious about video and I'm just scrolling through the videos now. I started to do more concert live coverage for those like this is the way the people get to my channel because people actually search out concert footage I've loved music I've always loved music. Then I started transitioning into videos that I was passionate about I would go to strengthened my friends and I make a recap video of that. I was still mixing in the search ability of the music I was seen by it they kind of falls into trouble films. From there I got hooked on kind of filming those types of recaps videos. I would on boxes, I would review, I would teach on it via YouTube videos but then I would go out and travel with it I would come back with really cool troubled by videos while doing the searchable camera. As I was pulling in people with a searchable content I got some of them to stay for the content that I was actually passionate about making on sites.
My first big turning point and maybe not listen to YouTube making videos was my Greece video. You may think I'm too young to go to travel to Greece one of the best trips of my life I recap video. The first time that my friends and family really say this is actually amazing and I love this video that I mean. It may be even more passion for creating but also sharing online throughout all Social Networks and all the things I was doing slowly climbing up to thousands subscribers.
My second big turning point was the start of my dog is series Greece space TV. I want to start the series 8/11/2015 it was a way for me to get more experience as a filmmaker and highlighting other people. I consider this my second big turning point not just because making a dog series was on the staff of the right direction for me as a video maker but also I gained a little bit of movement YouTube. I have a secret for you:
This is something a lot of people know that I have actually gotten 2 collections from the man casing stuff. I have been stunned nice thoughts on him in to beginning. August 2015 this is beautiful time and my video really started getting and 2 daily flogging. This long for some videos getting 1000000 views each. Crazy, but he has a smell time. I understood that I was about to launch the biggest thing ever that I am ever launched in YouTube channel. The first season up created Greece Spaces TV. About a month before launching I sent him really nice moleskin notebooks. This 2 probably has all the ideas and all the time. Cool notebooks to write things on every in my video. And then I sent him this package and it was just meant to be.
On the day that I release the first season and create a space to you with August 11 this was also my friends. Casing happens to release the lock in what she does a best time in which she opened up my packaging letter exactly on August 11/2015 when I watched the first season of Freedom spaces TV. It my package a letter was opened on that same day in the Facebook blog. From that letter I got a solid hundred subscribers, which is so crazy because that's why it makes it even more special when I was gearing up for the release of season 2 of creative space TV. Right before, what's a way that I can provide something for YouTube subscribers again, because I feel like our audience. Together and that's what I mean holiday Casey nice of vlog in the shout out landed on the same and that time I was releasing of first episode of season 2.
Do you really can full circle. Post go back to season one of Greece space TV. Not only did I get that real time package open but at the same time test works from the art of photography gave me a shout out on his channel. Another sent me well past of thousand subscribers and followers on Twitter. Now I was all set two thousands subscribers! I had 2 different creative shows screen space TV and back creative life I was still doing camera tutorials and on boxing's. But truly I beginning I was focusing on quality YouTube video was on my college students. I can't stress enough how important it is and the beginning to focus on quality focus on what you love to do and what you want see out in the world. That is going to get people to stay. When you are consciously putting in the work, that break through is going to happen. But you want to make sure when that breaks actually happens you have the credibility you have the backlog of content on whatever social media you're really pouring into to make the people my real active subscribers. The people actually interested in staying to see perfect channel. Real and active subscribers - he does matter on YouTube. I truly think it does a schedule matters but not so much in the beginning focused so hard on quality what sets you apart from everyone else who is doing practically the same thing on YouTube. As a person you thoroughly appreciates design it never hurts to have a good statics on your online profiles that actually does go a long way but keep in mind a pretty online profile is nothing was out to be me and substance of the arts and vice version.
Additionally I advise you to make a mini video lasting 1 minute for Instagram. We all know that Instagram has an explosive nature, especially if the video is interesting and viral. If a short video will interest your followers on Instagram, then they will go to your channel on YouTube and subscribe necessarily. I give a tested few links for fast getting Instagram followers:
The ideal number of Instagram followers and the price for purchase. Buy 1000 Instagram followers: http://instagramfollowerspromotion.com/buy-1000-instagram-followers.html
If you do not mind the money to create a powerful Instagram and have more than 50k followers, then go on: http://cornjob.com/buy-50000-followers-on-instagram.html
I hope you guys enjoyed this information, I think it super funny there was that Casey shadow before the Casey shower now and it was such a long journey from 2011 to 2015. That hustle and grind that brought me from 0 to 4000 subscribers. Every day I truly have to remind myself to go out videos, life and work with that same mentality of just being so hungry for building. Because in the very beginning that is your advantage you have that hunger hold. Thank you so much for joining in and listening to my story hopefully you got some inspiration or some nuggets from it. That you can apply to your own life let me know if you like this article hit that subscribe button down below for new articles and videos. Every Monday through Friday we get creative up here, we do some stuff for New York City. I try to bring exciting things to your faces 5 days a week stay pitching.
How to buy real subscribers on YouTube without banned?
Having clarified the moment with the mass write-offs, it is logical to think about how, in this case, to buy subscribers on YouTube, so that they are not written off, and the channel is not banned? To do this, you must consistently adhere to several rules:
Do not buy subscribers on unverified services . To find out which service is more honest and conscientiously performs services, pay attention to its reputation on the Internet and customer reviews on forums and social networks. Thanks to the experience of my colleagues and friends, real subscribers have a service Kccatl.com only. All other sites that my friends tried to send automatic bots without views and likes. There is no true subscriber who does not watch the video!
Start buying from small portions. Do not immediately go broke for hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Buy for the beginning about a hundred. Thus, you do not do much harm to your channel and check the quality of the added material
Continually follow the news in the world of YouTube. Often, users share information about a new wave of write-offs or other checks on the YouTube system. At this time, it is better to lie to the bottom and not make purchases
Analyze the prices of sellers. As we said earlier: expensive does not mean quality
Do not overclock completely empty channel. Add subscribers yourself. Let it be just friends and acquaintances, but they will bring to your channel activity in the form of views, comments and likes. Only after this, it is worth thinking about how to buy YouTube subscribers. If you do not manage to solve this issue with the help of friends and acquaintances, then you can simply buy views and likes on YouTube in the right amount, it's quite inexpensive on our site
Do everything systematically. Make purchases in small parts with certain intervals between orders. Also, do not forget to monitor the activity on the channel, you should see a balance between the number of true subscribers to the views and comments in it. ||||| Revisiting the Coverage of the High School Students and the Native American Veteran: A Lesson Learned and an Apology Sarah Quinlan
On Saturday, I published an article discussing an incident involving Covington Catholic High School students who attended the March for Life and Native Americans, including Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips, who attended the Indigenous People’s March. My article described the video available at the time, identified Nathan Phillips, and provided additional information about him. I also linked to the high school’s website to confirm the trip | Read More » | They may not get the headlines of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, but here are some conservative "power players" to look for this year from Matt Lewis at Politics Daily. Smart Girl Politics: "With a cool logo and an army of feisty, young conservative ladies," the website "is the place for conservative online women." The rapidly expanding network plans a big voter-registration push this year. Andrew Breitbart: The Matt Drudge protege, who had a hand in the ACORN videos and the ouster of Obama aide Van Jones, has a new website coming out called Big Journalism. Arthur Brooks: He's the smart, "hip" overseer of the American Enterprise Institute think tank, with a new book to be released on capitalism. Leonard Leo: He's a VP at the Federalist Society. Expect him to loudly lead the charge against Obama's next Supreme Court pick. Erick Erickson: The RedState editor will have a big impact on the GOP primaries, and don't be surprised if he lands his own cable show. For the full list, click here. |
UPDATE: 11/4/15
Colorado Springs police have released the names of four officers who are on leave after they fired shots at a suspect accused of gunning down three people Saturday.
They are:
Patrol Training Officer R. Scott Hallas (hired August 2001) and his partner Officer Charles Surratt (hired March 2015). Officer Surratt was doing field training under Officer Hallas.
Patrol Training Officer Edward Crofoot (hired January 2008) and his partner Officer Matthew Anderson (hired March 2015). Officer Anderson was doing field training under Officer Crofoot.
UPDATE: 11/2/15 10 p.m.: We now know the names of all three victims killed during the shooting rampage over the weekend.
Police have identified the first person killed as 35-year-old Andrew Myers. He was riding his bike along Prospect Street when he was shot and killed.
Then the gunman walked to Platte and Wahsatch and shot two women. Jennifer Vasquez, 42, was a mother of two. We talked to her family during Sunday night’s vigil.
"I remember growing up as a kid, she was always there, that was my aunt. She was always there." Omar Martinez said.
Martinez’s dad Eloy Navarro told us their family is touched by the show of support from the community.
"We're just saddened by all this that happened, and like they were saying, we can't understand why, and when it's going to stop," Navarro said.
The other woman was Christy Gallela. She was also a mother of two. Her family told us she was trying to turn her life around. They believe our country should talk about gun violence.
"This is insane. Where and when is it going to stop?" her uncle Chris Bowman said.
"She could look at you and know if something was wrong and give you a hug that felt like hours of holding you,” Gallela’s sister Megan Williams said.
Both of the women who were killed were staying at a sober-living rehabilitation home.
11 News had the name of the shooter Sunday morning, but chose to withhold it until confirmed by investigators. Monday, investigators confirmed Noah Harpham, 33, was the shooter. At this time, investigators have not released a possible motive behind the shooting rampage.
In his video and written blogs, Harpham doesn't mention or allude to the horrific shooting spree.
“I watched him for a long time, but saw him walking with a black rifle still, and then he came back out with a handgun too, and he was just looking at the handgun like this is going to do it too,” neighbor Naomi Bettis told us.
Bettis lives across the street from the apartment Harpham rented.
In his video blog, recorded two days before the shootings, Harpham talked about a sermon he watched online by a pastor from California.
"I was just going to post my reply and I guess that's how I’ll start my blog. The blog is just going to be me with a video camera and that'll be it, we'll see what happens," Harpham said in his recording.
Monday night, that church responded. Bethel Church officials mention the shooter's dad Thomas Harpham in their reaction to Saturday's shooting rampage.
They said Thomas is a part of their church family.
"Stunned, horrified, angry and deeply, deeply grieved for the victims, their loved ones and the city of Colorado Springs. As well, we love Thomas, a grieving and dismayed parent who is devastated by the behavior of his adult child,” the statement reads.
According to our partners at the Gazette, the shooter's dad and brother released this statement, "Our family is shocked and deeply saddened by the devastating events that took place in Colorado Springs on Saturday morning. Words cannot express our heartfelt sympathies that go out to the families and friends of the victims."
We've looked into the shooter's background and he did not have any criminal past that we could find except a speeding ticket.
The four officers who shot Harpham are on routine administrative leave during the investigation.
CSPD told us the officers were not wearing body cameras because they have not been issued to the department yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous coverage: 11/2/15 2 p.m.: Colorado Springs mayor John Suthers issued a statement Monday morning in the wake of a shooting spree Saturday that left four people dead, including the gunman.
"The Colorado Springs community suffered a terrible tragedy on Saturday morning with the shooting deaths of three innocent victims. The perpetrator was shot by police and there is no continuing threat to the community. However, on behalf of all the citizens of Colorado Springs, I want to convey our heartfelt sympathies to the families and friends of the victims of this crime. I am gratified that neighbors and neighborhood organizations in the area of the crime have rallied to honor the victims and support their families and friends."
"The investigation of the incident by the Colorado Springs Police Department and El Paso County Sheriff’s Department is ongoing, and further details of the incident will come from these agencies."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Coverage: 11/01/15 10 p.m.: Sunday night family and friends remembered the victims who were shot to death in the middle of a neighborhood near downtown Colorado Springs.
There was a candlelight vigil to honor their lives.
Three people were killed during a shooting rampage Saturday morning. It started near Platte and Prospect where a bicyclist was killed.
A few blocks away, the shooter murdered two women outside a home.
Within minutes, and a half-mile away from the first shooting, the gunman was killed during a shootout with police.
We know at least four officers are on routine leave during this investigation.
Family, friends, and neighbors are mourning the loss of the victims, and the senseless violence near downtown.
The candle light vigil was held on the Shooks Run Trail at Platte. Hundreds showed up, including the family of one of the victims, Jennifer Vasquez.
Family members 11 News talked with said Vasquez was a loving mom of two, who will be terribly missed.
"I remember growing up as a kid, she was always there, that was my aunt. She was always there," Omar Martinez said.
Sunday night, hundreds huddled together with candles in hand to mourn Vasquez's death and the deaths of the two other victims gunned down.
Martinez’s dad Eloy Navarro told us their family is touched by the show of support from the community at the vigil. He said the mom of two was a wonderful woman, and a great cook.
"We're just saddened by all this that happened, and like they were saying, we can't understand why, and when it's going to stop," Navarro said.
"We just had dinner with [Vasquez] Friday night. She was there the night before she passed away. Every Sunday she comes to my house and she makes dinner for us, every Sunday,” Martinez added. “Last Sunday we had the best posole ever, and she made it."
This Sunday, instead of sitting down at the dinner table together, Vasquez’s family is at the vigil, surrounded by neighbors who say they too have felt the ripples of this tragic shooting and senseless violence.
"This affects the whole community, like I mentioned, this affects all of us," vigil organizer Jessie Pococi said.
Vasquez was one of two women shot and killed just a few hundred feet from where the vigil was held. The other victim was a bicyclist gunned down just a few blocks away.
According to the Gazette, the second woman who was killed is Christy Galella. She left behind two children. Her family says they are now trying to raise money for the unexpected expenses due to her sudden death.
Read below for full coverage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous coverage: (11/1/15) 6 p.m.: 11 News is learning more about one of the victims who was murdered yesterday during the shooting rampage near downtown Colorado Springs.
Christy Galella is one of the two women who were killed by the shooter Saturday afternoon. 11 News talked to Galella's aunt, who lives in California, over the phone. She said Galella was a beautiful woman who was doing her best to get her life back on track.
Three people were killed before the suspect was shot and killed during a shootout with police.
It all happened along East Platte Avenue between Prospect and Wahsatch.
An 11 News crew spoke with people who say they knew the gunman, they say he was a relatively normal guy- at this point we are not releasing his name.
A woman who reportedly lives across the street from the suspect, Naomi Bettis told our partners at the Gazette she saw the gunman walk into the house with a rifle and a can of gasoline, then he went up an outside staircase and came out with a rifle and pistol.
She recalls he then walked down the street at took aim at his first victim.
"Don't shoot me!" the bicyclist yelled before the suspect killed him.
Just minutes later, the gunman continued his rampage down East Platte.
"He kept looking at me and I kept hollering, 'You don't gotta do this.' He kept walking. Because I was on the other side of the street. He was focused to do something,” Witness Kirby Revere said.
"I chose to take action. I was just thinking, 'He's not going to get away with this.' It's just not fair. He needs justice, something needs to happen to him,” witness Matthew Abshire said.
Abshire recalls the shooter's chilling behavior.
"Like he was walking a dog. Just walking down the street. Calm and collectively, that's what was creeping me out the most I think,” Abshire said.
Both witnesses saw the man shoot his next two victims, who were on a porch off Platte.
"I didn't realize how life can be taken at such short notice,” Abshire said.
"We don't know what's going to happen when we step out that door. Those two girls they didn't know. They were just sitting there having a cigarette and they got shot doing nothing but standing there,” Revere said.
Autopsies are expected to be completed Monday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous coverage 10/31/15: "I was just sitting on my patio taking my dog out when I saw someone come around the corner, being chased by the police."
Aaron Nicks and dozens of other people in downtown Colorado Springs Saturday morning watched in horror as police exchanged gunfire with a man in front of the Wendy's restaurant on 222 N. Wahsatch Ave.
The shootout ended with the suspect shot and killed.
According to multiple witnesses, the suspect was on a shooting rampage in the minutes leading up to the Wendy's gun battle. Officers are still sorting out what happened, but do confirm there were two separate shootings prior to the officer-involved shooting that happened less than a half-mile apart. Three people were killed.
Police were originally called to 230 North Prospect Street at 8:45 a.m. on reports of gunshots. They found a deceased man sprawled on the side of the street next to an overturned bike, his backpack still on his back.
Officers also found a small fire in one of the homes on the 200 block of North Prospect, believed to be started by the gunman.
Immediately after the shooting on Prospect, the suspect took off running down East Platte, where officers say he shot more people on the 500 block. Though unconfirmed by police, witnesses say that the suspect was shooting at anyone in his way.
One of those witnesses told our partners at The Gazette he heard two gunshots from his kitchen.
"I looked out my kitchen window and I saw a man in a green jacket firing an AR-15...waited a few seconds, went out of my house, looked to my left and saw a man down the street, probably 50 feet. I started following him and I called the cops," Matt Abshire told The Gazette.
While waiting for CSPD to answer, Abshire kept tailing the suspect.
"Still following him, he's heading left on Platte towards Palmer High School...probably a hundred yards past El Paso Street he stops, turns to his left, fires four shots, shoots two ladies, one in the jaw, one in the chest if I'm not mistaken.
Abshire told The Gazette he rushed to help, but that one of the victims was already dead.
Abshire said the officers encountered the gunman a moment later.
"They encountered him at the corner of Platte and Wahsatch, where the suspect opened fire on the officers and the officers returned fire," El Paso County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Jacqueline Kirby told 11 News. Because of a new law requiring outside agencies to investigate law enforcement-involved shootings, EPSO is investigating the Wendy's shooting.
"Me and my son were at the 7-Eleven using the ATM...as soon as I walked outside I heard six gunshots up the street. ... We see the cop cars swarm in. I saw the guy with the gun just walking with the gun in his hand. ... Just calm, standing there with a gun in his hand," witness Alisha Jaynes told 11 News.
"They yelled, 'Put the gun down,' and he turned around, and that's when they shot at him a good 20 times. ... There was a lot of gunfire. He was running across the street right here [points at Wahsatch] and they pretty much shot him down," Nicks said.
"What I saw was he kind of, like, spun around and [police] yelled, 'Drop it,' and he kind of [gestures as though he's holding a gun] went to aim and that's when they shot him down."
Nicks said the suspect was darting between fast-food restaurants on Wahsatch as he tried to escape officers.
"He was running across from Taco Bell through here to the Wendy's, and that's where they shot him."
"[I was] watching a police officer fall on his stomach to the ground, maybe to get cover," Jaynes recalled.
"All of a sudden this guy just was shooting and running down this way and firing at police," another shaken up witness can be heard saying on a video from the scene, sent to 11 News by viewer Aaron Michael. The video was taken after the suspect was shot by officers.
"Some guy was shooting at police, so they shot him." Michael can be heard saying while recording.
"Oh my gosh, he shot at cops?" a woman says off-camera after asking Michael what was happening.
These witness accounts have not been confirmed by police, but Lt. Catherine Buckley with CSPD says there were numerous people who saw the whole thing unfold Saturday morning. Victim advocates have been provided to assist witnesses who are suffering from any kind of emotional trauma. Springs police and El Paso County deputies are working to interview each witness for the investigation.
No officers were injured in the shooting.
A large area of downtown Colorado Springs was closed until Saturday evening including Platte which was blocked from Corona to Weber and Wahsatch which was blocked from Kiowa to Boulder and Portions of Prospect.
Jaynes, who was in the area to watch a wrestling tournament at Palmer High School, said the school was placed on lockdown after the shootout. The school is within a short walk of all three crime scenes.
The El Paso County Sheriff's Office is asking anyone who was (1) in the area of Platte and Wahsatch Saturday between 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. and (2) has damage to their home or vehicle that may be connected to yesterday's shooting,
to call them at 719-390-5555. ||||| COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A man marching down the street shot and killed three people on Saturday, before being fatally shot in a gunbattle with police, authorities and witnesses said.
Officers were responding to a report of shots being fired when they spotted a suspect matching the description of the person they were trying to find, Colorado Springs police Lt. Catherine Buckley said. The suspect opened fire, and police fired back, she said.
Witnesses described a chaotic scene as the suspect went down the street with a rifle.
Matt Abshire, 21, told the Colorado Springs Gazette (http://tinyurl.com/p5xpaua) he looked outside his apartment window and saw a man shoot someone with a rifle. He said he ran to the street and followed the man and called police.
The man suddenly turned and fired more shots, hitting two women, Abshire said. Their names and conditions were not available.
It was unclear how many people were wounded in the spree.
Alisha Jaynes told KKTV-TV 11 News (http://tinyurl.com/otg2qgo ) she was at an ATM when she saw a man with a gun walking calmly down the street.
"They yelled, 'Put the gun down,' and he turned around, and that's when they shot at him a good 20 times," she said. "There was a lot of gunfire."
Buckley said the crime scene covered several major downtown streets. Those streets were shut down most of the day while investigators tried to figure out what happened.
Buckley said the investigation of the police shooting has been turned over to the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. There were at least three crime scenes, sheriff's spokeswoman Jacqueline Kirby said. ||||| UPDATE: Colorado Springs Police now confirm four people are dead in Saturday's shooting incident near downtown, including the suspect. The identities and locations of the victims was not disclosed in a CSPD press release. Offers returned fire on the shooter. The suspect later died, although law enforcement are still investigating whether the officers' bullets killed the suspect. The officers involved have been placed on routine administrative leave while the El Paso County Sheriff's Office handles the investigation. A large part of the area east of downtown Colorado Springs is blocked off due to the ongoing investigation. Platte Avenue is closed from Corona Street to Weber Street, Wahsatch Street is Closed from Kiowa Street to Boulder Street, and Prospect Street is closed from Bijou Street to Platte Avenue. Roads are expected to be closed in the area until roughly 10:00 p.m. or midnight, police said.
=============
At least one person is dead following a series of shootings near Downtown Colorado Springs Saturday morning.
Police responded to a shots fired call at a home on the 200 block of North Prospect around 8:45 Saturday morning, the Colorado Springs Police Department said. Officers found one person dead at the home.
Other officers encountered the suspect less than a mile away near the corner of Platte and Wahsatch. Officers said the suspect opened fire at police and officers fired back. The suspect was hit and taken to the hospital. The suspect's condition has not been released. No officers were hurt.
A News5 photojournalist saw the back window of a squad car shot out. A witness told News5 the suspect had a rifle.
Since Colorado Springs Police officers were involved in the shooting, the El Paso County Sheriff's Office has taken over the investigation. The Sheriff's Office told News5 the suspect had multiple weapons. They said CSPD was handling two other crime scenes and events leading up to the officer-involved shooting.
Deputies have not identified the suspect or confirm how many shots were fired between officers and the suspect.
Police said there are multiple crime scenes. These road closures will be in effect through late this afternoon:
-Platte Avenue from Weber Street to Corona Street
-Wahsatch Avenue from Kiowa Street to Boulder Street
-200 block of N. Prospect Street
Stay with News5 as we continue to track this developing story.
PREVIOUS STORIES:
Colorado Springs police confirm a shooting took place Saturday morning on N. Prospect in Colorado Springs. When officers arrived on scene, they encountered the suspect who fired at officers.
The officer returned fire and shot the suspect, police said. The investigation has been turned over to the El Paso County Sheriff's office.
There are multiple crime scenes in the area, and a large portion of eastern downtown, in the area of Platte and Wahsatch is shut down. Police say the closures will last for as long as six hours. You can expect closures on Platte from Corona to Weber; Wahsatch from Kiowa to Boulder and the 200 block of North Prospect.
///
Colorado Springs Police and the Colorado Springs Fire Department are responding to a possible shooting and a fire that could be related.
The fire department responded to a house fire on Prospect, while police were called to a possible shooting near the Wendy's on Platte.
Our crew at the scene says a CSPD cruiser has the back window shot out.
The public information officer from the Colorado Springs Police Department is on the way to the scene. We hope to have more information soon. | Four people are dead—including the suspected gunman—following a shooting rampage Saturday in downtown Colorado Springs, KKTV reports. According to the AP, multiple crime scenes created a chaotic situation in the area. KKTV reports the first reported shooting was at 8:45am local time. A man was found dead at a the scene, and police believe the suspect started a small fire in a nearby house, as well. The suspect ran off, allegedly shooting at more people as he went. Witnesses say he was shooting at anyone in his path. Officers responding to the shooting saw the suspect outside a Wendy's less than a mile from the first crime scene, KUSA reports. According to KKTV, police say the suspect opened fire on officers, who shot back, killing him. KUSA reports a witness saw the suspect point a large rifle at officers. The sheriff's office states the suspect had multiple weapons on him, according to KOAA. The investigation into the shootings is continuing, and more information should be available in the near future. |
2008 June 20 Too little and too late Senator McCain has just proposed that the U.S. build 45 nuclear power reactors by the year 2032. That is too few by a factor of at least 10 and maybe 100. 10 is required to generate our electricity by nuclear energy, and 100 may be required if we are to replace natural gas for home heating and replace gasoline by hydrogen obtained by splitting water with nuclear energy. At 2 billion dollars per plant the cost is either 900 billion or 9 trillion, which our ten trillion dollar per year economy can afford.
Fri Oct 26 17:00:03 2007 Summers and Watson
It's unfortunate that Lawrence Summers and James Watson surrendered to pressure. However, it provides evidence that many currently accepted beliefs are maintained by bullying.
Here's a defense of Watson by Jason Malloy.
Wed May 2 18:03:54 2007 Note on reductionism
This just a note, i.e. I could say more.
Does biology reduce to physics? Assume, as most of us do, that living organisms are physical systems. Nevertheless, it is quite likely that physics permits life organized in quite a different way than life is organized on earth, i.e. with organs, tissues, cells, DNA, and proteins. Our particular way is likely not predicted by physics but may depend on accidents of evolution.
The point is much sharper with computer science than with biology. Computers have been built with quite a variety of physical phenomena, e.g. gears and levers, relays, vacuum tubes, discrete transistors of several kinds, and integrated circuits. There have also been oddities like acoustic computers. Regardless of the physical manifestation, computer science is the same. Indeed computer science, including artificial intelligence, can be studied abstractly with no commitment to a physical realization.
For these reasons, computer science and biology should not be considered to be reduced to physics. The chemistry of small molecules, say with fewer than (say) 20 atoms is another matter. It is possible to write down all that are physically possible and deduce their properties from physics. On the other hand, only a tiny fraction of the possible large molecules exist in nature, and our knowledge of which of them do exist is not derived from physics alone.
Wed Mar 7 11:12, 2007: Religion as a theory
In the New York Times magazine this week, Robin Marantz Henig wrote "In the world of evolutionary biology, the question is not whether God exists but why we believe in him. Is belief a helpful adaptation or an evolutionary accident?"
She's not exactly a specialist in this subject. Two of her previous articles covered lie detection and incurable diseases. Professional writers do get around.
My opinion is that religion is neither a helpful adaptation nor an evolutionary accident (if by evolution one means by natural selection). Religions are theories and social phenomena, i.e. not biological phenomena.
By the way I'm an atheist. I don't claim to have a proof that God cannot exist. It's just that I consider the state of the evidence on the God question to be similar to that on the werewolf question.
Religions at the the time of the Greeks, Romans, and Norse had a substantial would-be scientific component. For example, it is plausible that lightning is the stroke of a god's hammer. This suggests obtaining the god's favor by sacrifices and prayer. priesthoods offer to help. Variants of this theory of lightning lasted till 1757 when Benjamin Franklin showed that lightning is an electric discharge and invented the lightning rod. It is appropriate to call this ancient theory a superstition, and there were skeptics even among the ancient Greeks.
Associated with this would-be science is a would-be engineering - prayer and sacrifice to obtain the god's favor or mitigate his anger.
Alas, superstitions are not easily overcome, even when they lack evidence, and especially if they have a moral component, i.e. it is said to be immoral to disbelieve. Even without a moral component, superstitions persist until someone makes an objective test and successfully pounds the table about it. Consider the theory that bleeding a patient was an appropriate medical remedy. This persisted among otherwise scientifically inclined doctors. I don't know what finally killed it, but I doubt it was a double blind test. The key social phenomenon is the way failures to confirm an entrenched theory can be explained away.
Theories that religion is biological in origin are applied to modern religions. These religions have socially evolved in the last few centuries in an environment in which science has taken over explanation of many phenomena even among the most religious. The classical example is Franklin's electrical explanation of lightning and the associated technology of the lightning rod. It took 100 years before some American denominations gave up the theory that lightning struck their churches when God disapproved of the congregation's behavior, and used lightning rods to replace (or supplement) prayer as the relevant technology. See "The warfare of science with theology in Christendom" by A.D. White, the first president of Cornell University, published in 1896. It's available on the web.
New superstitions arise all the time. I'll cite organic food and the associated rejection of genetic engineering and radiation sterilization, the anti-nuclear energy superstition that associates nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and the repeated anti-immunization movements. Even the scientific community is subject to the "madness of crowds", e.g. the belief that global warming is a major threat to humanity.
Notes on the rising tide of superstition Sat Jan 20, 2007: I see that Starbucks has given in (again) to superstition in agreeing not to use milk from cows treated with rBST, an artificially produced natural hormone. As SAFEWAY has courageously put on their milk cartons, there is no significant difference in the milk. Oh well, I guess I can find a competing coffee shop.
It seems I'm not cut out for boycotts. The Starbucks I went to is just more conveniently located for me than its competitors. I still go there, sometimes because I forget my disapproval, and sometimes I'm just lazy.
A CHEER AND A HALF FOR COMPLACENCY
Today the media and the politicians are just as excited about dangers to the U.S. as they were during WWII when Naziism was a danger to the world or during the cold war when nuclear war might have substantially destroyed the country. Compared to those times, the dangers are minor.
The danger of epidemic diseases is also much less. Consider how carefully the spread of the H5N1 influenza virus in birds is being monitored and the enormous efforts going into developing a vaccine in case it should mutate into a form transmissable among humans. In contrast the 1918 flu virus was not noticed until the epidemic happened.
Terrorism in the Western countries has also killed few people compared to the populations verbally threatened by the terrorists.
There has been no postwar economic disaster in the West remotely comparable to the great depression of the 1930s.
Alarmism about the environment has stimulated many laws, all of them costly and some actually harmful.
Alarmism about racism has stimulated unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech by educational institutions. At least the courts have often found them unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. In many states, including California, the legislatures have been more protective of freedom of speech than the educational bureaucracies, e.g. that of Stanford University where I am located.
There are more, but I'll spare you. Nevertheless, the media and the politicians express just as much anxiety as they expressed when the dangers were greater.
So what? Doesn't media attention stimulate us to take protective measures? It does, but some of the protective measures have been a nuisance and some actually harmful. However, the main danger of alarmism is that it favors grabs for power. Maybe that's what we should be alarmed about.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES SEEM UNSERIOUS AND INSINCERE
2005 November 5 - The intelligent design advocates seem not to be presenting alternative theories to evolution. My opinion is based on looking at the web site of the Discovery Institute, generally said to be the main intelligent design advocate. All I see there are newspaper level polemics and no links to anything beyond that.
What would be a serious attempt to make intelligent design theories?
First it would list which events in the evolution of life required intelligent design and which could be explained by Darwinian natural selection. Twenty candidates for intelligent intervention would be required.
Second it would study the nature of the intervention. For example, would it involve the addition of specific genes, i.e. sequences of DNA to the germ plasm of the organism?
Third it would attempt to develop theories as to why the intelligent designer made its (His) interventions at specific times.
The intelligent design advocates would have their own Journal of Intelligent Design Studies that would present theories of such matters. It would not primarily consist of polemics with Darwinians. Starting their movement by influencing school boards is quite a different matter from making studies of how intelligent design works.
The lack of activity aimed at developing their ideas scientifically leads me to the opinion that the intelligent design people are not serious.
I'm a Darwinian.
Remark: Polls show that a majority of Americans claim belief in the biblical account of the origin of life. On the other hand, in the one town where the school board decided to put intelligent design on the same level as evolution, the school board was voted (2005 November) out of office. I don't know, but it seems to me that many people manage to believe in the biblical account and evolution simultaneously. At least they have enough respect for science to want it taught in the way advocated by the scientific community. A puzzle.
QUESTIONS FOR ADVOCATES OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
I don't suppose that all advocates of intelligent design will give the same answers to all these questions. Moreover, this questionnaire may be redundant. Perhaps they are answered in some web source I haven't seen.
DNA. Do you agree that the structure of an animal, plant, or micro-organism is encoded in its DNA? If yes to the previous item, does this include humans? Partly or wholly? Does evolution occur among micro-organisms? Specifically, does resistance to antibiotics sometimes arise by the natural selection of random mutations? [The point of this question to us Darwinians is that such evolution seems to occur in times of a few years and is entirely observable.] Are species immutable as most pre-Darwinians thought? [I suppose most intelligent design advocates will answer no to this question, but I want to be sure.] Do you think intelligent intervention occurs all the time - or rarely? What changes in life are your leading candidates for intelligent intervention? What can be inferred about the motivations of the intervener from these particular interventions? Which of the changes in the minds of hominids over the last five million years are the results of intervention?
I'd welcome email answers to the questions. If I get enough answers, I'll summarize them. If the previous questions seem ill-posed or to presume a particular answer, please send me email about it. John McCarthy, [email protected]. Maybe I'll change them.
As of Wed May 2 18:33:59 2007 I have received no email about this.
2006 Jan 18 note:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE COURTS
How far should we go in using the courts to prevent this?
It makes me nervous to win an intellectual dispute by legal or administrative means. I think it's ok to legally prevent putting intelligent design in science courses, but it's going too far to use the courts to prevent there being a philosophy course devoted to intelligent design, as is currently being attempted.
It might be interesting to organize some debates between intelligent design advocates and ourselves who believe in evolution. We beat them in the late 19th century when they were administratively entrenched and should be able to beat them easily now.
Don't cheer men, those poor devils are dying.
- Rear Admiral John Woodward Philip, battle of Santiago, 1898
2005 July 8 - Terrorist attacks in Western countries are a very minor cause of death, and fear of terrorism should not affect people's actions. As of this date, 50 people are known to have died in the British attack, and the number is likely to increase somewhat. Compare this with other causes of death in the US (I don't know the British statistics but would expect them to be proportional to the British population, which is 1/4 that of the US.) The US has about 40,000 killed per year in automobile accidents, 20,000 per year murdered, and 20,000 per year suicides. Even during worst of the terror in Israel, the number killed by terrorists was less than the number killed in automobile accidents.
Yet many people's behavior is mistakenly affected by news of terrorism. Responding to a CNN poll about half the respondents said their travel plans would be affected by the news of the terrorist attack in London. Why?
I suppose it is mainly the fault of journalism. News of terrorism makes the journalists feel important, and most of them are ignorant of statistics published in their own newspapers, perhaps as a matter of principle. Politicians are also innumerate and perhaps fear being regarded as unfeeling if they advise the public to ignore terrorism.
Every country has created a security establishment, and these establishments keep creating more and more bureaucratic obstacles, mainly to travel, and never withdraw a "security" measure once it is implemented.
The Israelis seem to be the most nearly rational about security. I noticed recently that El Al has not gone to plastic knives.
2005 March 21 - In entertaining and then voting no confidence in Summers after his remarks at the NBER meeting, the Harvard faculty has taken a strong stand against academic freedom. The intolerance of the 1960s is with us in ever more blatant forms. March 25. It is a hopeful sign for the future that the graduate students are less opposed to academic freedom than the professors. They voted down the no confidence measure - by a small margin.
2005 January 25 - What a pity that Summers chickened out. But maybe he hasn't quite. Will Harvard have a quota system like M.I.T.'s for female tenured appointments?
There's an interesting piece of research by Claude Steele of Stanford, featured in the 2005 February Scientific American. Its conclusion is that honesty about differences in talent between groups, male-female, black-white, is harmful to the lower rated group. The individuals score lower if they belong to a group rated lower and they know they are taking a test. That honesty is harmful would be very bad news.
WHY I VOTED FOR GEORGE BUSH, 2004 Dec 6
I'm motivated to explain this, because the great majority of my fellow academics voted the other way. I don't know to what extent my reasons correspond to the reasons why the majority of American voters chose Bush.
1. I was motivated by policy, not by personality. The accusations that Bush is dumb, too religious or too stubborn didn't affect me. I didn't watch the debates nor do I watch TV. Whether Bush came up with the policies I prefer out of his own head or through the influence of his advisers is irrelevant to me.
2. I agreed with his decisions to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan and to attack the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. So far, destroying the Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan seems to have helped us avoid another 9/11. It's been three years. A point of dissent: the repeated warnings that we were just about to be attacked again must have been based on some wrong methodology, since nothing has materialized and no 9/11 magnitude plot has been uncovered. These warnings have come from both the left and the right, although they disagree about the correct policy for avoiding terror.
3. The number and magnitude of the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime are important to me. First there are the aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait. Our direct national interest required that we liberate Kuwait, given Hussein's threat to the world's oil supply in Kuwait itself and the expected threat to Saudi Arabia. Second there are the crimes against the Iraqi people - repeated massacres, as well as Hussein's Stalin-like behavior towards his own entourage.
4. Saddam's program to develop nuclear weapons was an important menace. It was already under way when the Israelis bombed his reactor in 1982 - 22 years ago. After that check, it was well under way by the time of the 1990 Gulf War. Present evidence is that it stopped in the 1990s but was ready to resume as soon as the US let up on overflights.
5. The US made a serious effort to intimidate Hussein short of war by moving substantial military force to the area. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made an all out but ultimately unsuccessful effort to get the UN Security Council to authorize military action if Hussein didn't give up his weapons programs. It was finally clear that the French and Russians would not vote for military action under any circumstances. Hussein was assured of that. He may have thought his bribery of French and Russian officials by letting them resell Iraqi oil contributed to their defense of his regime.
6. The US could not maintain the military forces surrounding Iraq indefinitely. If we didn't attack we would have to withdraw them, and it would be politically impossible to bring them back almost regardless of the provocation. Therefore, I think we had to attack about when we did if we were to prevent Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course, when he got them, we probably could have deterred him from using them against us, just as we deterred the Soviet Union. The resulting new cold war would have been much worse than the current situation.
7. Of course, the US made mistakes in carrying out the Iraq war, although Rumsfeld proved correct that a much smaller force than was used in the first Gulf war and no preliminary air attack would suffice to take Baghdad. We didn't even need the Fourth Infantry Division, whose arrival in Iraq was delayed by the Turkish parliament's refusal to let it attack from Turkey.
8. The big mistake may have been not to go after the arms with a high priority, perhaps even at the cost of delaying the capture of Baghdad. We might also have taken the Iraqi Army as POWs rather than just dismissing the soldiers. I don't see that Bush's opponents, e.g. the Clinton security team, would have done better.
2005 January 25 note: Should we consider Kerry's joining Barbara Boxer in voting against the confirmation of Condaleeza Rice as Secretary of State as evidence of a return to strong leftism and as evidence that a Kerry victory would have led to losing in Iraq?
10. I agree with the Republicans about not signing and ratifying the Kyoto treaty. Unlike the situation in other countries, a ratified treaty in the US is a law, and if Kyoto would be ratified, there would be lawsuits and its final interpretation would be decided by judges. Here are some considerations.
a. The warming so far hasn't harmed humanity. Maybe more warming will.
b. It is unlikely that any countries will do much about warming until actual significant harm occurs, no matter whether they have signed Kyoto or not. In particular, China will burn more and more coal, already exceeding the US.
c. If and when warming becomes harmful or other sources of energy run out, nuclear energy is available in arbitrary amounts. The people who warn about global warming but don't mention nuclear energy strike me as insincere.
11. There are important issues on which I disagree with Bush. He wants to make the US more religious, whereas I am an atheist. I'd fear him if I thought he had the intention and ability to persecute us. The present situation is the other way around; the religious are being persecuted to a small but significant extent.
I don't agree with him about abortion, but I don't see that the legality of abortion is likely to change much in the forseeable future.
I don't agree with him about stem cells, but California has come to the rescue.
While I voted for Bush, I did not feel desperate about the matter. I think the country would have survived a Kerry victory perfectly well. Politicians running for office, the media, and the professors in the social sciences always tend to exaggerate the criticality of the present situation. This is true both on the left and on the right.
Let's make some comparisons.
If the Germans had got the atomic bomb before we did, the survival of Britain and ultimately the US would have been seriously threatened.
During the Cold War, the Soviets could have destroyed the US, and the instabilities of a system based on one man rule always presented a risk of war.
In 1945, 55 percent of the US GDP went to the war effort. In 1960 defense got 10 percent of the GDP. The Iraq war is costing one percent of the GDP, and overall military expenditures are 3.3 percent as of 2004 February. The commentators who say the US can't afford the Iraq war are deluding themselves.
If we are successful in Iraq, I can imagine voting for the Democrats in 2008, because their support of science might be better. Bush will have served his purpose - or rather my purpose in voting for him. Maybe the Democrats would have to get better on nuclear energy. Daschle was bad, but he's out.
Al Qaeda victory in Spain - 2004 March 16
Moslem fascists, both religious and secular, now have learned two important lessons.
1. Kill 3,000 Americans, and you lose two countries.
2. Kill 200 Spaniards, and you win an election.
Before the train bombings the party favoring keeping Spanish troops in Iraq was ahead in polls. After the bombings, enough switched to give power to the party pledged to remove the troops. That party has renewed the pledge.
I think Al Qaeda and other terrorists will be encouraged to see if the enough voters in other European countries and Japan are just as cowardly as the Spaniards who switched.
The US and Britain should not count on the Western Europeans or the UN to do anything significant.
Reactions to the asteroid menace - 2004 March 13
This is a reaction to a lecture by former astronaut Rusty Schweickart on 2004 March 12 sponsored by Stewart Brand's Long Now Foundation. I am putting my reaction here because of some opinions and attitudes he expressed that seem to be mistaken and prevalent in a large part of the scientific community
Most of the lecture was an excellent description of the menace asteroids present to humanity. Schweickart was proposing a project to mount rockets on an asteroid and experimentally deflect it. He hopes NASA will adopt the proposal with pressure from Congress. It is based on NASA's existing plan to develop nuclear reactors to power ion rockets - an excellent plan.
Here are some points.
1. I agree that the present NASA survey of earth crossing asteroids is a good thing. I don't know if the ability to predict 100 years ahead is based just on computing a solar orbit or if it takes into account perturbations from Jupiter and possibly other planets. Taking them into account should permit much longer predictions.
2. I agree that his proposed asteroid mission and test of deflection by rockets is a good thing.
3. I do not agree that there is an either-or decision between deflection by rockets and deflection by nuclear explosions. Both need to be explored. I understand that the first is easier to get support for with the present attitude of the scientific community, though not necessarily with the present attitude of Congress.
4. Deflection by mounting rockets on the asteroid will work if there is plenty of time before the asteroid's orbit would hit the earth. The nuclear option will be important for asteroids or comets for which there is very short warning. According to an astronomer I asked, about 20 percent of earth orbit crossing events come from objects from too far out to have predictions of their orbits until they are detected heading for us. For them large deflections on a short time scale will be necessary.
5. There are substantial unknowns about which asteroids can be usefully deflected by nuclear explosions and how to do it. Therefore, testing is necessary. I do not regard the test ban as a sacred commitment binding humanity for all time. Indeed I'm glad the US Senate has not ratified it. My opinion is quite independent of considerations of national defense. I have an article on nuclear explosions.
6. Schweickart (and I believe many scientists) and I have a big disagreement on the ability of humanity to survive catastrophic events by action on a large scale.
First of all panic: Predictions of destructive mass panics are unwarranted and contrary to experience with previous catastrophes, e.g. wars. In WWII the neutral Dutch and Belgians were suddenly bombed by the Germans with big destruction. No panic occurred of a magnitude that significantly added to the damage inflicted by the Germans.
Schweickart regards humanity as delicate, perhaps because of the interdependence of aspects of our society. Experience, wars again, have shown that while human society is readily annoyed, it is very resistant to serious damage, and the advance of technology makes it more rugged with every generation. I discuss this point at length in my web page Menaces to humanity.
Schweickart and I had a short specific disagreement about whether a Chixculub event would wipe out humanity. [Most scientists agree that the mass extinctions 65 million years ago between the Cretaceous and Tertiary eras were caused by an asteroid striking near Chixculub in Mexico. This includes the extinction of dinosaurs.] Schweickart was sure another Chixculub would wipe out humanity. Here's why it probably wouldn't. Even one in a million surviving, i.e. 6,000 would lead to humanity surviving. Actually, the fraction surviving would be much larger, maybe more than half.
First assume no warning.
1. At any given time hundreds of thousands of people in the world are underground and therefore would not be immediately killed by the high temperature of the sky the calculations suggest. However, most places don't have much food. The places that probably have enough food for quite a time are the national command centers of the US and Russia and some other countries.
2. Schweickart said that some animals survived Chixculub by being in "refugia". Some humans would find themselves in such places, whatever they may be.
3. The fires would destroy all above ground plants in a few days. After some time, small plants would begin to grow, but it would be a long time before enough plants for animals like us would grow. However, we have grain silos, large concrete structures. Likely some of them would survive and give us something eat and to plant.
Assume some days warning.
We work on getting people, food, seeds, and equipment underground.
That will do for now, but it is only what I have been able to think of in less than an hour as means for survival. More and smarter people thinking longer, either as advance preparation or at the time of the emergency would think of much more to do.
Of course, another Chixculub is only one of the disasters that have been written about. Another is another ice age, or, on a smaller scale, a failure of Atlantic circulation that would make Western Europe as cold as Labrador or Siberia. Towards each of these disasters, the dominant attitude in the scientific community is one of hopelessness. The imagination runs to more things that may cause death rather than to inventing ways of making humanity survive.
Of course, not everyone thinks this way, but we who don't seem to be a minority. It might be worthwhile to hold a conference entitled "Surviving catastrophes" or maybe just "Surviving another Chixculub". The object is not so much as to advocate specific preparations of low probability, distant disasters as to influence the gloomy state of mind.
In an email, Schweickart admitted he knew of no study of how many humans would survive a Chixculub event. I infer that he carelessly thought we wouldn't survive, because it adds importance to his project of surveying potentially dangerous asteroids.
For now, these comments will be on one file in reverse chronological order. If anyone wants to link to a specific commentary rather than to the site as a whole, each comment is preceded by a link target whose name is the same as the first word of the title. Thus you would link to the essay Defending science and technology as http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/commentary.html#Defending.
You say the only alternative to nuclear war is world government. There is only one possibility worse than nuclear war for the survival of modern civilization, and that is world government. Civilization might recover from the damage of a nuclear war, but judging by past static empires in Egypt and China, it might never recover from world government, there being no chance of external intervention. As it is, present governments are only prevented from becoming dominated by crazy ideas that will suppress all opposition by the existence of other governments. The only way a people can be sure that their government is substandard is that it does worse than those of other countries.
What Edward Teller told me about Heisenberg's mistake may be of some general interest.
Genetic engineering may suffer the fate of nuclear energy.
1. At first almost all physicists would speak up for nuclear energy. However, the most eloquent were the oldest. Norman Borlaug has been most eloquent for genetic engineering in agriculture, but he has been working in improving crops for 56 years.
2. Afterwards the attacks continued but the defenses slacked off, perhaps because scientists couldn't bring themelves to say again and again what they had already said several times.
3. Eventually governments were gradually worn down, and it became politically incorrect for scientists doing studies on energy to even mention nuclear energy. The recent special issue of Science on energy didn't mention nuclear energy in any of the articles even though nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the electricity in the US and worldwide. A few readers worked themselves up to letters of protest, and Science duly published two of them.
4. The organizations attacking genetic engineering are the same ones that attacked nuclear energy. Once having taken a position they cannot be mollified by more testing. No amount of testing will be enough. No amount of saying things more tactfully will help.
5. Very likely most agricultural biologists won't see the analogy. They won't have studied nuclear energy, and will have more or less vague doubts about it, i.e. they will have been influenced by the same kind of propaganda now applied against genetic engineering. What is likely to happen is that the public and scientists outside the field will end up with similar vague doubts about biotechnology.
6. Maybe the only chance is a continued campaign supported by scientists but mainly carried out by people who are professional campaigners and who don't mind saying the same thing again and again, because it's their job.
2000 April 22
Elian Gonzalez
I was glad to read that the Federal Court has suggested that his own opinion about going back to Cuba be listened to. His mother died in getting him to the U.S., and maybe this is important to him.
Is mankind the gardener of the earth or an intruder?
1997 April 24
The traditional view of the earth is that it is humanity's garden. We can make it as we wish - to the extent that we can agree. Fortunately, it is big enough so that some parts of it can be organized in one way and other parts in other ways.
The view that humanity is an intruder on the earth and that human changes are always, or almost always, bad seems to be more recent.
I agree with the traditional view, and I expect that the earth will be rearranged a fair amount in the future. Our distant descendants may even be able to meddle with plate tectonics.
As we learn more about the past, we discover events that would be catastrophes to humanity if they occurred today. We will learn how to prevent such events as ice ages and asteroid collisions.
Melissa virus: Microsoft at fault: 1999 March 27
The just discovered Melissa virus relies on defects in Microsoft Word 1997 and Word 2000. The user receives email headed "The document you requested" or "Subject: Important message from x", where x is the name of the owner of the machine from which the virus was last sent. If the message containing the virus is opened in Word it uses the victims list of email correspondents to send more copies of itself.
There is no good reason why the Microsoft mail reading system should allow opened email to have any access to files or to be able to send email. However, this may have been not a bug but a feature from the point of view of Microsoft itself. Microsoft can, and prosecutors should ask whether it did, send email to users of Word that reports some information back to Microsoft.
Defending science and technology: 1999 March 27
The scientific establishment, e.g. the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has been active in defending the scientific theory of evolution from the attacks of the creationists. This is good, but the creationists aren't going to get power in the U.S. Even if they achieved their goal of getting all high school biology texts to present evolution as "just a theory", the harm would be limited. Anyway they are an easy target, because attacking them doesn't interfere with the political and intellectual alliances of parts of the scientific community.
Another worthwhile but easy target is ordinary medical quackery. It probably does much more harm than creationism. However, the quackery of claims that organic food is healthier than conventionally grown food has been ignored.
However, the scientific establishment has neglected its duty to defend genetic engineering, the use of pesticides and nuclear energy. The attack on nuclear energy did great harm, and the attack on genetic engineering is doing great harm. Many have died from avoidable coal smoke, and many may die from disease exacerbated by malnourishment for lack of more productive crops.
Of course, there have been National Research Council studies on carcinogens in diet, nuclear energy and studies on aspects of genetic engineering. These are good but not enough. By analogy, suppose the National Academy of Sciences had contented itself with an NRC study that eventually came to the conclusion that evolution was true and maybe even including the conclusion that it should be taught in school biology. The report would gather dust on the shelves, and there would be very few links to the web version. [Actually, come to think of it, a good popular argument for the truth of evolution, posted on the web might do quite a bit of good.]
Attacks on genetic engineering and its scientific basis
The attack on genetic engineering by Greenpeace and its allies is not just a claim that some particular product of genetic engineering is harmful or has been inadequately tested. Their claim is that genetic engineering in general is a bad idea promoted by bad people. The bad people are in the first instance the corporations, e.g. Monsanto, that market products of genetic engineering. However, the attacks extend to the scientists who do the research, calling them tools of the corporations. There is criticism of specific new plants on whatever grounds, specious or otherwise, that seem effective, but the specific criticisms are primarily support for the general goal of outlawing genetic engineering. The spearhead of the attack is destroying experimental plots in various countries, including Ireland, India and some European continental countries.
A few scientists have lent themselves to the attack, mainly by criticizing the adequacy of the testing of specific products. This is ok, but some have also supported general propositions about genetic engineering being unnatural.
The pseudo-scientific character of the attack is intellectually similar in many ways to creation science.
It is just as much the duty of the scientific establishment to defend scientific basis of genetic engineering as it is to defend the theory of evolution.
The pseudo-science of organic food
The Federal Government has undertaken to set standards for organic food. From the commercial standpoint of the organic food industry such standards are clearly desirable, because there is no clear line where conventionally grown food leaves off and organically grown food begins. Other quackeries would also benefit from Federal standards. Distinguishing well trained astrologers from mere amateurs would reduce excessive competition in that industry.
Unlike many Federal standard for food, the organic standard is unaccompanied by any claim that food meeting the standard is healthier than food that doesn't. It is merely a certification that the food conforms to an ideological criterion. For example, the recent demand that the standard exclude any food derived from a genetically engineered plant and any food preserved by irradiation was not accompanied by any health argument. 2000 June note: Apparently the recently adopted wording of the standard suggests, but does not actually assert, that organic food is good for you. This has resulted in protests that the claim is undocumented.
Indeed it seems to me that a Federal organic standard may constitute a violation of the First Amendment prohibition of the establishment of religion. Many of the organic advocates refer to their doctrine as a religion.
The scientific establishment owes it to the American people to call organic food quackery even if it will offend some nice people. We need a new Huxley.
Nuclear energy
Here the default is quite an old one, and many thousands of deaths from coal smoke and much CO2 in the atmosphere may be ascribed to it. However, there are reasons why the establishment didn't and doesn't defend nuclear energy that may partly carry over to the other issues.
A large part, perhaps a majority, of the scientific community opposed the U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear movement, however, equally opposed U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Attacking nuclear weapons and defending nuclear power simultaneously was too hard for almost all scientific activists. The most they managed was an occasional mutter in favor of nuclear power.
The environmental movement, parts of which supported nuclear power as cleaner than fossil fuel, switched early to opposition. For example, the Sierra Club switched in 1975, four years before the Three Mile Island accident. It was too hard to remain pro-establishment on one issue while being anti-establishment on others. There is just a hint of change on the nuclear power issue because of concern about global warming. In Kyoto, 58 organizations declared that nuclear energy could be no part of the response to global warming. However, several important organizations didn't sign the declaration, e.g. the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Maybe it's a tiny hint.
It seems to me that some of the alliances formed in the days of the anti-nuclear weapons campaigns have persisted, at least psychologically, to this very day.
Also environmentalist causes in general often regard corporations as the enemy, and this has created alliances that prevent open disagreement with organizations like Greenpeace.
I suspect many readers who agree on the substantive issues will regret that I have commented on ideological-political matters. However, thinking about policy without taking ideological history into account is like studying magnetism and ignoring hysteresis. The analogy is close.
Pinochet: 1999 March 27
It was a big mistake to arrest Pinochet in England, and for a reason that I haven't seen in the press. Pinochet gave up power peacefully as part of a deal that made him a Senator for life. He may now be thinking that it would have been better to fight to the death. Well, who cares what Pinochet thinks?
De Klerk gave up power peacefully in South Africa. Is he in danger of being indicted in some random European country and arrested if he visits Europe? The possibility may give him second thoughts about the wisdom of having peacefully given up power. Well, who cares what De Klerk thinks?
Wouldn't it be nice if Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi and Kim Jong Il were to give up power peacefully? Doubtless none of these tyrants feels threatened enough at present to contemplate giving up power, but their times may come. An important factor in the decision of any of these men to give up power peacefully is believing that the deal they make will be honored.
Pinochet's troubles are a good reason why any of them might decide to fight to the death.
But what are a few hundred thousand killed compared to losing the moral satisfaction of punishing the tyrant? ||||| And in the study of artificial intelligence, “no one is more influential than John,” Mr. Diffie said.
While teaching mathematics at Dartmouth in 1956, Dr. McCarthy was the principal organizer of the first Dartmouth Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
The idea of simulating human intelligence had been discussed for decades, but the term “artificial intelligence” — originally used to help raise funds to support the conference — stuck.
In 1958, Dr. McCarthy moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where, with Marvin Minsky, he founded the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It was at M.I.T. that he began working on what he called List Processing Language, or Lisp, a computer language that became the standard tool for artificial intelligence research and design.
Around the same time he came up with a technique called garbage collection, in which pieces of computer code that are not needed by a running computation are automatically removed from the computer’s random access memory.
He developed the technique in 1959 and added it to Lisp. That technique is now routinely used in Java and other programming languages.
His M.I.T. work also led to fundamental advances in software and operating systems. In one, he was instrumental in developing the first time-sharing system for mainframe computers.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The power of that invention would come to shape Dr. McCarthy’s worldview to such an extent that when the first personal computers emerged with local computing and storage in the 1970s, he belittled them as toys.
Rather, he predicted, wrongly, that in the future everyone would have a relatively simple and inexpensive computer terminal in the home linked to a shared, centralized mainframe and use it as an electronic portal to the worlds of commerce and news and entertainment media.
Dr. McCarthy, who taught briefly at Stanford in the early 1950s, returned there in 1962 and in 1964 became the founding director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, or SAIL. Its optimistic, space-age goal, with financial backing from the Pentagon, was to create a working artificial intelligence system within a decade.
Photo
Years later he developed a healthy respect for the challenge, saying that creating a “thinking machine” would require “1.8 Einsteins and one-tenth the resources of the Manhattan Project.”
Artificial intelligence is still thought to be far in the future, though tremendous progress has been made in systems that mimic many human skills, including vision, listening, reasoning and, in robotics, the movements of limbs. From the mid-’60s to the mid-’70s, the Stanford lab played a vital role in creating some of these technologies, including robotics and machine-vision natural language.
In 1972, the laboratory drew national attention when Stewart Brand, the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, wrote about it in Rolling Stone magazine under the headline “SPACEWAR: Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death Among the Computer Bums.” The article evoked the esprit de corps of a group of researchers who had been freed to create their own virtual worlds, foreshadowing the emergence of cyberspace. “Ready or not, computers are coming to the people,” Mr. Brand wrote.
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.
Dr. McCarthy had begun inviting the Homebrew Computer Club, a Silicon Valley hobbyist group, to meet at the Stanford lab. Among its growing membership were Steven P. Jobs and Stephen Wozniak, who would go on to found Apple. Mr. Wozniak designed his first personal computer prototype, the Apple 1, to share with his Homebrew friends.
But Dr. McCarthy still cast a jaundiced eye on personal computing. In the second Homebrew newsletter, he suggested the formation of a “Bay Area Home Terminal Club,” to provide computer access on a shared Digital Equipment computer. He thought a user fee of $75 a month would be reasonable.
Though Dr. McCarthy would initially miss the significance of the PC, his early thinking on electronic commerce would influence Mr. Diffie at the Stanford lab. Drawing on those ideas, Mr. Diffie began thinking about what would replace the paper personal check in an all-electronic world.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
He and two other researchers went on to develop the basic idea of public key cryptography, which is now the basis of all modern electronic banking and commerce, providing secure interaction between a consumer and a business.
A chess enthusiast, Dr. McCarthy had begun working on chess-playing computer programs in the 1950s at Dartmouth. Shortly after joining the Stanford lab, he engaged a group of Soviet computer scientists in an intercontinental chess match after he discovered they had a chess-playing computer. Played by telegraph, the match consisted of four games and lasted almost a year. The Soviet scientists won.
John McCarthy was born on Sept. 4, 1927, into a politically engaged family in Boston. His father, John Patrick McCarthy, was an Irish immigrant and a labor organizer.
His mother, the former Ida Glatt, a Lithuanian Jewish immigrant, was active in the suffrage movement. Both parents were members of the Communist Party. The family later moved to Los Angeles in part because of John’s respiratory problems.
He entered the California Institute of Technology in 1944 and went on to graduate studies at Princeton, where he was a colleague of John Forbes Nash Jr., the Nobel Prize-winning mathematician and subject of Sylvia Nasar’s book “A Beautiful Mind,” which was adapted into a movie.
At Princeton, in 1949, he briefly joined the local Communist Party cell, which had two other members: a cleaning woman and a gardener, he told an interviewer. But he quit the party shortly afterward.
In the ’60s, as the Vietnam War escalated, his politics took a conservative turn as he grew disenchanted with leftist politics.
In 1971 Dr. McCarthy received the Turing Award, the most prestigious given by the Association of Computing Machinery, for his work in artificial intelligence. He was awarded the Kyoto Prize in 1988, the National Medal of Science in 1991 and the Benjamin Franklin Medal in 2003.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Dr. McCarthy was married three times. His second wife, Vera Watson, a member of the American Women’s Himalayan Expedition, died in a climbing accident on Annapurna in 1978.
Besides his daughter Sarah, of Nevada City, Calif., he is survived by his wife, Carolyn Talcott, of Stanford; another daughter, Susan McCarthy, of San Francisco; and a son, Timothy, of Stanford.
He remained an independent thinker throughout his life. Some years ago, one of his daughters presented him with a license plate bearing one of his favorite aphorisms: “Do the arithmetic or be doomed to talk nonsense.” | John McCarthy, the computer scientist who coined the term "artificial intelligence" in 1955, died Monday, reports the New York Times. He was 84. McCarthy was teaching mathematics at Dartmouth when he organized the first Artificial Intelligence conference in 1956. Later he founded AI labs at MIT and Stanford, and created the computer language Lisp (for List Processing Language) that still underlies much AI programming. McCarthy predicted that creating an AI machine would require "1.8 Einsteins and one-tenth the resources of the Manhattan Project." Called "prophetic" by the Times, McCarthy spoke of what is now e-commerce in the 1970s, invented the computer memory clearing technique called "garbage collection," and developed "time sharing" systems for mainframe computers. McCarthy also held several less successful beliefs over the years—in the 1970s he believed that personal computers were mostly a waste of time, and more recently was largely a climate-change skeptic. |
Health-related information from medical records and claims is used throughout the health care industry for the analysis of health-related services and payment. To facilitate the processing and analysis of these data, alphabetic or numeric codes are assigned to identify individual heath-related services. Coding professionals, who receive degrees and certifications in health information management, translate the unstandardized narrative information reported by providers on medical records into the appropriate codes. These codes then assist members of the health care industry in identifying health-related services on medical claims for payment and analyzing service utilization, outcomes, and cost. A procedural code set should include codes that accurately define similar medical procedures and minimize the number of broadly defined codes that group procedures that are seemingly similar, but in fact heterogeneous. The challenge in coding medical procedures is finding a level of specificity that allows codes to accurately represent the procedure being performed, without being so broad or so specific that the code set becomes more complex than necessary to administer and that the data yielded are too broad or specific to be effectively used in processing claims or conducting research. In 1993, NCVHS suggested that a procedural code set should be easy to use and facilitate data analysis. To accomplish these goals, NCVHS recommended criteria for a procedural code set to HHS and the health care industry. Specifically, NCVHS recommended that a procedural code set be designed so that: all aspects of a medical procedure are described in detail, including the body system affected (e.g., cardiovascular, respiratory), the approach that was used in completing the procedure (e.g., open surgery, laparoscopy), the technology that was used to complete the procedure (e.g., laparoscope, endoscope), and the device that was implanted, if any; the code set allows for the addition of codes to reflect procedures introduced through new technology; codes can be collapsed into increasingly larger broad categories of related procedures to facilitate aggregated data analysis; and definitions are standardized. In 1996, the administrative simplification provisions of HIPAA required the Secretary of HHS to adopt standard code sets in an 18-month timeframe. Through these standard code sets, HIPAA’s goals were to (1) simplify administrative functions for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal and private health programs, (2) improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care industry in general, and (3) enable the efficient electronic transmission of health-related information between members of the health care industry such as providers and payers. Under HIPAA, the Secretary had the authority to select existing code sets developed by either private or public entities as the national standard code sets. In adopting standard code sets, HIPAA directed HHS to seek insight from various members of the health care industry. With input from these industry experts, HHS interdepartmental “HIPAA implementation teams” defined a set of criteria to consider in selecting HIPAA standard code sets. In summary, HHS’s HIPAA implementation teams recommended that standard code sets should: improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care industry; meet the needs of the health care industry; be supported by accredited standards-setting organizations or other public and private organizations that will maintain the standard code sets; have timely development, testing, implementation, and updating processes have low development and implementation costs relative to the benefits; keep data collection and paperwork burdens on members of the health care industry as low as possible; be technologically independent of computer programs used in health care be consistent with other standard code sets under HIPAA; be precise and unambiguous; and incorporate flexibility to adapt more easily to changes in the health care industry, such as incorporating new codes for new health-related services and information technology. On May 7, 1998, HHS proposed two standard code sets for reporting medical procedures under HIPAA: ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 for inpatient hospital procedures and CPT for all physician services and other medical services, including outpatient hospital procedures. Members of the health care industry who commented on this proposed rule generally supported the adoption of these procedural code sets as standards on the grounds that they were already in widespread use throughout the health care industry. The final rule was published August 17, 2000, and these code sets became the procedural coding standards effective October 16, 2000.13, 14 Recent legislation extended the deadline for complying with the HIPAA standard code set requirements to October 16, 2003, for those who submit a plan of how they will come into compliance by that date. 65 Fed. Reg. 50,312. In addition to the standard code sets HHS adopted for reporting medical procedures, HHS adopted additional code sets to standardize the reporting of diagnoses and other health- related services, such as medical devices, supplies and equipment, home health care services, prescription drugs, and dental services (see app. I). ICD-9-CM Vol. 3, the standard code set named for use in reporting inpatient hospital procedures, is maintained in the public domain by CMS. CMS revises ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 through the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meetings. Members of the health care industry attend these biannual public meetings at their discretion and typically include representatives from the AHA, AHIMA, and AMA, among others. Discussions at these meetings include proposed coding changes, such as the addition of codes to reflect new and distinct medical procedures— including those resulting from technological advancements—that may not be accurately represented by existing codes. CMS makes final decisions on whether a new medical procedure warrants a new code based on evidence and recommendations presented by stakeholders at the committee meetings. According to CMS representatives, it takes 6 to 18 months to consider new procedural coding requests, designate new codes to represent the new procedures, and implement the new codes. CMS implements newly approved inpatient service codes every October 1. In addition to contributing to CMS’s maintenance of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3, other organizations such as 3M Health Information Systems, AHA, AHIMA, and AMA publish and market coding textbooks, handbooks, workbooks, and software that are used by members of the health care industry. For example, AHA maintains a free information clearinghouse for members of the health care industry with questions about coding. It also coordinates with CMS, NCHS, and AHIMA to write the official guidelines on the use of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3. According to AHA estimates, the administrative costs for AHA to provide clearinghouse and guidance activities are about $1 million per year. AHA also publishes textbooks, handbooks, and workbooks that are used in coding curriculums and the Coding Clinic for ICD-9-CM, a quarterly, subscription-based publication that serves as the primary manual of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 guidelines. AHA projects that, for 2001, these publications will incur about $1.7 million in costs and generate almost $2 million in revenue. CPT, the code set used to report physician services and other medical services including outpatient hospital procedures, is privately maintained. AMA, which copyrights CPT, maintains the code set through its CPT Editorial Panel, which is made up predominantly of AMA-appointed physicians. The panel also includes such members as physicians nominated by CMS, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, AHA, and the Health Insurance Association of America. In addition, an AHIMA representative is permitted to attend the CPT Editorial Panel meetings and participate in discussions of new coding requests as a nonvoting panel member. The panel makes final decisions on requests for new procedure codes. Anyone can request a coding change to CPT and anyone who requests a coding change can present their views at the panel’s quarterly meetings and stay throughout deliberations and voting, but the panel’s meetings are closed to the general public. It takes approximately 18 months to consider new coding requests, designate new codes to represent the new procedures, and implement the new codes. Approved changes are added to the CPT by AMA and become effective every January 1. In October 2001, the AMA released its yearly update of CPT as part of an effort to not just add new codes, but to also phase-in changes designed to improve the code set as a whole. The latest version of CPT was designed to revise code descriptors that had been problematic and had contributed to code ambiguity. For example, in some cases, AMA either added parenthetical statements to existing codes to define exactly what methods, techniques, and approaches were used in performing a procedure or, in other cases, it developed new codes to better delineate the procedures performed. In addition, AMA incorporated codes for nonphysician services such as home health care. Finally, CPT was modified to include a special category designed to expedite the adoption of codes for technically innovative procedures that may not have enough clinical evidence available to otherwise meet the approval standards of the CPT Editorial Panel. These codes will be used for data tracking purposes only and not for assigning payment. AMA reports that CPT’s administrative costs—including those costs associated with collecting licensing fees, publishing CPT literature, holding panel meetings, and paying salaries—are about $10.1 million a year. AMA estimates that its revenue from licensing fees paid by software companies (between $3 million and $4 million) and CPT publications totals about $18 million, or about 7 percent of its annual budget. According to AMA estimates, most of the revenue is generated by the sale of the CPT codebook; other related revenue sources include textbooks, manuals, newsletters, and a CPT advice hotline, which is a subscription-based service staffed by five coding professionals. Under a 1983 agreement between HHS and AMA, CMS pays no fees for its use of CPT. As part of the agreement, CMS assists the AMA in maintaining and updating the code set through its representation on the CPT Editorial Panel. Both ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT meet almost all of the criteria for standard code sets recommended by HHS’s HIPAA implementation teams. In addition, these codes sets each meet a criterion for procedural code sets recommended by NCVHS. Nevertheless, a consensus exists among most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, that ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT—to varying extents—do not meet some criteria for HIPAA standard code sets and procedural code sets, including adequate levels of detail to facilitate data analysis and a capacity to incorporate codes in response to new technology. In fact, HHS recognized that in adopting ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 as a standard code set that it would need to replace it in the not-too-distant future, given its limitations. Given the 18-month timeframe in which HHS was required to adopt standard code sets under HIPAA, the widespread use of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT made them the most practical options for standards at the time. In addition, both ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT meet almost all of the criteria for HIPAA standard code sets recommended by HHS’s implementation teams (see table 1). For example, most members of the health care industry currently use one, if not both, of these procedural code sets to some extent. The existing health care administrative system for these procedural code sets—including trained coding professionals, publications, training manuals, computer software, medical claims forms, and fee schedules that are already aligned to these code sets—suggests that the costs of implementing these procedural code sets as standards across all providers and payers will be much lower than the costs of implementing less widely used code sets. The maintenance processes for both ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT are well established, systematic, and operational, which should facilitate the implementation of these procedural code sets as HIPAA standards across all providers and payers. In addition, ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT each meet a criterion for procedural code sets recommended by NCVHS. ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 meets the NCVHS criterion that a code set should contain codes that can be collapsed into increasingly broader categories of related procedures to facilitate aggregated data analysis. For example, all ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 codes beginning with “36” are classified as “operations on the heart vessels.” This sequential structure allows many distinct procedures such as open coronary angioplasty (code 3603), percutaneous angioplasty (code 3606), and intercoronary thrombosis infusion (code 3604) to be collapsed into this broad category of similar procedures—“operations on the heart vessels”—based on the “36” code alone, facilitating aggregated data analysis. As for CPT, the maintenance process established by the AMA for updating CPT is considered by many representatives of the health care industry, including NCVHS, to maintain currency with technological advancement. Despite its widespread use, most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree that ICD-9-CM Vol. 3, designed more than 20 years ago, is outdated and, because of its limited coding capacity, irreparable. In fact, HHS recognized that in naming ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 as a HIPAA standard, it would need to replace it in the not-too-distant future, given its limitations. ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 does not meet 2 of the 10 criteria for HIPAA standard code sets and does not meet most of the procedural code set criteria recommended by NCVHS (see table 2). First, ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 lacks the specificity needed to accurately identify many key aspects of medical procedures. Very distinct but related procedures may all be classified under one code, and variations in procedures performed or technologies used may not be identified. For example, in this code set, a single code exists for all multiple vessel percutaneous angioplasties (code 3605), without specification as to the number of blood vessels involved, or what type of equipment—balloon-tip catheter, laser, or stent—was used. If a stent was used, to fully represent the type of procedure performed, an additional, secondary code, code 3606, “insertion of coronary artery stent,” would also have to be reported. For payment or research purposes, to know how many vessels were involved in the procedure, or whether the stent used was self-expanding or expandable by a balloon, one would have to look to the medical record for this information, as the code would not capture this level of specificity. Without codes that accurately distinguish between the procedures performed, it is difficult to (1) identify trends in utilization and cost that may provide evidence to support the recalibration of payments, or (2) collect information on the performance outcomes of both new and existing procedures and technologies. Second, many representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree that the four-character structure of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 lacks the capacity to expand and the flexibility to appropriately incorporate new codes in response to new procedures and technology. Code set sections are organized by body systems such as the nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems and by miscellaneous diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and services. With only 10 options available for each character (0 through 9), many of the code set sections for body systems are “full” and can no longer accommodate additional codes, requiring new procedures to be assigned their own code outside of their appropriate body system section. For example, CMS has determined that six new procedures involving cardiac resynchronization pacemakers, some of which have defibrillation capabilities, warrant the creation of their own codes. Generally, these procedures would be assigned codes within the pacemaker code sequence in the cardiovascular section (code sequence 3770-3789). However, the code sequence for pacemaker codes is full and there is only one code available for use in the defibrillator code section. Therefore, to add new codes for these six new procedures, CMS assigned these new technologies to the code sequence beginning with “00,” which is outside of their appropriate section. This solution makes the code set harder for providers and coding professionals to use and complicates the retrieval of data for research purposes, as some pacemaker procedure codes are grouped together and others may be interspersed with codes for a collection of dissimilar procedures. Although CPT meets almost all of the criteria recommended for standard code sets under HIPAA (see table 1), it does not meet all of the criteria recommended for a procedural code set by NCVHS (see table 3). For example, CPT code 34001 represents an “embolectomy or thrombectomy, with or without catheter...” Thus, this code is used to represent different procedures, without identifying the specific procedure that was actually performed. This lack of specificity is present for many CPT codes as their definitions use ambiguous language such as “and/or” and “with or without.” In addition, CPT generally lacks the consistency in its coding sequence that would enable data to be easily aggregated into broad categories. For example, in CPT, procedures on blood vessels can begin with the characters “33,” “34,” or “35,” making it more difficult to aggregate data for procedures performed on blood vessels. In addition, codes beginning with the characters “33” can represent such divergent procedures as those involving the implantation of pacemakers and procedures on the cardiac valves, which further complicates the aggregation of like data. Most representatives of the healthcare industry, including CMS representatives, consider 10-PCS to be an improvement over ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 for coding inpatient hospital procedures. In particular, 10-PCS meets almost all of the criteria for HIPAA standard code sets and for procedural code sets as recommended by NCVHS. However, the design and logic of 10-PCS raise concerns about potential challenges in its implementation, including coding accuracy and the availability of useful data. In addition, the existing health care administrative system would need to be changed significantly to accommodate 10-PCS, imposing additional financial costs and administrative burdens on members of the health care industry, such as providers and payers, who are currently undertaking changes to comply with HIPAA. Although the costs of implementing 10-PCS are anticipated to be substantial, most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree that the limitations of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 warrant its replacement. However, HHS has not yet reached a decision regarding a proposal to adopt 10-PCS as a replacement of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3. Most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, find 10-PCS’s design and logic to be an improvement over ICD-9-CM Vol. 3. Its seven-character code allows 34 alphanumeric values for each character, affording it much greater capacity than the existing procedural code sets. Within its seven-character structure, 10-PCS is able to identify key aspects of procedures, including the body system and body part affected, the technique or approach of the procedure, and the technology used in completing it (see fig. 1). For example, the first of the seven characters represents the section that relates to the general type of procedure (e.g., surgery, obstetrical procedure, laboratory procedure); the second character is the body system (e.g., respiratory, gastrointestinal); the third character, the root operation or objective of the procedure (e.g., removal, repair); the fourth character, the body part; the fifth character, the approach or technique used; the sixth character, the device or devices left in the body after the procedure; and the seventh character, a qualifier that has a unique meaning for specific procedures, such as identifying the second site included in a bypass. Most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, consider 10-PCS to be an improvement over ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 for coding inpatient hospital procedures. In particular, its design and logic meet almost all of the criteria for HIPAA standard code sets and for procedural code sets recommended by NCVHS. In addition, 10-PCS addresses the criteria for HIPAA standard code sets and for procedural code sets recommended by NCVHS that are not met by ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 (see table 4). According to many representatives of the health care industry, 10-PCS’s greater coding specificity will distinguish among distinct procedures that might otherwise be grouped into broadly defined ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 codes. This precision in coding could facilitate the use of more specific data to analyze service utilization, outcomes, and cost. For example, the ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 code 3605 for a multiple vessel angioplasty can represent many related procedures with no specification as to the number of blood vessels involved, the technique used in completing the procedure, or what devices, if any, were implanted in the blood vessels. Because of the increased flexibility and capacity of 10-PCS, 18 different procedures currently reflected under this one ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 code are coded separately under 10-PCS. In addition, CMS representatives suggest that the design and logic of 10-PCS and its standardization of definitions should allow codes for new procedures and technologies to be added more expeditiously than under the current process used to update ICD-9-CM Vol. 3. Unlike 10-PCS, the numeric characters of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 codes are not predefined to represent certain elements of procedures, including the type of procedure and the body part. According to CMS representatives, the ICD-9-CM Coordination Committee spends a significant amount of time trying to determine how a new procedure should be defined and distinguished from existing procedures and what code should be used to represent that procedure. 10-PCS’s standardization of characters and definitions using alphanumeric characters—where each letter and number is predefined to represent an area of clinical care, a body system, a root operation, and so on—should facilitate how CMS will assign codes to new procedures. In addition to addressing the deficiencies of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3, many representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, state that the design and logic of 10-PCS will facilitate the aggregation of data for analysis of utilization and health outcomes, as recommended by NCVHS. For example, when analyzing 10-PCS codes, one could aggregate the data broadly or narrowly based on the codes: all codes beginning with “027” broadly represent surgical procedures where great blood vessels are expanded; all codes beginning with “0272” represent such surgical procedures performed on three coronary arteries (i.e., great blood vessels), specifically. Although 10-PCS has many advantages over ICD-9-CM Vol. 3, its design and logic may pose some challenges. First, experienced coding professionals contend that 10-PCS may require greater clinical expertise among coding professionals than the existing code sets. For example, in pretests, coding professionals found that because of its increased specificity and level of detail, 10-PCS would require a higher level of clinical knowledge in anatomy and physiology to translate the procedures recorded on medical records into the appropriate codes than ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and would therefore require substantially more training. Once familiar with the code set, however, the coding professionals noted overall gains in efficiency, citing one pretest in particular in which 57 patient records that were difficult to code using ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 codes were more readily coded using 10-PCS codes. Second, AMA representatives contend that the terminology of 10-PCS is a distinct departure from the current medical terminology used by physicians and does not parallel the terminology used on medical records. As a result, these representatives contend that physicians, other practitioners, and coding professionals will need to learn a vocabulary that differs from the terminology they now use to document medical procedures. According to the AMA, the 31 body system characters in 10-PCS do not conform to traditionally named body systems. For example, upper and lower arteries and veins, a distinction made in 10-PCS, is not a common anatomical distinction made by health care professionals. In addition, “amputation” is the standard terminology for removal of an extremity; 10-PCS terminology uses “detachment” to describe this procedure. These differences in terminology may result in coding errors, particularly when the code set is first implemented, as coding professionals transcribe the terminology used on medical records into 10-PCS codes, which in turn could affect the appropriateness of payment and the accuracy of information used to analyze data on utilization, outcomes, and cost. Finally, there are some cases where 10-PCS’s specificity creates a significantly greater number of codes, and it is unknown what effects, if any, this increased volume of codes will have on coding accuracy or the availability of useful data. For example, code 3691, the ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 code for “coronary vessel aneurysm repair,” can represent any number of related procedures with no specification as to the means of repair, the type of arteries, the number of arteries, or the device used. Because of the specificity of 10-PCS, 180 different procedures currently reflected under this one ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 code would be coded separately under 10-PCS. With more codes available for use, there are more opportunities for coding errors with inaccurate codes used in describing the procedure provided, particularly if the descriptions of procedures on medical records do not capture all the dimensions of the procedure needed to complete a code. 10-PCS may not meet two of the criteria for standard code sets recommended by HHS’s HIPAA implementation teams: it may not have low implementation costs and its implementation as a standard code set may not keep data collection and paperwork burdens on members of the health care industry as low as possible. 10-PCS is a distinct departure from the design and logic of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3; thus the existing health care administrative system—including computer software, coding manuals, claims and remittance forms, and training for coding professionals and other health care professionals—would need to be adapted if 10-PCS were to be implemented. Therefore, the implementation of 10-PCS may impose other financial costs and administrative burdens on members of the health care industry, such as providers and payers, who are currently undertaking changes to implement ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT as standard code sets under HIPAA. Although the costs of implementing 10-PCS are anticipated to be high, and may impose additional administrative burdens on the health care industry, most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree that the limitations of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 warrant the implementation of its replacement: 10-PCS. Although the development of 10-PCS is complete, HHS has not reached a decision regarding a proposal to adopt it as a HIPAA standard code set. For 10-PCS to replace ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and be implemented as a HIPAA standard code set, it must go through a public comment and rulemaking process. If 10-PCS is adopted as the new code set for reporting inpatient hospital procedures under HIPAA, CMS will most likely implement it concurrent with that of the revised diagnosis code set—the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). Some representatives of the health care industry suggested concurrent implementation to reduce administrative burdens and the additional disruption to the coding infrastructure that would result from nonconcurrent implementation of procedural and diagnosis code sets. Although ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT have been supported by most representatives of the health care industry as acceptable options for HIPAA standard code sets given the practical considerations, since 1993 NCVHS and other representatives of the health care industry have argued that a single procedural code set for reporting inpatient hospital procedures, physician services, and other medical services including outpatient hospital procedures would streamline data reporting and facilitate research across providers and sites of service. Although these representatives of the health care industry support the adoption of a single procedural code set in principle, they disagree on which code set should serve in this capacity. Although no data on implementation costs exist, most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree that implementing any new single code set, regardless of the code set that is adopted, would be costly and time consuming; CMS estimates that adopting a single code set for procedures would likely take at least a decade to complete. Nevertheless, there are no data or studies to demonstrate the potential benefits or costs of adopting a single procedural code set. Since 1993, NCVHS has supported the adoption of a single code set for reporting inpatient hospital procedures, physician services, and other medical services, including outpatient hospital procedures. NCVHS contends that because of variations in design and terminology between ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT, the simultaneous operation of the dual code sets is not conducive to aggregating data needed to perform utilization and outcome analyses across providers and sites of service. For example, for payment purposes, hospitals need to use both procedural code sets—an inpatient hospital procedure receives an ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 code for payment purposes whereas the same procedure performed in a hospital outpatient department receives a CPT code. In order for hospitals to analyze the provision of services across inpatient and outpatient departments, they must voluntarily code these procedures using both ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT so that these data can be aggregated. For the same reason, this dual code set arrangement complicates the research activities of health care analysts seeking data on a particular procedure performed across providers and sites of service. Such analyses are becoming more important as advancements in medical technology increase the ability of providers to perform procedures in various sites of service. NCVHS also notes that efforts to reduce fraud and abuse require more uniformity in coding; multiple code sets, with entirely different maintenance processes and rules, add to the complexity of proper billing and the difficulties of regulators and law enforcement officials in identifying billing violations. Other representatives of the health care industry support the adoption of a single procedural code set in principle. For example, AHIMA representatives support a single procedural code set, suggesting that a single set would reduce the level of resources—including staff, software, and updated manual and guideline publications—needed by hospitals to operate separate inpatient and outpatient procedural code sets. Currently, the operation of dual procedural code sets requires hospitals to maintain either separate coding staffs with expertise in each set or a single coding staff with expertise in both sets. AMA concurs that ideally one procedural code set could be used by providers in all sites of service, allowing for true administrative efficiencies and the reduction of burdens faced by providers that currently use multiple sets. A single procedural code set has not been developed. Although most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 would not suffice as a single procedural code set, substantial disagreements exist on whether 10-PCS or CPT could serve in this capacity. AHIMA views 10-PCS as a potential candidate because it meets the procedural code set criteria recommended by NCVHS, but has stated that pretesting of this new code set for many outpatient procedures, including physician services, has been too limited to make conclusive recommendations. AMA argues that 10-PCS would not suffice as a single procedural code set. In addition to not reflecting the terminology currently used by the medical profession, 10-PCS does not include codes for certain outpatient procedures now represented in CPT, such as those for “evaluation and management” services—physician office visits, consultations, and hospital observation services. If 10-PCS were to be used as a single procedural code set, adaptations to the code set would have to be made to incorporate these services. CMS has not planned to test 10-PCS as a candidate for a single procedural code set. AMA supports a single procedural code set that would be based on CPT, because it is already widely used by the health care industry and could be adapted for coding inpatient hospital procedures. However, according to NCVHS, CPT is not an ideal candidate for a single procedural code set because its definitions are not always precise and unambiguous and its codes lack the ability to be easily collapsed into broad categories for aggregated data analysis. In addition, AHA and AHIMA contend that CPT is designed to describe physician-based services specifically and does not adequately capture hospital-based, nonphysician services. Although no data on implementation costs exist, most representatives of the health care industry, including CMS representatives, agree that implementing any single procedural code set, regardless of the code set that is adopted, would involve significant costs and time. For example, coding textbooks, handbooks, workbooks, software, and claims forms would need to be revised or developed. All providers and payers would need to retrain staff, update computer software, and create or purchase new manuals and other educational materials. In addition, a single procedural code set would need to be coordinated with public and private payment systems for inpatient and outpatient procedures, including physician services, which would contribute to the costs of implementing such a code set. Finally, some representatives of the health care industry note that even if an existing code set such as 10-PCS or CPT were adopted as a single procedural code set, the process for its adaptation and implementation would take at least a decade. There have been no empirical studies on the adoption of a single procedural code set to measure the potential benefits identified by NCVHS and others or to estimate the costs of implementing such a code set. Recognizing the lack of empirical evidence, NCVHS stated in its recommendations that it would be necessary to evaluate the costs, benefits, and impact of a single procedural code set. AHA has stated that any proposed change should be thoroughly tested to prove that the procedural code set is both functional and able to be coordinated with payment systems. In addition, AHIMA recommends that federally funded research examine the feasibility, efficacy, costs, and benefits of moving to such a set. The benefits of a single procedural code set for research may be altered by developments in processing health-related information. Increasingly, the health care industry is moving toward electronic medical records and claims. Companies are working to create search engines that would align the unstandardized terminology found on electronic medical records with variations in definitions from existing code sets. For example, the narratives on a medical record may list “myocardial infarction,” “MI,” or “heart attack” to represent the same condition. Similarly, ICD-9-CM Vol. 3, CPT, and 10-PCS have differences in terminology to describe similar medical procedures. These search engines would allow for searches under key terms and retrieve the appropriate data regardless of the terminology or code that is used on electronic medical records and claims, facilitating the analysis of data across sites of service. ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT, although not without limitations, were practical options for HIPAA code set standards given their widespread use in the health care industry and the time constraints for their adoption. In addition, these procedural code sets meet almost all of the criteria recommended for HIPAA standard code sets—that they improve the efficiency and meet the needs of the health care industry, are recognized by the public and private organizations that will maintain the code sets, have low additional costs and administrative burdens associated with their implementation, are independent of computer programs, and are consistent with other HIPAA standard code sets. Nevertheless, many representatives of the health care industry argue that the adoption of a single procedural code set could help further improve the efficiency of data reporting and facilitate data analysis across sites of service. Yet it is unknown if the benefits of moving to a single procedural code set would justify the transition costs, or how long it would take for the benefits to recoup these costs because the theoretical merits of a single procedural code set have yet to be demonstrated empirically. Considering the adequacy of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT in meeting almost all of the criteria recommended for HIPAA standard code sets, the practical challenges of implementing a single procedural code set, and lack of empirical evidence to either support or disprove the merits of doing so, we believe that dual code sets for reporting medical procedures are acceptable under HIPAA. In addition, we concur with those representatives of the health care industry who contend that more study is needed to examine the possible benefits of adopting a single code set for medical procedures before its implementation could be considered. We received written comments from CMS on a draft of this report (see app. III). We also received written comments from AHA, AHIMA, and AMA on excerpts of our draft report. In general, CMS concurred with our analysis. CMS said that this subject is of concern to HHS because the Secretary is considering how to proceed in the face of the perceived inadequacies of ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 for the future coding of inpatient hospital procedures. CMS also said it was important to emphasize that the decision to adopt ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 as a HIPAA standard code set was made following an evaluation of its benefits and limitations and that it represented the best alternative available at the time for inpatient procedure coding. In addition, while CMS agreed that the costs of replacing ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 with 10-PCS would be significant, they emphasized that no estimate is available and that it is difficult to justify referring to these costs as “high,” as we do in our report. CMS said that the costs associated with making a change (such as software and training manuals) should be balanced against the costs to the health care system of continuing to use an out-of-date code set. We agree with CMS that the costs associated with replacing ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 should be balanced against the costs to the health care system of its continued use. Nevertheless, we feel that the costs associated with replacing it for the myriad of users within the health care system—updating computer software, coding manuals, and claims and remittance forms and training coding professionals and other health care professionals—will ultimately be “high.” Finally, CMS said the report should clarify that the Secretary has not made a decision to eliminate ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and adopt 10-PCS. We have revised the report accordingly. CMS, AHA, AHIMA, and AMA also made technical comments that we have incorporated where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to CMS, AHA, AHIMA, and AMA, and will make it available to those who are interested upon request. In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-7101. Emily J. Rowe, Hannah Fein, Preety Gadhoke, and Martin T. Gahart made major contributions to this report. The Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act of 1996 (HIPAA) required the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to adopt standard code sets for describing health-related services in connection with transactions such as filing claims for payment. In addition, HIPAA required these standard code sets to be used by all providers and payers. In response, HHS adopted several code sets to standardize the reporting of procedures, diagnoses, and other health- related services, such as medical devices, supplies and equipment, prescription drugs, and dental services (see table 5). Appendix II: The Distinct and Independent Code Sets Known as “ICD-9” There are several distinct code sets similarly referred to as “ICD-9” that are used to code different health-related services (see table 6). The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) was used worldwide to code and classify causes of death from death certificates before WHO adopted the tenth revision. The International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) has three, publicly maintained volumes that have been adopted as standard code sets for assigning codes to diagnoses and inpatient hospital procedures under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Volumes 1 and 2 of ICD-9-CM are based on WHO’s ICD-9 mortality code set and have been named the standard code set under HIPAA to code and classify diagnosis data from inpatient and outpatient records, physician offices, and most National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) surveys. NCHS is responsible for the use, interpretation, and periodic revision of the diagnosis code set in collaboration with WHO. Volume 3 of ICD-9-CM has been named as the standard code set under HIPAA for coding inpatient hospital procedures. It is maintained in the public domain by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and pertains to the provision of hospital inpatient procedures. | Consistently classifying, defining, and distinguishing among the range of medical services provided today--from diagnoses to treatments--is critical for reimbursing providers and analyzing health care utilization, outcomes, and cost. Codes serve this role by assigning each distinct service a unique identifier. Health care providers, such as hospitals and physicians, report medical conditions and the health-related services they have provided to patients on medical records. In August 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted two standard code sets for reporting medical procedures: (1) the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, Volume 3 (ICD-9-CM Vol. 3); and (2) the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT). Despite HIPAA's goals for administrative simplification, many representatives of the health care industry have expressed concern that the individual limitations of these code sets result in inefficiencies in record keeping and data reporting. GAO found that, given the 18-month time frame allotted to HHS under HIPAA for adopting standard code sets, ICD-9-CM Vol. 3 and CPT were practical options for HIPAA standard code sets despite some limitations. Both code sets meet almost all of the criteria for standard code sets recommended by HHS's HIPAA implementation teams. For example, they improve the efficiency and meet the needs of the health care industry, have low additional costs and administrative burdens associated with their implementation, and are consistent with other HIPAA standards. In addition, each of these codes sets meets a criterion for procedural code sets recommended by the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. |
Story highlights Russian forces have "complete operational control" of Crimea, a U.S. official says
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Kiev Tuesday
Ukrainian PM says Russian actions are "a declaration of war"
G7 leaders condemn Russia's "clear violation" of Ukraine's sovereignty
As Ukraine 's new leaders accused Russia of declaring war, Russia's Prime Minister warned Sunday that blood could be spilled amid growing instability in the neighboring nation.
Kiev mobilized troops and called up military reservists in a rapidly escalating crisis that has raised fears of a conflict. And world leaders pushed for a diplomatic solution.
In a post on his official Facebook page, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev called the recent ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych a "seizure of power."
"Such a state of order will be extremely unstable," Medvedev said. "It will end with the new revolution. With new blood."
Officials said signs of Russian military intervention in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula were clear.
Russian generals led their troops to three bases in the region Sunday, demanding Ukrainian forces surrender and hand over their weapons, Vladislav Seleznyov, spokesman for the Crimean Media Center of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, told CNN.
By late Sunday, Russian forces had "complete operational control of the Crimean Peninsula," a senior U.S. administration official said. The United States estimates there are 6,000 Russian ground and naval forces in the region, the official said.
"There is no question that they are in an occupation position -- flying in reinforcements and settling in," another senior administration official said.
Speaking by phone, Seleznyov said Russian troops had blocked access to bases but added, "There is no open confrontation between Russian and Ukrainian military forces in Crimea" and said Ukrainian troops continue to protect and serve Ukraine.
"This is a red alert. This is not a threat. This is actually a declaration of war to my country," Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said.
Speaking in a televised address from the parliament building in the capital, Kiev, he called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "pull back his military and stick to the international obligations."
"We are on the brink of the disaster."
Kerry heading to Kiev
A sense of escalating crisis in Crimea -- an autonomous region of eastern Ukraine with strong loyalty to neighboring Russia -- swirled, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry condemning what he called Russia's "incredible act of aggression."
JUST WATCHED Ukraine PM: 'This is a red alert' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ukraine PM: 'This is a red alert' 02:38
JUST WATCHED On GPS: How will Ukraine respond? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH On GPS: How will Ukraine respond? 04:27
JUST WATCHED Ukraine opposition leader speaks out Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ukraine opposition leader speaks out 02:25
Speaking on the CBS program "Face The Nation," Kerry -- who is set to arrive in Kiev on Tuesday -- said several foreign powers are looking at economic consequences if Russia does not withdraw its forces.
"All of them, every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion," he said. "They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically."
But Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations said his country needs more than diplomatic assistance.
"We are to demonstrate that we have our own capacity to protect ourselves ... and we are preparing to defend ourselves," Yuriy Sergeyev said on CNN's "State of the Union." "And nationally, if aggravation is going in that way, when the Russian troops ... are enlarging their quantity with every coming hour ... we will ask for military support and other kinds of support."
Pushing diplomatic possibilities
In Brussels, Belgium, NATO ambassadors held an emergency meeting on Ukraine.
"What Russia is doing now in Ukraine violates the principles of the U.N. charter," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters. He later added that Russia's actions constituted a violation of international law.
He called upon Russia to honor its international commitments, to send it military forces back to Russian bases, and to refrain from any further interference in Ukraine.
Rasmussen also urged both sides to reach a peaceful resolution through diplomatic talks and suggested that international observers from the United Nations should be sent to Ukraine.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office said Putin had accepted a proposal to establish a "fact-finding mission" to Ukraine, possibly under the leadership of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to start a political dialogue.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dispatched a special envoy to Ukraine Sunday evening, a spokesman for his office said.
Lean to the West, or to Russia?
Ukraine, a nation of 45 million people sandwiched between Europe and Russia's southwestern border, has been plunged into chaos since the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych on February 22 following bloody street protests that left dozens dead and hundreds wounded.
Anti-government protests started in late November when Yanukovych spurned a deal with the EU, favoring closer ties with Moscow instead.
JUST WATCHED Russia OKs military force in Ukraine Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Russia OKs military force in Ukraine 03:10
JUST WATCHED Kiev: Russia's move is direct aggression Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Kiev: Russia's move is direct aggression 01:30
Ukraine has faced a deepening split, with those in the west generally supporting the interim government and its European Union tilt, while many in the east prefer a Ukraine where Russia casts a long shadow.
Nowhere is that feeling more intense than in Crimea, the last big bastion of opposition to the new political leadership. Ukraine suspects Russia of fomenting tension in the autonomous region that might escalate into a bid for separation by its Russian majority.
Ukrainian leaders and commentators have compared events in Crimea to what happened in Georgia in 2008. Then, cross-border tensions with Russia exploded into a five-day conflict that saw Russian tanks and troops pour into the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as Georgian cities. Russia and Georgia each blamed the other for starting the conflict.
By Sunday night, electricity had been cut off at the headquarters of the Ukrainian Navy in Crimea, and officials feared there could soon be an attack, Seleznyov said.
CNN has not independently verified that claim, and Russian officials could not be immediately reached to respond.
Military maneuvering
Word of the power outage came hours after the newly named head of Ukraine's navy disavowed Ukraine's new leaders and declared his loyalty to the pro-Russian, autonomous Crimea government.
Rear Adm. Denis Berezovsky, who was appointed Saturday by interim Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov, said from Sevastopol on the Black Sea that he will not submit to any orders from Kiev.
He was quickly suspended and replaced by another rear admiral, the Defense Ministry in Kiev said in a written statement.
These scenes come one day after Putin obtained permission from his parliament to use military force to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine, spurning Western pleas not to intervene.
Putin cited in his request a threat posed to Russian citizens and military personnel based in southern Crimea.
Ukrainian officials have vehemently denied Putin's claim.
Western governments worried
The crisis set off alarm bells in the West and fueled a stern rebuke from the leaders of the G7 nations of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
In a statement Sunday, they condemned Russia's "clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine," saying they were temporarily suspending activities related to preparation for June's G8 Summit in Sochi, Russia.
Canada recalled its ambassador to Moscow.
Senior Obama administration officials Sunday portrayed Russia's intervention in Ukraine as weak, describing it in a conference call with reporters as a kind of desperate measure from a man who realizes he has lost support of the international community.
When asked what concrete measures the administration has taken to signal its strong opposition to Russian involvement in Ukraine, the officials noted that planning meetings about the upcoming G8 summit in Sochi had been canceled. In the long term, economic sanctions could be employed, they said. The officials declined to be more specific about what those sanctions might involve.
In discussions over the weekend with Putin, Obama "made clear that Russia's continued violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia's standing in the international community," according to a statement released by the White House.
During that call, one administration official said, Putin did not "slam the door" to the idea that international monitors could travel to Ukraine to make sure violence doesn't flare up, one official said.
According to the Kremlin, Putin told Obama that Russia reserves the right to defend its interests in the Crimea region and the Russian-speaking people who live there.
Obama met Sunday with his national security team and called U.S. allies afterward, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said he and Obama were of the same mind when they spoke on Sunday.
"We agreed Russia's actions are unacceptable and there must be significant costs if they don't change course," Cameron posted on his verified Twitter account.
Cameron also planned to talk with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
Britain's Foreign Minister William Hague arrived Sunday in Kiev, where he will meet with Ukraine leaders. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ukrainian soldiers are trapped on their own base as Daniel Sandford reports
Ukraine has ordered a full military mobilisation in response to Russia's build-up of its forces in Crimea.
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Ukraine was "on the brink of disaster".
In Crimea, Ukrainian soldiers faced off with Russian soldiers surrounding their bases while the Russian army is said to be digging trenches on the border with mainland Ukraine.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US Secretary of State John Kerry said Russian troops moving into the Ukraine region of Crimea was a "brazen act of aggression"
US Secretary of State John Kerry has warned Russia could be ejected from the Group of Eight developed nations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, he said, was "not going to have a Sochi G8, he may not even remain in the G8 if this continues," referring to a planned summit in Russia in June.
"He may find himself with asset freezes, on Russian business. American business may pull back, there may be a further tumble of the rouble.
"You just don't in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext," Mr Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation.
The facts on the ground are such that Russia, to a large extent, is already in control there Moscow's Ukraine gamble
The UK has joined the US, France and Canada in suspending preparations for the Sochi summit.
Nato is conducting emergency talks, saying Russia's actions threaten "peace and security in Europe".
US President Barack Obama called Russian troop deployments a "violation of Ukrainian sovereignty".
Russian soldiers continue to occupy key sites on the Crimean peninsula, including airports and communications hubs, although there has been no actual violence and they have been openly welcomed by some sections of the population.
In the east Ukrainian city of Donetsk, apparent members of the disbanded elite police riot unit Berkut appeared in full uniform at a pro-Russian rally.
At the scene Crowds of excited pro-Russian Crimeans have gathered near the gates of the marines' base in Feodosia. A deadline demanding the marines pledge loyalty to the new government in Crimea has passed. Despite threats to attack the base, local Cossacks, who act as law and order here, continue to stand in a chain near the gates. Behind the gates I could see freshly-made dugouts, but no-one is inside them at the moment. A couple of marines in sand-coloured flak jackets are manning the gates from the inside. The street leading to the base is blocked by two armoured personnel carriers, with another closer to the gates. When asked whose APCs and soldiers they were, a Cossack said "Russians", but he didn't know whether they came from Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol or Russia. From time to time the loudspeaker on a van near to the entrance of the base calls on the marines to recognise the new pro-Russian government in Crimea, and not to act upon "criminal orders from Kiev". Any filming activity in the crowds is risky - we saw cameramen and photographers being harassed. One cameraman had to leave the approach to the base and another was led away by a policeman. Text of Putin's request to use troops What is so dangerous about Crimea? Crimea profile
In Moscow, police detained dozens of people at anti-war rallies outside the Russian defence ministry and other places in the city centre, while elsewhere in the city a pro-Putin march was held.
Military build-up
Ukrainian national security officials announced several other measures on Sunday
The armed forces would to be put on "full combat readiness"
Reserves to be mobilised and trained
Foreign minister to seek help from US and UK leaders in guaranteeing its security
Emergency headquarters to be set up
Security to be boosted at key sites, including nuclear plants
Airspace to be closed to all non-civilian aircraft
Meanwhile, Ukraine withdrew coast guard vessels from two ports in Crimea and moved them to other bases in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.
A Ukrainian army base was surrounded by Russian troops at Perevalnoye, south of the Crimean regional capital Simferopol. An Orthodox priest has arrived in an attempt to mediate.
In Sevastopol, Ukrainian naval officers found their headquarters occupied by Russian troops and were unable to go to work.
Admiral Yuriy Ilyn, who was until recently commander of the Ukrainian navy and served briefly as head of Ukraine's armed forces under ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, told the BBC's Christian Fraser at the scene that the armed forces were "hostages of the situation".
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Admiral Yuri Ilyn: "I'm very sorry that Ukrainian soldiers and sailors are hostages of this situation"
In the eastern port city of Feodosia, a group of about 100 Ukrainian marines were also blockaded into their base by armed men demanding they pledge loyalty to the region's new pro-Russian authorities.
In the north of Crimea, at Armyansk on the Isthmus of Perekop, the BBC saw what appeared to be Russian soldiers digging trenches. The isthmus is strategically vital as it joins Crimea to the rest of Ukraine.
Russian ground troops have been active in Crimea - home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet - for the past few days.
On Saturday the newly elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula.
The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government.
Image copyright AP Image caption Ukrainian soldiers were surrounded by Russian troops at Perevalnoye, one of several stand-offs on the peninsula
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Russian soldiers surrounded a Ukrainian base at Perevalnoye in Crimea
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption One pro-Russian family posed for photos with the soldiers
Image caption Russian soldiers were apparently digging trenches on the strip of land joining Crimea to mainland Ukraine
Image copyright AFP Image caption Apparent members of Ukraine's disbanded riot unit, Berkut, turned out at a pro-Russian rally in the eastern city of Donetsk
Image copyright Reuters Image caption A march was held in Moscow in support of President Putin's policy on Crimea and Ukraine
Image copyright AP Image caption But there were small anti-war protests too. "Ukrainians - I am ashamed to be a Russian!" - placard of one protester arrested in Moscow
Image copyright AP Image caption Meanwhile pro-EU protesters rallied once again in the capital Kiev
Image copyright AFP Image caption Anti-Putin protesters in Kiev mocked the Russian leader with a placard showing him as Adolf Hitler
Russian 'violation'
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ukraine's interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk says his country is "on the brink of disaster"
Late on Saturday, Mr Obama held a 90-minute telephone conversation with Mr Putin and urged him to pull forces back to bases in Crimea.
Mr Putin said Moscow reserved the right to protect its interests and those of Russian speakers in Ukraine.
President Putin submitted his request for troops to the Russian parliament on Saturday "in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens", the Kremlin said.
Mr Obama, the White House said, told Mr Putin that the appropriate way to address any concerns was "peacefully through direct engagement" with the Ukrainian government and international mediating bodies. ||||| SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine's new prime minister urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull back his military Sunday in the conflict between the two countries, warning that "we are on the brink of disaster."
A Russian convoy moves from Sevastopol to Sinferopol in the Crimea, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops headed toward the regional capital of Ukraine's Crimea region... (Associated Press)
People line up as they wait a ration of soup made by anti-Yanukovych protesters in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of... (Associated Press)
Anti-Yanukovych protesters sit inside a tent as they guard one of the entrance in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of... (Associated Press)
An anti-Yanukovych protester sits next to his tent in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops... (Associated Press)
A Russian convoy moves from Sevastopol to Sinferopol in the Crimea, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops headed toward the regional capital of Ukraine's Crimea region... (Associated Press)
Anti-Yanukovych protesters warm themselves next to a fire as they guard one of the entrance in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014.... (Associated Press)
The comments from Arseniy Yatsenyuk came as a convoy of Russian troops rolled toward Simferopol, the capital of Ukraine's Crimea region, a day after Russian forces took over the strategic Black Sea peninsula without firing a shot.
"There was no reason for the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine," Yatsenyuk said after a closed session of his new parliament in Kiev.
So far, the new government in Kiev has been powerless to react to Russian military tactics.
Putin has defied calls from the West to pull back his troops, insisting that Russia has a right to protect its interests and Russian-speakers in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine. However, there has been no sign of ethnic Russians facing attacks in Crimea, where they make up about 60 percent of the population, or elsewhere in Ukraine.
On the road from Sevastopol, the Crimean port where Russia has its key Black Sea naval base, to Simferopol, Associated Press journalists on Sunday saw 12 military trucks carrying troops, an armored vehicle armed with a machine gun and also two ambulances.
President Barack Obama spoke with Putin by telephone for 90 minutes on Saturday and expressed his "deep concern" about "Russia's clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity," the White House said. Obama warned that Russia's "continued violation of international law will lead to greater political and economic isolation."
The U.S. also said it will suspend participation in "preparatory meetings" for the Group of Eight economic summit planned in June to be held at the Black Sea resort of Sochi, site of the just-concluded 2014 Winter Olympics.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius agreed, saying on French radio Europe that planning for the summit should be put on hold. France "condemns the Russian military escalation" in Ukraine, and Moscow must "realize that decisions have costs," he said Sunday.
But the U.S. and other Western governments have few options to counter Russia's military moves.
NATO's North Atlantic Council, the alliance's political decision-making body, and the NATO-Ukraine Commission were to meet on Sunday. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the allies will "coordinate closely" on the situation in Ukraine, which he termed "grave."
Ukraine is not a NATO member, meaning the U.S. and Europe are not obligated to come to its defense. But Ukraine has taken part in some alliance military exercises and contributed troops to its response force.
Ukraine's acting president, Oleksandr Turchynov, announced late Saturday that he had ordered Ukraine's armed forces to be at full readiness because of the threat of "potential aggression." He also said he had ordered stepped-up security at nuclear power plants, airports and other strategic infrastructure.
On Crimea, however, Ukrainian troops have offered no resistance.
The new government came to power last week following months of pro-democracy protests against the now-fugitive president, Viktor Yanukovych, and his decision to turn Ukraine toward Russia instead of the European Union.
Ukraine's population of 46 million is divided in loyalties between Russia and Europe, with much of western Ukraine advocating closer ties with the EU, while eastern and southern regions look to Russia for support. Crimea, a semi-autonomous region that Russia gave to Ukraine in the 1950s, is mainly Russian-speaking.
_____
McHugh reported from Kiev, Ukraine. AP correspondent Greg Keller contributed from Paris. ||||| SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (AP) — Associated Press journalists say hundreds of unidentified gunmen have just arrived outside Ukraine's infantry base in Privolnoye in its Crimea region.
An anti-Yanukovych protester sits next to his tent in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops... (Associated Press)
People line up as they wait a ration of soup made by anti-Yanukovych protesters in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of... (Associated Press)
Anti-Yanukovych protesters sit inside a tent as they guard one of the entrance in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of... (Associated Press)
A Russian convoy moves from Sevastopol to Sinferopol in the Crimea, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops headed toward the regional capital of Ukraine's Crimea region... (Associated Press)
A Russian convoy moves from Sevastopol to Sinferopol in the Crimea, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014. A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops headed toward the regional capital of Ukraine's Crimea region... (Associated Press)
Anti-Yanukovych protesters warm themselves next to a fire as they guard one of the entrance in Kiev's Independence Square, the epicenter of the country's current unrest, Ukraine, Sunday, March 2, 2014.... (Associated Press)
The convoy includes at least 13 troop vehicles each containing 30 soldiers and four armored vehicles with mounted machine guns. The vehicles — which have Russian license plates — have surrounded the base and are blocking Ukrainian soldiers from entering or leaving it.
Ukrainian soldiers, with clips in their weapons, have positioned a tank at the gate. | The war of words and the military posturing are only escalating today in Ukraine, where PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk warned Vladimir Putin to call off his troops amid dire warnings that Russia's military advance was akin to "a declaration of war" and that the two nations "are on the brink of disaster." His words appeared to fall on deaf ears, as the AP spotted a Russian military convoy consisting of 13 troop carriers with 30 soldiers apiece, as well as four armored vehicles. That convoy has apparently surrounded a military base in Crimea, with "hundreds of unidentified gunmen" preventing Ukrainian troops within from leaving. The vehicles bore Russian plates, notes the AP. Elsewhere in Ukraine: Ukraine has closed its airspace to non-civilian aircraft, reports the BBC, and is mobilizing its armed forces into "full combat readiness." Be that as it may, it's also looking for US and the UK help. Meanwhile, NATO is meeting, with that body's secretary-general condemning "Russia's military activities in Crimea" as "threatening peace and security in Europe." Speaking after a closed session of parliament, CNN reports that Yatsenyuk said demanded that Putin "pull back the military and stick to international obligations." |
The financial statements and accompanying notes present fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Foundation’s financial position as of September 30, 2004, and 2003, and the results of its activities and its cash flows for the fiscal years then ended. However, material misstatements may nevertheless occur in information reported by the Foundation on its financial status to its Board of Directors and others as a result of the material weakness in internal control over financial reporting described in this report. As discussed in a later section of this report and in Note 12 to the financial statements, the Foundation continues to experience increasing difficulties in meeting its financial obligations. The Foundation’s continuing financial difficulties and deteriorating financial condition raise substantial doubt, for the third consecutive year, about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements have been prepared under the assumption that the Foundation would continue as a going concern, and do not include any adjustments that would need to be made if the Foundation were to cease operations. Because of the material weakness in internal control discussed below, the Foundation did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) or compliance with laws and regulations, and thus did not provide reasonable assurance that losses, misstatements, and noncompliance with laws material in relation to the financial statements would be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Our opinion is based on criteria established in our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. The deteriorating financial condition of the Foundation led to further deterioration in its control over its financial reporting process during fiscal year 2004, impeding its ability to prepare timely and accurate financial statements. The lack of an individual with accounting and financial management expertise taking responsibility for the Foundation’s financial operations during the period, brought about by the Foundation’s lack of funds, prevented it from fulfilling this and other key financial operations, and contributed to its inability to maintain current and accurate financial records. We reported on this matter during our audit of the Foundation’s fiscal year 2003 financial statements. The Foundation’s Director of Finance and Administration resigned his paid position at the Foundation and became Treasurer of the Congressional Award Board of Directors, an unpaid position, during fiscal year 2003. He continued to perform, on a limited and voluntary basis, some of the duties associated with his former position during the first three quarters of fiscal year 2004, as the continued shortage of funds precluded the Foundation from hiring a replacement. This resulted in the Foundation continuing to be unable to fulfill its financial reporting responsibilities, particularly with respect to preparing timely and accurate financial statements. For example, because the Foundation did not always record transactions in its general ledger as they occurred during the year, numerous entries had to be made to the general ledger as late as 12 months after fiscal year-end. These entries were ultimately prepared and recorded by a part-time bookkeeper hired 6 months after the end of the fiscal year. However, these entries were not adequately reviewed by Foundation management to ensure their completeness and accuracy. This resulted in the need for management to make material adjustments to correct errors we identified during our audit. Additionally, the Foundation continued to lack appropriate written procedures for making closing entries in its financial records and for preparing complete and accurate financial statements. At the conclusion of our audit of the Foundation’s fiscal year 2003 financial statements, we stressed to the Foundation’s management the importance of documenting the Foundation’s financial reporting policies and procedures, and further stressed that the policies and procedures should detail such functions as the monthly closing procedures, preparation of the financial statements, and review of financial data by management. The continued lack of written policies and procedures contributed to the errors we identified during our audit of the Foundation’s fiscal year 2004 financial statements. The Foundation was ultimately able to produce financial statements that were fairly stated in all material respects for fiscal years 2004 and 2003. However, the process was long and laborious, due to the lack of 1) appropriate written policies and procedures and 2) routine maintenance of the Foundation’s financial books and records by personnel experienced in accounting and financial management. As a result, material corrections were required between the first draft of the financial statements and the final version. Additionally, the Foundation’s continued lack of an effective financial reporting process forced us for the second consecutive year to notify its congressional oversight committees that we would be unable to meet our May 15, 2005, statutorily mandated audit reporting date. Consequently, the Foundation’s weakness in internal control over its financial reporting process resulted in its inability to prepare reliable financial statements on time and to produce financial information to support management decision making. This is especially critical in light of the Foundation’s precarious financial condition—when accurate and timely financial information is of utmost importance to make prudent and informed operational decisions. Foundation management asserted that its internal control during the period were not effective over financial reporting or compliance with laws and regulations based on criteria established under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. In making its assertion, Foundation management stated the need to improve control over financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations. Although the weakness did not materially affect the final fiscal year 2004 financial statements as adjusted for misstatements identified by the audit process, this deficiency in internal control may adversely affect any decision by management that is based, in whole or in part, on information that is inaccurate because of the deficiencies. Unaudited financial information reported by the Foundation may also contain misstatements resulting from these deficiencies. Our tests for compliance with relevant provisions of laws and regulations disclosed one area of material noncompliance that is reportable under U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. This concerns the Foundation’s ability to ensure that it has appropriate procedures for fiscal control and fund accounting and that its financial operations are administered by personnel with expertise in accounting and financial management. Specifically, section 104(c)(1) of the Congressional Award Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. § 804(c)(1)), requires the Director, in consultation with the Congressional Award Board, to “ensure that appropriate procedures for fiscal control and fund accounting are established for the financial operations of the Congressional Award Program, and that such operations are administered by personnel with expertise in accounting and financial management.” The Comptroller General is required by section 104(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. § 804(c)(2)(A)), to (1) annually determine whether the Director has substantially complied with the requirement to have appropriate procedures for fiscal control and fund accounting for the financial operations of the Congressional Award Program and to have personnel with expertise in accounting and financial management to administer the financial operations, and (2) report the findings in the annual audit report. We reported a material internal control weakness in financial reporting-- due in part, to a lack of written policies and procedures--in our audit report covering fiscal year 2003. For calendar year 2004, the Foundation still did not have appropriate written fiscal procedures for its financial operations. Additionally, the Foundation recorded entries for only half of the calendar year, leaving many of the financial transactions of the Foundation unrecorded during 2004. For 2004, because the Foundation did not have appropriate fiscal procedures and did not have an individual with expertise in accounting and financial management to routinely administer the procedures and account for the financial operations of the Foundation, we determined that the Director did not substantially complied with the requirements in section 104(c)(1) of the Congressional Award Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. § 804(c)(1)). Under the requirements of section 104(c)(2)(B) of the Congressional Award Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. § 804(c)(2)(B)), if the Director fails to comply with the requirements of section 104(c)(1) of the Act, the Director is to prepare, pursuant to section 108 of the Act, for the orderly cessation of the activities of the Board. The Foundation’s Board Chairman stated that during fiscal year 2005, its Board elected several new Board Members and the Foundation hired an accountant to focus on improving financial management. The newly elected Treasurer and Audit Committee Chair are working with the National Office staff to improve internal control over financial reporting and develop written fiscal policies and procedures for financial operations and reporting. Additionally, the accountant is to help ensure the accurate and timely accounting and reporting of financial information occurs. Except as noted above, our tests for compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations for fiscal year 2004 disclosed no other instances of noncompliance that would be reportable under U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. However, the objective of our audit was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with laws and regulations. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The Foundation incurred losses (decreases in net assets) of almost $168,000 and $6,000 in fiscal years 2004 and 2003, respectively. Although the Foundation’s expenses decreased by over $166,000 between fiscal years 2003 and 2004, revenues decreased even more--by about $290,000, largely attributable to a nearly $334,000 decline in contributions. Net assets as of September 30, 2004 were approximately $42,000. During fiscal year 2002, the Foundation borrowed $100,000, the maximum amount allowable against its revolving line of credit, due to ongoing cash flow problems associated with its daily operations. This debt, partially secured by a $50,000 certificate of deposit, remained outstanding at September 30, 2004. Note 12 to the financial statements acknowledges the Foundation’s increasing difficulties in meeting its financial obligations. While the Foundation has taken steps to decrease its expenditures and liabilities, those steps may not be sufficient to allow it to continue operations. For example, accounts payable at September 30, 2004, were approximately $135,500, with 86 percent of that amount representing unpaid balances owed to vendors from expenses incurred in fiscal year 2002. The Foundation was able to negotiate with certain of its vendors to cancel nearly $39,000 in liabilities to these vendors subsequent to the end of the fiscal year. However, unaudited financial data compiled by the Foundation as of September 30, 2005, showed that its financial condition has not improved. This raises substantial doubt about the Foundation’s ability to continue as a going concern, absent a means of generating additional funding. As discussed earlier, during fiscal year 2003, the Director of Finance and Administration resigned his position at the Foundation and became Treasurer of the Congressional Award Board of Directors. This move was in part because of the Foundation’s deteriorating financial condition. In another effort to keep expenses to a minimum, the Foundation reduced its staff by over one-half during fiscal year 2004. Additionally, during the second half of fiscal year 2004, the Foundation’s Board directed the National Director to reduce his pay by 50 percent in order to further control Foundation expenses. The National Director retired as of September 30, 2004, and the Foundation promoted the Program Director to serve as the Acting National Director. In its plan to deal with its deteriorating financial condition and increase its revenues, the Foundation modified its approach to fundraising by holding more frequent but smaller and less expensive fundraising events than in the past. However, these smaller fundraisers did not increase contributions which, as noted above, decreased by $334,000 or 54 percent between fiscal years 2003 and 2004. To further improve fundraising efforts, the Foundation stated that its Board created a Congressional Liaison Committee, Development Committee, and Program Committee during fiscal year 2005. The newly elected Development Chairperson is leading fundraising initiatives in the corporate community, including pursuing grant opportunities, and the Foundation continues to work with professional fundraisers to more actively involve congressional members. At present, the Foundation is prohibited from receiving federal funds, but is permitted to receive certain in-kind and indirect resources, as explained in Note 5 to the financial statements. The Foundation has attempted, but has been unsuccessful, in securing federal funding through a direct appropriation. On July 14, 2005, the Senate passed S. 335 to reauthorize the Congressional Award Board, which terminated on October 1, 2004, until October 1, 2009. The bill was received in the House of Representatives and was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce on July 19, 2005. Subsequently, on September 22, 2005, H.R. 3867, which is identical to S. 335, was introduced in the House to reauthorize the Board and was also referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The ultimate outcome of the reauthorization efforts was unknown at the date of our report. The Foundation’s management is responsible for preparing the annual financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; establishing, maintaining, and assessing the Foundation’s internal control to provide reasonable assurance that the Foundation’s control objectives are met; and complying with applicable laws and regulations. We are responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance about whether (1) the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and (2) management maintained effective internal control, the objectives of which are the following. Financial reporting–transactions are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of financial statements, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition. Compliance with laws and regulations–transactions are executed in accordance with laws and regulations that could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. We are also responsible for testing compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. In order to fulfill these responsibilities, we examined, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessed the accounting principles used and significant estimates made evaluated the overall presentation of the financial statements and notes; read unaudited financial information for the Foundation for fiscal year obtained an understanding of the internal control related to financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with laws and regulations; tested relevant internal control over financial reporting and compliance and evaluated the design and operating effectiveness of internal control; and tested compliance with selected provisions of the Congressional Award Act, as amended. We did not evaluate internal control relevant to operating objectives, such as controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations. We limited our internal control testing to controls over financial reporting and compliance. We did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to the Foundation. We limited our tests of compliance to those provisions of laws and regulations that we deemed to have a direct and material effect on the financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004. We caution that noncompliance may occur and not be detected by our tests and that such testing may not be sufficient for other purposes. We performed our work in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Foundation discussed past and ongoing efforts to obtain reauthorization for the Foundation, as well as its efforts to improve its financial condition through increases in revenues and reductions in expenses to support the growth in the Congressional Award program. The Foundation also discussed its efforts to improve its financial management. The Foundation noted that in fiscal year 2004, a bill to reauthorize the Foundation and provide it authority to receive direct federal appropriations of $750,000 of matched funds annually through 2009 was passed unanimously by the Senate. However, the bill did not pass the House of Representatives. Since then, the Foundation has continued to seek reauthorization of the program, excluding the provision for federal appropriations. The Foundation noted that legislation reauthorizing the Foundation again passed the Senate in 2005, and is currently being considered by the House of Representatives. The Foundation also noted its efforts to increase revenues. With newly appointed Foundation Board Members and fundraising consultants, the Foundation stated it had developed ways to recruit new donors and keep current and former donors informed and engaged. In order to raise awareness and funding for the program, the Foundation holds events with members of Congress in Washington, D.C. Several events were held in fiscal year 2004 and similar fund-raising events continued in fiscal year 2005. In addition, the Foundation noted that it continued to hold its annual Congressional Award Golf Classic during 2005 as another fundraising event. At the same time, the Foundation noted that it continues to keep its expenses down. The Foundation noted that in fiscal year 2004, it had reduced operating expenses to less than $595,000 (down from about $760,000 in fiscal year 2003) and reduced its staff by 50 percent. The Foundation stated that it currently has only five full-time employees and four unpaid interns to oversee program activity in all 50 states. With the program continuing to grow, the Foundation stated that it is using new methods to operate the program at very little cost. By utilizing the Web site and online tools, the Foundation stated that it is able to communicate with new and current participants, parents, volunteers, congressional offices, and donors electronically, which minimizes printing, postal, and travel expenses. The Foundation also emphasized its efforts to improve its financial management, noting that the newly elected Treasurer and Audit Committee Chair are working with the Foundation’s National Office staff to improve internal control over financial reporting and develop written fiscal policies and procedures for financial operations and reporting. The Foundation noted that the accountant it hired in 2005 will help ensure that accurate and timely accounting and reporting of financial information occurs. Congressional Award Fellowship Trust (note 4) Equipment, furniture, and fixtures, net Accounts payable (note 9) Accrued payroll, related taxes, and leave (250,133) Temporarily restricted (note 6) Permanently restricted (note 4) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. Changes in unrestricted net assets: Operating revenue and other support Contributions - In-kind (note 5) Interest and dividends applied to current operations Net assets released from restrictions (note 6) Total operating revenue and other support Operating expenses (note 11) Salaries, benefits, and payroll taxes Program, promotion, and travel (18,548) Unrealized investment gains not applied to current operations Realized investment (losses) not applied to current operations (1,669) (7,642) (Decrease) increase in unrestricted net assets (3,785) Changes in temporarily restricted net assets: Net assets released from restrictions (note 6) (164,171) (164,394) (Decrease) increase in temporarily restricted net assets (164,171) (164,394) (Decrease) increase in net assets (167,956) (5,990) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. Cash flows from operating activities: Cash received from program activities (340,527) (579,918) (88,017) (276,583) Net cash provided/(used) from operating activities (12,973) Cash flows from investing activities: (146,996) Proceeds from sale of investments Net cash provided/(used) in investing activities (12,448) Cash flows from financing activities: (2,283) Net cash provided/(used) in financing activities (2,283) Net (Decrease) increase in cash (2,590) (5,242) Reconciliation of change in net assets to net cash provided/(used) from operating activities ($167,956) ($5,990) Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used/provided from operating activities: Investment (losses) not applied to operations (5,388) (53,406) Decrease (increase) in contributions receivable (Increase) decrease in accounts receivable (242) (Increase) decrease in prepaid expenses (1,068) (Increase) decrease in Board of Directors prepaid expense (4,620) Decrease (increase) in investments (money funds/equity securities) (2,040) (Decrease) increase in accounts payable (14,840) (124,318) Increase (Decrease) in accrued payroll, related taxes, and leave (25,102) (Increase) decrease in Gold Award Ceremony (945) (Increase) decrease in program, promotion, and travel (1,393) Decrease (increase) in Plan 403(b) Net cash provided/(used) from operating activities ($12,973) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2004, and 2003 The Congressional Award Foundation (the Foundation) was formed in 1979 under Public Law 96-114 and is a private, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code established to promote initiative, achievement, and excellence among young people in the areas of public service, personal development, physical fitness, and expedition. New program participants totaled over 2,700 in fiscal year 2004. During fiscal year 2004, there were over 17,000 participants registered in the Foundation Award’s program. Certificates and medals were awarded to 2,205 participants during fiscal year 2004. In October 1999, the President signed Public Law 106-63, section 1(d) of which reauthorized the Congressional Award Foundation through September 30, 2004. The financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis of accounting in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles applicable to not-for- profit organizations. The Foundation considers funds held in its checking account and all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of 3 months or less to be cash equivalents. Money market funds held in the Foundation’s Congressional Award Trust (the Trust) are not considered cash equivalents for financial statement reporting purposes. The Declaration of Trust of the Congressional Award Trust was amended, with the consent of the original declarants of the Trust and the Trustees, effective December 2003. Among other changes, the Amended Trust Declaration removes the restriction on the use of endowment donations. The Trustees may now apply any trust funds for the benefit of the Foundation. Unconditional promises to give are recorded as revenue when the promises are made. Contributions receivable to be collected within less than one year are measured at net realizable value. D. Equipment, Furniture and Fixtures, and Related Depreciation Equipment, furniture, and fixtures are stated at cost. Depreciation of furniture and equipment is computed using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives of 5 to 10 years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of their For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2004, and 2003 estimated useful lives or the remaining life of the lease. Expenditures for major additions and betterments are capitalized; expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to expense when incurred. Upon retirement or disposal of assets, the cost and accumulated depreciation are eliminated from the accounts and the resulting gain or loss is included in revenue or expense, as appropriate. Investments consist of equity securities, money market funds, and a $50,000 certificate of deposit and are stated at market value. F. Classification of Net Assets The net assets of the Foundation are reported as follows: Unrestricted net assets represent the portion of expendable funds that are available for the general support of the Foundation. Temporarily restricted net assets represent amounts that are specifically restricted by donors or grantors for specific programs or future periods. Permanently restricted net assets result from donor-imposed restrictions stipulating that the resources donated are maintained permanently. Contribution revenue is recognized when received or promised and recorded as temporarily restricted if the funds are received with donor or grantor stipulations that limit the use of the donated assets to a particular purpose or for specific periods. When a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose of the restriction is met, temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the statement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. H. Functional Allocation of Expenses The costs of providing the various programs and other activities have been summarized on a functional basis as described in note 11. Accordingly, certain costs have been allocated among the programs and supporting services benefitedThe preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. Note 3. Contributions Receivable At September 30, 2004, and 2003, promises to give totaled $60,573 and $160,021, respectively, of which $0 and $160,000, respectively, were due within 1 year. All amounts have subsequently been collected. At September 30, 2004, and 2003, $31,626 and $195,798, respectively, were temporarily restricted by donors for future periods. For fiscal year 2003, the promises to give were a result of the “Charter for Youth” fundraising initiative. Charter for Youth benefactors are requested to contribute a minimum of $100,000 per year for 3 consecutive years for the direct support of The Congressional Award and its initiatives for participant recruitment and awardees recognition. Charter for Youth members have the opportunity to participate in Congressional Award events, and receive recognition as benefactors at the national and regional events and meetings. Note 4. Unrestricted and Permanently Restricted Net Assets The Congressional Award Fellowship Trust (the Trust Fund) was established in 1990 to benefit the charitable and educational purposes of the Foundation. The Trust Fund has received $264,457 of contributions since 1990, which were designated as permanently restricted by the donors when the donations were originally made. In accordance with the terms of the 1990 Trust Agreement (the Agreement), the Foundation was permitted to use all Trust Fund income for the benefit of the charitable and educational purposes of the Foundation. Trust Fund income represents the value of the Trust Fund’s assets (including interest and dividends earned and realized and unrealized gains and losses on Trust Fund investments) in excess of the aggregate amount received as endowment donations. Proceeds from investments can only be used in operations with approval of the Foundation’s Board. The agreement describes endowment donations as the aggregate fair market value (as of the contribution date) of all donations to the Trust Fund. As defined by the agreement, this represents the amount of the Trust Fund’s assets that the Foundation could not use or distribute. During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, the trust conditions changed. The Declaration of Trust of the Congressional Award Trust was amended, with the consent of the original declarants of the Trust and the Trustees, effective December 2003. Among other changes, the Amended Trust Declaration removes the permanent restriction on the use of endowment donations. The Trustees must approve any Trust Fund amounts for unrestricted use by the Foundation. Also, during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, the Trustee’s authorized and the Foundation’s Board approved the use of $34,915 of the Trust Fund to support 2004 operations. At September 30, 2004, and 2003, the Trust Fund’s investments at fair value consisted of the following: For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2004, and 2003 Activity in the Trust Fund for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2004, and 2003 was as follows: Net realized gains (losses) (1,669) (7,642) Investments transferred to current operations (55,092) Investment earnings applied to current operations Net change in Trust Fund investments (34,915) Trust Fund investments, beginning of year Trust Fund investments, end of year The value of the Trust Fund at September 30, 2003 dropped below the permanently restricted balance by $33,991. During fiscal year 2004, the Foundation received in-kind (non-cash) contributions from donors, which are accounted for as contribution revenue and as current period operating expenses. The in-kind contributions received were for professional services relating to support of activities of the Foundation. The value of the in-kind contributions was $94,596 for fiscal year 2004 and $33,367 for fiscal year 2003. In 2004, legal activities included several one-time matters including amendment of the Trust Agreement and securing a state ruling for Trust exemption. Professional services: Legal Web-hosting In addition, Section 7(c) of Public Law 101-525, the Congressional Award Amendments of 1990, provided that "the Board may benefit from in-kind and indirect resources provided by the Offices of Members of Congress or the Congress." Resources so provided include use of office space, office furniture, and certain utilities. In addition, section 102 of the Congressional Award Act, as amended, provides that the United States Mint may charge the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for the cost of striking Congressional Award Medals. The costs of these resources cannot be readily determined and, thus, are not included in the financial statements. Note 7. Employee Retirement Plan For the benefit of its employees, the Foundation participates in a voluntary 403(b) tax- For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2004, and 2003 deferred annuity plan, which was activated on August 27, 1993. Under the plan, the Foundation may, but is not required to, make employer contributions to the plan. There was no contribution to the plan in 2004 or 2003. Note 8. Line of Credit The Foundation has a $100,000 revolving line of credit with its bank that bears interest at 6 percent per annum. The line of credit is partially secured by the Foundation’s investment in a $50,000 certificate of deposit held by the same bank. At September 30, 2004 and 2003, the outstanding balance on the line of credit was $100,000. Note 9. Accounts Payable The accounts payable balance of $135,503 at September 30, 2004, is comprised of $116,635 attributable to goods and services received in fiscal year 2002, and the remainder attributable to goods and services received in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The accounts payable balance at September 30, 2003, was $150,343. Subsequent to the end of fiscal year 2004, there was approximately $39,000 in accounts payable that were cancelled and converted to an “in-kind” donation. See subsequent events note 13. Note 10. Related Party Activities During fiscal year 2004, an ex-officio director of the Board provided pro bono legal services to the Foundation. The value of legal services has been included in the in-kind contributions and professional fees line items (see note 5). In addition, a director of the Board served as portfolio manager with the brokerage firm responsible for managing the Congressional Award Fellowship Trust account during fiscal years 2004 and 2003. During March 2004, the Foundation entered into an agreement with a professional fundraiser. Also in 2004, the spouse of this professional fundraiser was elected to the Board of Directors of the Foundation. The professional fundraiser was retained on a 10% commission basis. Expenses incurred by the Foundation during fiscal year 2004 to the related party totaled $ 9,756. Note 11. Expenses by Functional Classification The Foundation has presented its operating expenses by natural classification in the accompanying Statements of Activities for the fiscal years ending September 30, 2004, For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2004, and 2003 and 2003. Presented below are the Foundation's expenses by functional classification for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2004, and 2003. Note 12. The Foundation’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern The Congressional Award Foundation is dependent on contributions to fund its operations and, to a far lesser extent, other revenues, interest, and dividends. The Foundation incurred decreases in net assets of $167,956 and $5,990 in fiscal years 2004 and 2003, respectively. As a result, the Foundation continues to experience difficulty in meeting its obligations. The Foundation has taken steps to substantially decrease administrative expenses, and has implemented numerous initiatives to increase fundraising revenue. The Foundation’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on increasing revenues. Revenues have been impacted by the fact that the Foundation has not been reauthorized by the Congress. The Foundation has taken all actions necessary to seek reauthorization of the program. Legislation has passed the Senate and is being considered by the House of Representatives. While the Foundation has taken steps to decrease its expenses, those steps may not be sufficient to enable it to continue operations. Unaudited financial data compiled by the Foundation as of September 30, 2005, showed that the Foundation’s financial condition has not improved. The continuing deterioration in the Foundation’s financial condition raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. During fiscal year 2005, the Board elected several new Members and the Foundation hired an accountant to focus on improving financial management. The newly elected Treasurer and Audit Committee Chair are working with the National Office staff to improve internal control over financial reporting and develop written fiscal policies and procedures for financial operations and reporting. The accountant is expected to provide accurate and timely accounting and reporting. To improve fundraising efforts, the Board created a Congressional Liaison Committee, Development Committee, and Program Committee during fiscal year 2005. The newly elected Development Chairperson is leading fundraising initiatives in the corporate community, including pursuing grant opportunities, and the Foundation continues to work with professional fundraisers to more actively involve congressional members. These events should generate funds from new donors and provide opportunities to maintain relations with current Foundation supporters. Note 13. Subsequent Events On July 14, 2005, the Senate passed S. 335 to reauthorize the Congressional Award Board, which terminated on October 1, 2004, until October 1, 2009. The bill was received in the House of Representative and was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce on July 19, 2005. Subsequently, on September 22, 2005, H.R. 3867, which is identical to S. 335, was introduced in the House to reauthorize the Board and was also referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. the Foundation negotiated cancellation of Subsequent approximately $39,000 of its liabilities with vendors. The vendors offered these balances owed as “in-kind” contributions to the Foundation. On October 1, 2005, the Foundation appointed a new Treasurer and Audit Committee Chair. The new Treasurer is currently with the Willard Group and the new Audit Committee Chair is currently the Senior Director of Corporate Finance at McDonald’s. Both positions are voluntary. | This report presents our opinion on the financial statements of the Congressional Award Foundation for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2004, and 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Congressional Award Foundation. This report also presents (1) our opinion on the effectiveness of the Foundation's related internal control as of September 30, 2004, and (2) our conclusion on the Foundation's compliance in fiscal year 2004 with selected provisions of laws and regulations we tested. We conducted our audit pursuant to section 107 of the Congressional Award Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. 807), and in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. We have audited the statements of financial position of the Congressional Award Foundation (the Foundation) as of September 30, 2004, and 2003, and the related statements of activities and statements of cash flows for the fiscal years then ended. We found (1) the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, although substantial doubt exists about the Foundation's ability to continue as a going concern; (2) the Foundation did not have effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with laws and regulations; and (3) a reportable noncompliance with one of the laws and regulations we tested. |
University of Colorado officials were looking Sunday into whether James Holmes used his position in a graduate program to collect hazardous materials, but school officials weren't saying whether they knew the suspect in a mass theater shooting was anything more than a hard-working student.
Greg Zanis, from Aurora, Ill., places crosses commemorating the victims across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012. Twelve people were killed and dozens... (Associated Press)
Former U.S. Army Sgt. Dennis L. Thomas, left, who retired in 1992, prays with Greg Zanis, right, from Aurora, Ill., before placing the flag his commanding officer presented him on his retirement, at a... (Associated Press)
Aurora, Colo. Mayor Steve Hogan, right, says a prayer with Greg Zanis, from Aurora, Ill., as Zanis places crosses for the shooting victims across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora,... (Associated Press)
Greg Zanis, from Aurora, Ill., writes a name on one of 12 crosses, one for each victim, across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012. Twelve people were... (Associated Press)
Travis Hirko pauses at a cross brought by Greg Zanis with the name of a friend who was one of the 12 victims across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012.... (Associated Press)
University of Colorado medical school researcher Dimitry Shchekochikhin, from Moscow, leaves after getting his computer and some clothes from his apartment in the same building of shooting suspect James... (Associated Press)
Serenity Brydon, 7, from Aurora, looks at a memorial near the the Century 16 movie theater Sunday, July 22, 2012, in Aurora, Colo. Twelve people were killed and dozens were injured in a shooting attack... (Associated Press)
Travis Hirko pauses at a cross brought by Greg Zanis with the name of a friend who was one of the 12 victims across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012.... (Associated Press)
Greg Zanis, from Aurora, Ill., places 12 crosses, one for each victim, across the street from the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012. Twelve people were killed and dozens... (Associated Press)
University of Colorado medical school researcher Dimitry Shchekochikhin, left, from Moscow, thanks Aurora police officers after they recovered his computer and some clothes from his apartment at the same... (Associated Press)
The sun rises between flags placed at a memorial near the the Century 16 movie theater Sunday, July 22, 2012, in Aurora, Colo. Twelve people were killed and dozens were injured in a shooting attack early... (Associated Press)
Serenity Brydon, 7, places a rosary around a bear at a memorial near the the Century 16 movie theater Sunday, July 22, 2012, in Aurora, Colo. Twelve people were killed and dozens were injured in a shooting... (Associated Press)
Aurora police officers Gary Reno, left, and Douglas Kasten stand guard at the apartment complex of shooting suspect James Eagen Holmes in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012. Holmes has been charged... (Associated Press)
Officials also revealed that Holmes, 24, has not been cooperating with police and that it could take months to learn the motive for his alleged attack early Friday on a packed theater of moviegoers watching the premiere of the latest Batman movie. The assault killed 12 and left 58 wounded.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama flew to Colorado for a few hours to comfort residents in a state that's critical to the November election. He began his visit with the family members of the victims at the University of Colorado Hospital, which treated 23 of the people injured; 10 remain there, seven hurt critically. The hospital is a short drive from the site of the shooting.
After meeting with the families, he said that he was there "not as president but as a father and a husband."
He said that "we can all understand what it would be to have someone taken from us in this fashion."
Holmes was being held in solitary confinement at a Denver-area county detention facility, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said, and is "lawyered up."
"He's not talking to us," the chief said. He is scheduled for an initial hearing Monday at 9:30 a.m. MDT, and has been assigned a public defender.
Police have said that Holmes began buying guns at Denver-area stores nearly two months before Friday's shooting and that he received at least 50 packages in four months at his home and at school. Also on Sunday, a gun range owner east of Denver said he recently rejected a membership application from Holmes in part because of a bizarre voice mail greeting on Holmes' phone.
While the University of Colorado disclosed that it was cooperating with police in the case, that disclosure was one of the few the university has made three days after the massacre. It remained unclear whether Holmes' professors and other students at his 35-student Ph.D. program noticed anything unusual about his behavior.
His reasons for quitting the program in June, just a year into the five- to seven-year program, also remained a mystery.
Holmes recently took an intense, three-part oral exam that marks the end of the first year. Those who do well continue with their studies and shift to full-time research, while those who don't do well meet with advisers and discuss their options, including retaking the exam. University officials would not say if he passed, citing privacy concerns.
The university said Holmes gave no reason for his withdrawal, a decision he made in June.
Holmes was not allowed access from the institution after his withdrawal, which was "standard operating procedure" because he was no longer affiliated with the school, Montgomery said. Holmes had no contact with university police, she said.
The university declined to release any details of his academic record, citing privacy concerns, and at least two dozen professors and other staff declined to speak with The Associated Press. Some said they were instructed not to talk publicly about Holmes in a blanket email sent to university employees.
Jacque Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the University of Colorado medical school, said that police have told the school to not talk about Holmes. The university also took down the website for its graduate neuroscience program on Saturday.
Dan Keeney, president of DPK Public Relations in Dallas, said asking for silence from university employees because of a police investigation was appropriate, but taking down the website was "indefensible" for a publicly funded university unless the school believed it contained inaccurate information relating to the program.
"It's an indefensible action," he said. "It's disappointing to hear that they would take that action because it suggests that it's not in the public's interest to have access to that information and I think it is in the public's interest."
Amid the continuing investigation of Holmes and his background, Sunday was a day for healing and remembrance in Aurora, with President Barack Obama arriving to visit with families of the victims and a vigil that began in the early evening.
Obama said he told the families of the victims of Friday's massacre that "all of America and much of the world is thinking about them." He met with them at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora, which treated 23 of the people injured in the mass shooting; 10 remain there, seven hurt critically.
Congregations across Colorado prayed for the shooting victims and their relatives. Churches sent out social-media appeals for neighbors who wanted to join in remembrance. Elderly churchgoers at an aging Presbyterian church within walking distance near Holmes' apartment joined in prayer, though none had ever met him.
Hundreds gathered for prayers and healing at the vigil Sunday night. Aurora resident Heather Lebedoff, 24, placed a rose on each cross that had been erected in memory of those killed. She said she didn't know anyone in the theater, but she felt connected to her neighbors and all the pain they have gone through.
"This is the city I live in, and I know there are a lot of people affected by this. Stuff like this really shows what love and community is all about."
Meanwhile, the owner of a gun range told the AP that Holmes applied to join the club last month but never became a member because of his behavior and a "bizarre" message on his voice mail.
He emailed an application to join the Lead Valley Range in Byers on June 25 in which he said he was not a user of illegal drugs or a convicted felon, said owner Glenn Rotkovich. When Rotkovich called to invite him to a mandatory orientation the following week, he said he heard a message on Holmes' voice mail that was "bizarre _ guttural, freakish at best."
He left two other messages but eventually told his staff to watch out for Holmes at the July 1 orientation and not to accept him into the club, Rotkovich said.
Ritchie Duong, a friend who has known Holmes for more than a decade, told the Los Angeles Times that in high school he liked to play cards and video games. They both attended undergraduate school at the University of California, Riverside, where they saw each other once a week to watch the TV show "Lost."
Duong last saw Holmes in December when they met for dinner in Los Angeles and saw a movie together. His friend seemed fine, he told the newspaper. Academics came easily to Holmes both at high school and at the UC Riverside, Duong said.
"I had one college class with him, and he didn't even have to take notes or anything. He would just show up to class, sit there, and around test time he would always get an `A,'" said Duong, 24.
The pastor for the family of the suspect also recalled a shy boy who was driven to succeed academically.
"He wasn't an extrovert at all. If there was any conversation, it would be because I initiated it, not because he did," said Jerald Borgie, senior pastor of Penasquitos Lutheran Church. Borgie said he never saw the suspect mingle with others his age at church.
Holmes told the pastor he wanted to attend a University of California school and pursue graduate studies. Borgie, who last spoke with Holmes about six years ago, doesn't remember the suspect being more specific about his goals.
"He had some goals. He wanted to succeed, he wanted to go out, and he wanted to be the best," Borgie said. "He took pride in his academic abilities. A good student. He didn't brag about it."
The family has belonged to the church for about 10 years, Borgie said. The suspect's mother, Arlene, attends services every week and volunteers her time.
During the attack early Friday, Holmes set off gas canisters and used the military-style semiautomatic rifle, a shotgun and a pistol to open fire on the unsuspecting theater-goers, Oates said. Holmes had bought the weapons at local gun stores in the past two months. He recently purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the Internet, the chief said.
The gunman's semiautomatic assault rifle jammed during the attack at the Aurora movie theater, forcing him to switch to another gun with less firepower, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press. That malfunction and weapons switch during the shooting rampage might have saved some lives.
Oates said a 100-round ammunition drum was found in the theater but said he did not know whether it jammed or emptied.
Police have finished collecting evidence from the apartment where the Colorado shooting suspect lived, but residents are still not allowed back into the building because of chemical hazards. Aurora police said Sunday residents can retrieve personal items, but the building remains closed.
The shooting was the worst in the U.S. since the Nov. 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas. An Army psychiatrist was charged with killing 13 soldiers and civilians and wounding more than two dozen others.
Across the street from the movie theater, a man who placed 15 crosses near Columbine High School after a 1999 massacre there has returned to Colorado with 12 crosses for the victims of Friday's shooting.
Greg Zanis, of Aurora, Ill., put up the 3 1/2-foot-tall crosses Sunday on a hill across the street from the Century 16 theater.
___
Associated Press contributors to this report include, Kristen Wyatt, and P. Solomon Banda in Aurora; Dan Elliott, Colleen Slevin in Denver; and Alicia A. Caldwell, Eileen Sullivan and Julie Pace in Washington
. ||||| James Holmes, the man who allegedly killed 12 people and wounded 58 at a packed screening of the latest Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises," applied to join a Colorado gun range last month, but was rejected by the owner, who found him "creepy."
Glenn Rotkovich, who owns the Lead Valley Range in Byers, Colo., told ABC News that Holmes applied for membership about a month ago via email, but when Rotkovich called him to follow up, he said he got a "bizarre," Batman-inspired voicemail message.
He told his staff not to allow Holmes into the club if he showed up for an orientation.
The gun range owner's reaction adds to a growing portrait of the 24-year-old accused of carrying out the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, and who police say rigged his apartment with dozens of explosive devices set to go off when the door was opened.
The search of Holmes' apartment yielded a computer and a variety of Batman paraphernalia, including a poster and a mask, more evidence of his apparent obsession with the comic book hero.
Investigators also found 10 gallons of gasoline, which were removed from the apartment and detonated at a remote site. Images of the ensuing large fireball were captured by a media helicopter hovering above.
Exclusive Video of Holmes at 18
Overnight, ABC News obtained exclusive video and photos of Holmes. The video, which was recorded six years ago when Holmes was 18, gives some insight into his life.
In the video, he is standing among his peers at a science camp held at Miramar College in San Diego talking about "temporal illusions."
"Over the course of the summer I've been working with a temporal illusion. It's an illusion that allows you to change the past," Holmes said in the video.
He appears slightly nervous speaking to the group but also extremely intelligent.
This is how he was explaining his mentor's shared interest in fantasy versus reality in the video: "He also studies subjective experience, which is what takes places inside the mind as opposed to the external world. I've carried on his work in dealing with subjective experience."
By most accounts, Holmes lived the life of a normal teen -- with a particular interest in science.
The video shows him being introduced at the seminar as someone whose "goals are to become a researcher and to make scientific discoveries. In personal life, he enjoys playing soccer and strategy games and his dream is to own a slurpee machine."
Though Holmes was apparently a gifted scientist who had received a federal grant to work on his Ph.D. at one of the most competitive neuroscience programs in the country, he was a loner who -- oddly for a young student -- seemed to have no Internet presence.
Holmes Began Amassing Weapons Two Months Ago
On Saturday, officials said they have "evidence of calculation and deliberation" in the way Holmes allegedly planned and prepared for the shooting, beginning to buy weapons and ammunition two months ago.
Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates announced Friday that Holmes had purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days.
Holmes received deliveries to the school and his home over that period, police said.
Holmes was enrolled in a neuroscience graduate program at the University of Colorado. On Sunday, officials at the school's Anschutz Medical Campus said they are looking into whether Holmes had items delivered to the school.
"We are cooperating fully with the police investigation. It was mentioned yesterday that deliveries may have come to his work. That is being looked into," university spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery said.
The shooting began shortly after midnight Friday, at a soldout showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." Law enforcement officials tell ABC News that Holmes purchased a ticket, entered the theater and left through an emergency exit shortly after the movie started. He geared up with body armor and guns and returned to the theater.
Dressed in full riot gear, Holmes allegedly re-entered from an emergency exit in the front right corner of the theater before releasing something that witnesses identify as tear gas or a smoke bomb.
One theory from law enforcement officials is that Holmes began shooting with his Remington shotgun, which may have been loaded with a type of bird shot.
When he emptied that, he then likely switched to his Smith and Wesson .223 with a drum magazine holding as many as 100 rounds, law enforcement officials said. The rounds from this rifle are the ones which are believed to have penetrated the walls of the theater.
When this assault rifle jammed, officials believe Holmes transitioned to his next firearm, a Glock .40 calibre with an extended clip with a 40-round capacity. Several of these clips were recovered in the theater.
The first three firearms were recovered in the theater. The fourth gun was found in his car after he was confronted by police.
Click here to read about those who died in the shooting.
Holmes, 24, is currently in custody at Arapahoe County Jail.
Some recently released inmates from the jail said Holmes is not likely to get a warm welcome from the other prisoners.
"They're paying really close attention to keeping him separate," Steven Phillips, who was recently released from there, told ABC News. "He's in red, he's in chains, his arms are chained up in like a jacket. When he came in, they said he had a bullet proof vest on over his clothes so somebody wouldn't stab him."
Phillips heard that Holmes is being kept in 23-hour lockdown, one of the most protected types of confinement. He is given one hour outside his cell per day to shower and use the phone.
Jacob Wesson, also recently released from Arapahoe County Jail, said that because Holmes is a murder who killed children, if he was kept with other inmates, they would hurt him. "He wouldn't last," Wesson said.
Inside James Holmes' Apartment
New pictures emerged overnight of several explosions in a Colorado field where investigators took chemical materials recovered from Holmes' apartment.
Crews reportedly transported the materials by dump truck to the field so that they could be ignited -- and determined if they were in fact explosives.
Federal authorities and local police have now pulled all of the potential explosives from Holmes' apartment after gaining entry and eliminating potentially explosive traps Saturday.
The 800-square-foot apartment contained several trip wires rigged to trigger explosions, police said.
Scattered throughout the living room were 30 explosive devices -- including jars with chemicals and 30 shells with explosive powder -- similar to large fireworks, police said.
Bomb squads carefully neutralized the two main threats at the entrance of his apartment using a "water shot" and remote-controlled robot.
Oates said the suspect's intentions were clear.
"What we're seeing here is some evidence of calculation and deliberation," Oates said.
Click here to read "Who Is James Holmes?" | Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes' most powerful gun, a semi-automatic assault rifle, jammed on him early during his rampage, forcing him to use a less powerful weapon that may have saved lives, police tell the AP in a round-up of the latest news on Holmes and the Dark Night massacre. For now, Holmes is being held in solitary confinement and has "lawyered up," refusing to cooperate with the police. "He's not talking to us," said Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates. Meanwhile, a portrait of Holmes is emerging that answers few questions. Holmes' mother, Arlene, attends church every week and is a volunteer. James Holmes is generally described by school officials and students as a quiet, highly capable student. A 10-year friend of Holmes said they saw each other in December and he seemed unremarkable then. However, Holmes' application to a local gun range last month was rejected because when the range's owner heard Holmes' voice message, he thought it sounded "bizarre." |
The primary mission of the SEC is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities market. The Securities Act of 1933 requires that, prior to the offering or sale of securities, the issuer must register the securities offering with the SEC by filing a registration statement. The registration statement must contain financial and other material information concerning the securities and the issuer. Following the securities’ registration, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires that the issuer make periodic filings disclosing its financial status and changes in condition. For example, issuers must file annual reports containing financial statements, which must be prepared in conformity with GAAP and audited by independent public accountants. During fiscal year 2000, the SEC received over 14,000 registrants’ filings. The SEC reviews selected issuers’ filings to ensure compliance with accounting and disclosure requirements. The SEC has enforcement authority under federal securities laws to take legal action against companies that do not comply with the securities laws. SEC’s critical role to protect investors’ interests has been made even more challenging with the significant changes in the global economy and capital markets over the past few years. The current business environment is characterized by a globalized, highly competitive economy; explosive growth in the development and use of technology; expansion in the number of public companies; and the unprecedented growth and in some cases subsequent decline in the market value of those securities. Furthermore, growth in equity values has placed tremendous pressure on public companies’ management to reach earnings or other performance targets and to meet or exceed the earnings expectations of the security analysts and investors. Missing these targets may cause a significant decline in a security’s market value and reduce management’s compensation in those cases when it is tied to achieving target earnings and/or stock market prices. Several major instances of misstated earnings have resulted in massive declines in the values of the affected companies. Recently, the SEC has become increasingly concerned with the inappropriate use of GAAP and the resulting effect on reported earnings and, in some cases, has required companies to restate their earnings. The SEC’s DCF oversees the disclosure of information, which is required by federal securities laws, to the investing public. DCF’s staff routinely reviews the disclosure documents filed by public companies with SEC and consults with OCA to resolve issues arising from the review of registrants’ filings. OCA is the SEC’s principal advisor on accounting and auditing matters. OCA also reviews registrants’ specific accounting treatment of complex issues as a result of prefiling inquiries from the registrants themselves. OCA encourages registrants to consult on those financial reporting and auditing issues that involve unusual, complex, or innovative transactions for which no clear authoritative guidance exists. As the SEC’s principal advisor on accounting and auditing matters, OCA provides rulemaking and interpretation initiatives that supplement private sector accounting standards and provide implementation guidance for financial disclosure requirements. OCA provides general interpretive and accounting advice through interpretive releases and letters, staff accounting bulletins, responses to telephone inquiries, speeches, and active participation with the standard-setting bodies. Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC has specific authority to establish accounting and reporting standards as part of its mandate to administer and enforce the provisions of the federal securities laws. Soon after its creation, the SEC decided to rely on accounting standards established in the private sector as long as such standards had substantial authoritative support. Since 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been the designated organization in the private sector that establishes standards for financial accounting and reporting. The SEC officially recognizes GAAP standards established by FASB as authoritative. As such, the SEC requires compliance with GAAP in the presentation of financial statements. FASB’s deliberations are open to the public, and its standards are subject to public exposure and comment prior to issuance. The SEC is involved in establishing accounting standards through the oversight of, and close working relationship with FASB, and other professional standard-setting bodies. The SEC is also involved in establishing accounting standards through the adoption of rules and publication of interpretive guidance. Rules and interpretive releases, such as in the Codification of Financial Reporting Policies and Regulation S-X of the SEC, have an authority similar to pronouncements by FASB for SEC registrants. The SEC staff issues Staff Accounting Bulletins that represent interpretive guidance and practices followed by DCF and OCA in administering the disclosure requirements of the SEC. The SEC has relied on generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) promulgated by the AICPA’s Auditing Standards Board (ASB) as the standard for independent audits. ASB’s deliberations are open to the public, and its standards are subject to public exposure and comment prior to issuance. The SEC monitors the structure, activity, and decisions of not only FASB, but also FASB’s Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF). EITF was formed in 1984 to provide timely financial reporting guidance on emerging issues before divergent practices became widespread and entrenched. Task force members are drawn primarily from public accounting firms but also include representatives of industry. The Chief Accountant of the SEC or his designee attends EITF meetings regularly as an observer and participates in the discussions, but does not have a vote. If the group reaches a consensus on an issue, generally FASB takes this as an indication that no further board action is needed. If no EITF consensus is possible, it may be an indication that action by FASB is necessary. EITF proceedings are documented in EITF Abstracts. The SEC staff and FASB and EITF members work together in an ongoing effort to improve the standard-setting process and to respond to various regulatory, legal, and business changes promptly and appropriately. In carrying out its responsibilities, OCA works with the private sector accounting profession, including the AICPA SEC Practice Section and the AICPA SEC Regulations Committee. The AICPA SEC Practice Section is part of the profession’s self-regulatory system, with a goal of protecting the public interest by improving the quality of CPA firms’ practice before the SEC. The AICPA SEC Practice Section establishes requirements for member firms and has a program to monitor those requirements. Member requirements include adhering to quality control standards and submitting to a peer review of each firm’s accounting and auditing practice every 3 years. The AICPA SEC Regulations Committee is part of the AICPA SEC Practice Section that acts as the primary liaison between the profession and the SEC on technical matters relating to SEC rules and regulations. The AICPA SEC Regulations Committee provides input to the SEC on accounting and auditing matters and communicates important SEC developments to its AICPA members. The AICPA SEC Regulations Committee includes accounting firms that belong to the AICPA SEC Practice Section as well as members from academia and industry. To fulfill our objectives, we interviewed officials and professional staff members from the SEC’s OCA. We reviewed relevant policies and procedures, including the Protocol for Registrant Submissions to OCA (effective December 1999) and OCA’s Policies for Handling Registrants Matters (dated August 2000). We focused on the procedures and controls employed by the SEC for resolving registrants’ prefiling accounting issues and issues on filings in which DCF consults with OCA. To gain an understanding of OCA’s procedures and the controls employed by the SEC throughout the process, we reviewed OCA’s case files of written submissions from registrants and their auditors. Although we reviewed cases to gain an understanding of the SEC’s process and the related issues, we did not perform testing to evaluate whether the SEC properly implemented its procedures throughout its caseload, nor did we evaluate the SEC’s final accounting positions on the cases that we reviewed. We interviewed representatives from the AICPA’s SEC Practice Section and SEC Regulations Committee, FASB’s EITF, and several CPA firms. We also interviewed representatives from Financial Executives International (FEI) and its Committee on Corporate Reporting. FEI is a professional association of senior financial executives, with many members from SEC registrant companies, which communicates its members’ views on emerging issues to standard-setting bodies and legislators. We also interviewed representatives from SEC registrant companies to obtain their views on the SEC’s process for handling accounting issues. We conducted our work from December 2000 through May 2001, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments from the SEC, the AICPA SEC Practice Section, the AICPA SEC Regulations Committee, and FEI. We received written comments and technical comments from the SEC and the AICPA. FEI advised us that they did not have official comments on this report. The SEC’s and the AICPA’s written comments are discussed in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section of this report and are reprinted in appendixes I and II. We incorporated the technical comments provided by the SEC and the AICPA throughout this report as appropriate. OCA receives both prefiling and active filing accounting issues for review through oral inquiries and written submissions from registrants and their auditors and from DCF. Oral inquiries received by OCA involve broad issues that are often not registrant specific. Registrants or their auditors can call OCA to ask prefiling accounting questions. Oral inquiries and OCA’s responses are considered informal and therefore not binding for a subsequent filing. Oral inquiries are sometimes done on a “no-name” basis, whereby the registrants or their auditors telephone OCA to ask questions without giving their names. However, OCA encourages registrants or their auditors to put accounting inquiries in writing to ensure a clear understanding of the facts, especially those involving complex, unusual, or innovative transactions for which no clear authoritative guidance exists. Prefiling written submissions from the registrants and their auditors are registrant specific, and OCA considers its position to be binding for purposes of deciding whether a registration has complied with the SEC’s accounting and disclosure requirements. OCA also receives inquiries through consultations with DCF on issues related to filings from registrants. Some of DCF’s inquiries are oral and others are considered written inquiries when the issues are substantive and involve extensive OCA’s review. Inquiries from DCF include questions relating to (1) accounting issues and auditing matters that involve basic policies of SEC, (2) auditor’s independence or qualifications, or (3) new, unusual, or controversial accounting issues relating to a registrant’s financial statement presentation. OCA receives various types of accounting-related inquiries through the processes described above. OCA tracks written submissions but does not track oral inquiries. OCA provided the following caseload information on written submissions and DCF consultations for calendar year 2000: OCA received 113 new submissions during calendar year 2000 and carried over 21 submissions from 1999 for a total caseload of 134 written submissions for calendar year 2000. Of the 134 cases, OCA reported that it closed 116 cases, leaving 18 cases that were carried over to calendar year 2001. Approximately 38 percent of the 113 written submissions received by OCA came from DCF. The registrants and their auditors submitted the remaining 62 percent of the cases to OCA. According to OCA, the written submissions it receives involve issues that are complex and involve significant judgment. Examples of the type of accounting issues frequently reviewed include business combination issues, such as the application of the pooling versus purchase methods of accounting and complex issues surrounding revenue recognition and financial instruments. OCA’s position on these accounting issues can have a significant impact on a company’s reported earnings and financial condition and a correspondingly large impact on the stock value of a company. The following represents the breakdown by type of the 113 submissions received by OCA during calendar year 2000: business combinations (29), revenue recognition (25), financial instruments (19), capital accounts (11), consolidations and equity method (9), stock compensation (4), auditor’s independence (2), deferred income taxes (3), foreign reporting issues (2), financial statement presentation (3), and asset impairment, accounting changes, leasing, earnings per share, contingencies, and interest capitalization (1 each). Because of concerns regarding the communications between auditors and the SEC, the AICPA issued a “best practices” guide in 1996 for member firms’ communications with SEC staff in order to promote effective, efficient communications among SEC staff, registrants, and their auditors. The AICPA provided this document to the SEC, which in turn issued its Protocols for Registrant Submissions to the Office of Chief Accountant in December 1999. The SEC protocols are available to the public on the SEC’s Web site and the AICPA’s Web site; they set out the formal procedures for registrants’ inquiries to the SEC on accounting matters. The protocols cover the following: oral and no-name inquiries, written submissions from registrants on prefiling accounting issues, meetings with SEC staff, and correspondence with SEC staff regarding registrants’ understanding of the staff’s position on an accounting issue. The SEC’s protocols cover the process for submitting accounting issues to OCA for review, conducting meetings with the SEC, and closing out issues with the SEC. The protocols do not include information about the internal process that SEC uses for its review and decision-making on registrant accounting matters. The protocols also do not provide information on the SEC’s procedures for dealing with issues on filings in which DCF consults with OCA on accounting issues. In December 1999, OCA began to document its internal procedures for its review of registrants’ accounting matters and its procedures for dealing with issues on filings in which DCF consults with OCA on accounting issues. Completed in August 2000, these written internal procedures include key steps and controls in the SEC’s process for dealing with registrants’ accounting issues. These internal procedures have not been made available to registrants or the accounting profession. The following are OCA’s key steps and controls as described in the protocols and SEC’s current internal procedures. OCA requires registrants to submit standard, comprehensive information for written submissions so that OCA can fully understand the issues. The required information is listed in the protocols, and includes the following: a clear description of the accounting, financial reporting, or auditing all facts that may influence a decision as to the proper accounting treatment for the transaction; the accounting treatment proposed by the registrant and the basis for that conclusion, including an analysis of all the relevant accounting literature, as well as all alternatives considered and rejected; and a statement regarding the conclusion of the registrant’s auditor on the proposed accounting treatment. Upon resolution of an issue, the SEC protocols state that the registrant should prepare and send a letter to the SEC describing the registrant’s understanding of the SEC staff’s position. OCA maintains teams of experts specializing in specific accounting issues, and individual issues are referred to the appropriate team of experts. OCA’s teams of experts are to follow various prescribed steps for resolving each issue, which can include researching the accounting literature, researching the disposition of prior cases, and consulting with internal and external subject matter experts, including representatives from FASB and representatives from the “Big 5” accounting firms.If a majority of the team dealing with an issue disagrees with the registrant’s proposed accounting treatment, the decision is to be discussed with the team leader and a Deputy Chief Accountant and/or the Chief Accountant before communicating with the registrant. All issues that are not clearly answered by the accounting literature or staff precedents or are unusual, novel, or controversial are to be discussed with a Deputy Chief Accountant. A Deputy Chief Accountant discusses issues with the Chief Accountant where deemed appropriate. The Chief Accountant is to be notified if previous SEC staff positions are being reversed or if a registrant would be required to restate its financial statements. In such situations, the SEC staff must first obtain the approval of a Deputy Chief Accountant, and then must discuss the case with the Chief Accountant before notifying the registrant of its decision. The Chief Accountant may overturn the decision of the SEC staff if he becomes convinced that it is the best course of action. Whenever a team leader discusses the resolution of a matter with a registrant or the registrant’s auditor, at least one other team member is required to be present. Once a decision is reached, the SEC is to document the decision in a memorandum for its files. The memorandum is to include relevant background information and facts of the case, the question raised, and alternate accounting treatment(s) that were considered but not accepted. A registrant may appeal the staff’s position to a Deputy Chief Accountant, the Chief Accountant, or the Commission. The representatives from SEC registrants and the accounting profession with whom we spoke with said they had a range of experiences, both positive and negative, with the SEC’s handling of accounting issues. Some of the representatives we spoke with expressed common concerns regarding the SEC’s process for deciding on accounting issues. Specifically, we were told that the SEC’s process for handling accounting issues and the basis for the SEC’s position is not always apparent to the registrants and their auditors, and representatives cited the need for additional transparency in the SEC’s internal processes. In addition, the representatives we spoke with expressed concern about the difficulty in tracking the variety of sources used by the SEC in determining acceptable accounting and financial reporting. According to these representatives, many of the sources used by the SEC are in addition to, and outside of, the private sector standard-setting process. Representatives and members of the SEC registrant and accounting profession we spoke with did not identify any specific problems with the SEC protocols issued in 1999. The protocols deal with the process to be followed when submitting accounting issues or questions to the SEC. However, the representatives expressed concern that OCA’s process for handling the issues is not clear, and registrants and their auditors are often unsure of how the SEC reached its decisions and on what basis. Representatives suggested that additional transparency regarding the SEC’s process would help them to understand how issues are being handled and resolved by OCA. Representatives of registrants and the accounting profession expressed a need for additional information regarding the following: general status information, including time estimates for resolving issues and status of the review; how accounting issues are assigned to SEC staff members; how OCA consults with standard-setting bodies and other large accounting firms, including how OCA ensures that information presented in these consultations is unbiased and how the results of consultations are used in resolving issues; the SEC’s approval processes for determining whether registrant restatements are necessary; how OCA coordinates with DCF, including how OCA and DCF minimize duplication of information requested from the registrants and auditors; and OCA’s final position on accounting issues. The representatives we spoke with also stated that registrants and auditors who have only occasional dealings with OCA would especially benefit from additional transparency regarding SEC’s procedures for deciding on registrant-specific accounting issues. The representatives said that large corporations and their auditors who are involved in frequent SEC registration filings have over time established effective working relationships with SEC staff and can often obtain information on SEC procedures through their frequent dealings with the SEC. The representatives also said that other registrants and auditors who have not developed ongoing working relationships with the SEC have greater difficulties working through the process, and additional information about OCA’s process would be beneficial. Also, many registrants said they believe that because they do not understand OCA’s process, they must rely too heavily on their external auditors, even though the application of accounting methods is ultimately the registrants’ responsibility. There is the perception that only the major accounting firms are aware of OCA’s process and that it is almost mandatory to have these accounting firms lead the effort for them. While registrants would want to consult with and have the support of external auditors, registrants said that if they better understood OCA’s processes, they might be able to take the lead in the process without having to rely so heavily on their external auditors. In addition, many of the representatives from the AICPA, who have considerable experience in dealing with OCA, expressed uncertainty about OCA’s process and said they saw a need for additional information. Representatives said that they are reluctant to appeal OCA’s staff decisions to the Chief Accountant, Deputy Chief Accountant, or the Commission for three reasons. First, registrants have the impression that the SEC staff’s supervisors have reviewed the matters prior to communicating with registrants and their auditors, and are in support of the staff’s positions. Second, registrants have the perception that, in the appeal process, the SEC may open other accounting issues. Finally, the appeal process also adds to the registrants’ time and cost. Representatives estimated that it can cost from $25,000 to $100,000 for legal and accounting fees to bring an issue to OCA, and appeals would add to this cost. Representatives told us that only a few decisions have been appealed and that the SEC’s initial decisions were not changed through the appeal process. OCA representatives referred to OCA’s written procedures for internal processing in response to the concerns of registrants and their auditors. OCA officials stated that they would consider making public some information regarding their internal procedures for handling registrants’ matters, as well as explanations of the key steps and communications that should occur between the SEC and the registrants throughout the process. At the same time, SEC officials also stated that certain information relating to the staff’s internal policies requested by the registrants and their auditors would not be provided. OCA officials provided the following responses to the specific issues raised by the representatives of the registrants and the accounting profession whom we spoke with in preparing this report. OCA officials stated it would be difficult to provide registrants with an estimate of how long it will take to review and rule on issues because this process is not completely within the SEC’s control. The SEC staff often will request additional information from the registrant after receiving an initial written submission. However, registrants do not always respond to these requests for additional information promptly or the registrants’ circumstances may change, thereby changing the scope of the issues. Because the SEC’s process depends to a certain extent on the nature and timing of responses from the registrants, SEC officials stated that they would be unable to provide definitive time estimates for handling written submissions. The SEC did, however, state that often a sense of urgency or a specific deadline exists with regard to resolving an accounting issue, due to a pending transaction. In those cases, SEC officials said the SEC staff and the registrants work very closely and interactively to resolve the issue based on the timing needs of the registrants. Accounting issues are assigned to OCA professional staff members who work in teams in specialized areas. Under OCA procedures, assigned OCA staff generally calls the registrant within 3 days of receiving the issue with follow-up questions or to schedule a conference call involving the registrant and its auditors. Through this communication, the registrant also becomes aware of the specific SEC staff members assigned to its case, and OCA is able to determine whether the registrant has certain timing needs for resolving the issue. Also, the SEC provides a list of staff names by specialized work area at the annual conference sponsored by the AICPA SEC Regulations Committee. In researching a specific accounting issue, OCA staff members sometimes consult with standard-setting bodies and the other accounting firms. OCA staff members may prepare a “white paper” detailing the facts of the case. The paper generally summarizes the issue and basic facts that are specific to the registrant and poses the one, key accounting question relevant to the case. The paper does not identify the registrant. An OCA official responded that the registrants and their auditors might be concerned that the facts presented to the standard-setting bodies may be biased by the staff members. However, OCA representatives emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Chief Accountant and a Deputy Chief Accountant to ensure that the issues and facts are fairly presented and that OCA does not advocate a certain position. The SEC’s internal procedures require that the Chief Accountant be notified if a registrant will be required to restate its financial statements. In such situations, the SEC staff must first obtain the approval of a Deputy Chief Accountant and then must discuss the case with the Chief Accountant before notifying the registrant of its decision. The Chief Accountant may overturn the decision of the SEC staff if he becomes convinced that it is the best course of action. In reviewing registrants’ filings, DCF sometimes requests assistance or consultation services from OCA to resolve difficult accounting issues. Some of DCF’s inquiries of OCA are oral and, if the questions are easily resolved, do not involve further interaction with the registrant. According to SEC officials, in cases in which additional information is needed from the registrant, both the DCF staff member reviewing the filing and an OCA staff member are present when the registrant is called for additional information. This internal procedure helps to ensure continuity and prevents or minimizes any duplication of information requests between DCF and OCA. Depending on the issues, OCA staff may also have further follow-up questions on previously submitted information from the registrant if it was unclear. After OCA staff members complete their review, OCA provides an oral response to the registrant along with an explanation of the basis for OCA’s position and then documents its decision in a memorandum for its files. The SEC asks the registrant to provide a letter documenting the registrant’s understanding of OCA’s position. This procedure is set forth in the SEC’s protocols and is intended to ensure that the registrant clearly understands OCA’s position and the basis for its decisions. However, registrants do not always respond to OCA’s request, especially when they disagree with SEC decisions. Although the SEC does not provide written responses to registrants’ issues, it issues its staff accounting bulletins as a way to communicate broad issues to the registrant community. Representatives of the registrants and the accounting profession expressed concerns that the SEC is using a variety of sources in addition to the authoritative standards and interpretations issued by the private sector standard-setting bodies as criteria for making decisions on accounting issues. Representatives expressed concern about the variety of SEC interpretive guidance, which they believe is being used by the SEC in its decisions on accounting issues. Many of the representatives we spoke with stated that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of the variety of guidance being issued and used by the SEC, especially for the smaller accounting firms with limited resources. The representatives we spoke with cited the following guidance being used by the SEC as criteria: SEC Financial Reporting Releases; SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases; SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins; SEC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents; SEC announcements at EITF meetings (such SEC announcements become part of public record, and some believe that this is setting new rules through the announcement process); DCF Outline of Current Issues and Rulemaking Projects, which contain pending rulemaking, recent rule adoptions, current disclosure issues on mergers and acquisitions, significant no-action and interpretive letters, and accounting issues; speeches by SEC staff members and commissioners; letters to the AICPA, EITF, and others to express SEC staff positions, including interpretations of other SEC formal interpretive guidance; highlights of joint meetings of SEC staff and AICPA SEC Regulations Committee and International Practices Task Force; and comment letters—for example, SEC staff positions are sometimes identified only as comments arise, and the SEC staff position is applied for the first time in a registrant review environment. Registrants told us that rulemaking is coming from various places—the SEC, FASB, and EITF. The registrants want to know what is expected for fair presentation and disclosure so that they can comply. However, they said that the criteria being used by SEC are sometimes unclear, even to their auditors. The members of the accounting profession we spoke with said that they assist their clients in determining what is acceptable reporting under GAAP, but they too are often uncertain as to what the SEC’s position will be in the matter. Consequently, they often bring such issues to the SEC, not for the purpose of inquiring what is acceptable under GAAP, but for the purpose of determining whether their application of the accounting standards will be acceptable to the SEC. Representatives of the registrants and the accounting profession express concerns that the SEC staff is using sources other than standards and guidance that have been through due process for determining what is acceptable financial reporting. They believe that the SEC staff defines acceptable accounting and reporting requirements through its interpretive guidance, without going through a formal due process under rulemaking. Due process provides a public forum for affected parties to comment on the impact of new standards or rules on particular industries and businesses. Registrants and external auditor representatives expressed concern that this process has resulted in the SEC staff setting GAAP as criteria for determining what is acceptable accounting and financial reporting for purposes of registrants’ filings. As stated in the background section of this report, the SEC has specific authority to establish rules governing the financial reports of public companies and to ensure fair financial reporting. OCA officials provided the following responses to the specific issues raised by the representatives of the registrants and the accounting profession whom we spoke with in preparing this report. OCA officials acknowledged that, in its review of accounting and disclosure issues, the SEC staff uses a variety of sources, including SEC Financial Reporting Releases, SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases, SEC Regulation S-X, Staff Accounting Bulletins, answers to FAQs, speeches, and letters. As stated in the AICPA’s Statement on Auditing Standards, No. 69, The Meaning of “Present Fairly in Conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the Independent Auditor’s Report”, the SEC’s rules and interpretive releases have an authority similar to pronouncements of FASB for SEC registrants. SEC rules, communicated through issuance of SEC Financial Reporting Releases, are approved through the Commission. Staff Accounting Bulletins, answers to FAQs, speeches, and letters are staff positions that act as interpretations of existing GAAP. Most registrants and their auditors have found them to be useful sources in their filings to the SEC. OCA officials stated that SEC has made these materials readily available. Commercial publishers, such as Commerce Clearing House, Inc., publish a loose-leaf document covering federal securities laws that contain the Codification of Financial Reporting and Policies, Regulation S-X, and the Staff Accounting Bulletins. The SEC’s rules and releases are included in the Code of Federal Regulations by topic index and are published weekly in the SEC Docket. In addition, the Staff Accounting Bulletins, answers to FAQs, speeches, and letters are posted on the SEC’s Web site. The SEC officials also stated that the SEC began posting speeches and letters on its Web site after members of the accounting profession requested that they be published to aid the registrants and their auditors in understanding the SEC’s positions for administering SEC disclosure requirements. With regard to the concern from the registrants that the SEC is using interpretive guidance, such as Staff Accounting Bulletins, to set GAAP without due process, the SEC officials stated that Staff Accounting Bulletins are interpretive guidance and do not represent new GAAP. SEC staff, through speeches, describes new fact patterns appearing in industry and provides guidance for handling these new types of cases under existing GAAP. Also, the SEC published answers to FAQs as a guide to registrants and their auditors in submitting filings to the SEC. The Staff Accounting Bulletins and speeches can be tied back to existing accounting literature and are meant to be communicated to everyone. If an issue is unclear, OCA will send the issue to EITF for resolution. The SEC officials believe that, since the interpretive guidance is not new GAAP, it is not subject to due process. “While one would expect occasional tensions, the current relationship between the profession and the SEC seems under unusual stress. The Panel views this situation as counterproductive to continued improvement in financial reporting, which is a shared goal of both the profession and the SEC. The Panel believes that this important relationship must be restored to its historic level of candor, trust, and respect.” Many of the comments we heard from the registrants’ representatives, representatives from the accounting profession, and SEC officials over the course of our work are consistent with the conclusions of the Panel on Audit Effectiveness regarding the stressed relationships between the registrants, their auditors, and the SEC. In fact, representatives from the accounting profession and registrants stated that they believe that tensions between registrants, the accounting profession, and the SEC have been higher during the past few years than during any recent period. An OCA official stated that the relationship between the industry and the SEC has ebbed and flowed throughout the years depending on economic and business events and the related issues with the Commission. He stated that tension should exist between the SEC and the companies it regulates, but it is a “constructive tension,” which has evolved and has made the U.S. markets work well. He also stated that FEI has been conducting a study on the quality of financial reporting. In this study, there have been a large number of restatements in recent years, some were a result of the SEC’s actions, but most were from registrants, and auditors’ actions. He stated that the impact of financial reporting is greater today than ever before. An effective working relationship between the registrants, the accounting profession, and the SEC is important for ensuring that investors are protected and that the integrity of the securities market is maintained. This working relationship would benefit from increased transparency of OCA procedures in resolving accounting matters, especially for those registrants and auditors who have infrequent dealings with OCA. Due to the common concerns expressed by representatives of registrants and the accounting profession and SEC’s recognition that additional information would be beneficial, we recommend that the Chairman of the SEC direct the Chief Accountant to implement procedures to improve the availability of information to registrants regarding OCA’s process for deciding on accounting issues. Such procedures would include expanding the protocols or issuing additional public information to explain the SEC’s current policies and procedures for handling registrant’s matters, including general communications to registrants and auditors about the status of the assignment of accounting issues to SEC staff members, how the SEC conducts its consultations with other accounting firms and FASB, and how the results of such consultations are considered in its decisions, the SEC’s approval process for determining when registrant restatements are necessary, coordination between DCF and OCA, and when decisions are considered to be final. We found differences in views between SEC officials and representatives of the registrants and accounting profession regarding the accessibility of the variety of SEC rules and interpretive guidance, and methods of communicating OCA’s positions on accounting issues. Therefore, we recommend that the Chairman of the SEC direct the Chief Accountant to meet with representatives from the accounting profession and registrants to determine how best to disseminate information on rules and interpretive guidance and meet with representatives from the accounting profession and registrants to determine how the SEC could provide additional written information on the reasons for its decisions, especially when they involve complex and unusual accounting issues. We requested comments from the SEC, the AICPA, and FEI. We received written comments from SEC’s Chief Accountant on behalf of the SEC’s OCA, and the Chair of the AICPA SEC Practice Section on behalf of the AICPA’s SEC Practice Section and the AICPA’s SEC Regulations Committee. FEI advised us that they did not have official comments on this report. The SEC’s and the AICPA’s written comments are discussed below and reprinted in appendixes I and II, respectively. We also received technical comments from both the SEC and the AICPA that we incorporated throughout this report as appropriate. The SEC’s Chief Accountant, commenting on behalf of the SEC’s OCA expressed appreciation for the constructive nature of our recommendations and stated that actions are being planned by the SEC to implement our recommendations. Regarding our recommendation to improve the availability of information to registrants about the OCA’s processes for decisions on accounting issues, OCA plans to publish its internal procedures, with minor modifications. In addition, the OCA plans to publish an article, which will describe how accounting issues typically flow through the SEC’s OCA. Regarding our recommendations that OCA meet with representatives of the registrants and accounting profession to determine (1) how best to disseminate information on rules and interpretive guidance and (2) how the SEC could provide additional written information on the reasons for its decisions, the SEC agreed that discussions would be helpful and appropriate. OCA anticipates either adding these issues to the periodic meetings with the AICPA’s SEC Regulations Committee and other appropriate committees, or convening a special meeting to discuss these two issues. The SEC’s OCA also provided additional details on planned modifications to its internal procedures for decisions on accounting matters, and its outreach programs that inform the public of OCA’s decisions and positions on accounting issues. In its comments, the SEC’s OCA also provided information on the size of OCA’s staff and the scope of its workload. These additional details can be found in OCA’s written comments, which have been reprinted in appendix I. In its written comments, the AICPA noted the critical role SEC plays to individual investors who place their trust in the capital markets. The AICPA also recognized that the SEC staff executes its critical mission under difficult and challenging circumstances, including pressures that result from market timing and limited resources. The AICPA stated that if our recommendations were properly implemented, they could provide an opportunity to promote improved transparency of the SEC processes and communications among registrants, the accounting profession, and the SEC. Related to our recommendations, the AICPA provided additional suggestions for specific discussion topics regarding the SEC’s communications with registrants about its procedures and its process. The AICPA’s suggestions deal with the following areas: the SEC’s “white papers” used in its consultation process; timing of SEC responses; the SEC’s referrals of matters to the standard-setting bodies; the SEC’s approving official for restatements; and codification of SEC staff positions. We believe that discussions between the SEC and the accounting profession on the above issues would be constructive as part of the meetings between the SEC, registrants, and the accounting profession. Additional details can be found in AICPA’s written comments, which have been reprinted in appendix II. We are also sending copies of this report to the Acting Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Director of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Professional Standards and Services, and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Financial Executives International. If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-2600 or Jeanette Franzel, Acting Director, at (202) 512-9471 or contact her via e-mail at [email protected]. Key contributors to this report were Darryl Chang, Charles Ego, Peggy Smith, and Meg Mills. 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 also accepted. 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) Washington, DC 20013 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) | This report reviews the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) resolution of accounting issues submitted by companies that have or are contemplating publicly traded securities. Companies are required by law to register their securities with SEC by filing a registration statement. This statement must contain financial and other information on the securities and the issuer. SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant (OCA) is responsible for providing guidance to companies to ensure that they comply with the reporting requirements of the law. Generally, registrants submit issues to OCA for which there is no authoritative guidance. These issues tend to involve unusual, complex, or innovative transactions. Some of the accounting issues frequently reviewed include business mergers and issues surrounding revenue recognition and financial instruments. Representatives of registrants and the accounting profession have had both positive and negative experiences with SEC's handling of accounting issues. Several representatives expressed concerns over the transparency of SEC's decision making process and SEC's use of accounting sources outside of generally accepted accounting procedures. |
Paris (CNN) A shaken father told reporters Wednesday that he never knew his son had returned to France after a stint in Syria.
If he'd found out, Said Mohamed-Aggad said he wouldn't have let his son join the ranks of attackers who unleashed carnage at the Bataclan theater in Paris last month
French security forces move people in the area of Rue Bichat in the 10th District. A witness told BFMTV that firefighters were on the scene to treat the injured.
French security forces move people in the area of Rue Bichat in the 10th District. A witness told BFMTV that firefighters were on the scene to treat the injured.
Rescue workers and medics tend to victims at the scene of one of the shootings, a restaurant in the 10th District. Attackers reportedly used AK-47 automatic weapons in separate attacks across Paris, and there were explosions at the Stade de France.
Rescue workers and medics tend to victims at the scene of one of the shootings, a restaurant in the 10th District. Attackers reportedly used AK-47 automatic weapons in separate attacks across Paris, and there were explosions at the Stade de France.
Victims lay on the pavement outside a Paris restaurant.
Victims lay on the pavement outside a Paris restaurant.
People leave the Stade de France after explosions were heard near the stadium during a soccer match between France and Germany on Friday. Paris Deputy Mayor Patrick Klugman told CNN President Francois Hollande was at the match and was evacuated at halftime.
People leave the Stade de France after explosions were heard near the stadium during a soccer match between France and Germany on Friday. Paris Deputy Mayor Patrick Klugman told CNN President Francois Hollande was at the match and was evacuated at halftime.
French security forces rush in as people are evacuated in the area of Rue Bichat in the 10th District of Paris.
French security forces rush in as people are evacuated in the area of Rue Bichat in the 10th District of Paris.
Spectators gather on the field of the Stade de France after the attacks. Explosions were heard during the soccer match between France and Germany.
Spectators gather on the field of the Stade de France after the attacks. Explosions were heard during the soccer match between France and Germany.
A wounded man is evacuated from the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, outside Paris.
A wounded man is evacuated from the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, outside Paris.
Police secure the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, north of Paris, following explosions during the soccer match between France and Germany.
Police secure the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, north of Paris, following explosions during the soccer match between France and Germany.
Wounded people are evacuated outside the Bataclan concert hall.
Wounded people are evacuated outside the Bataclan concert hall.
A riot police officer stands by an ambulance near the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris.
A riot police officer stands by an ambulance near the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris.
A woman walks past police and firefighters in the Oberkampf area of Paris.
A woman walks past police and firefighters in the Oberkampf area of Paris.
A medic tends to a wounded man following the attacks near the Boulevard des Filles du Calvaire.
A medic tends to a wounded man following the attacks near the Boulevard des Filles du Calvaire.
Wounded people are evacuated outside the scene of a hostage situation at the Bataclan theater in Paris on November 13.
Wounded people are evacuated outside the scene of a hostage situation at the Bataclan theater in Paris on November 13.
Rescuers evacuate an injured person on Boulevard des Filles du Calvaire, close to the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris.
Rescuers evacuate an injured person on Boulevard des Filles du Calvaire, close to the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris.
A body, covered by a sheet, is seen on the sidewalk outside the Bataclan theater.
A body, covered by a sheet, is seen on the sidewalk outside the Bataclan theater.
Spectators embrace each other as they stand on the playing field of the Stade de France stadium at the end of a soccer match between France and Germany in Saint-Denis, outside Paris, on November 13.
Spectators embrace each other as they stand on the playing field of the Stade de France stadium at the end of a soccer match between France and Germany in Saint-Denis, outside Paris, on November 13.
Spectators invade the pitch of the Stade de France stadium after the international friendly soccer match between France and Germany in Saint-Denis.
Spectators invade the pitch of the Stade de France stadium after the international friendly soccer match between France and Germany in Saint-Denis.
A survivor of the terrorist attack in the Bataclan is assisted following terror attacks, November 13. The violence at the Bataclan, which involved a hostage-taking, resulted in the highest number of casualties of all the attacks.
A survivor of the terrorist attack in the Bataclan is assisted following terror attacks, November 13. The violence at the Bataclan, which involved a hostage-taking, resulted in the highest number of casualties of all the attacks.
Rescuers evacuate an injured person near the Stade de France, one of several sites of attacks November 13 in Paris. Thousands of fans were watching a soccer match between France and Germany when the attacks occurred.
Rescuers evacuate an injured person near the Stade de France, one of several sites of attacks November 13 in Paris. Thousands of fans were watching a soccer match between France and Germany when the attacks occurred.
Forensics are working in the street of Paris after the terrorist attack on Friday, November 13. The words "horror," "massacre" and "war" peppered the front pages of the country's newspapers, conveying the shell-shocked mood.
Forensics are working in the street of Paris after the terrorist attack on Friday, November 13. The words "horror," "massacre" and "war" peppered the front pages of the country's newspapers, conveying the shell-shocked mood.
A woman is evacuated from the Bataclan theater early on November 14.
A woman is evacuated from the Bataclan theater early on November 14.
Victims of the shooting at the Bataclan concert venue in central Paris are evacuated to receive medical treatment on November 14.
Victims of the shooting at the Bataclan concert venue in central Paris are evacuated to receive medical treatment on November 14.
Police officers patrol the area around Notre Dame cathedral in Paris on November 14.
Police officers patrol the area around Notre Dame cathedral in Paris on November 14.
A man with blood on his shirt talks on the phone on November 14. He is next to the Bataclan theater, where gunmen shot concertgoers and held hostages until police raided the building.
A man with blood on his shirt talks on the phone on November 14. He is next to the Bataclan theater, where gunmen shot concertgoers and held hostages until police raided the building.
Police, firefighters and rescue workers secure the area near the Bataclan concert hall on November 14.
Police, firefighters and rescue workers secure the area near the Bataclan concert hall on November 14.
Medics evacuate an injured woman on Boulevard des Filles du Calvaire near the Bataclan early on November 14.
Medics evacuate an injured woman on Boulevard des Filles du Calvaire near the Bataclan early on November 14.
Security forces evacuate people on Rue Oberkampf near the Bataclan concert hall early on November 14.
Security forces evacuate people on Rue Oberkampf near the Bataclan concert hall early on November 14.
Shoes and a bloody shirt lie outside the Bataclan concert hall on November 14. Most of the fatalities occurred at the Bataclan in central Paris.
Shoes and a bloody shirt lie outside the Bataclan concert hall on November 14. Most of the fatalities occurred at the Bataclan in central Paris.
Forensic police search for evidence inside the Comptoir Voltaire cafe after the attacks.
Forensic police search for evidence inside the Comptoir Voltaire cafe after the attacks.
Police are out in force November 14 near La Belle Equipe, one of the sites of the terror attacks.
Police are out in force November 14 near La Belle Equipe, one of the sites of the terror attacks.
A forensic scientist works near a Paris cafe on Saturday, November 14, following a series of coordinated attacks in Paris the night before that killed scores of people. ISIS has claimed responsibility.
A forensic scientist works near a Paris cafe on Saturday, November 14, following a series of coordinated attacks in Paris the night before that killed scores of people. ISIS has claimed responsibility.
"I would have killed him beforehand," he said in an interview with French media that aired on CNN affiliate BFMTV
Instead, Foued Mohamed-Aggad, a 23-year-old from eastern France who traveled to Syria two years ago, blew himself up.
His name was first reported Wednesday by CNN affiliates BFMTV and France 2, who described him as the third gunman who stormed the Eagles of Death Metal concert as part of a series of shootings and explosions in Paris on November 13. The attackers sprayed gunfire and slaughtered people inside the concert hall for 20 horrific minutes. Ninety people were killed.
From Strasbourg to Syria
Foued Mohamed-Aggad was from a small town near Strasbourg, BFMTV and France 2 reported. He went to Syria in 2013, the stations said.
BFM also said Mohamed-Aggad was close to Mourad Fares, one of the main jihadist recruiters in France.
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls confirmed "the name being circulated" was correct.
Mohamed-Aggad was known to French anti-terrorism services and had a police record in Strasbourg, France 2 reported.
His father told reporters that his son, who was born and grew up in France, had been brainwashed and become another person.
A single white rose
In all, the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13 killed 130 people and wounded more than 350.
A radio reporter who attended the Bataclan concert described the attackers there as calm and determined, telling CNN they reloaded their weapons three or four times.
Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 1 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 2 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 3 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 4 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 5 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 6 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 7 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 8 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 9 of 10 Photos: Paris attack suspects: What we know Hide Caption 10 of 10
President Barack Obama paid a midnight tribute to the victims last week, laying a single white rose at the Bataclan.
Besides Mohamed-Aggad, the other attackers at the theater had also traveled to war zones in the Middle East. They were Samy Amimour, a 28-year-old from Paris who fought in Yemen, and Omar Ismail Mostefai, a 29-year-old from Courcouronnes, a Paris suburb, who traveled to Syria in 2013.
"We ask ourselves the question every day: What happened, why?" Amimour's sister, Anna, told CNN's Hala Gorani late last month. "He was in the same womb as me. We grew up together, so how did our paths end up so far apart?" ||||| Image copyright AFP Image caption Foued Mohamed-Aggad is believed to have travelled to Syria in late 2013
Police in France say they have identified another of the men who killed 130 people in attacks in Paris last month.
Reports in French media have named him as Foued Mohamed-Aggad, 23. He was one of three gunmen who attacked the Bataclan concert venue, killing 90.
All three attackers, who were wearing suicide vests, died.
A lawyer for Mohamed-Aggad's mother said she received a text message from Syria last week saying her son had died in the attack. DNA tests on remains found at the Bataclan and on Mohamed-Aggad's relatives were a match.
In the past few hours, a picture has emerged of who Mohamed-Aggad was, and how he found himself acting on behalf of the so-called Islamic State (IS).
Who was Aggad?
Raised in Wissembourg, a town of almost 8,000 people near the eastern French city of Strasbourg, Mohamed-Aggad was one of four children - two sisters and a brother, Karim, 25, who, like Foued, travelled to Syria.
His father, Said, and mother, who was originally from Morocco, separated in 2007, according to Le Parisien.
The France 2 network says he was known to police in Strasbourg, but only for petty crimes. None of the reports on Mohamed-Aggad's background indicate that he held a job before leaving for Syria.
Journey to Syria
A number of reports say Mohamed-Aggad left for Syria as part of larger group from a district of Strasbourg, La Meinau.
One report last year said the area was once known as a no-go area, but had improved in recent years. Despite this, the youth unemployment rate in La Meinau is close to 30%.
Le Monde reports that he regularly met friends at a shisha bar in Kehl, a small town across the German border from Strasbourg. It was there, the newspaper says, that the group of 10, including Karim, plotted their journey to Syria.
Their journey was reportedly facilitated by an alleged French jihadist recruiter, Mourad Fares, who was later arrested in Turkey in 2014.
His journey did not quite go to plan, Le Monde says, as Mohamed-Aggad missed his flight in December 2013, leaving others waiting for him in Turkey.
France Info claims he told his family he was going on holiday to Dubai. Members of the group later told investigators they went to take part in a humanitarian mission, not to fight for IS.
Inside Syria
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Raids were held in La Meinau after members of Mohamed-Aggad's group returned to France
After entering Syria, the group travelled to Aleppo, then to the de-facto IS capital, Raqqa, before moving further east, Le Monde reports.
French media say two of the Strasbourg group, brothers Mourad and Yassine Boudjellal, were killed at a checkpoint early last year.
In the following months, every other member of the group apart from Foued returned to Europe - and were all arrested. Police were seen raiding flats throughout La Meinau. Those arrested are awaiting trial, including Karim Mohamed-Aggad.
By this point, France 2 says, Foued was on the radar of the French security services, and, according to the Dernieres Nouvelles d'Alsace newspaper, was also subject to an Interpol arrest warrant.
There are reports he had a wife in Syria, but it is not known if he was married while in the country, or whether his wife followed him there.
Beyond Syria
It is not clear when, or how, Mohamed-Aggad returned to France. He went out of his way to hide his location when in contact with his parents.
His father's last contact with him was via webcam in the summer. "As per usual, he didn't say anything about what he was doing, where he was," Said Mohamed-Aggad told Le Parisien.
"He would just say 'It's OK, it's OK' and spoke a lot about jihad."
His mother sent him money in the hope it would help him leave the war, Le Parisien says.
"What kind of human being would do what he did?" his father told reporters on Wednesday. "If I had known he would have done something like that, I would have killed him beforehand." ||||| Here's the latest for Friday, January 15th: One of three Powerball winners announced; Search for survivors underway after Marine Corps helicopters crash; A 'dozen' probed in live anthrax samples shipment; Site of Salem Witch Trials hanging confirmed.
Hundreds of students gather in Des Moines for a weekend of campaigning and political dialogue.
The U.S. Department of Defense released a video showing a coalition airstrike destroying an Islamic State group cash and finance distribution center near Mosul, Iraq on January 11. (Jan. 15)
Michael Bay says his new action movie '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" is a bipartisan, inspirational human story. (January 15)
Gov. Maggie Hassan joins dozens of Republican governors calling for the federal government to stop accepting thousands of Syrian refugees until the process can be reviewed.
President Obama was forced to acknowledge stark reality of war despite making previous link; Kevin Corke reports on 'Special Report'
National Security is expected to be a major topic at tonight’s Democratic presidential candidate debate in Des Moines, Iowa in the wake of the deadly attacks in Paris. CBS will be broadcasting the debate. Major Garrett reports with a look ahead from Des Moines.
The intelligence community says new encryption technologies may have helped the Paris attackers hide their plans. Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks are being blamed for revealing government surveillance methods that could help terrorists avoid detection. Jeff Pegues reports.
Will the attacks by terrorists affect tourism in Paris and the rest of France?
The third gunman involved in the attack on Paris's Bataclan concert hall, 23 year old Foued Mohamed-Aggad, had travelled to Syria with a group of friends from Strasbourg, and had been on the radar of French security services as a potential extremist.
Paris (AFP) - A third gunman involved in last month's massacre at a Paris concert hall was identified Wednesday as a Frenchman who had visited Syria, with his father saying he "would have killed him" if he had known his plans.
Foued Mohamed-Aggad, 23, blew himself up in the bloodiest of the attacks on the French capital -- at the Bataclan concert venue, where 90 young music lovers were killed.
"I would have killed him myself beforehand," his father, Said Mohamed-Aggad, told AFP after French Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced the name of the assailant.
"I have no words, I only found out this morning," he said.
The gunman's mother went to the police after receiving a text message from Syria at the end of last month, her lawyer Francoise Cotta told AFP.
"Your son died a martyr with his brothers on November 13," read the message, apparently sent by Foued's wife in Syria.
View gallery Foued Mohamed Aggad has been identified as the third bomber involved in the attacks at Paris's B …
The two other Bataclan attackers -- Omar Ismail Mostefai, 29, and former Paris bus driver Samy Amimour, 28 -- were also French-born and had been to Syria.
Mohamed-Aggad's brother, Karim, went to Syria with him in 2013 but returned to France in May "because he couldn't take it there," the lawyer said. He is currently in prison awaiting trial on terror charges.
By contrast, Foued told his mother he was "married and very happy and had just had a child".
"For him there was no question of coming back to France. He said he wanted to die as a suicide bomber in Iraq. The family had not heard from him since August," said Cotta.
After getting the text message, his mother was "terror-struck by the idea that he could have been one of the suicide attackers at the Bataclan" so she went straight to the police, the lawyer said.
View gallery Soldiers patrol at the foot of the Eiffel Tower in Paris (AFP Photo/Kenzo Tribouillard)
"If she had not helped like that, they might never have been able to identify Foued," Cotta said.
- On police radar -
Two of the Bataclan assailants, including Mohamed-Aggad, blew themselves up with suicide belts packed with explosives after the killing spree, while the third was shot dead by police who stormed the venue with hundreds of people still inside.
Mohamed-Aggad was identified at the end of last week after his DNA matched a sample offered by his mother, Cotta said.
A neighbour in the small town of Wissembourg, north of Strasbourg, told AFP that Mohamed-Aggad had lived with his mother -- who was estranged from his father -- until he left for Syria.
View gallery A man waves a French flag as several hundred people gather to observe a minute of silence in Lyon, F …
"He was a very nice boy, but easily influenced," his former football coach Denis Theilmann told AFP, while his friends remembered him as someone who liked to get drunk and stoned.
He had been on the radar of French security services as a potential extremist, a judicial source said, and had probably travelled to Syria on false papers.
Mohamed-Aggad was one of 10 men from his town to go to Syria. Two were killed and the rest are being held on terror charges after returning in May 2014.
His brother Karim told police he was the last of the group to "succeed in getting away" and was "worried about his brother who stayed on after his wife arrived", fearing he would be "held to account for the departure of the rest of the group".
Police suspect the Strasbourg group was recruited by Mourad Fares, a 31-year-old Frenchman considered a key online recruiter for the Islamic State (IS) group who was arrested in August 2014 in Turkey and handed over to French authorities.
View gallery A forensics team search for evidence outside an apartment building in Saint-Denis on November 18, 20 …
- 2,500 raids -
Those who returned told investigators they were horrified by what they had witnessed.
All claimed to have gone to do humanitarian work but prosecutors believe they intended to fight for IS, which claimed responsibility for the carnage in Paris.
A huge manhunt is still under way for one of the suspects in the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, a French national who has been living in Belgium and whose brother Brahim blew himself up outside a bar. Three other suspected accomplices are also still at large.
Police have carried out some 2,500 raids and placed more than 350 people under house arrest since a state of emergency was announced in the wake of last month's attacks, the interior ministry said Wednesday.
They have seized 398 weapons, including 39 "weapons of war".
Nearly 1,500 people were watching Californian band Eagles of Death Metal play at the Bataclan when the gunmen opened fire. A further 40 people were killed in a string of coordinated attacks in and around Paris on the same evening. | The father of newly identified Paris attacker Foued Mohamed-Aggad says he didn't know his son had returned to France—and if he had known what he was planning, he would have killed his own son to prevent it. "I would have killed him myself beforehand," Said Mohamed-Aggad told AFP after his son was named as one of three attackers who massacred 90 people in the Bataclan concert hall. "I have no words, I only found out this morning." The younger Mohamed-Aggad, 23, who was born and raised in France, was one of a group of men who traveled to Syria from the Strasbourg area in 2013. His father says he was brainwashed by extremists, reports CNN, which notes that the other two Bataclan attackers were also French citizens who had traveled to the Middle East. The gunman's mother went to authorities after receiving a chilling text message, apparently from Mohamed-Aggad's wife, reading: "Your son died a martyr with his brothers on November 13," her lawyer tells AFP. The lawyer says the mother went straight to police, who used her DNA to determine that her son had been among the attackers. The BBC reports that apart from two men who were killed at a checkpoint, the other men in the Strasbourg group have all returned to France and been arrested, including Mohamed-Aggad's brother, Karim. (One of the venues targeted in the attacks has opened its doors again.) |
Photo: Matt Sayles/Invision/AP
This excerpt in Caity Weaver’s GQ profile of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson makes me believe that within a few years, he’ll at least run for office, if not president:
Last June, when The Washington Post published an op-ed suggesting he could be a viable candidate, Johnson posted a screen grab and gave the idea a boost. On Instagram, he called the Post piece “interesting” and “fun to read,” adding that “the most important thing right now is strong honest leadership from our current and future leaders of this country.” Since then, Johnson tells me, he’s given the question more thought. “A year ago,” he says, “it started coming up more and more. There was a real sense of earnestness, which made me go home and think, ‘Let me really rethink my answer and make sure I am giving an answer that is truthful and also respectful.’ I didn’t want to be flippant—‘We’ll have three days off for a weekend! No taxes!’” So, after all that consideration, Johnson doesn’t hesitate when I ask him whether he honestly might one day give up his life as the highest-paid movie star on earth—which is unquestionably easier, more fun, and more lucrative than being president of the United States—in order to run for office. “I think that it’s a real possibility,” he says solemnly.
Johnson had a lot of thoughtful answers to the line of politics-related questions posed by Weaver that won’t fit in here, although this sentence sounds great: “When there’s a disagreement, and you have a large group of people that you’re in a disagreement with—for example, the media—I feel like it informs me that I could be better.” The obvious point is: Politics have changed. The bar has been lowered. Being the recipient of a Stone Cold Stunner is no longer a death knell to a political campaign. Actors running for office isn’t new, and the landscape feels more amenable than ever before to candidates running on sheer charisma.
The Rock loves the troops and leans right. He appeared at the 2000 Republican National Convention to introduce (yikes) former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. He is absurdly likable and has an excellent memory, as Weaver explained in her feature. “For Johnson, there are no strangers; there are simply best friends, and best friends he hasn’t met yet.” Actual politicians would kill for that talent—Bill Clinton had it in spades. Also, who else will the GOP have to run in 2024 aside from an absolutely hollow Paul Ryan and a printout of Mike Huckabee’s tweets?
Advertisement
The Democrats would have to counter, and on the same level. No more going high when the other side goes low. That went nowhere. How about this guy?
Last summer, pro wrestler John Cena starred in a three-minute “Love Has No Labels” PSA by the Ad Council, in which he talked about patriotism, bias, and discrimination. Surely he didn’t write it—presidents have speechwriters anyway—but he delivered it so well. Watch the full video as well as this Today Show clip from 2015 where he criticizes Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, look back at the nation’s current administration, and it’s inarguable that this guy wouldn’t get votes. Cena is eloquent, affable, strong, and a valuable source of memes, giving him an advantage with younger voters.
Advertisement
I am certainly not the first to float this idea. In March of 2016, Drew wrote about how a Cena campaign could succeed, and a few others have considered the possibility of him running against The Rock:
Assuming we give enough time for Johnson and Cena to position themselves and generate support, and assuming we’re not fighting each other with bone knives for Twinkie remnants in a barren land seven years from now, this is the best-case scenario. The potential candidates have a history. Nikki Bella could be Cena’s running mate; Johnson’s could be his latest movie co-star. One of the debates could be held during Hell in a Cell. The voter turnout would be outstanding.
I don’t endorse The Rock or John Cena for president, because who the hell knows what they believe in, and the President should be someone who actually has policies and is capable of work toward improving the country. I’m just saying that with that way the United States government has deteriorated, it’s inevitable. Politics is like sports. Politics is like wrestling. Why not take the logical next step? ||||| With his new show, “The Terms of My Surrender,” Michael Moore is taking his fight against Donald Trump to the Broadway stage. After he announced the production, he spoke with Variety about his 100 performances of resistance, how he predicts Trump’s impeachment will happen, and the Democrats’ best prospects in 2020.
Who should run in 2020?
It’s way too early to say. But if you want my general philosophical thought about this: One things the Democrats didn’t understands is that Trump is a beloved TV star. I’ve had this question now for almost 20 years — Why don’t the Democrats run Tom Hanks? Why doesn’t Oprah run? Why don’t we run someone that’s beloved by the American people? Democrats always shy away from Hollywood, and I always say to them, “Really? Because out where I live, people love Hollywood! They love the movies. They love stars.” The Republicans run Reagan, they run Schwarzenegger. Gopher from “The Love Boat” was elected to Congress in Iowa. They run Sonny Bono. Why don’t the Democrats run somebody that people love?
People have talked about Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.
Run the Rock! Run the Rock. Who do you want for commander in chief? I want the f—ing Rock! It would scare anybody that would hurt us. Think about how safe we would be if the Rock was president. Not Vin Diesel! The Rock. Or Liam Neeson, but Liam Neeson can’t run because our Constitution says you have to be born here. So who’s the American Liam Neeson that we could run? Because nobody would f— with him.
Related Michael Moore Aims to ‘Bring Down’ President Trump With Broadway Show Michael Moore on Why Donald Trump Will Build a Wall and Ban Muslims
You’ve predicted Trump will be impeached. How will it happen?
It can’t happen now, because the Republicans control the Senate. But the Republicans are going to lose a lot of seats next year in the House. Hopefully they’ll lose the House. That will send them into conniptions, and they are not going to be so loyal to Trump in the second half of his first term. But it depends on whether we can remove three Republicans from the Senate next year. We have to keep all the Democratic seats, and gain three more. Then we have the majority of the Senate. That may take ’til 2020 to do that. I was sort of joking last week when I said Trump will be impeached halfway through his second term, but unless we get busy and start running people who can win elections, that’s how long it’s gonna be.
When Trump was inaugurated, you kicked off 100 days of resistance. Now your 12-week Broadway run is almost another 100 days of resistance — 97 performances, with the Actors’ Fund show.
I’ve got 12 weeks. I’m giving Trump less. I want his engagement to be even more limited. ||||| Sweater, $1,350, by Gucci / Jeans, $550, by Tom Ford / Cap by Ambsn / Bracelet by David Yurman / Van by Starline Tours GQ Cover Story Dwayne Johnson for President! No one gets up earlier than Dwayne Johnson. Or goes to bed later. Or is more awake during the hours in between. No one in Hollywood is more buff, more driven, or gets paid better. The man has so much charisma and ambition he can do anything. Comedy, action, pretty little cartoon voices. Some people even say he could be president. GQ's Caity Weaver spent a few days with the ex-wrestler, pumping iron and pounding water (gotta stay hydrated!) and figuring out if The Rock is meant for higher office.
When Dwayne Johnson meets you (and I can assure you, he would love to), the first thing he will do is ask you six thousand questions about yourself, and remember the answers forever. If you are a child, good luck getting past Dwayne Johnson without a high five or some simulated roughhousing; if you're in a wheelchair, prepare for a Beowulf-style epic poem about your deeds and bravery, composed extemporaneously, delivered to Johnson's Instagram audience of 85 million people; if you're dead, having shuffled off your mortal coil before you even got the chance to meet Dwayne Johnson, that sucks—rest in peace knowing that Dwayne Johnson genuinely misses you. For Johnson, there are no strangers; there are simply best friends, and best friends he hasn't met yet. I've known the man for only two hours—and have been in his car now for only a few minutes, listening to the Dixie Chicks, headed to what he's luxuriously described to me as his “private gym”—and already it's apparent that I am Dwayne Johnson's greatest friend in the entire world.
One of the first things he'd needed to know about me was if I'd ever been to Australia. I haven't, I told him, and he beamed and shook his head. “You'd love it,” he declared. A puzzled pause hung in the air while I frantically tried to deduce what about my bearing projects that I would love Australia, and Johnson remembered that he didn't actually know anything about me (yet), except that I'd never been to Australia. Which made him want to learn everything. Among the many, many things Dwayne Johnson wondered: what high school I went to, if I'd ever been to the Oscars, how I chose my college, if I had “a big party” when I graduated from that college, what my sleep schedule is like, if I believe in ghosts, if I needed a ladder to access a tree house I visited one time, if my dad is black—wait, what?
How did Dwayne Johnson know?
“ 'Cause you look mixed and you said he listens to jazz,” he says. Johnson is a blisteringly active listener. He has, in the briefest of moments, displayed more earnest curiosity about me than anyone I've met in my entire life. (What is my favorite Christmas carol? I wondered after Dwayne Johnson asked me that, with only ten months left till Christmas.)
His solicitude, I realize, is also why he wanted to drive: Johnson's “private gym” is situated in one of the top ten worst locations I have ever been, including all grocery-store bathrooms. “This is why I didn't want Uber to just drop you off here,” he says as he pulls into a desolate parking lot. “Because this is a shitty neighborhood.”
What Dwayne Johnson calls “a shitty neighborhood” could more accurately be styled “a void of humanity right here in sunny California.” It's somewhere you could go to procure the bulk materials needed to construct a shitty neighborhood: DOORS, promises a sign on one empty building; SIGNS, another. Johnson parks his Escalade next to an abandoned Honda Prelude.
“Where are we?” I ask, unable to believe that my best friend has brought me here. “Warehouse district,” he announces proudly, unlocking an unmarked metal slab of a door. “Private gym.” He holds the slab open for me.
“I'm in the process of looking for a bigger space,” says Johnson, his voice bouncing off the cavernous walls of the biggest space I have ever seen.
“You need a bigger space, for sure,” I say. I squint to see if the gym ever ends, or if it simply follows the curve of the earth, its collection of machines with names ending in -ex stretching on to infinity. The lone window in the place is small and covered with a towel that Johnson—a man who last year reportedly made north of $60 million—has taped to the wall.
“I don't mind it being in the hood, but I do want to have a shower,” he says, explaining why he may move. “The warehouse district in the hood always works out nicely, because I can play music really loudly, and it's not in an office area where people will complain. But the biggest reason for this [seclusion] is that my gym time is really the only time I have an opportunity to be away from the public and by myself. So I get a lot of work done in here. Not only training. It becomes my meditation. Nobody bothers me here.” (Except me, right now. But I'm his best friend, so that's okay. He'd probably be fine if you stopped by, too.)
Though it's now just 1:30 P.M., this will be Johnson's second workout of the day. We are both clad in black leggings, but his cling to the muscles of his calves like nightfall descending over a mountain range, and mine look more like two toilet-paper tubes painted black. Over his, Johnson has layered a pair of roomy shorts for modesty and is sporting a UA X PROJECT ROCK tank top—a signature piece in his collection of Under Armour workout gear, which last year was one of the brand's best-selling lines, right alongside athletic gear endorsed by actual athletes like Steph Curry and Tom Brady. Johnson, of course, is not an athlete per se, but is something closer to generally athletic and professionally large.
At six feet four, Dwayne Johnson, while big, is not actually freakishly huge. It's his hands that translate him into something a shade more than human on-screen. They're enormous: tan and broad with flat, clean seashell pink nails. Each hand could comfortably lift an 8-year-old by the skull.
He guides me to a wall of a trillion neatly arranged dumbbells and tells me what I'm looking at. “You go from the ‘Caitys,’ ” he says, indicating the very smallest, “to the ‘DJs,’ which are 150 [pounds].”
I attempt to lift one of the DJs, which feels like trying to uproot a parking meter. Instead, Johnson places two 10-pound weights in my hands and picks up 20-pound weights for himself.
“You're only on 20s!” I say accusingly.
“Well, I'm going to warm up,” explains Johnson.
“Well,” I say, narrowing my eyes and nodding, “I'm warming up, too.”
Very quickly, the warm-up exercises get the best of me and I want to leave, except that my best friend has trapped me in an industrial park with nowhere to go.
“You,” says Johnson gravely, “need some water.”
We've been exercising for about three minutes.
“That's a vote of no confidence,” I tell him.
“I just want to make sure you're hydrated,” he says, picking up a cool, clear cylinder of Voss. He twists open the seal fast and hard, like he's wringing the neck of a punk who disrespected the troops (he loves the troops—we love the troops—proud to be an American, troops, troops, troops), and hands me the bottle.
Twelve thousand years later, everyone we ever loved has turned to dust, but we are finally finished with the freaking warm-up. Johnson guides me to an enormous contraption constructed of iron and nylon and foam. He grabs two triangular straps and demonstrates how I will (theoretically) use them to move weights.
“Oh no!” I gasp as soon as I start to pull the straps toward myself.
“You got it!” he says. “I got you!”
“Don't help me!” I wail, my arms trembling.
“I'm not,” he lies. “Great!” he also lies. “Need water?”
While I assist Johnson in getting rid of the water he is apparently sooooo desperate to dispose of, he increases the resistance to 85 pounds and takes my place at the machine. He pulls the straps to himself like he is performing a nylon ballet. The attached weights simply fly off the floor. His triceps are like captive wild horses that have finally been set free. Beyond that, the only indications that he is expending any effort come from his eyelids, which flutter slightly every time he wrenches the straps.
Stepping away from the cable machine, Johnson produces a booklet of handwritten notes. “Let me check on this,” he murmurs, head tipped toward his chest. “This is my workout handbook.” Johnson's penmanship is lovely—slender and elegant, with the faint forward slant prescribed by old-fashioned handwriting textbooks. His booklet is filled with permutations of exercise routines, which can work in concert to stabilize his shape or produce subtle or drastic changes as needed. It's a book rooted in practical optimism. It suggests that all body types are achievable to him—that hard work and enthusiasm will eventually generate the desired results.
Unfortunately, what the spidery letters tell Dwayne Johnson is that now we must lift weights with our necks.
“I don't think my neck needs to be stronger,” I say.
“It doesn't!” He smiles. We do it anyway.
Johnson's in Los Angeles now to film HBO's Ballers, but he's got gyms wherever he goes. He's building one at his farm in Virginia, where he keeps his horses (and also, he says, a piano once owned by Benjamin Franklin; it came with the farm), and he has a workout facility at his primary residence in Florida, where he lives on a compound on the edge of the Everglades, in a tiny rural town popular among professional athletes who yearn for country living within an hour's drive of Miami. As he crisscrosses the country for work, he's constantly scouting new spots. If he has to go to New York for a night, he will find a gym there, and it will be in a dank, subterranean room, probably off an alley that only Johnson can find. If you have a basement, he might be in your house right now, doing leg presses and staying hydrated. Found an incredible little out-of-the-way spot, he might write on Instagram, under a photo of himself lifting your washing machine. #HardestWorkersInTheRoom #ByAnyMeansNecessary #LateNight #StopNever.
For all the attention he's earned as a hulking action star, Johnson's best performances are in those funny roles where he can display flashes of vulnerability. Despite his toned physique, he has a Will Ferrell-esque ability to project childlike innocence and confusion with his large man body and bald baby face.
There's a scene in this spring's virilely campy Baywatch, for instance, in which Johnson's character is forced to wear normal work clothes instead of a tank top, even though he's the best lifeguard the race of man has ever seen. He doesn't have a line—all he's doing is standing while wearing a polo shirt—but it's inexplicably heartbreaking. Like watching a puppy get fired. And because it's absurd that it's heartbreaking—absurd that the millionaire movie star with the rippling muscles has tricked you into feeling bad for his character due to a minor dress-code issue—it's also weirdly funny.
In an age when it's cooler to hate things than enjoy them, Johnson has carved out an improbable niche for himself, as someone it's safe to like. Maybe you like him because he's big and does fast things in slow motion. Maybe you like him because he had one song to sing in the children's musical he was cast in, and he sang it with his whole heart. Undeniably, he is likable—and likable is lucrative in his line of work: His films have collectively taken in more than a billion dollars a year worldwide, a fact that has made Johnson, at 45 years old, the highest-paid movie star on earth. This popularity has made people wonder just how far it could take him and what, exactly, he'd like to do with it. In a moment of political ridiculousness, there's even the suddenly not ridiculous question of whether Dwayne Johnson might actually be headed for Washington.
Johnson doesn't hesitate when I ask him whether he honestly might one day give up his life as the highest-paid movie star on earth to run for president. "I think that it's a real possibility."
Last June, when The Washington Post published an op-ed suggesting he could be a viable candidate, Johnson posted a screen grab and gave the idea a boost. On Instagram, he called the Post piece “interesting” and “fun to read,” adding that “the most important thing right now is strong honest leadership from our current and future leaders of this country.”
Since then, Johnson tells me, he's given the question more thought. “A year ago,” he says, “it started coming up more and more. There was a real sense of earnestness, which made me go home and think, ‘Let me really rethink my answer and make sure I am giving an answer that is truthful and also respectful.’ I didn't want to be flippant—‘We'll have three days off for a weekend! No taxes!’”
So, after all that consideration, Johnson doesn't hesitate when I ask him whether he honestly might one day give up his life as the highest-paid movie star on earth—which is unquestionably easier, more fun, and more lucrative than being president of the United States—in order to run for office. “I think that it's a real possibility,” he says solemnly.
When you think about the distance Johnson has already traveled, the idea doesn't sound crazy. So far, Johnson's tale of success has been your classic rags-to-stretch-fabrics-to-riches story. He was born in California, the only child of Rocky Johnson, a pioneering black Nova Scotian wrestler who performed in a tag-team duo called the Soul Patrol, and Ata Maivia, who has ties, through her father, to the Anoa'i family—a legendary clan of Samoan wrestlers. Despite the legacy, Johnson grew up poor; he speaks of his family's eviction from a one-room apartment as the formative experience of his adolescence. He racked up numerous arrests for fighting and petty theft while still a minor. In high school, he found football, which helped him find college.
“We had no money, and my grades were just average,” he says, “so it wasn't like I was getting [an academic] scholarship. The University of Miami was the top program in the country. They were the national champions. I just wanted to go where I could compete.”
After a string of injuries—Johnson was usurped at Miami by future NFL Hall of Famer Warren Sapp—he decided to try wrestling. Before long, his popularity as a charismatic showman earned him the sort of opportunity every large man dreams of: the chance to play a slickly baby-oiled Akkadian Scorpion King opposite Brendan Fraser. (It was a bigger deal back then, in 2001.)
In the promotional material for The Mummy Returns, Johnson—resplendent in a long jet-black wig and dazzling gold bracelets—was featured prominently, even though he appeared in the actual movie for only about ten minutes. Audiences loved those minutes. Universal Studios immediately gave him his own prequel to headline, The Scorpion King.
How does an untrained actor jump from a cameo to a starring role in the span of a year, while never even quitting his day job? Then, as now, Johnson tested well in what the film industry refers to as “all four quadrants”: old men, young men, old women, and young women. “[He] is as close to guaranteeing you butts in the seat as anybody can be,” NBCUniversal vice chairman Ron Meyer told me.
Broadly, the quadrants thing means that everyone likes him. Specifically, it suggests that if Johnson's personal magnetism were any stronger, birds in his vicinity might plummet from the sky, their internal navigation mechanisms thrown off by the force of his personality. Indeed, Beau Flynn, a producer who has collaborated with Johnson on several films, including Baywatch, tells me Johnson's charisma sometimes has to be subdued on-screen—lest it risk neutralizing the drama.
“His smile is like a weapon,” Flynn says, bringing up, by way of example, a scene in San Andreas in which Johnson plays an air-rescue pilot re-united with his daughter as earthquakes lay waste to San Francisco.
“When he sees her for the first time, it was critical to see that smile and feel that sense of relief,” says Flynn. But the filmmakers had to tread lightly: The reunion wasn't the climax of the movie—Johnson's character still needed to save the girl from a collapsing building one more time. “You have to be smart,” Flynn says, “because if [the smile] is too much, the audience will feel safe. They'll feel the movie is over.”
Plenty of actors are charming, though. When it comes to his immense global popularity, Johnson has other unique factors working in his favor, too: like his tough-to-place ethnicity. His own racial blend (black and Samoan) means he is blessed with skin the color of graham crackers, a perfectly roasted marshmallow, and Abraham Lincoln on the penny. It's a rare combination. In the last census, the number of Americans identifying as “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” (a blanket term that includes people who trace their lineage to Samoa, Fiji, Tahiti, and lots of other small, warm islands) plus “Black or African American” was just 50,308. A figure so low it rounds out to 0.0 percent of the total U.S. population, though a more gracious person might say “less than 0.1 percent.” In other words, if you meet a 45-year-old half-black, half-Samoan man living in the United States, the odds are shockingly high he will be Dwayne Johnson. This uncommon ethnic background means that, in the right light, he can read as Pacific Islander, Latino, Middle Eastern, Native American, Southeast Asian, undead Scorpion King from an ancient civilization, black, white, or any combo thereof. (Johnson says white people often guess he is “…Greek?”) In other words, pretty much anyone can find themselves, or a slightly tanner or paler version of themselves, in Dwayne Johnson if they look hard enough; appearance-wise, he has a hometown advantage everywhere on earth.
Rolling toward the parking lot of the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, Johnson's driver pulls his Escalade to a stop. It's the afternoon before the Oscars, where Johnson will make a brief appearance, introducing a song from Moana, and he's here now for a quick run-through. (Johnson's song from the Moana soundtrack, “You're Welcome,” was not nominated for any awards, but he sings it under his breath all day anyway, just because he really loves that song.) A production assistant with a clipboard leans in, asking the driver whom he's got to check in.
“Denzel!” yells Johnson, with perfect deadpan delivery, from the backseat. It gets a laugh from his driver, but it's a baffling idea. Because, if you have to be someone, there's really no one better to be than Dwayne Johnson.
Backstage, surrounded by velvet furniture and pristine, untouched bagels, is the actress Scarlett Johansson. She and Johnson greet each other for no reason other than they are the two celebrities in a room full of otherwise unexceptional people, and Johnson immediately starts asking her about her whole life. (“Well,” she says, “I was born and raised in Manhattan, so…”) Johansson is one of the only people Johnson will encounter here who does not impress upon him the dramatic positive effect his recent Spike tribute program, Rock the Troops, had on their soul. Turns out many of the people working behind the scenes at the Oscars also served as crew members on the special, which was inspired by Bob Hope's USO shows and featured tons of tear-inducing surprises and reunions, as well as the music of Nick Jonas. One man is even wearing a Rock the Troops jacket.
If Johnson’s personal magnetism were any stronger, birds in his vicinity might plummet from the sky, their internal navigation thrown off by the force of his personality.
The mammoth event, filmed in Hawaii in front of 50,000 service members and their families, came together pretty easily, from Johnson's point of view, right after the president of Spike asked him, “What's close to your heart?”
“I said, ‘Well, what if we did something for the troops?’…and then, really, it was like”—Johnson snaps his fingers—“that.”
Johnson frequently takes to social media to thank members of the armed forces, specifically and in aggregate, for their service. In his patriotic hands, anything can—and will—become a tribute to the armed forces. In March, he was “grateful” to share the “big news” on Instagram that he would be portraying “a disabled US War Vet and former FBI Hostage Rescue Team leader” in an upcoming movie about “the world's largest skyscraper—that's on fire.” Johnson wrote that his character in this demented summer blockbuster was “inspired by the thousands of disabled US veterans and war heroes I've had the honor of shaking hands with over the years.” (He also mentioned that he got to meet with “the world's top skyscraper architects,” which, though it was not about the military, was a very cool thing to brag about and could easily serve as the basis for a separate preposterous film.)
Johnson's industrial-strength patriotism is a big reason people wonder about his political aspirations. Last year, both presidential campaigns reached out to him for his endorsement, he says. “Which I did not give. I felt like…and give me a second, because I've never said this publicly, so…” He stops to gather his thoughts. He's sitting now in a cabana on the set of Ballers while crew members wheel around towering lights. “I feel like I'm in a position now where my word carries a lot of weight and influence, which of course is why they want the endorsement. But I also have a tremendous amount of respect for the process and felt like if I did share my political views publicly, a few things would happen—and these are all conversations I have with myself, in the gym at four o'clock in the morning—I felt like it would either (a) make people unhappy with the thought of whatever my political view was. And, also, it might sway an opinion, which I didn't want to do.” He says he told both the Trump and Clinton camps that he wasn't making an endorsement, that he preferred to see Americans make up their own minds.
As for what Johnson believes, well, he's remained cagey. People searching for evidence of party loyalty point out that he spoke at the 2000 Republican convention, which is true; but he also attended the Democratic convention that same year, encouraging audiences at both events to vote. These days, he tells me, he's registered as an independent.
“In other words, pretty much anyone can find themselves, or a slightly tanner or paler version of themselves, in Dwayne Johnson if they look hard enough.”
“How do you think Donald Trump is doing?” I ask.
“Mmm… With any job you come into, you've got to prove yourself. And…” Johnson pauses, performing lightning-fast mental calibrations. “Personally, I feel that if I were president, poise would be important. Leadership would be important. Taking responsibility for everybody. [If I didn't agree with someone] on something, I wouldn't shut them out. I would actually include them. The first thing we'd do is we'd come and sit down and we'd talk about it. It's hard to categorize right now how I think he's doing, other than to tell you how I would operate, what I would like to see.”
“What would you like to see?”
“Right?” Johnson says, laughing. He's obviously a little nervous, plucking at the spandex material stretching across his massive thighs, but he doesn't attempt to end the line of questioning. “I'd like to see a better leadership. I'd like to see a greater leadership. When there's a disagreement, and you have a large group of people that you're in a disagreement with—for example, the media—I feel like it informs me that I could be better. We all have issues, and we all gotta work our shit out. And I feel like one of the qualities of a great leader is not shutting people out. I miss that part. Even if we disagree, we've got to figure it out. Because otherwise I feel, as an American, all I hear and all I see in the example you're setting is ‘Now I'm shutting you out. And you can't come.’ [Disagreement] informs us. The responsibility as president—I [would] take responsibility for everyone. Especially when you disagree with me. If there's a large number of people disagreeing, there might be something I'm not seeing, so let me see it. Let me understand it.”
It's a diplomatic answer. Few people would argue with the value of great leadership. To date, Johnson's embryonic political platform has largely consisted of similar neutral statements, and a robust love for the troops. I want to get more specific.
“What are your thoughts on the Muslim ban?”
“I completely disagree with it,” he says without hesitation. “I believe in our national security to the core, but I don't believe in a ‘ban’ that bans immigrants. I believe in inclusion. Our country was built on that, and it continues to be made strong by that. And the decision felt like a snap judgment. I feel like the majority of, if not all, Americans feel that protection is of huge importance. But the ideology and the execution [of national-security initiatives] is where we really have to be careful of not making those snap decisions, because there's a tail effect... Within 24 hours, we saw a ‘tail effect.’ It grew to heartache, it grew to a great deal of pain, it grew to a great deal of confusion, and it had a lot of people scrambling.”
Could Johnson do better? Could he really run for president? Barring the adoption of policy points that are completely unhinged (like spending $8 billion to build a colony in the earth's core—though, if anyone could do that, it would be Dwayne Johnson), there's much to suggest Johnson could chart a fast and furious ride to the White House. He's a quick study with boundless attention to detail. Beyond his popularity—and the fact that his head often looks like a big, round smiley face—he's got a politician's warm, deep voice, which projects authority, capability, and strength. And he possesses a startling steel-trap memory. Johnson simply remembers everything about people: biographical details, offhand anecdotes, entire conversations. It's the quality that allows him to treat everyone like a close friend, the silent secret to his supercharged charm.
“I believe in our national security to the core, but I don't believe in a ‘ban’ that bans immigrants. I believe in inclusion. Our country was built on that”
Johnson describes himself as a “feminist” raised by “strong women.” He's spoken openly about his experiences with depression and has positioned himself as a mental-health advocate. His popularity as a professional wrestler gives him a strong heartland base, and the fact that he grew up all over the United States—while his dad worked the wrestling circuit—gives him local ties, literally, from coast to coast (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, California, Washington, and Hawaii). In person, he projects an aura of unshakable calm (a trait he's used in Hollywood to play all manner of high-stakes lifesavers, from fire-department rescue pilot to Green Beret to lifeguard during a riptide). With his jacked body and love of horses, Johnson could be the only candidate with a chance of earning the respect of Vladimir Putin in the virility department. He's equally capable of killing a terrorist with a chair shot or with kindness.
The cold, hard truth is that if Donald Trump can be elected president, Dwayne Johnson can be elected president. Easily. He probably has better odds of winning an election than Trump, and Trump did win, so what does that tell you? If anything, Trump's election proved that celebrities can just dive right in—they don't even have to make a pit stop as governor of California before the presidency.
“If [becoming the president] is something he focused on,” says Ron Meyer, the NBCUniversal vice chairman, “he probably would accomplish it. I think there's nothing that he couldn't do.”
Meyer's statement, which catches me off guard, doesn't just reflect a confidence in Johnson—it says something about the American people. And it comes from a guy whose job depends on predicting the behavior and desires of the American people, to the tune of several billion dollars a year. I ask Meyer if he would vote for Johnson on a presidential ballot, expecting him to demur—to argue that the question is too premature to even consider.
“Oh, I would vote for him without a question,” he says.
“A trillion percent,” says Beau Flynn, the producer, when posed with the same question. He is even more optimistic about Johnson's chances for victory. “One hundred percent, he would win, I have no doubt. His level of commitment and his care for people would translate immediately. If he looked me in the eyes and said, ‘I want to build a campaign. I want to run for the president of the United States,’ done, and you can lock it.”
Flynn also says something weird and grand and beautiful about Dwayne Johnson: “He loves the world.”
So much so that one could imagine Johnson's toughest challenge might be toning down some of his enthusiasm—like he dials back his smile on-screen—in order to deal with, say, the more covert aspects of the presidency. He's a guy who treats every single bit of news like a surprise party for you, and he's desperate to be the one to yell “Surprise!” In fact, he already has a record of revealing state secrets, as when he tweeted in May of 2011: “Just got word that will shock the world—Land of the free...home of the brave DAMN PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
If anything, Trump’s election proved that celebrities can just dive right in—they don’t even have to make a pit stop as governor of California before the presidency.
He was referring to the death of Osama bin Laden. Except that his announcement beat President Obama's by about an hour.
To this day, Johnson refuses to disclose how he got wind of this ultra-classified mission. “The tweet was actually supposed to come out at the same time the president was making his speech,” he says, “but the moment I sent that out, I got word that now we've delayed the speech a little bit. I was like, ‘Ooooh. Okay.’ ”
“That's the way love goes,” says Johnson on the Ballers set, shrugging at the national-security faux pas. He has the grace to look a little abashed. “I was really excited that day.”
Of course, Johnson is really excited every day. He wants us all to feel the same way—to look for life's joys here and there, to get amped. And not just over the clandestine raids that take out terrorist masterminds in Pakistan. There are simple thrills everywhere.
Weeks after I first met Johnson, I wake up to a direct message on Twitter. @TheRock is on the road and just wanted to alert me to the fact that his hotel carries GQ. The message is decorated with fist-bump and hang-loose emojis.
“Hope you're great and sleeping soundly!!” he writes.
The wild thing is, I believe he means it literally. If anyone hopes his fellow man is great and sleeping soundly!! it's Dwayne Johnson. And if he can convince a few million more people of that, everyone's best friend is going to be president.
This story originally appeared in the June 2017 issue with the title “Vote The Rock.”
Introducing GQ Backstory, amplified by American Express: | Is America ready for President The Rock? In a fairly delightful profile of Dwayne Johnson in GQ, the wrestler-turned-movie star talks about his possible future in politics. It started with an opinion piece in the Washington Post last year that stated Johnson could be an actual presidential candidate. At the time, Johnson called the idea "fun to read." But now he says he's been giving it some serious thought. "I think that it's a real possibility," the superstar says. And he's already got the endorsement of Michael Moore. "It would scare anybody that would hurt us," Moore tells Variety. "Think about how safe we would be if the Rock was president." Since the Rock leans Republican, Democrats may have little choice but to recruit John Cena—who's spoken out against discrimination and President Trump's Muslim ban—to run against him, Deadspin reports. |
The highly watched Gu verdict arrives just as Beijing is set to begin a once-a-decade leadership change. Jeremy Page reports on The News Hub. Photo: AFP/GettyImages.
BEIJING—Gu Kailai, the wife of ousted Communist Party official Bo Xilai, was found guilty and given a suspended death sentence on Monday for the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood in the southwestern city of Chongqing last year, according to observers in the courtroom.
Now that a Chinese court has handed down a suspended death penalty for Gu Kailai, attention is turning toward what this means for her husband, ousted official Bo Xilai. The WSJ's Jeremy Page on the next chapter of China's murder trial of the century.
They said the Intermediate People's Court in the eastern city of Hefei gave Ms. Gu a death sentence with a two-year reprieve—a penalty that had been widely expected and is normally commuted to a life sentence in prison after two years of good behavior.
Zhang Xiaojun, a Bo family aide, was also found guilty but given a lighter sentence of nine years in prison for his role in the murder, the observers said. Neither plans to appeal, the state-run Xinhua news agency said on Monday.
Read More China Real Time: Internet Users React to Verdict
The judgment is a key step in the party leadership's efforts to conclude its worst political scandal in more than two decades and paves the way for an announcement on how it plans to deal with Mr. Bo, the former Chongqing Party chief, according to analysts and Party insiders.
But party leaders are facing mounting public skepticism over the trial after friends of Mr. Heywood and prominent public figures in China pointed out omissions, ambiguities and contradictions in the official account of how and why Mr. Heywood was killed.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report earlier this year that U.K. officials had asked the Chinese government to launch an inquiry into the death of Mr. Heywood, a business consultant with close ties to the Bo family whose body was found in a hotel room in November in Chongqing, where Mr. Bo was party chief at the time.
Ms. Gu had been widely expected to escape the death penalty because of her family's status in the party, her history of mental health problems and her claim that Mr. Heywood threatened her son, analysts and party insiders said.
A Chinese court has handed a suspended death sentence to Gu Kailai, the wife of former Communist Party Chief Bo Xilai, for the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood. The WSJ's Deborah Kan speaks to China Editor Andrew Browne about what's behind the ruling.
"If she had been actually executed, the political consequences could have been quite serious, because Bo is not just an ordinary person: He has his own group and family connections," said He Weifang, a law professor at Peking University. "I think this outcome was negotiated before the trial even began. But I still think there are still some differences over how to handle Bo Xilai."
Mr. Zhang's lighter sentence was also expected because prosecutors said he was an accomplice, and Ms. Gu the main culprit, according observers during the trial.
At their trial on Aug. 9, Ms. Gu and Mr. Zhang didn't contest charges that they murdered Mr. Heywood in his hotel room by pouring cyanide into his mouth after he became drunk, vomited and sought a drink of water.
Ms. Gu told the court that she had suffered a "mental breakdown" because she believed that Mr. Heywood had threatened the safety of her son, Bo Guagua, after they became embroiled in a business dispute over a failed property deal.
Bo Guagua, the son of Ms. Gu and the elder Mr. Bo, hasn't commented publicly since the trial and didn't immediately respond to a fresh request for comment Monday.
"We respect the court's judgment," He Zhengsheng, a lawyer for the Heywood family who attended Monday's hearing, told The Wall Street Journal.
The British Embassy, which sent two diplomats to observe the trial and the announcement of the verdict and sentence, said in a statement: "We welcome the fact that the Chinese authorities have investigated the death of Neil Heywood, and tried those they identified as responsible."
The statement added: "We consistently made clear to the Chinese authorities that we wanted to see the trials in this case conform to international human rights standards and for the death penalty not to be applied."
William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, called publicly in April for a thorough investigation free from political interference, but an Embassy spokesman said he could not comment on process of the investigation or the trial.
Public attention in China will now turn to the even more politically sensitive question of how the party deals with Mr. Bo, who until he was removed as party chief of Chongqing earlier this year was seen as a candidate for promotion in a once-a-decade leadership transition this fall.
Party leaders are understood to be keen to announce a decision on that question ahead of the leadership change but have had difficulty reaching a consensus, in part because of residual party support for Mr. Bo, according to analysts and party insiders.
Those people say the decision is also complicated by party leaders' desire to avoid drawing more public attention to some of the issues raised by the Bo scandal, notably the private wealth of many top leaders' families.
Chinese authorities announced in April that Mr. Bo had been sacked from his party posts and placed under investigation for unspecified "serious disciplinary violations," but they have yet to declare whether he too will face criminal charges.
Nor have they said how they plan to deal with Wang Lijun, the former Chongqing police chief who in February sought refuge in a U.S. consulate in China, where he told diplomats he had evidence that Ms. Gu was involved in the death of Mr. Heywood.
The next step toward concluding the scandal is widely expected to be the trial of Mr. Wang, most likely on treason charges related to what authorities have called his "unauthorized" consulate visit. Mr. Wang, who was detained by Chinese security officers and placed under investigation after leaving the consulate, stepped down in June as a member of the national Parliament—a resignation that stripped him of immunity from prosecution.
Mr. Bo, however, is still a member both of the national Parliament and of the party—official exclusion from which is usually a necessary precursor to criminal charges, according to experts on Chinese politics and law.
Those experts also noted that Mr. Bo's name hadn't been mentioned at his wife's trial or the trial in Hefei the next day of four former Chongqing police officers charged with covering up Mr. Heywood's murder—which they didn't dispute. The Intermediate People's Court in Hefei found all four guilty on Monday and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from five to 11 years, according to Xinhua. It said they don't plan to appeal.
Some observers said the omission of Mr. Bo's name from the two trials suggests he won't be accused of direct involvement either in Mr. Heywood's alleged murder, or the subsequent alleged coverup. But others said it suggests the party leadership has yet to make a decision on Mr. Bo and is simply allowing itself leeway to define his wrongdoing later on.
Most analysts, however, agree that the party leadership will make a political decision in time for a full meeting—known as a plenum—of the roughly 300-strong Central Committee, which is expected shortly before the leadership transition.
Mr. Bo is thought to be in the hands of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, a party organization that investigates members' conduct and decides whether they should be dealt with internally or also face criminal charges. It typically interrogates those in its grasp at a secret location, and forms a special group comprising police, prosecutors, state security officers and any other relevant officials to gather evidence.
It is a highly politicized process, with individual party leaders able to use personal relations or formal powers over the agencies involved to influence decisions on which evidence is selected, and how it is interpreted.
The commission itself is headed by He Guoqiang, one of nine members of the Politburo Standing Committee, China's top decision-making body. Himself a former party chief of Chongqing, like Mr. Bo, he is thought by many party insiders, political analysts and diplomats to favor harsher treatment. But the police, prosecutors, courts and intelligence services are overseen by fellow Standing Committee member Zhou Yongkang, said by some party insiders to have a more sympathetic view of Mr. Bo.
Once the investigation group has completed its work, the commission compiles the evidence and submits a report to the party leadership advising whether to pursue criminal charges. If the leadership decides to refer the case to the courts, the commission also makes recommendations on the verdict and sentence, but may withhold actual evidence and instead summarize its findings.
Enlarge Image Close Reuters Gu Kailai and Zhang Xiaojun being escorted into the courtroom for their Aug. 9 trial.
The process can be slow, judging by the two previous Politburo members to be sacked. In the 1990s, it was three years between the ouster of Beijing's mayor, Chen Xitong, and his trial. Shanghai's Chen Liangyu was brought into court 18 months after his downfall as the city's party secretary.
If Mr. Bo is dealt with internally by the party, a final decision on his fate could be announced by the autumn, but if he is turned over to the courts, many observers do not expect a trial until next year at the earliest.
"In the cases of the two Chens, each man was subsequently turned over for criminal prosecution, resulting in lengthy prison terms," wrote Alice Miller, a research fellow and expert on Chinese politics at the Hoover Institution, in a paper this month on the Bo affair. "A comparable fate likely awaits Bo Xilai."
She continued: "Bo's removal in that respect therefore does not indicate a departure from the 'rules of the game' as played in the last two decades. The reform era initiated by Deng Xiaoping has seen the emergence of a more legalistic exit mechanism for removing high party leaders."
—James T. Areddy in Shanghai contributed to this article.
Write to Jeremy Page at [email protected]
A version of this article appeared August 20, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: With China Trial Over, Focus Turns To Fate Of Official. ||||| FILE - In this Jan. 17, 2007 file photo, then Chinaese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai, right, and his wife Gu Kailai attend a memorial ceremony for Bo's father Bo Yibo, a late revolutionary leader considered... (Associated Press)
The wife of a fallen Chinese politician has been given a suspended death sentence after confessing to killing a British businessman in a case that has rocked the country's political leadership. A suspended sentence is usually commuted to life in prison after several years.
He Zhengsheng, a lawyer for the victim Neil Heywood, said Monday that Gu Kailai was given the suspended death sentence and a family aide was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for killing the former Bo family associate.
But even with the verdict, questions remain over the fate of Gu's husband, Bo Xilai, who was dismissed in March as party secretary of the major city of Chongqing. The murder trial comes at a sensitive time in China with a handover soon of power to younger leaders. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The moment Gu Kailai and her aide, Zhang Xiaojun, were sentenced
The wife of disgraced Chinese politician Bo Xilai has been given a suspended death sentence for the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood.
Gu Kailai did not contest charges at her one-day trial that she poisoned Mr Heywood in November 2011.
Suspended death sentences are usually commuted to life imprisonment in China.
Mr Bo, the former party chief in Chongqing, was once seen as a contender for a national leadership position in a top-level reshuffle later this year.
But he has not been seen in public since the investigation into Gu was announced.
Gu's aide, Zhang Xiaojun, was jailed for nine years for his part in the murder.
'Special respect'
The verdict in China's most high-profile trial for years came early on Monday, inside a court ringed by security personnel.
Analysis The outcome of the case is a neat one for the Communist Party. It pins the blame for Neil Heywood's death on Gu Kailai, but she escapes the full death penalty. Her suspended sentence is sign of leniency. Murderers in China often face the firing squad. Gu Kailai admitted premeditated murder. She confessed she lured Neil Heywood to Chongqing, procured cyanide, got him drunk, then poured the poison into his mouth. But she claimed she'd had a mental breakdown. The court said it accepted she was not in full control of her actions. Many will believe it is her political connections that have won her this reprieve. And the trial has conveniently avoided the most sensitive questions. Did her husband, the once powerful Bo Xilai, have any link to the crime or the cover-up by police under his control in Chongqing? How did the family become so rich? Were the business deals that led to Neil Heywood's murder corrupt? They're uncomfortable questions for the Communist Party to face.
Chinese state media reported that during the 9 August trial - which was not open to all - Gu admitted she poisoned Neil Heywood in a hotel room in Chongqing, helped by her aide.
She said she had suffered a mental breakdown and that Mr Heywood had threatened her son amid a row over a property deal, state media said.
Images shown on Chinese state television showed Gu responding to the verdict. "This verdict is just. It shows special respect for the law, reality and life," she said.
Speaking after the sentence was announced, court spokesman Tang Yigan said the court believed Mr Heywood had threatened Gu's son but not acted on the threats. It also found Gu had been suffering from "psychological impairment", he said.
A spokesman for British Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK had made it clear to Beijing that the case must be properly investigated, but that the outcome was "a matter for the Chinese authorities".
A lawyer for the Heywood family said they respected the court's decision.
Image caption Mr Heywood was found dead in a hotel room in November 2011
The sentence of death with a two-year suspension means that if Gu commits no crimes while in prison, her sentence will be commuted after two years to life imprisonment and could be further reduced for good behaviour, Chinese legal expert Professor Donald Clarke writes in his blog.
Chinese internet users reacted immediately to the verdict on Twitter-like microblogging platforms.
With key names connected to the case still apparently censored, most used the phrase "suspended death sentence". Within two hours, there were at least two million posts.
Many users expressed dissatisfaction, saying most murderers in China would be executed. Some attributed it to Gu's background, others suggested she could eventually be freed under medical parole.
Leadership change
At a separate trial on 10 August, four senior police officers from Chongqing admitted charges of covering up evidence linking Gu to the murder. A court official said they had been given terms of between five and 11 years in prison, AFP reported.
TIMELINE: BO XILAI SCANDAL 6 Feb: Chongqing police chief Wang Lijun flees to the US consulate in Chengdu
Chongqing police chief Wang Lijun flees to the US consulate in Chengdu 15 Mar: Bo Xilai is removed from his post in Chongqing
Bo Xilai is removed from his post in Chongqing 20 Mar: Rumours suggest Mr Bo could be linked to the death of British businessman Neil Heywood
Rumours suggest Mr Bo could be linked to the death of British businessman Neil Heywood 10 Apr: Bo Xilai is suspended from party posts and his wife, Gu Kailai, is investigated over Mr Heywood's death
Bo Xilai is suspended from party posts and his wife, Gu Kailai, is investigated over Mr Heywood's death 26 July: Gu Kailai and Bo family employee Zhang Xiaojun are charged with killing Mr Heywood
Gu Kailai and Bo family employee Zhang Xiaojun are charged with killing Mr Heywood 9 Aug: Gu Kailai goes on trial for murder
Gu Kailai goes on trial for murder 20 Aug: Gu Kailai given suspended death sentence Netizens criticise Gu's sentence Bo Xilai scandal: Timeline
Mr Heywood's death was initially recorded as a heart attack.
The case came to light when Bo Xilai's deputy, police chief Wang Lijun, fled to the US consulate in February, reportedly with information connected to the case.
He has not been seen in public since then and state media say he is being investigated.
It is not yet known how the Communist Party plans to deal with Mr Bo, once seen as a powerful and ambitious high-flier.
Many analysts expected him to be promoted to the nine-strong politburo Standing Committee later in the year.
Seven committee members are due to retire, with a new generation of leaders to take their place at a party congress expected later this year.
But Mr Bo has been stripped of his official posts and is being investigated for "discipline violations", state media reports say.
A lengthy Xinhua news agency write-up of Gu's trial, however, made no mention of Mr Bo. | The murderous wife of fallen Chinese politician Bo Xilai has been given a suspended death sentence. Gu Kailai did not contest charges that she poisoned former Bo family associate and British businessman Neil Heywood, and was convicted of his murder in a one-day trial earlier this month. A suspended death sentence in China is typically commuted to life in prison after two years, notes AP. Gu is expected to serve at least 14 years, reports the BBC. It's unclear what will happen to Bo, who was booted earlier this year as Communist Party secretary of the key city of Chongqing amid the biggest scandal to rock the Chinese leadership in decades; he hasn't been seen in public for several months. Most observers expected that Gu would dodge the death penalty because of her family's status, her record of mental illness, and her claim that Heywood threatened her son, reports the Wall Street Journal. Others speculated that authorities rejected a death sentence because they were concerned it would elicit sympathy for her. Gu argued that she was driven to murder because she suffered a metal breakdown over fear for her son's safety after a business battle with Heywood. A Bo family associate was also handed a nine-year sentence for his role in the murder. |
The Federal Reserve System was created by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 as the central bank of the United States to provide a safe and flexible banking and monetary system. The System is composed primarily of 12 FRBs with 25 branches (organized into 12 districts), the Federal Open Market Committee, and the Federal Reserve Board, which exercises broad supervisory powers over the FRBs. The primary functions of the Federal Reserve System are to (1) conduct the nation’s monetary policy by influencing bank reserves and interest rates, (2) administer the nation’s currency in circulation, (3) buy or sell foreign currencies to maintain stability in international currency markets, (4) provide financial services such as check clearing and electronic funds transfer to the public, financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, (5) regulate the foreign activities of all U.S. banks and the domestic activities of foreign banks, and (6) supervise bank holding companies and state chartered banks that are members of the System. The FRBs also provide various financial services to the U.S. government, including the administration of Treasury securities. The FRBs’ assets are comprised primarily of investments in U.S. Treasury and agency securities. As of December 31, 1994, the FRBs reported a securities portfolio balance of $379 billion (87 percent of total assets). These securities primarily consist of Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds that the FRBs buy and sell when conducting monetary policy. The FRBs act as Treasury’s fiscal agent by creating Treasury securities in electronic (book-entry) form upon authorization by the U.S. Treasury and administering ongoing principal and interest payments on these securities. Treasury securities are maintained on electronic recordkeeping systems operated and controlled by the FRBs. The U.S. Treasury maintains an independent record of total Treasury securities outstanding but not individual ownership records. The FRBs maintain records of securities held by depository institutions, by the central banks of other countries, and which they hold for their own account. These records do not indicate whether securities held by the depository institutions are for their own accounts or on behalf of their customers. The portion of these securities owned by the FRBs is maintained on recordkeeping systems that the New York FRB operates. A security’s historical cost is comprised of the security’s face value (par) and any difference between this face value and the security’s purchase price. These differences are referred to as premiums when the purchase price is higher than the face value and as discounts when the price is less than the face value. These amounts are reduced over the life of the security to adjust interest income. Federal Reserve notes are the primary paper currency of the United States in circulation and the FRBs’ largest liability. As of December 31, 1994, the FRBs reported a Federal Reserve note balance of $382 billion (89 percent of total liabilities). Notes are printed by the U.S. Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing and shipped to the FRBs, who store them in their vaults until they are withdrawn by financial institutions. Notes do not mature or expire and are liabilities of the FRBs until they are returned to the FRBs. The amount the FRBs report as their liabilities for outstanding notes is actually a running balance of all notes issued from inception that have not been returned to the FRBs. The Federal Reserve Act designates certain assets of each FRB as eligible collateral for the reported Federal Reserve note liability. The majority of the assets pledged as collateral are each FRB’s Treasury securities. In addition, the FRBs have entered into cross-collateralization agreements under whose terms the assets pledged as collateral to secure each FRB’s notes are also pledged to secure the notes of all the FRBs. Therefore, as long as total collateral assets held by the FRBs equal or exceed the FRBs’ total liabilities for notes, the note liability of each individual FRB is fully secured. To conduct our work, we (1) gained an understanding of relevant accounting and reporting policies and procedures by reviewing and analyzing documentation and interviewing key FRB and Board personnel, (2) reviewed documentation supporting selected significant balance sheet amounts originating at the Dallas FRB, and (3) tested the effectiveness of certain internal controls in place at the Dallas FRB and the Federal Reserve Automation Services (FRAS) in Richmond, Virginia, and Dallas, Texas. We conducted our work primarily at the Federal Reserve Banks of Dallas and New York; the Dallas FRB’s branches in Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso; the two FRAS sites mentioned above; and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C., between July 1994 and November 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested written comments on a draft of this report from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Secretary of the Board provided us with written comments. These comments are discussed in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section and are reprinted in appendix I. Our work at the Dallas FRB, its three branches, and the Federal Reserve Automation Services identified internal control issues that we considered to be significant enough to warrant management’s attention. Our findings were detailed in separate reports to officials of the Dallas FRB and FRAS, as applicable. In these reports, we provided suggestions for improvements and documented the many corrective actions either taken, underway, or planned by Dallas FRB and FRAS officials. The issues we identified at the Dallas FRB include weaknesses in controls over financial reporting, those aspects of automated systems that were controlled in Dallas, check processing, and Federal Reserve note inventories. For example, (1) reconciliations of general ledger accounts and activity were not always based on independent records, (2) the automated systems did not prohibit access by all terminated employees, (3) accounting adjustments related to check processing activity were not appropriately reviewed, and (4) inventory counts of Federal Reserve notes at some branches were not always properly conducted and documented. The management of the Dallas FRB has already taken action on some of our suggestions to resolve these issues. We also identified weaknesses in general controls over the automated systems maintained and operated by FRAS and used by the Dallas FRB. These weaknesses involved controls over access to sensitive information and the computer center, changes to system software, testing the disaster recovery plan, and the use of special privileges on automated tasks. For example, (1) access to job management software was not restricted to authorized individuals, (2) access to the FRAS computer center was inappropriately granted to contractor personnel, (3) FRAS lacked policies and procedures for testing and certifying software changes prior to implementation, and (4) FRAS had not tested the communication network linking the Federal Reserve System. FRAS officials agreed with our suggestions for improvement and, in most cases, initiated corrective actions prior to the conclusion of our work. The FRBs used different practices to track new note issuances than they used to track the notes they held in their vaults, resulting in inconsistent note accounting and reporting. Furthermore, various changes to the Federal Reserve Act, the notes’ interchangeable nature, and the way in which the FRBs meet their note collateral requirements appear to have made the tracking of note issuances by identifier unnecessary. When new notes are issued, the FRB whose identifying marking appears on the note records a liability for the note amount. Notes that are held in each FRB’s vault, regardless of identifier, reduce this liability to arrive at the reported amount of notes outstanding. Consequently, for each FRB, the reported amount of notes outstanding does not accurately reflect the actual amount of outstanding notes bearing that FRB’s identifier. Various changes to the act have also diminished the importance of these FRB identifiers. Originally, the act required an identifier on each note to help ensure that each FRB satisfied statutory gold reserve requirements for its notes in circulation. However, these gold reserve requirements have since been repealed. Additionally, in response to changes in the act, notes in the vault are no longer sorted and recorded by identifier. Historically, the identifiers facilitated the FRBs’ sorting of notes to comply with other note-related provisions. For example, the act originally prohibited the FRBs from paying out notes with other FRBs’ identifiers to customers. To comply with the act, each FRB sorted notes received from customers and returned notes to the other FRBs, as appropriate. The Congress eliminated these provisions to reduce costs and inefficiencies in the FRBs’ note-related operations. Additionally, under the act’s original provisions, the FRBs were required to return all excessively worn notes to the Comptroller of the Currency for destruction. Each FRB was credited with the amount of its notes to be destroyed. To further reduce costs, the Congress amended the act to modify these requirements. As a result, unfit notes may be destroyed at any FRB and the Board of Governors then apportions the note destructions among the FRBs. The act allows the Board to determine the method by which note destructions will be apportioned. Other factors affecting notes further diminish the importance of using identifiers to associate each note with a specific FRB for accounting and reporting purposes. As the nation’s currency, all notes are accepted at any FRB and are used interchangeably, regardless of their identifiers. In addition, the FRBs comply with the act’s collateral requirements by pledging each FRB’s eligible assets as collateral to secure the notes of all the FRBs. Individual FRB note liabilities are less meaningful than the combined note liability because of the notes’ cross-collateralization. Thus, continuing to use specific note identifiers to record note liabilities appears to be unnecessary. The FRBs have responded to the inefficiencies involved in using identifiers to track notes by automating the note accounting and reporting process. This has eliminated much of the effort involved in tracking notes manually. However, the inconsistency between how the issuances of new notes and the contents of the vault are accounted for and reported has continued. In November 1994, the Board contracted with an independent accounting firm to audit the asset accounts allocated among the FRBs for calendar years 1994 through 1999. The contract also requires audits of the combined financial statements of the FRBs as of December 31 for each of the years from 1995 through 1999. During these years, the financial statements of each individual FRB will also be audited once based on the schedule shown in table 1. Under this contract, the combined financial statements will be audited more frequently than the individual statements. This audit approach is appropriate in light of the needs of users of the combined financial statements. The FRBs operate under agreements which specify that assets pledged as collateral by each FRB for its outstanding notes are available to secure the notes of all the FRBs. Accordingly, the combined assets of the FRBs are used to determine whether the notes are adequately collateralized, thus making this combined presentation the most meaningful. These audits of the FRBs’ combined financial statements will give the Federal Reserve the opportunity to make audited financial statements publicly available. These annual audits enhance the credibility of reported information and conforms to the practices of the central banks of many other major industrialized nations. Although the Federal Reserve’s past annual reports have included the FRBs’ financial statements, these statements were not audited and lacked adequate disclosure of key information, such as significant accounting policies followed by the FRBs. In contrast, the central banks of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada issue publicly available annual reports that include audited financial statements and the independent auditors’ reports. Presently, there is no requirement that the combined financial statements of the FRBs be audited in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS). Audits conducted under the contract will be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). We believe that performing these audits under GAGAS would enhance the value of these audits. GAGAS audits incorporate the GAAS requirements, but go further by requiring additional tests of internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations and reports on these matters. The unique role of the FRBs and the nature of records underlying reported balances of Treasury securities and notes preclude full reliance on traditional auditing procedures. For example, confirming account balances with independent parties is an effective audit procedure to substantiate reported balances. However, this procedure cannot be performed for the FRBs’ Treasury security investments and Federal Reserve note liabilities. As part of functions it performs on behalf of Treasury, the New York FRB maintains the ownership records for Treasury securities, including those in the FRBs’ portfolio. However, the New York FRB also maintains the related accounting records for these securities. In contrast, Federal Reserve notes are held by parties independent of the FRBs. However, records of specific note holders cannot be maintained because notes continuously circulate throughout the country and the world. Consequently, the FRBs’ ownership of Treasury securities and the amount of notes outstanding cannot be independently confirmed. The FRBs retain supporting documentation for the cost of securities transactions for about 2 years. As a result, verifying the entire historical cost of securities that have been in the FRBs’ portfolio for extended periods is difficult. However, by retaining support and detailed records for the price paid for new security purchases, the FRBs could eventually support the entire cost of the securities portfolio when the current holdings either are sold or mature. The portion of recorded cost that cannot be readily supported relates to security premiums and discounts. The recorded amounts of premiums and discounts were not significant to the FRBs’ total Treasury security account balance as of December 31, 1994. However, auditing the completeness of these recorded amounts is complicated by the lack of supporting documentation and records. Certain Federal Reserve note characteristics affect related accounting and further complicate audit efforts. For example, notes do not mature or expire. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, after a new currency issue is placed in circulation, the old issue is no longer valid for trade, and the liability for the old currency is removed after an appropriate period. However, the United States does not invalidate old note issues when a new note issue is placed in circulation. All notes issued are recorded as liabilities until returned to the FRBs. Additionally, many notes are held by collectors or are held in foreign countries and may never be returned to the FRBs. Destructibility, another note characteristic, also affects the note balance and complicates the FRB audits. Since notes were first issued, they have been destroyed by fires, wars, and other accidents and natural disasters beyond the FRBs’ control. The value of notes destroyed in this manner in a single year is unlikely to be large relative to the balance. However, the cumulative effect of these destructions and of other notes that may not be returned to the FRBs is unknown. The existence of these factors is not disclosed in the FRBs’ financial statements. We commend the Board for taking the step to contract for external, independent financial statement audits over the next 5 years. We believe that the Board’s current commitment to auditing the FRBs’ combined financial statements should be sustained and become a permanent part of the Board’s operating practices. Presenting audited, combined FRB financial statements that contain appropriate disclosures will enhance the credibility of the Federal Reserve’s annual report and will help meet the needs of financial statement users, including the Congress and the public. Institutionalizing such annual, external independent audits will also place the Federal Reserve System on a par with the central banks of other major industrialized nations with respect to financial reporting practices. In conducting these audits, the FRBs’ external auditors will need to address the audit challenges posed by the FRBs’ unique roles. Recording note liabilities based on bank identifiers is an inefficient use of FRB resources, and reporting this liability under the current approach does not serve a meaningful purpose. Discontinuing the practice of tracking and recording each FRB’s note liability based on note identifiers would increase efficiency and provide a consistent basis for the note liabilities reported by the FRBs. To bring about consistency and improve the efficiency of Federal Reserve note accounting and reporting procedures, we recommend that in conjunction with planning and implementing future changes to the automated systems used to account for and report notes, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System consider incorporating changes in the function of these systems to allow FRBs to account for and report notes without regard to the identifiers printed on the notes; directing the FRBs to discontinue using specific FRB identifiers printed on notes as the basis for recording each FRB’s liability for Federal Reserve notes; stopping the tracking of shipments by FRB identifiers; directing each FRB to record its note liability based on the Federal Reserve notes it actually receives and holds without regard to FRB identifiers; and apportioning note destructions among FRBs on an appropriate basis without regard to FRB identifiers. To enhance the combined financial statements as a vehicle for informing Federal Reserve management, the Congress, and the public about the operations of Federal Reserve Banks, we recommend that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System do the following: Adopt a policy to institutionalize annual, external independent audits of the FRBs’ combined financial statements as a routine operating procedure. These audits should be performed in accordance with GAGAS. Make the FRBs’ audited combined financial statements and independent auditor’s report publicly available upon issuance. For example, these documents could be included in the Federal Reserve System’s annual report. Include disclosures in the financial statements that (1) appropriately describe the significant accounting policies followed, such as the basis for the reported note liability and the treatment of the notes held in the vault, and (2) provide the information typically included in financial statements of other central banks and private sector financial institutions. Regarding our recommendations to bring about consistency and improve the efficiency of Federal Reserve note accounting and reporting procedures, the Board acknowledged in a letter dated January 11, 1996, that changes to the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve policies have blurred the distinction among Federal Reserve notes with different unique identifiers. The Board acknowledged that the accounting process for note destructions offers an opportunity for further efficiencies to be gained in this area. The Board stated it will give consideration to the accounting method used for Federal Reserve notes as the accounting and tracking systems associated with the notes are reviewed for possible redesign. Our other recommendations were intended to enhance the Federal Reserve Banks’ combined financial statements as a vehicle for informing Federal Reserve management, the Congress, and the public about the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and we believe implementing them would enhance management’s accountability. The Board stated it will give careful consideration to our recommendations concerning the use of external auditors, presentation of financial statements, and the application of auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-9406 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Helen T. Desaulniers, Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 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 several internal control issues at the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Dallas and the Federal Reserve Automation Services' (FRAS) accounting procedures, focusing on: (1) Dallas FRB financial accounting and reporting and electronic data processing (EDP) control weaknesses; (2) the efficiency and consistency of Federal Reserve note accounting; and (3) auditing issues that need the attention of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors and its auditor. GAO found that: (1) at the Dallas FRB, its 3 branches, and FRAS, weaknesses exist in accounting records, asset accountability, and the use of automated systems; (2) Dallas FRB control weaknesses include failure to use independent records to verify and reconcile general ledger accounts and activity, limit access to FRB automated systems, review accounting adjustments related to check processing activity, and properly conduct and document Federal Reserve note inventories; (3) FRAS and Dallas FRB general EDP weaknesses include inadequate control over access to sensitive information, system software changes, disaster recovery plan testing, and the use of special privileges on automated tasks; (4) the Federal Reserve could improve the consistency and efficiency of its note accounting procedures by eliminating the use of the FRB identifier on each note for recording liabilities for notes in circulation; (5) the Board of Governors has contracted for annual independent external audits of the combined FRB asset accounts and financial statements over the next 5 years and one audit of each FRB during the same period to enhance the credibility of reported information; and (6) the auditor will face challenges identifying the ownership and original cost of U.S. Treasury securities, confirming amounts held by note holders, and the notes' unique characteristics of nonmaturity and destructibility. |
10.20 pm. I was hoping for a vision. I was hoping for real, strategic reform. What we got was one big blizzard of tax deductions, wrapped in a populist cloak. It was treading water. I suspect this will buoy liberal spirits, but anger the right and befuddle the independents. It definitely gives the Republican case against Obama as a big government meddler more credibility. I may be wrong - but the sheer cramped, tedious, mediocre micro-policies he listed were uninspiring to say the least.
We voted for Obama; now we find we got another Clinton. The base will like this. I'm not sure independents will. As performance, he did as well as he could with the thin material he had in his hands. As a speech, I thought it was the worst of his SOTUs, when he really needed his best.
10.17 pm. This notion that a country, a democracy, should have the same attitude as troops fighting a war is preposterous and slightly creepy. Yes, we should put aside our differences to get important things done, put aside ideology to focus on solving problems. But we are not a military and the president is not our commander. He is our president. We have every right to argue with one another and to distrust one another at times. The whole idea of getting each others' backs in a boisterous democracy is deeply undemocratic. I do not want to be a citizen trained like a member of the Navy SEALs. Nor should anyone. This isn't Sparta. It's America. And to use the raid on bin Laden as the model of our future cooperation struck me as too easy and trite an analogy.
10.16 pm. More tax deductions for companies that hire vets. Almost every single proposal in this speech has been a tax break for something or other. What an awful way to run an economy.
10.14 pm. A strong defense of American exceptionalism - presumably as a retort to the neocon right. But the line about American power reminds me that this is the presidentseen clasping Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World".
10.12 pm. A familiar line on Iran and a new fact about the Israeli alliance under Obama:
Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.
10.07 pm. And after this tired litany of liberal gimmicks, he brings us back to his original promise:
None of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.
Absolutely. But it feels alien to the rest of the speech. Maybe it's because he has been greeted with such derisive, contemptuous opposition from the GOP in the Congress. But it's sad to see him seem so, well, Washington. His strength is in the broad vision for the future, not these dozens of little initiatives. The strongest parts came in his own statements about his unilateral actions in the executive branch. The rest? Weak, poorly constructed, rhetorically sub-par.
10.06 pm. Why not mention the 60 vote filibuster if you're talking reform, rather than getting your own nominees approved more quickly? That would be the high road. He's now settled on the low one.
9.59 pm. We're beginning to get to the real stuff now. It's tax cuts for the very wealthy or investment in America. Here's the tax "reform":
Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief. Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
And you could achieve that with real tax reform, instead of this purely make-the-rich-pay-more gambit. He's given up on real reform, it seems to me, in favor of more tax breaks and deductions for his preferred companies and sectors, and tax hikes on the wealthy. This is the old liberalism, warmed over. To those of us who supported him because he was about serious reform - and not this kind of gimmicky meddling in the economy and increasing complexity in the tax code.
9.58 pm. Boehner and Cantor applaud an extension of the payroll tax cut.
9.56 pm. And now a war on shady banks and financial companies:
I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
9.55 pm. So far: nada on debt; nada on tax reform; nada on healthcare reform. He really refuses to sell Obamacare, doesn't he? But maybe it will come later.
9.54 pm. That spilt milk line: a joke worthy of Jon Huntsman. We miss you, Jon Lovett.
9.52 pm. A big idea:
That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.
Basically, that's a handout to underwater homeowners using money from the banks. Pure populism. Pure redistributionism. But the speech has lacked any big sustaining argument about the inequality and unfairness that has marked the last few years. And so all of this sounds like a series of shameless panders that someone has to pay for.
9.48 pm. This speech is beginning to make Bill Clintons' look like clear and visionary. But people loved Clinton's long laundry list of micro-policies. I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.
9.45 pm. Finally, something specific: removing the subsidies for Big Oil - but adding new tax credits for green energy. More tax credits! With each minute of this speech, the tax code gets more impenetrable and the government's meddling in the economy more entrenched.
9.43 pm. Some facts to counter GOP lies: "Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years."
9.41 pm. "Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs." Are you keeping count of how many more tax deductions he is now proposing? The tax code is getting more complicated with every sentence. Tax reform? Left in the dust - and to the GOP. Tax simplification? He's making it all much more complicated.
9.39 pm. What on earth is this supposed to mean:
So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.
Again: vapid beyond measure. If he wants to convince Americans he has no idea about how the economy works, this speech so far will help.
9.33 pm. Now a demand for more money for community colleges, so they can set up partnerships for training. Sounds fine in principle (did David Brooks get a heads up?) but I'm deply skepitcal of sentences like: "Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job." This is thin gruel. So far, a litany of old liberal policies, some xenophobia and general bullshit. This is what I mean by bullshit:
I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.
What an easy thing to say. And he can do nothing about it. So why say it?
9.31 pm. So Obama is now pro-SOPA? How completely out of touch with his base. And all this nationalism and protectionism is deeply depressing.
9.27 pm. And now a Santorum-style focus on manufacturing - and the same old abuse of the tax code to influence the economy. This is industrial policy, based on populism. It isn't unleashing the free market through tax reform. It's a throwback to paleo-liberalism. Tax breaks and subsidies to keep jobs at home. It's spitting in the wind of the global economy - and it fails to grasp government's proper role. Workers here will never be cost-competitive with the Chinese. This is fantasy - and cheap populism.
9.25 pm. Now for the case for his rescuing of the auto industry, which Romney wanted to go bankrupt. It will be an interesting race in Michigan this fall, won't it?
9.22 pm. "Those are the facts." The beginning of the reclamation of reality from the deranged GOP. Good to see him insist on the truth that he inherited an economy in free-fall, and turned it around in a year. And what's interesting is his insistence that the problems go back decades. What he means, I think, is the era of supply-side economics.
9.17 pm. A segueway from the end of World War II to the end of the Iraq war - and the era when government was respected and believed in. This tour of history is now a recurring feature of Obama's speeches. Then the core argument:
Everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.
9.14 pm. The right start: reminding Americans that the reason he was nominated - ending the Iraq war - has been accomplished. And that he won the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda. Then a unifying salute to the troops.
9.08 pm. "Don't get lipstick on me!" And a big embrace from Justice Ginsburg. Then a lovely rollicking hug with Gabby Giffords. A warm personal start.
9.07 pm. It will begin and end with foreign policy. The center will be fairness. And a whole bunch of programs to help the unemployed. I hope no one forbids applause. ||||| Style: Achieved a good balance between lofty and accessible but probably could have let a little more of his winning personality show through. Optimistic and hopeful about getting things done, although his pleas for cooperation sometimes clashed with his defiant pledges to act without Congress. Firm and confident but without the touch of condescension he occasionally adopts.
Substance: Despite what his detractors say, fully in command of policy across the board. Still, his arguments were presented a little defensively when justifying past policies and his pitches for new policies were uneven in their level of detail.
His worst moment: Thwarted by cutaways of Republican leaders McConnell and Cantor, who were not giving an inch.
His best moment: Closed strong with a return to his opening theme that the country should come together in the spirit of the U.S. military.
The main thing: The speech was clearly poll tested to within an inch of its life, filled with programs and themes of broad appeal running from the left to the center right. Rhetorically reached out to the opposition by invoking national security, the need to get Washington working and a few familiar areas of common ground (entitlement and education reform). But much of the speech focused on policies that divide the parties absolutely. And, judging by the press releases and tweets from the Republican leadership, this State of the Union address will serve to lay down markers for November’s election rather than break the current gridlock. New taxes and a bigger role for Washington are where the presidential election will be fought out – not foundations for compromise this year.
Grade: B ||||| Topics: Opening Shot
Before Tuesday night, it had been 16 years since a Democratic president gave a State of the Union address in his reelection year.
And in some ways, the speech that Barack Obama delivered was very similar to the one that Bill Clinton offered back in 1996. But if you put aside all of the platitudes, mushy rhetoric and feel-good proposals, the heart of Obama’s remarks demonstrated that he’s intent on pursuing a far more combative and populist path to a second term than the one Clinton followed.
It was during his Jan. 23, 1996, State of the Union that Clinton uttered the signature line of his presidency. “The era of big government is over,” he told a joint session of Congress that night. The line captured the essence of an election year message that largely conceded the broad themes of the Reagan revolution while offering the incumbent as a more compassionate implementer of them than his Republican opponents.
Obama’s address included no shortage of appeals to unity, bipartisanship and overriding national purpose, and he articulated plenty of vague, popular-sounding policy goals, much as Clinton did during his ’96 campaign. But his central message stressed a sharp and basic philosophical contrast with his partisan opponents – one he clearly plans to make the centerpiece of his reelection effort.
Specifically, the fight Obama wants to have is over income inequality and tax fairness, with the aim of exposing today’s Republican Party as the chief protector of a super-affluent elite that has grown even wealthier as the rest of America has struggled. For decades, Republicans have scored points accusing Democrats of “class warfare,” but the White House’s bet is that in post-meltdown America the “99 percent” message has resonance with blue-collar voters who have in the past embraced the GOP’s individualist pitch.
In his speech, Obama offered a forceful and comprehensive rebuttal to the class warfare charge, one we’ll surely be hearing again and again these next nine months. He made a case for letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire and for imposing the “Buffett rule” – doing away with tax rules that allow millionaires who make their money from investments to pay an income tax rate that’s lower than the one paid by people who earn a fraction of their income. He made the case in moral terms, as a way to affirm a social contract that’s been violated by the policy-making of the past three decades:
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last. Obviously, this is a message that could be particularly effective if Obama’s opponent is Mitt Romney, the private equity veteran whose tax records indicate that he paid a 14 percent effective federal rate thanks to the current rules on investment income. But it’s one Obama will stress no matter who his opponent is. After all, Newt Gingrich, Romney’s chief rival for the GOP nomination, is actually proposing that the capital gains tax be eliminated altogether – a move that would drop the effective tax rate of Romney and others like him close to zero. “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” Obama said early in his speech, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” He’s embracing the idea that there is fundamental philosophical divide between the parties on the most important economic questions facing the country. That’s a very different message than the one he delivered in his State of the Union last year, when he was coming off a midterm election drubbing and he believed that his best bet for reelection was in following the Clinton ’96 model. But a massively frustrating spring and summer of 2011, which culminated in the GOP’s rejection of his debt ceiling “grand bargain” and a public relations disaster, finally convinced the White House that meaningful compromise with Tea Party-era Republicans simply isn’t possible – and that pretending otherwise was politically suicidal. Since then, Obama has made it his mission to call out Republicans for their obstructionism and to shine a light on who is protected by their obstructionism. His State of the Union on Tuesday night laid the groundwork for a reelection campaign that will be defined by that theme.
Continue Reading
Close ||||| At first listen, President Obama’s State of the Union address had all the hallmarks of the sort of bipartisan, let’s-do-the-right-thing-for-America tone that characterized his 2008 presidential campaign.
View Photo Gallery: Tonight’s speech is Obama’s third State of Union, sixth address to Congress overall.
But, listen closer and a more hard-edged, challenging tone reveals itself— a preview of what the incumbent will likely sound like as he seeks a second term this November.
“We’ve come too far to turn back now,” said Obama at one point. “As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”
Later, he offered an even more blunt challenge: “With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow.” He also repeatedly urged Congress to “send me a bill”, making clear that the ball, legislatively and politically, was in their court.
Even in his tone — a forceful and energetic delivery — made clear that Obama had a simple message for Republicans: Game on.
The State of the Union speech then was in keeping with the rhetoric coming out of this president and this White House dating back to the payroll tax cut extension fight late last year.
It seems as thought the debt-ceiling fight, which Obama described as a “fiasco”in his address tonight, convinced him once and for all that the only way to effectively deal with Republicans was show them that he was willing to talk tougher and push harder than they were.
It worked in the payroll tax cut fight as Republicans folded after it became clear that their attempt to pass a longer-term extension was doomed. (Obama made special mention of the payroll tax in the State of the Union; “Let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay,” he said.)
And Obama’s poll numbers have increased in parallel with his willingness to stare down congressional Republicans. His favorable rating in a Washington Post poll in the field last week had jumped to 53 percent — including 51 percent with the electorally critical independents.
Given the success of his rhetorical pivot, it’s no surprise that President Obama largely stuck to it during the State of the Union. While this was not the same speech he would give to a group of Democratic activists and donors, it was also far from the ideals-only addresses that he delivered with regularity on the campaign trail in 2008.
This is Obama version 2.0: Harder, more cynical but perhaps also more effective. This is the Obama that will run for a second term this November — an Obama ready to give at least as good as he gets in the bare-knuckled brawl that is American politics.
Read more from PostPolitics
Watch Obama's entire speech
Full prepared text of Obama's SOTU address
SOTU play-by-play: What you missed
SOTU quiz: Test your knowledge | President Obama delivered a feisty, populist State of the Union address last night (excerpts here, pictures here), and naturally pundits are dissecting and grading it today. Here's what they're saying: "Obama had a simple message for Republicans: Game on," writes Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post. What on the surface was a typical post-partisan Obama speech was actually full of populist challenges to Republicans. "This is Obama version 2.0: Harder, more cynical but perhaps also more effective." Noted "Obamacon" Andrew Sullivan was disappointed, trashing the speech as a hodge-podge of liberal policies. "I was hoping for a vision. I was hoping for real, strategic reform," he lamented in his Daily Beast liveblog. "We voted for Obama; now we find we got another Clinton." Steve Kornacki of Salon dubs it Obama's "99% speech," because the president drew battle lines around income inequality. "He's embracing the idea that there is [a] fundamental philosophical divide between the parties," convinced that it's "political suicide" to attempt compromise with intractable Republicans. Mark Halperin of Time gives the speech a "B," saying that Obama "achieved a good balance between lofty and accessible" and was "fully in command of policy," but that "the speech was clearly poll-tested to within an inch of its life." |
During Operation Desert Storm, the Army deployed all or nearly all of certain support units such as transportation and military police units. As threats to U.S. security interests evolve and defense budgets shrink, it is important that the Army accurately identify the support forces it requires. TAA is the Army’s biennial process to determine required support units and recommend the type and number of support units that the Army should include in its budget. The requirements generated in this process are dependent on a variety of inputs and guidance, including scenarios derived from the Defense Planning Guidance, wargaming assumptions, and logistical data that are developed for use in the computer modeling. For purposes of this report, logistical data include planning factors, consumption rates, and other data. Planning factors cover 9 of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 10 classes of supply; for modeling purposes, these factors are usually expressed in pounds per person per day. Consumption rates include such factors as the number of soldiers admitted to a hospital per day and the number of prisoners captured per day. An example of other logistical data would be the amount of support that allies can provide to offset U.S. requirements. While planning scenarios are largely given to the Army, logistical data must be developed by the Army. These data are compiled in the Army Force Planning Data and Assumptions document (AFPDA). Once the data are finalized—during TAA force structure conferences—the Concepts Analysis Agency conducts the computer modeling, which generates unit requirements based on a set of rules that determine the number of support units needed. After requirements are determined, additional force structure conferences are held where Army officials decide which units can be filled within the projected resource levels. Figure 1 highlights key elements of the TAA process for developing requirements and making force resourcing decisions. The Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG) is responsible for developing the logistics data in the AFPDA. In practice, some of this responsibility has been delegated to the Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM), which is the Army’s integrator for some combat service support issues. Biennially, DCSLOG and CASCOM update the logistics portions of the AFPDA by tasking the major commands, Army component commands, and schools to validate the logistical data related to their areas of expertise. For example, school representatives are tasked to validate data based on their perspectives on doctrine; component commands are tasked to provide their perspectives on unique data and issues related to their theater. The logistical data are presented to workshops to gain group acceptance. They are then sent forward to the TAA force structure conference, where the data are approved. Army documents describe the AFPDA update as a systematic review and validation of key data used in TAA. However, Army regulations related to TAA primarily focused on the validation and management of planning factors. Effective May 1994, the Army broadened its regulation to include additional logistical data found in the AFPDA. This change should help to improve the validity of logistical data, but additional procedures are needed to correct the problems we found with the AFPDA update process. Before May 1994, Army regulation 700-8 specified responsibilities for the development and management of logistics planning factors. The Army Logistics Center, CASCOM’s predecessor, was responsible for managing the development, validation, and collection of planning factors, and was to recommend factors to DCSLOG for approval. However, DCSLOG and CASCOM officials did not believe that the development and management of other logistical data for use in the AFPDA, such as theater specific data provided by component commanders, were covered in this or any other regulation prior to May 1994. In 1993, the Army Audit Agency found the Army’s management of planning factors to be inadequate, and recommended changes to the process. The recommended changes included tasking responsible activities to (1) update planning factors periodically and (2) validate methodologies and assumptions used to develop planning factors. In 1994, the Army revised its regulations to improve the management of planning factors. These revisions included specifying time frames for updates to take place and incorporating internal control responsibilities to guide the development of planning factors. The regulation was also changed to include other logistical data and to link the development of logistical data to the AFPDA. While the regulation gave DCSLOG the overall responsibility for logistical data management, the day-to-day management for logistical data was delegated to CASCOM. The Army’s TAA process relied heavily on commands and schools to review and validate the accuracy of logistics data. Commands and schools were requested prior to the TAA workshops to review and validate logistics data. However, we found that some data had not been validated, were outdated, or were not supported by documented studies. Because the process was poorly documented, we could not determine how widespread these problems were. Further, no organization was responsible for ensuring that the data validations occurred and were derived from consistent and sound methodological studies. Our review of available documentation for several past TAAs showed that some data had not been validated in several years. Although some school officials believed the AFPDA contained outdated data, actions were not undertaken to validate or change the data. For instance, officials with the ordnance school, which develops doctrine for maintenance units, expressed concern in 1989 that rates for equipment that is expected to be abandoned and the rates for vehicles expected to be damaged in combat had not been updated in 4 years and, thus, were unlikely to be accurate. These rates primarily affect the number of maintenance units. In another instance, the Army engineers submitted workload factors that were outdated and had not been validated prior to the January 1992 TAA workshop. These factors measured the number of hours it takes to construct such structures as railroads, bridges, and pipelines. A new study was done only after concerns were raised about the validity of these factors during the AFPDA workshops. We found data that were not supported by documentation. At the U.S. Army Central Command (ARCENT), for example, officials that provided data for TAA in 1992 had not maintained documentation that would show how the data were developed. This lack of documentation reduces assurance that the data are valid and can cause problems during future updates if key personnel change. For example, U.S. Army, Korea, officials told us that they did not know how data on the Korean theater had been developed because there were no files or individuals who could explain the prior year’s validation process. We found that while the Army sought consistency and accuracy in the logistical data update process, no organization ensured that a reasonable methodology was used by the commands and schools nor that studies or supporting models used to develop the data were valid. We found that neither CASCOM nor DCSLOG had overseen the validation process. According to a DCSLOG official, DCSLOG has not routinely reviewed the methodology used by various proponents who submit factors and data to the process. This official stated that only if a factor looked unusual would it generate an inquiry back to the proponent to ask how that factor was developed. CASCOM officials stated that they had no regulatory requirement to review the methodology of proponents who developed logistical data. The Army’s revised regulation governing the development and validation of logistical data for the TAA process is an improvement. The revised regulation requires CASCOM to examine the AFPDA to ensure data consistency, adherence to doctrine, necessity, identification of sources, and rationale of methodology. It also specifies time frames for the AFPDA updates, thus putting the commands and schools on notice when the data validation will be required. CASCOM officials stated that they have not yet defined their role regarding overseeing the update of AFPDA data. Therefore, CASCOM had not told the commands and schools what will be required of them. We believe that CASCOM should establish procedures that would specify how commands and schools are to validate and maintain all logistical data in the AFPDA. Specifically, major commands, Army component commands, and schools should be directed to ensure that their data are based on sound analytical studies and assumptions and that the methodological bases for those data and assumptions are documented. Moreover, CASCOM’s guidance should specify what CASCOM will require from commands and schools to exercise its oversight responsibility. According to DOD, CASCOM is already developing procedures to improve the update process and should complete a review of the adequacy of existing data by the end of 1996. According to Army regulations, theater-specific data are best obtained from Army components most familiar with the region and involved in the theater war-planning process. However, we found that the current level of participation by Army component commanders does not ensure that data and assumptions used by TAA are similar to data that component commands use to develop their war plans. The result is that the required force structure developed in TAA does not agree with theater war plans. Army component commands should have an important role in the TAA process. During development of the AFPDA, Army regulations instruct the Army components to review, revalidate, and submit theater-unique logistics data. Specifically, they are to provide data such as support provided by allies, theater stockage policies, and theater consumption factors. Also, as part of the TAA process, Army components identify theater-unique requirements that may be different from current doctrinal rules. This identification is required because the Army recognizes that each theater is unique and that the Army component commands are the most familiar with their area. In practice, however, Army components sometimes believe that their role in the process is insufficient to affect the process. Thus, Army component officials said they don’t always consider developing data for TAA as a priority. Therefore, some commands do not always send representatives to workshops where data are discussed and adopted. In other instances, component command representatives at the workshops have not challenged data that is inconsistent with their plans. TAA requirements for military theaters sometimes differ from those in theater war plans. Some differences can be attributed to the fact that TAA provides a longer-term force structure outlook than theater war plans.Other differences, however, result from TAA and war plans being derived from different assumptions, logistical data, and computing methods. For example, according to U.S. Army, Europe, officials, TAA requirements developed in 1992 did not match planning efforts in the European theater because the two processes used different scenarios. TAA modeled a northern region scenario for Europe, whereas U.S. Army, Europe, used a southern region scenario in its war plans. The TAA’s northern region scenario was based on the Defense Planning Guidance. U.S. Army, Europe, officials believe that TAA-generated requirements are based on an unrealistic scenario. U.S. Army, Europe, officials told us that conflicts in the southern region are more probable than the northern region; and thus, believe establishing requirements for that region is prudent. Further, force structure requirements for the southern region are more challenging than for the northern region because of the more mountainous terrain, lack of infrastructure, and the lack of host nation capability. As a result, U.S. Army, Europe’s, requirements and the TAA requirements for Europe differed greatly. U.S. Army, Europe, officials stated that these difference still exist in the current TAA update cycle. In another example, we compared TAA support requirements developed in 1992 for Southwest Asia with ARCENT’s operational requirements. The analysis showed that some support areas, such as medical, maintenance, and military police differed significantly. Table 1 summarizes some of the differences between ARCENT requirements based on TAA and war plans. As shown in the table, ARCENT plans require 31 combat support hospitals, which would require 18,817 positions, and TAA requires 18 hospitals, which would require 10,908 positions—a difference of 13 hospitals and 7,909 positions. The ARCENT medical planner believes TAA uses disease and non-battle injury rate much below what the Command believes are likely in its region, resulting in lower patient estimates and fewer hospitals. A CASCOM official responsible for medical units was unaware that ARCENT used a different method to determine requirements for combat support hospitals. However, this official believes that the TAA method is more precise. The table also shows that TAA has about 8,260 general support maintenance positions, while ARCENT plans envision 2,767 positions—a difference of 5,493 positions. TAA requirements were developed in response to a protracted Central European scenario that involves equipment overhaul in theater. Because ARCENT does not envision a protracted conflict in the Southwest Asia region, ARCENT plans to perform most major repairs in U.S. depots. ARCENT officials said that they have not yet been successful in convincing TAA decisionmakers to adopt the ARCENT concept. However, a CASCOM official familiar with maintenance unit issues said that ARCENT has not surfaced this issue in TAA workshops or conferences. The table also shows differences between TAA and ARCENT war plans for combat support military police companies. ARCENT plans require 107 of these companies, whereas TAA requires 77 companies—a difference of 30 companies and 5,280 positions. The ARCENT Military Police planner stated that requirements are different because TAA modeling does not adequately reflect theater geography and concentration of troops in determining requirements for these police companies. CASCOM officials stated that TAA has not addressed these issues because ARCENT has not raised them at workshops and conferences. We recommend that the Secretary of the Army take the following actions: Require CASCOM to establish procedures that specify (1) how major commands, Army component commands and schools should validate and maintain data for the AFPDA and (2) what CASCOM will require to exercise its oversight responsibility. Establish procedures and identify the differences in theater planning requirements and TAA requirements to ensure that there are valid reasons for differences or make adjustments to requirements. DOD generally concurred with our findings and our recommendation that procedures are needed to ensure that data are valid. DOD noted that CASCOM is in the process of establishing procedures to improve the validation of data used in TAA. DOD disagreed with our recommendation that the Army identify differences between theater planning and TAA requirements to ensure that the reasons for the differences are valid. DOD believes that the two processes were designed for different purposes and yield different but consistent results. We recognize that there are differences between the process used to compute requirements for the TAA and theater commands. These differences largely result because TAA computes requirements further in the future than do theater commands, which may result in different assumptions such as the level of unit modernization, threat, and budget levels. However, the examples we have cited are not related to these factors. Rather, the differences result from fundamentally different views about how certain functions will be performed or at what rate events will occur. Thus, we continue to believe that differences between the two processes should be identified to determine if they are valid. We conducted this review from July 1993 to September 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and interested congressional committees and individuals. Copies will be sent to other interested parties upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-3504, if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are Robert Pelletier, Rodell Anderson, and Blake Ainsworth. To determine how Army assumptions and data used in the TAA process were developed, we reviewed available documentation from past TAAs and interviewed officials at the Department of the Army Headquarters, Washington D.C; Concepts Analysis Agency, Bethesda, Maryland; U.S. Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; Combined Arms Support Command and Quartermaster School, Fort Lee, Virginia; Transportation School, Fort Eustis, Virginia; Engineer School and Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; and the Medical School and Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. To gain a perspective on Army component commands’ participation in TAA and the relationship between TAA and operational planning, we interviewed personnel and reviewed related documents at the U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; U.S. Army, Central Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia; the U.S. European Command at Stuttgart, Germany; U.S. Army, Europe, at Heidelberg, Germany; and Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia. We also discussed 8th U.S. Army’s role in TAA with logistics planners in Seoul, Korea. To assess TAA and theater requirements for Southwest Asia, we reviewed ARCENT’s major operations plan and troop list for the region and compared it with TAA modeling results and other TAA-related requirements and resourcing documents. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) letter dated December 19, 1994. 1. We continue to believe that the Army’s Total Army Analysis (TAA) process did not ensure valid data, based on the problems we found with the process. DOD describes improvements made during the current TAA; we did not review the improvements, and thus, we cannot comment on them. However, as DOD acknowledges in its response, additional procedures are needed to ensure that data are validated. 2. Our information is based on numerous discussions with theater command representatives at Army Central Command and U.S. Army, Europe. These individuals indicated that theater command participation is not comprehensive and conscientious enough to ensure that theater perspectives are considered in the process. 3. We recognize that there are differences between the process used to compute requirements for the TAA and theater commands. These differences largely result because TAA computes requirements further in the future than do theater commands, which may result in different assumptions, such as the level of unit modernization, threat, and budget levels. However, the examples we have cited are not related to these factors. While DOD believes that the TAA process includes sufficient open forums in which force requirements are reviewed by representatives of theater commanders, many theater representatives believe their perspectives are not always included in the TAA process. Because we did not have access to these debates, we could not ascertain to what degree theater perspectives are raised or how differences are resolved. Therefore, we continue to believe that differences between the two processes should be identified to determine if they are valid. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Army's Total Army Analysis (TAA) process, focusing on whether its results are based on valid logistical data assumptions. GAO found that: (1) the Army lacks adequate procedures to govern the development and review of logistical data used in the TAA process; (2) until recently, Army regulations only focused on the management and validation of planning factors, and those regulations were not followed; (3) the Army has revised its regulations to require that all logistical TAA data be validated and that the process be centrally managed, but further guidance is needed to ensure the validity of all data and sufficient oversight of the process; and (4) Army programmers sometimes use data and assumptions in the TAA process that differ from what Army component planners use for war plans, which can result in vastly different requirements. |
On October 25, 1995, Americans were reminded of the dangers that drivers/passengers often face when they travel over railroad crossings in the United States. On that day, in Fox River Grove, Illinois, seven high school students were killed when a commuter train hit a school bus. The potential for tragedies like the one at Fox River Grove is significant—the United States has over 168,000 public highway-railroad intersections. The types of warning for motorists at these crossings range from no visible devices to active devices, such as lights and gates. About 60 percent of all public crossings in the United States have only passive warning devices—typically, highway signs known as crossbucks. In 1994, this exposure resulted in motor vehicle accidents at crossings that killed 501 people and injured 1,764 others. Many of these deaths should have been avoided, since nearly one-half occurred at crossings where flashing lights and descended gates had warned motorists of the approaching danger. In August 1995, we issued a comprehensive report on safety at railroad crossings. We reported that the federal investment in improving railroad crossing safety had noticeably reduced the number of deaths and injuries. Since the Rail-Highway Crossing Program—also known as the section 130 program—was established in 1974, the federal government has distributed about $5.5 billion (in 1996 constant dollars) to the states for railroad crossing improvements. This two-decade investment, combined with a reduction in the total number of crossings since 1974, has significantly lowered the accident and fatality rates—by 61 percent and 34 percent, respectively. However, most of this progress occurred during the first decade, and since 1985, the number of deaths has fluctuated between 466 and 682 each year (see app. 1). Since 1977, the federal funding for railroad crossing improvements has also declined in real terms. Consequently, the question for future railroad crossing safety initiatives will be how best to target available resources to the most cost-effective approaches. Our report discussed several strategies for targeting limited resources to address railroad crossing safety problems. The first strategy is to review DOT’s current method of apportioning section 130 funds to the states. Our analysis of the 1995 section 130 apportionments found anomalies among the states in terms of how much funding they received in proportion to three key risk factors: accidents, fatalities, and total crossings. For example, California received 6.9 percent of the section 130 funds in 1995, but it had only 4.8 percent of the nation’s railroad crossings, 5.3 percent of the fatalities, and 3.9 percent of the accidents. Senators Lugar and Coats have proposed legislation to change the formula for allocating section 130 funds by linking the amounts of funding directly to the numbers of railroad crossings, fatalities, and accidents. Currently, section 130 funds are apportioned to each state as a 10-percent set-aside of its Surface Transportation Program funds. The second means of targeting railroad crossing safety resources is to focus the available dollars on the strategies that have proved most effective in preventing accidents. These strategies include closing more crossings, using innovative technologies at dangerous crossings, and emphasizing education and enforcement. Clearly, the most effective way to improve railroad crossing safety is to close more crossings. The Secretary of Transportation has restated FRA’s goal of closing 25 percent of the nation’s railroad crossings, since many are unnecessary or redundant. For example, in 1994, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials found that the nation had two railroad crossings for every mile of track and that in heavily congested areas, the average approached 10 crossings for every mile. However, local opposition and localities’ unwillingness to provide a required 10-percent match in funds have made it difficult for the states to close as many crossings as they would like. When closing is not possible, the next alternative is to install traditional lights and gates. However, lights and gates provide only a warning, not positive protection at a crossing. Hence, new technologies such as four-quadrant gates with vehicle detectors, although costing about $1 million per crossing, may be justified when accidents persist at signalled crossings. The Congress has funded research to develop innovative technologies for improving railroad crossing safety. Although installing lights and gates can help to prevent accidents and fatalities, it will not preclude motorists from disregarding warning signals and driving around descended gates. Many states, particularly those with many railroad crossings, face a dilemma. While 35 percent of the railroad crossings in the United States have active warning devices, 50 percent of all crossing fatalities occurred at these locations. To modify drivers’ behavior, DOT and the states are developing education and enforcement strategies. For example, Ohio—a state with an active education and enforcement program—cut the number of accidents at crossings with active warning devices from 377 in 1978 to 93 in 1993—a 75-percent reduction. Ohio has used mock train crashes as educational tools and has aggressively issued tickets to motorists going around descended crossing gates. In addition, DOT has inaugurated a safety campaign entitled “Always Expect a Train,” while Operation Lifesaver, Inc., provides support and referral services for state safety programs. DOT’s educational initiatives are part of a larger plan to improve railroad crossing safety. In June 1994, DOT issued a Grade Crossing Action Plan, and in October 1995, it established a Grade Crossing Safety Task Force. The action plan set a national goal of reducing the number of accidents and fatalities by 50 percent from 1994 to 2004. As we noted in our report, whether DOT attains the plan’s goal will depend, in large part, on how well it coordinates the efforts of the states and railroads, whose contributions to implementing many of the proposals are critical. DOT does not have the authority to direct the states to implement many of the plan’s proposals, regardless of how important they are to achieving DOT’s goal. Therefore, DOT must rely on either persuading the states that implementation is in their best interests or providing them with incentives for implementation. In addition, the success of five of the plan’s proposals depends on whether DOT can obtain the required congressional approval to use existing funds in ways that are not allowable under current law. The five proposals would (1) change the method used to apportion section 130 funds to the states, (2) use Surface Transportation Program funds to pay local governments a bonus to close crossings, (3) eliminate the requirement for localities to match a portion of the costs associated with closing crossings, (4) establish a $15 million program to encourage the states to improve rail corridors, and (5) use Surface Transportation Program funds to increase federal funding for Operation Lifesaver. Finally, the action plan’s proposals will cost more money. Secretary Pena has announced a long-term goal of eliminating 2,250 crossings where the National Highway System intersects Principal Rail Lines. Both systems are vital to the nation’s interstate commerce, and closing these crossings is generally not feasible. The alternative is to construct a grade separation—an overpass or underpass. This initiative alone could cost between $4.5 billion and $11.3 billion—a major infrastructure investment. DOT established the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force in the aftermath of the Fox River Grove accident, intending to conduct a comprehensive national review of highway-railroad crossing design and construction measures. On March 1, 1996, the task force reported to the Secretary that “improved highway-rail grade crossing safety depends upon better cooperation, communication, and education among responsible parties if accidents and fatalities are to be reduced significantly.” The report provided 24 proposals for five problem areas it reviewed: (1) highway traffic signals that are supposed to be triggered by oncoming trains; (2) roadways where insufficient space is allotted for vehicles to stop between a road intersection and nearby railroad tracks; (3) junctions where railroad tracks are elevated above the surface of the roadway, exposing vehicles to the risk of getting hung on the tracks; (4) light rail transit crossings without standards for their design, warning devices, or traffic control measures; and (5) intersections where slowly moving vehicles, such as farm equipment, frequently cross the tracks. Under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended, FRA is responsible for regulating all aspects of railroad safety. FRA’s safety mission includes 1) establishing federal rail safety rules and standards; 2) inspecting railroads’ track, signals, equipment, and operating practices; and 3) enforcing federal safety rules and standards. The railroads are primarily responsible for inspecting their own equipment and facilities to ensure compliance with federal safety regulations, while FRA monitors the railroads’ actions. We have issued many reports identifying weaknesses in FRA’s railroad safety inspection and enforcement programs. For example, in July 1990, we reported on FRA’s progress in meeting the requirements, set forth in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1980, that FRA submit to the Congress a system safety plan to carry out railroad safety laws. The act directed FRA to (1) develop an inspection methodology that considered carriers’ safety records, the location of population centers, and the volume and type of traffic using the track and (2) give priority to inspections of track and equipment used to transport passengers and hazardous materials. The House report accompanying the 1980 act stated that FRA should target safety inspections to high-risk track—track with a high incidence of accidents and injuries, located in populous urban areas, carrying passengers, or transporting hazardous materials. In our 1990 report, we found that the inspection plan that FRA had developed did not include data on passenger and hazardous materials routes—two important risk factors. In an earlier report, issued in April 1989, we noted problems with another risk factor—accidents and injuries. We found that the railroads had substantially underreported and inaccurately reported the number of accidents and injuries and their associated costs. As a result, FRA could not integrate inspection, accident, and injury data in its inspection plan to target high-risk locations. In our 1994 report on FRA’s track safety inspection program, we found that FRA had improved its track inspection program and that its strategy for correcting the weaknesses we had previously identified was sound. However, we pointed out that FRA still faced challenges stemming from these weaknesses. First, it had not obtained and incorporated into its inspection plan site-specific data on two critical risk factors—the volume of passenger and hazardous materials traffic. Second, it had not improved the reliability of another critical risk factor—the rail carriers’ reporting of accidents and injuries nationwide. FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in August 1994 on methods to improve rail carriers’ reporting. In February 1996, FRA reported that it intended to issue a final rule in June 1996. To overcome these problems, we recommended that FRA focus on improving and gathering reliable data to establish rail safety goals. We specifically recommended that FRA establish a pilot program in one FRA region to gather data on the volume of passenger and hazardous materials traffic and correct the deficiencies in its accident/injury database. We recommended a pilot program in one FRA region, rather than a nationwide program, because FRA had expressed concern that a nationwide program would be too expensive. The House and Senate Appropriations Conference Committee echoed our concerns in its fiscal year 1995 report and directed the agency to report to the Committees by March 1995 on how it intended to implement our recommendations. In its August 1995 response to the Committees, FRA indicated that the pilot program was not necessary, but it was taking actions to correct the deficiencies in the railroad accident/injury database. For example, FRA had allowed the railroads to update the database using magnetic media and audited the reporting procedures of all the large railroads. We also identified in our 1994 report an emerging traffic safety problem—the industry’s excessive labeling of track as exempt from federal safety standards. Since 1982, federal track safety standards have not applied to about 12,000 miles of track designated by the industry as “excepted;” travel on such track is limited to 10 miles per hour, no passenger service is allowed, and no train may carry more than five cars containing hazardous materials. We found in our 1994 report that the number of accidents on excepted track had increased from 22 in 1988 to 65 in 1992—a 195-percent increase. Similarly, the number of track defects cited in FRA inspections increased from 3,229 in 1988 to 6,057 in 1992. However, with few exceptions, FRA cannot compel railroads to correct these defects. According to FRA, the railroads have applied the excepted track provision far more extensively than envisioned. For example, railroads have transported hazardous materials through residential areas on excepted track or intentionally designated track as excepted to avoid having to comply with minimum safety regulations. In November 1992, FRA announced a review of the excepted track provision with the intent of making changes. FRA viewed the regulations as inadequate because its inspectors could not write violations for excepted track and railroads were not required to correct defects on excepted track. FRA stated that changes to the excepted track provision would occur as part of its rulemaking revising all track safety standards. In February 1996, FRA reported that the task of revising track safety regulations would be taken up by FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. FRA noted that this committee would begin its work in April 1996 but did not specify a date for completing the final rulemaking. The Congress had originally directed FRA to complete its rulemaking revising track safety standards by September 1994. In September 1993, we issued a report examining whether Amtrak had effective procedures for inspecting, repairing, and maintaining its passenger cars to ensure their safe operation and whether FRA had provided adequate oversight to ensure the safety of passenger cars. We found that Amtrak had not consistently implemented its inspection and preventive maintenance programs and did not have clear criteria for determining when a passenger car should be removed from service for safety reasons. In addition, we found that Amtrak had disregarded some standards when parts were not available or there was insufficient time for repairs. For example, we observed that cars were routinely released for service without emergency equipment, such as fire extinguishers. As we recommended, Amtrak established a safety standard that identified a minimum threshold below which a passenger car may not be operated, and it implemented procedures to ensure that a car will not be operated unless it meets this safety standard. In reviewing FRA’s oversight of passenger car safety (for both Amtrak and commuter rail), we found that FRA had established few applicable regulations. As a result, its inspectors provided little oversight in this important safety area. For more than 20 years, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended on numerous occasions that FRA expand its regulations for passenger cars, but FRA has not done so. As far back as 1984, FRA told the Congress that it planned to study the need for standards governing the condition of safety-critical passenger car components. Between 1990 and 1994, train accidents on passenger rail lines ranged between 127 and 179 accidents each year (see app. 2). In our 1993 report, we maintained that FRA’s approach to overseeing passenger car safety was not adequate to ensure the safety of the over 330 million passengers who ride commuter railroads annually. We recommended that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FRA Administrator to study the need for establishing minimum criteria for the condition of safety-critical components on passenger cars. We noted that the Secretary should direct the FRA Administrator to establish any regulations for passenger car components that the study shows to be advisable, taking into account any internal safety standards developed by Amtrak or others that pertain to passenger car components. However, FRA officials told us at the time that the agency could not initiate the study because of limited resources. Subsequently, the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to issue initial passenger safety standards within 3 years of the act’s enactment and complete standards within 5 years. In 1995, FRA referred the issue to its Passenger Equipment Safety Working Group consisting of representatives from passenger railroads, operating employee organizations, mechanical employee organizations, and rail passengers. The working group held its first meeting in June 1995. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking is expected in early 1996, and final regulations are to be issued in November 1999. Given the recent rail accidents, FRA could consider developing standards for such safety-critical components as emergency windows and doors and safety belts as well as the overall crashworthiness of passenger cars. In conclusion, safety at highway-railroad crossings, the adequacy of track safety inspections and enforcement, and the safety of passenger cars operated by commuter railroads and Amtrak will remain important issues for Congress, FRA, the states, and the industry to address as the nation continues its efforts to prevent rail-related accidents and fatalities. Note 1: Analysis includes data from Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road, Metra (Chicago), Metro-North (New York), Metrolink (Los Angeles), New Jersey Transit, Northern Indiana, Port Authority Trans-Hudson (New York), Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Tri-Rail (Florida). Note 2: Data for Amtrak include statistics from several commuter railroads, including Caltrain (California), Conn DOT, Maryland Area Rail Commuter (excluding those operated by CSX), Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and Virginia Railway Express. Railroad Safety: FRA Needs to Correct Deficiencies in Reporting Injuries and Accidents (GAO/RCED-89-109, Apr.5,1989). Railroad Safety: DOT Should Better Manage Its Hazardous Materials Inspection Program (GAO/RCED-90-43, Nov.17, 1989). Railroad Safety: More FRA Oversight Needed to Ensure Rail Safety in Region 2 (GAO/RCED-90-140, Apr. 27, 1990). Railroad Safety: New Approach Needed for Effective FRA Safety Inspection Program (GAO/RCED-90-194, July 31, 1990). Financial Management: Internal Control Weaknesses in FRA’s Civil Penalty Program (GAO/RCED-91-47, Dec.26, 1990). Railroad Safety: Weaknesses Exist in FRA’s Enforcement Program (GAO/RCED-91-72, Mar.22, 1991). Railroad Safety: Weaknesses in FRA’s Safety Program (GAO/T-RCED-91-32, Apr. 11, 1991). Hazardous Materials: Chemical Spill in the Sacramento River (GAO/T-RCED-91-87, July 31, 1991). Railroad Competitiveness: Federal Laws and Policies Affect Railroad Competitiveness (GAO/RCED-92-16, Nov. 5, 1991) Railroad Safety: Accident Trends and FRA Safety Programs (GAO/T-RCED-92-23, Jan.13, 1992). Railroad Safety: Engineer Work Shift Length and Schedule Variability (GAO/RCED-92-133, Apr. 20, 1992). Amtrak Training: Improvements Needed for Employees Who Inspect and Maintain Rail Equipment (GAO/RCED-93-68, Dec.8, 1992). Amtrak Safety: Amtrak Should Implement Minimum Safety Standards for Passenger Cars (GAO/RCED-93-196, Sep.22, 1993). Railroad Safety: Continued Emphasis Needed for an Effective Track Safety Inspection Program (GAO/RCED-94-56, Apr.22, 1994). Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor: Information on the Status and Cost of Needed Improvements (GAO/RCED-95-151BR, Apr. 13, 1995). Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad Crossing Safety (GAO/RCED-95-191, Aug. 3, 1995). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO provided information on the safety of highway railroad crossings, commuter passenger rails and adequacy of track safety inspections. GAO found that: (1) the leading cause of death associated with the railroad industry involved railroad crossing accidents; (2) about half of rail-related deaths occur because of collisions between trains and vehicles at public railroad crossings; (3) in 1994, 501 people were killed and 1,764 injured in railroad crossing accidents; (4) to improve the safety of railroad crossings, the Department of Transportation (DOT) must better target funds to high-risk areas, close more railroad crossings, install new technologies, and develop educational programs to increase the public's awareness of railroad crossings; (5) DOT plans are costly and will require congressional approval; (6) the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is unable to adequately inspect and enforce truck safety standards or direct transportation officials to the routes with the highest accident potential because its database contains inaccurate information; and (7) Congress has directed FRA to establish sufficient passenger car safety standards by 1999. |
Syrians murder British surgeon who flew out to help the wounded: Doctor held prisoner for year dies days before he was due to be released
Dr Abbas Khan, from South London, had travelled to Aleppo to volunteer
He was imprisoned in November last year and was due for release this week
Dr Khan, an orthopedic surgeon, died in detention according to his family
The father-of-two had described his time in jail as 'hell' and spoke of torture
A British doctor who travelled to Syria to treat wounded children has been murdered by the country’s security forces just four days before he was due to be released from prison, the Government indicated yesterday.
Syrian officials, who have been accused of beating and torturing Dr Abbas Khan during more than a year of captivity, claimed the 32-year-old ‘committed suicide’ by hanging himself with his own pyjamas in the state interrogation centre in Damascus.
But Foreign Office minister Hugh Robertson said that the death of the London-born orthopaedic surgeon was ‘at best extremely suspicious’ and it appeared the father-of-two had ‘in effect been murdered’ by the Syrian regime. Last night Mr Robertson said the Government was seeking ‘urgent clarification’ of the circumstances of the death.
Humanitarian: Dr Abbas Khan, pictured with his six-year-old son Abdullah, travelled to travelled to Syria to treat wounded children only to die just four days before he was due to be released from prison
The surgeon’s sister, Sara, insisted: ‘He did not commit suicide.’
His relatives described him as a ‘brave’ humanitarian who had been killed by members of President Bashar al-Assad’s ‘barbaric’ regime.
His brother Dr Afroze Khan, 34, said: ‘We are devastated. We had assurances from the Syrian government that he was going to be released by the end of the week, but obviously they have changed their minds. They contacted her and told her he was dead. It is just barbaric, it is medieval.’
Dr Khan travelled to the rebel-held part of the frontline city of Aleppo in November last year to treat civilians at a field hospital, but he was arrested within 48 hours for crossing the border from Turkey without a visa.
Loss of life: Dr Abbas Khan, 32, pictured with his son Abdullah, had spent more than a year in jail
During the next eight months the surgeon, from Streatham, South London, claimed he was put in an underground cell in total darkness, tortured and forced to hurt other prisoners.
His mother Fatima, 57, from Mitcham, South London, tracked him down to the notorious Far’ Falastin detention centre after travelling alone to Damascus in July, and found her son weighing about five stone and hardly able to walk.
She was told he had been accused of treating dying civilians, which has been classed as an act of terrorism.
Dr Khan was married with a six year-old son Abdullah and seven year-old daughter Rurayya. A hand and nerve trauma specialist, he was on a six-month sabbatical from Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust in South London when he left for Aleppo.
In harrowing handwritten letters passed to Foreign Secretary William Hague by his mother, Dr Khan wrote: ‘I have been violently forced to beat other prisoners, kept in squalid conditions, denied access to toilets or medical treatment.’
Taken: Abbas's mother Fatima, pictured with Dr Khan, right, and his brother Afroze, left, in London in 1996, travelled to Syria to find her son, but never saw him freed
Last night Sara Khan, 23, said: ‘My brother wrote two letters to Mr Hague asking him for help. He snuck them out through the prison bars when my mother visited him.
‘He didn’t reply, and he is yet to speak to us about it. He should be ashamed, he should be embarrassed.’
President Assad is said to have personally ordered the release of Dr Khan and observers said the death was an indication of how he has lost control of some aspects of the security forces.
More than 1,000 people are believed to have died in the custody of the Syrian security forces since the start of the civil war in March 2011, according to Amnesty.
Mr Robertson said: ‘We can’t at the moment be absolutely certain about the circumstances in which Dr Khan met his death, but what is clear is that he met his death while he was in prison in circumstances that are at best extremely suspicious. ||||| LONDON — Britain warned Syria on Tuesday that it would hold the government of President Bashar al-Assad responsible if a British surgeon incarcerated for more than a year for treating civilians in the Syrian civil war had died mysteriously in prison, as his family asserted.
The death of the surgeon, Dr. Abbas Khan, 32, was reported by relatives four days before he had been expected to fly home. They said Syrian leaders, including Mr. Assad, had approved his release.
Dr. Khan’s family said he had been imprisoned after traveling to the contested northern city of Aleppo to help care for civilians wounded from civil-war fighting in November 2012.
His brother, Afroze Khan, 34, said the Syrian security agency had promised that Dr. Khan would be freed this week, but that when his mother went to visit him on Monday, she was told that he had died. “My brother was going to be released at the end of the week,” Mr. Khan told the BBC. “My brother knew that. He was ready to come back home. He was happy and looking forward to being released.”
George Galloway, a maverick British lawmaker who had been acting as an intermediary for the family to bring Dr. Khan home, said Syrian authorities had informed him that Dr. Khan was found hanging by his pajama bottoms on Monday in his cell. Mr. Galloway, who had been planning to travel to Damascus, Syria’s capital, to escort the surgeon back to Britain, described the death as a tragedy and said, “I think we will have to wait for clarification on how exactly he died.”
The response was blunt from the British government, which supports the opposition seeking to topple Mr. Assad. Hugh Robertson, a minister in the Foreign Office, told the BBC that the surgeon’s death as described by his family would be extremely suspicious and “in effect” a murder. In an earlier statement, the Foreign Office said that if the surgeon had died in the custody of Syrian authorities, “responsibility for Dr. Khan’s death lies with them, and we will be pressing for answers about what happened.”
According to the BBC, the physician had been held at the headquarters of Syria’s national security agency, and his mother, Fatima Khan, had secured a promise of his release after having spent four months in Damascus.
When his mother saw him in prison on an earlier occasion, the family said, he weighed around 70 pounds, could hardly walk and said he had been tortured.
News of Dr. Khan’s death came as rights activists expressed new alarm over what they said were repeated Syrian military helicopter airstrikes in Aleppo, first reported on Sunday, in which crews dropped barrels filled with explosives and shrapnel onto rebel-held neighborhoods. Doctors Without Borders, the medical relief organization, added its concern on Tuesday, asserting in a statement that “despite inflicting widespread injuries and damage in civilian-populated areas, the indiscriminate and sustained attacks continued today.”
The statement said more than 100 people had been killed and that “the influx of injured people has overwhelmed the remaining functioning hospitals in Aleppo, leaving them with little to no resources.”
Syria’s official news agency, SANA, said nothing about such attacks in its account of fighting in Aleppo on Tuesday, asserting instead that at least seven civilians had been killed by rocket shells and mortar rounds fired by terrorists, the government’s generic term for armed insurgents.
The civil war, now in its third winter, has been particularly perilous for health professionals. In September, the United Nations reported that hospitals, medical personnel and transportation vehicles had been targeted, calling it “one of the most alarming features of the Syrian conflict.” By some estimates, more than 100 doctors have been killed and up to 600 have been jailed.
Dr. Khan went to Syria as its health system was collapsing. In London, he had worked at the Royal National Orthopedic Hospital, a leading medical institution. British news reports said he had traveled without a visa.
The Syrian authorities have been profoundly suspicious of foreigners, including several hundred Britons, who have traveled clandestinely to Syria to fight with jihadist groups against Mr. Assad’s forces. Dr. Khan’s family has denied that he had rebel sympathies.
In neighboring Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley on Tuesday, a car bomb was detonated at a military post of Hezbollah, the Shiite militia that has aligned itself with Mr. Assad and has sent fighters into Syria to battle the rebels. A Lebanese law enforcement official said the car had contained more than 100 pounds of explosives, and Lebanon’s National News Agency said there had been an unspecified number of casualties.
Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria has heightened political and sectarian tensions in Lebanon, where the population is sharply divided between supporters and opponents of the Syrian government. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Hugh Robertson MP: "Syrian authorities have in effect murdered a British national who was in their country to help people"
British doctor Abbas Khan has been "in effect murdered" by the Syrian authorities just days before his expected release from jail, Foreign Office Minister Hugh Robertson said.
He said the death of the 32-year-old orthopaedic surgeon from south London was "at best extremely suspicious".
Mr Khan was arrested last year in Aleppo where he was helping civilians.
Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said Mr Khan committed suicide using his pyjamas to hang himself.
He said the results of an autopsy proved this, and Mr Khan's body would be released to his family so they could conduct their own inquiry.
One of Mr Khan's brothers, Shahnawaz Khan, said it was "a lie" and "pure fiction" that his brother committed suicide as he had written to his family saying he was looking forward to coming home and spending Christmas with them.
'No excuse'
The doctor's relatives had been told he would be freed on Friday following an order from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Mr Robertson said the government was seeking "urgent clarification" about what had happened to Mr Khan, originally from Streatham.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Mr Abbas Khan travelled to the city of Aleppo last year to help civilians
He said: "We can't at the moment be absolutely certain about the circumstances in which Dr Khan met his death, but what is clear is that he went to Syria on a humanitarian mission, was imprisoned by the Syrian authorities and met his death while he was in prison in circumstances that are at best extremely suspicious.
"There is no excuse whatsoever for the treatment that he has suffered by the Syrian authorities who have in effect murdered a British national who was in their country to help people who were injured during their civil war."
'Summarily executed'
Respect MP George Galloway, who has liaised with the Syrian authorities and was due to collect Mr Khan on Friday, said the death was "murder most foul" and it was "inconceivable that he committed suicide".
The MP for Bradford West said he believed somebody within the regime had killed Mr Khan to defy President Assad's decision to release him.
Analysis Three days ago a Syrian government official told us Mr Khan would be released within days. Today Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad showed me some of his exchanges with British politician George Galloway who was expected in Damascus on Friday to take Mr Khan home. Dr Mekdad emphatically denied reports Mr Khan was killed by Syria's intelligence services. President Assad, he said, had ordered his release as a present to the British people before Christmas. This was a suicide, he said - an explanation Mr Khan's family dismisses as "absurd. "Why would he take his own life when he was so excited to be coming home?", his sister Sara asked. She told me his children were joyously decorating the house for their father's return. Just when they thought his pain, and theirs, was ending, his own life has come to a terrible end. But the argument over how he died won't go away, and there is certain to be political fallout at a time when Damascus was hoping to improve relations with the West.
The former British Foreign Office minister, Alistair Burt, who handled Mr Khan's case up until two months ago, said he does not believe the Syrian government's version.
He said: "The chances of this poor man killing himself when there was a possibility of release seems very remote.
"Had he thought there was a chance of release and return to the United Kingdom, he would most certainly have wanted to do so. In some way he has been killed by the Syrian authorities and they bear the entire responsibility for his death."
BBC correspondent Paul Wood, reporting from Beirut, said Mr Khan could have been a casualty of a power struggle between the Syrian president and his own security services.
He said: "Only President Assad could have ordered the doctor's release. If he did so it may well have been a goodwill gesture in the run up to peace talks that Britain is helping to organise.
"Some in the regime perhaps do not want those talks to succeed."
Shahnawaz Khan said his mother was in a "state of shock and disbelief".
"She was readying herself to bring her son home in four days time after 13 months of a rollercoaster of emotions," he said.
"To be so close and then to be robbed of it is almost the cruellest way it could possibly happen."
Image caption Shahnawaz Khan said his brother was summarily executed
He rejected the Syrian government's claim of suicide, saying it was a "complete fiction" and "utter nonsense and I would ardently deny anything of that scenario".
"We have letters from [my brother] from last week, looking forward to coming home for Christmas, spending Christmas together and starting the new year fresh, he's been in the best spirits he's been in in the last 13 months and he is not a man to give in like that."
Extracts of a letter dated 4 December, shown to the BBC, which appear to be from Mr Khan to his six year old daughter Ruqquaya, reads: "To Ruqqa, thank you for your lovely drawing of everyone.
"Inshallah I will soon come home and give you a big hug and kiss."
He also wrote: "I think the decision to release me has been taken - just some formalities... Inshallah."
On claims that the doctor might have links to jihadi groups, Shahnawaz Khan said: "Again, this is pure fiction and it is an easy excuse to make about an individual who they have summarily executed in effect without due process".
Mr Khan accused the UK government of treating his brother's case "like he's been some wayward traveller in Dubai being caught drunk and contravened some sort of trivial law in Syria".
The family had received "very little assistance", he added.
Image caption Mr Khan was looking forward to spending Christmas with his family
Mr Khan, who worked at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore, north-west London, was detained 48 hours after entering Syria last November.
He had been moved by the plight of refugees and worked in refugee camps in Turkey, his family said. He had not planned to go to Syria but travelled there to treat badly injured civilians.
Earlier this year, his mother - who has spent the last four months in Damascus - found him in a prison in the city weighing just five stone (32kg) and barely able to walk.
He claimed he had been tortured while being detained without charge, and had been held for much of the time on his own.
Mr Khan was one of seven brothers and sisters and is survived by his wife Hanna, his seven-year-old son Abdullah and daughter Ruqquaya, aged six. | A young British doctor who traveled to Syria as a volunteer to treat civilians is dead under suspicious circumstances after more than a year in custody, reports the Daily Mail. The official story is that surgeon Abbas Khan, 32, hanged himself in his cell with his pajama bottoms, reports the New York Times. But neither his family nor the British Foreign Office are buying it. “My brother was going to be released at the end of the week,” says Afroze Khan. “My brother knew that. He was ready to come back home. He was happy and looking forward to being released.” British Foreign Office Minister Hugh Robertson says the UK is demanding an investigation: "There is no excuse whatsoever for the treatment that he has suffered by the Syrian authorities who have in effect murdered a British national who was in their country to help people who were injured during their civil war." Khan's mother visited him recently and said he was down to about 70 pounds and showed signs of torture. Bashar al-Assad had approved his release—it was supposed to happen on Friday—and one theory is that someone in his regime who hopes to scuttle peace talks that Britain is helping to organize ordered Khan's killing, says the BBC. |
Police searched Wednesday for a 70-year-old man suspected in an office shooting that left one dead and two wounded in Arizona's largest city, saying he is "armed and dangerous."
SWAT police officers inspect the roof of an office building after a shooting at the building in Phoenix on Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013. A gunman opened fire at the Phoenix office building, wounding three... (Associated Press)
People watch a women being taken to a paramedic truck from an office building where a shooter opened fire in north central Phoenix on Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013. (AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Michael... (Associated Press)
Police officers leave an office building after a shooting at the building in Phoenix on Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013. A gunman opened fire at the Phoenix office building, wounding three people, one of them... (Associated Press)
As police searched for the shooter, SWAT teams and two armored vehicles surrounded his house about 7 miles (11 kilometers) from the shooting scene in Phoenix. Police served a search warrant to enter the home.
For a time, officers, believing the shooter was inside, used a megaphone to ask him to surrender.
The gunfire at the office complex prompted terrified workers to lock the doors to their offices and hide far from the windows. SWAT officers searched the building.
America's latest public shooting came on the same day Congress took up the issue of gun control for the first time since the Connecticut school shooting in December left 20 young children dead and changed the national conversation on guns.
Former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head during a 2011 shooting rampage in Tucson that left 6 people dead, appeared in Washington to testify in favor of stricter gun controls.
Police identified the suspect in the Phoenix office shooting as Arthur D. Harmon. They identified a man who died hours after the Wednesday morning shooting as 48-year-old Steve Singer. He's the CEO of Fusion Contract Centers Inc.
Police say a 43-year-old man was listed in critical condition along with a 32-year-old woman.
Police didn't release the names of the wounded, but a Phoenix law firm, Osborn Maledon, said one of its lawyers, Mark Hummels, was among the wounded.
The firm said he "was representing a client in a mediation" when he was shot.
Around 10:30 a.m., the gunman arrived at the office building and got into a dispute with someone, a conflict that escalated to the point where he drew a gun and shot three people, police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said.
"Everyone was just scared, honestly, just scared," said Navika Sood, assistant director of nursing at First at Home Health Services who along with her co-workers locked the entrances to their office.
Sood said police evacuated the office about 30 minutes after she first heard the popping noises.
Vannessa Brogan, who works in sales support at an insurance business in the three-story complex, said she heard a loud bang that she thought at first was from somebody working in or near the building.
She said others at the business thought they heard multiple loud noises. She said people locked themselves in offices until authorities evacuated the complex that houses insurance, medical and law offices.
Becky Neher, who works for a title company in the building, said the two gunshots she heard sounded like two pieces of metal banging against each other.
Watching from her second-story office, she saw people leaving the building.
"Someone yelled, `We have a shooter,'" she said. She saw two victims lying on the ground outside the back side of the building. She said health care workers who have offices in the complex came out to help.
Don Jaksa, a software consultant who works in the building, said he was listening to the radio when he suddenly heard "two pops." He said he didn't think they were gunshots.
"My co-worker goes to the range all the time," he said. "He identified it as gunfire."
His co-worker then locked the door. After five minutes, they left and ran into police and someone carrying a stretcher. The police escorted them back to their office and told them to lock the door again.
They were eventually evacuated, and as he sat on a rock outside the complex, his wife called to make sure he was OK after seeing the shooting on the news.
Workers were later allowed to leave the building. Two hugged each other when they got outside.
___
Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport, Felicia Fonseca and Terry Tang contributed to this report. ||||| PHOENIX - A 70-year-old man shot three people, killing two, at a Valley law firm Wednesday morning.
Watch police update in attached video player.
SEE PHOTOS OF THE SHOOTING SCENE ON ABC15.COM
Authorities on Wednesday afternoon identified the shooting suspect as 70-year-old Arthur Douglas Harmon.
Harmon fled the shooting scene at 16th Street and Glendale Avenue in a rental car. The vehicle was described as a white 2013 Kia Optima, with Arizona license plate AVS-2052, according to Sgt. Tommy Thompson.
SWAT officers were unable to locate Harmon at his home near 28th Street and Acoma Drive in north Phoenix. Officers and two armored vehicles could be seen outside the home as SWAT officers made their way inside.
Sgt. Steve Martos said police outside the home were interviewing the 70-year-old's wife and son.
Police said Harmon's son initially refused to let police into the home, so they had to wait outside for a search warrant.
Harmon's body was later found Thursday morning with a self-inflicted gunshot wound at Mesa Riverview, police said.
Authorities said they removed several items from Harmon's home, but would not elaborate on what they found.
A homeowner who lives nearby told ABC15 Harmon's cell phone was found in the front yard of a home about three miles away from where Harmon lives.
An exclusive Google Street View photo showed us the first glimpse at Harmon, seen gardening outside his house. It is unclear when the image was captured.
Harmon was involved in a lawsuit with another person living at the north Phoenix home. It is believed the shooting happened after a scheduled mediation regarding the lawsuit. ||||| At 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, two Arizona businessmen and an attorney were scheduled to sit down in a north-central Phoenix law office for a settlement conference in a long-running financial dispute.
An hour later, one of the men lay dead just outside the entrance of the office building. Nearby, his attorney lay wounded.
And the man who had faced off with them in mediation — 70-year-old Arthur Douglas Harmon — had fled in a rented car, police said, leaving in his wake a spray of bullets, a crime scene that shut down busy North 16th Street for the rest of the day and a manhunt that kept the Valley on edge as it continued into the night.
Early Thursday, Mesa police found the body of a man who might be Harmon near the Bass Pro Shop at Riverview in Mesa, near Loop 202 and Dobson Road, Phoenix police Sgt. Steve Martos said. The man died of what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound, authorities said.
Victims of the office shooting were identified as:
Steven D. Singer, 48, chief executive officer at a call center and defendant in a lawsuit filed by Harmon over furniture that was refurbished by Harmon’s company, Reback Design. Singer, a husband and father of two, died from his injuries.
Mark Hummels, 43, an attorney who represented Singer and serves as Phoenix chapter president of the Federal Bar Association, suffered serious neck and back wounds and was in critical condition.
Nichole Hampton, 32, of Waddell, who had gone outside to take pictures and was caught in gunfire near the building entrance. She is hospitalized with a wound to her hand.
Police said a shot was fired at a fourth victim who pursued the shooter from the scene, but the person was uninjured. Two other people also were taken from the scene to a hospital with unspecified medical issues related to the shooting.
The shooting occurred in the lobby of a broad, three-story building at 7310 N. 16th St., just north of the Arizona Canal, near the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort. The complex houses about a dozen companies doing business in real estate, insurance, medical care and other commerce. As shots rang through the courtyard, terrified workers reported locking doors and hiding until police swarmed the area.
“Everyone was scared, honestly, just scared,” said Navika Sood, assistant director of nursing at Firstat Home Health Services.
“I looked out the window, in the back, and there were two bodies laying on the ground,” said Rob Hayter, who works for a title company in the complex. Hayter said he heard five or six shots and saw a handful of bullet casings on the ground near the victims.
The shooting occurred as Congress was conducting hearings in Washington on laws proposed to address firearm violence — particularly mass killings. Among those advocating stricter gun laws was former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, wounded two years ago in a mass shooting near Tucson that left six dead and 13 others injured.
Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly, announced the Phoenix incident to a Senate panel just minutes after it occurred.
Sgt. Tommy Thompson of the Phoenix Police Department said the episode began about 10:30 a.m. and “does not appear to be a random type of incident.”
Police said the shooter targeted the two men.
According to Thompson and other sources, Harmon, Hummels and Singer had attended a mediation proceeding Wednesday morning at the offices of DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy. Lisa Anne Davis, managing partner, said one of the firm’s lawyers presided over the session as a court-appointed judge pro tem.
Mark Harrison, who works with Hummels at the firm of Osborn Maledon, said he was told the session was interrupted when Harmon announced he needed to go outside to his car. When Harmon failed to return after a prolonged wait, Hummels, Singer and others assumed he was not coming back. They headed downstairs, and as they were leaving, they were shot.
Photographs show shattered glass sprayed across the building’s courtyard.
Hampton, who was shot in the hand, is director of human resources at MD Home Health LLC, another business in the complex. In a phone interview from the hospital, Carol Hampton said her daughter got caught in the shooting frenzy.
“She was at the wrong place at the wrong time,” Carol said.
Carol said Nichole was outside the building taking pictures for business purposes.
“She started walking to the lobby, and she saw four men come running out, saying, ‘He’s got a gun.’”
At that instant, Carol said, her daughter heard a shot and saw a window shatter. Nichole, initially unaware that she had been wounded, ran into the nearby office of a business known as Time to Rent.
Carol said an employee locked the door behind her.
“He was very nice,” she said. “He took off his shirt and wrapped her hand up.”
Carol said Nichole and others looked out a window to see the shooter’s white vehicle screech out of the parking lot with its trunk open.
Carol said Nichole was struck in the wrist, and two bones were broken. “She has two metal plates and pins in her hand. She’s pretty shook up. But someone died in this, so we feel very lucky.”
Nichole is married and has two young children.
Police flooded the area around 16th Street and Glendale Avenue, evacuating nearby offices and searching for a shooter while rescue crews tended to the wounded. Employees looked on, talking quietly among themselves, some crying.
According to court records, Singer had hired Harmon’s firm last February to refurbish and move office furniture at the Santa Maria, Calif., offices of his call center, Fusion Contact Center LLC. The contract was for $47,000, but a dispute erupted because not all of the work could be completed. The parties traded lengthy e-mails. In April, after receiving $30,000, court records say, Harmon filed suit.
As the legal case dragged on, court records say, Harmon engaged in financial transactions with a son, Stefan. Legal filings allege that Arthur Harmon sold his home, valued at $100,000, to the son for $26,000, then borrowed $180,000 from another party using the home he no longer owned as collateral. The filings say that money was then loaned to Stefan.
Fusion countersued, alleging that Harmon — who had no legal counsel — was overpaid and fraudulently transferred property in connection with the litigation. The company sought a payment of $20,184 from Harmon to end the case. Harmon testified his savings totaled $17. Mediation proceedings were set up to address continuing issues in the case.
After Wednesday’s shooting, police went to the Harmon residence in the 14000 block of North 28th Street. Sgt. Steve Martos said a son refused to allow officers to enter until they obtained a search warrant. Once they did enter, they found no one there.
Police found an item that Harmon discarded, apparently after the shooting, near 43rd Street and Shea Boulevard, not far from his house. Police would not confirm whether the item was a cellphone.
Court records indicate Harmon and his wife, Ivett Huska, have had financial problems previously. In 2005, faced with debts totaling $219,000, they sought bankruptcy protection. Lothar Goernitz, a trustee who became involved, said it was “a fairly mundane case.”
Friends and business associates described Steven D. Singer as a family man, mentor and innovator.
His company has offices in Scottsdale with sites in California and Nevada. No one answered the phone Wednesday afternoon at the Scottsdale location.
Singer spent most of his career in call-center management. Clients and co-workers who posted notes on Linkedin.com, a professional-networking website, praised him as a “thoughtful leader, adviser and mentor” and “top expert” in the field.
Jennifer Manning, a family friend, said Singer was a terrific father to two teenage sons and had an idyllic relationship with his wife, Lisa.
“It was like a love story,” she said, sobbing. “They loved each other so much. ... It just hit so hard. There’s shooting every day, and you don’t expect it to be someone you know. He was such a wonderful man. He really, truthfully was.”
Hummels also is married with two children.
He graduated first in his law class at the University of Arizona, clerked under Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Hurwitz and earned the highest score on the July 2004 state Bar exam.
A former newspaper reporter, Hummels specializes in business disputes, real-estate litigation and legal malpractice. “He’s got a pretty phenomenal resume and a personality to match,” said Larry Hammond, a partner at Osborn Maledon, Hummels’ firm. “He’s just one of the most incredible people.”
Republic reporters JJ Hensley, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Amy B Wang, Lindsey Collom, Ronald J. Hansen, Philip Haldiman, Michael Kiefer and Jane Lednovich and 12 News reporter Mary Nguyen contributed to this article.
| One of three people shot this morning in a Phoenix office has died, reports the Arizona Republic. Police have identified the suspect as 70-year-old Arthur Douglas Harmon, who fled the scene in a rental car and remains at large. Harmon apparently went to the building this morning to take part in the mediation of a legal dispute he was involved in, but instead got into an altercation and shot three people, police say. Authorities identified the slain man as 48-year-old Steve Singer, who was CEO of Fusion Contract Centers. One of the two people wounded is 43-year-old Mark Hummels, who works for a local law firm, reports AP. The third person is identified only as a 32-year-old female. ABC15 has an image of suspect Harmon that shows up by weird coincidence in Google Street View. He appears to be gardening at his home. |
It is time for a fundamental rethinking of DOE’s missions. Created predominantly to deal with the energy crisis of the 1970s, DOE has changed its mission and budget priorities dramatically over time. By the early 1980s, its nuclear weapons production grew substantially; and following revelations about environmental mismanagement in the mid- to late-1980s, DOE’s cleanup budget began to expand, and now the task overshadows other activities. With the Cold War’s end, DOE has new or expanded missions in industrial competitiveness; science education; environment, safety, and health; and nuclear arms control and verification. Responding to changing missions and priorities with organizational structures, processes, and practices that had been established largely to build nuclear weapons has been a daunting task for DOE. For example, DOE’s approach to contract management, first created during the World War II Manhattan Project, allowed private contractors to manage and operate billion-dollar facilities with minimal direct federal oversight yet reimbursed them for all of their costs regardless of their actual achievements; only now is DOE attempting to impose modern standards for accountability and performance. Also, weak management and information systems for evaluating program’s performance has long hindered DOE from exercising effective oversight. In addition, DOE’s elaborate and highly decentralized field structure has been slow to respond to changing conditions and priorities, is fraught with communication problems, and poorly positioned to tackle difficult issues requiring a high degree of cross-cutting coordination. Experts we consulted in a 1994 survey support the view that, at a minimum, a serious reevaluation of DOE’s basic missions is needed. We surveyed nearly 40 former DOE executives and experts on energy policy about how the Department’s missions relate to current and future national priorities. Our respondents included a former President, four former Energy Secretaries, former Deputy and Assistant Secretaries, and individuals with distinguished involvement in issues of national energy policy. Overwhelmingly, our respondents emphasized that DOE should focus on core missions. Many believed that DOE must concentrate its attention more on energy-related missions such as energy policy, energy information, and energy supply research and development. A majority favored moving many of the remaining missions from DOE to other agencies or entities. For example, many respondents suggested moving basic research to the National Science Foundation, the Commerce or Interior departments, other federal agencies, or a new public-private entity; some multiprogram national laboratories to other federal agencies (or sharing their missions with other agencies); the management and disposal of civilian nuclear waste to a new public-private organization, a new government agency, or the Environmental Protection Agency; nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup to the Department of Defense (DOD) or a new government agency and waste cleanup to the Environmental Protection Agency; environment, safety, and health activities to the Environmental Protection Agency or other federal entities; arms control and verification to DOD, the State Department, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or a new government nuclear agency; activities furthering industrial competitiveness to the Commerce Department or a public-private organization; and science education to the National Science Foundation or another federal agency. Recognizing the need to change, DOE has several efforts under way to strengthen its capacity to manage. For example, DOE’s reform of its contracting practices aims to make them more business-like and results-oriented; decision-making processes have been opened up to the public in an attempt to further break down DOE’s long-standing culture of secrecy, which has historically shielded the Department from outside scrutiny; and high-level task forces convened by DOE have made recommendations on laboratory and research management and on the Department’s missions. DOE is also developing a strategic plan aiming to arrange its existing missions into key “business lines.” While we have yet to evaluate how well DOE is reorganizing along these business lines, we did recently complete a review of DOE’s Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative, which arose from the plan. We found that DOE’s planned budget savings are on target and that the Department is depending on process improvements and reengineering efforts to enable it to fulfill its missions under the reduced budgets called for by the Initiative. However, the cost-savings potential of DOE’s efforts is uncertain because most of them are just beginning and some are not scheduled to be completed for several years. For example, of DOE’s 45 implementation plans, 22 plans have milestones that delineate actions to be met after May 1996 and 5 of those plans have milestones that will not occur until the year 2000. Because these actions are in their early stages, it is not yet clear if they will reduce costs to the extent DOE envisioned. Although DOE’s reforms are important and much needed, they are based on the assumption that existing missions are still valid in their present forms and that DOE is the best place to manage them. Along with many of the experts we surveyed, we think a more fundamental rethinking of missions is in order. As we explained in an August 1995 report, two fundamental questions are a good starting point for developing a framework for evaluating the future of DOE and its missions: Which missions should be eliminated because they are no longer valid governmental functions? For those missions that are governmental, what is the best organizational placement of the responsibilities? Once agreement is reached on the appropriate governmental missions, a practical set of criteria could be used to evaluate the best organizational structure for each mission. These criteria—originally used by an advisory panel for evaluating alternative approaches to managing DOE’s civilian nuclear waste program—allow for rating each alternative structure on the basis of its ability to promote cost-effective practices, attract talented technical specialists, be flexible to changing conditions, and accountable to stakeholders. Using these criteria could help identify more effective ways to implement missions, particularly those that could be privatized or reconfigured under alternative governmental forms. Appendix II summarizes these criteria. Our work and others’ has revealed the complex balancing of considerations in reevaluating missions. In general, deciding the best place to manage a specific mission involves assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative institution for its potential to achieve that mission, produce integrated policy decisions, and improve efficiency. Potential efficiency gains (or losses) that might result from moving parts of DOE to other agencies need to be balanced against the policy reasons that first led to placing that mission in the Department. For example, transferring the nuclear weapons complex to DOD, as is proposed by some, would require carefully considering many policy and management issues. Because of the declining strategic role of nuclear weapons, some experts argue that DOD might be better able to balance resource allocations among nuclear and other types of weapons if the weapons complex were completely under its control. Others argue, however, that the need to maintain civilian control over nuclear weapons outweighs any other advantages and that little gains in efficiency would be achieved by employing DOD rather than DOE supervisors. Some experts we consulted advocated creating a new federal agency for weapons production. Similarly, moving the responsibility for cleaning up DOE’s defense facilities to another agency or to a new institution, as proposed by some, requires close scrutiny. For example, a new agency concentrating its focus on cleanup exclusively would not have to allocate its resources among competing programs and could maximize research and development investments by achieving economies of scale in applying cleanup technology more broadly. On the other hand, separating cleanup responsibility from the agency that created the waste may limit incentives to reduce waste and to promote other environmentally sensitive approaches. In addition, considerable startup time and costs would accompany a new agency, at a time when the Congress is interested in downsizing the federal government. DOE’s task force on the future of the national laboratories (The Galvin Task Force) has suggested creating private or federal-private corporations to manage most or all of the laboratories. Under this arrangement, nonprofit corporations would operate the laboratories under the direction of a board of trustees that would channel funding to various labs to meet the needs of both government and nongovernment entities. DOE would be a customer, rather than the direct manager of the labs. The proposal raises important issues for the Congress to consider, such as how to (1) monitor and oversee the expenditure of public funds by privately managed and operated entities; (2) continue the laboratories’ significant responsibilities for addressing environmental, safety, and health problems at their facilities, some of which are governed by legal agreements between DOE, EPA, and the states; and (3) safeguard federal access to facilities so that national priorities, including national security missions, are met. Other alternatives for managing the national labs exist: each has advantages and disadvantages, and each needs to be evaluated in light of the laboratories’ capabilities for designing nuclear weapons and pursuing other missions of national and strategic importance. Furthermore, the government may still need facilities dedicated to national and defense missions, a possibility that would heavily influence any future organizational decisions. Finally, another set of criteria, developed by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in another context, could be useful for determining whether DOE should remain a cabinet-level department.These criteria, which are summarized in appendix III, pose such questions as the following: “Is there a sufficiently broad national purpose for the Department? Are cabinet-level planning, executive attention, and strategic focus necessary to achieve the Department’s mission goals? Is cabinet-level status needed to address significant issues that otherwise would not be given proper attention?” Although DOE’s strategic plan and Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative address internal activities, they assume the validity of the existing missions and their placement in the Department. But DOE alone cannot make these determinations—they require a cooperative effort among all stakeholders, with the Congress and the administration responsible for deciding which missions are needed and how best to implement them. The requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reinforce this concept by providing a legislative vehicle for the Congress and agencies to use to improve the way government works. The act requires, among other things, strategic plans based on consultation with the Congress and other stakeholders. These discussions are an important opportunity for the Congress and the executive branch to jointly reassess and clarify the agencies’ missions and desired outcomes. Our work has shown that to be effective, decisions about the structure and functions of the federal government should be made in a thorough manner with careful attention to the effects of changes in one agency on the workings of other agencies. Specifically, reorganization demands a coordinated approach, within and across agency lines, supported by a solid consensus for change; it should seek to achieve specific, identifiable goals; attention must be paid to how the federal government exercises its role; and sustained oversight by the Congress is needed to ensure effective implementation. Given both the current budgetary environment and other proposals to more extensively reorganize the executive branch, the Congress could judge the feasibility and desirability of assigning to some entity the responsibility of guiding reorganizations and downsizing. Even though there has been little experience abolishing federal agencies, officials with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) articulated to us some lessons learned from their experiences: Agencies are usually willing to accept functions, but they are not necessarily willing to accept the employees who performed those functions in the abolished agency—doing so may put the receiving agency’s existing staff at increased risk of a reduction-in-force. Transferring functions that have an elaborate field structure can be very expensive. Transferred functions and staff may duplicate existing functions in the new agency, so staff may feel threatened, resulting in friction. Employees performing a function in the abolished agency may be at higher or lower grades than those performing the same function in the receiving agency. Terminating an agency places an enormous burden on that agency’s personnel office—it will need outside help to handle the drastic increase in paperwork due to terminations, grievances, and appeals. Regardless of what the Congress decides on the future of the DOE, a number of critical policy and management issues will require close attention regardless of their placement in the federal government or outside it. These issues include contract reform, major systems acquisitions, and environmental cleanup and waste management. DOE has a long history of management problems. At the core of many of these problems is its weak oversight of more than 110,000 contractor employees, who perform nearly all of the Department’s work. Historically, these contractors worked largely without any financial risk, they got paid even if they performed poorly, and DOE oversaw them under a policy of “least interference.” DOE is now reforming its contracting practices to make them more business-like and results-oriented. While we believe that these reforms, which we are currently evaluating, are generally a step in the right direction, at this time we are unsure whether the Department is truly committed to fully implementing some of its own recommendations. For example, in May 1996, the Secretary announced the extension of the University of California’s three laboratory contracts (currently valued at about $3 billion). DOE’s decision to extend, rather than “compete” these enormous contracts—held by the University continuously for 50 years—violates two basic tenets of the Department’s philosophy of contract reform. First, contracts will be competed except in unusual circumstances. Second, if current contracts are to be extended, the terms of the extended contracts will be negotiated before DOE makes its decision to extend them. DOE justified its decision on the basis of its long-term relationship with the University. However, the Secretary’s Contract Reform team concluded that DOE’s contracting suffered from a lack of competition, which was caused, in part, by several long-term relationships with particular contractors. DOE has historically been unsuccessful in managing its many large projects—those that cost $100 million or more and that are important to the success of its missions. Called “major acquisitions,” these projects include accelerators for high-energy and nuclear physics, nuclear reactors, and technologies to process nuclear waste. Since 1980, DOE has been involved with more than 80 major acquisitions. We currently have work underway for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee examining DOE’s success with these acquisitions. Our work indicates that many more projects are terminated prior to completion than are actually completed. Many of these projects had large cost overruns and delays. This work will also address efforts to improve the acquisition process and contributing causes of these problems. The causes appear to include constantly changing missions, which makes maintaining support over the long term difficult; annual, incremental funding of projects that does not ensure that funds are available when needed to keep the projects on schedule; the flawed system of incentives that has sometimes rewarded contractors despite poor performance; and an inability to hire, train, and retain enough people with the proper skills. Another issue needing long-term attention is cleaning up the legacy of the nuclear age. This monumental task currently assigned to DOE includes both the environmental problems created by decades of nuclear weapons production and the management and disposition of highly radioactive waste generated by over 100 commercial nuclear power plants. Although the Department has made some progress on both fronts, major obstacles remain. One obstacle common to both efforts is the estimated total cost over the next half century. According to DOE, cleaning up its complex of nuclear weapons facilities could cost as much as $265 billion (in 1996 dollars) and disposing of highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear power plants could cost another $30 billion (in 1994 dollars). Even though DOE received over $34 billion between 1990 and 1996 for environmental activities, it has made limited progress in addressing the wide range of environmental problems at its sites. In managing its wastes, DOE has encountered major delays in its high-level waste programs and has yet to develop adequate capacity for treating mixed waste (which includes both radioactive and hazardous components) at its major sites. Finally, DOE has begun deactivating only a handful of its thousands of inactive facilities. On the basis of our reviews over the last several years of DOE’s efforts to clean up its nuclear weapons complex, we have identified many ways to potentially reduce the cost. These methods can be applied regardless of who has the responsibility for the cleanup. For example, DOE has usually assumed that all of its facilities will be cleaned up for subsequent unrestricted use; however, because many of these facilities are so contaminated, unrestricted use of them is unlikely, even after cleanup. By incorporating more realistic land-use assumptions into its decision-making, DOE could, by its own estimates, save from $200 million to $600 million annually. Also, to reduce costs, DOE is now preparing to privatize portions of the cleanup, most notably the vitrification of high-level waste in the tanks at its Hanford facility. But key issues need to be considered, including whether DOE has adequately demonstrated that privatization will reduce the total cost and whether DOE is adequately prepared to assume management and safety oversight responsibilities over the private firms. Moreover, DOE cannot permanently dispose of its inventory of highly radioactive waste from the Hanford tank farms and other facilities until it has developed a geologic repository for this waste generated by the commercial nuclear power industry and DOE. Utilities operating more than 100 nuclear power plants at about 70 locations have generated about 32,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste in the form of spent (used) fuel and are expected to have produced about 85,000 metric tons of spent fuel by the time the last of these plants has been retired in around 30 years. Although an operational repository was originally anticipated as early as 1998, DOE now does not expect to determine until 2001 if the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is suitable and, if it is, to begin operating a repository there until at least 2010. Following a call from 39 Members of Congress for a presidential commission to review the nuclear waste program, this year legislation that includes reforms is pending in both the House and the Senate; and some experts, including DOE’s own internal advisory panel, have called for moving the entire program to the private sector. Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may have. The following criteria, adapted from a former DOE advisory panel that examined the Department’s civilian nuclear waste program, offers a useful framework for evaluating alternative ways to manage missions. These criteria were created to judge the potential value of several different organizational arrangements which included an independent federal commission, a mixed government-private corporation, and a private corporation. Mission orientation and focus: Will the institution be able to focus on its mission(s), or will it be encumbered by other priorities? Which organizational structure will provide the greatest focus on its mission(s)? Credibility: Will the organizational structure be credible, thus gaining public support for its action? Stability and continuity: Will the institution be able to plan for its own future without undue concern for its survival? Programmatic authority: Will the institution be free to exercise needed authority to accomplish its mission(s) without excessive oversight and control from external sources? Accessibility: Will stakeholders (both federal and state overseers as well as the public) have easy access to senior management? Responsiveness: Will the institution be structured to be responsive to all its stakeholders? Internal flexibility: Will the institution be able to change its internal systems, organization, and style to adapt to changing conditions? Political accountability: How accountable will the institution be to political sources, principally the Congress and the President? Immunity from political interference: Will the institution be sufficiently free from excessive and destructive political forces? Ability to stimulate cost-effectiveness: How well will the institution be able to encourage cost-effective solutions? Technical excellence: Will the institution attract highly competent people? Ease of transition: What will be the costs (both financial and psychological) of changing to a different institution? The following criteria were developed by the National Academy of Public Administration as an aid to deciding whether a government organization should be elevated to be a cabinet department. However, they raise issues that are relevant in judging cabinet-level status in general. 1. Does the agency or set of programs serve a broad national goal or purpose not exclusively identified with a single class, occupation, discipline, region, or sector of society? 2. Are there significant issues in the subject area that (1) would be better assessed or met by elevating the agency to a department and (2) are not now adequately recognized or addressed by the existing organization, the President, or the Congress? 3. Is there evidence of impending changes in the type and number of pressures on the institution that would be better addressed if it were made a department? Are such changes expected to continue into the future? 4. Would a department increase the visibility and thereby substantially strengthen the active political and public support for actions and programs to enhance the existing agency’s goals? 5. Is there evidence that becoming a department would provide better analysis, expression, and advocacy of the needs and programs that constitute the agency’s responsibilities? 6. Is there evidence that elevation to a cabinet department would improve the accomplishment of the existing agency’s goals? 7. Is a department required to better coordinate or consolidate programs and functions that are now scattered throughout other agencies in the executive branch of government? 8. Is there evidence that a department—with increased centralized political authority—would result in a more effective balance within the agency, between integrated central strategic planning and resource allocation and the direct participation in management decisions by the line officers who are responsible for directing and managing the agency’s programs? 9. Is there evidence of significant structural, management, or operational weaknesses in the existing organization that could be better corrected by elevation to a department? 10. Is there evidence that there are external barriers and impediments to timely decision-making and executive action that could be detrimental to improving the efficiency of the existing agency’s programs? Would elevation to a department remove or mitigate these impediments? 11. Would elevation to a department help recruit and retain better qualified leadership within the existing agency? 12. Would elevation to a department promote more uniform achievement of broad, cross-cutting national policy goals? 13. Would elevation to a department strengthen the Cabinet and the Executive Office of the President as policy and management aids for the President? 14. Would elevation to a department have a beneficial or detrimental effect upon the oversight and accountability of the agency to the President and the Congress? Department of Energy: A Framework For Restructuring DOE and Its Missions (GAO/RCED-95-197, Aug. 21, 1995). Department of Energy: Framework Is Needed to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions (GAO/T-RCED-95-232, June 21, 1995). Department of Energy: Alternatives for Clearer Missions and Better Management at the National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-95-128, Mar. 9, 1995). Nuclear Weapons Complex: Establishing a National Risk-Based Strategy for Cleanup (GAO/T-RCED-95-120, Mar. 6, 1995). Department of Energy: National Priorities Needed for Meeting Environmental Agreements (GAO/RCED-95-1, Mar. 3, 1995). Department of Energy: Research and Agency Missions Need Reevaluation (GAO/T-RCED-95-105, Feb. 13, 1995). Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and Better Management (GAO/RCED-95-10, Jan. 27, 1995). Department of Energy: Need to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions (GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan. 18, 1995). Nuclear Waste: Comprehensive Review of the Disposal Program Is Needed (GAO/RCED-94-299, Sept. 27, 1994). Energy Policy: Ranking Options to Improve the Readiness of and Expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (GAO/RCED-94-259, Aug. 18, 1994). Department of Energy: Management Changes Needed to Expand Use of Innovative Cleanup Technologies (GAO/RCED-94-205, Aug. 10, 1994). Department of Energy: Challenges to Implementing Contract Reform (GAO/RCED-94-150, Mar. 24, 1994). DOE’s National Laboratories: Adopting New Missions and Managing Effectively Pose Significant Challenges (GAO/T-RCED-94-113, Feb. 3, 1994). Financial Management: Energy’s Material Financial Management Weaknesses Require Corrective Action (GAO/AIMD-93-29, Sept. 30, 1993). Department of Energy: Management Problems Require a Long-Term Commitment to Change (GAO/RCED-93-72, Aug. 31, 1993). Energy Policy: Changes Needed to Make National Energy Planning More Useful (GAO/RCED-93-29, Apr. 27, 1993). Energy Management: High-Risk Area Requires Fundamental Change (GAO/T-RCED-93-7, Feb. 17, 1993). Nuclear Weapons Complex: Issues Surrounding Consolidating Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-92-98, Sept. 24, 1992). Department of Energy: Better Information Resources Management Needed to Accomplish Missions (GAO/IMTEC-92-53, Sept. 29, 1992). Naval Petroleum Reserve: Limited Opportunities Exist to Increase Revenues From Oil Sales in California (GAO/RCED-94-126, May 5, 1994). High-Risk Series: Department of Energy Contract Management (GAO/HR-93-9, Dec. 1992). Comments on Proposed Legislation to Restructure DOE’s Uranium Enrichment Program (GAO/T-RCED-92-14, Oct. 29, 1991). Nuclear Waste: Operation of Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility Is Unlikely by 1998 (GAO/RCED-91-194, Sept. 24, 1991). 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) future, focusing on DOE efforts to restructure its missions and address policy and management issues. GAO noted that: (1) DOE is having a difficult time responding to its changing mission and organizational structure; (2) DOE is unable to evaluate its activities due to weak management and information systems; (3) DOE has a highly decentralized field structure that is unable to respond to changing conditions and priorities, fraught with communication problems, and ill-equipped to handle cross-cutting issues; (4) many former DOE officials and other experts believe that DOE should concentrate on several key issues such as energy policy, energy information, and energy supply research and development; (5) DOE is reforming its contracting practices to make them more business-like and results-oriented, opening up its decisionmaking processes to the public, and organizing high-level task forces on laboratory and research management; (6) DOE is on target with its planned budget savings under the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative and is depending on its process improvements and reengineering efforts to fulfill its mission under reduced budgets; (7) a governmentwide approach to restructuring DOE is desirable, since transferring any DOE mission will have a broad impact on other federal agencies; and (8) DOE will have to address contract reform, acquisitions, and environmental cleanup and waste management issues to effectively restructure its organization. |
Total Army Analysis is a biennial analytical process the Army uses to determine the numbers and types of support units it would need to support combat units in two simultaneous major theater wars and the infrastructure it would need to augment and support these units. The process also allocates the most recent authorized personnel level (end strength) among these requirements. The most recent iteration—Total Army Analysis 2007—was completed in late 1999. It showed the number and type of units required in the Army’s force structure in fiscal year 2007 and allocated the Army’s current authorized military end strength of 1,035,000 among these requirements. Total Army Analysis 2007 for the first time determined the numbers and types of units needed for contingency operations separately from its normal analysis of forces needed for two major theater wars. Starting with the Defense guidance, which identifies a number of typical contingency operations in which U.S. forces could be engaged, the Army identified seven operations that would require Army participation and that, according to the guidance, could occur simultaneously. On the basis of the missions to be accomplished, the Army then used expert panels of representatives from headquarters, major commands, and regional commanders in chief to determine the types and numbers of units required for engaging in these contingencies. It used the panels to arrive at these requirements because many of the factors the Army uses to model force requirements for war in Total Army Analysis do not apply to contingency operations. For example, contingencies related to peacekeeping or humanitarian tasks would not require facing a traditional “opposing force” threat. Accordingly, the panel identified the specific tasks to be accomplished and their associated workload, the unit types with the requisite skills to perform those tasks, and the numbers and types of support units needed to support the units carrying out the operation. The force structure requirements identified by this process were unconstrained. In other words, participants identified the logical Army unit types required to carry out the designated missions. This selection of force requirements was made irrespective of whether (1) the unit types currently existed within the Army force structure or (2) there were sufficient unit types to successfully carry out the Army’s designated mission. Contingency operations encompass a full range of joint military operations beyond peacetime engagement activities (short of theatre warfare) and include such operations as shows of force, interventions, limited strikes, noncombatant evacuation operations, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief. According to Army officials, all of these operations, except humanitarian assistance and noncombatant evacuations, could and in fact have lasted more than 6 months and have required force rotations. Throughout this report, we use the terms “unit” and “unit type.” Depending on its purpose and mission, a unit may vary significantly in size, from a 5-member linguistics team to a heavy armor or mechanized division of more than 16,000 personnel. Unit type refers to a specific type of team, company, battalion, or other organizational element comprised of one or more units. The Army has determined that 709 units of 248 different unit types, comprising about 76,000 troops, would be required to support seven simultaneous contingencies requiring Army participation. Our comparison of the Army’s planned force structure for fiscal year 2007 (based on the two-war scenario) with these contingency force requirements showed that the Army would have most of the unit types and units required to carry out these illustrative contingency operations simultaneously, provided that U.S. forces were not also engaged in a major theater war. Table 1 identifies the seven illustrative contingencies in which the Army would likely participate and the number of units and personnel required for each operation as determined by the Army’s panel of experts. Appendix I shows the types of forces that are most heavily used in such operations. Appendix II shows the total number of units and personnel needed to support the contingencies, by branch of service. To determine whether the Army’s planned force structure for two major theater wars would be sufficient to support these seven concurrent contingency operations, we compared the results of Total Army Analysis 2007 with the contingency operations requirements shown in table 1. Our initial comparison showed that, collectively, the active Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard would have sufficient unit types, as determined by Total Army Analysis 2007, to meet the requirements of all but 52 of the 248 required unit types. The Army would have insufficient numbers of units for 13 of the 52 unit types. Examples of these unit types include Special Operations Aviation battalions, Psychological Dissemination battalions, and Aerial Reconnaissance battalions. The remaining 39 specific unit types needed for contingencies would not exist in the Army’s planned force structure for fiscal year 2007. Examples of these unit types include Heavy Helicopter company, Animal Surgical detachment, Linguist team, Quartermaster Mortuary Affairs team, and Forward Support company. In total, the personnel end strength associated with the missing units would be about 23,000. Army officials pointed out that other existing units possess the same or similar capabilities as those identified as contingency requirements and could be used to cover some of these shortfalls. For example, the Army believes a Psychological Operations tactical company would be a suitable substitute for a Regional Support company. Both units provide support for operations such as the preparation and dissemination of leaflets and posters. Additionally, while the force structure will not contain the specific heavy helicopter company called for, it will contain other companies of a different unit type equipped with the same helicopter. At our request, the Army identified comparable units that could substitute for those experiencing shortfalls. In total, the Army identified substitutes for 5 of the 13 unit types with shortages and for 31 of the 39 unit types that are not planned for through 2007. We analyzed these substitutions and concluded that they were reasonable and would at least partially compensate for the shortfalls. As a result of these substitutions, the force structure deficiencies we initially identified were reduced to 61 units comprising 16 unit types and a total of about 2,500 personnel (about 3 percent of the total requirement). Army officials stated that these remaining shortfalls could be surmounted, since many of the skills required could be obtained in other ways. They pointed out, for example, that individuals in other units possessing the requisite skills could be detailed to meet contingency requirements. In the case of linguists, Army officials believe that they could meet these unfilled requirements through civilian contracts (see app. III for the specific shortfalls that would remain after the Army’s substitutions). Although the Army’s force structure could provide the 76,000 troops needed to support the seven illustrative contingencies, sustaining these operations beyond 6 months would pose greater challenges because force rotations would be needed. Under current policy, the Army limits unit deployments in contingency operations to no more than 6 months. If an operation lasts more than 6 months, new units and personnel are expected to rotate in as the deployed units return to their home station. This rotation policy applies to all three Army components—active duty, Army Reserve, and National Guard. According to Army officials, five of the seven illustrative contingency scenarios (all but humanitarian assistance and noncombatant evacuation operations), involving a total of about 61,000 troops, could last more than 6 months. Historical experiences related to counterdrug activities and various types of peacekeeping operations support this assertion. The Army contends that in order to adhere to its deployment policy, it needs to maintain a 3-to-1 pool of troops available for these missions. Should these five contingency operations occur simultaneously, 61,000 troops would be deployed, another 61,000 would be in training to prepare for deployment, and 61,000 recently deployed troops would be in the so-called “reconstitution” phase, retraining for their normal wartime mission. In effect, this policy requires the Army to maintain a ready pool of 183,000 troops to carry out the five contingency operations. Our analysis indicates that the Army’s planned force structure for 2007 does not have enough units to support the five illustrative contingency operations over an extended period. For example, only 99 (about 40 percent) of the Army’s active unit types have sufficient numbers of units to sustain 6-month force rotations. Collectively, the active Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve have enough units to support the rotational requirements of only 181 unit types, or about 73 percent of the 248 unit types required for the 5 operations. The shortfall of 67 unit types includes about 360 units with a total authorized strength of about 26,000. Military Intelligence would be the branch most affected, accounting for about half of the unit shortfall and about one-quarter of the personnel shortfall. The Psychological Operations, Medical, Signal, and Aviation branches would also be affected significantly (app. IV lists the branches that would be unable to sustain long-term rotations). The Army’s ability to adhere to its rotation policy in sustaining contingency operations depends heavily on National Guard and Army Reserve participation because most of the Army’s total force resides in those two components. For example, of the 6,892 units the Army planned in its latest force structure analysis, only 2,455 (about one-third) were active Army. As shown in figure 1, the National Guard and the Reserve each account for 32 percent of the total number of units. The percentage of units in the reserve components is important because the Army faces certain challenges in deploying these units during peacetime. As we reported in April 1998, peacetime restrictions on the use of reserve components affect the Army’s ability to deploy them to a contingency operation. Thus, even if the Army’s force structure collectively has sufficient required units, the Army may be restricted from deploying some of those units to a contingency. During recent contingencies, the Army has drawn heavily on volunteers to help reduce deployments of active units. However, if not enough reserve personnel volunteer for active duty, the Army cannot deploy reserve units unless the President exercises the Presidential Selected Reserve Call Up Authority and calls them to active duty. Further, reserve personnel cannot be required to serve on active duty for more than 270 days and may only be called up once for a given operation. Prior to our analysis, Army officials had not compared contingency requirements with the planned force structure for 2007 and thus were not aware of the shortfalls we identified. Therefore, they had neither assessed the criticality of such shortfalls nor developed mitigation plans. Such analysis and plans are important because critical shortages, if left unaddressed, could have adverse effects. Over the past several years, personnel in units that have been heavily demanded by contingencies but in short supply have had to deploy repeatedly and have exceeded Army standards for time spent away from home stations. Concerns that frequent and extensive deployments might adversely affect the services’ ability to recruit and retain personnel led the Army to establish a 6-month ceiling on the length of deployments. We believe that past experience supports the Army’s hypothetical scenario of five simultaneous contingencies, given the fact that counterdrug activities and various peace operations have in fact occurred simultaneously and have extended far beyond 6 months. Were the Army to decide that mitigating actions are needed, it could consider several alternatives. It could determine whether other type units have similar capabilities, contractors or host nation personnel could be employed, or auxiliary support could be obtained from other military services. Should these not be viable alternatives, the Army could also allocate end strength to new units in critical shortage areas. However, it is important to note that a decision to create new units would mean that other needs might go unaddressed, and that any decision to address these shortfalls would need to recognize the opportunity costs of not addressing others. For example, some currently existing units are not authorized all the personnel they require, while other units needed for the two-war scenario exist only on paper and are entirely without authorized personnel. Another concern Army officials raised about creating new units is whether current Defense guidance allows the Army to create new units if the units are not needed for the two-war scenario. Current guidance states that the services need to be prepared for a full spectrum of conflict, including both major theater wars and contingency operations. However, it does not explicitly say whether units needed exclusively for contingency operations but not major wars can be added and authorized personnel. Army force planning officials said that their interpretation of the guidance is that they can only authorize personnel for units needed for a two-war scenario and not units needed exclusively for contingencies. In support of their interpretation, the officials pointed out that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) had allowed the Army to authorize personnel for units needed exclusively for peace operations in only two cases. These involved 17,000 positions for units required for operations in the Sinai to satisfy the 1979 Middle East Peace Treaty and for a rapid reaction force for peacekeeping operations in Europe to satisfy Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Treaty. The rationale for these two exceptions is that these activities, which arise from treaty commitments, would need to continue even if a war arose and, as a result, units engaged in them could not be redeployed to a war effort. Notwithstanding the fact that OSD had permitted only these two exceptions to date, OSD officials said that guidance may be sufficiently broad to permit the Army to allocate personnel to other units needed for contingencies but not for major wars, if it chose to do so. Nevertheless, Army officials emphasized that they would need to have this issue clarified, were they to conclude that authorizing personnel for such units is the best option. In our opinion, the guidance is not explicit on this point, and a clarification may be in order. The Army’s force structure, which is based on a two-war scenario, generally provides the number and types of units required to simultaneously carry out seven illustrative contingency operations requiring Army participation. However, it does not contain the number and types of units needed to meet the needs of five simultaneous contingencies lasting more than 6 months and requiring force rotations. If Army forces continue to be called on to engage in such contingencies for extended periods of time, as has been the case in recent years, it would seem prudent to have a force structure that is able to meet such needs. Unless the shortfalls we have identified are dealt with, the Army may continue to have to call on some units repeatedly and to deploy others well beyond its 6-month standard. Assessing the criticality of the shortfalls we have identified is a logical first step for the Army to take. If it decides that certain mitigating actions are needed, the Army could pursue a variety of means to supplement its capability in critical shortage areas. However, if it becomes necessary to authorize personnel for units needed only for contingencies and not for the two-war scenario, a clarification or change in the Defense guidance may be needed to permit the Army clearer direction with respect to its authority to take such action. We recommend that the Secretary of the Army assess the criticality of the shortfalls we have identified with respect to the Army’s ability to carry out simultaneous contingency operations lasting more than 6 months. If it is determined that the risks associated with certain shortages require mitigating actions, we further recommend that the Secretary explore the range of options we have outlined. If the Secretary determines that the Army needs to authorize personnel for some units needed only for contingencies but not for the two-war scenario, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense either clarify whether authorizing personnel for such units is permitted under current Defense guidance or amend the guidance to permit this action. In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense concurred with our recommendations. It stated that the Army’s analysis of the criticality of contingency operations shortfalls will be based on information derived from upcoming war games, since that information will be more current than that used for Total Army Analysis 2007. Additionally, Defense said that future Defense guidance will allow the services to make certain contingency operations force requirements additive to the major theater war force requirements. However, it said that prioritization of available resources will determine whether particular force requirements will be funded. We believe these actions by Defense and the Army, once implemented, will allow the Army to include in its force structure those units that it believes are critical to sustaining deployments to contingency operations over an extended period of time. Defense’s comments are reprinted in appendix V. To determine whether the Army’s force structure would provide adequate forces to conduct seven illustrative contingency operations, we met with Defense and Army officials responsible for force planning and obtained pertinent documents concerning the Army’s force planning process and the numbers and types of units required to support the contingencies. We also obtained information concerning the Army’s planned force for 2007. To determine whether there would be any shortfalls, we then compared the types and numbers of units the Army stated would be required to support the seven contingencies with the types and numbers of units the Army plans to have in its force structure in 2007. We determined the number of personnel required and personnel shortfalls by applying the Army’s standard required strength for each unit type. After identifying the initial shortfalls, we asked the Army to review the list to determine whether there were other units in its force structure that were substantially capable of performing the required tasks. We compared the substitutions the Army provided and concluded that they were reasonable and would at least partially compensate for the shortfalls. We then incorporated those substitutions into our analysis. We performed a similar comparison to determine whether the force structure would be able to sustain longer-term deployments. We compared the needs of the five illustrative scenarios that Army officials believe could last more than 6 months with the planned force structure. We accepted the Army’s criterion that it needs to maintain a 3-to-1 pool of troops to adhere to its 6-month deployment ceiling. Our analysis, which was based on unit comparisons, included the substitutions the Army had previously identified for unit types experiencing shortfalls. We did not assess Defense’s selection of these contingencies or the likelihood that they may occur simultaneously. To identify various actions the Army might take to mitigate the shortages we identified, we gave Army force planning officials the results of our analysis and discussed possible mitigating actions. During these discussions, we became aware of varying interpretations of Defense guidance and whether it would permit the Army to authorize personnel for units needed exclusively for contingency operations. We discussed these varying interpretations with both Army and OSD officials. We also analyzed relevant Defense guidance provisions to understand the merits of individual interpretations. We conducted our review from March through November 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments to this report are listed in appendix VI. The Army’s force structure requirements for the seven illustrative contingency operations include units from nearly all the Army’s 26 branches. However, support units are used more heavily in such operations than combat units. Table 2 shows the units and personnel most heavily used for each of the seven contingencies by Army branch. Table 3 shows the number of units and personnel needed to meet the requirements of the seven contingencies. The following table lists those unit types for which there will be insufficient units in the Army's force structure to meet the simultaneous demands of seven illustrative contingency scenarios in 2007. The shortages shown are those that would remain even after the Army substituted units with similar capabilities wherever possible. The following table lists Army branches with insufficient units to sustain deployments to illustrative contingencies lasting over 6 months. The analysis assumes concurrent operations related to counterdrug activities, maritime intercept operations, peace enforcement operations, and peacekeeping operations, each of which could be expected to continue more than 6 months. The analysis also assumes that humanitarian assistance and noncombatant evacuation operations would occur concurrently, though not for an extended period. In addition to those named above, James Mahaffey, Leo Jessup, Ron Leporati, and Tim Stone 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) | The National Military Strategy calls for U.S. forces to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. Accordingly, the Army calculates its force structure requirements on the basis of this scenario. The strategy also calls for the Army to support operations in a series of concurrent contingencies and assumes that forces thus engaged will be withdrawn and redeployed if war occurs. The Army's difficulty in supporting contingency operations without repeatedly calling on some types of units has raised questions about whether forces structured to meet the two-war scenario can also support multiple peacetime contingency operations. GAO reviewed the Army's force planning process, known as Total Army Analysis 2007, to determine whether the Army's planned force structure will meet its contingency requirements. GAO found that the Army's force structure generally provides the number and types of units required to simultaneously carry out seven illustrative contingency operations requiring Army participation. However, it does not contain the number and types of units needed to meet the needs of five simultaneous contingencies lasting for more than six months and requiring force rotations. If Army forces continue to be called on to engage in such contingencies for long periods of time, it would seem prudent to have a force structure that is able to meet such needs. |
In the Anglo-American linguistic tradition, the word "charter" has been used to refer to many legal writs, including "articles of agreement," "founding legislation," "contracts," "articles of incorporation," and more. The varied uses of this term to refer to so many different legal writs may reflect the term's etymology. "Charter" is derived from the Latin "charta" or, perhaps, the ancient Greek "chartês," both of which mean "paper." As used in federal statutory law, the term "charter" usually has carried a much more specific meaning. A congressional or federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Such a charter typically provides the following characteristics for the corporation: (1) Name; (2) Purpose(s); (3) Duration of existence; (4) Governance structure (e.g., executives, board members, etc.); (5) Powers of the corporation; and (6) Federal oversight powers. Beyond conferring the powers needed to achieve its statutorily assigned goal, a charter usually provides a corporation with a set of standard operational powers: the power to sue and be sued; to contract and be contracted with; to acquire, hold, and convey property; and so forth. Many of the original 13 colonies were established by royal charters, and both colonies and states incorporated governmental and private entities before the United States was established. However, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, the Founders disagreed over the wisdom of giving the proposed federal government the power to charter corporations. Nevertheless, Congress chartered its first corporation—the Bank of the United States—in February of 1791 (1 Stat. 192 Section 3). Any dispute over Congress's power to charter corporations was effectively put to an end by the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 (17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 315). The Court ruled that incorporation could be a "necessary and proper" means for the federal government to achieve an end assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. After chartering the national bank, though, for the next century, Congress issued charters mostly in its role as manager of the affairs of the District of Columbia (Article I, Section 8, clause 17). The District of Columbia, which became the seat of the federal government in 1790, had neither a general incorporation law nor a legislature that could grant charters. So it fell to Congress incorporate the District's corporations. Thus, Congress issued charters to establish the office of the mayor and the "Council of the City of Washington" in 1802 (2 Stat. 195-197) and to found the Washington City Orphan Asylum in 1828 (6 Stat. 381). Congress, however, also used charters to establish entities of national significance, such as the transcontinental Union-Pacific railroad in 1862 (12 Stat. 489). In the 20 th century, Congress began chartering a large number of corporations for diverse purposes. In part, Congress's resort to the corporate device was a response to a host of national crises, such as the two World Wars (which required the production of an enormous number of goods) and the Great Depression (which revealed the limited power the federal government had over the national economy). Corporations, it was thought, were by nature better suited than typical government agencies to handle policy areas that required commercial-type activities (for example, selling electrical power, as the Tennessee Valley Authority does). While each congressionally chartered corporation is unique insofar as it is fashioned for a very particular purpose, these entities still may be sorted into rough types. An elementary division is between those chartered as nonprofit corporations versus those that are not. Table 1 provides a further—but not exhaustive—typology of congressionally chartered corporations. Congressionally chartered corporations have raised diverse issues for Congress, including (1) Title 36 corporations' membership practices; (2) prohibitions on Title 36 corporations engaging in "political activities"; (3) confusion over which corporations are governmental and which are private; and (4) federal management of these corporations. The membership practices of some Title 36 corporations periodically have been a subject of concern. In 2011, Congress revised the membership criteria of the Blue Star Mothers of America, Inc. (36 U.S.C. 305) by enacting a statute ( P.L. 112-65 ; 125 Stat. 767). The change, which the organization had advocated, liberalized the membership requirements so as to enable the organization to admit a larger number of members. Similarly, Congress amended the charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the United States of America, Incorporated, in 2007 to make its membership requirements less stringent ( P.L. 110-207 ; 122 Stat. 719). Some individuals had complained that the organization's criteria for membership were too narrow. In 2005, the congressionally chartered American Gold Star Mothers (AGSM) refused to admit to membership a non-U.S. citizen. Some individuals and members of the media called upon Congress to intervene and rectify this situation. Ultimately, the group used its own authorities to address the issue. Approximately 100 Title 36 corporations exist, thus Congress again may find itself having to consider legislation to contend with the membership issues of such organizations. More than half of the Title 36 corporations' charters include prohibitions against various "political activities." For example, the charter of the United States Submarine Veterans of World War II, states the following: "Political Activities. The corporation or a director or officer as such may not contribute to, support, or otherwise participate in any political activity or in any manner attempt to influence legislation" (36 U.S.C. 220707(b)). Other Title 36 corporations' charters forbid them from promoting the candidacy of an individual seeking office (e.g., The American Legion), or contributing to, supporting, or assisting a political party or candidate (e.g., AMVETS). Congressionally chartered organizations that are subject to political activities restrictions occasionally have asked Congress to remove these restrictions from their charters. For example, on May 21, 2008, Representative James P. Moran introduced H.R. 6118 (110 th Congress), which would have removed the political activities prohibition from the charter of Gold Star Wives. Representative Moran stated that this prohibition against attempting to influence legislation hurt the organizations "advocacy on behalf of military families." He also said that the prohibition was "punitive, not practically enforceable, and potentially an unconstitutional infringement upon the [First Amendment] freedom to petition the Government." The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, which took no action on it. Having political activities restrictions in congressional charters raises at least three issues: (1) Should any or all Title 36 corporations be forbidden from engaging in political activities? (2) If some or all of them should be so restricted, which activities ought to be defined as political? (3) Should Title 36 corporations only have the same restrictions on their political activities as purely private sector not-for-profit corporations? Congress is free to draft corporate charters to include whatever elements it deems appropriate. So, for example, the charter of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (15 U.S.C. 78(ccc) et seq.) looks very different from that of the American National Red Cross (36 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.). The power to craft corporations ad hoc, however, has produced confusion when corporations are established quasi governmental entities (i.e. entities that have both governmental and private sector attributes). This distinction is not without consequence; governmental entities operate under different legal authorities and restrictions than do private sector corporations. For example, federal agencies typically must follow many or all of the federal government's general management laws. Thus, confusion arose over the National Veterans' Business Development Corporation (NVBDC; 15 U.S.C. 657(c)). The Department of Justice declared it to be a government corporation in March 2004. Some members of Congress disagreed. The 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( P.L. 108-447 , Division K, Section 146) attempted to dispel the confusion by stating that the NVBDC was "a private entity" that "is not an agency, instrumentality, authority, entity, or establishment of the United States Government." In some instances, federal courts have been asked to intervene and make a determination of a corporation's status. The management of government corporations has been made difficult by a few factors. First, no single federal department or office is charged with overseeing the activities of all congressionally chartered corporations. Second, many of these corporations were established independently of any department and have few, if any, federal appointees on their boards or in their executive ranks. This separation of corporations from departments may make the federal management of corporations more difficult. Third, the Government Corporation Control Act (31 U.S.C. 9101-9110) provides many tools for managing chartered corporations' activities. However, Congress has excepted many corporations from some or all of the act's provisions. Finally, there is the matter of perpetual succession. In centuries past, states and municipalities often limited the duration of a charter; a corporation would expire unless the sovereign renewed its charter. This practice has fallen by the wayside; usually, Congress charters entities to have "perpetual succession." This means that a corporation may continue to operate, whether it is effective or not, until a law is enacted to abolish it—which seldom occurs. Long-lived chartered entities have been accused of taking business from the private sector, moving into areas of business or activities outside the bounds of their charters, and developing networks of influence to protect themselves from abolition. | A congressional or federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Congress has issued charters since 1791, although most charters were issued after the start of the 20th century. Congress has used charters to create a variety of corporate entities, such as banks, government-sponsored enterprises, commercial corporations, venture capital funds, and quasi governmental entities. Congressionally chartered corporations have raised diverse issues for Congress, including (1) Title 36 corporations' membership practices; (2) prohibitions on Title 36 corporations engaging in "political activities"; (3) confusion over which corporations are governmental and which are private; and (4) federal management of these corporations. This report will be updated annually. Readers seeking additional information about congressionally chartered organizations may consult: CRS Report RL30365, Federal Government Corporations: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL30533, The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics, by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL30340, Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations ("Title 36 Corporations"): What They Are and How Congress Treats Them, by [author name scrubbed]. |
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama and Senate leaders Monday reached a New Year's budget agreement that would let income-tax rates rise for the first time in nearly 20 years, maintain unemployment benefits for millions of people and blunt the impact of spending cuts that were looming as part of the fiscal cliff.
The long-sought compromise, which will raise taxes on income over $450,000 for couples, was approved by the Senate in the early morning hours Tuesday. The House was expected to consider it later in the day.
"While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted," Mr. Obama said in a statement, "this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay." He said it would "grow the economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced way."
Despite concerns raised by some Senate Democrats, the bill was approved by a strong 89-8 vote, with a majority of both parties in support.
One of the most strident opponents was Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. Speaking on the Senate floor shortly before the vote, he declared the compromise benefited the wealthiest Americans at the expense of those who could afford it the least.
"Maybe now we are all believers of trickle-down economics. Not I," Mr. Harkin said, declaring he would vote against the legislation.
The other seven senators voting against the bill were Democrats Tom Carper of Delaware and Michael Bennet of Colorado and Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida and Richard Shelby of Alabama.
The delay in approval meant that the U.S. technically went over the fiscal cliff at midnight, but with U.S. markets closed Tuesday, the impact of missing the deadline could be minimal. What damage the wrangling has caused—to the 2013 tax-filing season and consumer confidence—is already done.
Enlarge Image Close Getty Images Vice President Joe Biden leaves a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats on New Year's Eve.
Passage isn't assured in the House, where conservative Republicans are dismayed that the compromise raises taxes and doesn't include more cuts in federal spending. House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said that the House could amend it and send it back to the Senate, but supporters of the compromise hope that the big bipartisan vote of approval in the Senate would help in propel it through the House and onto Mr. Obama's desk for his signature by Thursday.
The compromise was prepared for the Senate floor after Vice President Joe Biden, who brokered it with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) traveled to the Capitol for a late-night meeting with Senate Democrats, including many who harbored reservations about the deal.
"This shouldn't be the model for how to do things around here," Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor shortly before the vote. "But I think we can say we've done some good for the country. We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate."
Major elements of the compromise would permanently raise tax rates on income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for jointly filing couples; raise rates on capital gains and dividends for those same households to Clinton-era levels of roughly 20%, from the current 15%; and limit the value of personal exemptions as well as the value of itemized deductions. Those last two restrictions would kick in at $250,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples. Those limits disappeared in 2010.
The deal would also set the estate-tax rate at 40% on estates over $5 million; currently there's a 35% rate for estates over $5.12 million. The compromise rate isn't as high as the 45%, with a $3.5 million exemption, sought by Mr. Obama.
The deal would delay for two months part of the $110 billion in spending cuts that otherwise would have taken place in early January—cuts that would be replaced by tax increases and cuts in other programs.
Enlarge Image Close Getty Images Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), shown on Monday, was working with Vice President Joe Biden on a compromise to avert the fiscal cliff.
Make Your Own Deficit-Reduction Plan Try your hand at balancing the budget and share the results.
Looking Over the Fiscal Cliff The federal government faces a rolling series of deadlines over the next few months in its continuing budget battle. Take a look ahead. View Interactive 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 Interactive More photos and interactive graphics
Related Video As the fiscal cliff deadline looms, the White House and Senate Republicans are closing in on a budget compromise, but has the damage already been done to the economy? Sudeep Reddy has details.
It continues an existing pay freeze for members of Congress for the current fiscal year, but doesn't extend the pay freeze for federal government workers.
The bill also included a measure preventing a sharp increase in the price of milk that was feared early in the new year, and extending some other agricultural programs through September. The last five-year farm bill expired at the end of last September due to the inability of lawmakers to reach a deal on the sweeping legislation.
Left out of the bill were any disaster-relief funds to help assist the recovery effort from the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy across the Eastern U.S. in October. The Senate passed a bill last week providing $60 billion in emergency relief, but the House has yet to act to bring forward similar legislation.
The wider deal doesn't do much to control the U.S.'s long-term budget woes, which are driven largely by entitlement spending, especially on health care, left untouched in this agreement. And depending on the budget math and the ultimate fate of the spending cuts, it may not do much for the short-run deficit either.
By waiting until the last minute, and by cutting a deal on a much smaller scale than either side once envisioned, Washington also deferred many of its thorniest questions, though perhaps for only a few weeks. In late February or early March, the Treasury Department will run out of extraordinary measures to avoid exceeding the government's borrowing limit—which it otherwise would have reached on Monday—and Congress will need to approve an increase.
The delay in the spending cuts will run out about the same time. In effect, Congress has delayed the fiscal cliff by erecting a new and potentially more dangerous one.
Mr. Biden, asked about the outlook for the compromise, told reporters that his long experience on the Hill taught him two things. "You shouldn't predict how the Senate is going to vote before they vote—you won't make a lot of money," he said. "And you surely shouldn't predict how the House is going to vote. But I feel very, very good."
Asked what pitch he made to liberals who were skeptical of the deal, Mr. Biden said he told them, "This is Joe Biden and I'm your buddy."
The changes in tax rates that were agreed to between Messrs. Biden and McConnell would raise roughly $600 billion in new revenue over 10 years. While that would represent the largest tax increase in decades, it would be less than 20% of the revenue that would have come in if policy makers allowed all the current tax breaks to expire on New Year's Eve.
Enlarge Image Close Agence France-Presse/Getty Images U.S. President Barack Obama makes a statement about fiscal cliff negotiations from the White House on Monday.
The Biden-McConnell deal is a classic compromise that included something for everyone to love—and hate. The key question is whether the positive components and the pressure of the Jan. 1 deadline are enough to neutralize the parts that raise objections. If not, attacks from the left and right could combine to topple the deal.
For Republicans, the bill includes the bitter medicine of the first income-tax rate increase since 1993, a violation of the anti-tax orthodoxy that has defined their party. On the other hand, it would codify the Bush-era lower income-tax rates for most Americans as permanent law, ending the recurring battles over how long they will endure.
For Democrats, the bill's tax increase makes good on their party's marquee promise in the 2012 election to raise taxes on upper-income Americans and not the middle class. But many Democrats, especially liberals, were infuriated that the bill set the income threshold as high as $450,000.
Heading into a meeting with Mr. Biden and Senate Democrats, Sen. Clare McCaskill of Missouri said, "Nobody's happy—that means it's probably a compromise."
But Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) said that Mr. Biden at the meeting told Democrats that the compromise advanced Democratic Party principles. "He told us we can stand proud and tall that a lot of our values were protected," said Ms. Boxer.
"There are many, many reasons people don't like the proposal but there is very close to unanimity that it's better than going over the cliff," Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said after the meeting. "There are disagreements on this provision, that provision and other provisions are large and wide but the number of people who believe we should go over the cliff rather than vote for this is very small."
One sticking point in the talks had been automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, set to take effect in coming days.
Republicans had insisted the cuts of $24 billion be offset with savings in other areas. The White House wanted some of the offset to be in the form of tax increases, not just other spending cuts.
The deal pays for delaying the sequester with a mix of new taxes and spending cuts, according to several congressional aides.
Of that $24 billion cost, $12 billion would come from a shift in the rules affecting workplace-based 401(k) plans. The change would allow plan holders to roll their 401(k) assets into a Roth IRA plan, which would require them to pay taxes up front on any gains in their plan. The benefit for investors would be that disbursements from Roth plans in retirement are tax free.
In effect, the move provides more up-front revenue to the Treasury, but potentially at the cost of revenue over the long term—as taxes paid when individuals make withdrawals from their 401(k) plans would likely be far greater.
Other elements of the deal could be costly. It calls for a permanent fix to the alternative minimum tax, a one-year extension of unemployment insurance benefits, and a five-year extension of other tax breaks. Among them are tax credits for families of modest means, including one for college tuition, and an expanded earned income tax credit, which provides cash to working poor families who don't earn enough to pay income taxes. It also would block a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year.
The deal taking shape also would include tax breaks adopted by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year, aides with knowledge of the talks said. Among them was a one-year extension of the tax credit, with slight modifications that would allow wind-farm developers to claim the credit for projects that begin construction by Jan. 1, 2014.
Some Democrats and liberal activists said they believe the White House gave up too much, weakening Democrats' position heading into next round of budget talks with Republicans. "It's not a good deal if it gives more tax cuts to 2% and sets the stage for more hostage taking," Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, said in a Twitter message.
Opposition to the deal also came quickly from conservatives. Heritage Action, a conservative political group, urged senators to vote against the bill and said it would be a "key vote" in its ratings of lawmakers.
"This kick-the-can approach, necessitated by a president who refuses to stop campaigning and start seriously addressing our nation's fiscal problems, is not an adequate solution to America's coming fiscal crisis, which is a result of overspending, not under-taxing," the group said in a written statement.
—Andrew Ackerman, Patrick O'Connor and Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article.
Write to Janet Hook at [email protected] and Carol E. Lee at [email protected] ||||| The Senate early on New Year's Day voted overwhelmingly in favor of a "fiscal cliff" deal that would extend tax rates on annual household incomes under $450,000 and postpone automatic spending cuts for two months.
The bill was approved in an 89-8 vote that came after only 10 minutes of formal floor debate and no official score from the Congressional Budget Office. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would reduce federal revenue by $3.93 trillion over the next decade compared to current law.
ADVERTISEMENT
Five Republicans and three Democrats voted against the bill: Sens.(D-Colo.),(D-Del.),(R-Iowa),(D-Iowa),(R-Utah),(R-Ky.),(R-Fla.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mark Kirk Mark Steven KirkThis week: Trump heads to Capitol Hill Trump attending Senate GOP lunch Tuesday High stakes as Trump heads to Hill MORE (R-Ill.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) missed the vote.
The 89-8 vote puts pressure on the GOP-led House to approve the legislation, though it remains to be seen if most House Republicans will back a bill that would add to the deficit and lacks the deep spending cuts that conservatives have been calling for.
It is unclear when the House will vote to pass or possibly amend the Senate-passed measure. House Republicans plan to huddle on the issue at 1 p.m.
House Republican Leader Eric Cantor Eric Ivan CantorCrowley loss warns of volatile voters Crowley surprise tops huge night for left Political stunner! Crowley knocked off by millennial challenger MORE (R-Va.) told Reuters on Tuesday that no decision had been made on when his chamber will vote on the Senate-passed bill. Cantor said a decision could come later Tuesday. A 90-minute meeting of Senate Democrats ending shortly before midnight sealed the deal negotiated between Vice President Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump to announce Supreme Court pick July 9; two women on short list On The Money: Canada to slap tariffs on US goods this weekend | Trump touts tax law on 6-month anniversary | Kudlow says rising deficit is falling, hopes Fed delays rate hikes Black senators introduce anti-lynching bill MORE (Ky.). The passage of the bill is a significant victory for Biden, who might run for president in 2016, and McConnell, who is up for reelection next year.
The legislation would indefinitely extend the Bush-era income tax rates on individual incomes up to $400,000 and family incomes up to $450,000. Also, it sets the estate tax rate at 40 percent, up from 35 percent, and exempts inheritances below $5 million.
It would postpone the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester for two months and offset the $24 billion cost of the delay with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues. The measure would also extend unemployment benefits for one year without offsetting their impact on the deficit, preventing 2 million people from losing government assistance.
And it would prevent a hike in congressional pay that was authorized in an executive order from President Obama to raise federal worker pay.
Biden made a late-night visit to Capitol Hill to convince Democrats to back the agreement, but he did not need to do much arm-twisting.
"I am feeling very, very good. I think we'll get a very good vote tonight,’ Biden said, leaving the meeting with Democrats.
Obama called on the House to pass the Senate measure "without delay."
"This agreement will also grow the economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced way – by investing in our middle class, and by asking the wealthy to pay a little more," Obama said in a statement following the vote.
"There’s more work to do to reduce our deficits, and I’m willing to do it," he added.
Senate approval sends the bill to the House, where Speaker John Boehner John Andrew BoehnerVeterans are left out of medical marijuana protections Former top Treasury official to head private equity group GOP strategist Steve Schmidt denounces party, will vote for Democrats MORE (R-Ohio) said the House will review the Senate bill.
With the stage set for a New Year’s Day vote, it remains unclear if the House will vote on the bill before Thursday, when the 113th Congress will be sworn in.
“The House will honor its commitment to consider the Senate agreement if it is passed,” Boehner John Andrew BoehnerVeterans are left out of medical marijuana protections Former top Treasury official to head private equity group GOP strategist Steve Schmidt denounces party, will vote for Democrats MORE said. “Decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House members — and the American people — have been able to review the legislation.”
Boehner is not a fan of moving significant legislation in lame-duck sessions, and he has made it a top priority to give members and the public time to read bills before scheduling votes on them.
The bill would appear to be a hard sell with House Republicans, many of whom objected to an earlier bill sought by Boehner that extended tax rates on annual incomes under $1 million as a tax hike. However, unlike Boehner's "Plan B" bill, the Senate-passed measure will attract significant support from House Democrats.
The Senate measure includes few spending cuts, which House Republicans have repeatedly demanded.
“I don’t see any balance yet, that’s the fundamental problem,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz Jason ChaffetzTucker Carlson: Ruling class cares more about foreigners than their own people Fox's Kennedy chides Chaffetz on child migrants: 'I’m sure these mini rapists all have bombs strapped to their chests' After FBI cleared by IG report, GOP must reform itself MORE (R-Utah) told The Hill. “If you don’t cut spending, there’s no way you’re going to pick up Republican votes.”
Heritage Action for American, a conservative advocacy group, urged lawmakers to oppose the deal.
“To be clear, this is a tax increase. In 2013, the top marginal rate, death tax, and taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends will all be higher than in 2012. Comparing tax rates to hypothetical rates that have hardly any support is nothing more than misleading Washington spin,” the group declared in a statement.
Liberal groups and labor unions have begun to line up against the deal, as well. They complained the White House and Democrats were giving up too much, particularly after Obama campaigned on a pledge to raise tax rates on households with annual income above $250,000.
“We just finished an election in which the American people made clear that they want the wealthiest 2 percent to finally pay their fair share of taxes, but this agreement fails to meet that test,” said Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org. “Voters gave President Obama a mandate to end the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. He has not delivered.”
“Its [sic] not a good fiscal cliff deal if it gives more tax cuts to 2 percent and sets the stage for more hostage taking,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka wrote in a Twitter post on Monday night.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) remained non-committal publicly but has signed off the deal in private, according to a source familiar with the talks.
“I understand at the present time, Senate Democrats are meeting with the Vice President. When a final agreement is reached and passed by the Senate, I will present it to the House Democratic Caucus,” she said in a statement.
Some Senate Democrats balked at the last minute over a Republican demand to index the estate tax exemption for inflation, but finally relented after centrists such as Sen. Max Baucus Max Sieben BaucusClients’ Cohen ties become PR liability Green Party puts Dem seat at risk in Montana Business groups worried about Trump's China tariffs plan MORE (D-Mont.) weighed in to support the provision.
In the end, both Democratic and Republican senators concluded it was better to accept a deal despite their objections than go over the fiscal cliff.
“There is a feeling, again, that it’s not that this proposal is regarded as great or is loved, in any way, but it’s a lot better than going over the cliff,” Sen. Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care: Judge blocks Kentucky Medicaid work requirements | Trump officials consider cuts to ObamaCare outreach | House probes HHS office in charge of migrant children Overnight Health Care: Amazon enters the pharmacy business | Two Republicans to play pivotal role in Supreme Court abortion fight | Senate panel approves medical research boost Lewandowski: Pelosi is not the leader of the Democratic Party MORE (D-N.Y.) said.
Senate Republicans also said an imperfect deal is better than letting middle-class families get hit with income tax increases and $109 billion in domestic and defense spending cuts take place.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said: "It's not something that any of us would say, 'Oh, I love it.' I don't love it, but I think it is a very good job of negotiating where there are some wins and some losses and it's about even."
The legislation will add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit over the next 10 years compared to current law, under which the Bush-era tax rates expired at midnight. White House officials and Senate Democratic aides said tax increases on the wealthy would raise about $620 billion in revenue compared to current policy.
The bill includes a host of tax rate extensions, including five-year extensions of the college tuition tax credit, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which were part of the 2009 economic stimulus package.
It sets the capital gains and dividends tax rate at 20 percent, up from 15 percent. Capital gains and dividend income would be taxed at 23.8 percent for singles earning above $400,000 annually and families earning more than $450,000, according to a White House fact sheet.
It reinstates the Clinton-era limit itemized deductions for individuals earning more than $250,000 a year and families earning above $300,000.
It permanently patches the Alternative Minimum Tax and extends a variety of expiring business and energy tax provisions for one year, including the research and experimentation tax credit and 50 percent bonus depreciation.
The legislation will freeze scheduled cuts to doctors’ Medicare payments for one year, paying for them with spending cuts in other healthcare spending. This avoids a 27 percent cut in reimbursements to doctors treating Medicare patients.
White House officials argue the agreement leaves substantial opportunity to further reduce tax breaks for high-income households, reform corporate tax rates and reform entitlement programs in the 113th Congress.
It will also include a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill without dairy reforms, to the chagrin of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow Deborah (Debbie) Ann StabenowSenate passes mammoth farm bill Moderates need to hold firm against radical right on Farm Bill New Kid Rock film explores political divide MORE (D-Mich.).
"This is Mitch McConnell's farm bill" she said. "I will vote for it but I am on record that I am not happy with what was done to agriculture."
The farm bill provision stops a possible doubling of milk prices but does not contain reforms and $24 billion in deficit reduction in a Senate passed five-year bill.
—Erik Wasson, Vicki Needham and Mike Lillis contributed.
This report was originally published at 2:08 a.m. and last updated at 10:27 a.m. ||||| WASHINGTON Last-minute efforts to step back from the "fiscal cliff" ran into trouble on Tuesday as Republicans in the House of Representatives balked at a deal that would prevent Washington from pushing the world's biggest economy into a recession.
House Republicans complained that a bill passed by the Senate in a late-night show of unity to prevent a budget crisis contained tax hikes for the wealthiest Americans but no spending cuts. Some conservatives sought to change the bill to add cuts.
That would set up a high-stakes showdown between the two chambers and risk a stinging rebuke from financial markets that are due to open in Asia in a few hours.
The Senate would refuse to accept any changes to the bill, a Senate aide said, and it appeared increasingly possible that Congress could push the country over the fiscal cliff after all, despite months of effort.
Strictly speaking, the United States went over the cliff in the first minutes of the New Year because Congress failed to produce legislation to halt $600 billion of tax hikes and spending cuts that start kicking in on January 1.
But with financial markets and federal government offices closed for the New Year's Day holiday, lawmakers had a little more time to work out a compromise without real-world consequences.
The Senate bill drew overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats alike when it passed by a vote of 89 to 8.
But Republicans who control the House expressed wide dismay with the measure, which includes only $12 billion in spending cuts along with $620 billion in tax increases on top earners.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, told reporters after huddling with other Republicans that he does not support the Senate's bill.
"The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members in today's meeting. Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward," said Cantor spokesman Rory Cooper.
Republicans returned for a second meeting at 5:15 p.m. EST (2215 GMT).
Republicans could face a backlash if they scuttle the deal. Income tax rates rose back to 1990s levels for all Americans at midnight, and across-the-board spending cuts on defense and domestic programs would begin to kick in on Wednesday.
Economists say the combination of tax cuts and spending cuts could cause the economy to shrink, and public opinion polls show Republicans would shoulder the blame.
MARKET DISCIPLINE?
Lingering uncertainty over U.S. fiscal policy has unnerved investors and depressed business activity for months.
Financial markets have staved off a steep plunge on the assumption that Washington would ultimately avoid pushing the country off the fiscal cliff into a recession.
Several Republicans said the fight could spill over until Wednesday, at which point they could be pressured by financial markets to accept the Senate bill.
"Everyone knows once the markets open tomorrow our courage drops in direct proportion to the market fall," said one Republican lawmaker who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The bill passed by the Democratic-led Senate at around 2 a.m. would raise income taxes on families earning more than $450,000 per year and limit the amount of deductions they can take to lower their tax bill.
Low temporary rates that have been in place for less-affluent taxpayers for the past decade would be made permanent, along with a range of targeted tax breaks put in place to fight the 2009 economic downturn.
However, workers would see up to $2,000 more taken out of their paychecks annually as a temporary payroll tax cut was set to expire.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate bill would increase budget deficits by nearly $4 trillion over the coming 10 years, compared to the budget savings that would occur if the extreme measures of the cliff were to kick in.
But the bill would actually save $650 billion during that time period when measured against the tax and spending policies that were in effect on Monday, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that has pushed for more aggressive deficit savings.
(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Beech) | A deal to neutralize the fiscal cliff cruised through the Senate 89-8 in a late-night session and is headed for the House, whose session today begins at noon. The deal contains the first federal income tax hike in nearly 20 years, but the eight refuseniks weren't all Republicans, the Hill reports. Three Democrats joined five Republicans in rejecting the bill, including Iowa's Tom Harkin, who argued that the bill hammered out by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell benefited the richest Americans at the expense of the poorest. "Maybe now we are all believers of trickle-down economics. Not I," Harkin said. The other Democrats voting no were Tom Carper of Delaware and Michael Bennet of Colorado, while Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Richard Shelby of Alabama said no from the GOP side. The delay in approving the bill means the US has technically already sailed over the cliff, but the impact should be minimal if it clears the House quickly enough, the Wall Street Journal notes. |
In the first eight months of his pontificate, Pope Francis has impressed, charmed and inspired many people around the world with his outreach to non-Christians, his statements of concern for the poor and disabled, and his personal humility. At the same time, other Catholics have expressed dismay over the pope’s statements about homosexuality and his remarks that the church is “obsessed” with some social issues.
Some news accounts contend that the pope’s popularity has created a “Pope Francis effect,” producing a “significant global rise in church attendance,” based on reports by Catholic clergy in Italy, Britain and and other countries of a recent rise in Mass attendance.
In the United States, home to the world’s fourth-largest Catholic population, the pope appears to be well-liked by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, rated favorably by 79% of Catholics and 58% of the general public.
But has the pope’s popularity produced a Catholic resurgence in the U.S., where 10% of adults are former Catholics ? Not so far, at least in terms of the share of Americans who identify as such, or the share of those who report attending Mass weekly.
A new analysis of pooled Pew Research surveys conducted between Francis’ election in March and the end of October this year finds that the percentage of Americans who identify as Catholics has remained the same – 22% — as it was during the corresponding seven-month period in 2012. In fact, our polls going back to 2007 show Catholic identification in the U.S. has held stable, fluctuating only between 22% and 23%.
Though Americans may report attending church more frequently than they actually do, our surveys find that self-reported levels of Mass attendance have remained virtually unchanged since the new pope was elected. Since April of this year, 39% of U.S. Catholics report attending Mass at least weekly, similar to the 40% attendance figure last year. ||||| 2013-11-26 Vatican Radio
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has issued his first Apostolic Exhortation on Tuesday,, translated into English as The Joy of the Gospel. The 224-page document outlines the Pope’s vision for a missionary Church, whose “doors should always be open”. The Pope speaks on numerous themes, including evangelization, peace, homiletics, social justice, the family, respect for creation, faith and politics, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and the role of women and of the laity in the Church.The Joy of the Gospel is the title Pope Francis has chosen for this first major document of his pontificate, putting down in print the joyous spirit of encounter with Christ that characterizes every public appearance he has made so far. The man who has constantly kept the media’s attention with his desire to embrace and share his faith with everyone he meets, now urgesto do exactly the same. To “recover the original freshness of the Gospel”, as he puts it, through a thorough renewal of the Church’s structures and vision. Including what he calls “a conversion of the papacy” to make it better able to serve the mission of evangelization in the modern world. The Church, he says, should not be afraid to re-examine “customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel” even if they may have deep historical roots.In strikingly direct and personal language, the Pope appeals to all Christians to bring about a “revolution of tenderness” by opening their hearts each day to God’s unfailing love and forgiveness. The great danger in today’s consumer society, he says, is “the desolation and anguish” that comes from a “covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience.” Whenever our interior life becomes caught up in its own interests , he warns, “there is no longer room for others, no place for the poor.”As we open our hearts, the Pope goes on, so the doors of our churches must always be open and the sacraments available to all. The Eucharist, he says pointedly, “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” And he repeats his ideal of a Church that is “bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets” rather than a Church that is caught up in a slavish preoccupation with liturgy and doctrine, procedure and prestige. “God save us,” he exclaims, “from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!” Urging a greater role for the laity, the Pope warns of “excessive clericalism” and calls for “a more incisive female presence in the Church”, especially “where important decisions are made.”Looking beyond the Church, Pope Francis denounces the current economic system as “unjust at its root”, based on a tyranny of the marketplace, in which financial speculation, widespread corruption and tax evasion reign supreme. He also denounces attacks on religious freedom and new persecutions directed against Christians. Noting that secularization has eroded ethical values, producing a sense of disorientation and superficiality, the Pope highlights the importance of marriage and stable family relationships.Returning to his vision of a Church that is poor and for the poor, the Pope urges us to pay particular attention to those on the margins of society, including the homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly, migrants, victims of trafficking and unborn children. While it is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life, he says, it’s also true that “we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish.”Finally the new papal document also focuses on the themes of promoting peace, justice and fraternity, through patient and respectful dialogue with all people of all faiths and none. Better relations with other Christians, with Jews and with Muslims are all seen as indispensable ways of promoting peace and combatting fundamentalism. While urging Christians to “avoid hateful generalisations” about Islam, the Pope also calls “humbly” on Islamic countries to guarantee full religious freedom to Christians”“The joy of the Gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus.” Thus begins the Apostolic Exhortation, by which Pope Francis develops the theme of the proclamation of the Gospel in the contemporary world, drawn from, among other sources, the contribution of the work of the Synod held in the Vatican, from 7 to 28 October 2012, on the theme “The new evangelization for the transmission of the faith”. “I wish to encourage the Christian faithful to embark upon a new chapter of evangelization marked by this joy, while pointing out new paths for the Church’s journey in years to come” (1). It is a heartfelt appeal to all baptized persons to bring Christ’s love to others, “permanently in a state of mission” (25), conquering “the great danger in today’s world”, that of an individualist “desolation and anguish” (2).The Pope invites the reader to “recover the original freshness of the Gospel”, finding “new avenues” and “new paths of creativity”, without enclosing Jesus in “dull categories” (11). There is a need for a “pastoral and missionary conversion, which cannot leave things as they presently are” (25) and a “renewal” of ecclesiastical structures to enable them to become “more mission-oriented” (27). The Pontiff also considers “a conversion of the papacy” to help make this ministry “more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization”. The hope that the Episcopal Conferences might contribute to “the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”, he states, “has not been fully realized” (32). A “sound decentralization” is necessary (16). In this renewal, the Church should not be afraid to re-examine “certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some of which have deep historical roots” (43).A sign of God’s openness is “that our church doors should always be open” so that those who seek God “will not find a closed door”; “nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason”. The Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness” (47). He repeats that he prefers “a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church … concerned with being at the centre and then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures. If something should rightly disturb us … it is the fact that many of our brothers and sisters are living without … the friendship of Jesus Christ” (49).The Pope indicates the “temptations which affect pastoral workers” (77): “individualism, a crisis of identity and a cooling of fervour” (78). The greatest threat of all is “the grey pragmatism of the daily life of the Church, in which all appears to proceed normally, which in reality faith is wearing down” (83). He warns against “defeatism” (84), urging Christians to be signs of hope (86), bringing about a “revolution of tenderness” (88). It is necessary to seek refuge from the “spirituality of well-being … detached from responsibility for our brothers and sisters” (90) and to vanquish the “spiritual worldliness” that consists of “seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and well-being” (93). The Pope speaks of the many who “feel superior to others” because “they remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” whereby “instead of evangelizing, one analyses and classifies others” (94). And those who have “an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact” on the needs of the people (95). This is “a tremendous corruption disguised as a good … God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!” (97).He appeals to ecclesial communities not to fall prey to envy and jealousy: “How many wars take place within the people of God and in our different communities!” (98). “Whom are we going to evangelize if this is the way we act?” (100). He highlights the need to promote the growth of the responsibility of the laity, often kept “away from decision-making” by “an excessive clericalism” (102). He adds that there is a need for “still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church”, in particular “in the various settings where important decisions are made” (103). “Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected … cannot be lightly evaded” (104). The young should “exercise greater leadership” (106). With regard to the scarcity of vocations in many places, he emphasizes that “seminaries cannot accept candidates on the basis of any motivation whatsoever” (107).With regard to the theme of inculturation, he remarks that “Christianity does not have simply one cultural expression” and that the face of the Church is “varied” (116). “We cannot demand that peoples of every continent, in expressing their Christian faith, imitate modes of expression which European nations developed at a particular moment of their history” (118). The Pope reiterates that “underlying popular piety … is an active evangelizing power” (126) and encourages the research of theologians, reminding them however that “the Church and theology exist to evangelize” and urges them not to be “content with a desk-bound theology” (133).He focuses “somewhat meticulously, on the homily”, since “many concerns have been expressed about this important ministry and we cannot simply ignore them” (135). The homily “should be brief and avoid taking on the semblance of a speech or a lecture” (138); it should be a “heart-to-heart communication” and avoid “purely moralistic or doctrinaire” preaching (142). He highlights the importance of preparation: “a preacher who does not prepare is not ‘spiritual’; he is dishonest and irresponsible” (145). Preaching should always be positive in order always to “offer hope” and “does not leave us trapped in negativity” (159). The approach to the proclamation of the Gospel should have positive characteristics: “approachability, readiness for dialogue, patience, a warmth and welcome, which is non-judgmental” (165).In relation to the challenges of the contemporary world, the Pope denounces the current economic system as “unjust at its root” (59). “Such an economy kills” because the law of “the survival of the fittest” prevails. The current culture of the “disposable” has created “something new”: “the excluded are not the ‘exploited’ but the outcast, the ‘leftovers’” (53). “A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual”, of an “autonomy of the market” in which “financial speculation” and “widespread corruption” and “self-serving tax-evasion reign” (56). He also denounces “attacks on religious freedom” and the “new persecutions directed against Christians. … In many places the problem is more that of widespread indifference and relativism” (61). The family, the Pope continues, “is experiencing a profound cultural crisis”. Reiterating the indispensable contribution of marriage to society” (66), he underlines that “the individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favours a lifestyle which … distorts family bonds” (67).He re-emphasizes “the profound connection between evangelization and human advancement” (178) and the right of pastors “to offer opinions on all that affects people’s lives” (182). “No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society”. He quotes John Paul II, who said that the Church “cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice” (183). “For the Church, the option for the poor is primarily a theological category” rather than a sociological one. “This is why I want a Church that is poor and for the poor. They have much to teach us” (198). “As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved … no solution will be found for this world’s problems” (202). “Politics, although often denigrated”, he affirms, “remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity”. I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by … the lives of the poor!” (205). He adds an admonition: “Any Church community”, if it believes it can forget about the poor, runs the risk of “breaking down”.The Pope urges care for the weakest members of society: “the homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly who are increasingly isolated and abandoned” and migrants, for whom the Pope exhorts “a generous openness” (210). He speaks about the victims of trafficking and new forms of slavery: “This infamous network of crime is now well established in our cities, and many people have blood on their hands as a result of their comfortable and silent complicity” (211). “Doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence” (212). “Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity” (213). “The Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question … it is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life” (214). The Pope makes an appeal for respect for all creation: we “are called to watch over and protect the fragile world in which we live” (216).With regard to the theme of peace, the Pope affirms that “a prophetic voice must be raised” against attempts at false reconciliation to “silence or appease” the poor, while others “refuse to renounce their privileges” (218). For the construction of a society “in peace, justice and fraternity” he indicates four principles (221): “Time is greater than space” (222) means working “slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results” (223). “Unity prevails over conflict” (226) means “a diversified and life-giving unity” (228). “Realities are more important than ideas” (231) means avoiding “reducing politics or faith to rhetoric” (232). “The whole is greater than the part” means bringing together “globalization and localization” (234).“Evangelization also involves the path of dialogue,” the Pope continues, which opens the Church to collaboration with all political, social, religious and cultural spheres (238). Ecumenism is “an indispensable path to evangelization”. Mutual enrichment is important: “we can learn so much from one another!” For example “in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of Episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality” (246); “dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples” (248); “interreligious dialogue”, which must be conducted “clear and joyful in one’s own identity”, is “a necessary condition for peace in the world” and does not obscure evangelization (250-251); in our times, “our relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance” (252). The Pope “humbly” entreats those countries of Islamic tradition to guarantee religious freedom to Christians, also “in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries!” “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism” he urges us to “avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (253). And against the attempt to private religions in some contexts, he affirms that “the respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions” (255). He then repeats the importance of dialogue and alliance between believers and non-believers (257).The final chapter is dedicated to “spirit-filled evangelizers”, who are those who are “fearlessly open to the working of the Holy Spirit” and who have “the courage to proclaim the newness of the Gospel with boldness (parrhesía) in every time and place, even when it meets with opposition” (259). These are “evangelizers who pray and work” (262), in the knowledge that “mission is at once a passion for Jesus and a passion for his people” (268): “Jesus wants us to touch human misery, to touch the suffering flesh of others” (270). He explains: “In our dealings with the world, we are told to give reasons for our hope, but not as an enemy who critiques and condemns” (271). “Only the person who feels happiness in seeking the good of others, in desiring their happiness, can be a missionary” (272); “if I can help at least one person to have a better life, that already justifies the offering of my life” (274). The Pope urges us not to be discouraged before failure or scarce results, since “fruitfulness is often invisible, elusive and unquantifiable”; we must know “only that our commitment is necessary” (279). The exhortation concludes with a prayer to Mary, “Mother of Evangelization”. “There is a Marian ‘style’ to the Church’s work of evangelization. Whenever we look to Mary, we come to believe once again in the revolutionary nature of love and tenderness” (288). | Pope Francis is a published author of a major work for the first time under that name, having issued his first apostolic exhortation. The topic: money. The 224-page document rails against unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny," and had this to say: "How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?" He implored the rich to share their wealth, explaining that just as we are guided by the words "'Thou shalt not kill' ... we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills." Reuters reports Francis took a less academic approach than many of his predecessors in the exhortation, titled Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). And while he completed an encyclical over the summer, that one had largely been written by Pope Benedict; this is the first under his name only. Meanwhile, a new analysis by the Pew Research Center has found that while Francis enjoys wide support among Americans (79% of Catholics and 58% of the public view him favorably), there had been no "Pope Francis effect" here: The number of Americans who identify as Catholic (22%) and the number of Catholics who attend church weekly (39%) haven't budged year over year. |
In our reports and testimonies, we suggested actions that if taken could improve compliance with the tax laws, assist taxpayers, enhance the effectiveness of tax incentives, improve Internal Revenue Service (IRS) management, and improve the processing of returns and receipts. The associated reports and testimonies are summarized in the appendixes. The following pages highlight notable reports and testimonies from fiscal year 1995. One of IRS’ goals is to increase voluntary compliance. We issued several reports and testimonies in fiscal year 1995 dealing with IRS’ primary compliance measurement program and IRS’ efforts to reduce noncompliance. Status of Tax Year 1994 Compliance Measurement Program. IRS’ Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) plays an important role in national tax policy and administration decisions. IRS collects TCMP data by doing extensive audits on a random sample of tax returns. IRS uses the sample data to measure compliance levels, estimate the tax gap, develop formulas for selecting returns to audit, identify compliance issues, and allocate its resources. Because of TCMP’s importance, we monitored IRS’ plans to develop and implement the tax year 1994 TCMP for which audits were slated to begin in October 1995. We concluded that (1) IRS’ 1994 TCMP would be the most comprehensive TCMP effort ever undertaken, (2) its larger sample compared with past TCMP efforts would allow for more sophisticated and powerful analyses, (3) new audit techniques and more information should help IRS auditors do higher quality audits, and (4) the many changes and added complexity would increase the importance of adequate training of the auditors and supervisory review of their work. We continue to believe that TCMP is a good investment because it is IRS’ tool for objectively measuring compliance with tax laws. The 1994 TCMP was delayed indefinitely, however, because of congressional concerns about both the cost and taxpayer burden associated with the TCMP and budget cuts. IRS is considering several alternatives, but as of December 31, 1995, no alternative had been selected (GAO/GGD-95-39, Dec. 30, 1994; GAO/T-GGD-95-207, July 18, 1995). (See p. 20.) Reducing the Income Tax Gap. One of the greatest challenges facing IRS is finding ways to reduce the gross income tax gap—the difference between income taxes owed and those voluntarily paid. IRS estimates that more than $100 billion in income from legal sources is at stake annually. IRS attributes about three-fourths of the tax gap to individuals and about one-fourth to corporations. To explore innovative and practical ways to reduce the tax gap, we sponsored a symposium on January 12, 1995, that brought together well-known tax authorities with congressional, IRS, and our staff. In general, the panelists identified several objectives that, if met, could help improve compliance: (1) reduce tax law ambiguity and complexity; (2) extend the reach of tax requirements, such as income tax withholding, that tend to promote taxpayer compliance; (3) expand compliance techniques such as information sharing with states and enhanced penalties; (4) more aggressively focus on unreported income; (5) improve IRS’ compliance data; and (6) improve IRS’ ability to resolve compliance problems quickly. The panelists also cautioned against excessive intrusions into taxpayers’ affairs, which could defeat IRS’ objectives. In June 1995, we testified that (1) compliance varies across groups of taxpayers and is lowest where there is neither withholding nor information reporting and (2) some of the tax gap may not be collectible at an acceptable cost, making it important that IRS measure compliance and use that information to effectively focus its resources. In a December 1994 report, we discussed the tax gap for one group of taxpayers— self-employed persons who provide services (GAO/GGD-95-59, Dec. 28, 1994; GAO/GGD-95-157, June 2, 1995; GAO/T-GGD-95-176, June 6, 1995). (See pp. 19, 26, and 27.) Tax Compliance Burden Facing Business Taxpayers. As business taxpayers strive to comply with federal, state, and local tax requirements, they expend time, incur costs, and experience frustrations. We define this effort as “taxpayer compliance burden.” Using available studies on federal compliance burden, supplemented with interviews of business taxpayers, we found that the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code, compounded by the frequent changes made to the code, is the source of most business taxpayer burden. Determining a reliable estimate of the cost of such burden would be costly and in itself burdensome on businesses. In testimony, we provided examples of code provisions and of IRS’ administration of the code that are most problematic to business. We also provided some of the businesses’ suggestions for simplification (GAO/T-GGD-95-42, Dec. 9, 1994). (See p. 18.) Pricing of Intercompany Transactions (Transfer Pricing). Transfer pricing affects the distribution of profits and therefore taxable income among related companies and sometimes across tax jurisdictions. Abusive transfer pricing occurs when income and expenses are improperly allocated among related companies to reduce certain companies’ taxable income. Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code allows IRS to reallocate income among related parties if it finds violations. In an April 1995 report, we (1) provided information on IRS’ recent experiences in dealing with transfer pricing issues and its use of available regulatory and procedural tools and (2) updated earlier analyses showing how many U.S.-controlled corporations and foreign-controlled corporations paid no U.S. income tax. In 1993 and 1994, IRS examiners found, as they had in previous years, many section 482 violations. Also, as in past years, IRS sustained less than 30 percent of the proposed adjustments. According to IRS officials, certain procedural tools, such as measures to obtain information and stronger penalties, had served mostly as deterrents. It was too soon to assess the success of transfer pricing regulations issued in July 1994 (GAO/GGD-95-101, Apr. 13, 1995). (See p. 22.) California’s Experiences in Taxing Multinational Corporations. A worldwide formulary apportionment system has been proposed by some state tax officials and other tax experts as an alternative to the existing tax system. In a July 1995 report, we discussed the issues to be considered before a federal formulary apportionment could be adopted. Also, we discussed California’s experience with its own version of the advocated federal system in which multinational enterprises apportion a share of their worldwide income to California. The California formulary approach can be applied to income from a single corporation or from a group of affiliated corporations (GAO/GGD-95-171, July 11, 1995). (See p. 30.) To ease taxpayer frustration and increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance with the tax laws, IRS must (1) treat taxpayers fairly, (2) provide timely and accurate assistance, and (3) communicate clearly. Several of our fiscal year 1995 products dealt with those issues. Treating Taxpayers Fairly. Several initiatives have been undertaken in recent years to better protect taxpayers, including enactment of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights in 1988 and internal IRS efforts to treat taxpayers as customers and to improve its operations. IRS has a wide range of controls, processes, and oversight offices to govern the behavior of its employees in dealing with taxpayers. Despite the many controls intended to protect taxpayers, we found examples that fell within our definition of taxpayer abuse. We concluded that IRS needs to specifically define taxpayer abuse and develop management information about it to identify and rectify future instances of abuse. We recommended that IRS strengthen its controls in several areas and provide additional information to taxpayers that will increase their ability to protect their rights. Such steps would enable IRS and Congress to better evaluate IRS’ performance in protecting taxpayers’ rights (GAO/GGD-95-14, Oct. 26, 1994). (See p. 34.) Telephone Assistance. Many taxpayers who seek help through IRS’ telephone assistance program are not getting it. Even with increased productivity, IRS has not kept pace with the significant growth in the number of calls received. IRS employees answered about one out of two calls in fiscal year 1989 but only one out of four calls in fiscal year 1994. Even with new technology, IRS has been unable to provide the level of telephone service provided by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and four private sector companies we contacted. We recommended that IRS improve its technology to include real-time call traffic monitoring and management, using the routing capability of its telecommunications vendor and fully implementing the features of call routing technology already available (GAO/GGD-95-86, Apr. 12, 1995). (See p. 41.) Improving IRS Notices. Each year IRS sends millions of notices to taxpayers concerning the status of their tax accounts. We reviewed 47 of the most commonly used notices and identified clarity concerns with 31 of them. We also found that IRS’ ability to improve its notices is adversely affected by limited computer programming resources and higher priority programming requests. Further, the lack of a system to track the progress of proposed notice language changes limits IRS’ ability to oversee notice clarity improvements. We recommended changes to its current notice generation process and a new system to monitor proposed notice text revisions (GAO/GGD-95-6, Dec. 7, 1994). (See p. 37.) Improving Forms and Publications. Providing taxpayers with easy-to-read tax forms and publications is a difficult task for several reasons. The tax code is frequently revised, consequently many publications must also be revised annually under short time constraints. In addition, taxpayers’ comprehension levels vary. Generally, we found IRS’ process for developing and revising tax forms and publications reasonable. IRS maintains a dialogue with tax professionals and attempts to generate as much feedback as possible from taxpayers. We recommended that IRS take additional steps to identify the specific concerns of individual taxpayers. Specifically, gathering information on the nature of taxpayer questions through its toll-free telephone system and making greater use of IRS field personnel who have more contact with taxpayers should generate additional useful feedback to IRS (GAO/GGD-95-34, Dec. 7, 1994). (See p. 39.) Congress continues to seek equitable ways to reform the current tax system. At the same time, it adopts tax incentives and preferences to promote certain social policy goals. The result is often foregone revenues to the federal treasury. In response to congressional requests, we provided information on two such incentives, the Earned Income Credit (EIC) and the research tax credit. Earned Income Credit. The EIC is a major federal effort to assist the working poor. Established in 1975, Congress intended that the EIC (1) offset the impact of Social Security taxes on low-income workers and (2) encourage low-income individuals to seek employment rather than welfare. Congress and IRS have long been concerned about EIC noncompliance. In 1988, according to IRS, about 42 percent of the EIC recipients received too large a credit and about 34 percent of total EIC paid out may have been awarded erroneously. Limited studies since then by IRS suggest that noncompliance is still a problem. Further, some EIC recipients are illegal aliens who may receive the EIC if they meet the credit’s eligibility rules. Awarding the EIC to illegal aliens, however, works at cross-purposes with federal policies that prohibit illegal aliens from legally working in the United States. An IRS analysis of some tax returns filed in 1993 provided enough information to convince IRS officials that about 160,000 EIC recipients probably were illegal aliens at that time. To better target the EIC to the working poor, IRS needs to change some of the definitions used to determine eligibility and develop better measures of EIC filers’ resources to determine their eligibility (GAO/GGD-95-27, Oct. 25, 1994; GAO/GGD-95-122BR, Mar. 31, 1995; GAO/T-GGD-95-136, Apr. 4, 1995; GAO/T-GGD-95-179, June 8, 1995). (See p. 45.) Benefits from the Research Tax Credit. In 1981, Congress created the research tax credit to enhance the competitive position of the United States in the world economy by encouraging the business community to do more research. The credit has been extended six times and modified four times since its inception. It expired in June 1995. Legislation to extend the credit was introduced but had not been enacted as of December 31, 1995. We took no position on whether the research credit should be made a permanent part of the tax code or allowed to expire given the lack of empirical data for evaluating the credit’s net benefit to society. We said that the credit’s net benefit to society would ideally be evaluated in terms of the ultimate benefits derived from the additional research that it stimulated and not just on the basis of how much research spending it stimulates for a given revenue cost. We suggested that Congress review the base of the credit periodically and adjust it as needed because the credit can become too generous or too restrictive over time. We presented evidence from corporate tax returns indicating that the accuracy of the credit’s base had eroded significantly since 1989 (GAO/T-GGD-95-140, Apr. 3, 1995; GAO/T-GGD-95-161, May 10, 1995). (See p. 46.) Although IRS has implemented many changes we recommended, pervasive management problems remain. These management problems are further complicated by aging information systems in a period of declining federal budgets. Management of Tax Systems Modernization (TSM) Program. In testimony and a companion report to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we discussed IRS’ progress in implementing its $8 billion modernization program and described serious management and technical weaknesses that must be corrected if TSM is to succeed. We made numerous recommendations for improving IRS’ business management and information systems management and development capabilities so that TSM is better focused to meet IRS’ mission needs. IRS has several efforts under way to deal with our concerns and has developed an action plan for implementing our recommendations (GAO/T-AIMD-95-86, Feb. 16, 1995; GAO/AIMD-95-156, July 26, 1995). (See p. 51.) IRS’ Fiscal Year 1994 Financial Statements. In accordance with the Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990, we reported the results of our efforts to audit IRS’ Principal Financial Statements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994. The report included an assessment of IRS’ internal controls and its compliance with laws and regulations. As in prior years, we were unable to express an opinion on the reliability of the financial statements. Our report discussed the scope and severity of financial management and control problems and IRS’ actions to remedy them and updated the status of recommendations from our audits of fiscal years 1992 and 1993. Overcoming these problems will be difficult because of the long-standing nature and depth of IRS’ financial management problems and the antiquated state of its information systems (GAO/AIMD-95-141, Aug. 4, 1995). (See p. 54.) IRS Receivables—A High-Risk Area. We issued a series of reports on federal program areas considered to be high risk because they are especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. This report discussed one such area, IRS’ management of its accounts receivable. IRS’ failure to resolve nearly $156 billion in outstanding tax delinquencies has not only lessened the revenues immediately available to support government operations but could also jeopardize future taxpayer compliance by giving the impression that IRS is neither fair nor serious about collecting overdue taxes. In spite of several initiatives to solve this problem, IRS has been unable to significantly improve the accuracy of its delinquent accounts inventory, slow the growth in accounts receivable, or accelerate and increase the collection of overdue taxes. IRS still lacks needed information to guide collection efforts, its collection process is outdated and inefficient, and its decentralized organizational structure makes dealing with problems that cut across the agency difficult (GAO/HR-95-6, Feb. 1995). (See p. 49.) IRS’ most basic function is to receive and process tax returns and tax payments. We issued several reports relating to those activities in fiscal year 1995, including the two discussed below. Improving IRS’ Installment Agreement Program. Since 1991, taxpayer use of installment agreements has grown considerably, and such agreements have accounted for a growing portion of IRS’ collection activity. Much of the growth occurred after April 1992 when IRS streamlined the installment agreement approval process. IRS internal auditors reported that some taxpayers were using installment agreements when they were able to fully pay taxes. This practice conflicts with IRS’ intent to encourage installment agreements for taxpayers who cannot otherwise pay their taxes in full when they are due. In addition, the auditors were concerned about the ease with which taxpayers could accumulate additional tax debt by adding new income tax liabilities to existing installment agreements. We raised concerns about certain administrative aspects of the program and recommended changes whereby IRS would (1) provide taxpayers more information about the terms, conditions, and costs of installment agreements and (2) experiment with several methods for reducing installment agreement servicing costs (GAO/GGD-95-137, May 2, 1995). (See p. 60.) Verifying Taxpayer Identities. This report discussed IRS’ procedures for processing and posting tax returns in which the primary filer does not provide a Social Security Number (SSN) or provides a name and SSN that do not match SSA records. Returns that can be corrected along with those that match SSA records are posted to the “valid segment” of the Individual Master File (IMF) while those that cannot be corrected are posted to the “invalid segment” of the IMF. From 1986 through 1994, the average annual growth rate of accounts on the invalid segment of the IMF was more than twice the growth rate for accounts on the valid segment. IRS paid $1.4 billion in refunds on returns that were posted to the invalid segment of the IMF for tax year 1993. No one knows how much, if any, of this amount was erroneously paid; however, the risk of error was higher because IRS was less certain of these filers’ identities. We recommended ways IRS could improve the processing of returns with missing or incorrect SSNs and clean up IMF accounts which could adversely affect IRS’ tax modernization plans (GAO/GGD-95-148, Aug. 30, 1995). (See p. 56.) We did our work on tax policy and administration matters pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 713, which authorizes the Comptroller General to audit IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. GAO Order 0135.1, as amended, prescribes the procedures and requirements that must be followed in protecting the confidentiality of tax returns and return information made available to us when doing tax-related work. This order is available upon request. Copies of this report are being sent to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Copies will be sent to interested congressional committees and to others upon request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. If you or your colleagues would like to discuss any of the matters in this report, please call me on (202) 512-9110. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we observed that as business taxpayers strive to comply with federal, state, and local tax requirements they expend time, incur costs, and experience frustrations. We refer to this time, cost, and frustration collectively as “taxpayer compliance burden.” We were asked by the Ranking Minority Member to identify the sources of the burden and determine the reliability of taxpayer burden cost estimates appearing in compliance cost and tax simplification literature. We collected information on compliance burden from the management and tax staffs of selected businesses, tax accountants, tax lawyers, representatives of tax associations, and IRS officials. Additionally, we reviewed academic research and other studies on compliance burden and tax simplification. The focus of our efforts was the federal tax system. We testified that (1) according to those business officials interviewed, the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code was the driving force behind federal tax compliance burden; (2) a reliable estimate of the overall costs of tax compliance was not available and would be costly and burdensome on businesses to obtain; (3) reducing compliance burden would be a difficult undertaking because of the various policy trade-offs, such as revenue and taxpayer equity, that must be made; and (4) while business officials and tax experts acknowledged the legitimate purposes of the federal tax system, they believed that several code provisions are problematic and need simplification. While we were unable to identify reliable tax burden cost estimates, there was consensus among the business respondents, tax experts, and the literature that tax compliance burden is significant and that it can be reduced. Although some gains can be made by reducing administrative burden imposed by IRS, the greatest potential for reducing taxpayer compliance burden is by dealing with the complexity of the tax code. One approach to reducing burden would be to tackle particularly burdensome provisions individually. Provisions identified as especially burdensome include Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), uniform capitalization, pension and payroll provisions, and the foreign tax credit. We believe that simplification of any of these provisions has the potential for reducing the tax burden of many businesses. In a report to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, we provided information about the tax gap for sole proprietors, i.e., self-employed individuals. We presented estimates of the tax year 1992 gross income tax gap for nonfarm sole proprietors who provided services and estimates of the tax gap attributable to service providers who may have been employees rather than self-employed. The gross income tax gap is the difference between the amount of income taxes owed and the amount voluntarily paid. Tax-gap estimates are important because they can be used to measure IRS’ progress in confronting noncompliance and to help IRS allocate its compliance resources. We estimated that between 9.2 million and 11.5 million of the 13 million nonfarm sole proprietors might be considered service providers. IRS estimated that the 1992 tax gap among these service providers ranged from $21 billion to $30.3 billion—that is, from 56 to 81 percent of IRS’ estimated tax gap of $37.2 billion for all nonfarm sole proprietors who filed a return. We estimated that between 0.2 million and 1.6 million of the 11.5 million service providers may be misclassified as service providers by their employers. IRS estimated that between $2 billion and $3.5 billion of the $30.3 billion tax gap was associated with these potentially misclassified workers. This tax gap estimate included only service providers who received all their self-employment income from one business. The $2 billion estimate included only those receiving $20,000 or more in income from one business. The $3.5 billion estimate included all such service providers regardless of the amount. We believe that if these workers had been classified correctly as employees, a significant amount of the taxes owed would likely have been withheld by their employer. In a report to the Joint Committee on Taxation and in subsequent testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Way and Means, we commented on the status of IRS’ planning efforts for the 1994 Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP). We analyzed IRS’ available plans and commented on potential strengths and weaknesses of the program. We said that the 1994 TCMP survey may have been the most comprehensive TCMP effort ever undertaken. Planned to include over 150,000 tax returns, it was designed to obtain compliance information for individuals, small corporations, partnerships, and S corporations—further disaggregated into 24 types of businesses and 3 types of individual taxpayers. IRS planned for most sample results to be usable at the national level as well as at smaller geographic areas across the country. IRS planned to implement several changes from past TCMP surveys. IRS planned to have auditors use computers to capture audit adjustments. For each adjustment, IRS planned to (1) instruct auditors to determine the tax issue involved and the reason for the taxpayer error; (2) provide auditors with tax return data for 1994 and the prior 2 years as well as other tax information on each taxpayer; and (3) help uncover erroneous tax-return information using an “economic reality” audit technique, which surveys the taxpayer’s lifestyle relative to the information reported on the tax return. We supported these planned changes and said that they offered promise for improving the value of TCMP results. We also expressed some concerns about the 1994 TCMP. We were concerned that IRS might not meet scheduled milestones so that TCMP audits could begin as planned in October 1995 and that IRS’ plans had some missing pieces. We reported that IRS was working to address these concerns: No research plan that specifically defined the research questions to be answered and how the data to be collected would be used to answer the questions. No plans to collect information on all income and deduction items for partnership and S corporation returns or plans to determine the tax impact of changes to these returns. No plans to collect information on potentially misclassified workers. No plans to collect information on other known compliance issues such as those dealing with the earned income credit and wage reporting. No plans for developing a mechanism that would electronically retrieve TCMP audit workpapers for IRS and other researchers. We raised these concerns so that IRS could consider them and make necessary changes in an informed manner rather than waiting until the last minute. We favored this approach so that IRS, as well as others, had more confidence that the TCMP audits would not only start in October 1995 but also produce more useful data. IRS took appropriate action on the concerns we raised in this report and testimony that dealt with meeting milestones for starting TCMP audits and collecting and analyzing data. However, the 1995 TCMP has been delayed indefinitely because of congressional concerns about the cost of TCMP, its burden on taxpayers, and budget cuts. IRS is considering several alternatives, but as of December 31, 1995, no firm alternative had been selected. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, House Committee on Appropriations, we noted that IRS faces some formidable enforcement challenges, such as closing a tax gap that was last estimated at $127 billion in tax year 1992 and collecting tens of billions of dollars in tax debt. Past Congresses recognized the need to expand IRS’ enforcement presence by funding compliance initiatives that would add staff with the intent of increasing compliance and producing more revenue. IRS had not fully implemented past compliance initiatives partly because of circumstances, such as underfunded pay raises, beyond its control. As a result, although the intent of the various initiatives was to increase IRS’ enforcement presence, staffing levels in three of IRS’ major enforcement programs actually declined between 1989 and 1994. We testified that some of the additional compliance staffing for 1995 was to be used to collect delinquent tax debts. However, increased staffing is not the only answer to IRS’ accounts receivable problem. IRS’ problems in this area are more fundamental. First, IRS must improve the accuracy of its delinquent accounts inventory. Second, it needs to slow the growth of the inventory of tax debt. Finally, it needs to accelerate and increase the collection of overdue taxes. Since 1990, IRS has undertaken many efforts toward these objectives; however, it has not made much headway. We identified five underlying causes that tend to perpetuate IRS’ accounts receivable problems: (1) a lack of accurate and reliable information, (2) an outdated and inefficient collection process, (3) difficulty in balancing collection efforts with taxpayer protections, (4) a decentralized organizational structure, and (5) uneven staffing. IRS needs to demonstrate that its efforts will effectively deal with these causes—causes that cut across the agency and across lines of managerial authority and responsibility. IRS also needs to reengineer its outdated collection process and take greater advantage of private sector practices. In a report to Senator Byron L. Dorgan and Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, we updated our 1993 work and provided recent data on transfer pricing issues and on tax compliance of foreign-controlled corporations (FCC) and U.S.-controlled corporations (USCC). Transfer pricing is governed by section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code. IRS’ recent experiences with examinations, appeals, and litigation relating to section 482 issues were mixed. For instance, in 1993 and 1994, IRS examiners found, as they had in previous years, large section 482 violations. The outcomes of the appeals and legal processes in 1993 and 1994 were similar to those in 1987 and 1988, with IRS sustaining less than 30 percent of the proposed section 482 adjustment amounts. In 1993 and the first part of 1994, IRS had somewhat better success litigating large transfer pricing cases than in 1990 through 1992. According to IRS officials, certain enforcement tools available to IRS in transfer pricing situations, such as measures to obtain information and stronger penalties, served mostly as deterrents that altered taxpayer behavior. Alternatives to traditional examinations, appeals, and litigation, such as simultaneous examinations, arbitration, and advance pricing agreements, were used infrequently or were expected to grow in number in the future. How successful the new transfer pricing regulatory regime will be remains to be seen. The flexibility that new regulations allow taxpayers in applying the arm’s length standard must be weighed against the flexibility given IRS and the increased documentation required of taxpayers under threat of penalty. A majority of all FCCs and USCCs paid no U.S. income tax in each year from 1987 through 1991, and the percentages of each—nearly three-quarters of FCCs and about 60 percent of USCCs—remained largely unchanged over the 5-year period. Although taxpaying corporations were a minority of all FCCs and USCCs, they owned the majority of corporate assets and generated most of the receipts. Furthermore, the largest nontaxpaying corporations—those with assets of $100 million or more—were relatively few in number but accounted for relatively large proportions of all FCCs’ and all USCCs’ total assets and receipts. In a letter to Representative Bob Franks, we provided information about reporting options transactions to IRS. (An option is a contract that gives the purchaser the right, in exchange for a premium, to buy or sell a specific amount of a property at an agreed upon price by a specified date.) The member wanted to know why information returns are not filed on options and how information reporting could work. The Secretary of the Treasury, under section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code, has broad authority to subject investment payments to information reporting. Using this authority, the Secretary has required information reporting on transactions such as securities and commodities; however, this information reporting excludes options. IRS officials said the exclusion arose from both the complexity of options transactions and from the high administrative burden associated with reporting and using such information. In 1990, IRS Chief Counsel started a project to establish regulations for information reporting on options, but reporting barriers and lack of compliance data slowed the project. The project is now inactive. Industry representatives told us of similar complexities in reporting options transactions. Most brokers, however, are required by federal regulators and industry associations to annually report options transactions to clients. IRS attempts to identify unreported income from options trading. It computer matches data received from existing information returns with tax returns to identify discrepancies. IRS officials have not determined the cost-effectiveness of a more elaborate system for reporting and computer-matching options data. Another issue involves the exemption in section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code granted corporate, financial, and other institutions. An industry official estimated that over half of its options transactions involved institutions instead of individuals. Before requiring information reporting for options, IRS officials believe IRS needs to determine (1) whether a compliance problem exists and (2) how the obstacles discussed above can be resolved. Money laundering involves disguising or concealing illicit income to make it appear legitimate. Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions are in a unique position to help identify money launderers by reporting suspicious transactions to law enforcement officials. Financial institutions report tens of thousands of suspicious transactions each year, which have led to many investigations of criminal activities. Because there is no overall control or coordination of these reports, there is no way to ensure that the information is used to its full potential. Financial institutions report suspicious transactions on various forms that provide different types of information and that are filed with different law enforcement and regulatory agencies. While the form that is filed most frequently with the IRS is contained in a centralized database, it does not contain any additional information describing the suspicious activity that would be useful as an intelligence source for initiating an investigation. Other forms used to report suspicious transactions, which describe the activity so that the information can be evaluated, are not contained in a centralized database but are filed with six different federal financial regulatory agencies, with copies forwarded to the local IRS district office. The use of these forms has varied among IRS’ 35 districts. At the time of our audit, there were no IRS procedures or policies as to how information contained in these suspicious transaction reports should be managed as an intelligence resource. Thus, IRS did not know how many reports had been received nationwide, and IRS could not assess the management of the reports from an agencywide perspective. The Department of the Treasury, the financial regulatory agencies, and IRS have agreed to substantial changes in how suspicious transactions are to be reported and how the information is to be used. Because of the steps they have taken, we did not make recommendations. IRS is developing new national guidelines that are to mandate consistent evaluation and processing of all reports of suspicious currency transactions. Changes are being made to a management information system to better ensure the proper use of these reports and to track accomplishments. Available IRS data indicate that taxpayers do not pay (either voluntarily or after IRS compliance efforts) about 13 percent of the federal income taxes due on their income from legal sources. Such an estimated shortfall in tax revenue has been a long-standing and seemingly intractable problem. To explore innovative and practical means for increasing taxpayer compliance, we sought the views of experts in the field. On January 12, 1995, we sponsored a symposium that brought together well-known tax authorities with congressional, IRS, and our staff. The starting point for discussions was our May 1994 overview report, which highlighted the changes that IRS and Congress needed to consider, given the body of work we had already completed. The panelists concluded that major modifications in the current tax system would be required to substantially improve taxpayer compliance with the nation’s tax laws. They identified a number of objectives that, if met, could help to bring about such change: (1) reduce tax law complexity and make results more certain; (2) extend the reach of tax requirements, such as income tax withholding, that promote taxpayer compliance; (3) expand the compliance techniques available to IRS; (4) adjust the focus of IRS’ compliance efforts to address more aggressively the largest aspect of noncompliance, i.e., unreported income; (5) improve the utility of IRS’ compliance data; and (6) improve IRS’ ability to resolve taxpayer compliance problems quickly, before the problems become serious. But, as the panelists recognized, any change that extends the reach of the tax system also increases the extent to which the tax system intrudes into taxpayers’ affairs and needs to be carefully considered. Thus, the bottom-line decision on whether to extend the reach of the tax system to recover additional revenues due the government under current law involves determining the right mix between (1) the acceptable level of compliance for each type of taxpayer and (2) the acceptable level of tax system intrusiveness to promote compliance within each category of taxpayer. One of the biggest challenges facing IRS is finding ways to reduce the gross income tax gap—the difference between income taxes owed and those voluntarily paid. IRS has estimated that taxpayers do not voluntarily pay more than $100 billion annually in taxes due on income from legal sources. While such a tax-gap estimate is necessarily imprecise, it does indicate the size of the challenge confronting tax administration. In testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, we made the following points on meeting this challenge: IRS information suggests that U.S. taxpayers voluntarily pay 83 percent of the income taxes they owe. Although this compliance level may be relatively high by world standards, it translates into large sums of tax-gap dollars because of the size of our economy. Compliance is not uniform across groups of taxpayers. IRS estimates that wage earners report 97 percent of their wages; the self-employed report 36 percent of their income; and “informal suppliers”—self-employed individuals who operate on a cash basis—report just 11 percent of theirs. The IRS data show that compliance is highest where there is tax withholding, a little lower where there is information reporting to IRS, and much lower where there is neither. In addition to the relative visibility of the income to tax administrators, the complexity of tax rules, together with a number of other factors, also influence the level of tax compliance. Some of the tax gap may not be collectible at an acceptable cost. Collection, in some instances, could require either more recordkeeping or reporting than the public may be willing to accept or too costly an effort for IRS. Thus, it is important that IRS invest agency resources to measure noncompliance and use that information to balance efforts among the competing goals of (1) maximizing tax revenues, (2) promoting uniform compliance, and (3) minimizing taxpayer burden. In a report to the Joint Committee on Taxation, we reviewed IRS’ strategy for addressing partnership compliance. IRS’ most current partnership compliance data were collected under its tax year 1982 partnership TCMP. These data showed that partnerships underreported their net income by $13 billion in 1982, which we estimated resulted in an underpayment of taxes by partners approaching $3.6 billion. Even when partnerships reported all their income, partners sometimes failed to include it in their own tax returns. Thus, IRS estimated that individual partners owed an additional $2.4 billion in taxes in 1982. Significant tax law changes in the intervening years make these data unreliable indicators of the present situation. IRS’ strategy for addressing partnership compliance relied almost exclusively on audits to detect noncompliance. The strategy did not include either a nonfiler or computer document-matching component. IRS, however, had a limited document-matching program to identify partners who do not report partnership income on their individual income tax returns. We made several observations concerning IRS’ partnership audit program: In recent years, relatively few partnership returns were audited because IRS focused its business audit resources on taxable entities such as corporations. Partnership audits were not as productive as other types of business returns when measured by the percent of returns audited that resulted in audit adjustments. This may be because the formula used to select partnership returns for audit was developed from 1982 TCMP data, while the formula used to select corporations for audit was developed from 1987 TCMP data. IRS’ primary measure of audit productivity—the amount of net taxes assessed per hour of audit time—could not be used for partnership audits because IRS did not have data on the additional taxes partners were assessed or refunded as a result of partnership audit adjustments. IRS could analyze current partnership audit results for leads to the types of partnership returns that are more likely to be adjusted during audits. IRS did not have an active program to detect partnerships that stopped filing required returns, having discontinued this program in 1989 to concentrate its nonfiler efforts on taxable business returns and employment tax returns. In its 1991 individual document-matching program, IRS processed about 12 percent of the Schedules K-1 it received and matched them against partners’ income tax returns. The match resulted in additional tax assessments of $6.3 million. We estimated that at an additional cost of $18.6 million to IRS, about $219.5 million in additional taxes may have been assessed if IRS had matched all the schedules. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that as IRS moves forward with its modernization efforts, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue develop plans to modify audit management information systems to more fully reflect the results of partnership audits by including information on the (1) tax assessments on partners’ income tax returns and (2) changes in allocations of profits and losses among partners, analyze computer partnership files to develop audit leads and select reinstitute the delinquency check program for partnerships to identify partnerships that do not file required tax returns, develop plans for a document-matching program using information returns to verify partnership income, and devise ways to enter all Schedules K-1 onto the computer so they can be used in the individual computer document-matching program and for other compliance purposes. IRS officials generally agreed with our recommendations and are taking actions that we believe will be responsive to them. Specifically, IRS is to address the need for expanded data on partnerships and partners in its plans to modernize information systems, has begun using partnership computer files to develop leads and select returns for audit through its newly created District Office Research and Analysis sites, is to reinstate the partnership delinquency check program for tax year 1994 in calendar year 1996, is to test the feasibility of a document-matching program for certain partnerships, and is to attempt to more fully utilize available Schedules K-1 data. In a report to Senator Byron L. Dorgan, we provided information on (1) California’s experience in doing formulary apportionment audits of multinational corporations and (2) issues that would have to be considered before adopting a formulary system at the federal level. For tax purposes, states generally can use a formula to apportion the income of corporations among the states in which they do business. Through much of the 1980s, California applied its formula for apportioning income on a worldwide basis. This required multinational enterprises to apportion a share of their worldwide income to California, including the income of foreign parent and subsidiary corporations if their operations were closely integrated or unitary with California business activity. Under worldwide formulary apportionment, a key issue that California auditors had to determine was whether California corporations that were part of a multinational enterprise were engaged in a unitary business with affiliated U.S. and foreign corporations. This determination was based on a complex analysis of the enterprise’s ownership and business operations. Auditors then used the parent corporation’s audited financial statements, federal tax returns, and other records to ensure that state tax was based on the income and the apportionment factors for all corporations comprising the unitary business. In the audits of FCCs that we reviewed, state auditors adjusted income and other apportionment data to account for differences between U.S. and foreign accounting standards and recordkeeping. The auditors focused on differences that they considered to have a material impact. They made six adjustments in the five audits that we studied in depth. State auditors reviewed annual audited financial statements of the foreign parent corporation and requested, but did not always obtain, additional data from taxpayers that were needed to determine the effects of different accounting standards and recordkeeping. As a result, auditors sometimes made determinations on the basis of available data and used estimates and assumptions in making adjustments. Although we did not discuss whether formulary apportionment should be adopted at the federal level, we did describe matters needing attention before the practice could be adopted. These matters include the design and administration of a federal unitary system. For example, unitary business and apportionment factors would have to be defined and the international feasibility of formulary apportionment, a system opposed by other countries, would have to be considered. We further explained that tax experts disagree on whether the problems associated with such issues could be resolved in a federal system. In correspondence to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we discussed concerns identified during our analysis of the “Other Income” line of the Individual Income Tax Return as it related to IRS’ planned 1994 TCMP. Specifically, we raised concerns about adjustments to the Other Income line and the difficulty associated with using the causal codes planned for the 1994 TCMP. We reported that auditors sometimes used the Other Income line inappropriately. In some cases, auditors made adjustments to the Other Income line, which should have been shown on another line of the Form 1040. In other cases, taxpayers incorrectly entered income amounts on tax return lines that should have been reported on the Other Income line and IRS auditors reclassified this income, even though TCMP instructions clearly stated that income was not supposed to be reclassified. As a result of these errors, TCMP showed misleading data on compliance for the Other Income line. We also reported that even though IRS planned to identify causes of noncompliance during the 1994 TCMP, the coding used to identify these causes would be difficult to use. We reported that the codes lacked specificity and that IRS had not developed guidance or criteria on how each type of causal code should be applied. As a result, the usefulness of causal codes may be limited. Although we made no recommendations, IRS staff agreed to work on improving the areas discussed. Businesses, to determine their tax liability (e.g., employer portion of Social Security and unemployment taxes on employee wages) and meet the requirements of other laws, need to classify their workers as either “employees” or “independent contractors.” But, as described in our testimony before the Subcommittee on Taxation and Finance, Committee on Small Business, the common-law rules for classifying workers remain as unclear and subject to conflicting interpretations as we found them in 1977. Thus, businesses continue to be at risk of large retroactive tax assessments for improperly treating workers as independent contractors. Accordingly, we still believe that the classification rules need to be clarified. But, changes to the classification rules need to be cognizant of the body of laws that create a safety net for American workers. Many laws apply only to employees but do not protect workers classified as independent contractors. Because a by-product of classification rule clarification is the potential for changing the number of workers treated as independent contractors, we believe the current deliberations should also focus on potential impacts on the social safety net established for American workers. We also believe that there are two approaches that could help improve independent contractor compliance—(1) require businesses to withhold taxes from payments to independent contractors and (2) improve business compliance with the requirements to file information returns on payments to independent contractors. IRS data suggest that although independent contractors have represented only a small proportion of taxpayers, they have accounted for as much as $21 billion to $30 billion of income taxes owed the federal government by individuals but not paid for tax year 1992. In a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we identified the issues that caused the most frequent disputes between IRS and taxpayers in connection with section 162 of the tax code. Section 162 allows taxpayers to deduct from income “ordinary and necessary” expenses related to trade or business. We had previously reported that section 162 was the tax code section most commonly cited in large tax cases at IRS’ Office of Appeals. To do the work, we reviewed 185 tax court petitions filed in 1993, mostly by sole proprietors and small- and medium-sized corporations as well as partnerships, individual shareholders, and individuals claiming employee business expenses. We also reviewed 117 Office of Appeals cases filed by large corporations included in IRS’ Coordinated Examination Program. In the 185 tax court petitions, we found that sole proprietors, small- and medium-sized corporations, and individuals claiming employee business expenses disagreed with IRS most frequently over the adequacy of documentation for a given expense deduction. About 47 percent of all the issues in the petitions we reviewed involved questions of proper documentation. These disputes were especially frequent in cases where the documentation requirements were the most rigorous—entertainment, travel, meals, and automobile expenses. While documentation was the issue sole proprietors disputed most frequently, small- and medium-sized corporations contested IRS’ decisions on the reasonableness of executive salaries as frequently as they did documentation. Overall, the frequency of disputes over unreasonable executive compensation was far less than disputes involving documentation of business expenses—14 percent versus 47 percent. However, executive compensation accounted for about 50 percent of the total proposed tax adjustments—$24.5 million of $48.8 million—in the petitions we reviewed. Adequacy of documentation was the second largest category, at $9.3 million. In the 117 Office of Appeals cases, we reported that large corporate taxpayers disagreed with IRS most frequently over the issue of capital expenditures, which accounted for about 42 percent of the issues they contested. It was also the issue with the most dollars at stake in the 117 cases, accounting for $1.1 billion of the total $1.9 billion in proposed tax adjustments. In these cases, the corporations argued for immediate deduction of large expenses related to events such as corporate mergers, reorganizations, or environmental cleanups. IRS contended that such expenditures had future benefits and should therefore be treated as capital expenditures, not immediately deductible in the current year. All of the other issues the large corporations disputed were contested far less frequently than the issue of capital expenditures. For example, documentation questions accounted for only 8 percent of the issues contested, while unreasonable executive compensation accounted for 3 percent. At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, House Committee on Appropriations, we reported on how IRS can strengthen its controls in several specific areas and provide taxpayers with additional information that will protect taxpayers from abuse. IRS has a wide range of controls, processes, and oversight offices designed to govern how its employees interact with taxpayers. While this system of controls has many elements designed to protect taxpayers from abuse, it lacks the key element of timely and accurate information about when, where, how often, and under what circumstances taxpayer abuse occurs. This information would greatly enhance IRS’ ability to pull together its various efforts to deal with abuse into a more effective system for minimizing it. The information would also be valuable to Congress in assessing IRS’ progress in treating taxpayers as customers—an often cited IRS goal—and to taxpayers to increase their ability to protect their rights. We also discussed the need for legislation to provide IRS with authorization to disclose information to all responsible officers involved in IRS efforts to collect a trust fund recovery penalty. A trust fund recovery penalty is assessed against the responsible officers and employees of businesses when they fail to collect or pay withheld income, employment, or excise taxes. Relatively large trust fund recovery penalties have caused financial hardships for the individuals involved, particularly for those who were unaware of the legal and financial ramifications of the penalty. To better enable taxpayers and IRS to resolve trust fund liabilities, we recommended that Congress amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow IRS to provide information to all responsible officers regarding its efforts to collect the trust fund recovery penalty from other responsible officers. To improve IRS’ ability to manage its interactions with taxpayers, we recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue establish a service-wide definition of taxpayer abuse or mistreatment and identify and gather the management information needed to systematically track its nature and extent. To strengthen controls for preventing taxpayer abuse within certain areas of IRS operations, we recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ensure that IRS’ systems modernization effort provides the capability to minimize unauthorized employee access to taxpayer information in the computer system that eventually replaces the Integrated Data Retrieval System; revise the guidelines for Information Gathering Projects to require that specific criteria be established for selecting taxpayers’ returns to be examined during each project and to require a separation of duties between staff who identify returns with potential for tax changes and staff who select the returns to be examined; reconcile outstanding cash receipts more often than once a year, and stress in forms, notices, and publications that taxpayers should use checks or money orders whenever possible to pay their tax bills, rather than cash; better inform taxpayers about their responsibility and potential liability for the trust fund recovery penalty by providing taxpayers with special information packets; seek ways to alleviate taxpayers’ frustration in the short term by analyzing the most prevalent kinds of information-handling problems and ensuring that requirements now being developed for new information systems provide for long-term solutions to those problems; and provide specific guidance for IRS employees on how they should handle White House contacts other than those that involve checking taxes of potential appointees or routine administrative matters. IRS supported our recommendation to Congress. Legislation has been introduced in the 104th Congress (H.R. 661 and S. 258) that, if enacted, would require IRS to disclose to a responsible person who requested in writing, the results of its efforts to collect the trust fund recovery penalty from other responsible persons. IRS disagreed with our recommendation that it establish a definition of taxpayer abuse and identify and gather the information needed to systematically track the nature and extent of such incidents. IRS said that the problem of taxpayer abuse, to the extent that it exists, is best defined, monitored, and corrected within the context of its definitions and current management information systems. Consequently, IRS planned no action on our recommendation. IRS identified several safeguards that are to be incorporated into systems being developed as part of its systems-modernization effort as well as some recent safeguards that have been incorporated into its existing computer systems. These safeguards include issuing transcripts for account adjustments considered “high risk/high dollar,” development of supplemental audit trails, and the generation of locally developed diagnostic transcripts. The Commissioner suggested imposing criminal sanctions on IRS employees who violate privacy policies and Senator John Glenn introduced a bill (S. 670) that would impose up to a $1,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail for unauthorized employee access to taxpayers’ accounts. In February 1995, IRS issued an updated memorandum to the field, stressing the sensitive nature of information-gathering projects and the need for management to closely monitor how these projects are carried out. IRS plans to amend the Collection Group Managers Handbook to include random unannounced cash reconciliations throughout the year. IRS also has added a statement to Publication 594, “Understanding the Collection Process,” encouraging taxpayers to pay by check or money order. IRS is to include Notice 784, “Could you be personally liable for certain unpaid Federal taxes?,” with the first balance due notice for business taxes. IRS currently sends taxpayer education material, including trust fund recovery penalty information, when taxpayers who file an application for an employer identification number indicate they will be liable for trust fund taxes. IRS stated that through its Quality Review Program and the Problem Resolution Program, it is alleviating information-handling problems that frustrated taxpayers. Finally, IRS said that its current procedures regarding third-party contacts who provide information that could lead to an audit or investigation are adequate to cover any contacts from the White House. Those procedures essentially call for IRS field office personnel to evaluate the information provided and decide if an audit or investigation is warranted. Each year, IRS sends millions of notices to taxpayers on the status of their tax accounts. In 1993, IRS sent more than 60 million such notices affecting about $190 billion of taxpayer transactions. As requested by the Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Way and Means, we reviewed 47 commonly used notices for clarity, and we examined IRS’ processes for ensuring that the notices it issues convey essential information to taxpayers as clearly as possible. We identified clarity concerns with 31 of the notices. In reviewing these notices for clarity, understandability, and usefulness, we considered if more specific language, clearer references, and consistent use of terminology would enhance these documents. We assessed whether the material was logically presented, whether sufficient information was provided so taxpayers could evaluate their situations, and whether the taxpayer could resolve the matter without additional guidance. Further, we considered the notice’s format, the suitability of the notice’s title, the directions or guidance provided in enclosures or remittance forms, and whether IRS provided the taxpayers with all pertinent information in a single notice or whether additional notices were needed. It appears that taxpayers with multiple or interrelated tax problems would be better served by receiving a single, comprehensive notice summarizing the status of their accounts, rather than the stream of multiple notices that IRS now sends them. Despite IRS’ process and commitment of resources to improve notice clarity, in some cases, taxpayers continue to receive notices that IRS’ Notice Clarity Unit said were problematic. Many of the notice revisions recommended by that unit were delayed or never made because of IRS’ limited computer-programming resources and higher priority programming demands, such as those implementing tax law changes and essential preparation for processing tax returns during the next tax season. Consequently, even revisions with strong organizational support may be significantly delayed. We found that improvements could be gained from the transfer of notices to Correspondex, a more modern computer system that produces other IRS correspondence. IRS is testing a group of collection notices on this system. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue test the feasibility of using its Correspondex computer system to produce Individual Master File (IMF) and Business Master File (BMF) notices and, if possible, transfer as many IMF and BMF notices as practical to the Correspondex system. To help the transition to Correspondex, we recommended that notices be transferred in stages and that a mechanism be established or an existing body, such as the National Automation Advisory Group, establish the order in which notices would be transferred. The ease of the transition, the costs of the transfer, and the benefits of making these transfers should all be considered in establishing the order. We also recommended that the Commissioner establish a system to monitor proposed notice text revisions to oversee progress or problems encountered in improving notice clarity. Employing this system should enable IRS to identify when a revision was proposed and the revision status at all times until it is implemented. The Commissioner should include in the monitoring system a threshold beyond which delays must be appropriately followed up and resolved. IRS was considering the use of a computerized bulletin board to track proposed notice revisions but tabled that approach because of budget constraints. As of December 31, 1995, IRS officials were exploring other alternatives. At the request of the Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we examined IRS’ efforts to improve its forms and publications to ensure accuracy and clarity. Providing taxpayers with easy-to-read tax forms and publications is one way of promoting voluntary compliance; however, it is a difficult task. IRS must strike a balance between the need for tax documents that accurately reflect a highly complex tax code and the need to make these documents understandable and easy to read. Finding this balance is an ongoing process, as the tax code is frequently revised—necessitating corresponding changes in forms and publications. Other factors, such as the wide range of taxpayers’ reading abilities, further complicate IRS’ task. IRS’ process for developing and revising its forms and publications appears reasonable in that it provides for clear lines of responsibility and accountability, specific time frames, adequate management oversight, sufficient opportunities to evaluate suggestions from internal and external sources, and appropriate strategies for coping with sudden tax law changes. Despite IRS’ process for developing forms and publications and its stated commitment to improvement, IRS recognizes that it has no systematic way to determine what individual taxpayers specifically find confusing about forms and publications. IRS has established a dialogue with professional organizations to obtain their concerns but not with individual taxpayers. IRS may already have data that could help it identify areas that are difficult for individual taxpayers. These potential sources of data include information from its toll-free telephone assistance program and field personnel, such as auditors and customer-service representatives, who have contact with individual taxpayers. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner direct agency staff to make additional efforts to identify the specific concerns of individual taxpayers. Identifying these concerns may be accomplished in a variety of ways, including (1) soliciting information from IRS field personnel (e.g., auditors, examiners, and customer-service representatives) for the purpose of identifying common errors made by taxpayers, which may be related to confusing passages in forms and publications and (2) gathering information concerning the nature of taxpayer questions received through its toll-free telephone system. During 1995, IRS personnel attended town meetings in several cities and provided the Tax Forms and Publications Division information on taxpayers’ problems with forms and publications. Division representatives planned to meet with IRS assistors who answer taxpayers’ calls for assistance to obtain suggestions for improving the forms and publications, on the basis of the assistors’ experience in dealings with taxpayers. At the request of Senator Jesse Helms, we researched several issues raised by a constituent. We provided in some detail information about tax liens imposed by IRS and how such liens might be removed. A general tax lien arises when a tax assessment has been made and the taxpayer has been given notice and demand for payment but has failed to pay. A notice of tax lien provides public notice that a taxpayer owes the government money. Once a lien is imposed, however, it cannot be removed except under one of the circumstances discussed below. As a result of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, for example, any person whose property is encumbered by a tax lien is permitted to administratively appeal the filing of the lien on the ground that it was filed erroneously. Using this procedure, the taxpayer can apply for a special certificate of release of lien that indicates that the filing of the lien was a mistake. This certificate is intended to ensure that the public record shows that the filing of the notice of lien was not the result of the taxpayer’s actions and to help repair the taxpayer’s credit record. In addition, there are four other possible avenues of relief from a tax lien. They are (1) a certificate of nonattachment, (2) a certificate of release of lien, (3) a certificate of discharge, and (4) a certificate of subordination. IRS believes, and we agree, that the Internal Revenue Code seems to prohibit IRS from withdrawing the notice of lien in instances where the notice of lien is on the public record, which might deprive the taxpayer of an opportunity to obtain the funds needed to pay taxes. Therefore, we suggested in a report that Congress amend the code to provide IRS with specific authority to withdraw a notice of lien in situations where such action would be advantageous to IRS and the taxpayer. In 1992, Congress twice approved taxpayer rights measures that included provisions that would have given IRS increased flexibility in providing relief from lien filings, including withdrawing notices of lien in situations where withdrawal of the notice would be in the best interest of the taxpayer and the government. However, for reasons having nothing to do with the lien provisions, both measures were vetoed by then President Bush. More recently, on January 23, 1995, proposed legislation was again introduced in Congress—S. 258 in the Senate and H.R. 661 in the House of Representatives—that includes a lien provision similar to the provisions in the 1992 legislation discussed above. As of December 31, 1995, no action had been taken on those proposals. Many taxpayers who seek help through IRS’ telephone assistance program are not getting it. Even with increased productivity, IRS has not kept pace with the significant growth in the number of calls received over fiscal years 1989 to 1994. IRS’ assistors answered about the same number of calls each year (about 36 million) even though the staff available to answer calls declined. IRS answered about one out of two calls in fiscal year 1989 but only one out of four calls in fiscal year 1994. In a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we examined IRS’ telephone assistance program to (1) determine the extent and nature of the accessibility problem, (2) compare IRS’ practices with those of other organizations that provide telephone assistance to identify ways IRS might improve access with existing staff resources, and (3) identify the reasons IRS has been unable to answer more calls. IRS has improved its telephone assistance program, particularly its capability to route calls among call sites and provide assistors with taxpayers’ account information. However, IRS’ telephone management practices, including the ability to apply modern information technology, have not kept up with those commonly used to enhance call answering by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and four private sector companies we contacted. It is unlikely that IRS could answer all taxpayers’ calls with current staff and technology resources. However, we believe that IRS could apply additional management practices used by other organizations to answer more calls with existing resources. IRS does not use several of the practices commonly used by the other organizations we contacted, and some of those IRS uses are not as rigorous or advanced as the practices these organizations employed. For example, in fiscal year 1995, for the first time, IRS provided all taxpayers access to telephone assistors for a total of 10 hours a day. In contrast, SSA offered access to assistors 12 hours a day, and all of the companies we contacted routinely provided access to a customer-service representative 24 hours a day. IRS has fallen behind the other telephone assistance programs in some areas primarily because IRS’ senior management has not aggressively and consistently pursued the implementation of commonly used practices. In part, these attempts failed because IRS did not have a strategy for working with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents most IRS telephone assistance employees, to implement systemwide operating practices and standards. IRS and NTEU have recently reached an agreement to work together to implement IRS’ future Customer Service Vision. We believe that IRS could use this framework now to put in place telephone assistance program practices used by others to optimize the number of taxpayers’ calls it can answer. IRS has a model for the type of aggressive management attention we believe is necessary. IRS created the model in its successful effort to improve the accuracy of the answers it provides to taxpayers’ tax law questions. IRS could use this model as the basis for identifying and applying appropriate telephone management practices to increase the number of taxpayers’ calls IRS answers. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue direct the Chief of Taxpayer Services, in coordination with other appropriate IRS officials, to lead an aggressive effort to (1) identify and define the appropriate telephone assistance program operating practices for IRS that would allow it to optimize the number of calls it can answer within current budget constraints and (2) work with the leadership of NTEU to reach agreement on implementing those practices on a nationwide basis. Those practices should include, although not be limited to, challenging program goals for increasing the number of calls answered that are based, at least in part, on taxpayers’ needs; standards for the amount of time assistors should be available to answer hours of operation that offer taxpayers greater opportunity to reach IRS uniform reporting definitions for the number of calls answered and other performance measures. We also recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue direct the Chief of Taxpayer Services to quickly take the steps necessary to effectively route taxpayers’ calls nationwide using real-time information. These steps may include a combination of (1) acquiring technology for real-time traffic monitoring and management, (2) utilizing the routing capability of IRS’ telecommunications vendor, and (3) fully implementing the features of IRS’ existing call routing technology. IRS agreed that more progress can be made in implementing industry best practices. IRS plans to provide, before the 1996 filing season, servicewide standards pertaining to the amount of time assistors should be available to answer taxpayers’ calls. IRS is also pilot testing three interactive telephone applications at one call site that require no IRS employee involvement and will therefore free telephone assistors to answer other inquiries. IRS plans to offer Saturday service on six peak Saturdays and on President’s Day during the 1996 filing season. This is an increase from three Saturdays in 1995. In addition, IRS plans to continue offering service 10 hours daily to callers. IRS reported that during the 1995 filing season, it took a more aggressive approach to routing traffic to equalize access that resulted in over 500 traffic shifts. Additionally, it sought assistance from its telecommunications vendor to delineate the full range of call routing technologies that it plans to implement for the 1996 filing season. Internal Revenue Code section 501(c) establishes 25 categories of tax-exempt organizations that enjoy many benefits that for-profit companies do not. In particular, tax-exempt organizations are required to pay federal income taxes only on unrelated business income. They are also exempt from many state and local taxes. In addition, contributions to tax-exempt charities are deductible from donors’ federal income taxes. IRS is responsible for monitoring the activities of tax-exempt organizations through examinations of their annual returns. IRS’ interest is in determining whether the organizations are operating in accordance with the basis for their exemptions and whether they are liable for income taxes from unrelated trades or various excise taxes. We received three requests to provide information for congressional deliberations on the growth of these organizations, their activities, and IRS oversight. We found that, overall, tax-exempt organizations have grown in number and size since the mid-1970s, from 806,375 to over 1 million in 1990 (about 27 percent). Between 1975 and 1990, their assets have grown in real terms over 150 percent to more than $1 trillion, and their revenues have grown over 225 percent to about $560 billion. Charities represented about 48 percent of the total tax-exempt organizations; social welfare organizations, about 14 percent; labor and agricultural organizations, about 7 percent; and business leagues, about 6 percent. The other 25 percent were scattered among the remaining 21 categories. We also discussed complex tax code provisions, which can cause compliance and administrative difficulties resulting in numerous IRS rulings and court cases and sometimes the revocation of an organization’s tax-exempt status. The Earned Income Credit (EIC) is a major federal effort to assist the working poor. Congress established the EIC in 1975 to (1) offset the impact of Social Security taxes on low-income workers and (2) encourage low-income individuals to seek employment rather than welfare. IRS reported that, as of May 26, 1995, about 17.3 million returns claimed nearly $20 billion in EIC for tax year 1994. However, there have long been concerns in Congress and IRS about noncompliance with EIC requirements and whether those eligible for the EIC are receiving it. At the request of Senator William V. Roth, Jr., we presented information about EIC noncompliance and IRS’ steps to control it. We also reviewed the impact on the amount of EIC paid and administrative issues that might result from potential changes to the EIC eligibility criteria that would reflect taxpayer wealth and additional sources of income. Further, we provided information about illegal aliens receiving the EIC. We reported that a reliable overall measurement of noncompliance with EIC provisions has not been made since 1988. IRS did a 2-week study in January 1994 and found that 39 percent of persons who filed returns electronically claimed an EIC that they were not entitled to receive, and 26 percent of the refund amounts sought were overclaims. Noncompliance on EIC paper returns is also a concern. IRS took several steps during the 1995 filing season to combat fraudulent or erroneous returns, especially EIC returns. IRS also undertook a study to determine the overall level of EIC compliance—on paper and electronically filed returns throughout the 1995 filing season. We reported that EIC eligibility criteria had not considered all of the resources recipients may have to support themselves and their families. We provided analyses related to using both an EIC wealth test and an expanded definition of taxpayers’ adjusted gross incomes when making EIC awards. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that denying the EIC to taxpayers who have some wealth, as indirectly measured by their asset-derived income, could yield $318 to $971 million in revenue savings in fiscal year 1997, depending on the wealth test design. These revenue savings represent potential reductions in EIC program costs resulting from changing EIC eligibility criteria. We cautioned that these changes would make the EIC more complex and add to the burden on taxpayers and IRS. We also reported that no one knows how many illegal aliens receive the EIC. If the EIC criteria were revised to require that all EIC recipients have valid SSNs for work purposes, which illegal aliens are not eligible to receive, then illegal aliens would no longer qualify for the EIC. The Self-Employed Health Insurance Act of 1995 included a proxy measure of taxpayers’ wealth to be used in determining EIC awards. Effective in 1996, EIC claimants who have income that exceeds $2,350 from certain types of assets will be ineligible for the EIC. Congressional proposals are being considered that would add certain income items to taxpayers’ adjusted gross income when determining their EIC awards. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Taxation and Internal Revenue Service Oversight of the Senate Committee on Finance and in testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means, we provided information on the research tax credit. Congress created the research tax credit in 1981 to encourage the business community to do more research. The credit applies to qualified research spending that exceeds a base amount. The credit’s availability expired in June 1995. In tax year 1992, corporations earned more than $1.5 billion worth of research credits, most of which was earned by large corporations in the manufacturing sector, particularly those producing chemicals (including drugs), electronic machinery, motor vehicles, and nonelectronic machinery. The research credit has been difficult for IRS to administer, primarily because the definition of spending that qualifies for the credit was unclear. In 1994, the Department of the Treasury issued final regulations that may resolve this uncertainty. We noted in our testimony that the credit’s net benefit to society would ideally be evaluated in terms of the ultimate benefits derived from the additional research that it stimulates and not just on the basis of how much research spending it stimulates for a given revenue cost. However, no one has been able to estimate the credit’s net benefit to society. Given the absence of empirical data, we have not taken a position on whether the credit should be made a permanent part of the tax code. Congress made revisions to the credit in 1989 that should have increased the amount of spending stimulated per dollar of revenue cost. But, over time, the fixed base of the revised credit has the potential to become too generous for some taxpayers, resulting in undue revenue losses and too restrictive for others, resulting in less overall research stimulated by the credit. We presented evidence from corporate tax returns indicating that the accuracy of the credit’s base has eroded significantly since 1989. Given that the base of the credit may become too generous or too restrictive over time, we suggested that Congress may want to provide for reviewing this base periodically and adjusting it as needed. In the Budget Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 2491), Congress proposed to extend the credit for the period July 1, 1995, through December 31, 1997. This bill also provided taxpayers the option to elect an alternative calculation of the credit that provides lower base amounts and lower rates of credit. This alternative calculation may have eased the restrictiveness of the credit for some taxpayers. However, the President vetoed this legislation. In 1992, people who were not entitled to welfare benefits, or not entitled to the level of benefits provided, received an estimated $4.7 billion in benefit payments by three of the nation’s largest welfare programs—Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamps, and Medicaid. These overpayments represent about 4 percent of the total benefits paid in these programs. Nationwide state recovery of the overpayments, about $333 million, was relatively low. We were asked by the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, to determine what the states were doing to recover benefit overpayments and what the federal government could do to help states recover more overpayments. We found that states with the highest recovery rates were establishing claims for a greater portion of their overpayments and used certain practices, and more of them, than did states with lower recovery rates. These practices included more timely efforts to verify potential overpayments and establishing claims for overpayments on more difficult cases. We also reported that, while temporarily reducing benefits to recover overpayments is an effective collection method in the AFDC program, by law, it cannot be used in the Food Stamp Program to collect overpayments caused by agency error unless the client consents. In 1985, a legislative proposal to require recoupment of Food Stamp benefits, without client consent, for agency error overpayments was introduced but not enacted. Subsequently, in 1993, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed legislation that recommended recoupment of agency error claims, but the Congress did not act on the recommendation. In addition, we reported that extending the use of federal income tax refund intercept—an effective overpayment collection tool in the Food Stamp Program—to AFDC and Medicaid could potentially increase recoveries. Legislation to extend federal income tax refund intercept to the AFDC program had been 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 Treasury’s Financial Management Service cited the need to revise the proposal’s language so that the Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families would be the focal point for working with the IRS. This would lessen the administrative burden on IRS because it could deal with one entity rather than the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This approach would more closely resemble the Food Stamp intercept program, which uses Agriculture’s Food and Consumer Service as its focal point. We suggested that Congress consider amending federal legislation to (1) authorize states to offset current recipients’ benefits without client consent to recover Food Stamp overpayments caused by agency error and (2) extend the authority for states to intercept federal income tax refunds to include the recovery of AFDC and Medicaid overpayments. IRS comments were not received in time to be incorporated into our report. Legislative provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995 (H.R. 4), approved by both houses of the 104th Congress, address both of our matters for congressional consideration. As of December 31, 1995, this bill had not been signed. We identified IRS’ management of accounts receivable as an area of high risk vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. This report was 1 of a series of 18 reports identifying weaknesses in agencies’ internal controls or financial management systems. The 1995 series of high-risk reports was an update to the original series issued in December 1992. IRS’ management of accounts receivable also has been recognized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and IRS management as a high-risk area. IRS’ poor performance in resolving tens of billions of dollars in outstanding tax delinquencies has not only lessened the revenues immediately available to support government operations but could also jeopardize future taxpayer compliance by leaving the impression that IRS is neither fair nor serious about collecting overdue taxes. We reported that despite many IRS initiatives to “fix” the accounts receivable problem, negligible progress has been made. For example, IRS has not yet developed an accounting system that identifies valid and collectible receivables and those that are not, thereby complicating the job of collection personnel trying to resolve individual accounts. Also, from 1990 through 1994, the gross inventory of tax debt, which includes accounts receivable, grew about 80 percent—from $87 billion to $156 billion. During the same period, annual collections of delinquent taxes declined from $25.5 billion to $23.5 billion—a decline of about 8 percent. We noted that these disappointing results are indicative of the (1) pervasiveness of problems throughout IRS’ processes that cumulate in the inventory and (2) difficulty in coming to grips with the interrelationship of several underlying causes. These include the lack of accurate and reliable management information for determining the validity and makeup of the inventory of tax debt and evaluating the effectiveness of individual collection activities; IRS’ lengthy, antiquated, rigid, and inefficient collection process; difficulty in balancing collection efforts with the need to protect taxpayer rights; and a decentralized organization that blurs responsibility and accountability. In our view, IRS’ primary task is twofold: collect more delinquent taxes and stem the growth in outstanding debts. The first part of the task requires greater efficiency and productivity in the collection process. The second requires changes in other IRS components to prevent delinquencies and minimize cluttering up the collection process with invalid and uncollectible accounts. The lack of accurate and reliable information continues to be IRS’ foremost problem and hinders most of its efforts to effectively deal with tax debts. Priority must be given to this area because so many of IRS’ modernization efforts rely heavily on accurate and reliable information. IRS also needs to clearly demonstrate the institutional focus necessary to effectively deal with the underlying causes of the problem—causes that cut across the agency and across lines of managerial authority and responsibility. Equally important is that the strategy address ways to best reengineer IRS’ outmoded tax collection processes, which were designed decades ago and have not kept pace with advances in technology or communications. Since 1986, IRS has invested $2.5 billion in Tax Systems Modernization (TSM). In addition, it requested another $1.1 billion for fiscal year 1996 for this effort and, through 2001, expected to spend over $8 billion on TSM. TSM is the centerpiece of IRS’ vision of virtually paperless tax processing to optimize operations and serve taxpayers better. This report and testimony critique the effectiveness of IRS’ efforts to modernize tax processing. We discuss IRS’ progress to implement its modernization and describe serious remaining management and technical weaknesses that must be corrected if tax systems modernization is to succeed. We found that IRS recognizes the criticality to future efficient and effective operations of attaining its vision of modernized tax processing and has worked for almost a decade, with substantial investment, to reach this goal. However, its efforts to modernize tax processing are at serious risk because of remaining pervasive management and technical weaknesses that impede modernization efforts. Specifically, we found the following: IRS does not have a comprehensive business strategy to cost-effectively reduce paper submissions. IRS’ business strategy primarily targets taxpayers who use a third party to prepare and/or transmit simple returns, are willing to pay a fee to file their returns electronically, and are expecting refunds. Focusing on this limited taxpaying population overlooks most taxpayers, including those who prepare their own tax returns using personal computers. Strategic information management practices are not fully in place to guide systems modernization. Software development capability is immature and weak. Using the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, IRS rated itself at the lowest level (i.e., CMM level 1). Systems architectures (including its security architecture and data architecture), integration planning, and system testing and test planning were incomplete. An effective organizational structure to consistently manage and control systems modernization organizationwide was not established. To overcome the management and technical weaknesses impeding successful modernization efforts, we recommended that IRS’ electronic filing business strategy focus on a wider population of taxpayers, including taxpayers who can benefit from filing electronically. In addition, we recommended the following improvements to IRS’ strategic information management, software development capability, and technical activities. Take immediate action to improve IRS’ strategic information management by implementing a process for selecting, prioritizing, controlling, and evaluating the progress and performance of all major information systems investments, both new and ongoing, including explicit decision criteria. Using the best available information, IRS needs to develop quantifiable decision criteria that consider such factors as cost, mission benefits, and technical risk. Immediately require IRS’ future software development contractors to have CMM level 2 maturity and by December 31, 1995, take measures that will improve IRS’ software development capability. The specific measures recommended are intended to move IRS to CMM level 2 and include implementing consistent procedures for software requirements management, quality assurance, configuration management, and project planning and tracking. Take several actions by December 31, 1995, to improve key system development technical activities. These specific actions include (1) completing an integrated systems architecture and security and data architectures, (2) institutionalizing formal configuration management for all new systems development projects and upgrades and developing a plan to bring ongoing projects under formal configuration management, and (3) developing security concept of operations, disaster recovery, and contingency plans. Assign the Associate Commissioner responsibility for managing and controlling all systems development activities, including the research and development division’s systems development efforts. IRS officials agreed with our recommendations for improving TSM in areas such as electronic filing, strategic information management, software development, technical infrastructure, and accountability and responsibility. IRS officials are currently drafting a legislatively mandated report, which is required to include a schedule for successfully mitigating the deficiencies we reported. At the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we testified on the administration’s fiscal year 1996 budget request for IRS and on the interim results of our assessment of the 1995 tax filing season. IRS’ fiscal year 1996 budget request was for about $8.2 billion and 114,885 staff, an increase of about $739 million and 922 staff over IRS’ expected fiscal year 1995 operating level. Most of the increase was for TSM. Other increases were to help IRS deal with two important filing season issues—the need to better control refund fraud and the difficulties taxpayers experience in trying to reach IRS by telephone. We made the following points in our testimony: To focus the TSM effort, IRS should direct its attention to a small number of projects that address critical gaps in mission performance and are part of the TSM vision. In light of the need to refocus TSM, IRS might not be in a position, in fiscal year 1996, to effectively use all of the funding for TSM that it had requested. IRS took several steps in 1995 in an attempt to better control refund fraud. As one result of these changes, IRS was delaying the refunds of many taxpayers whose eligibility for the EIC was problematic or who were not using valid SSNs. We expressed the belief that these actions, if effectively implemented, should help reduce refund fraud. Refundable credits, like the EIC, pose a challenge for tax administrators. In addition to the concerns about fraud, there are equally important concerns that not all taxpayers who are eligible are receiving the credit. We made several recommendations in past reports that could help make the EIC less of a problem. Taxpayers were continuing to have problems reaching IRS by telephone. Of the 1,166 calls we made to IRS’ toll-free assistance number between January 30 and February 10, 1995, we reached an IRS assistor 13 percent of the time. IRS’ budget included a request for additional staff to answer the telephones. Although the requested increase would help, it would not make an appreciable difference in the large gap between the number of calls coming into IRS and the number it answers. Most taxpayers might be able to get through to IRS if IRS adopted some of the practices used by other large organizations that provide similar telephone assistance. This report presented the results of our attempt to audit IRS’ financial statements for fiscal year 1994. It also assessed IRS’ internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations. The report further discussed the scope and severity of IRS’ financial management and control problems and the effect these problems have had on IRS’ ability to carry out its mission and remedy these problems. IRS continues to face major challenges in developing meaningful and reliable financial management information and in providing adequate internal controls that are essential to effectively manage and report on its operations. Overcoming these challenges is difficult because of the long-standing nature and depth of IRS’ financial management problems and the antiquated state of its information systems. We were unable to express an opinion on the reliability of IRS’ financial statements for fiscal year 1994, as in other years. We found that (1) critical supporting information for IRS financial statements was not available; (2) the available information was generally unreliable due to ineffective internal controls; and (3) IRS internal controls did not effectively safeguard assets, provide a reasonable basis for determining material compliance with laws and regulations, or ensure that there were no material misstatements in the financial statements. IRS, however, has made progress in responding to our previously identified problems and in improving accounting for federal revenues. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue direct the implement the software, hardware, and procedural changes needed to create reliable subsidiary accounts receivable and revenue records that are fully integrated with the general ledger; change the current federal tax deposit coupon reporting requirements to include detailed reporting for all excise taxes, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes, and employee withheld income taxes; and implement software changes that will allow the detailed taxes reported to be separately maintained in the master file, other related revenue accounting feeder systems, and the general ledger. IRS is working with us to implement these recommendations as well as those from our prior financial audits. Some progress has been made in responding to problems we identified in previous reports. IRS officials reaffirmed their commitment to the goals of the Chief Financial Officer Act to improve financial management and to provide stakeholders and managers with accurate and timely financial information. At the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we assessed various aspects of IRS’ performance during the 1994 tax filing season. Specifically, we looked into the processing of individual income tax returns and related refunds and the ability of taxpayers to reach IRS by telephone. The 1994 filing season was successful in many respects. The number of returns filed increased after an unexpected decline in 1993, and more taxpayers used alternatives to the traditional paper filing method. According to IRS data and our review at one of IRS’ 10 service centers, tax refunds were generally processed accurately and issued in a timely manner, and IRS improved the accuracy of its returns processing, thus reducing the amount of rework. IRS’ computers generally worked well with minimal downtime. On the basis of tests done by us and IRS, taxpayers looking for tax forms and publications at IRS walk-in sites could reasonably expect to find them, and taxpayers calling IRS’ toll-free telephone assistance with tax law questions could generally expect to get accurate answers. However, there were some significant problems. The number of IRS-detected fraudulent refund claims continued the steady increase that has plagued IRS for the past several years. Through the first 6 months of 1994, IRS identified twice as many fraudulent claims as it had during the same period in 1993. What remained unclear was (1) how much of that growth was due to increased fraudulent activity versus improved IRS monitoring and (2) how much additional fraud might be going undetected. The ability of taxpayers to reach IRS by telephone has been a problem for several years and degraded even further in 1994. Using IRS data, we determined that (1) only about 20 percent of the calls to IRS’ toll-free telephone assistance and 50 percent of the calls to IRS’ forms distribution centers were being answered and (2) only 13 percent of the calls to IRS’ TeleFile system were getting through during the peak period. Under TeleFile, certain taxpayers who are eligible to file a Form 1040EZ are allowed to file using a toll-free number on touch-tone telephones. The EIC was the source of many errors by taxpayers and tax practitioners in preparing returns. Those errors, along with errors by IRS staff in following IRS procedures for handling EIC claims, increased IRS’ error resolution workload and delayed taxpayers’ receipt of benefits. We did not make any recommendations to address these significant problems because (1) there were several efforts already under way and planned that we expected would have a positive effect on these issues, such as a review of refund fraud being done by Treasury’s Fraud Task Force and IRS’ plans to increase the number of telephone lines for TeleFile and (2) we had other work under way, which was specifically targeted at those issues and might help us better identify root causes. In a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we presented the results of our review of IRS’ processes for handling undeliverable mail. Our work focused on notices IRS sent to taxpayers involving the assessment and collection of taxes. We reported that IRS sends out millions of pieces of mail each year to taxpayers and that during fiscal year 1992, about 15 million pieces were undeliverable. According to IRS, mail is undeliverable because (1) taxpayers move and leave no forwarding addresses with the U.S. Postal Service or IRS, (2) the Postal Service may not deliver or forward mail, and (3) IRS may incorrectly record taxpayers’ addresses in its files. While the exact costs are not determinable, IRS estimated that it loses millions of dollars annually in revenues and incurs increased operations costs from undelivered mail. One projection indicated that a minimum of $100 million in lost revenue per year may be attributable to undeliverable mail addressed to business taxpayers alone. IRS estimates also showed that the volume of undeliverable mail rose from 6.5 million pieces in 1986 to about 15 million pieces in 1992. We noted that it is unlikely that IRS can totally eliminate undeliverable mail because two of its three principal causes are external to IRS. However, IRS needs to give this type of mail more attention because it adversely affects taxpayers and IRS. When IRS sends mail that is undelivered and subsequent attempts to contact the taxpayers are unsuccessful, the consequences for taxpayers can be quite severe. For example, the amount of taxes owed can grow, as interest and penalties mount, and liquid assets such as bank accounts may eventually be levied to satisfy the debt. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue encourage taxpayers to make address changes by (1) accepting changes of address over the telephone; (2) making Form 8822, Change of Address, more conveniently available; and (3) emphasizing to taxpayers the importance of keeping their addresses current with IRS. We also recommended that IRS proceed with plans to establish a centralized unit within each of its service centers to process all service center undeliverable mail. IRS agreed with our recommendations and is working with its Chief Counsel to revise a procedure to allow accepting general address changes over the telephone. IRS is also conducting several tests to make address changing easier. For example, IRS is including change of address forms in Postal Service change of address kits. Efforts are also under way to update taxpayer education materials regarding IRS’ need for current addresses and the procedures for changing addresses. IRS is examining various alternatives for standardizing undeliverable mail procedures, including the establishment of centralized units. In addition, IRS is planning to establish locator service procedures and locator service units at all service centers. In July 1990, we reported that the rules for depositing employment taxes were complex and resulted in nearly one-third of all employers being penalized in 1988 for failing to make timely deposits. We recommended that IRS simplify the employment tax deposit rules by making the deposit date more certain and by exempting significant numbers of small employers from frequent deposit requirements. At the request of Senator Herbert Kohl, we reviewed the development of the revised federal employment tax deposit regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury and IRS. We reported that the final regulations, issued in September 1992, launched a new payroll tax deposit process that was widely considered to be significantly simpler and easier for stakeholders to understand and comply with. The regulations provided all but the largest employers with a fixed-deposit rule that they can follow for an entire calendar year. IRS obtained stakeholders’ input, either oral or written, throughout the process. Although stakeholders were generally satisfied with the outcome, they differed in their satisfaction with the process used in developing them. Some concerned stakeholders did not believe that an adequate dialogue had been established with Treasury or IRS officials and that Treasury and IRS officials did not follow statutory or executive branch guidance that either appeared to be applicable or that the stakeholders thought would have been appropriate to follow, i.e., the Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive Order 12291. We concluded that given such things as the diversity of interests among the stakeholders who may be affected by tax regulations, the time constraints under which Treasury and IRS officials often must operate, and the sometimes conflicting goals that must be reconciled when tax regulations are written, complete stakeholder satisfaction is unlikely. Nevertheless, the employment tax deposit regulation experience suggests that Treasury and IRS officials could modify their practices to improve communications with stakeholders and provide greater assurance that stakeholders’ views will be obtained and considered. To help forestall stakeholder confusion and frustration regarding the applicability of statutory and executive guidance to tax-related regulations, we recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury direct that—when such guidance is not applicable—the text accompanying the publication of proposed and final regulations should contain a complete explanation of why this is so. We also recommended that the Secretary require that regulation drafters document internally, when time constraints permit, their consideration of the factors provided in such statutory and executive guidance to better ensure that tax regulations reflect stakeholders’ needs. To maximize the value of informal communications with stakeholders, we recommended that the Secretary encourage regulation drafters to meet with selected stakeholders to work through implementation issues associated with draft-tax regulations before publishing the regulations for notice and comment. To better ensure that a well-informed basis exists for Treasury and IRS officials to make judgments concerning whether simple, yet effective, regulations have been designed, we recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury require regulation drafters to develop key measures of simplicity for tax regulations. Officials should use these measures to help judge whether existing regulations are too complex and whether regulations under development are sufficiently simple. In response to our recommendations, IRS reported in March 1995 that it was (1) considering revising the statements contained in the preamble of IRS regulations to more explicitly state its assessment of the applicability of statutory and executive guidance, (2) considering revising procedures for internal documentation to better ensure that tax regulations reflect both the policy choices of Congress and IRS stakeholders’ needs, and (3) reviewing its attempts to measure simplicity in conjunction with other significant policy concerns in the promulgation of regulations. IRS also identified three potential opportunities for further improvement: (1) where time and circumstances permit, it will provide a 90-day period for the submission of public comments, and it will consider comments received even after that date, when time permits; (2) it intends to implement a policy of issuing a “plain language” summary of the regulation together with the formal notice of proposed rulemaking and make the summary available through a broader range of media; and (3) it is considering the feasibility of holding public hearings on certain regulations outside Washington, D.C. As of December 31, 1995, IRS had taken no further action on these recommendations, according to an IRS official. At the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means, we reviewed IRS’ use of installment agreements as a means for individual taxpayers to pay their tax debts. IRS changed the guidelines for installment agreements in April 1992 to streamline the process for taxpayers to request installment agreements and for IRS to approve them. We reported that participation in IRS’ installment agreement program grew rapidly after the guidelines were revised—from 1.1 million new agreements for individual taxpayers in fiscal year 1991 to 2.6 million new agreements in fiscal year 1994, an increase of 136 percent. Also, during fiscal years 1991 through 1994, the amount of taxes being paid in new installment agreements increased 135 percent—from $4.0 billion to $9.4 billion. And, installment agreements accounted for 33 percent ($4.5 billion) of IRS’ delinquent tax collections from individual taxpayers in fiscal year 1994 compared with 14 percent ($1.9 billion) in fiscal year 1991. The changes IRS made to its installment agreement procedures affected its collection activities in several ways. First, IRS service center collection and district office taxpayer service staff approved more agreements than in the past. Staff at IRS’ Automated Collection System call sites, who previously approved the majority of installment agreements, are now assigned higher-dollar cases. Second, more past due taxes are being paid off in installments without going through IRS’ routine collection process. This is due in part because, under IRS’ revised procedures, taxpayers can request an installment agreement when they file a balance due tax return. IRS’ internal auditors raised concerns in September 1994 about the ease with which taxpayers can enter into installment agreements. The auditors reported that IRS’ new installment agreement procedures may be allowing taxpayers to (1) choose installment agreements to pay their taxes when they could have fully paid their taxes on time and (2) accumulate tax debt because it is easy to add subsequent income taxes to an existing installment agreement. An IRS task group, established in response to the auditors’ concerns, made recommendations aimed at reducing the use of installment agreements to accumulate debt that could be paid through other methods. IRS also agreed to test an internal audit recommendation to obtain selected information from program participants on the circumstances causing their tax debt situation. We reported that IRS informs taxpayers that applicable penalties and interest charges will be added to their installment agreements; however, taxpayers are not given dollar estimates for these penalties and interest. This contrasts with installment agreements made in the private sector, such as those for automobile loans, which typically disclose information regarding terms, conditions, and costs. Further, mailing costs could be reduced if IRS used regular mail instead of certified mail for routine defaulted installment agreements, which are not subject to levy action. Such agreements are usually placed in deferred status where future collection action is generally limited to periodic notices and offsets against future refunds. To improve the information provided to taxpayers and the administration of the installment agreement program, we recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1) notify taxpayers about projected total costs and payoff periods when setting up agreements with taxpayers and when mailing monthly reminder notices, (2) experiment with Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request, to test whether having space for taxpayers to authorize direct debit installment payments increases the frequency with which this option is used, and (3) send agreement default notices to taxpayers by regular mail instead of certified mail unless an account is being referred for levy action. IRS agreed to study the feasibility of notifying taxpayers about total costs and payoff periods of installment agreements. If the notification is not feasible under existing computer systems, IRS said it would pursue changes as part of its TSM program. As an interim step, IRS is planning to break out penalty and interest costs on monthly reminder notices to taxpayers beginning in 1996. IRS also agreed to make the necessary changes to Form 9465 and to determine the requirements for OMB approval of the new form. Once approved, IRS will test the revised form for increased direct debit usage. IRS agreed with the recommendation concerning the use of regular mail for default notices and will identify the program changes necessary for implementation. This report, prepared under our basic legislative authority, discusses IRS’ procedures for processing and posting tax returns in which the primary filer did not provide an SSN or provided a name and SSN that did not match Social Security Administration (SSA) records. This report discusses (1) the growth in accounts with missing or incorrect SSNs on IRS’ IMF, (2) IRS’ procedures for verifying the identities of tax return filers, and (3) the potential effects of the procedures on IRS’ plans to modernize the tax system and on IRS’ income-matching program. IRS relies on data from SSA to determine the accuracy of SSNs and names recorded on tax documents submitted by individual taxpayers. IRS uses this information to establish the identity of each taxpayer and to ensure that each transaction is posted to the correct account on the IMF. When processing paper tax returns with missing or incorrect SSNs, IRS service centers first try to make corrections by researching IRS files or other documents (for example, Form W-2 wage and tax statements) that accompany a tax return. Returns that can be corrected, along with those that match SSA records, are posted to the “valid” segment of the IMF. Returns that cannot be corrected are posted to the “invalid” segment of the IMF, using either the incorrect SSN on the tax return or a temporary number assigned by IRS. As of January 1, 1995, 4.3 million accounts were posted on the invalid segment of the IMF, and 153.3 million accounts were posted on the valid segment. As part of its efforts to combat potential refund fraud, IRS revised its procedures in 1995 to require that taxpayers who file returns with (1) missing or incorrect SSNs or (2) temporary numbers provide documentation to verify their identities. The notice IRS was sending to filers in 1995 (known as the CP54B notice), however, did not clearly convey that they were required to provide documentation to verify their identities. At the time of our review, IRS was not planning to apply the revised documentation requirements to filers with prior accounts on the IMF invalid segment who file again using the same name and SSN combination. The accounts of these filers, whose identities IRS verified using pre-1995 procedures, were coded to automatically issue a refund when one is requested on a return. As of January 1, 1995, at least 3.2 million accounts on the IMF invalid segment were so coded. We analyzed 58 returns that were posted to the IMF invalid segment in the first 6 months of 1994 and that had accounts coded for automatic refund issuance. Our results suggested that IRS should subject these filers to the revised documentation requirements; 27 of the returns were filed by persons who either used SSNs not issued by SSA or used another individual’s SSN, including the SSNs of children or deceased persons. Developing complete and accurate account information on every taxpayer and being able to respond accurately to taxpayer account inquiries are goals IRS hopes to achieve in its tax system modernization efforts. Achieving these goals is jeopardized by the current master file structure, which allows two or more taxpayers to have accounts under the same number or one taxpayer to have several accounts under different numbers. IRS’ income-matching program is also hampered by posting returns to the IMF invalid segment. IRS matches the income claimed by taxpayers with the income reported by third parties on information returns. Discrepancies are used by IRS to detect underreported income or nonfiling of tax returns. To improve the processing of returns with missing or incorrect SSNs and help clean up accounts currently posted on the IMF invalid segment, we recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue finalize the CP54B notice in time for use during the 1996 tax filing season and apply the revised documentation requirements to taxpayers who filed tax returns that were posted to the IMF invalid segment before 1995 and whose accounts had a permanent refund release code. IRS officials agreed that a revised CP54B notice was needed and assured us that revised notices would be available for use during the 1996 filing season. With respect to our second recommendation, IRS officials said that a task force was determining the best way to verify accounts placed on the IMF invalid segment before 1995. The task force was also working to reverse the permanent refund release code on the IMF invalid segment accounts that were established before 1995. Further, IRS officials plan to remove IMF invalid segment accounts that have been inactive for a certain period, similar to the treatment of accounts on the valid segment. Taxpayers are required to have identification numbers so that IRS can establish accounts for them and record transactions such as the payment of taxes. Most taxpayers are required to have only one identification number. However, individuals who are self-employed (i.e, sole proprietors) are sometimes required to have two identification numbers, an SSN for their individual income tax returns and an Employer Identification Number (EIN) for their business returns. This report, to the Joint Committee on Taxation, discussed whether IRS (1) accurately cross-referenced the two identification numbers that self-employed individuals report and (2) needed to take any actions to improve the accuracy of its cross-reference files. IRS records a sole proprietor’s identification numbers on three computer files. It uses the SSN to establish an account on the IMF and includes the EIN in the account for cross-referencing purposes. It uses the EIN to establish an account on the BMF and adds the SSN as a cross-reference. It uses cross-referenced SSNs and EINs from the two master files to build the Cross-Reference Entity File (CREF), which is a file IRS created expressly to consolidate income information on sole proprietors for use in its underreporter program. We concluded that IRS had not screened out all erroneous identification numbers, which meant that numbers posted to sole proprietors’ records as cross-references may identify someone other than the intended taxpayer. From work at the Fresno Service Center, we made the following estimates: About 20 percent of the EINs posted to tax year 1991 records on the IMF from Schedule C returns filed at the Fresno Service Center were erroneous. About 3 percent of the BMF records of sole proprietors who filed 1991 Schedule C returns with the Fresno Service Center contained inappropriate SSNs as cross-references. About 10 percent of the accounts on the CREF that related to 1991 returns filed with Fresno contained erroneous cross-referenced taxpayer identification numbers. We believe that before posting, IRS did not screen EINs to detect those incorrectly reported on Schedule C. No data were available to discern the total effects of such misposting; however, several false underreporter cases were created at the Fresno Service Center because of erroneous cross-references. More screening is also needed if IRS is to properly integrate a taxpayer’s various records under its TSM program. We found that IRS’ difficulties in cross-referencing a sole proprietor’s two identification numbers would be eliminated if sole proprietors used a single identification number for all tax information. In addition to aiding IRS, the use of a single identification number would lessen the compliance burden that sole proprietors shoulder, which would be in keeping with IRS authority to require taxpayer identification numbers. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1) establish returns-processing and compliance-screening procedures to help remove erroneous cross-referenced taxpayer identification numbers from sole proprietors’ tax records and (2) evaluate the feasibility of eliminating the requirement that sole proprietors use EINs for filing business returns. IRS officials generally agreed that data on the CREF should be perfected and said that IRS would begin evaluating how to do this. They also said that a single taxpayer identification number such as the SSN would facilitate reporting compliance by sole proprietors. IRS officials, however, said that IRS would not pursue such a change because of major implementation obstacles, such as (1) the necessity of extensive reprogramming of IRS, SSA, and private record systems; (2) imposing the added burden on the majority of sole proprietors who now report correctly of changing their reporting responsibilities; (3) requiring sole proprietors to disclose their SSNs on Forms W-2, which raises privacy concerns; and (4) allocating significant IRS resources to educate taxpayers in the new requirement. We believe that eliminating the EIN requirement for sole proprietors is worthy of further evaluation before a decision is made on its feasibility and cost-effectiveness, especially since in the past IRS allowed sole proprietors to use their SSNs as EINs. A similar policy for those cases where IRS had not assigned an EIN with the same digits as the sole proprietor’s SSN should not involve major BMF reprogramming and reconfiguration. IRS is proposing to do a study on the extent of the problems with the CREF and ways to address them. This study could also include an evaluation of the feasibility of sole proprietors using their SSN rather than an EIN. Pursuant to a request from Senators Thad Cochran, James M. Jeffords, and Nancy Landon Kassebaum, we reported on ways the federal government can encourage families to save money for their children’s college educations. Specifically, we examined (1) whether series EE savings bonds encourage net savings for college and (2) the nonrepayment rate for federal employees who have borrowed from the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for education expenses. With the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Congress created a new federal income tax advantage for using EE savings bonds to pay for certain higher education expenses. For savings bonds purchased in 1990 or later, taxpayers may deduct from their gross income the interest earned on bonds used to pay for tuition and required fees, net of scholarships, at accredited colleges and universities. Few people have used the education expenses provision of series EE savings bonds to pay for college costs. The limited response may be attributable to (1) the fact that investors hold savings bonds generally for an average of 10 years before redeeming them and (2) a 1992 national market survey done for the Department of the Treasury found 77 percent of the respondents had never heard of these special education savings bonds. Since 1988, federal employees have been able to borrow from their TSP accounts to pay for certain educational expenses. If active federal employees fail to repay their loans on time, a taxable distribution is declared, that is, the amount of unpaid principal and interest is reported to IRS as taxable income received by the borrower. Very few TSP education loans issued from 1988 to 1993 have resulted in taxable distributions—less than 1 percent for active federal employees. For federal employees terminating employment early, regardless of the reason, less than 8 percent had taxable distributions for the period 1988 and 1989. Overall, for this period, over 90 percent of the education loans were repaid in full. Pursuant to a legislative directive, we reviewed the fee structure and methodology used by IRS in developing user fees to ensure that the proposed fees reflected no more than actual costs. At the time of our review, IRS had increased an existing fee—for copying taxpayers’ tax records—and proposed three new ones—one related to the electronic tax filing program and two related to the installment agreement program. We reported that IRS does not presently have a cost-accounting system, and IRS officials told us that the proposed user fees were based on their best estimates of full costs as required by the prevailing OMB guidance. Further, given the limited cost data available to IRS, we could not validate that the proposed fees reflected no more than actual costs. We noted that IRS is developing an activity-based costing system, which should give it the capability to develop more comprehensive cost information for all activities. The lack of specific data available to IRS in developing the proposed user fees underscores the need for the timely completion of IRS’ cost system. In anticipation of possible new tax and welfare initiatives, the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, House Committee on Resources, asked us to provide information on the various fiscal arrangements between the United States and five insular areas: American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We provided information on (1) income and other tax rules and revenues that apply to these areas, (2) current federal expenditures, and (3) the extent to which they receive major federal social programs. We testified that individuals who are residents of a territory and who earn income only from sources within the territory owe no federal tax on this income. U.S.-source income is treated differently for federal tax purposes, depending on the territory in which the individual resides. Corporations organized in the territories are generally treated as foreign corporations for U.S. tax purposes and are taxed on their U.S. earnings but not their territorial income. U.S. corporations with subsidiaries in the territories can receive significant tax benefits through the possession’s tax credit if certain qualifications are met. The Department of the Treasury estimated these benefits to be about $3 billion annually. Other federal taxes include payroll taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare and excise taxes. In fiscal year 1993, federal expenditures in the five territories totaled $10.3 billion. The largest expenditure category was “direct payments to individuals.” These expenditures were made mostly through Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, unemployment compensation, and student education grants. Major federal social programs, such as Food Stamps and AFDC, also have been extended in varying degrees to the territories. About 86 percent of the $10.3 billion went to Puerto Rico, which is, by far, the largest possession. This summary, prepared in compliance with a legislative requirement, 26 U.S.C. 6103(i)(7)(A), contained information on our tax policy and administration-related work during fiscal year 1994. It included (1) summaries of tax-related products issued in fiscal year 1994; (2) summaries of tax-related products issued before fiscal year 1994 with open recommendations to Congress; (3) descriptions of legislative actions taken in fiscal year 1994 in response to our recommendations; (4) a listing of recommendations to Congress that were open as of December 31, 1994; (5) a listing of recommendations we made in fiscal year 1994 to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and (6) brief descriptions of assignments for which we were authorized access to tax data in fiscal year 1994 under the above citation. In a report to Congress, we stressed the urgent need for deficit reduction. This report identified the budgetary implications of selected policy changes and program reforms discussed in our work but were not yet implemented or enacted. The report presented 120 options of which 14 fell under “receipts” and were thus tax related. The options were presented in narrative descriptions. They presented ways to address, in a budgetary context, some of the significant problems identified in our evaluations of federal policies and programs. We also presented an analytical framework to provide a structure for congressional consideration of individual options. In some discussions, we provided recommendations. The 14 tax-related options were tax treatment of health insurance premiums, information reporting on forgiven debts, administration of the tax deduction for real estate taxes, corporate tax document matching, tax treatment of interest earned on life insurance policies and deferred annuities, federal agency reporting to the IRS, independent contractor tax compliance, deductibility of home equity loan interest, collecting gasoline excise taxes, computing excise tax bases, small-issue industrial development bonds and qualified mortgage bonds, improving compliance of sole proprietors, and increasing highway user fees on heavy trucks. In a report to Congressman William J. Coyne, we discussed the number, size, and industry class of corporations that paid the corporate AMT over the period 1987 through 1992; why they were liable for it; whether AMT achieved its purpose; and how AMT might affect corporate investment. AMT was substantially revised by Congress in 1986 to ensure that corporations with substantial economic income could not avoid significant tax liability by using exclusions, deductions, and credits. In addition, Congress made changes so that corporations that reported significant income on their financial statements would pay some tax in that year. Many of the tax preferences that AMT is designed to limit defer tax liability rather than permanently reduce tax. For this reason, AMT is designed to result in the prepayment of tax rather than cause a permanent increase in tax liability. To achieve this, corporations that pay AMT in a particular year may be able to recoup this amount in later years through AMT credit. AMT accelerated tax payments of $27.4 billion over the 1987 through 1992 tax years. Over the same period, corporations used AMT credits totaling $5.8 billion. Most AMT revenues came from relatively few corporations, but many more corporations bear some burden in complying with AMT provisions. For example, of the universe of 2.1 million corporations subject to AMT, just 2,000 large corporations (or 0.1 percent) paid 85 percent of AMT payments in 1992, and only 28,000 (or 1.3 percent) paid any AMT at all. However, 400,000 corporations filed AMT forms. AMT most affected corporations and industries that use the exclusions, deductions, and credits that AMT was designed to offset. Of the many rules that make up the AMT, two provisions clearly led to the largest increase in corporations’ taxable incomes. These were the provision related to the amount corporations could deduct for the depreciation of assets and the provision that reflects the difference between the amount of income corporations report for tax purposes and the amount they report to shareholders on financial statements. AMT partially achieved its objective of making corporations with positive economic income pay tax. AMT achieved its second objective by causing corporations that reported positive amounts of book income in a particular year to pay some tax in that year. In every year in the 1987 through 1992 period, at least 6,000 corporations with positive book income that paid no regular tax paid some AMT. The effects of AMT on corporate investment are not clear. The economic literature that we reviewed indicates that under some circumstances AMT can reduce the incentive for corporations to invest, but under other circumstances, the incentive to invest may be greater under the AMT. Furthermore, there is not a consensus on the extent that changes in the incentive to invest lead to changes in actual investment. To date, no study has directly tested the extent to which AMT actually affected investments. In a letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we shared the results from a limited study of IRS’ oversight of both paid preparers of tax returns and software for preparing returns. We found that although paid preparers and tax software may affect tax compliance, IRS lacks data on their compliance impacts. Paid preparers did about half of the 1992 individual income tax returns. However, IRS does not know the extent to which paid preparers as a whole or by component group caused noncompliance or improved compliance on the returns. IRS’ most recent compliance data indicated that in 1988 individual returns done by paid preparers had more noncompliance than all other returns. IRS found noncompliance on about 55 percent of the returns done by paid preparers, compared with about 40 percent on other returns. Knowing the impacts of paid preparers on compliance, particularly by type of paid preparer, can be important given the difference in IRS’ oversight. Specifically, IRS imposes more requirements and can impose more sanctions against preparers such as attorneys and certified public accountants who maintain certain professional standards and are qualified to represent clients before IRS, than against unenrolled preparers such as commercial preparers who are not subject to the same professional standards and are not qualified to practice before IRS. IRS also has limited information on the extent to which taxpayers and preparers use software packages for substitute returns or to which these packages generate accurate returns. The use of tax software in preparing returns is growing. Members of the preparer community have estimated that 80 percent or more of the paid preparers also used tax software. Three basic software options are available: (1) 1040PC software, generating a machine readable return; (2) electronic filing (ELF) software; and (3) other tax software, generating a substitute Form 1040. About 18 million of 116 million returns filed in 1994 used ELF and 1040PC software. IRS checked all three software options for conformity to specifications and did additional testing on the ELF and 1040PC software. However, IRS did not test whether the software consistently calculated the correct tax liability. Knowing the accuracy of returns prepared using any computer software could be important as IRS strives for 90-percent tax compliance by 2001. Pursuant to a request from Senators Thad Cochran, James M. Jeffords, and Nancy Landon Kassebaum, we provided information on state tuition prepayment programs, focusing on (1) how these programs operate and the participation rates they have achieved, (2) participants’ income levels and options for increasing the participation of lower-income families, and (3) the key issues surrounding these programs. Several states, following Michigan’s lead, have authorized tuition prepayment programs, that allow parents to pay in advance for tuition at participating colleges on behalf of a designated child and guaranteeing to cover the child’s future tuition bill at one of these colleges, no matter how much costs rise. By allowing purchasers to “lock in” today’s prices, these programs are intended to ease families’ concerns about whether they will have enough money in the future to pay for their children’s college expenses. We reported that (1) while none of the seven implemented state programs has achieved an average annual participation rate that seems very high, the programs vary widely among the states; (2) program officials identified several factors as important for maximizing participation—advertising and marketing, a positive public perception of the program, program simplicity and flexibility, and affordably priced benefits; (3) most participants in state tuition prepayment programs come from middle- and upper-income families; (4) program officials considered sliding-scale fees and tax credits poor options for increasing lower-income participation; and (5) some of the major issues concerning the state tuition prepayment programs are the potential effects they may have on students’ educational choices, their appeal to middle- and upper-income families, their value as an investment for purchasers, and the degree of risk they pose for states. The most significant issue facing states in establishing and operating a tuition prepayment program, however, is the possible applicability of federal tax provisions to purchasers, beneficiaries, and the programs themselves. This is important because certain tax consequences could make it more difficult for programs to survive. Concerns about taxation have led some states to defer implementation of their programs. Officials are most concerned about two potential consequences. First, officials hope these programs are exempt from federal taxes on their investment earnings because paying such taxes makes it more difficult to meet future liabilities. What it takes to qualify as exempt, however, is somewhat unclear, in part because IRS and a federal appeals court have disagreed on the tax status of Michigan’s program and also because other existing programs have not received IRS guidance. Second, program officials are concerned that IRS may decide that purchasers or beneficiaries are liable for federal income taxes annually on the imputed interest earned from their investments in prepaid tuition benefits. Officials have been following guidance IRS issued for Michigan’s program, which said that beneficiaries are liable for taxes on the increased value of their prepaid benefits at the time of redemption. Officials are concerned that changing from a deferred to an annual tax would create an administrative burden for their programs and perhaps a disincentive for potential purchasers. Congressional tax-writing committees should explore, within the existing framework, opportunities to exercise more scrutiny over indirect spending through tax expenditures. Congress could also consider integrating tax expenditures into current budget processes so that congressional consideration of a savings target is part of the annual budget process and to ensure that Congress addresses tax expenditures periodically. Congress should consider amending section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code to remove the requirement that the Treasury General Counsel or his delegate review all offers in compromise of $500 or more and widen IRS’ discretionary authority to decide which offers require review. Congress may wish to consider revising current tax law to allow IRS to use collection performance in determining compensation and rewards for its collection staff as long as other criteria, such as fair and courteous treatment of taxpayers, are also considered. Congress should consider enacting legislation that would substitute a residency test for the dependent support test if the dependent lives with the taxpayer; if enacted, Congress also should consider eliminating the household maintenance test for filing as head of household status. Congress may want to consider legislation that would require states to send IRS and taxpayers an annual information return on any cash rebates for real estate tax payments. Congress needs to (1) clarify the rules for classifying workers by amending the law to exclude from the common-law definition of “employee” certain classes of workers and (2) consider legislation to improve independent contractor compliance through withholding and/or improved information reporting. The tax-writing committees should explore, within the existing framework, opportunities to exercise more scrutiny over indirect spending through tax expenditures. Congress could also consider integrating tax expenditures into current budget processes so that congressional consideration of a savings target is part of the annual budget process and to ensure that Congress addresses tax expenditures periodically (GAO/GGD/AIMD-94-122, 06/03/94). We recommended that the tax-writing committees explore, within the existing framework, opportunities to exercise more scrutiny over indirect “spending” through tax expenditures. If Congress wishes to consider tax expenditure efforts in a broader context of the allocation of federal resources, it could consider further integrating tax expenditures into current budget processes. Providing for congressional consideration of a savings target as part of the annual budget process could ensure that Congress addresses tax expenditures periodically. Alternatively, options that integrate consideration of related outlay and tax expenditure efforts could promote a more thorough review by the legislative and executive branches of possible trade-offs. Once tax expenditure performance data are developed, we recommended that OMB consult with the Treasury in considering how to portray tax expenditure performance information in the budget. The tax expenditure performance information should be combined with related outlay information to demonstrate the relative efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of federal outlay and tax expenditure efforts within a functional area. Such a presentation could be used to show the relative effectiveness of federal spending programs funded through outlays and tax expenditures. As a result of our work, examinations of tax expenditures were made part of agency performance plans. Such plans are required by the Government Performance and Results Act. Furthermore, tax expenditures were made part of the congressional budget process when they were incorporated into the 1995 Congressional Budget Resolution as a nonbinding agreement. Congress has given considerable attention to tax expenditures during the past year. Presidential line-item veto power over selected tax expenditures is included in budget legislation pending as of December 31, 1995. This legislation would permit the President to veto certain targeted tax benefits, including any revenue-losing provision that provides a federal income tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or fewer tax payers, or certain transition rules that provide a tax benefit to five or fewer taxpayers. The same pending legislation would also create some new tax preferences and expand others, while scaling back, phasing out, or sunsetting others. Congress should consider amending section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code to remove the requirement that the Treasury General Counsel or his delegate review all offers in compromise of $500 or more and widen IRS’ discretionary authority to decide which offers require review (GAO/GGD-94-47, 12/23/93). We suggested that Congress consider amending section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code to remove the requirement that the Treasury General Counsel or his delegate review all offers of $500 or more and widen IRS’ discretionary authority to decide which offers require review. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue develop the indicators necessary to evaluate the Offer-in-Compromise Program as a collection and compliance tool. The indicators should be based on accurate data and include (1) the yield of the program in terms of costs expended and amounts collected, (2) the amount of revenues collected that would not have been collected through other collection means, (3) a measure of noncompliant taxpayers who returned to the tax system, and (4) a measure of participating taxpayers who remained compliant in future years. We also recommended that the Commissioner determine the causes of variability in district office acceptance rates and, where appropriate, take steps to mitigate any inconsistent treatment of taxpayers. As of December 31, 1995, Congress had taken no action to remove the requirement that the Treasury General Counsel review all offers of $500 or more and to widen IRS’ discretionary authority to decide which offers require review. IRS has begun making changes necessary to gather data to determine program costs. Measuring such costs and yields requires two separate computer programming efforts—one has been completed and the other is part of a broader ongoing effort. IRS has also established a group that will visit selected district offices to conduct interviews and collect data to assist in identifying inconsistencies in the treatment of taxpayers receiving offers in compromise. Congress may wish to consider revising current tax law to allow IRS to use collection performance in determining compensation and rewards for its collection staff as long as other criteria, such as fair and courteous treatment of taxpayers, are also considered (GAO/GGD-93-67, 05/11/93). We continue to believe that Congress may wish to consider revising current tax law to allow IRS to use collection performance in determining compensation and rewards for its collection staff as long as other criteria, such as fair and courteous treatment of taxpayers, are also considered. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1) restructure IRS’ collection organization to support earlier telephone contact with delinquent taxpayers and determine how to use current collection staff in earlier, more productive phases of the collection cycle; (2) develop detailed information on delinquent taxpayers and use it to customize collection procedures; and (3) identify and implement ways to increase cooperation with state governments in collecting delinquent taxes. We also recommended that the Commissioner allow the Assistant Commissioner (Collection) to use private collection companies, on a test basis, to support IRS’ collection efforts as permitted by current law. In January 1995, IRS implemented a nationwide early intervention collection program to send delinquent taxpayers fewer notices and make telephone contact sooner. The program, involving several hundred employees at multiple locations, aims at sending delinquent individual taxpayers three notices rather than the normal five notices and attempting telephone contact after 2 to 3 months instead of after 6 months. While specific performance data are not yet available, IRS officials contend that the program has been successful. IRS plans other enhancements to its collection process, including using characteristics of the delinquency case to determine the most appropriate collection enforcement action to be pursued to resolve the case. Also, a provision in IRS’ fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill directs IRS to devote $13 million to test the use of private collection agencies to locate and contact delinquent taxpayers. Congress should consider enacting legislation that would substitute a residency test for the dependent support test if the dependent lives with the taxpayer. If enacted, Congress also should consider eliminating the household maintenance test for filing as head of household status (GAO/GGD-93-60, 03/19/93). We continue to believe that Congress should consider enacting legislation that would substitute a residency test for the dependent support test if the dependent lives with the taxpayer. If this legislation is enacted, Congress also should consider eliminating the household maintenance test for filing as head of household status. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue correct the operational problems in IRS’ limited computer-matching program and implement a 100-percent computer-matching program to identify erroneous dependent claims. Congress considered such legislation in 1993, but not recently. IRS, in response to our recommendation, is doing a 100-percent computer match for the 1995 filing season. IRS will code and transcribe SSNs for up to four dependents per return. Dependent SSNs not matching the SSA file will “fall out” in the Error Resolution System for further action. Congress may want to consider legislation that would require states to send IRS and taxpayers an annual information return on any cash rebates for real estate tax payments (GAO/GGD-93-43, 01/19/93 and GAO/T-GGD-93-46, 09/21/93). We continue to believe that Congress may want to consider legislation that would require states to send IRS and taxpayers an annual information return on any cash rebates for real estate tax payments. Recommendation(s) to IRS We recommended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1) include rules on the tax deductibility of user fees and rebates in tax return instructions and consider ways, such as an optional worksheet, to help taxpayers calculate the real estate tax deduction; (2) work cooperatively with local governments to revise their real estate tax bills to identify user fees, label these charges as not tax deductible, and notify taxpayers that the local government may report the deductible tax to IRS; (3) notify examiners to check local records on user fees and state records on rebates to verify real estate tax deductions; and (4) negotiate agreements with local governments on sharing data on real estate tax payments made by individuals and use the data in IRS’ enforcement programs. Regarding the first recommendation to IRS, IRS published an explanation in the 1994 filing year Form 1040 instructions that deductions cannot be taken for itemized charges for services, charges for improvements that increase property value, and refunds or rebates of real estate taxes. IRS also has notified its examiners to better check support for the deduction and has been working with local governments on revisions to their bills. Congress is awaiting the outcome of IRS’ work with the local governments before considering the need for any legislation. Congress needs to (1) clarify the rules for classifying workers by amending the law to exclude from the common-law definition of “employee” certain classes of workers and (2) consider legislation to improve independent contractor compliance through withholding and/or improved information reporting (GAO/GGD-92-108, 07/23/92 and GAO/T-GGD-92-63, 07/23/92). We recommended that Congress clarify the rules for classifying workers along the lines that we recommended in our 1977 report by amending the law to exclude certain classes of workers from the common-law definition of “employee.” We also recommended that Congress consider legislation to improve independent contractor compliance through withholding and/or improved information reporting. As of December 31, 1995, Congress had considered but had not enacted either of our recommendations. Tax-writing committees are expected to resume debate on this issue in 1996. Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow IRS to provide information to all responsible officers regarding its efforts to collect the trust fund recovery penalty from other responsible officers. Congress may want to provide for reviewing the fixed base of the revised research tax credit periodically and adjusting it as needed to prevent it from becoming too generous or too restrictive over time. Congress may want to consider amending federal legislation to (1) authorize states to offset current recipients’ benefits without client consent to recover Food Stamp overpayments caused by agency error and (2) extend the authority for states to intercept federal income tax refunds to include the recovery of AFDC and Medicaid overpayments. Congressional tax-writing committees should explore, within the existing framework, opportunities to exercise more scrutiny over indirect spending through tax expenditures. Congress could also consider integrating tax expenditures into current budget processes so that congressional consideration of a savings target is part of the annual budget process and to ensure that Congress addresses tax expenditures periodically. Congress should consider amending section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code to remove the requirement that the Treasury General Counsel or his delegate review all offers in compromise of $500 or more and widen IRS’ discretionary authority to decide which offers require review. Congress may wish to consider revising current tax law to allow IRS to use collection performance in determining compensation and rewards for its collection staff as long as other criteria, such as fair and courteous treatment of taxpayers, are also considered. Congress should consider enacting legislation that would substitute a residency test for the dependent support test if the dependent lives with the taxpayer; if enacted, Congress also should consider eliminating the household maintenance test for filing as head of household status. Congress may want to consider legislation that would require states to send IRS and taxpayers an annual information return on any cash rebates for real estate tax payments. Congress needs to (1) clarify the rules for classifying workers by amending the law to exclude from the common-law definition of “employee” certain classes of workers and (2) consider legislation to improve independent contractor compliance through withholding and/or improved information reporting. (1) Develop plans to modify audit management information systems to more fully reflect the results of partnership audits by including information on tax assessments on partners’ income tax returns and changes in allocations of profits/losses among partners; (2) analyze computer partnership files to develop audit leads and select returns for audit; (3) reinstate the delinquency check program for partnerships to identify other partnerships that do not file required tax returns; (4) develop plans for a document-matching program using information returns to verify partnership income; and (5) devise ways to enter all Schedules K-1 onto the computer, so they can be used in the individual computer document-matching program and for other compliance purposes. Establish a service-wide definition of taxpayer abuse or mistreatment and identify and gather the management information needed to systematically track its nature and extent. Ensure that IRS’ systems modernization effort provides the capability to minimize unauthorized employee access to taxpayer information in the computer system that will replace the Integrated Data Retrieval System. Revise the guidelines for Information Gathering Projects to require that specific criteria be established for selecting taxpayers’ returns to be examined during each project and to require a separation of duties between those staff members who identify returns with potential for tax changes and those who select the returns to be examined. Reconcile outstanding cash receipts more often than once a year, and stress in forms, notices, and publications that taxpayers should use checks or money orders rather than cash to pay their tax bills. Except where stated otherwise, these recommendations were made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Better inform taxpayers about their responsibility and potential liability for the trust fund recovery penalty by providing them with special information packets. Seek ways to alleviate taxpayers’ frustration in the short term by analyzing the most prevalent kinds of information-handling problems and ensuring that requirements now being developed for new information systems provide for long-term solutions to those problems. Provide specific guidance for IRS employees on how they should handle White House contacts other than those that involve checking taxes of potential appointees or routine administrative matters. Test the feasibility of using IRS’ Correspondex computer system to produce Individual Master File (IMF) and Business Master File (BMF) notices and, if possible, transfer as many IMF and BMF notices as practical to the Correspondex system. The notices should be transferred in stages, and the ease of the transition, its costs, and the benefits of making these transfers should all be considered in establishing the order of the transfers. Establish a system to monitor proposed notice text revisions to oversee progress or problems encountered in improving notice clarity. This system should be able to identify when a revision was proposed and its status at all times, and it should contain a threshold beyond which delays must be appropriately followed up and resolved. Help improve forms and publications by making additional efforts to identify the specific concerns of individual taxpayers. Some ways available include (1) soliciting information from IRS field personnel (including auditors, examiners, and customer-service representatives) to identify common errors made by taxpayers that may be related to confusing passages in forms and publications, and (2) gathering information concerning the nature of taxpayer questions received through IRS’ toll-free telephone system. Undertake an aggressive effort to (1) identify and define the appropriate telephone assistance program operating practices for IRS that would allow it to optimize the number of calls it can answer within current budget constraints and (2) work with leadership of the employees’ union to reach agreement on implementing those practices on a nationwide basis. Take steps to effectively route taxpayers’ calls nationwide, using real-time information. These steps could include a combination of acquiring technology for real-time traffic monitoring and management, utilizing the routing capability of IRS’ telecommunications vendor, and fully implementing the features of IRS’ existing call routing technology. Focus the electronic filing business strategy on a wider population of taxpayers, including taxpayers who can benefit from filing electronically. Implement a process for selecting, prioritizing, controlling, and evaluating the progress and performance of all major information systems investments, including explicit decision criteria. Require that future contractors who develop software for IRS have a software development capability rating of at least Capability Maturity Model-level 2. Address technical infrastructure weaknesses by (1) completing an integrated systems architecture; (2) institutionalizing formal configuration management for all new systems development projects and upgrades and developing a plan to bring ongoing projects under formal configuration management; and (3) developing security concepts of operations, disaster recovery, and contingency plans. Give the Associate Commissioner management and control responsibility for all systems development activities, including those of the IRS research and development division. Implement the software, hardware, and procedural changes needed to create reliable subsidiary accounts receivable and revenue records that are fully integrated with the general ledger. Change the current federal tax-deposit coupon reporting requirements to include detailed reporting for all excise taxes, FICA taxes, and employee withheld income taxes. Implement software changes that will allow detailed taxes reported to be separately maintained in the master file, other related revenue accounting feeder systems, and the general ledger. Encourage taxpayers to make address changes by (1) accepting changes of address over the telephone; (2) making Form 8822, Change of Address, more conveniently available; and (3) emphasizing to taxpayers the importance of keeping their addresses current with IRS. Establish a centralized unit within each of IRS’ service centers to process all service center undeliverable mail. The Secretary of the Treasury should forestall stakeholder confusion and frustration regarding the applicability of statutory and executive guidance to tax-related regulations by directing that, when such guidance is not applicable, the text accompanying the publication of proposed and final regulations contain a complete explanation of why this is so. The Secretary of the Treasury should require that regulation drafters document internally, when time permits, their consideration of the factors provided in statutory and executive guidance to better ensure that tax regulations reflect stakeholders’ needs. The Secretary of the Treasury should encourage regulation drafters to meet with selected stakeholders to work through implementation issues associated with draft-tax regulations before publishing the regulations for notice and comment. The Secretary of the Treasury should require regulation drafters to develop key measures of simplicity for tax regulations that can be used to help judge whether existing or proposed regulations are too complex. Improve the information provided to taxpayers and the administration of the installment agreement program by (1) notifying taxpayers about projected total costs and payoff periods when setting up agreements with taxpayers and when mailing monthly reminder notices; (2) experimenting with Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request, to test whether providing space for taxpayer authorization of direct debit installment payments increases the use of this option; and (3) sending agreement default notices to taxpayers by regular mail instead of certified mail unless an account is being referred for levy action. Improve the processing of returns with missing or incorrect SSNs and help clean up accounts currently posted on the IMF invalid segment by (1) finalizing the CP54B notice for use in the 1996 tax filing season and (2) applying the revised documentation requirements to taxpayers who filed tax returns that were posted to the IMF invalid segment before 1995 and whose accounts had a permanent refund release code. Establish returns-processing and compliance-screening procedures to help remove erroneous cross-referenced taxpayer identification numbers from sole proprietors’ tax records. Evaluate the feasibility of eliminating the requirement that sole proprietors use EINs for filing business returns. Tax Administration: Continuing Problems Affect Otherwise Successful 1994 Filing Season (GAO/GGD-95-5) Tax Administration: Earned Income Credit-Data on Noncompliance and Illegal Alien Recipients (GAO/GGD-95-27) Tax Administration: IRS Can Strengthen Its Efforts to See That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly (GAO/GGD-95-14) College Savings: Using EE Savings Bonds and Loans From Thrift Savings Plan to Pay for College (GAO/HEHS-95-16R) Tax Administration: IRS Efforts to Improve Forms and Publications (GAO/GGD-95-34) Tax Administration: Changes Needed to Reduce Volume and Improve Processing of Undeliverable Mail (GAO/GGD-95-44) Tax Administration: IRS Notices Can Be Improved (GAO/GGD-95-6) Tax System Burden: Tax Compliance Burden Faced by Business Taxpayers (GAO/T-GGD-95-42) Tax Administration: Estimates of the Tax Gap for Service Providers (GAO/GGD-95-59) Tax Administration: Process Used to Revise the Federal Employment Tax Deposit Regulations (GAO/GGD-95-8) Tax Compliance: Status of the Tax Year 1994 Compliance Measurement Program (GAO/GGD-95-39) U.S. Insular Areas: Information on Fiscal Relations With the Federal Government (GAO/T-GGD-95-71) Tax Administration: Tax Compliance Initiatives and Delinquent Taxes (GAO/T-GGD-95-74) Tax Policy and Administration: 1994 Annual Report on GAO’s Tax-Related Work (GAO/GGD-95-66) Tax Systems Modernization: Unmanaged Risks Threaten Success (GAO/T-AIMD-95-86) Tax Administration: IRS’ Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request and the 1995 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD-95-97) Tax-Exempt Organizations: Information on Selected Types of Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-84BR) High-Risk Series: Internal Revenue Service Receivables (GAO/HR-95-6) Information on Tax Liens Imposed by IRS (GAO/GGD-95-87R) Addressing the Deficit: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work for Fiscal Year 1996 (GAO/OCG-95-02) Earned Income Credit: Targeting to the Working Poor (GAO/GGD-95-122BR) Tax Policy: Information on the Research Tax Credit (GAO/T-GGD-95-140) Tax Policy: Experience With the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (GAO/GGD-95-88) Earned Income Credit: Targeting to the Working Poor (GAO/T-GGD-95-136) Telephone Assistance: Adopting Practices Used by Others Would Help IRS Serve More Taxpayers (GAO/GGD-95-86) International Taxation: Transfer Pricing and Information on Nonpayment of Tax (GAO/GGD-95-101) Paid Tax Preparers and Tax Software (GAO/GGD-95-125R) Tax Administration: Administrative Improvements Possible in IRS’ Installment Agreement Program (GAO/GGD-95-137) Options Reporting to IRS (GAO/GGD-95-145R) Tax Policy: Additional Information on the Research Tax Credit (GAO/T-GGD-95-161) Money Laundering: Needed Improvements for Reporting Suspicious Transactions Are Planned (GAO/GGD-95-156) Reducing the Tax Gap: Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-95-157) Taxpayer Compliance: Reducing the Income Tax Gap (GAO/T-GGD-95-176) Earned Income Credit: Noncompliance and Potential Eligibility Revisions (GAO/T-GGD-95-179) (continued) Tax-Exempt Organizations: Activities and IRS Oversight (GAO/T-GGD-95-183) Tax Administration: IRS’ Partnership Compliance Activities Could Be Improved (GAO/GGD-95-151) Welfare Benefits: Potential to Recover Hundreds of Millions More in Overpayments (GAO/HEHS-95-111) Tax-Exempt Organizations: Additional Information on Activities and IRS Oversight (GAO/T-GGD-95-198) Tax Policy and Administration: California Taxes on Multinational Corporations and Related Federal Issues (GAO/GGD-95-171) Tax Compliance: 1994 Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (GAO/T-GGD-95-207) Other Income Reporting (GAO/GGD-95-199R) Tax Systems Modernization: Management and Technical Weaknesses Must Be Corrected If Modernization Is to Succeed (GAO/AIMD-95-156) Tax Administration: Issues Involving Worker Classification (GAO/T-GGD-95-224) College Savings: Information on State Tuition Prepayment Programs (GAO/HEHS-95-131) Financial Audit: Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1994 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-95-141) Tax Administration: IRS Could Do More to Verify Taxpayer Identities (GAO/GGD-95-148) Tax Administration: Sole Proprietor Identification Numbers Can Be Improved (GAO/GGD-95-160) Tax Administration: Recurring Issues in Tax Disputes Over Business Expense Deductions (GAO/GGD-95-232) compliance rate for each type of reported income and, if possible, determine the reasons for the noncompliance. To determine (1) why the assessment processes currently take so long, (2) what IRS is doing to speed up the assessment processes, and (3) what additional actions IRS can take to further speed up the processes. To determine (1) how efficiently IRS is administering and monitoring LIHTC, (2) what controls are in place at the state level to ensure that the credit is applied as intended and costs are reasonable, (3) what controls exist to ensure that states do not certify buildings as eligible for the credit beyond the amount allocated by state housing authorities, (4) the characteristics of the individuals residing in the units produced by the credits, and (5) such other issues as may arise during the course of examination. To (1) monitor testing of IRS’ computerized data capture mechanism, (2) evaluate auditor training, (3) review quality review procedures, (4) evaluate the case building techniques and (5) assess IRS’ ability to make use of interim data from program audits. To (1) assess IRS’ performance during the 1995 tax return filing season and (2) review the administration’s FY 1996 budget for IRS. To update our 1987 study relating to the competition between tax-related organizations and taxable businesses. To (1) review the filing patterns and sources of income of nonwage earners, (2) develop profiles of the taxpayers, (3) provide taxpayer-specific case studies of nonwage earners, (4) review the adequacy of IRS requirements, (5) analyze the accounts receivable inventory attributable to these taxpayers, and (6) develop recommendations to improve tax compliance and collection programs related to nonwage earners. To determine (1) the impact of field collection staff, particularly revenue officers, and (2) whether revenue officers’ duties were done efficiently and economically. To determine how IRS’ delinquent tax collection process can be reengineered or restructured. To determine how IRS selected, managed, and captured results for Compliance 2000 initiatives and coordinated the initiatives with other enforcement activities. To determine what factors affect the rate at which taxes recommended by revenue agents get assessed. To determine (1) how IRS restricts access to computer data, systems, and facilities; (2) manages changes to IRS’ computer systems software; (3) prepares for disasters and contingencies; and (4) safeguards its communications network against unauthorized access. David J. Attianese, Assistant Director, Tax Policy and Administration Issues Rodney F. Hobbs, Evaluator-in-Charge Carrie Watkins, Evaluator Judy Lanham, Secretary 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 summarized its work on tax policy and administration during fiscal year (FY) 1995, including: (1) actions federal agencies took in response to its recommendations as of December 31, 1995; (2) recommendations made to Congress before and during FY 1995 that remain open; and (3) assignments for which it received authorized access to tax information. GAO noted that its recommendations addressed specific actions that Congress and the administration could take to: (1) improve compliance with tax laws; (2) assist taxpayers; (3) enhance the effectiveness of tax incentives; (4) improve Internal Revenue Service management; and (5) improve the processing of returns and receipts. |
Attempt is a crime of general application in every state in the Union, and is largely defined by statute in most. The same cannot be said of federal law. There is no generally applicable federal attempt statute. In fact, it is not a federal crime to attempt to commit most federal offenses. Here and there, Congress has made a separate crime of conduct that might otherwise have been considered attempt. Possession of counterfeiting equipment and solicitation of a bribe are two examples that come to mind. More often, Congress has outlawed the attempt to commit a particular crime, such as attempted murder, or the attempt to commit one of a particular block of crimes, such as the attempt to violate the controlled substance laws. In those instances, the statute simply outlaws attempt, sets the penalties, and implicitly delegates to the courts the task of developing the federal law of attempt on a case by case basis. Over the years, proposals have surfaced that would establish attempt as a federal crime of general application and in some instances would codify federal common law of attempt. Thus far, however, Congress has preferred to expand the number of federal attempt offenses on a much more selective basis. Attempt was not recognized as a crime of general application until the 19 th century. Before then, attempt had evolved as part of the common law development of a few other specific offenses. The vagaries of these individual threads frustrated early efforts to weave them into a cohesive body of law. At mid-20 th century, the Model Penal Code suggested a basic framework that has greatly influenced the development of both state and federal law. The Model Penal Code grouped attempt with conspiracy and solicitation as "inchoate" crimes of general application. It addressed a number of questions that had until then divided commentators, courts, and legislators. A majority of the states use the Model Penal Code approach as a guide, but deviate with some regularity. The same might be said of the approach of the National Commission established to recommend revision of federal criminal law shortly after the Model Penal Code was approved. The National Commission recommended a revision of title 18 of the United States Code that included a series of "offenses of general applicability"—attempt, facilitation, solicitation, conspiracy, and regulatory offenses. In spite of efforts that persisted for more than a decade, Congress never enacted the National Commission's recommended revision of title 18. It did, however, continue to outlaw a growing number of attempts to commit specific federal offenses. In doing so, it rarely did more than outlaw an attempt to commit a particular substantive crime and set its punishment. Beyond that, development of the federal law of attempt has been the work of the federal courts. Attempt may once have required little more than an evil heart. That time is long gone. The Model Penal Code defined attempt as the intent required of the predicate offense coupled with a substantial step: "A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime, if acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he ... purposely does or omits to do anything that, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime." The Model Penal Code then provided several examples of what might constitute a "substantial step"—lying in wait, luring the victim, gathering the necessary implements to commit the offense, and the like. The National Commission recommended a similar definition: "A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of a crime, he intentionally engages in conduct which, in fact, constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime." Rather than mention the type of conduct that might constitute a substantial step, the Commission defined it: "A substantial step is any conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's intent to complete the commission of the crime." Most of the states follow the same path and define attempt as intent coupled to an overt act or some substantial step towards the completion of the substantive offense. Only rarely does a state include examples of substantial step conduct. The federal courts are in accord and have said, "As was true at common law, the mere intent to violate a federal criminal statute is not punishable as an attempt unless it is also accompanied by significant conduct," that is, unless accompanied by "an overt act qualifying as a substantial step toward completion" of the underlying offense. The courts seem to have encountered little difficulty in identifying the requisite intent standard. In fact, they rarely do more than note that the defendant must be shown to have intended to commit the underlying offenses. What constitutes a substantial step is a little more difficult to discern. It is said that a substantial step is more than mere preparation. A substantial step is action strongly or unequivocally corroborative of the individual's intent to commit the underlying offense. It is action which if uninterrupted will result in the commission of that offense, although it need not be the penultimate act necessary for completion of the underlying offense. Furthermore, the point at which preliminary action becomes a substantial step is fact specific; action that constitutes a substantial step under some circumstances and with respect to some underlying offenses may not qualify under other circumstances and with respect to other offenses. It is difficult to read the cases and not find that the views of Oliver Wendell Holmes continue to hold sway: the line between mere preparation and attempt is drawn where the shadow of the substantive offense begins. The line between preparation and attempt is closest to preparation where the harm and the opprobrium associated with the predicate offense are greatest. Since conviction for attempt does not require commission of the predicate offense, conviction for attempt does not necessitate proof of every element of the predicate offense, or any element of the predicate offense for that matter. Recall that the only elements of the crime of attempt are intent to commit the predicate offense and a substantial step in that direction. Nevertheless, a court will sometimes demand proof of one or more of the elements of a predicate offense in order to avoid sweeping application of an attempt provision. For instance, the Third Circuit has held that "acting 'under color of official right' is a required element of an extortion Hobbs Act offense, inchoate or substantive," apparently for that very reason. Defendants charged with attempt have often offered one of two defenses—impossibility and abandonment. Rarely have they prevailed. The defense of impossibility is a defense of mistake, either a mistake of law or a mistake of fact. Legal impossibility exists when "the actions which the defendant performs or sets in motion, even if fully carried out as he desires, would not constitute a crime. The traditional view is that legal impossibility is a defense to the charge of attempt—that is, if the competed offense would not be a crime, neither is a prosecution for attempt permitted." Factual impossibility exists when "the objective of the defendant is proscribed by criminal law but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him from bringing about that objective." Since the completed offense would be a crime if circumstances were as the defendant believed them to be, prosecution for attempt is traditionally permitted. Unfortunately, as the courts have observed, "the distinction between legal impossibility and factual impossibility [is] elusive." Moreover, "the distinction ... is largely a matter of semantics, for every case of legal impossibility can reasonably be characterized as a factual impossibility." Thus, shooting a stuffed deer when intending to shoot a deer out of season is offered as an example of legal impossibility. Yet, shooting into the pillows of an empty bed when intending to kill its presumed occupant is considered an example of factual impossibility. The Model Penal Code avoided the problem by defining attempt to include instances when the defendant acted with the intent to commit the predicate offense and "engage[d] in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believe[d] them to be." Under the National Commission's Final Report, "[f]actual or legal impossibility of committing the crime is not a defense if the crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be." Several states have also specifically refused to recognize an impossibility defense of any kind. The federal courts have been a bit more cautious. They have sometimes conceded the possible vitality of legal impossibility as a defense, but generally have judged the cases before them to involve no more than unavailing factual impossibility. In a few instances, they have found it unnecessary to enter the quagmire, and concluded instead that Congress intended to eliminate legal impossibility with respect to attempts to commit a particular crime. The Model Penal Code recognized an abandonment or renunciation defense. A defendant, however, could not claim the defense if his withdrawal was merely a postponement or was occasioned by the appearance of circumstances that made success less likely. The revised federal criminal code recommended by the National Commission contained similar provisions. Some states recognize an abandonment or renunciation defense; the federal courts do not. Admittedly, a defendant cannot be charged with attempt if he has abandoned his pursuit of the substantive offense at the mere preparation stage. Yet, this is for want of an element of the offense of attempt—a substantial step—rather than because of the availability of an affirmative abandonment defense. Although the federal courts have recognized an affirmative voluntary withdrawal defense in the case of conspiracy, the other principal inchoate offense, they have declined to recognize a comparable defense to a charge of attempt. The Model Penal Code and the National Commission's Final Report both imposed the same sanctions for attempt as for the predicate offense as a general rule. However, both set the penalties for the most serious offenses at a class below that of the predicate offense, and both permitted the sentencing court to impose a reduced sentence in cases when the attempt failed to come dangerously close to the attempted predicate offense. The states set the penalties for attempt in one of two ways. Some set sanctions at a fraction of, or a class below, that of the substantive offense, with exceptions for specific offenses in some instances; others set the penalty at the same level as the crime attempted, again with exceptions for particular offenses in some states. Most federal attempt crimes carry the same penalties as the substantive offense. The Sentencing Guidelines, which greatly influence federal sentencing beneath the maximum penalties set by statute, reflect the equivalent sentencing prospective. Except for certain terrorism, drug trafficking, assault, and tampering offenses, however, the Guidelines recommend slightly lower sentences for defendants who have yet to take all the steps required of them for commission of the predicate offense. The relation of attempt to the predicate offense is another of the interesting features of the law of attempt. It raises those questions which the Model Penal Code and the National Commission sought to address. May a defendant be charged with attempt even if he has not completed the underlying offense? May a defendant be charged with attempt even if he has also committed the underlying offense? May a defendant be convicted for both attempt and commission of the underlying offense? May a defendant be charged with attempting to attempt an offense? May a defendant be charged with conspiracy to attempt or attempt to conspire? May a defendant be charged with aiding and abetting an attempt or with attempting to aid and abet? A defendant need not complete the predicate offense to be guilty of attempt. On the other hand, some 19 th century courts held that a defendant could not be convicted of attempt if the evidence indicated that he had in fact committed the predicate offense. This is no longer the case in federal court—if it ever was. In federal law, "[n]either common sense nor precedent supports success as a defense to a charge of attempt." The Double Jeopardy Clause ordinarily precludes conviction for both the substantive offense and the attempt to commit it. The clause prohibits both dual prosecutions and dual punishment for the same offense. Punishment for both a principal and a lesser included offense constitutes such dual punishment, and attempt ordinarily constitutes a lesser included offense of the substantive crime. Instances where the federal law literally appears to create an attempt to attempt offense present an intriguing question of interpretation. Occasionally, a federal statute will call for equivalent punishment for attempt to commit any of a series of offenses proscribed in other statutes, even though the other statutes already proscribe attempt. For example, 18 U.S.C. 1349 declares that any attempt to violate any of the provisions of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code "shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt." Within chapter 63 are sections that make it a crime to attempt to commit bank fraud, health care fraud, and securities fraud. There may be some dispute over whether provisions like those of Section 1349 are intended to outlaw attempts to commit an attempt or simply to reiterate a determination to punish equally the substantive offenses and attempts to commit them. The Model Penal Code and National Commission resolved attempt to attempt and conspiracy to attempt questions by banning dual application. Crimes of general application would not have applied to other crimes of general application. A few states have comparable provisions. The federal code does not. The attempting to conspire or conspiring to attempt questions do not offer as many issues of unsettled interpretation as the attempt to attempt questions, for several reasons. First, the courts have had more occasion to address them. For instance, it is already clearly established that a defendant may be simultaneously prosecuted for conspiracy to commit and for attempt to commit the same substantive offense. Second, as a particular matter, conspiracies to attempt a particular crime are relatively uncommon; most individuals conspire to accomplish, not to attempt. Third, in a sense, attempting to conspire is already a separate crime, or alternatively, is a separate basis for criminal liability. Solicitation is essentially an invitation to conspire, and solicitation to commit a crime of violence is a separate federal offense. Moreover, an attempt that takes the form of counseling, commanding, inducing, procuring or aiding and abetting another to commit a federal crime is already a separate basis for criminal liability. Fourth, a component of the general conspiracy statute allows simultaneous prosecution of conspiracy and a substantive offense without having to addressing the conspire to attempt quandary. The conspiracy statute outlaws two kinds of conspiracies: conspiracy to violate a federal criminal statute and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Conspiracy to defraud the United States is a separate crime, one that need not otherwise involve the violation of a federal criminal statute. Consequently, when attempt or words of attempt appear as elements in a substantive criminal provision, conspiracy to attempt issues can be avoided by recourse to a conspiracy to defraud charge. For example, the principal federal bribery statute outlaws attempted pu blic corruption. The offense occurs though no tainted official act has yet been performed or foregone. It is enough that the official has sought or been offered a bribe with the intent of corrupting the performance of his duties. Bribery conspiracy charges appear generally to have been prosecuted, along with bribery, as conspiracy to defraud rather than conspiracy to violate the bribery statute. Unlike attempt, aiding and abetting is not a separate offense; it is an alternative basis for liability for the substantive offense. Anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of a federal crime by another is as guilty as if he committed it himself. Aiding and abetting requires proof of intentional assistance in the commission of a crime by another. When attempt is a federal crime, the cases suggest that a defendant may be punished for aiding and abetting the attempt and that a defendant may be punished by attempting to aid and abet the substantive offense. Ala. Code §§13A-4-2, 13A-4-5; Alaska Stat. §§11.31.100, 11.31.140, 11.31.150; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§13-1001, 13-1005; Ark. Code Ann. §§5-3-201 to 5-3-204; Cal. Penal Code §664; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §18-2-101; Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §53a-49; Del. Code Ann. tit.11 §§531, 532, 541; Fla. Stat. Ann. §777.04; Ga. Code §§16-4-1 to 16-4-6; Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§705-500 to 705-502, 705-530 to 705-531; Idaho Code §§18-305 to 18-307; Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ch. 720 §§5/8-4, 5/8-5; Ind. Code Ann. §§35-41-5-1, 35-41-5-3; Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-5301; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§506.010, 506.020, 506.110; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:27; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A §§152, 154; Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law §1-201; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 274 §6; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §750.92; Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.17; Miss. Code Ann. §§97-1-7, 97-1-9; Mo. Ann. Stat. §564.011; Mont. Code Ann. §45-4-103; Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-201; Nev. Rev. Stat. §193.330; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §629.1; N.J. Stat. Ann. §§2C:5-1, 2C:5-4; N.M. Code Ann. §30-28-1; N.Y. Penal Law §§110.00 to 110.10, 40.10; N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-2.5; N.D. Cent. Code §§12.1-06-01, 12.1-06-05; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2923.02; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.21§§41 to 44; Ore. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§161.405 to 161.430; Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, §§901, 905, 906; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. §12-17-14; S.C. Code Ann. §16-1-80; S.D. Codified Laws §§22-4-1, 22-4-2; Tenn. Code Ann. §§39-12-101, 104 to 109; Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§15.01, 15.04, 15.05; Utah Code Ann. §§76-4-101, 76-4-102; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 §9; Va. Code §§18.2-25 to 18.2-28; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §9A.28.020; W.Va. Code Ann. §61-11-8; Wis. Stat. Ann. §939.32; Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§6-1-301, 6-1-304. | It is not a crime to attempt to commit most federal offenses. Unlike state law, federal law has no generally applicable crime of attempt. Congress, however, has outlawed the attempt to commit a substantial number of federal crimes on an individual basis. In doing so, it has proscribed the attempt, set its punishment, and left to the federal courts the task of further developing the law in the area. The courts have identified two elements in the crime of attempt: an intent to commit the underlying substantive offense and some substantial step towards that end. The point at which a step may be substantial is not easily discerned; but it seems that the more serious and reprehensible the substantive offense, the less substantial the step need be. Ordinarily, the federal courts accept neither impossibility nor abandonment as an effective defense to a charge of attempt. Attempt and the substantive offense carry the same penalties in most instances. A defendant may not be convicted of both the substantive offense and the attempt to commit it. Commission of the substantive offense, however, is neither a prerequisite for, nor a defense against, an attempt conviction. Whether a defendant may be guilty of an attempt to attempt to commit a federal offense is often a matter of statutory construction. Attempts to conspire and attempts to aid and abet generally present less perplexing questions. This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report R42002, Attempt: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law, by [author name scrubbed], without the footnotes, attributions, citations to authority, or appendix found here. |
Changing economic, social, and political conditions at home and abroad have led some analysts to question whether the United States will remain globally competitive in the coming decades. The possibility that the United States has lost or could lose its historical advantages in scientific and technological advancement—and the prosperity and security attributed to that advancement—has become a primary rationale for a portfolio of otherwise disparate federal programs, policies, and activities. Sometimes identified as "innovation" or "competitiveness" policy, these programs, policies, and activities address research and development, education, workforce development, tax, patent, immigration, economic development, telecommunications, or other policy issues perceived as critical to the U.S. scientific and technological enterprise. The 2007 America COMPETES Act ( P.L. 110-69 ) is an example of this type of policymaking. Designed to "invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States," the law authorized $32.7 billion in appropriations between FY2008 and FY2010 for programs and activities in physical sciences and engineering research and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Congress reauthorized certain provisions of P.L. 110-69 —including funding for physical sciences and engineering research and STEM education—when it passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ). The 2010 COMPETES Act authorized $45.5 billion in appropriations between FY2011 and FY2013. Given the pivotal role that funding levels played in the design, implementation, and congressional debate about the COMPETES Acts, policymakers have paid close attention to trends in these accounts. This report, which was written to aid Congress in tracking these trends, includes two tables summarizing authorization levels and funding for selected COMPETES-related accounts across both authorization periods (i.e., FY2008 to FY2010 and FY2011 to FY2013). Readers interested in an analysis of the COMPETES Acts and related policy issues are referred to the following publications: CRS Report R41819, Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act: Selected Policy Provisions, Funding, and Implementation Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report R42642, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report R42470, An Analysis of STEM Education Funding at the NSF: Trends and Policy Discussion , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research , by [author name scrubbed] CRS Report R43061, The U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: Recent, Current, and Projected Employment, Wages, and Unemployment , by [author name scrubbed] This report has been updated to reflect FY2009 to FY2013 final funding for COMPETES-related accounts. | Changing economic, social, and political conditions at home and abroad have led some analysts to question whether the United States will remain globally competitive in the coming decades. In response to these and closely related concerns, Congress enacted the 2007 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), as well as its successor, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). These acts were broadly designed to invest in innovation through research and development and to improve U.S. competitiveness. More specifically, the acts authorized increased funding for certain physical science and engineering research accounts and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education activities. Congressional debate about the COMPETES Acts focuses closely on authorized and appropriated funding levels. To aid this debate, this CRS report tracks accounts and activities authorized by the 2007 and 2010 COMPETES Acts during each act's authorization period. It includes only those accounts and activities for which the acts provide a defined (i.e., specific) appropriations authorization. Table 1 includes FY2008 to FY2010 authorizations and final funding for accounts in the 2007 COMPETES Act; Table 2 includes FY2011 to FY2013 authorizations and final funding for accounts in the 2010 COMPETES Act. |
The Environmental Education Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-516) established an Office of Environmental Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to award grants for developing environmental curricula and training teachers. Congress moved the office to the newly formed Department of Education in 1979. However, in response to the Reagan Administration's efforts to transfer the federal role in many programs to the states, Congress eliminated the Office of Environmental Education in 1981. Several years later, the 101 st Congress enacted the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-619 ) to renew the federal role in environmental education and reestablish an office of environmental education within EPA. In the law's findings, the 101 st Congress stated that existing federal programs to educate the public about environmental problems and train environmental professionals were inadequate at that time and that increasing the federal role in this area was therefore necessary. P.L. 101-619 authorizes EPA to work with educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, the private sector, tribal governments, and state and local environmental agencies to educate the public about environmental problems and encourage students to pursue environmental careers. Environmental education involves learning ecological concepts to understand the relationships between human behavior and environmental quality, and developing the knowledge and skills to analyze environmental problems and create solutions. The goal of EPA's environmental education program is to increase public knowledge about environmental issues and provide the public with the skills necessary to make informed decisions and take responsible actions to protect the environment. The program supports activities to achieve these goals primarily through the awarding of grants. Since the beginning of the program in FY1992, EPA has awarded grants for environmental education projects in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories for educating elementary and secondary school students, training teachers, purchasing textbooks, developing curricula, and other educational activities. This report summarizes major provisions of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990, discusses appropriations for activities authorized in that statute, examines the implementation of these activities, and analyzes key issues and relevant legislation. The original funding authorization for EPA's environmental education program expired at the end of FY1996. Congress has continued to fund the program since then through the annual appropriations process without enacting reauthorizing legislation. Congress has appropriated approximately $9 million annually in recent years, with the exception of $5.6 million in FY2007. Congress returned funding to previous levels in FY2008, appropriating $8.9 million. Although funding for the program has continued, the President has proposed to eliminate its funding in his annual budget requests each year since FY2003, including his FY2009 budget request. The President has used the environmental education program's performance rating by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the main justification for his recurring proposal to eliminate the program's funding. OMB has repeatedly given the program a "Results Not Demonstrated" rating as part of its annual government-wide assessment of federal programs with its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). OMB asserts that the absence of performance metrics for grant activities supported by the environmental education program makes it difficult to determine whether the program is achieving its goal of improving the quality of environmental education. Opponents of the President's proposal to eliminate the program's funding have noted that there are long-standing disagreements among educators about how to evaluate the quality of education, and that the lack of performance metrics for educational activities is not unique to EPA's environmental education program. Such critics have countered OMB's characterization of the program's effectiveness by arguing that grant awards have had a national impact with a small amount of funding relative to EPA's total budget. The activities supported by these grants also have generated significant state and local support. In response, Congress has continued the program's funding each year. The National Environmental Education Act authorizes EPA to award grants for developing environmental curricula and training teachers, support fellowships to encourage the pursuit of environmental professions, and select individuals for environmental awards. EPA also consults with the National Environmental Education Advisory Council and the Federal Task Force on Environmental Education in conducting the above activities and coordinating its efforts with related federal programs. The act also established a nonprofit foundation to encourage cooperation between the public and private sectors to support environmental education. Each activity is discussed below. Section 4 of the act directed EPA to establish an "office" of environmental education to implement programs authorized under the act and to coordinate its activities with related federal programs. EPA originally established an Office of Environmental Education within the Office of Public Affairs to perform these functions. The agency has since reorganized these functions into an Environmental Education Division within the Office of Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education, part of the Office of the EPA Administrator. EPA developed the Environmental Education and Training Program to train education professionals to develop and teach environmental curricula. Section 5 of the act directs EPA to award an annual grant to a higher educational institution or nonprofit organization to operate the program under a multiple-year agreement. The act requires EPA to reserve 25% of the annual funding for its environmental education program to support the Environmental Education and Training Program. Teachers, administrators, and related staff of educational institutions as well as staff of state and local environmental agencies, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations are eligible to participate. The University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point has been implementing this training program, under agreement with EPA, since October 2000. The Environmental Education Grant Program supports activities that would educate elementary and secondary school students, train teachers, increase understanding of environmental issues, and accomplish related goals. Educational institutions, state and local agencies, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for these grants. Section 6 of the act requires EPA to reserve 38% of the environmental education program's annual funding to support these grants. The act limits a single grant to $250,000, and requires EPA to award 25% of the grants for amounts of $5,000 or less, to ensure a greater number of grant awards among recipients. Notably, fulfilling this latter requirement with respect to smaller grants has become increasingly impractical, as the dollar amount of proposed grants has risen with inflation and price increases over time since the 1990 enactment of the statute. The act also requires each grant recipient to provide at least 25% of a project's costs in matching funds, but grants EPA the discretion to provide up to full federal funding under certain circumstances. In practice, EPA reports that many of its grant recipients now provide more than the minimum 25% in matching funds, underscoring local commitments to funded projects. Since the first year of the grant program in FY1992, EPA has awarded nearly $42 million in grants for more than 3,200 environmental education projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. With authority provided in Section 7 of the act, EPA administers the National Network for Environmental Management Studies to encourage post-secondary students to pursue environmental careers. Students work with an environmental professional at EPA on a specific project or conduct university research under EPA's direction. In recent years, EPA has awarded approximately 40 fellowships annually to students at more than 400 participating universities. EPA administers the Presidential Environmental Youth Awards Program to recognize outstanding projects that promote local environmental awareness. Elementary and secondary students are eligible to compete annually to receive these awards from the EPA regional offices. The award recipients receive national recognition from the President or Vice President of the United States and the EPA Administrator. Section 8 of the act also created four national awards to recognize outstanding contributions to environmental education and training. EPA announced the first recipients in 1993. The awards commemorate Theodore Roosevelt for teaching, Henry David Thoreau for literature, Rachel Carson for communications media, and Gifford Pinchot for natural resources management. EPA established a National Environmental Education Advisory Council and a Federal Task Force on Environmental Education under Section 9 of the act. The council consists of members representing public and private expertise in environmental education and training. The council consults with EPA and reports to Congress periodically on the quality of environmental education, the implementation of the act, and its recommendations to improve environmental education and training. The council's most recent report was released in 2005. The task force coordinates EPA's environmental education and training activities with related federal programs. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation encourages cooperation between the public and private sectors to support environmental education and training. Section 10 of the act established the foundation as a private, nonprofit organization with a board of 13 directors responsible for ensuring that its activities adhere to EPA's policies. The foundation operates several priority programs, including those that focus on public health and the environment, "green" business, environmental literacy of secondary school students, and weather and the environment. The foundation also awards competitive challenge grants to encourage innovative activities in environmental education and presents National Environmental Education Achievement Awards to honor outstanding and scientifically accurate environmental education programs. Additionally, the foundation supports annual research projects which examine the public's perception, awareness, and action regarding the environment, pollution control regulations, and personal responsibility. The act requires EPA to reserve 10% of the environmental education program's annual funding to award a noncompetitive grant to help support the foundation's activities. Although Members of Congress have broadly supported the role of the federal government in environmental education on a bipartisan basis, there has been continuing controversy over its role in the classroom. There appears to be general consensus that educating students in the natural and social sciences to examine the potential impacts of human behavior on the environment is appropriate for instruction. However, some critics argue that certain textbooks and curricula misinform students by advocating specific measures to address environmental problems, or by presenting unbalanced or scientifically inaccurate data. In response, EPA has issued guidelines specifying that the environmental education grants it awards cannot be used for projects that would recommend a specific course of action or advocate a particular viewpoint, and that activities must be based on "objective and scientifically sound information" to be eligible for funding. However, the National Environmental Education Act does not include requirements to insure that activities funded by EPA adhere to these guidelines. Whether to include such requirements in federal statute has been an issue. Interest in the federal government's role in environmental education has become broader in response to public desire for better understanding of complex environmental issues affecting human health, sustainability of natural resources, biological diversity, and other societal objectives. The complexity of such issues, and the ability of schools to address them, have motivated some educators to question whether EPA or other federal agencies should play a more prominent role in environmental education. In the 110 th Congress, at least two bills would broadly address the federal role in environmental education. As introduced on August 2, 2007, the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007 ( S. 1981 ) would expand the federal role in environmental education by creating an Office of Environmental Education within the Department of Education to administer new grant programs intended to supplement EPA's existing program. As passed by the House on September 18, 2008, the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008 ( H.R. 3036 ) would directly amend the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 for a similar purpose of authorizing a new grant program within the Department of Education to supplement EPA's existing efforts. This new grant program would differ from EPA's current program by focusing more on the outcome of environmental education in terms of achieving academic standards and demonstrating environmental literacy. Three amendments to the bill were agreed to in House floor debate that would expand the eligibility of recipients of the new grants to include municipalities, to make instruction in environmental justice issues an eligible use of grant funds, and to specify the eligibility of activities that involve partnering with state and local park and recreation departments. In addition to creating a new role for the Department of Education, H.R. 3036 would further amend the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 to reauthorize funding for EPA's existing program in FY2009 and to require the integration of certain activities into EPA's teacher training program, such as "scientifically valid" research (as defined in the bill), technology-based teaching, interdisciplinary instruction, and outdoor learning. Although these activities would become required elements, current law does not necessarily preclude their integration under the existing program. H.R. 3036 also would include new "accountability" requirements for EPA's existing program, the proposed Department of Education program, and existing programs of the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. The bill would establish several indicators of program quality to evaluate their respective outcomes. Some of these indicators are aligned with commonly held goals of environmental education, such as enhancing the understanding of the natural and built environment and improving the understanding of how human and natural systems interact. Other indicators have a more academic emphasis, such as the impact of environmental education on achievement in related core subjects including mathematics and science. Two other bills in the 110 th Congress would address environmental education within the more specific contexts of environmental justice and climate change. As introduced on April 24, 2008, the Getting Youth Re-invested in Environmental Education Now Act ( H.R. 5902 ) would authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to states and local educational agencies to support the development of environmental justice curricula and to provide career development opportunities to students. These grants would be made available for such efforts aimed at secondary school students in urban communities that may be disproportionately affected by environmental issues. As introduced on June 19, 2008, the Climate Market, Auction, Trust, and Trade Emissions Reduction System Act of 2008 ( H.R. 6316 ) would establish a dedicated Citizen Protection Trust Fund to support a variety of environmental and social purposes intended to offset the effects of climate change. The trust fund would be supported with revenues associated with a cap and trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A fixed percentage (0.4%) of revenues to the fund would be dedicated to environmental education. These revenues would be divided equally among EPA, the Department of Education, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The bill does not specify how these funds would be used to support environmental education, presumably leaving that decision to the discretion of the agencies within their existing authorities. | The federal role in environmental education has been an ongoing issue. For nearly two decades, EPA has been the primary federal agency responsible for providing financial assistance to schools to support environmental education. The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-619 ) established a program within EPA to award grants for educating elementary and secondary school students and training teachers in environmental subjects, and to fund other related activities. The President has proposed to eliminate this program in his annual budget requests each year since FY2003, and did not include any funding for the program in his FY2009 budget request. In response to strong interest at the state and local level, Congress has continued to fund the program each year, appropriating $8.9 million for FY2008. Although Congress has continued to fund the program through the appropriations process, the original funding authorization in the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 expired at the end of FY1996. As passed by the House, H.R. 3036 would reauthorize funding for EPA's environmental education program in FY2009, require the integration of certain elements into the agency's teacher training program, and expand the federal role in environmental education by authorizing a new grant program within the Department of Education. As introduced, S. 1981 also would create a new role for the Department of Education in supporting environmental education, but would not reauthorize funding for EPA's existing program nor amend any aspects of it. As introduced, H.R. 5902 and H.R. 6316 would address environmental education in the more specific contexts of environmental justice and climate change, respectively. |
U.S. stocks tumbled Monday, with the Dow recording its worst one-day point drop in history, in a selloff that at times took on the characteristics of a panic. The Dow was down more than 1,500 points at its session low, while the S&P 500 logged its first 5% pullback from its all-time high in over a year.
The day’s weakness was broad based, with all S&P 500 sectors down and all 30 Dow components finishing lower. The Cboe Volatility Index VIX, -1.84% Wall Street’s so-called fear gauge, surged 104% to 35.02, its loftiest level since August 2015, according to FactSet.
How did the main benchmarks perform?
The S&P 500 SPX, +0.01% dropped 113.19 points, or 4.1%, to 2,648.94. The large-cap index is now off more than 5% from its all-time intraday high of 2,872.87 on Jan. 26. The S&P 500 had gone 406 sessions without such a decline, marking the longest period without a 5% pullback in 20 years.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.06% slumped 1,175.21 points, or 4.6%, to 24,345.75, not up all its 2018 gains. The S&P 500’s percentage drop was the largest since Aug. 18, 2011, while the Dow’s drop was the biggest since Aug. 10, 2011. The S&P 500 and Dow both turned negative for the year.
The Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -0.25% shed 273.42 points, or 3.8%, to end at 6,967.53. However, the tech-heavy index managed to cling to a 2018 gain of 0.9%.
Read: Jerome Powell sworn in as Fed chairman
The financial sector was the biggest loser, tanking 5%, followed by health care, industrials, energy, telecommunications, and information technology which all fell more than 4%.
Friday had represented the biggest one-day drop for the S&P since September 2016, and capped the worst weekly decline for both the Dow and the S&P in more than two years. The selloff followed a stronger-than-expected jobs report, which investors took as a sign the Federal Reserve could be more aggressive in raising interest rates than previously expected.
What drove the markets?
Rising bond yields could continue to peel some money away from equities. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.38% at one point reached as high as 2.883% but subsequently dropped back to 2.72% as the equity rout triggered a flight to quality that boosted haven assets. Yields and debt prices move in opposite directions.
The 10-year yield had traded at a four-year high in the wake of Friday’s monthly jobs report that revealed a jump in wage growth. That stoked inflation fears as Jerome Powell formally took over as chairman of the Federal Reserve on Monday, replacing Janet Yellen.
Read: Stock-market melt-up takes a timeout as bond yields rise
Opinion: Tony Robbins on stock market corrections: Get used to them
What were strategists saying?
Michael Wilson, chief U.S. equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, said he is in no rush to buy the dip as there are growing worries about “unfunded” fiscal spending and a Federal Reserve that “appears to be behind the curve” when it comes to rates.
Read: Why stock-market investors need to worry more about fiscal policy than the Fed
“The panicky selloff and partial recovery was driven by algorithmic programs, because humans don’t make decisions that fast. It’s a mini flash crash,” said Kim Caughey Forrest, senior analyst and portfolio manager at Fort Pitt Capital Group. “To be honest, we were getting uncomfortable by the relentless rally, so this market now seems a lot more normal,” Forrest said.
See: A ‘Powell put’ for the stock market? Don’t even think about it
“Unlike Friday, when selling was orderly and not on a huge volume, today’s selloff was definitely panicky,” said Joe Saluzzi, partner, co-head of Equity Trading at Themis Trading. “Today’s volume is well over 10 billion and all the buyers disappeared.”
Randy Frederick, vice president of trading and derivatives for Charles Schwab, noted that stocks have “been going almost straight up since the start of the year,” which meant a pullback was both “expected and healthy” in his view. “It doesn’t mean the bull market is over; it simply takes away some of the froth and irrational exuberance from stocks and puts us back on a more sustainable trendline.”
Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned Friday that a sell indicator has been triggered for the market as $102 billion has flowed into global equities in 2018. That is amid widespread concerns over valuations.
Which stocks were key movers?
Wells Fargo Inc. WFC, +0.10% skidded 9.2% after the bank said Federal Reserve sanctions over customer-accounts scandals could cut into profit by as much as $400 million this year. The stock was the biggest decliner among financial shares, although the sector was broadly lower.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. BMY, -0.53% fell 4% despite reporting positive results for advanced lung-cancer trial results, along with fourth-quarter profit and revenue beats.
Qualcomm Inc.’s stock QCOM, -1.77% slid 6.6%, erasing a premarket gain that came after Broadcom Ltd. AVGO, -1.55% boosted its bid to buy the chip maker by 17% to a “best and final offer” of $82 a share. Broadcom was down 3.1%.
Corcept Therapeutics Inc. CORT, -0.97% tumbled 26% after the drugmaker disclosed that it had been informed Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. TEVA, +0.17% had submitted a new drug application for a generic version of Corcept’s hyperglycemia treatment Korlym. U.S.-listed shares of Teva fell 4%.
What are economic data saying about the economy?
On Monday, the IHS Markit purchasing managers index for services fell to 53.3 in January from 53.7.
A survey that tracks the performance of service-oriented companies such as hotels, restaurants and banks surged in January to a 13-year high of 59.9, the Institute for Supply Management said. Employment activity set a record.
How did other assets fare?
European stocks SXXP, +0.14% were a sea of red, while Asian markets suffered a broad selloff, with the Nikkei 225 index NIK, +0.86% tumbling 2.5%, its biggest one-day drop since Nov. 9, 2016.
Gold futures US:GCG8 were sightly firmer, while oil futures US:CLH8 dropped sharply and the ICE U.S. Dollar Index DXY, +0.03% rose 0.4%.
Digital currencies continued their recent retreat as bitcoin BTCUSD, +3.38% traded slightly above $7,000, trading at levels last seen in November. The world’s largest cryptocurrency has lost more than half its value since a high reached in December.
—Anora Gaudiano contributed to this report ||||| The long-running global stock rally turned into a rout Monday as the Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its largest-ever, single-day point decline and major indexes in the U.S., Europe and Asia gave up their gains for the year.
Traders described a growing sense of anxiety throughout the day and the Dow briefly dropped nearly 1,600 points. Although it quickly pared losses, the blue-chip index closed down 1,175.21 points, or 4.6%, to 24345.75, its largest one-day percentage decline since August 2011.
“This is the first time in a while I’d say it feels like borderline panic-type selling,” said Tim Anderson, managing director at brokerage TJM Investments, as yelling broke out on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange when the stock declines accelerated.
Combined with steep falls Friday, the index has lost 7% in just two days, marking a break in the tranquility that has characterized financial markets for much of the past two years. The selloff also signaled a potential shift in sentiment and investors sought safety in U.S. Treasurys, pushing yields lower.
The downward move was especially confounding given recent strength in the economy. While traders have grown more worried in recent days about rising inflation that could cause the Federal Reserve to raise rates more vigorously, there wasn’t an obvious catalyst for the market’s jarring move.
“I put in some orders last Friday and I entered some orders today,” said Robert Pavlik, senior portfolio manager at SlateStone Wealth. “Nothing has changed on the economic front from last Monday to today.”
The Dow is now down 1.5% for the year and off 8.5% from its Jan. 26 high, approaching the 10% fall that would mark a correction.
The sharp drop, coming just six trading days after the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite also surged to all-time highs, marked a stunning turnaround. Global stocks in January posted one of their best-ever starts to a year, buoyed by hopes for faster economic growth around the world and the just-enacted U.S. tax-code overhaul.
Enthusiasm for stocks led investors to pour a record $102 billion in January into mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that invest in equities globally.
But cracks emerged last week when government bond yields jumped to four-year highs, raising fears among some investors of a faster-than-expected pickup in inflation. The selling that resulted was broad, sending everything from shares of energy companies to banks to technology giants lower.
The S&P 500 fell 4.1% Monday and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 3.8%. The Dow and S&P 500 are at their lowest levels since early December.
Meanwhile, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury fell to 2.794%, down from a four-year high of 2.852% Friday. The fall marked the steepest one-day yield decline in five months.
As investors grasped for reasons behind the moves, some traders said they appeared to be caused in part by algorithmic trading. As evidence, they noted how quickly the selling accelerated, only to abate a bit in the last half-hour of the session.
“The interesting action today is probably being caused by computer models that literally need to balance their risk,” said Yousef Abbasi, a global market strategist at JonesTrading, who noted the selloff accelerated as the S&P 500 broke through 2700.
“That inherently creates a ton of selling,” he said. “Getting back to flat on the year created that inflection point.”
A trader looks at a television screen early in the session Monday. Photo: brendan mcdermid/Reuters
Others said broad selling of exchange-traded funds contributed to the declines.
Chris Hempstead, head of U.S. ETF sales at Deutsche Bank Securities, noticed trading in exchange-traded funds exploding Monday afternoon.
A little after 3:30 p.m. ET, trading of U.S. listed ETFs during the day equaled 40% of total stock-market value. That is well above the typical 25%, Mr. Hempstead said.
“We saw an explosion of ETF volume. That’s highly unusual,” he said. “People are making big decisions today.”
Despite the upheaval, some investors say the stock rally is merely pausing after a strong run whose scale and pace has taken many by surprise. “This is a healthy pullback,” said Jason Draho, head of tactical asset allocation Americas at UBS Wealth Management.
Until economic data points to a meaningful pickup in inflation that could push rates higher, “we’re not concerned,” he said.
Other investors have welcomed the declines, saying they used it as an opportunity to pick up suddenly cheaper stocks. Jason Ware, chief investment officer at Albion Financial Group, said that when the Dow lost 800 points, he and his traders started buying.
“There are good companies out there that were on sale today,” he said, although the swift moves “made for a tricky and volatile experience in buying.”
Monday’s selling was broad-based, with all 11 sectors in the S&P 500 posting declines. Bank shares slid, sending the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index of large U.S. lenders down 4.9% and extending declines after posting its steepest loss of the year Friday.
Declines in shares of oil-and-gas companies also dragged on major indexes. The S&P 500 energy sector shed 4.4%, while U.S. crude oil declined 2% to $64.15 a barrel.
Meanwhile, a measure of expected swings in the S&P 500, the Cboe Volatility Index, shot higher, jumping 116%—its largest one-day percentage gain ever.
“You’re getting a bit of a rotation into safer assets, which is why the Treasury market is doing better,” said Tony Roth, chief investment officer of Wilmington Trust.
“The concern is the Fed is going to fall behind the curve and raise rates more quickly” than the three increases it had forecast in December, and has little to do with the economy, outside of inflation concerns.
“This is a natural and, frankly, healthy condition,” he added.
—Corrie Driebusch, Riva Gold, Amrith Ramkumar and Daniel Kruger contributed to this article.
Write to Akane Otani at [email protected]
Corrections & Amplifications
The Cboe Volatility Index jumped 116% on Feb. 5. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the index rose 117%. Also, an earlier version of a chart that showed the S&P 500’s losing streaks incorrectly displayed the percentage change of the two most recent sessions. (Feb. 16, 2018) ||||| NEW YORK (AP) — The latest on developments in financial markets (All times local):
4 p.m.
The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 1,175 points, or 4.6 percent, erasing its gains for the year.
The Dow's drop Monday was its biggest in terms of points, but it had a larger percentage drop as recently in 2011.
The Dow is down 8.5 percent from the record high it hit in late January.
The slump began Friday as investors worried that higher inflation and interest rates could derail the long-running rally.
At one point the Dow was down as much as 1,600 points.
The Dow ended at 24,345.
The Standard & Poor's 500, the benchmark for many index funds, fell 113 points, or 4.1 percent, to 2,648. The Nasdaq fell 273, or 3.8 percent, to 6,967.
Bond prices rose. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 2.73 percent.
___
3:08 p.m.
The Dow Jones industrial average plunged as much as 1,500 points, erasing its gain for the year, as the market extends a slump that began Friday.
The Dow's point loss would be its biggest of all time, though in percentage terms, its 5.6 percent decline wasn't as big as its worst drop during the financial crisis.
The slide Monday brought the Dow back below 24,000 points.
The market's slump began on Friday as investors worried that creeping signs of higher inflation and interest rates could derail the market's record-setting rally.
The Dow skidded as much as 1,500 points, before recovering some of its losses. It was down 872, or 3.4 percent, to 24,651.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 74 points, or 2.7 percent, to 2,686
___
2:28 p.m.
Stocks are extending their slide on Wall Street, bringing the Dow Jones industrial average down 500 points.
The slide Monday brought the Dow back just below 25,000 points, a level it first crossed a month ago.
The market's slump began on Friday as investors worried that creeping signs of higher inflation and interest rates could derail the market's record-setting rally.
Banks are taking some of the biggest losses.
Wells Fargo plunged 8 percent after the Federal Reserve hit the bank with new sanctions over a scandal that involved opening millions of phony consumer accounts.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 51 points, or 1.9 percent, to 2,711.
The Dow was down 530 points, or 2 percent, to 24,999.
Bond yields slipped after moving sharply higher Friday.
___
11:45 a.m.
U.S. stocks are lower at midday as banks fall following more punitive action against Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo dropped 8 percent Monday after the Federal Reserve hit the bank with new sanctions over a scandal that involved opening millions of phony consumer accounts.
Energy companies were also moving lower as the price of crude oil slipped. Exxon Mobil fell 3.5 percent.
The market is coming off its worst week in two years. Stocks fell sharply on Friday as traders worried about inflation and rising interest rates.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 14 points, or 0.5 percent, to 2,748.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 159 points, or 0.6 percent, to 25,364. The Nasdaq composite lost 14 points, or 0.2 percent, to 7,225.
___
9:35 a.m.
Stocks stumbled in early trading on Wall Street as banks fell following punitive action against Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo plunged 8 percent in the first few minutes of trading Monday after the Federal Reserve hit the bank with new sanctions in response to its opening of phony accounts for several million consumers.
Other banks also fell. Industrial companies were also falling. Boeing lost 2 percent and Caterpillar was down 1 percent.
The market is coming off its worst week in two years. Stocks fell sharply on Friday as traders worried about inflation and rising interest rates.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 20 points, or 0.7 percent, to 2,741.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 233 points, or 0.9 percent, to 25,295. The Nasdaq composite lost 52 points, or 0.7 percent, to 7,189. | The Dow had a terrible Friday, and Monday was far worse. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 1,175 points—the largest single-day point drop in its history—to close at 24,345, per the AP. And it could been have been ever rougher: At one point in the afternoon, the index was down nearly 1,600 points. The other major indexes didn't fare much better. The S&P 500, the benchmark for many index funds, fell 113 points, or 4.1%, to 2,648, and the Nasdaq fell 273, or 3.8%, to 6,967. The Dow's loss amounted 4.6%. Two big factors: The Wall Street Journal blames investor fears about rising inflation and the increasing likelihood that the Fed will again raise interest rates. “The panicky selloff (to 1,600 down) and partial recovery was driven by algorithmic programs, because humans don’t make decisions that fast," Kim Caughey Forrest of Fort Pitt Capital Group tells MarketWatch. “It’s a mini flash crash. To be honest, we were getting uncomfortable by the relentless rally, so this market now seems a lot more normal." The two-day losses have wiped out all of the gains for 2018. Market pros have been predicting a pullback for some time, noting that declines of 10% or more are common during bull markets. There hasn't been one in two years, and by many measures stocks had been looking expensive. |
Mr. Trump’s administration is considered the most wealthy in American history, with members of his senior staff and cabinet worth an estimated $12 billion, according to a tally by Bloomberg. The Friday filings will add voluminous detail to that top-line figure. The White house chief of staff, Reince Priebus, for example, earned at least $1.18 million — nearly half of which came from the Republican National Committee, which he formerly led. His assets totaled between $604,008 and at least $1.26 million.
“I think one of the really interesting things that people are going to see today — and I think it’s something that should be celebrated — is that the president has brought a lot of people into this administration, and this White House in particular, who have been very blessed and very successful,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. The officials “have given up a lot to come into government by setting aside a lot of assets,” he said.
Until January, Mr. Kushner was the chief executive of Kushner Companies, a family-run real estate investment firm with holdings across the country. It is a growing business that has taken part in at least $7 billion of acquisitions over the past decade.
Late Friday, the White House released details of the plan devised by his advisers to avoid conflicts of interest between Mr. Kushner’s government role and the wide-ranging business empire he ran with his father. That business depends on foreign investment from undisclosed sources, as well as billions of dollars in loans from the world’s biggest financial services firms.
Although Mr. Kushner has stepped down from his management positions at the more than 200 entities that operated aspects of the family real estate business, he will remain a beneficiary of a vast majority of the business he ran for the past decade, through a series of trusts that already owned the various real estate companies.
The plan laid out on Friday “is not sufficient,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel and chief ethics officer for the Federal Election Commission. “While removing himself from the management of the businesses is an important step, he is still financially benefiting from how the businesses do. This presents potential for a conflict of interest. Given his level in the White House and broad portfolio, it’s hard to see how he will recuse himself from everything that may impact his financial interest.”
While the filing discloses Mr. Kushner’s personal lenders, it does not provide information on his business partners or lenders to his projects. ||||| The Trump Administration The 45th President and His Administration
In a remarkable Friday night news dump, the Trump administration made dozens of White House staffers’ financial disclosure forms available. But they did it with an extra dose of opacity.
These are important disclosures from the people who have the president’s ear and shape national policy. They lay out all sorts of details, including information on ownership of stocks, real estate and companies, and make possible conflicts of interest public.
But the White House required a separate request for each staffer’s disclosure. And they didn’t give the names of the staffers, leaving us to guess who had filed disclosures, a kind of Transparency Bingo.
Since the White House wasn’t going to post the documents publicly, we did.
We teamed up with The New York Times and The Associated Press, requested docs for every staffer we know and put them in this public Google Drive folder.
We’re continuing to look through them. And we want your help: If you see anything that merits a closer look, comment on the thread below or fill out our Google Form.
Among the things we’ve learned already:
Steve Bannon, President Trump’s hand-picked chief strategist, earned more than $500,000 last year through businesses connected to Republican donors Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah. The companies include the conservative website Breitbart News Network; the data-crunching firm Cambridge Analytica; the conservative nonprofit Government Accountability Institute; and the entertainment production company Glittering Steel. (Per an agreement with White House ethics attorneys, Bannon is selling his stakes in Cambridge Analytica and Glittering Steel. He made somewhere between $1.3 million and $2.3 million last year, according to the filings.)
Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, resigned his positions in 266 different business entities in order to comply with federal ethics rules, White House officials said Friday. He and his wife Ivanka’s financial disclosure shows the scale of their wealth, largely through the family-run Kushner Companies: real estate and investments worth as much as $741 million.
And Kushner is holding onto more than 100 real-estate assets, including a Trump-branded rental building in Jersey City, New Jersey, which was financed with millions from wealthy Chinese investors through a visa program.
As part of Kushner’s financial disclosure, Ivanka Trump, who recently took an official post in the White House, had to disclose her assets. Ivanka Trump’s branded companies, including her clothing and jewelry lines, brought in more than $5 million in 2016 and are valued at more than $50 million. Her stake in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., which opened in September, brought in income of between $1 million and $5 million. (She is putting her companies in a trust that she won’t manage while her father serves as president.)
There are other tidbits, too. Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs investment banker who now serves as director of the National Economic Council, has assets worth at least $253 million, including million-dollar or more stakes in several private companies. Omarosa Manigault, the reality-TV star who took a job as a White House communications staffer, has a 33 percent stake in a trust worth between $1 million and $5 million established by her late fiancée, the Oscar-nominated actor Michael Clarke Duncan, who died in 2012. Reed Cordish, a Trump family friend and Maryland real-estate developer who now oversees technology initiatives at the White House, reported assets of at least $197 million, including partnerships in Baltimore casinos.
So far, we’ve received less than half of the roughly 180 financial disclosures White House officials said they have processed. But the moment we get them, you will, too. ||||| FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2017 file photo, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is seen in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. The White House on March 31, was set to release financial... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2017 file photo, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is seen in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. The White House on March 31, was set to release financial disclosure forms for more than 100 of it's top administration officials. Bannon, disclosed assets... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2017 file photo, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is seen in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. The White House on March 31, was set to release financial disclosure forms for more than 100 of it's top administration officials. Bannon, disclosed assets... (Associated Press) FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2017 file photo, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is seen in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. The White House on March 31, was set to release financial... (Associated Press)
The White House released financial disclosures for many of its senior officials Friday — a group of some of the wealthiest people ever to join a presidential administration.
The documents provide a snapshot of what the employees' finances looked like when they joined government service in January, but they do not give a full account of how those people are disentangling from business assets that could pose possible conflicts of interest.
President Donald Trump, a billionaire New York businessman, and Vice President Mike Pence, the former Indiana governor, are not legally required to file new financial disclosures until next year. Here are some findings from The Associated Press review of thousands of pages of documents:
___
JARED KUSHNER AND IVANKA TRUMP
Kushner, the president's senior adviser, and Ivanka Trump, Kushner's wife and the president's daughter, resigned from all of their business entities and sold off 58 assets. But the couple held onto much of what they have built into a global and real estate-focused empire. The documents show that have at least $240 million in assets.
Kushner began selling off the most problematic pieces of his portfolio shortly after Trump won the election, and some of those business deals predate what is required to be captured in the financial disclosure forms. For example, Kushner sold his stake in a Manhattan skyscraper to a trust his mother oversees. Kushner organized much of his holdings into trusts for which he is the sole primary beneficiary.
___
GARY COHN
One of the wealthiest members of the Trump administration — aside from the president himself — is Gary Cohn, who left a top position at Goldman Sachs to become Trump's chief economic adviser. His financial disclosure shows he received at least $40 million in income from Goldman Sachs-related dividends, interest, salary and bonuses, about half of which was in some form of stock compensation.
His investments range from prestigious venture capital fund Andreessen Horowitz to self-storages units in Ohio. Cohn also reported more than $1 million in income from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China — something the White House has said he is in the process of divesting along with his Goldman holdings.
___
STEVE BANNON
Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, disclosed assets between $13 million and $56 million, including his influential political consultancy, Bannon Strategic Advisors Inc., worth as much as $25 million. Bannon also disclosed that he earned slightly less than $200,000 last year as executive director of Breitbart News Network LLC, before he resigned to join Trump's campaign last August.
The documents show he was vice president of the data firm Cambridge Analytica for more than two years, before resigning in August 2016 to help run Trump's campaign. Cambridge was the main data provider for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who waged a bitter battle with Trump for the Republican nomination. Bannon's consulting firm pulled in more than $125,000 from Cambridge last year. He has stake in Cambridge somewhere between $1 million and $5 million, but the disclosure says he has an "agreement in principle" to sell his investment.
Bannon also disclosed his ownership stake worth up to $5 million in Bannon Film Industries Inc., the entertainment company that veered into political-themed documentaries, including last year's anti-Hillary Clinton documentary "Clinton Cash." He retains that investment even while selling off other arrangements, according to the filing.
___
KELLYANNE CONWAY
Kellyanne Conway, who became the first female campaign manager to successfully elect a president, is, not surprisingly, a successful woman herself.
Even before being named counselor to the president, Conway was worth as much as $40 million, derived mostly from her investments and her salary at her personal political consulting firm, "the polling company/WomanTrend."
Conway earned, through her company, slightly more than $800,000 in business income for her work in 2016. The business is worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to her disclosure statement.
Most of Conway's assets, more than $31 million, are held in cash or money-market accounts — likely because she had to sell most of her investments before taking a job in the White House. She does still own stock in drug giant Pfizer, snack food companies Kraft Heinz and Mondelez, and tobacco companies Altria and Philip Morris. Those stock holdings are relatively minor — less than $200,000 — compared with her net worth.
Conway gave speeches or provided political consulting services to dozens of political interest groups, mostly advocating conservative causes. She also gave a paid speech to Point 72 Asset Management, the firm owned by billionaire hedge fund manager Steven Cohen.
___
DON MCGAHN
Don McGahn, who served as Trump's top campaign lawyer and is now White House counsel, made more than $2.4 million last year for his work at Jones Day, a prominent Washington law firm with deep ties to the Republican Party. McGahn listed legal services for more than 22 conservative and GOP-tied entities last year, including the National Rifle Association, the Citizens United Foundation, the Republican National Committee and Americans for Prosperity.
A guitar player who often performs in public with an '80s cover band called Scott's New Band, McGahn also disclosed that he earned $4,900 last year from a music booking firm.
___
BORIS EPSHTEYN
A dogged television surrogate for President Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, Epshteyn disclosed that his primary asset was a stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in TGP Securities Inc., a New Jersey investment banking firm where Epshteyn previously worked as a managing director.
Epshteyn made only $30,000 last year as a familiar Trump media surrogate. He made far more with TGP, earning $226,000 last year. He made another $240,000 from consulting fees with a health-care cost containment firm, Prime Health Services.
After the election, Epshteyn joined the White House press office, working with talk shows booking Trump administration figures. But in recent days, reports surfaced that he was leaving the post and it was unclear if he would wind up elsewhere in the administration.
___
REINCE PRIEBUS
Priebus, the White House chief of staff, took in more than $500,000 in salary and bonuses from the Republican Party. He also earned at least $750,000 from equity buyout and partner-distribution income from the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich.
__
JULIA HAHN
One of Bannon's employees at Breitbart — now his top lieutenant in the White House — has assets that could be worth as much as $2.3 million. That's notable because of her young age: She's in her mid-20s.
Hahn made a salary of $117,217 at Breitbart News as a senior investigative reporter from July 2015 to January 2017. Her previous job as executive producer of the Laura Ingraham show, where she worked from June 2013 until she went to Breitbart, earned her a salary of $74,082. She owns a very small stake in a real estate investment company known as Cherrywood Partnership, which owns apartment buildings in Pennsylvania. That stake is worth between $250,001 and $500,000.
__
PETER NAVARRO
Navarro's only job before joining the White House as director of the National Trade Council was as an economics and public policy professor for the University of California-Irvine, where he had a salary of $240,000.
He has a variety of assets, including stocks, bonds and investment property. All told, the value is more than $1 million, but not by much. Most of his assets are tied up in his pension and investment properties, which have mortgages attached to them.
__
JASON GREENBLATT
Greenblatt, a former Trump Organization lawyer advising the president on Middle East policy, listed assets of more than $1.4 million. Many of the holdings were stock mutual funds. He made $1.02 million last year at the Trump Organization.
Greenblatt has made two visits to the Middle East since joining the White House, meeting with Israelis and Palestinians and attending an Arab summit in Jordan this week.
__
KEITH KELLOGG
Kellogg, the National Security Council chief of staff, reported earning $96,000 in salary and severance for one month working for Cubic Corp., a defense contractor, plus ownership worth at least $366,000 in various investment funds, bonds and a retirement account. He owed at least $600,000 in loans, including a mortgage on his home.
__
MAKAN DELRAHIM
Deputy White House counsel Makan Delrahim reported earning a little more than $1 million last year in salary, stock payouts and a buyout from his law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, where he was a partner. Delrahim, a board member of the World Poker Tour Foundation, is also a passive investor in a movie called "Trash Fire," according to the filing.
___
Reported by Associated Press writers Julie Bykowicz, Chad Day, Stephen Braun, Jack Gillum, Michael Biesecker, Ted Bridis, Bernard Condon and Ken Sweet. ||||| Steve Bannon, a top adviser to President Donald Trump, earned more than half a million dollars last year from entities linked to a pair of major conservative donors, according to documents released by the White House detailing the personal finances of its officials.
Bannon reported an ownership stake of $1 million or more in a data-crunching firm that worked for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) during the presidential race. He also took in $191,000 in consulting fees in 2016 as executive chairman of the conservative media website Breitbart News, which sided with Trump during the Republican primary.
Story Continued Below
The disclosure highlighted Bannon's ties to a pair of conservative political donors, Robert and Rebekah Mercer. The couple, which funded the upstart data company Cambridge Analytica, backed Cruz early on but eventually swung their allegiance to Trump.
Cambridge Analytica later worked for Trump, and now it is seeking government contracts. Bannon’s disclosure form said that he has “an agreement in principle” to sell his stake in Cambridge.
Bannon also reported income from the Government Accountability Institute and the film production company Glittering Steel, both of which are linked to the Mercers, who also are part owners of Breitbart.
The documents released Friday night also put on public view new details about two Trump family members who have taken official White House posts: Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Ivanka Trump’s self-branded businesses, including her clothing line, brought in more than $5 million since the beginning of 2016 and are valued at over $50 million, the documents showed. Ivanka recently assumed an official assistant-to-the-president post, so no disclosure has been released for her yet, but her husband's form also includes her assets. She is putting the Ivanka brands in a trust she will no longer manage directly, her legal advisers say.
Meanwhile, Kushner resigned from positions with 266 different entities in order to begin work as a senior adviser to Trump, a senior administration official told reporters Friday.
The disclosures showed the wealth of an administration filled with real estate and finance experts alongside government hands. They show former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn got paid at least $5,000 for a speaking engagement with the Kremlin-funded English language network RT -- a disclosure Flynn left out of his initial January disclosures but which he revealed in an amended document that he signed Friday.
The forms also offer a small window into how much people are paid at the privately-held Trump Organization.
Jason Greenblatt listed a little more than $1 million in pay from the president’s company for his work as its executive vice president and chief legal officer. Greenblatt spent a decade working in Trump Tower before joining the White House in January as Trump’s special representative for international negotiations.
The forms being made public cover White House staff making more than $161,755 a year, as well as anyone who's a commissioned officer — people who hold a title like assistant or special assistant to the president.
Trump's own form was not among those released Friday. He filed the disclosure twice as a candidate, in July 2015 and May 2016. He's not required by law to file again until May 2018, but aides said they have not decided whether he will file an update this year.
Here are highlights from the newly-disclosed financial reports:
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump
Ivanka Trump’s investment in the Trump International Hotel in Washington is valued at between $5 million and $25 million and brought her between $1 million and $5 million in income since its opening in September, the disclosure says.
Meanwhile, Kushner made $4.5 million in 2016 from the company that owns the New York Observer. He's sold his stake in the firm.
Kushner has sold or is selling several other operating businesses, including an insurance brokerage, a broadband firm and a window and door company. But he’s holding on to well over 100 other real estate assets, primarily buildings in the New York City area.
Critics say his investments could pose a conflict of interest as he tackles a broad, almost unbounded portfolio of issues for his father-in-law.
Omarosa Manigault
The reality television star-turned-Trump White House communications staffer accepted a wedding dress, custom veil and other accessories -- worth an estimated $25,000 -- to appear on an episode of TLC’s “Say Yes to the Dress.” She also listed on her financial disclosures between $7,100 and $18,000 for rents or royalties surrounding her role in several television shows, including syndication of Trump’s ‘The Apprentice.’
She is also a one-third beneficiary of a trust worth between $1 million and $5 million that was established by her late fiancée Michael Clarke Duncan, an Oscar-nominated actor who died in 2012.
Gary Cohn
The former Goldman Sachs chief operating officer now heading the National Economic Council director reported assets worth at least $200 million and perhaps $1 billion or more, since the forms generally use broad ranges and don't even require a range for assets worth over $50 million. His income in the past year was between about $48 million and $76 million.
Cohn did not include details about selling off his investment stakes in the financial disclosure, as other senior White House staff did, though it has previously been reported that he sold his shares in Goldman for approximately $285 million. Earlier this month the New York Times also reported that Cohn planned to sell a stake in one of China’s largest banks. The total stock is listed as worth over $1 million in his disclosure though the Times reported it was worth approximately $16 million.
In addition to his Goldman holdings, Cohn reported stock worth as much as $250,000 in Bank of America, which could pose a conflict should the administration rewrite the financial regulatory regime put in place by Dodd-Frank. He also reported stock in Facebook and the president’s favorite social media, Twitter.
Cohn also reported ownership stakes in several commercial real estate properties, technology patents, and a helicopter.
Don McGahn
The chief White House counsel left behind $2.4 million in pay as a Jones Day partner. At the firm, McGahn’s clients included Trump, then-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), the National Rifle Association, the GOP data firm i360 and Aaron Schock, the former Illinois Republican congressman under indictment on federal criminal corruption charges.
Stephen Miller
Trump’s top policy adviser on the campaign made $124,885 in 2016, according to his financial disclosure. At the same time, he listed as an employer “Insperity PEO Services, L.P.,” which he wrote on his form is the name of his parents' real estate company, where he had an advisory, unpaid position while working on the campaign.
Reed Cordish
One of the Trump family’s closest friends is now serving in the White House. His financial disclosure forms show he maintains a stake in companies and holdings worth tens of millions of dollars, including casinos, real estate and restaurants in Baltimore, Kansas City, St. Louis, Richmond, Louisville, Kentucky, and Arlington, Texas. He’s also a beneficiary of a family trust worth between $5 million and $25 million.
Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — 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.
Katie Walsh
The White House deputy chief of staff who departed Thursday in a staff-shake up made more than $600,000 in the last year. About $320,000 of that was from the Republican National Committee and about $283,000 came from her Missouri-based political consulting firm, the Laymont Group.
Sean Spicer
Press secretary Sean Spicer made $260,000 in his former post as spokesman for the Republican National Committee. But he shares another passion with the man he represents in the briefing room: real estate investment. The combative press aide owns commercial and rental properties in Rhode Island, Alabama and Virginia worth between $2.6 million and $5.2 million, according to his financial disclosure. He also has a family trust worth between $500,000 and $1 million, and between $45,000 and $135,000 in income last year from stock funds.
Peter Navarro
Peter Navarro, director of the newly-created National Trade Council, made $240,000 in his previous job as a professor of economics and public policy at the University of California-Irvine. He also earned extra income of $10,500 for delivering a keynote speech to the Casket & Funeral Supply Association of America on Nov. 15, 2016.
Shane Goldmacher, Colin Wilhelm, Matthew Nussbaum, Tara Palmeri, Annie Karni, Isaac Arnsdorf and Kenneth Vogel contributed to this report. ||||| FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2017 file photo, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is seen in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. The White House on March 31, was set to release financial... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2017 file photo, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is seen in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. The White House on March 31, was set to release financial disclosure forms for more than 100 of it's top administration officials. Bannon, disclosed assets... (Associated Press)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's son-in-law and daughter are holding onto scores of real estate investments — part of a portfolio of at least $240 million in assets — while they serve in White House jobs, according to new financial disclosures.
The revelations about Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were part of a massive White House release of financial disclosure forms Friday night for dozens of its top administration officials.
Kushner, Trump's senior adviser, resigned from some 260 entities and sold off 58 businesses or investments that lawyers identified as posing potential conflicts of interest, the documents show.
But lawyers for Kushner and in the Office of the White House Counsel, in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics, determined that his real estate assets, many of them in New York City, are unlikely to pose the kinds of conflicts that would trigger a need to divest.
"The remaining conflicts, from a practical perspective, are pretty narrow and very manageable," said Jamie Gorelick, an attorney who has been working on the ethics agreements for Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
Kushner began selling off the most problematic parts of his portfolio shortly after Trump won the election, and some of those business deals predate what is required to be captured in the financial disclosure forms. For example, Kushner sold his stake in a Manhattan skyscraper to a trust his mother oversees. Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and their three minor children have no financial interest in that trust, his lawyer said. The Kushner Companies, now run by Jared Kushner's relatives, are seeking investment partners for a massive redevelopment of the building.
Top officials in the Trump White House tend to be far wealthier — and therefore more entangled in businesses that could conflict with their government duties — than people in previous administrations.
Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, disclosed assets between $13 million and $56 million, including his influential political consultancy, Bannon Strategic Advisors Inc., worth as much as $25 million. Bannon also disclosed that he earned slightly less than $200,000 last year as executive director of Breitbart News Network LLC, before he resigned to join Trump's campaign last August.
The documents show he was vice president of the data firm Cambridge Analytica for more than two years, before resigning in August 2016 to help run Trump's campaign. Cambridge was the main data provider for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who waged a bitter battle with Trump for the Republican nomination. Bannon's consulting firm pulled in more than $125,000 from Cambridge last year. He has between a $1 million and $5 million stake in Cambridge, but the disclosure said he has an "agreement in principle" to sell his investment.
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus received more than $500,000 in salary and bonuses from the Republican National Committee, which he led through the long and divisive presidential primary. He also earned at least $750,000 from equity buyout and partner-distribution income from the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich.
One of the wealthiest members of the Trump administration — aside from the billionaire business owner president himself — is Gary Cohn, who left a top position at Goldman Sachs to become Trump's chief economic adviser.
His financial disclosure shows he received at least $40 million in income from Goldman Sachs-related dividends, interest, salary and bonuses, about half of which was in some form of stock compensation.
Cohn also reported more than $1 million in income from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China; the White House has said he is in the process of divesting from that bank, as well as his Goldman holdings.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer described the business people who have joined the administration as "very blessed and very successful," and said the disclosure forms will show that they have set aside "a lot" to go into public service.
The financial disclosures — required by law to be made public — give a snapshot of the employees' finances as they entered the White House. What's not being provided: the Office of Government Ethics agreements with those employees on what they must do to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Those documents will not be disclosed, White House lawyers said, although the public will eventually have access to "certificates of divestiture" issued to employees who are seeking capital gains tax deferrals for selling off certain assets.
Kushner, for example, received certificates of divestiture for his financial interests in several assets, including several funds tied to Thrive Capital, his brother Joshua Kushner's investment firm.
He and Ivanka Trump built up companies the documents show are worth at least $50 million each and have stepped away from their businesses while in government service. Like the president himself, however, they retain a financial interest in many of them. Ivanka Trump agreed this week to become a federal employee and will file her own financial disclosure at a later date.
Jared Kushner's disclosure shows he took on tens of millions of dollars of bank debt in 2015 and 2016, including liabilities with several international banks whose interests could come before the Trump administration.
Kushner has as much as $25 million in liabilities to Deutsche Bank, a prime lender to Kushner family real estate ventures as well as a major creditor for Trump Organization-branded real estate projects. Kushner and his father, Charles, also have liabilities worth much as $5 million to the U.S. unit of Israel Discount Bank. The Kushner Companies have separately acknowledged "long-standing" dealings with two other Israeli banks.
Financial information for members of Trump's Cabinet who needed Senate confirmation has, in most cases, been available for weeks through the Office of Government Ethics.
The president must also file periodic financial disclosures, but he is not required to make another disclosure until next year.
___
Associated Press writers Chad Day, Jack Gillum and Josh Boak contributed to this report. ||||| We already know the Trump administration is one of the richest in history, but financial disclosures released by the White House late Friday further undercut President Donald Trump's populist, "drain the swamp" rhetoric.
According to the disclosures, advisers Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner may hold financial assets of more than $740 million; White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon may hold assets totaling $56 million; and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus earned $1.4 million in 2016 — including close to $500,000 from the Republican National Committee.
In addition to highlighting the big bank accounts of Trump's top staffers, the disclosures also raise ethical questions about high-ranking members of the administration.
The White House will continue to release financial disclosures throughout the weekend — but those of President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will not be among them.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer praised the release of the required disclosures as "more accessible, more available than in history" while defending the president's refusal to release his own tax returns.
"I think that's apples and oranges. These are required by law," Spicer told reporters Friday. "I think there is an element of going above and beyond what has been done in the past to make sure that people have access to this."
The wealth of the Trump administration
Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Donald Trump walks with his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner.Source:
The White House will release up to 180 financial disclosures of top administration staffers, according to USA Today.
Those that have been released thus far underline the extraordinary wealth of the Trump administration.
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner headline a White House roster that includes Kellyanne Conway and her multimillion-dollar portfolio; former Goldman Sachs CEO Gary Cohn, who is currently serving as the director of Trump's National Economic Council; and Dina Habib Powell, another former Goldman executive now working in the White House.
According to Spicer, the administration's wealth is something to be "celebrated" because it shows Trump has been able to surround himself with "very blessed and very successful" people.
"I think it speaks volumes to the desire for a lot of these people to fulfill the president's vision and move the agenda forward that they are willing to list all of their assets, undergo this public scrutiny, but also set aside a lot," Spicer said.
Ethical concerns raised by White House financial disclosures
Source: MANDEL NGAN/Getty Images Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump may hold assets worth $740 million, according to financial disclosures.Source:
The financial disclosures released Friday show Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner continue to benefit financially from the businesses they resigned from to take their unpaid White House jobs.
Kushner continues to profit from the real estate empire he operated with his father, USA Today reports, and Ivanka Trump still holds an ownership stake of $5 million to $25 million in Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Additionally, the releases show that Conway was paid for consulting work she did for the Center for Medical Progress, the anti-abortion organization behind the undercover Planned Parenthood videos that led to felony charges for the activists who filmed them, and that Priebus earned three-quarters of a million dollars from a Milwaukee law firm he's been on leave from since 2011.
The financial disclosures also raise questions about when Bannon left Breitbart. The disclosures show him having resigned from the alt-right media organization in August, when he joined Trump's campaign, but a recent letter to the Senate press gallery from Breitbart CEO Larry Solov said that Bannon resigned after the election "on or about Nov. 13." ||||| Disclosures Outline The Wealth Of The Trump Administration
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Updated at 5 a.m. ET Sunday
Financial disclosures from members of the Trump administration are revealing the extent of their wealth and much of where it comes from.
Beginning on Friday, the White House said it would make available roughly 180 financial disclosures for White House officials. It begins to paint the picture of just how the Trump administration is the wealthiest administration ever.
Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and real estate
In 54 pages of a financial disclosure, President Trump's son-in-law and key White House adviser Jared Kushner lists assets and debts owned by him and his wife, Trump's daughter Ivanka. Pages and pages are devoted to the family's massive real estate investments.
The couple has emerged as influential advisers in Trump's White House, unpaid to avoid triggering anti-nepotism rules. Kushner was cleared for the job in January, while Ivanka Trump announced this past week that she would assume an official role.
Friday's financial disclosures show that Trump's daughter and son-in-law have assets valued at more than $200 million. According to the The New York Times, they "will remain the beneficiaries of a sprawling real estate and investment business still worth as much as $741 million, despite their new government responsibilities."
The documents show Kushner divested dozens of businesses and investments to avoid conflicts of interest with his public service. He has also resigned from more than 260 posts at various organizations and corporations.
According to the AP, Kushner's lawyers, "in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics, determined that his real estate assets, many of them in New York City, are unlikely to pose the kinds of conflicts that would trigger a need to divest."
In the documents, Ivanka Trump also reports a stake in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., with her share valued between $5 million and $25 million. The filing says she made between $1 million and $5 million in profit off this stake in 2016 and part of 2017.
Given Ivanka Trump's recent decision to become an official White House employee, her financial disclosures and ethics agreements are expected to be filed later. The Times reports that Ivanka Trump will maintain her stake in the Trump hotel in Washington even as she takes on official government duties.
Stephen Bannon and the Mercers
Others disclosures include Steve Bannon, former Breitbart executive chairman and Trump's chief strategist at the White House. Bannon "earned at least $1.4 million in the last year and held assets valued between $10.7 million and $48.6 million when he joined the administration," according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal.
Bannon reports income of $191,000 from the right-wing Breitbart News, $125,333 from Cambridge Analytica, which analyzes election data, and $61,539 from the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit he co-founded. The three organizations all have links to hedge fund manager Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer, both of whom are active in funding conservative political causes, as The New Yorker's Jane Mayer detailed.
Bannon's largest single source of income listed is just over $493,000 from Bannon Strategic Advisors, Inc. The New York Times notes:
"The disclosure suggests that Bannon Strategic Advisors served as an umbrella company for receiving fees he earned from interests in other companies such as Breitbart News, Cambridge Analytica and Glittering Steel, a company that produced the documentary "Clinton Cash," on which Ms. Mercer served as an executive producer, as well as ads for Republican candidates."
Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs
Gary Cohn, the National Economic Council director who is a former Goldman Sachs president, is one of the wealthiest members of Trump's team. He reported assets worth at least $254 million and income of at least $48.3 million over 2016 through early 2017, according to Bloomberg.
Cohn lists his 2016 salary from Goldman Sachs as $1.85 million with a cash bonus of $5.74 million from 2015. Adding in dividends and interest from Goldman-affiliated assets, Cohn made at least $40 million from the organization, according to the AP and CNBC.
He made more than $1 million — there are no details of how much more — from dividends from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.
Flynn and Russia
On Saturday, the White House released two forms detailing the assets of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The first, electronically signed by Flynn on Feb. 11, did not include details of payments he received from organizations linked to Russia.
Two days after that, he resigned as national security adviser after reports emerged about his meeting with Russia's ambassador and his misleading of Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about the meeting.
The second form, signed by Flynn on March 31, lists "speaking engagements" with RT TV, the Russian government-backed news network, cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Government Security Solutions, Inc. (the parent company, Kaspersky Labs, has underwritten NPR), and Volga-Dnepr Airlines. The payments are in the section labeled as "sources of compensation exceeding $5,000 in a year."
Last month, NPR's Jackie Northam reported that Flynn's income from the three organizations totaled more than $50,000, as detailed in separate documents released by congressional Democrats.
Flynn lists an income of at least $1.37 million on the more recent disclosure. Of that, he made $827,055 from Flynn Intel Group LLC, his consulting firm, which has been "inactive" since December.
Trump, Pence disclosures to come later
The disclosed documents provide a snapshot of each appointee's holdings as they took office. Many of the records showing subsequent divestitures or resignations will be released later this year. The White House says some appointees are still in the process of divesting assets.
Typically, appointees in a new administration hash out their financial agreements and divestitures before assuming public office. However, the Trump administration has announced a number of appointees before these negotiations took place. Data from the Office of Government Ethics has shown that compared with the Obama administration, the Trump White House has been much slower to submit its nominees' financial arrangements for review by OGE.
As Trump has appointed numerous hyper-wealthy individuals, the White House points out that its ethics lawyers have been working through highly complex financial arrangements. Estimates for the cumulative wealth of the Trump Cabinet by various media organizations have ranged from $6 billion to $14 billion.
The release of the financial disclosure forms is in compliance with a federal ethics law that requires high-ranking executive branch appointees to disclose their financial holdings and reach agreements with ethics officials. These agreements aim to ensure that none of the appointee's holdings conflict with his or her duties. Often, the agreements require a sale of assets, resignations from posts or recusals from handling particular matters.
The president and vice president, as elected officials, do have to file financial disclosures, but at a later time. The two of them are also exempt from many conflict-of-interest and ethics laws that apply to their staff.
NPR's Peter Overby and Tamara Keith contributed to this report. ||||| A massive release of disclosures on Friday night offers a unique glimpse into the lives of some of President Trump's highest-profile aides.
The financial disclosures detail the personal finances of about 180 senior White House staffers.
ADVERTISEMENT
The release revealed an administration stacked with millionaires , whose combined net worth exceeds $12 billion.
It also shed light on a number of interesting price tags, from the pricey wedding merchandise one top aide got from a reality TV show to the surprising six-figure salary of a former Breitbart reporter.
Here are seven attention-grabbing tidbits from the disclosures:
- Omarosa Manigault, a former contestant on Trump's reality show "The Apprentice" and now a top aide in the White House, was given an estimated $25,000 in merchandise from Kleinfeld Bridal for an appearance on the TLC show "Say Yes to the Dress."
- White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon earned as much as $100,000 from television show royalties, including from the popular 1990s show "Seinfeld" — the result of a decades-old deal involving the show's production company and Bannon's own investment bank.
- Bannon received more than $125,000 in consulting fees from Cambridge Analytica, where he served as vice president and secretary. Cambridge Analytica is largely funded by GOP megadonor Robert Mercer.
- Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway was paid more than $5,000 each for 66 different consulting jobs before taking her post in the White House.
- One of Bannon's top aides, Julia Hahn, made more than $117,000 in her previous job as a reporter for right-wing news site Breitbart News and another $74,000 as a producer for conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. In all, Hahn reported investments that could be worth as much as $2.5 million.
- KT McFarland, a former Fox News analyst and now Trump's deputy national security adviser, reported more than $125,000 in income last year from a number of speaking gigs. The payments are part of the millions of dollars in income and assets McFarland listed for her and her husband on her filings.
- The disclosures also revealed the vast wealth held by first daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, senior White House advisor Jared Kushner. They remain the beneficiaries to Kushner's family's real estate business, worth as much as $740 million.
Ivanka Trump's personal business trust, which encompasses her fashion brand, is worth more than $50 million, according to Kushner's financial disclosure. ||||| ■ Sebastian Gorka, a deputy assistant to Mr. Trump and a former editor at Breitbart News, reported consulting fees of $38,200 from Breitbart. He also reported royalties of $50,000 to $100,000 for his book “Defeating jihad: The Winnable War” — and also said that he signed a contract for a second book.
■ Boris Epshteyn, who served during the presidential campaign as one of Mr. Trump’s chief attack dogs and television talking heads, stills owes over $50,000 on college loans he took out more than a decade ago, his filing indicates. Recently, Mr. Epshteyn left his White House post under circumstances that were unclear.
■ Jason Greenblatt, the Trump Organization lawyer tasked with helping to bring peace to the Middle East, earned $1,025,000 in compensation from Mr. Trump’s company last year.
‘Very blessed and very successful.’
At his daily briefing on Friday, the White House press secretary Sean Spicer tried to put the best spin on the vast wealth that would be on display Friday night:
I think one of the really interesting things that people are going to see today — and I think it’s something that should be celebrated — is that the president has brought a lot of people into this administration, and this White House in particular, who have been very blessed and very successful by this country, and have given up a lot to come into government by setting aside a lot of assets. And I think it speaks volumes to the desire for a lot of these people to fulfill the president’s vision and move the agenda forward that they are willing to list all of their assets, undergo this public scrutiny, but also set aside a lot.
A Friday night document dump.
The White House disclosures fit an age-old pattern in Washington of dumping mountains of documents on Fridays, when normal people have left work and are beginning to enjoy their weekend. Not many are likely to be glued to their computers and television sets to track the wealth of White House officials.
After all, as Josh Lyman, the fictional White House deputy chief of staff on “The West Wing,” put it, “No one reads the paper on Saturday.”
A long list.
Here’s the list of the disclosure forms we’ve received so far:
Stephen K. Bannon, counselor to the president
Thomas Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism and deputy national security adviser
James W. Carroll, senior counsel
Justin Clark, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs | The White House released financial disclosures for dozens of its senior officials Friday, revealing that, as the AP notes, President Trump's advisers are "richer than previous White House officials." Some of the coverage surrounding the release: The New York Times takes a look at who's worth what. The AP has its own version. As both the Times and NPR note, the financial disclosures reveal that the financial situation of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump is particularly complicated. Even after resigning from hundreds of entities and selling off assets deemed to pose a conflict of interest, they're still holding on to a portfolio of at least $240 million in assets The documents also reveal that Steve Bannon earned more than $500,000 last year from entities tied to major GOP donors. Politico takes a look. And former national security adviser Michael Flynn made $1.3 million for lobbying and speeches, including speeches to Russian companies. The AP has more. ProPublica notes that the White House wasn't going to post the financial disclosures publicly, so the site, in partnership with the Times and the AP, did. They're sorted alphabetically here. The Washington Post says that ahead of the release, the White House "bragged" about how wealthy its staff is. Mic looks at some of the ethical concerns raised by the disclosures. Want more? The Hill has "7 interesting tidbits" from the documents. |
A lawsuit against Kathryn Stockett, the author of best-selling novel "The Help," has divided brother and sister in a dispute about the real-life identity of one of her fictional characters.
Ablene Cooper, the longtime nanny for Stockett's brother, has filed a $75,000 lawsuit against the author, claiming she was upset by the book that characterizes black maids working for white families in the family's hometown of Jackson, Miss., during the 1960s.
Cooper also once babysat for Stockett's daughter, according to the Jackson Clarion Ledger, and the lawsuit alleges that she had been assured by Stockett, 42, that her likeness would not be used in the book.
The 2009 novel was an instant favorite among book clubs, written in the voice of black "help" by a woman raised by maids herself and who is white.
Cooper, 60, maintains that the book's fictional character -- Aibileen Clark -- is her. She says the alleged unauthorized appropriation of her name and image is emotionally upsetting, and her employers, Carol and Robert Stockett III agree.
He is Kathryn Stockett's brother and employs Cooper as a nanny and maid.
The book focuses on the friendship of three women: a young white woman, Skeeter, who aspires to be a writer, and two African-American maids, Aibileen and Minny.
Aibileen speaks in heavy ethnic lingo and, in one passage, compares her skin color to that of a cockroach.
"That night after supper, me and that cockroach stare each other down across the kitchen floor," Aibileen says in the book. "He big, inch, inch an a half. He black. Blacker than me."
Cooper has said the portrayal of Aibileen -- an almost saintly figure who is subjected to the racial prejudices of the period -- is "embarrassing."
Syndicated columnist Clarence Page, who is-African American, said, "There is an old saying, 'You can joke about your own crowd, but not about someone else's.
"Whether you are writing for yourself or a poetic work of fiction, you take a risk; like if I tried to write a book with a Yiddish dialect," he said, noting that the book has generated mixed reaction.
But in addition to being mortified by the black patois, Cooper is angry that the character so closely resembles her in many details.
"Ain't too many Ablenes," Cooper, who was unavailable for an interview, told the New York Times.
"What she did, they said it was wrong," said Cooper, who looks after the Stocketts' two children. "They came to me and said, 'Ms. Abie, we love you, we support you,' and they told me to do what I got to do."
The character Aibileen is a "wise, regal woman raising her 17th white child," according to the book jacket flap. "Something has shifted inside her after the loss of her own son, who died while his bosses looked the other way."
Saintly Aibileen Has Gold Tooth Like Ablene
Cooper has said the likeness is uncanny. Besides their names, both maids have a gold tooth. Like the fictional Aibileen, she lost her son to cancer several months before the birth of the Stocketts' first child.
Her lawyer, Edward Sanders, who did not return calls from ABCNews.com, has said the similarities between both maids -- Aibileen and Ablene -- "seem very striking."
The lawsuit said the author's conduct "is not a mere insult, indignity, annoyance or trivial matter to Ablene. Kathryn Stockett's conduct has made Ablene feel violated, outraged and revulsed," according to the Jackson Clarion Ledger.
"Despite the fact that Kathryn Stockett had actual knowledge that using the name and likeness of Ablene in 'The Help' would be emotionally upsetting and highly offensive to Ablene, Kathryn Stockett negligently and-or intentionally and in reckless disregard for the rights and dignity of Ablene proceeded with her plans," it says.
"Kathryn Stockett's appropriation of Ablene's name and likeness was done for Kathryn Stockett's commercial advantage, namely to sell more copies of 'The Help.'"
The author's father, Robert Stockett Jr. of Jackson Miss., told ABCNews.com that he is "neutral" in the division between his son and daughter, but agreed that plenty of people are profiting, especially filmmakers who plan to release a movie version of the book this year.
The film, directed by Tate Taylor and starring Emma Stone, Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer, looks at what happens when a Southern town's unspoken code of rules and behavior is shattered by three women who strike an unlikely friendship. Shot in Mississippi, it is set for release in movie theaters Aug. 12.
"I don't have a position," he said, playfully correctly the reporter's pronunciation of Ablene. "It's AY-blene."
He also noted that his author daughter, who has moved north to Atlanta, "is also a New Yorker now." Stockett, a retired developer and lawyer, said he did not know her phone number.
"Sure, I liked the book. It's fiction. They didn't give me the critics' copy until it was too late," he said. "I would have got some factual things changed. But I'm low down the totem pole."
He charged media with "stirring up the pot" in the dispute between his son's maid and his daughter, adding that the ensuing publicity surrounding the feud would benefit his daughter financially.
"Kathryn will appreciate that she gets a cut," he said.
Publisher Says Novel Is 'Work of Fiction'
His son, Robert Stockett III, who is a real estate developer with Madison Properties, did not return telephone calls from ABCNews.com at his home or office.
The author also could not be reached but her husband, Keith Rogers, said from their home in Atlanta that he and his wife "don't know [Cooper] well."
"I know nothing about it [the lawsuit]," he said, referring ABCNews.com to his wife's publisher.
Amy Einhorn, whose imprint at Penguin Group USA published the book, was also unavailable, but she had earlier issued a prepared statement to the media: "This is a beautifully written work of fiction and we don't think there is any basis to the legal claims. We cannot comment further regarding ongoing litigation."
Stockton, herself, who has described the novel as, "fiction, by and large," admitted in several earlier interviews that the book had not been embraced enthusiastically in her hometown.
"Not everybody in Jackson, Mississippi's thrilled," she told Katie Couric last year, acknowledging that a few "close family members" were so unhappy that they were not talking to her.
One of Cooper's neighbors said she had not read "The Help," but had heard about the dispute on the television news.
"Miss Cooper is very friendly lady," said Emma Sims, 57, who is a substitute teacher. "We have had some neighborly conversations, but we have only talked three or four times. She's usually at work or at church."
The lawsuit, which was filed in Mississippi state court in Hinds County, asks for $75,000 with no punitive damages or other fees.
The author's father puts little stock in the suit.
"Ablene will probably be the last one to get a nickel out of it," Stockett Jr. said. "You can't buy that much for $75,000." ||||| It seems likely that no film since Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" has gotten so many moviegoers talking about the history of race and racism in America as has this summer's hit "The Help," which was adapted by writer-director Tate Taylor from his old friend Kathryn Stockett's best-selling novel. The contrast between the two is instructive, if not alarming. Lee's film was set in its own present tense, on the racially polarized streets of late-1980s Brooklyn, N.Y. Taylor's film, for all its evident strengths, is a candy-colored and wildly ahistorical voyage into the Jim Crow past, a mashup of "Steel Magnolias," "Mad Men" and "Mississippi Burning," with the fire confined to the kitchen.
When I wrote in my original review of "The Help" that it was "a Rorschach test that measures how you feel about the history of racial inequality in America," I really had no idea. I mean, "The Help" will make lots of money and is well positioned to clean up in awards season, but its real function in society is as a conversation-starter (and a Twitter hashtag), whether you're male, female, black, white or both/neither. Roll "Captain America" and the new "Transformers" movie and "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" into a ball, and you don't have one-tenth the heated debate produced by "The Help." It has been passionately attacked and almost as passionately defended; the Association of Black Women Historians generated more ink in one day than the organization has received throughout its existence by publishing an angry takedown of "The Help's" historical, moral and narrative shortcomings.
I've already had my say, and clarified my personal mixed-to-positive reaction to "The Help" as best I could. This is something else: An attempt to classify the major memes and themes in the divided critical response to "The Help," and to offer supporting arguments from some of the film's most vehement lovers and haters in the media. Even if "The Help" is about life in Jackson, Miss., in the early 1960s -- and I have my doubts that it's really about that -- the story of the reactions it produces is a story of 2011, when Jim Crow is dead and buried and a black man lives in the White House, but when we may not have come quite as far as we like to think.
"The Help" is a condescending fable for white liberals, or at least a story that congratulates white viewers "for not being horrible racists."
That quoted phrase comes from Scott Tobias of the A.V. Club, whose review pithily summarizes the principal line of attack against "The Help." As my Salon colleague Matt Zoller Seitz has put it, "The Help" is "yet another reminder that when mainstream cinema depicts discrimination, it tends to ask the same two questions: 'How did this affect white people?' and 'Aren't you glad you're not bigoted like the creeps in this movie?'"
In fairness, even most critics who like the movie would agree that its principal audience is white people, and that it's a mainstream Hollywood entertainment package that's intended to reassure and uplift its viewers, not to challenge them directly. As we'll see later, the question of how you interpret that undisputed fact is central to your reaction to the film.
Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe, who is arguably the most prominent African-American film critic, didn't despise "The Help" or anything, but agrees that it "joins everything from 'To Kill a Mockingbird' to 'The Blind Side' as another Hollywood movie that sees racial progress as the province of white do-gooderism."
Andrew Schenker of Slant magazine goes further, saying that the film places its (presumably white) viewer "in a superior position where he or she is free to -- and indeed expected to -- respond with a facile round of laughter at those benighted whites of a bygone era." For Sara Maria Vizcarrondo of Boxoffice magazine, the problem is even worse; she calls the film "a chick-flick for do-gooders" and suggests (I think hyperbolically) that "its treatment of inequality is more condescending than the prejudice it aims to remedy."
No, "The Help" is a story of everyday liberation, of tiny steps toward equality and freedom, and about "the form that activism could take among women who weren't activists."
That quote comes from Entertainment Weekly critic Owen Gleiberman, who followed up his glowing original review with a lengthy blog post at EW.com titled "Is 'The Help' a condescending movie for white liberals?" defending Taylor's film from a whole litany of criticisms, including those of the black female historians' group. Whether or not you buy his arguments, the whole thing is well worth reading, especially since Gleiberman agrees, in general terms, with the Seitz-Morris argument that Hollywood too often frames racial issues as condescending, white-centered pablum. "The movie's central narrative mechanism," Gleiberman writes, "whereby a well-meaning college graduate named Skeeter (Emma Stone) interviews the maids of Jackson for an anonymous tell-all book about their experiences, seems to conform to the conventional, patronizing arc of a white heroine lending a noble hand of assistance to black characters who couldn't, without her help, have done it on their own." But in this case, he goes on, analyzing the film in those terms isn't fair.
If you forget about what "The Help" looks like it adds up to "on paper," and if you actually watch what's up there on screen, what you'll see is a movie that is tender, biting, honest, surprising, and far, far more curious and morally adventurous about race than many have given it credit for. The key to the film's power, and its originality, is this: It's a movie not about taking bold crusader's stands -- which, at this point, wouldn't be a bold movie to make anyway -- but about the low-key, day-to-day, highly ambivalent intimacy of black/white relationships in the Deep South. It's about what really goes on in middle-class households between the lines of the most seemingly ordinary encounters.
Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer describes "The Help" more succinctly, but in similar terms: "Like its characters, it has its faults. But overall, it is a movie of imaginative sympathy that gets into the skin of its characters, into their hearts, and, ultimately, into ours."
Mike Scott of the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote one of the more peculiar reviews of "The Help," an enthusiastic rave that, along the way, acknowledges that the movie's relationship to history is highly dubious and that it's a fairy tale primarily directed at a white female audience. "'The Help' isn't intended to be so much a movie about the ugliness of the era than an optimistic tale of what can spring from that kind of ugliness, about the ability of people to love one another even when they're surrounded by hatred. And on that level, 'The Help' succeeds wonderfully, a warm and sweet song of hope -- and chocolate pie -- that pushes all the right buttons." (Viewers of the film, and readers of Stockett's novel, will already know what's really in that infamous pie.)
The main character, and central audience focal point, is Skeeter, Emma Stone's do-gooder college-graduate journalist, continuing Hollywood's long tradition of depicting the civil rights era as a major crisis in the lives of white people.
Matt Zoller Seitz describes "The Help" as "the story of a perky proto-feminist writer cajoling black women into standing up for themselves by telling her their stories and letting her publish them in book form. It's about what a good-hearted and tenacious person Skeeter is, and how lucky the maids are to have met her." Skeeter's book, in itself a version of Stockett's novel transformed into period-inappropriate nonfiction, is "a fictional flourish that feels like a college-educated white liberal's wish-fulfillment fantasy of how she would have conducted herself had she been time-warped back to the civil rights era."
As Wesley Morris puts it, "Skeeter enjoys all the self-discovery and all the credit. She cracks the mystery of her missing childhood maid (Cicely Tyson). She finds a career at a moment in which women rarely had them. And she changes the lives of a couple of dozen black women whose change is refracted primarily through her."
No, the main character is really Aibilene, the long-suffering maid played by Viola Davis who eventually agrees to tell her story to Skeeter (with support from Octavia Spencer as the feisty Minny, who believes that revenge is a dish best served within pie crust).
You can find literally dozens of reviews of "The Help" that say, yes, the movie may be a mediocre and implausible melodrama with a soft-focus view of history, but Davis' sure-to-be-Oscar-nominated performance as Aibilene lifts it above itself. Manohla Dargis of the New York Times writes: "Ms. Davis keeps her cool even as she warms your heart and does her job, often beautifully. She doesn't just turn Aibileen, something of a blur in the novel, into a fully dimensional character, she also helps lift up several weaker performances and invests this cautious, at times bizarrely buoyant, movie with the gravity it frequently seems to want to shrug off."
My former colleague Stephanie Zacharek, always a brilliant commentator on the acting craft, discusses Davis at length in her Movieline review. "In 'The Help,' [Davis] plays a house maid, the kind of role that African-American actresses used to be relegated to and limited by. But the whole idea of 'The Help' is that a maid isn't just a maid, and Davis and her co-star, Octavia Spencer, breathe life into that idea. These are women with families and heartaches of their own, problems that go deeper than the travails of the women they're paid to serve, which mostly seem to revolve around entertaining and maintaining social status. The 'black maid' may be a cliché. But when was the last time we saw a story told from her point of view?"
How far have we really come in the 21st century if the best roles for black women we'll see in a Hollywood movie all year long will be playing classic Hattie McDaniel roles as "colored maids" in Jim Crow-era Mississippi?
Zacharek's remarks offer a rebuttal to this, of course, and Gleiberman addresses this idea at some length. But let's go back to the statement issued by the Association of Black Women Historians, which reads, in part: "'The Help' distorts, ignores, and trivializes the experiences of black domestic workers ... 'The Help's' representation of these women is a disappointing resurrection of Mammy -- a mythical stereotype of black women who were compelled, either by slavery or segregation, to serve white families. Portrayed as asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites, the caricature of Mammy allowed mainstream America to ignore the systemic racism that bound black women to back-breaking, low paying jobs where employers routinely exploited them."
Wesley Morris builds on this by writing: "The best film roles three black women will have all year require one of them to clean Ron Howard's daughter's house. [Bryce Dallas Howard plays Hilly, the story's racist arch-villain.] It's self-reinforcing movie imagery. White boys have always been Captain America. Black women, in one way or another, have always been someone's maid."
Sure, there have been a zillion films about the civil rights era, but "The Help" is something new: an intimate portrait of the lived experience of segregation and the first stirrings of resistance against it, as experienced by ordinary women, black and white.
This actually strikes me as an underdeveloped area of the "Help" discussion -- the fact that, as an unabashed "women's film," and one that interrogates the role white women played as simultaneously the porous border of segregation and its day-to-day enforcers, it stands out from the male-centric world of the conventional civil rights drama. Gleiberman calls the movie "a sprawling ensemble piece that asks everyone in the audience -- black and white, women and men -- to identify with everyone on screen ... Every woman in it has her own way of looking at the world, and the movie wants you to understand how those viewpoints all jostle and mesh and collide."
In her spirited defense of the movie and Stockett's novel, my Salon colleague Mary Elizabeth Williams writes: "One of the most repeated images of 'The Help' is a simple tableau of two women of different backgrounds and colors, just talking. Asking questions. Trying to understand. And that, to me, is the heart of the film. It's not about the big news stories of the early civil-rights era -- it's a story about having difficult and necessary exchanges about race."
No, "The Help" is in no way anything new; it's a facile, feel-good entertainment that glosses over the painful history of race in America and ducks all the toughest questions. Still, it works on its own terms and I kinda liked it.
A wide swath of critics -- and, no doubt, of ordinary moviegoers -- fall into this camp. Even such negative reviewers as Scott Tobias and Wesley Morris grudgingly admit that "The Help" is effective pop entertainment. Dana Stevens of Slate calls the film "a Barbie Band-Aid on the still-raw wound of race relations in America," but then goes on to write this thoughtful conclusion:
Part of me wants to say that it's fine for "The Help," book and movie, to exist as a pop-cultural phenomenon. The story simplifies and reduces the civil rights movement, yes, but at least it's about it. That's not nothing given the insulated bubble in which most movies marketed at women take place (the blithely apolitical "Eat Pray Love" comes to mind). The Help raises the eternal question faced by minority groups who have to fight for space onscreen (that is to say, anyone but white men): Do we count ourselves glad to make any inroads we can, or do we demand rich, nuanced, subtle representations right from the start? I get the feeling that 'The Help's' reception will be sharply divided by that question -- a division which may in itself be this movie's most valuable contribution.
And leave it to the commonsensical Roger Ebert -- the Great Communicator of movie criticism -- to condense all these points of view into one straightforward paragraph: "This is a good film, involving and wonderfully acted. I was drawn into the characters and quite moved, even though all the while I was aware it was a feel-good fable, a story that deals with pain but doesn't care to be that painful. We don't always go to the movies for searing truth, but more often for reassurance: Yes, racism is vile and cruel, but hey, not all white people are bad." | Author Kathryn Stockett's best-seller The Help borrows a little too heavily from real life and from one life in particular, according to a nanny suing the author. Ablene Cooper says the book's character "Aibeleen"—who, like her, is a middle-aged black nanny with a gold tooth whose son died before she started working for her employers—is based on her and she finds the portrayal humiliating, ABC News reports. Cooper works for Stockett's brother, who has taken the nanny's side in the dispute. "Ain’t too many Ablenes," says Cooper. She is seeking $75,000 from Stockett and says she asked the author not to use her name or likeness. The lawsuit doesn't request punitive damages or attorneys' fees. Stockett ignored the request, despite knowing that doing so would be "emotionally upsetting and highly offensive to Ablene," Cooper's lawyer says. The novel, set in Jackson, Mississippi, during the early '60s, has been made into a movie that will be released this summer. (Click for more on the 'dirty secrets' of The Help.) |
FMS is the government’s financial manager, central disburser, and collections agency as well as its accountant and reporter of financial information. For fiscal year 1997, FMS reported processing over 850 million disbursements totaling over $1 trillion for a wide variety of expenses, including Social Security and veterans benefits payments, IRS tax refunds, federal employee salaries, and vendor billings. With several exceptions (the largest being the Department of Defense), FMS makes disbursements for all federal agencies. FMS is also responsible for administering the world’s largest collections system. Each year, the government collects over $1.5 trillion from sources such as individual and corporate income tax deposits, customs duties, loan repayments, fines, and proceeds from leases. FMS maintains a network of about 18,000 financial institutions to help collect these revenues. In addition, FMS oversees the federal government’s central accounting and reporting systems to reconcile and keep track of the federal government’s assets and liabilities. Financial and budget execution information from these central systems is used by FMS to publish financial reports that are used by the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, other federal agencies, and others who make financial decisions on behalf of the U.S. government. FMS maintains a wide array of financial and information systems to help it process and reconcile monies disbursed and collected by the various government agencies. Multiple banking, collection, and disbursement systems are also used to process agency transactions, capture relevant data, transfer funds to/from the Treasury, and facilitate the reconciliation of these transactions. FMS has data centers at six regional financial centers that are responsible for issuing paper check and electronic funds transfer payments. In addition, FMS relies on a network of contractors and FRBs to help carry out its financial management responsibilities. The FMS Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, Information Resources, are responsible for overseeing the development, implementation, and operation of the organizationwide information data processing systems, including the establishment of appropriate general computer controls. Individual system users, such as FMS financial operations and federal finance staff located in Washington, D.C., and the six regional financial centers, civilian federal agencies, FRBs, contractor staff, and commercial bank staff are also responsible for overseeing and ensuring the security of individual systems and information under their purview. Our objectives were to evaluate and report on the general computer controls over key financial systems maintained and operated by FMS and its contractors. These systems process collections and disbursements and provide financial and budget reports for the federal government. Specifically, we evaluated general controls intended to protect data, files, programs, and equipment from unauthorized access, modification, and destruction; provide adequate segregation of (1) duties involving applications and system programmers and (2) responsibilities for computer operations, security, and quality assurance; prevent the introduction of unauthorized changes to systems and ensure recovery of computer processing operations in case of a disaster or other unexpected interruption; and ensure that an effective entitywide computer security planning and management program is in place. To evaluate general controls, we identified and reviewed FMS’ general computer control policies and procedures; conducted tests and observations of controls in operation; and held discussions with staff at the locations visited to determine whether the general controls were in place, adequately designed, and operating effectively. In addition, we attempted to obtain access to sensitive data and programs from within and outside the organization. These attempts were performed with the knowledge and cooperation of FMS officials. To assist in our evaluation and testing of computer controls, we contracted with the independent public accounting firm Price Waterhouse, LLP (now PricewaterhouseCoopers). We determined the scope of the contractor’s audit work, monitored its progress, and reviewed the related working papers to ensure that the findings were adequately supported. During the course of our work, we communicated our interim detailed findings and recommended corrective actions to FMS management and its contractors who informed us of the corrective actions they planned to take or had taken to address the findings we identified. We performed additional work to assess the status of any corrective actions taken as of September 30, 1997. These results were also communicated to FMS. We performed our work at FMS data centers located throughout the United States. We performed our work from March 1997 through January 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the Treasury or his designee. On September 24, 1998, the Assistant Fiscal Assistant Secretary provided us with oral comments. These comments are summarized in the “Agency Comments” section of this report. Our review of FMS’ general computer controls identified numerous weaknesses that place FMS’ financial systems at significant risk of unauthorized access, improper modification, loss, and disclosure. These weaknesses include inappropriate access to computer programs, data, and equipment; inadequate segregation of duties; improper application and systems software development and change control procedures; and incomplete or untested service continuity and contingency plans. Access controls are designed to limit or detect access to computer programs, data, equipment, and facilities to protect these resources from unauthorized modification, loss, and disclosure. Such controls include logical, system software, and physical controls. Logical controls include user identifications (ID), passwords, or other identifiers and security software programs. Logical controls restrict the access of legitimate users to the specific systems, programs, and files they need to conduct their work and to prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to computing resources. Controls over access to and modification of system software are essential to protect the overall integrity and reliability of information systems. Physical security controls include locks, guards, badges, alarms, and similar measures (used alone or in combination) that help to safeguard computer facilities and resources from espionage, sabotage, damage, and theft. Our review of FMS’ access controls identified a number of weaknesses at all of the sites we visited. Those weaknesses included data centers that (1) granted excessive and powerful systems privileges to users who did not need such access, (2) did not manage the administration of passwords and user IDs effectively, (3) were not applying security system parameters so as to provide optimum security or appropriate segregation of duties, and (4) were not monitoring and controlling dial-in access to local area networks and the mainframe environments. For example: System operators were given unneeded access to program utility products used to perform maintenance to operating system code, production source code, and production data, exposing the data center to the risk of unauthorized changes to system software or data. The user IDs of terminated employees were not removed from the system on the dates of termination and one showed activity after that date, thus increasing the risk of unauthorized access to system resources. A substantial number of agency user IDs have not been used for an extended period, increasing the risk that intruders could use these accounts to gain unauthorized access to system resources. All users, including programmers and computer operators at one data center, have the capability to read sensitive production data, such as security-setting tables and tax payment information, increasing the risk that sensitive information may be disclosed to unauthorized individuals. In addition, physical security controls at four of the sites we visited were not sufficient to control physical access to these centers. In particular, we found that production staff, terminated employees, vendors, and other individuals without justified business or job-related purposes had unrestricted access to computer facilities, equipment, and tape libraries. The risks created by these control weaknesses were heightened because FMS was not adequately managing and monitoring user access activities. In some instances, program managers and security personnel did not periodically monitor and evaluate user access rights, security violations, and software security settings. FMS is also at risk that unauthorized activities, such as corruption of financial data, disclosure of sensitive data, or introduction of malicious programs or unauthorized modifications of software, will go undetected. Another key control for safeguarding programs and data is to ensure that duties and responsibilities for authorizing, processing, recording, and reviewing data, as well as initiating, modifying, migrating, and testing of programs, are separated to reduce the risk that errors or fraud will occur and go undetected. Duties that should be appropriately segregated include applications and system programming and responsibilities for computer operations, security, and quality assurance. Policies outlining the assignment of these responsibilities to groups and related individuals should be documented, communicated, and enforced. We found segregation of duty weaknesses at three of the seven sites we visited. These weaknesses primarily involved programmers (both systems and applications programmers) who served as backup computer operations staff and had access rights to production data and systems programmers who served as backup security officers and could alter security functions and access system resources. Duties that are not appropriately segregated significantly increase the risk that improper program changes could be made or computer data and systems resources could be altered, damaged, or destroyed. Because FMS’ activities involve extremely large volumes of monetary transactions, erroneous or fraudulent program or data changes could potentially result in significant financial losses to the federal government. Controls over the design, development, and modification of system software help to ensure that all programs and program modifications are properly authorized, tested, and approved. Such controls also help prevent security features from being inadvertently or deliberately turned off and processing irregularities or malicious code from being introduced. We found application software development and change control procedure weaknesses at six of the seven FMS sites that we visited. A significant weakness at most of the sites we visited was that policies and procedures over system design, development, and modification were not established, were inadequate, or were simply not being followed. Specifically, procedures for making changes to system software did not require (1) written authorizations prior to making the changes, (2) written test plans, (3) independent testing of changes, or (4) authorization to migrate system software changes from the test environment to production; programmers compile their own source code, which was not independently recompiled to ensure that only authorized changes made to programs are moved into production; and adequate documentation was not maintained to provide evidence of compliance with application change control policies and procedures. Without adequate control over application software development and change control procedures, FMS runs a greater risk that software supporting its operations will not (1) produce reliable data, (2) execute transactions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and management policies, or (3) effectively meet operational needs. An organization’s ability to accomplish its mission can be significantly affected if it loses the ability to process, retrieve, and protect information that is maintained electronically. For this reason, organizations should have (1) established procedures for protecting information resources and minimizing the risk of unplanned interruptions and (2) contingency plans for recovering critical operations should interruptions occur. A contingency plan specifies emergency response, backup operations, and postdisaster recovery procedures to ensure the availability of critical resources and facilitate the continuity of operations in an emergency situation. It addresses how an organization will deal with a full range of contingencies, from electrical power failures to catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, floods, and fires. The plan also identifies essential business functions and ranks resources in order of criticality. To be most effective, a contingency plan should be periodically tested and employees should be trained in and familiar with its use. In reviewing FMS’ service continuity and contingency planning, we found that FMS does not have a centralized service continuity and contingency plan that includes its multiple contractors and regional financial centers and four of the data centers visited had not developed and tested service continuity and contingency plans covering all aspects of their mission-critical functions. Weaknesses in FMS’ service continuity and contingency planning provide FMS with little assurance that during a crisis (1) the cost of recovery efforts or the reestablishment of operations at a remote location will be kept to a minimum, (2) financial data will not be lost, (3) transactions will be processed accurately and correctly, and (4) complete and accurate financial or management information will be readily available. The overriding reason general control problems existed at FMS was because it does not have an effective entitywide computer security planning and management program to oversee organizationwide security efforts, ensure that adequate controls are established, and ensure that computer security receives adequate attention. Our study of security management practices of eight nonfederal organizations found that these organizations successfully managed their information security risks through an ongoing cycle of risk management activities. As shown in figure 1, each of these activities is linked in a cycle to help ensure that business risks are continually monitored, policies and procedures are regularly updated, and controls are in effect. The risk management cycle begins with an assessment of risks and a determination of needs. This assessment includes selecting cost-effective policies and related controls. Once policies and controls are selected, they must be implemented. The policies and controls, as well as the risks that prompted their adoption, must next be communicated to those responsible for complying with them. Finally, and perhaps most important, there must be procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of policies and related controls and reporting the resulting conclusions to those who can take appropriate corrective action. In addition, our study found that a strong central security management focal point can help ensure that the major elements of the risk management cycle are carried out and can serve as a communications link among organizational units. FMS’ approach to computer security planning and management lacked adequate written policies and procedures for security administration; routine management reviews of (1) security exception and violation reports, (2) password maintenance and the related timely removal of terminated employee or dormant user IDs, and (3) user access verification and recertification processes; and management enforcement of established security policies and procedures. These weaknesses in security planning and management expose FMS to the risk that other general control weaknesses could occur and not be detected in a timely manner to prevent unnecessary losses or disruptions. Because FRBs are integral to the operations of FMS, we assessed general controls over FMS financial systems and application controls over four key FMS financial applications maintained and operated by FRBs. Overall, we found these controls were effective. However, we found several vulnerabilities in general and application controls that require FRB management’s attention and action. These include vulnerabilities in general controls involving (1) access to systems, programs, and data, including unauthorized external access, and (2) service continuity and contingency planning. We also found a vulnerability in access controls over one of the applications. We are providing the details of these matters in a separate report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System along with our recommendation for improvements. FRB management has informed us that FRBs have taken or plan to take corrective actions to address the vulnerabilities we identified. We plan to follow up on these matters during our audit of the federal government’s fiscal year 1998 consolidated financial statements. The Year 2000 date conversion poses a challenge for many organizations, including federal agencies. The Year 2000 problem is rooted in the way dates are recorded and calculated in many computer systems. For the past several decades, systems have typically used two digits to represent the year in order to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. With this two-digit format, however, the year 2000 is indistinguishable from the year 1900. As a result, system or application programs that use dates to perform calculations, comparisons, or sorting may generate incorrect results when working with years after 1999. Because FMS’ core business processes involve information systems, it is critical that FMS ensure that its mission-critical and key financial management systems are Year 2000 compliant. FMS officials have stated that they are continuing to make progress in assessing and converting systems for Year 2000 transition. A review of such actions was not included in the scope of our work performed to evaluate and test FMS computer controls. We are working with the Congress and the executive branch to monitor the progress being made by federal agencies and identify specific recommendations for resolving the Year 2000 problem. In connection with this work, we will review FMS’ actions. FMS does not have effective general controls in place to protect critical computer systems, programs, and data from inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, alteration, or destruction. Because of the large volume of transactions, the significance of the related amounts involved, and the number of weaknesses identified at the FMS data centers we visited, we consider FMS’ general computer control problems a material weakness. Moreover, FMS has not instituted a proactive approach for identifying, deterring, and responding to computer control weaknesses in a timely manner. To improve weaknesses in general controls cited in our July 31, 1998, “Limited Official Use” version of this report, we recommended that you direct the Commissioner of the Financial Management Service, along with the FMS Information Resources Assistant Commissioner, to take the following actions. Correct the individual weaknesses that we identified and communicated to FMS management during our testing, which were summarized in the “Limited Official Use” report. Assign responsibility and accountability for correcting each weakness to designated individuals. These individuals should report to the Commissioner on the status of all weaknesses, including actions taken to correct them. Work with other appropriate assistant commissioners to ensure that an effective entitywide security planning and management program is in place. This program should include the following elements: (1) a strong central security management focal point to ensure that major elements of a risk management program are carried out and to provide a communications link among organizational units, (2) periodic risk assessments and needs determinations, (3) policy and controls implementation, (4) promotion of computer control awareness through training and other attention-getting techniques, and (5) evaluation and monitoring of policy and control effectiveness. Work with the Federal Reserve Banks to implement the corrective actions that we identified and communicated to them during our testing related to FMS systems that FRBs support. Identify the computer control weaknesses discussed in the “Limited Official Use” report as a material weakness in FMS’ fiscal year 1998 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act report and subsequent reports until they are corrected. Treasury agreed with our findings and recommendations. Treasury stated that FMS has planned or already taken actions to correct many of the individual weaknesses that we identified and communicated to FMS management during our testing, which were summarized in the “Limited Official Use” report. We will evaluate FMS’ efforts to address these matters during our audit of the federal government’s fiscal year 1998 consolidated financial statements. We are sending copies of this report to the Commissioner of the Financial Management Service; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means; and the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government; Senate Committee on Finance; Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Senate Committee on the Budget; Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, House Committee on Appropriations; House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology; and House Committee on the Budget. We will send copies to others upon request. This work was performed under the direction of Gary T. Engel, Associate Director, Governmentwide Accounting and Financial Management Issues, who can be reached at (202) 512-3406. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix I. Christine A. Robertson, Assistant Director Paula M. Rascona, Audit Manager Gregory C. Wilshusen, Assistant Director—Technical Advisor The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the effectiveness of general computer controls over key financial systems used by the Financial Management Service (FMS). GAO noted that: (1) general computer control weaknesses at FMS and its contractor data centers place the data maintained in its financial systems at significant risk of unauthorized modification, disclosure, loss, or impairment; (2) because of the large volume of transactions, the significance of the related amounts involved, and the number of weaknesses identified at the FMS data centers visited, GAO considers FMS' general computer control problems a material weakness; (3) the general control weaknesses GAO found included: (a) inappropriate access to computer programs, data, and equipment; (b) inadequate segregation of duties; (c) improper application software development and change control procedures; and (d) incomplete or untested service continuity and contingency plans; (4) ineffective general computer control weaknesses place billions of dollars of payments and collections at risk of fraud; (5) these weaknesses existed primarily because FMS does not have an effective entitywide computer security planning and management program to ensure that: (a) computer controls are working and are reliable; (b) established policies and procedures are followed; (c) identified deficiencies are timely corrected; and (d) errors or fraudulent transactions are timely detected; (6) FMS has already corrected some of the weaknesses that GAO identified; (7) although FMS management is continuing to correct weaknesses GAO identified, FMS cannot ensure on an ongoing basis that weaknesses will be timely detected and corrected until it has an effective entitywide security management program; and (8) such a program, if implemented effectively across the organization, would go a long way in helping FMS to identify and promptly address its computer control weaknesses. |
Between 1972 and 1990 the presence of foreign banks in the United States increased rapidly—from 105 offices and subsidiary banks with $95 billion in assets in 1972 (measured in 1995 dollars) to 737 offices and subsidiary banks with $933 billion in assets (measured in 1995 dollars) at the end of 1990. Since then their number has fallen and growth in the volume of their assets has slowed. At the end of 1995, there were 656 foreign bank offices and foreign-owned subsidiary banks with $974 billion in assets in the United States. Including an additional 247 representative offices, 371 foreign banks had a presence in the United States. Branches and agencies are the most common organizational forms—accounting for about 78 percent of foreign bank assets at the end of 1995. (See table 1.) Foreign-owned U.S. bank subsidiaries held over 21 percent of foreign bank assets. Commercial lending companies and Edge Act/Agreement Corporations accounted for less than 1 percent of foreign bank assets, and representative offices held no banking assets. U.S. branches and agencies are legal and operational extensions of their parent foreign banks and as such have no capital of their own. They may conduct a wide range of banking activities, including lending, money market services, trade financing, and other activities related to the service of foreign and U.S. clients. They can also access the U.S. payments system through the Federal Reserve and obtain other Federal Reserve services. Branches and agencies of foreign banks may be either state-licensed and therefore regulated and supervised by the respective state banking department, or federally licensed and regulated and supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). As of December 1995, 473 branches and agencies were state-licensed and 72 were federally licensed. In addition, 41 of the branches were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and thus subject to additional supervision by FDIC. U.S. bank subsidiaries of foreign banks are U.S.-chartered banks that have all the powers of U.S.-owned banks. They are insured by FDIC and are subject to all the rules and regulations governing U.S.-owned banks. Their assets and liabilities are separate from those of their parent foreign banks, and they must maintain their own capital in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations. They may be either state or federally chartered. Branches and agencies of foreign banks were first subject to federal regulation with passage of the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA). Adopting a policy of national treatment, IBA sought to allow foreign banks with branches and agencies to operate in the United States on an equal basis with U.S. banking organizations. Foreign banks were to receive neither significant advantages nor incur significant disadvantages. The act also gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for overseeing the combined U.S. operations of foreign banks. Although IBA substantially equalized the treatment of the U.S. operations of foreign and U.S. banks, it did not require prior federal review of foreign bank entry into the U.S. market nor did it permit a federal role in the termination of a state-licensed branch or agency. Cases of fraud and other criminal activity by some foreign banks in the 1980s and early 1990s convinced the Federal Reserve and Congress that both state and federal supervisors needed to increase the attention they paid to foreign banks operating in the United States. In particular, Federal Reserve officials believed that prior federal review of foreign bank entry and expansion in the U.S. market was necessary. They also believed that a federal role in terminating a state-licensed branch or agency for unsafe and unsound banking practices was desirable. In December 1991, Congress passed FBSEA. This act, which amended IBA, increased federal supervision of all foreign bank operations, giving the Federal Reserve authority to examine all foreign bank offices in the United States. FBSEA also mandated uniform standards for foreign banks establishing operations in the United States. Finally, it prohibited U.S. branches of foreign banks from obtaining deposit insurance and gave federal supervisors greater enforcement authority over the U.S. operations of foreign banks. FBSEA also directed the Federal Reserve to levy examination fees on foreign banks with a U.S. branch, agency, or representative office. However, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 imposed a 3-year moratorium on this provision. FBSEA increased the Federal Reserve’s supervisory and regulatory power over foreign banks by requiring Federal Reserve approval for all foreign banks seeking to establish U.S. offices, whether licensed by state or federal authorities. This requirement was designed to give the Federal Reserve, as the agency responsible for overall supervision of foreign banks in the United States, a role in determining whether such institutions may establish a U.S. banking presence. FBSEA established uniform standards for foreign banks entering the United States, requiring them to meet financial, managerial, and operational standards similar to those of U.S. banking organizations. The act made the Federal Reserve responsible for ensuring that these standards are met. Under FBSEA, foreign banks must meet two standards in order to establish a branch or an agency, or to acquire ownership or control of a commercial lending company. First, the Federal Reserve must determine that the foreign bank applicant (and any parent foreign bank) engages directly in the business of banking outside the United States and is subject to comprehensive supervision or regulation on a consolidated basis by its home country supervisor. Second, the foreign bank must furnish to the Federal Reserve the information that the Federal Reserve requires in order to assess the application adequately. In addition to the two mandatory standards, the Federal Reserve also considers other factors. Among others, these include (1) whether the applicant’s home country authorities have consented to the establishment of the proposed office, (2) the applicant’s financial and managerial resources, including its capacity to engage in international banking, and (3) whether the applicant has provided adequate assurances that it will provide access to information sufficient to allow the Federal Reserve to determine its compliance with applicable U.S. laws. Before FBSEA, the states were responsible for licensing representative offices and, at the federal level, applicants only had to register their office with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. FBSEA gave the Federal Reserve authority to approve establishment of these offices as well. However, it did not require the Federal Reserve to apply the standards mandated to establish other banking offices to its decisions regarding applications for representative offices. The Federal Reserve is to take these standards into account in evaluating a foreign bank’s application to establish a representative office, but it can approve applications where the parent foreign bank does not meet all of the standards required to establish a branch or agency. Before FBSEA, foreign banks wishing to establish a branch or agency in the United States were required to obtain approval from the appropriate banking regulator—OCC—for federal branches and agencies, or the state regulator for state branches and agencies. Since FBSEA, a foreign bank must also receive approval from the Federal Reserve. To receive approval from the Federal Reserve, a foreign bank must submit an application to the reserve bank located in the district where it plans to establish an office or to its already designated “responsible” reserve bank. A copy of its OCC or state application and any additional information necessary for the Federal Reserve to determine that the bank meets the standards set out in FBSEA are to be included in the application. The application is not to be accepted (i.e., deemed informationally complete) until these criteria are met. Once the application is accepted for processing, it is reviewed by staff and submitted to the Board for action. Before March 1993, applications were reviewed solely by the reserve bank before they were accepted. If an application lacked information, the reserve bank requested the applicant bank to provide the information. After the reserve bank determined that it had all necessary information to process the application, it was accepted and forwarded to the Board for review and disposition. At this point the Board could request additional information. This process often resulted in delays and multiple requests for additional information. In March 1993, the Federal Reserve issued guidelines changing its procedures for processing applications to establish U.S. offices of foreign banks. The changes were intended to expedite processing and reduce the burden on applicants of responding to multiple requests for additional information. The guidelines require the reserve bank to send copies of the application to the Board within one business day of receiving an application. Both the reserve bank and Board staffs are then to simultaneously review the application to ensure that the information is complete. If additional information is needed, coordinated requests are to be made to the applicant bank before the application is accepted. The guidelines also established time limits for Federal Reserve staff to review applications and ask for additional information. The reserve bank and Board staffs are to review an application and request additional information from the applicant bank within 15 business days of receipt of the application by the reserve bank. The applicant bank then has 20 business days to respond to these requests. If the applicant bank does not respond within that time, the application would normally be returned due to insufficient information. If the applicant responds within the time limit, the reserve bank and Board staffs have an additional 10 business days either to accept the application as complete or to request additional information. If additional information is requested, the applicant bank similarly has 10 business days to respond. The Federal Reserve encourages all foreign bank applicants to meet with reserve bank and/or Board staffs before filing applications. These meetings are intended to identify relevant issues, apprise applicants of required information, and enable Federal Reserve staffs to obtain necessary information at an early stage of the process. Once the reserve bank and Board staffs determine that the application is complete and it is accepted, the Federal Reserve has an internal guideline of 60 days to analyze it, have background checks completed, and make inquiries to home country authorities. After these tasks are completed, the application is to be presented to the Board for action. If the application cannot be presented for Board action within the 60-day period, the applicant is to be informed in writing of the reasons. As of January 29, 1996, the Federal Reserve had received 96 applications from foreign banks seeking to establish offices or bank subsidiaries under FBSEA. The Federal Reserve had approved 45 applications, had returned or applicant banks had withdrawn 23, and 28 were under review. Of the 45 applications approved by the Federal Reserve, 6 were for agencies, 15 for branches, 18 for representative offices, and 8 for bank acquisitions. The approved applications represented banks from 23 countries. Taiwan accounted for the most—7 of the 45 applications. In its decisions approving the applications for branches and agencies and subsidiary banks, the Federal Reserve found that the foreign banks had met the standards required under FBSEA and its implementing regulations. The Federal Reserve’s decisions indicated that the applicants had provided the necessary information, had met all conditions concerning their intended operation, and were in compliance with the requirements for approval. The Federal Reserve’s policy, as required by FBSEA, is to use the standards that apply to branches and agencies as guidance when considering an application to establish a representative office. Federal Reserve regulations do not require these standards to be met in every case because representative offices differ from branches and agencies in that representative offices cannot engage in a banking business and cannot take deposits or make loans. Federal Reserve staff told us that, in general, representative office applicants have not been required to meet the supervision standards required for branches and agencies. A review of the orders indicated that the Federal Reserve examined the home country supervision of the applicant bank in every representative office case, but a determination that the applicant bank or its parent foreign bank were subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision was not always made. Similarly, the Federal Reserve has not required foreign bank applicants wishing to establish representative offices to meet the same financial standards, including the standard related to capital, which are required for the establishment of branches and agencies. In our review of 17 orders approving representative offices, we found that in 13 cases the orders did not indicate whether the capital standards were being met by the parent foreign bank. Most of the 23 applications that had not been approved by the Federal Reserve and were no longer under review were withdrawn by the applicant bank for various reasons. (See table 2.) Of the 28 applications under review as of January 29, 1996, 3 were for agencies, 5 were for bank acquisitions, 8 were for branches, and 12 were requests to establish representative offices. Federal Reserve staff told us that they had not received any applications to establish a commercial lending company since FBSEA was passed. Processing foreign bank applications took more than a year on average, and this length of time concerned both the Federal Reserve and applicant foreign banks. Federal Reserve staff told us that the length of time it took to process applications can be attributed to the need for additional time to complete background checks and to review issues related to comprehensive supervision, bank operations, and internal controls. They also cited difficulties in obtaining translated information from some applicant banks, a lack of understanding by some applicants about the level of detail required to review comprehensive consolidated supervision, and some applicants’ unfamiliarity with FBSEA requirements as causes of delays. After the Federal Reserve issued its March 1993 guidelines, there was a decrease in the amount of time taken to process branch, agency, and representative office applications. (See fig. 1.) On average, the total time it took to process such applications (from date of initial filing to disposition) dropped from 574 days to 293 days. Of this, the average time between the date that applications were initially filed and the date they were accepted decreased from 170 days to 130 days, and the average time between acceptance and approval decreased from 404 days to 163 days. Federal Reserve staff attributed this decline to a number of reasons, including commitment to meet the guidelines, experience with the process, and improvements in the name check process. FBSEA directed the Federal Reserve to coordinate the supervision of foreign banking organizations with federal and state bank supervisors to ensure an efficient and uniform approach in overseeing the operations of foreign banks in the United States. The act gave the Federal Reserve the responsibility for ensuring that branches and agencies of foreign banks are examined every 12 months and gave it the power to examine representative offices. It also broadened the enforcement powers of the Federal Reserve and OCC. Specifically, the act permitted the Federal Reserve to terminate the activities of a state-licensed branch, agency, commercial lending company, or representative office for violations of law or for unsafe or unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve may recommend to OCC similar action for federally licensed offices. modified and broadened the Federal Reserve’s and OCC’s authorities to assess civil money penalties on specific grounds against any foreign bank or office or subsidiary of a foreign bank and certain individuals of up to $25,000 for each day during which a violation continues. To meet the requirements set out in FBSEA, Federal Reserve staff told us that each year they develop, in cooperation with OCC, FDIC, and state bank supervisors, an annual examination plan, to supervise the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations. This plan includes branches, agencies, commercial lending companies, Edge Act/Agreement Corporations, and significant nonbank subsidiaries. They said the supervisors discuss the focus of the year’s examinations and when they will be conducted. Their goal is to ensure that each branch and agency is examined every 12 months without undue burden imposed on the entity and that all supervisory issues are addressed in the examination process. To meet this goal, the Federal Reserve may conduct an independent examination, rely on the other agencies to conduct the examination, or participate in a joint examination. Federal Reserve staff told us that, in order to form a baseline understanding of foreign bank operations, in 1992, they examined either independently or jointly all foreign bank branches and agencies in the United States. In 1993, the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, and state bank supervisors developed a joint examination manual for branches and agencies. The purpose of the manual is to ensure to the extent possible that each regulatory agency examines branches and agencies of foreign banks in a consistent manner. Federal Reserve staff told us that in the future they intend to examine fewer foreign branches and agencies and rely more on the examinations conducted by OCC and the states. Table 3 shows the number of independent and joint examinations conducted by each agency for 1993 through 1995. Federal Reserve examination data indicated that federal and state banking supervisors have substantially been meeting the requirement that all branches and agencies be examined annually. For 1993, 1994, and 1995, we found that, on average, 97 percent of branches and agencies had been examined at least annually. In 1995, 542 of the 549 branches and agencies operating in the United States at the beginning of the year were examined. Federal Reserve staff reported that enhanced monitoring tools have been developed to quickly identify cases where the mandate appears to have been missed. FBSEA did not establish a required frequency for examinations of representative offices. It is currently Federal Reserve policy to examine all representative offices at least once every 24 months. Examinations of representative offices differ from those of foreign branches and agencies in that they are intended primarily to verify that the type of business being conducted by an office is limited to that customarily viewed as a representative office function and to ensure that the office is operating in conformance with sound operating policies. The Federal Reserve conducted a survey in 1992 to determine the number of representative offices operating in the United States. Federal Reserve staff told us that between 1993 and 1994 examiners visited all representative offices in the United States to verify that they were engaging only in activities appropriate for representative offices. From our review of Federal Reserve data, we found that for 1993 through 1995, 93 percent of representative offices, net of closures and new entrants, were examined at least once. The examination rates were 87 percent, 54 percent, and 66 percent for 1993, 1994, and 1995, respectively. Examinations by federal and state supervisors are intended to determine the safety and soundness of foreign branches and agencies. They result in a composite examination rating for the entity. These ratings range from 1 (fundamentally sound) to 5 (unsatisfactory). As table 4 shows, of the foreign branches and agencies examined during 1995, 88 percent received a rating of 1 or 2 at year-end, indicating that their operations were at least satisfactory and required only normal supervisory attention. Nine percent were rated 3 (fair). Only 3 percent received a rating of 4 or 5, meaning that they were considered to have significant weaknesses or were identified as having so many severe weaknesses that they required urgent attention by their head offices. These results are similar to those in 1993 and 1994 in which 79 percent and 85 percent, respectively, were found to have sound operations. Federal and state banking supervisors may issue enforcement actions against foreign banks as well as their U.S. branches and agencies in cases where a branch, agency, or other U.S. office of the parent bank is determined to be operating in an unsafe or unsound manner in violation of applicable laws, regulations, or written conditions imposed during the applications process. These actions may be either formal or informal, depending upon the severity of the problem(s) and the bank’s willingness to correct them. Although the Federal Reserve had authority to initiate enforcement actions against foreign banks and their U.S. branches and agencies under the IBA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, FBSEA enhanced its enforcement powers. Specifically, it gave the Federal Reserve the authority to order a foreign bank with a state-licensed branch, agency, commercial lending company, or representative office to terminate its activities in the United States and the authority to recommend such action to OCC for federally licensed branches and agencies. Federal Reserve staff stated that the Federal Reserve had the authority to levy civil money penalties for violation of IBA and for failure to make certain reports and FBSEA modified and broadened this authority for both the Federal Reserve and OCC. FDIC can issue formal enforcement actions against foreign banks by virtue of its authority under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Between 1993 and 1995, federal banking supervisors issued 40 formal enforcement actions against foreign banks operating in the United States.In the most serious case, the Federal Reserve, in conjunction with FDIC, the New York State Banking Department, and several other state bank supervisors, used its termination authority to order Daiwa Bank to cease its U.S. banking operations. During this period, the Federal Reserve also issued three civil money penalties for failures to file regulatory reports and one for inadequate Bank Secrecy Act policies and procedures. Neither OCC nor FDIC issued any civil money penalties during this time. The remaining 35 formal enforcement actions issued by the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC included 16 cease-and-desist orders. In practice, OCC exercises primary enforcement authority over federal branches and agencies, and the Federal Reserve takes the lead in issuing formal enforcement actions against state-licensed branches and agencies. In addition to formal enforcement actions, each of the federal and state banking supervisors may take informal enforcement actions, such as memorandums of understanding and commitment letters, in which an institution agrees to remedy specific areas of supervisory concern. These actions are taken when supervisory concerns are identified that, while not overly serious, warrant some type of remedial action. In 1995, the Federal Reserve in conjunction with state bank supervisors issued 50 informal enforcement actions against foreign banks, OCC issued 9, and FDIC issued 5. To discuss the implementation of FBSEA, we reviewed the act and focused on those provisions that pertained specifically to the entry and examination of foreign banks in the United States. Although FBSEA contained provisions restricting some activities of foreign banks and set additional reporting and approval requirements, as agreed with the subcommittee, we did not do independent work to determine that these provisions have been followed. We focused our work on branches and agencies of foreign banks because this form of organization accounts for the largest concentration of foreign bank offices and assets in the United States. We did limited work on representative offices because their activities are limited and they hold no banking assets in the United States. FBSEA also applies to commercial lending companies. However, there are only three of these companies in the United States and there have been no applications for this form of entry since FBSEA was implemented. Finally, since subsidiary banks are U.S.-chartered, they are governed by all of the laws and regulations applicable to U.S. banks and are supervised and examined in the same way as U.S. banks. Accordingly, FBSEA should have had minimal effect on the regulation and supervision of these banks. To describe the Federal Reserve’s applications process for foreign banks, we reviewed its implementing regulations and other banking correspondence and regulations. We also interviewed staff in the Federal Reserve’s Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation and its Legal Division and officials and staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is where most foreign banks operating in the United States are located. They gave us their views on the applications process and how it corresponds to the requirements set forth in FBSEA. We also reviewed all of the Federal Reserve’s decisions approving foreign bank applications since 1992 to determine whether it addressed the statutory and regulatory requirements of FBSEA. In addition, we compared the length of time it took to process applications to the guidelines set forth by the Federal Reserve to determine whether the Federal Reserve was in compliance with its own policies. We did not attempt to subjectively evaluate the Federal Reserve’s decisions on foreign bank applications. To do so, we would have had to analyze and judge the merits of the facts presented by the foreign bank applicants and the reasoning in each application. To describe the examination process and the results of examinations, we reviewed examination data for foreign branches, agencies, and representative offices provided by the Federal Reserve for 1993, 1994, and 1995. Because the Federal Reserve has overall responsibility for ensuring that foreign branches, agencies, and representative offices are examined in a timely manner, it maintains examination data for all such offices operating in the United States. The Federal Reserve did not maintain such data in a summary format prior to 1993. We also interviewed staff and officials from the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC, in both Washington, D.C., and New York, and officials from the New York State Banking Department to determine how the Federal Reserve coordinates with other bank supervisors. To determine the extent to which federal supervisors have used enforcement actions against foreign banks operating in the United States, we collected data on enforcement actions from the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC. Our work was done in Washington, D.C., and New York, NY, between January and May 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We received both written and oral comments on a draft of this report from the Federal Reserve. In its letter, the Federal Reserve stated that the information provided in the report accurately describes the policies and processes with respect to applications and examinations of foreign banks. The oral comments were technical in nature and have been incorporated where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-8678. Rachel DeMarcus, 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. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Federal Reserve's implementation of the Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act, focusing on: (1) the Reserve's examination process and process for approving foreign bank applications for U.S. entry and expansion; and (2) enforcement actions that the Federal Reserve has taken since 1993. GAO found that: (1) the act established minimum standards for foreign bank entry and expansion into the United States, strengthened federal bank supervision and regulation, and required that the Federal Reserve approve foreign banks' applications for acquiring bank subsidaries; (2) although the Federal Reserve approved 45 applications after determining that the applicant banks met the act's standards, Federal Reserve staff believed that the application process was too lengthy; (3) new guidelines, established in 1993, reduced application processing times; (4) between 1993 and 1995, the Federal Reserve met its mandate to coordinate with the other federal and state bank supervisors to examine foreign branches and agencies once every 12 months; (5) the Federal Reserve also examined over half of the representative offices of foreign banks operating in the United States even though it did not establish a time frame for such examinations; (6) the foreign banks examined were generally in satisfactory condition and only 3 percent of the foreign branches and agencies received low safety and soundness ratings in 1995; and (7) of the 40 formal enforcement actions the Federal Reserve issued against U.S. foreign banks between 1993 and 1995, 6 required voluntary terminations of deposit insurance, 4 required the use of civil money penalty authority, and one foreign bank was ordered to terminate its U.S. banking operations. |
FRANKFURT/NEW YORK (Reuters) - T-Mobile USA, which plans to merge with MetroPCS, will have to overcome technology hurdles to be able to take on bigger rivals Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc and Sprint Nextel Corp.
Signage for a T-Mobile store is pictured in downtown Los Angeles, California in this August 31, 2011, file photo. REUTERS/Fred Prouser/Files
MetroPCS and T-Mobile USA, a Deutsche Telekom unit, said on Wednesday they hope to set themselves up as the leading provider of wireless services to cost-conscious U.S. customers by combining their assets.
But as their networks are incompatible, they will have to convince MetroPCS customers to move to T-Mobile’s network with the aim of shutting down the MetroPCS network by the end of 2015. And T-Mobile USA has to upgrade its network with high-speed services to catch up to bigger competitors, the companies said.
“This all adds up to a hugely complex and challenging migration that will take significant time and investment, and which is a major risk for derailing the benefits of the deal,” said Mike Roberts, principal analyst at research firm Informa.
MetroPCS shares, which rose 18 percent on Tuesday on reports that a deal was in the works, fell 9.8 percent to $12.24 as the reality of the challenges took hold.
Uncertainty about the deal’s implied valuation for MetroPCS also did not help. One analyst calculated the value as low as $11 per share, while another put it at $19.51. The stock has more than doubled to since mid-July.
T-Mobile USA parent Deutsche Telekom has been looking for a Plan B for the No.4 U.S. wireless network since its $39 billion attempt to sell T-Mobile USA to AT&T collapsed in late 2011 because of opposition from antitrust regulators.
Deutsche Telekom said on Wednesday that it will take a 74 percent stake in the combined company, with the deal structured as a reverse merger in which smaller MetroPCS will buy T-Mobile USA. MetroPCS will declare a 1 for 2 reverse stock split and make a cash payment of $1.5 billion to its shareholders.
The deal would allow Deutsche Telekom to maintain a presence in the U.S. market while unloading much of the financial strain of having to invest in T-Mobile USA, which has been losing customers.
The public listing will also offer the potential for the new company to raise capital on its own if needed and it will also give Deutsche Telekom a more liquid asset it could sell if it wants to exit the U.S. market.
The companies agreed on a broad framework for a deal during the summer and spent the last eight to 10 weeks putting the final agreement together, according to a source familiar with the situation, who asked not to be named due to a lack of authorization to speak to the media.
Deutsche Telekom shares closed up 0.1 percent at 1438 GMT on Wednesday, in-line with a 0.2 percent stronger German blue chip index in thin trading due to a public holiday there.
NETWORK CHALLENGES
The merger marks the long-awaited consolidation in the U.S. market, which is dominated by Verizon and AT&T. Sprint and T-Mobile USA take distant third and fourth places, and also compete with smaller companies, including MetroPCS and Leap Wireless.
Analysts say the deal, which awaits regulatory and shareholder approval, might force Sprint to put in a rival bid because it badly needs to grow its user base to continue to compete with Verizon and AT&T. Sprint has declined to comment.
Sprint, which has also been struggling to stem customer losses, tried to buy MetroPCS in February, but balked at the deal at the last minute because its board worried about the expense.
Sprint has never fully recovered from its 2005 purchase of Nextel, which was plagued by network integration problems and years of customer losses. It is finally planning to shut down Nextel’s network next year.
T-Mobile USA Chief Executive John Legere said Sprint’s problems have given him a perfect guide for what not-to-do.
“This is not a replay of a debacle that people have seen in the past. We will not smash together two networks with differing technology,” Legere, who will also head the new company, said on a call with analysts.
The deal, which requires approval from MetroPCS shareholders and regulators, is expected to close in the first half of 2013. The combined company, which will retain the T-Mobile name, will have 42.5 million subscribers.
If MetroPCS were to leave the deal, it would have to pay a $150 million break-up fee.
Legere, who took the top job at T-Mobile USA just two weeks ago, expects minimal customer losses during the network migration. If necessary, the company will offer customers financial incentives to move towards the end of 2015, he said.
While a stronger T-Mobile USA could pressure bigger providers to offer more competitive prices, Consumer Reports magazine said the elimination of MetroPCS could hurt competition for prepaid wireless services that are used by the country’s most price-sensitive customers.
Once Deutsche Telekom’s strongest growth engine, T-Mobile USA has lagged behind competitors in upgrading to high-speed wireless services and has been unable to get a deal with Apple Inc to sell its popular iPhone.
REVERSE MERGER
The new company will start with $18.6 billion in debt, of which $2.5 billion comes from MetroPCS. Analysts said that this would be a heavy load for the company. T-Mobile USA was already set to spend $4 billion on upgrading its network.
It will remain listed in New York, which analysts said would allow Deutsche Telekom to benefit from higher U.S. stock market valuations for what is effectively a T-Mobile USA spin-off.
U.S. regulators must still approve the deal, although analysts said they did not expect any major regulatory problems.
Braxton Carter, the current chief financial officer of MetroPCS, will become the CFO of the new company.
Deutsche Telekom said cost synergies from the combined company would have a net present value of $6 billion to $7 billion and, after 2017 synergies, would be worth $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion annually.
It added that it was targeting an earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) margin of 34 percent to 36 percent for the new company by 2017, compared with T-Mobile USA’s adjusted EBITDA margin of 27.7 percent in the second quarter of this year.
Morgan Stanley and Lazard were financial advisers to Deutsche Telekom. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, K&L Gates, and Wiley Rein LLP were legal counsel.
J.P. Morgan and Credit Suisse advised MetroPCS, while Evercore Partners and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP advised the special committee of the board of directors of MetroPCS. ||||| You need to enable Javascript to play media on Bloomberg.com Play
(Corrects spelling of Chetan Sharma’s name in 20th paragraph.)
Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE)’s plan to merge its T-Mobile USA division with MetroPCS (PCS) Communications Inc. is leaving Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) behind again.
The agreement to combine the U.S. wireless businesses into one company will give Deutsche Telekom a 74 percent stake, and MetroPCS shareholders will retain the rest, the companies announced today, following a Bloomberg News report about the talks yesterday. While Sprint Chief Executive Officer Dan Hesse has said the third-largest U.S. mobile-phone carrier will play a role in industry consolidation, Stifel Financial Corp. says a tie-up between MetroPCS and T-Mobile USA will limit Sprint’s takeover options.
Even with its 109 percent stock gain this year topping the MSCI World Telecommunication Services Index, Sprint is trading at a 58 percent discount to sales, the lowest in the group, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Sprint’s best remaining option to better compete with larger rivals AT&T Inc. (T) and Verizon Wireless may be to buy Leap Wireless (LEAP) International Inc., according to Wall Street Access. While Sprint won’t be forced to immediately do a deal, it could still try to merge with T-Mobile USA or buy spectrum from Dish Network Corp. (DISH) or Verizon Wireless, said Piper Jaffray Cos.
“It certainly pushes them into a corner,” Tom Burnett, director of research and vice chairman at New York-based Wall Street Access, which specializes in mergers and event-driven research, said in a telephone interview. “You can’t be an orphan in this industry. You’ve got to try and save a place at the table, and there’s going to be some movement here.”
Bill White, a spokesman for Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint, declined to comment on its possible next steps.
Gaining Scale
The supervisory board of Bonn-based Deutsche Telekom and Richardson, Texas-based MetroPCS’s board of directors approved the transaction, the companies said in a statement today. MetroPCS shareholders will get $1.5 billion in cash as part of the deal, and the combined entity will retain the T-Mobile name.
T-Mobile USA, the fourth-largest U.S. carrier, is seeking to stem client losses and gain scale to better compete in a market dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless, the joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (VOD) The wireless giants each had more than 105 million subscribers as of June 30, more than three times T-Mobile USA’s 33.2 million, according to data from Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
A combination with MetroPCS will give T-Mobile USA an additional 9.3 million prepaid customers, bringing it closer to No. 3 Sprint, which had 56.4 million subscribers, Bernstein data show.
Market Reaction
Shares of MetroPCS surged 18 percent yesterday to the highest level in 14 months after Bloomberg reported on the deal talks, increasing its market value to $4.9 billion.
Sprint’s stock slumped 5.4 percent yesterday, pushing its capitalization down to $14.7 billion. Sprint’s two-day stock drop of 11 percent is now the steepest in almost a year.
The carrier is in need of its own deal to bolster its subscriber base after the $36 billion takeover of Nextel Communications Inc. in 2005 left the company with incompatible networks, a shrinking customer base and five years of net losses.
Sprint’s closing price yesterday of $4.90 is less than a quarter of its value five years ago. The company is trading at 0.42 times its revenue in the last 12 months, compared with a median price-sales multiple of 1.17 for the 47 companies in the MSCI World Telecommunication Services Index, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
Left Out
Even after Sprint boosted sales this year by offering the iPhone and began rolling out a faster network in a drive to return to profitability by 2014, CEO Hesse said in a Sept. 6 interview that the company is still “under-scaled.” He said consolidation “would be constructive” for the industry and that Sprint “will play a role in that some way.”
A tie-up between T-Mobile USA and MetroPCS “does leave them out in the cold a little bit,” Christopher King, a Baltimore-based analyst with Stifel, said in a phone interview.
The deal could put Sprint on the defensive, forcing the company to seek a deal with Leap in order to guard its position in the industry, Wall Street Access’s Burnett said. Shares of Leap rose as much as 17 percent yesterday, the biggest gain in almost four years, before finishing the day up 8.4 percent.
Leap, with 5.9 million prepaid subscribers at the end of second the quarter, is a “logical orphan” for Sprint, Burnett said in a phone interview. “Those are going to be the two guys kind of left at the dance without a chair to sit on.”
Greg Lund, a spokesman for San Diego-based Leap, declined to comment on whether the company would consider a takeover by Sprint.
Spectrum Purchases
Instead of seeking to buy a rival, Sprint could purchase radio waves, called spectrum, from companies such as Dish and Verizon Wireless to expand network coverage, said Chris Larsen, a New York-based analyst at Piper Jaffray.
Bob Toevs, a spokesman for Englewood, Colorado-based Dish, declined to comment. Robin Nicola, a spokeswoman for Verizon Wireless, said the company’s spectrum sale announced in April “is an open process and any potential buyers may participate.”
A marriage between T-Mobile USA and Sprint also can’t be ruled out as a possibility, even if T-Mobile USA goes ahead with a deal with MetroPCS, said Chetan Sharma, an independent wireless consultant who covers telecommunications from Issaquah, Washington.
“It doesn’t take T-Mobile off the table for Sprint,” he said in a phone interview. “It just increases the price tag for them if they were to acquire them further down the road.”
Deal Complications
A completed deal would it make more complicated for Sprint to attempt to buy the combined entity, Stifel’s King said.
“Even if they wanted to team up with T-Mobile and T-Mobile was an interested party, you’ve got a bigger T-Mobile now to swallow and you’re going to have to wait at least a year,” King said in a phone interview.
Instead, Sprint could try to preempt a combination by making a rival offer for MetroPCS, said Wall Street Access’s Burnett.
“Sprint might try to break up the party before it becomes a party,” Burnett said.
Zack Shafran, a money manager at Waddell & Reed Financial Inc., which oversees more than $90 billion including Sprint shares, said that even without a deal, Sprint is improving operations by rolling out its new network and working towards a return to profit, which may help the company better compete.
“The reason we’re investors in Sprint today and for the foreseeable future is the fact that they’re running the business better,” Shafran, who is based in Overland Park, Kansas, said in a phone interview. “Importantly, we think that’s their top priority.”
Failed Deals
Besides, deal talks in the telecommunications industry have a long history of not coming to fruition.
Sprint abandoned plans earlier this year to buy MetroPCS after the board rejected the transaction, which may have cost as much as $8 billion including debt, two people familiar with the plan said in February.
Sprint also held discussions with Deutsche Telekom about buying T-Mobile USA prior to the March 2011 announcement that AT&T offered to acquire the unit for $39 billion, people with knowledge of the matter said at the time. U.S. regulatory scrutiny forced AT&T to abandon its bid for T-Mobile USA in December.
A deal with MetroPCS or Leap may not be enough to make either T-Mobile USA or Sprint a competitive threat to larger rivals, Piper Jaffray’s Larsen said.
“The problems that Sprint and T-Mobile have are that they’re not as big as AT&T and Verizon,” Larsen said in a phone interview. “They don’t have the scale so therefore it’s harder to compete. Increasing your size 25 percent, it helps. But when you’re less than half as big as you’re rival, getting 25 percent bigger narrows the gap, but it doesn’t close the gap.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Brooke Sutherland in New York at [email protected]; Scott Moritz in New York at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sarah Rabil at [email protected]; Nick Turner at [email protected] | Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of T-Mobile USA, has agreed to a merger with the smaller MetroPCS Communications, a move that inches the two struggling competitors closer to industry leaders Verizon and AT&T, reports Reuters. The company will retain the name T-Mobile, and Deutsche will hold 74% of the new business. The new company will now have 42.5 million subscribers—still a far cry from AT&T's 105 million and Verizon's 94 million. It's also trailing the No. 3 in the market, Sprint, which now finds itself in a tough position, reports Bloomberg. Sprint's CEO has said that the company was looking to take part in "industry consolidation," but with the new merger, there isn't much left for Sprint to gobble up. The move "pushes them into a corner," says one analyst. “You can’t be an orphan in this industry. You’ve got to try and save a place at the table, and there’s going to be some movement here.” |
The girlfriend of the gunman who killed 58 people in Las Vegas over the weekend says she was not aware that he was planning violence of any kind – instead fearing that a trip to the Philippines he sent her on was a way to break up with her.
Marilou Danley released a statement having returned from her trip and spending much of the day being questioned by FBI agents in Los Angeles – with authorities searching for any clues that might point to a motive behind the mass shooting by Stephen Paddock.
Authorities had previously labelled Ms Danley, 62, a “person of interest”. The statement, read by her lawyer, indicated that she plans on fully co-operating with the FBI.
“I knew Stephen as a kind, caring, quiet man,” the statement read. “I loved him and hoped for a quiet future together. He never said anything to me, or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”
“It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” the statement added.
“I am devastated by the deaths and injuries that have occurred and my prayers go out to the victims and their families and all those who have been hurt by these awful events,” Ms Danley’s statement said.
Ms Danley returned to the US voluntarily – and has not been arrested – after what she said was a trip that Paddock, 64, had paid for. He had sent her to the Philippines to spend time with her family.
The statement indicated that Paddock had purchased Ms Danley a ticket roughly two weeks ago, and had urged her to go visit her family. He then wired her $100,000 and told her to buy a home for her and her family. She indicated in the statement that she was grateful for the money and excited to spend time with family and friends back home, but that she was worried that the money and plane flight were his way of breaking up with her.
“It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone.”
Las Vegas shooter's girlfriend, Marilou Danley pic.twitter.com/3QgwMFLsaF — Chris Boyette (@Chris__Boyette) October 4, 2017
Marilou Danley’s lawyer reads statement on her behalf claiming Paddock told her he’d found her a cheap ticket to Philippines 2 weeks ago. pic.twitter.com/OSTLwNNMSf — World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) October 4, 2017
Ms Danley flew into Los Angeles from the Philippines, her home country, on Tuesday night and was met by FBI agents who took her out of a side exit to avoid waiting television crews.
Ms Danley was captured on footage broadcast by NBC News, being swiftly pushed on a wheelchair, using her left hand to keep a baseball cap pressed down on her head. A lawyer representing her told US media she was being treated as a witness.
As police and investigative agents scramble for clues to explain what led Paddock to check into a 32nd-floor suite in the Mandalay Bay hotel overlooking a country music festival, killing 58 people and injuring 489, they are increasingly hopeful his girlfriend of several years could help fill in some blanks.
The fact Ms Danley has suggested she knows little of his motive may come as a blow, but investigators will likely be trying to gain as much information about her interactions with Paddock and their daily life.
Las Vegas shooting – in pictures
15 show all Las Vegas shooting – in pictures
1/15 People scramble for shelter at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival after gun fire was heard Getty
2/15 People carry a person at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival after shots were fired David Becker/Getty
3/15 People run from the Route 91 Harvest country music festival after gun fire was heard David Becker/Getty
4/15 A handout photo released via Twitter by Eiki Hrafnsson (@EirikurH) showing concertgoers running away from the scene (C) after shots range out at the Route 91 Harvest festival on Las Vegas Boulevard EPA/Eiki Hrafnsson
5/15 People lie on the ground at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival after hearing gun fire Getty
6/15 A man in a wheelchair is taken away from the Route 91 Harvest country music festival after hearing gun fire David Becker/Getty
7/15 People stand on the street outside the Mandalay Bay hotel near the scene of the Route 91 Harvest festival on Las Vegas Boulevard EPA/Paul Buck
8/15 FBI agents confer in front of the Tropicana hotel-casino after a mass shooting during a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Reuters/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus
9/15 Las Vegas police run by a banner on the fence at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival grounds after shots were fired David Becker/Getty
10/15 An injured person is tended to in the intersection of Tropicana Ave. and Las Vegas Boulevard after a mass shooting at a country music festival Ethan Miller/Getty
11/15 Metro Police officers pass by the front of the Tropicana hotel-casino after a mass shooting at a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Reuters/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus
12/15 A woman sits on a curb at the scene of a shooting outside of a music festival along the Las Vegas Strip AP/John Locher
13/15 A cowboy hat lays in the street after shots were fired near a country music festival in Las Vegas Getty
14/15 Las Vegas Metro Police and medical workers stage in the intersection of Tropicana Avenue and Las Vegas Boulevard South after a mass shooting at a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Reuters/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus
15/15 Sheriff Joe Lombardo (2-R) speaking during a press briefing in the aftermath of the active shooter incident on Las Vegas Boulevard EPA
In an evening press conference, Sheriff Lombardo called Paddock “disturbed and dangerous” as he provided further detail on the investigation. Paddock had fired continually for 10 minutes – injuring 489 people, a total reduced from the previous update of more than 500. Mr Lombardo said that 317 of those injured had been released from hospital.
Sheriff Lombardo said Paddock rented a room in downtown Las Vegas around the same time as an alternative music festival – Life is Beautiful – held between 22 and 24 September. Paddock rented a room through Airbnb at the Ogden hotel in downtown Las Vegas but Mr Lombardo said he did not know why. He said investigators have recovered items and video from the hotel.
For years Paddock had quietly stockpiled an arsenal of high-powered weapons while pursuing a passion for high-stakes gambling at Nevada casinos, where his game of choice was video poker, a relatively solitary pursuit with no dealer and no humans to play against.
Paddock had gathered 47 guns since 1982 and bought 33 of them, mostly rifles, over the past year alone, right up until three days before the attack, said Jill Snyder, an agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
“He was a private guy. That’s why you can’t find out anything about him,” his brother, Eric Paddock, said from his home in Florida. As for what triggered the massacre, the brother said: “Something happened that drove him into the pit of hell.”
Also, casino regulators are looking closely at Paddock’s gambling habits and checking their records to see whether he had any disputes with casinos or fellow patrons. In addition, investigators are examining a dozen financial reports filed in recent weeks when he bought more than $10,000 in casino chips.
It was in a casino where Paddock met his girlfriend, who was a high-limit hostess for Club Paradise at the Atlantis Casino Resort Spa in Reno, Eric Paddock told The Washington Post. “They were adorable – big man, tiny woman. He loved her. He doted on her,” he said.
Employees at a Starbucks in Mesquite, where the couple lived told the Los Angeles Times that Paddock often berated Ms Danley in public. The Starbucks is the only one in town and is inside the Virgin River Casino.
“It happened a lot,” Esperanza Mendoza, supervisor of the Starbucks, told the Times. He would verbally abuse her when Ms Danley asked to use his casino card to buy food or other things inside the casino, Mr Esperanza said.
“He would glare down at her and say – with a mean attitude – ‘You don’t need my casino card for this. I’m paying for your drink, just like I’m paying for you.”
Related video: Las Vegas sheriff says Paddock may have been ‘radicalised’
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, speaking at a cyber security forum in Boston yesterday, said investigators were “reconstructing the life, the behaviour, the pattern of activity of [Paddock] and anyone and everyone who may have crossed his path in the days and the weeks leading up to this horrific event”.
“This individual and this attack didn’t leave the sort of immediately accessible thumbprints that you find on some mass casualty attacks,” he said. Paddock had no known criminal history. Public records contained no indication of any financial problems
It is known that Ms Danley was in Asia on Sunday night when the attack happened, having arrived in the Philippines on 15 September. According to immigration documents, she left on 22 September then returned three days later on a flight from Hong Kong. She holds Australian citizenship and was travelling on an Australian passport.
Philippines immigration bureau spokeswoman Antonette Mangrobang said authorities there had been working with US officials.
“From the very beginning, we have been providing them necessary information that would aid their investigation,” she said.
Ms Danley’s sisters believe Paddock sent her away so she would not interfere with his plans.
Australia’s Channel 7 TV network interviewed the sisters with their faces obscured and their names withheld. They said they believe their sister could not have known about his ideas. They said Ms Danley was a “good person” who would have sought to stop him doing anything so staggering.
Speaking from her home on Australia’s Gold Coast, one of the women said: “I know that she don’t know anything as well, like us. She was sent away. She was sent away so that she will be not there to interfere with what he’s planning.”
She added: “In that sense, I thank him for sparing my sister’s life.”
It is known that Paddock travelled at least twice to the Philippines, where his girlfriend was born, according to a Filipino official.
The official said Paddock visited the Philippines in 2013 and 2014, around his birthday, staying for five to six days on both occasions. There were no immediate details available about those trips, according to the official.
Mr Lombardo said on Tuesday that the investigation was proceeding cautiously in case criminal charges were warranted against someone else.
“This investigation is not ended with the demise of Mr Paddock,” he said. “Did this person get radicalised unbeknownst to us? [If so]...we want to identify that source.” ||||| People pause at a memorial set up for victims of a mass shooting in Las Vegas, on Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2017. A gunman opened fire on an outdoor music concert on Sunday. It was the deadliest mass shooting... (Associated Press)
People pause at a memorial set up for victims of a mass shooting in Las Vegas, on Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2017. A gunman opened fire on an outdoor music concert on Sunday. It was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, with dozens of people killed and hundreds injured, some by gunfire, some during... (Associated Press)
LAS VEGAS (AP) — The Latest on the mass shooting in Las Vegas (all times local):
3:15 p.m.
An attorney for the Las Vegas shooter's girlfriend says she had no knowledge of any plans by him to commit a massacre.
Marilou Danley's lawyer said Wednesday she plans to cooperate fully with the investigation of her boyfriend Stephen Paddock.
Defense attorney Matthew Lombard spoke in Los Angeles after Danley met with FBI agents to discuss Sunday's carnage on the Las Vegas strip.
She returned to the U.S. Tuesday night from the Philippines, where she was visiting family.
While she was there, Paddock, a high-stakes gambler, sent her $100,000.
Lombard says she was not expecting the money and worried that he was breaking up with her.
— This version corrects that she says she had no knowledge of any plans.
____
3:04 p.m.
The high-stakes gambler who opened fire on a Las Vegas music festival crowd asked for an upper-floor suite that provided a view of the concert site.
A person who has seen Mandalay Bay hotel records that have been turned over to investigators said Wednesday they show Stephen Paddock asked for the two-room suite on the 32nd floor when he checked in last Thursday. The room wasn't available until Saturday and he moved into it then and opened fire from it the next night, killing dozens and wounding hundreds.
The person was not authorized to speak publicly and disclosed the information to The Associated Press only on condition of anonymity.
The person said Paddock was given the room for free because he was a good customer who wagered tens of thousands of dollars each time he visited the casino.
—By Associated Press writer Ken Ritter.
___
1:55 p.m.
Nevada gambling regulators are poring through records to try to find out more about the high stakes gambler who fatally shot 59 people attending a country music festival in Las Vegas.
Investigators with the state's Gaming Control Board are looking for any disputes Stephen Paddock may have had as a casino patron and for mandatory transaction reports he made involving more than $10,000.
Board chairman A.G. Burnett said in an interview that investigators so far can't characterize his gambling habits.
They're also looking for information about Paddock's girlfriend, Marilou Danley.
Burnett says board investigators can obtain records about players from casinos and their corporate owners.
He says the FBI also has access to that information.
___
11:30 a.m.
A law enforcement official has told The Associated Press that the Las Vegas shooter's girlfriend is being questioned by FBI agents in Los Angeles.
The official says Marilou Danley was being questioned Wednesday morning at the FBI's field office in Los Angeles and had an attorney with her.
Investigators have hoped she could shed light on what drove her boyfriend, Stephen Paddock, to fatally shoot 59 people at a country music concert from his sniper's perch in a 32nd floor hotel suite.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation publicly.
A receptionist at the office of Los Angeles-based criminal defense attorney Matthew Lombard confirmed he was representing Danley but declined further comment.
Danley returned to the U.S. Tuesday night from the Philippines after a trip abroad that lasted weeks.
__ Associated Press writer Michael Balsamo in Las Vegas.
8:50 a.m.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says investigators are busy "reconstructing the life, the behavior, the pattern of activity" of the man who killed 59 people at a Las Vegas outdoor concert.
McCabe was speaking Wednesday at a cybersecurity forum in Boston.
McCabe says investigators are also looking at anyone who may have come in contact with Stephen Paddock in the days before the shooting Sunday night.
Asked if investigators had determined why Paddock carried out the attack, he said, "We are not there yet."
President Donald Trump was set to arrive Wednesday in Las Vegas to meet with public officials, first responders and some of the 527 people injured in the attack. At least 45 patients at two hospitals remained in critical condition.
___
5 a.m.
Officials say Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock had been stockpiling guns since 1982 and bought 33 firearms in the last year.
Jill Snyder, the special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, tells "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday that Paddock purchased 33 firearms, mostly rifles, between October 2016 and Sept. 28, three days before he opened fire on a concert crowd. The attack killed 59 people and wounded more than 500.
Snyder said authorities wouldn't get notified of the purchase of rifles, but would get notified if there was a multiple sale of two or more handguns in one purchase.
Snyder said Paddock had rigged 12 semi-automatic rifles with devices that allowed the guns to fire like an automatic weapon.
— AP writer Bob Lentz, Philadelphia
___
4:15 a.m.
A Filipino official says Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock traveled at least twice to the Philippines, where his girlfriend was born.
The official said Paddock visited the Philippines in 2013 and 2014, around his birthday, staying for five to six days on both occasions. There were no immediate details available about those trips.
The Filipino official was not authorized to discuss the trips publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Immigration documents show Marilou Danley had been abroad for weeks and was in the Philippines on Sunday when Paddock opened fire on a crowd, killing 59.
A U.S. law enforcement official says FBI agents met Danley at the airport in Los Angeles late Tuesday night.
— AP writer Jim Gomez, Manila, Philippines
___
3:30 a.m.
Employees at two Las Vegas hotels temporarily were using handheld metal detectors to examine bags in response to a man who had opened fire on an outdoor concert from a suite in a different hotel Sunday.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports visitors at Wynn Las Vegas and Encore had bags checked by security upon entry beginning early Monday. The newspaper reports fewer bags were checked Tuesday.
Both resorts are managed by casino magnate Steve Wynn. A spokesman for the hotels tells the newspaper that it initiated the screenings early Monday when police didn't know if there were multiple shooters involved in Sunday night's attack. The spokesman says they've returned to the practice of only scanning bags and guests when they "believe the need arises."
Beefed up security procedures are continuing throughout the resorts.
___
1:45 a.m.
The Australia-based sisters of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock's girlfriend say they believe Paddock sent her away so she wouldn't interfere with his plans to go on a shooting rampage.
Marilou Danley's sisters were interviewed by Australia's Channel 7 TV network with their faces obscured and their names withheld. They said they were surprised to learn Danley had gone to the Philippines two weeks ago.
One sister tearfully said: "I know that she don't know anything."
The woman said Danley is "a good person" who would've stopped Paddock had she been there.
___
1 a.m.
A nephew of Stephen Paddock's girlfriend says he's stunned by the actions of the Las Vegas gunman and didn't even know that Paddock was interested in guns.
Jordan Knights' aunt is Marilou Danley, a 62-year-old who recently returned to the United States from a weekslong trip abroad. The Australian man says he spent time in Las Vegas with Paddock and Danley just a few months ago.
Knights told Australia's Channel 9 from his home near Brisbane, "It seemed like he just looked after my aunty and that was it."
The 23-year-old said he didn't give Paddock another thought until he was identified as the gunman who killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 on Sunday.
He said that Paddock "didn't seem like he was the type of guy to do that."
___
12:09 a.m.
The investigation of a gunman who killed 59 people at a Las Vegas concert now shifts to his girlfriend, who has returned to the United States from the Philippines.
Sheriff Joseph Lombardo says investigators are hoping to get some insight from Marilou Danley on why her boyfriend Stephen Paddock opened fire on a concert crowd from a high-rise hotel room.
Danley had been out of the country for weeks before the shooting. A law enforcement official says she arrived on a flight from Manila to Los Angeles where FBI agents were waiting for her late Tuesday night.
The official wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump is set to arrive in Las Vegas to meet with public officials, first responders and some of the 527 people injured in the attack. | "He never said anything to me, or took any action—that I was aware of—that I understood to be in any way a warning that something like this was about to happen," the Independent quotes Marilou Danley as saying in her first public statement after her boyfriend, Stephen Paddock, killed 59 people Sunday in Las Vegas. Danley's statement was read by her lawyer Matthew Lombard on Wednesday in Los Angeles, where she was being questioned by the FBI, the AP reports. According to NBC News, the 62-year-old Danley said in her statement she was "devastated" by what happened in Las Vegas. "I knew Stephen as a kind, caring, quiet man," she said in the statement. While Danley's statement didn't provide a possible motive for Paddock's actions, it did explain why he recently wired $100,000 to an account in the Philippines, where Danley reportedly was at the time of the shooting. Lombard said Paddock sent the money to Danley and her family to "buy a house." He said Danley was worried it was Paddock's way of breaking up with her. Danley returned to the US on Tuesday night, and Lombard said she is cooperating with investigators. |
HUD, through FHA, provides insurance that protects private lenders from financial losses stemming from borrowers’ defaults on mortgage loans for both single-family homes and multifamily rental housing properties for low- and moderate-income households. When a default occurs on an insured loan, a lender may “assign” the mortgage to HUD and receive payment from FHA for an insurance claim. According to the latest data available from HUD, FHA insures mortgage loans for about 15,800 multifamily properties. These properties contain just under 2 million units and have a combined unpaid mortgage principal balance of $46.9 billion.These properties include multifamily apartments and other specialized properties, such as nursing homes, hospitals, student housing, and condominiums. In addition to mortgage insurance, many FHA-insured multifamily properties receive some form of direct assistance or subsidy from HUD, such as below-market interest rates or Section 8 project-based assistance. HUD’s Section 8 program provides rental subsidies for low-income families. These subsidies are linked either to multifamily apartment units (project-based) or to individuals (tenant-based). According to HUD’s latest available data, about 1.4 million units at about 20,400 multifamily properties receive Section 8 project-based subsidies. Under the Section 8 program, residents in subsidized units generally pay 30 percent of their income for rent and HUD pays the balance. According to HUD, its restructuring proposals apply to 8,636 properties that both have mortgages insured by FHA and receive project-based Section 8 rental subsidies for some or all of their units. Data provided by HUD in April 1996 show that, together, these properties have unpaid principal balances totaling $17.8 billion and contain about 859,000 units, of which about 689,000 receive project-based Section 8 subsidies. According to HUD’s data, about 45 percent of the insured Section 8 portfolio (3,859 properties, 303,219 assisted units, and $4.8 billion in unpaid loan balance) consist of what are called the “older assisted” properties. These are properties that were constructed beginning in the late 1960s under a variety of mortgage subsidy programs, to which project-based Section 8 assistance (Loan Management Set Aside) was added later, beginning in the 1970s, to replace other subsidies and to help troubled properties sustain operations. About 55 percent of the insured Section 8 portfolio (4,777 properties, 385,931 assisted units, and $13.0 billion in unpaid loan balance) consists of what are called the “newer assisted” properties. These properties generally were built after 1974 under HUD’s Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs and received project-based Section 8 subsidies based on formulas with automatic annual adjustments, which tended to be relatively generous to encourage the production of affordable housing. There is great diversity among the properties in HUD’s insured Section 8 portfolio, as illustrated by the 10 properties that we studied in greater depth as part of our current assignment. These properties differ in a number of important respects, such as the amount of their remaining unpaid mortgage debt; the types and amounts of assistance they receive from HUD; and their financial health, physical condition, rents, types of residents served, and surrounding neighborhoods and rental housing markets. These factors can influence the effect that HUD’s or other reengineering proposals would have on the properties. There is wide variation in the size of the insured mortgages at these properties. The unpaid mortgage balances at our 10 properties (as of Dec. 31, 1995) ranged from about $731,000 to almost $75 million. There is also wide variation in the types and amounts of assistance HUD provides to the properties. For example, HUD provides project-based Section 8 rental subsidies for all 60 apartment units at the smallest of our 10 properties but for only 119 of the 594 units at the largest property. In addition, the rents that HUD subsidizes vary greatly. The rents for a one-bedroom apartment, for instance, ranged from $332 to $1,231. HUD also subsidizes the interest rate at six of the properties, reducing the rate actually paid by the properties to between 1 and 2 percent. The other four properties pay mortgage interest rates ranging from 7.5 percent to 11.9 percent. Furthermore, 3 of our 10 properties also have received low-interest loans from HUD for repairs and maintenance, and 2 of these 3 have received grants from HUD to combat drug-related crime. Finally, the financial and physical conditions of our 10 case study properties also varied substantially. The majority of the residents in our 10 case study properties have low incomes. According to the properties’ records, between 60 percent and 96 percent of the Section 8 units at each property are occupied by households earning less than $10,000 per year. However, the properties tend to serve different types of households. At six of the properties, all or almost all of the Section 8 units are occupied by elderly or disabled persons, while at the other four properties, family and single adult households constitute a much larger percentage (in three cases, a majority) of the assisted households. Our 10 case study properties are located in various types of communities: 6 in urban communities, 3 in suburban communities, and 1 in a rural community. The properties’ neighborhoods also vary in terms of their economic and social conditions, ranging from areas with declining physical conditions, high crime rates, high unemployment, abandoned buildings, and/or frequent drug activity, to areas with economic growth, lower crime rates, and high income levels. Some properties are in neighborhoods dominated by multifamily, government-subsidized housing, while others are in neighborhoods dominated by unsubsidized housing, and in some cases single-family residences. The rental housing markets in the neighborhoods also vary, with occupancy rates ranging from about 88 percent to 100 percent. The insured Section 8 portfolio suffers from three basic problems—high subsidy costs, high exposure to insurance loss, and in the case of some properties, poor physical condition. A substantial number of the properties in the insured Section 8 portfolio now receive subsidized rents above market levels, many substantially above the rents charged for comparable unsubsidized units. This problem is most prevalent in (but not confined to) the “newer assisted” segment of the portfolio, where it stems from the design of the Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs. The government paid for the initial development or rehabilitation of these properties under these programs by initially establishing rents above market levels and then raising them regularly through the application of set formulas that tended to be generous to encourage the production of new affordable housing. The overall high cost of Section 8 subsidies is reflected in the cost of renewing the existing project-based contracts for the properties in the insured Section 8 portfolio as they expire. For example, HUD is requesting $863 million in budget authority in fiscal year 1997 to renew expiring contracts covering almost 293,000 units in the insured Section 8 portfolio. As long-term Section 8 contracts expire and 1-year contract renewals continue to roll over annually, HUD’s estimated annual renewal costs will increase steadily in each of the following 9 fiscal years. A second key problem affecting the portfolio is the high risk of insurance loss. Under FHA’s insurance program, HUD bears virtually all the risk in the event of loan defaults. A third, closely related problem is the poor physical condition of many properties in the portfolio. A 1993 study of multifamily rental properties with FHA-insured or HUD-held mortgages found that almost one-fourth of the properties were “distressed.” Properties were considered to be distressed if they failed to provide sound housing and lacked the resources to correct deficiencies or if they were likely to fail financially. As we noted in testimony last year, the problems affecting HUD’s insured Section 8 portfolio stem from several causes. These include (1) program design flaws that have contributed to high subsidies and put virtually all the insurance risk on HUD; (2) HUD’s dual role as mortgage insurer and rental subsidy provider, which has resulted in the federal government averting claims against the FHA insurance fund by supporting a subsidy and regulatory structure that has masked the true market value of the properties; and (3) weaknesses in HUD’s oversight and management of the insured portfolio, which have allowed physical and financial problems at a number of HUD-insured multifamily properties to go undetected or uncorrected. The basic concept behind HUD’s May 1995 mark-to-market proposal was to address the three key problems and their causes by decoupling HUD’s mortgage insurance and project-based rental subsidies and subjecting the properties to the forces and disciplines of the commercial market. HUD proposed to do this by (1) eliminating the project-based Section 8 subsidies as existing contracts expired (or sooner if owners agreed), (2) allowing owners to rent apartments for whatever amount the marketplace would bear, (3) facilitating the refinancing of the existing FHA-insured mortgage with a smaller mortgage if needed for the property to operate at the new rents, (4) terminating the FHA insurance on the mortgage, and (5) providing the residents of assisted units with portable Section 8 rental subsidies that they could use to either stay in their current apartment or move to another one if they wanted to or if they no longer could afford to stay in their current apartment. Recognizing that many properties could not cover their expenses and might eventually default on their mortgages if forced to compete in the commercial market without their project-based Section 8 subsidies, the mark-to-market proposal set forth several alternatives for restructuring the FHA-insured mortgages in order to bring income and expenses in line. These alternatives included selling mortgages, engaging third parties to work out restructuring arrangements, and paying full or partial FHA insurance claims to reduce mortgage debt and monthly payments. The proposed mark-to-market process would likely affect properties differently, depending on whether their existing rents were higher or lower than market rents. If existing rents exceeded market rents, the process would lower the mortgage debt, thereby allowing a property to operate and compete effectively at lower market rents. If existing rents were below market, the process would allow a property to increase rents, potentially providing more money to improve and maintain the property. HUD recognized, however, that some properties would not be able generate sufficient income to cover expenses even if their mortgage payments were reduced to zero. In those cases, HUD proposed using alternative strategies, including demolishing the property and subsequently selling the land to a third party, such as a nonprofit organization or government entity. Although both the Senate and House held hearings in 1995 on the mark-to-market proposal, no consensus was reached on whether it or some other approach should be adopted. Part of the reason for this was the lack of reliable data on the properties and their surrounding rental markets. Various potential stakeholders raised important unanswered questions and concerns about the mark-to-market proposal. They sought information on the physical and financial conditions of the properties in the insured Section 8 portfolio, the effects of the proposed strategy on different types of properties, and the long-term financial impact of the proposal on the government. Without this information, it was difficult to predict the overall effects of HUD’s mark-to-market proposal on the properties, their owners, the residents, and the federal government. While leaving much of its original mark-to-market proposal intact, HUD in early 1996 made several changes to the proposal in response to stakeholders’ concerns. HUD also renamed the proposal “portfolio reengineering.” These changes included (1) giving priority attention for at least the first 2 years to properties with subsidized rents above market; (2) allowing state and local governments to decide whether to continue Section 8 project-based rental subsidies at individual properties after their mortgages are restructured or switch to tenant-based assistance; and (3) allowing owners to apply for FHA insurance on the newly restructured mortgage loans. In addition, HUD stated a willingness to discuss with the Congress mechanisms to take account of tax consequences related to debt forgiveness for property owners who enter into restructuring agreements. More recently, HUD has also suggested that action on properties that would not be able to generate sufficient income to cover operating expenses after reengineering should be deferred until strategies are developed that address community and resident needs relating to the properties. In May 1995, when HUD proposed the mark-to-market initiative, the Department did not have current or complete information on the insured Section 8 portfolio upon which to base assumptions and estimates about the costs and impact of the proposal. For example, HUD lacked reliable, up-to-date information on the market rents the properties could be expected to command and the properties’ physical conditions—two variables that strongly influence how properties will be affected by the mark-to-market proposal. To obtain data to better assess the likely outcomes and costs of the mark-to-market proposal, HUD contracted with Ernst & Young LLP in 1995 for a study on HUD-insured properties with Section 8 assistance to (1) determine the market rents and physical condition of the properties and (2) develop a financial model to show how the proposal would affect the properties and to estimate the costs of subsidies and claims associated with the mark-to-market proposal. The study was conducted on a sample of 558 of 8,363 properties and extrapolated to the total population of 8,563 properties identified by HUD at that time as representing the population subject to its mark-to-market proposal. The sample was designed to be projectible to the population with a relative sampling error of no more than plus or minus 10 percent at the 90-percent confidence level. A briefing report summarizing the study’s findings was released by HUD and Ernst & Young on May 2, 1996. It provides current information on how assisted rents at the properties compare with market rents, the physical condition of the properties, and how the properties are expected to be affected by HUD’s proposal as the proposal existed while the study was under way. As such, it is important to note that the study’s results do not reflect the changes that HUD made to its proposal in early 1996. Ernst & Young estimates that the majority of the properties have assisted rents exceeding market rents and that the properties have significant amounts of immediate deferred maintenance and short-term and long-term capital needs. Specifically, Ernst & Young’s study estimates that a majority of the properties—between 60 and 66 percent—have rents above market and between 34 and 40 percent are estimated to have below-market rents. Ernst & Young’s data also indicate a widespread need for capital—between $9.2 billion and $10.2 billion—to address current deferred maintenance needs and the short- and long-term requirements to maintain the properties. The study estimates that the properties have between $1.3 billion and $1.6 billion in replacement and cash reserves that could be used to address these capital needs, resulting in total net capital needs of between $7.7 billion and $8.7 billion. The average per-unit cost of the total capital requirements, less the reserves, is estimated to be between $9,116 and $10,366. Ernst & Young’s analysis also indicates that about 80 percent of the properties would not be able to continue operations unless their debt was restructured. Furthermore, for approximately 22 to 29 percent of the portfolio, writing the existing debt to zero would not sufficiently reduce costs for the properties to address their immediate deferred maintenance and short-term capital needs. The study estimates that between 11 and 15 percent of the portfolio would not even be able to cover operating expenses. The study was designed to use the information on market rents and properties’ physical condition gathered by Ernst & Young, as well as financial and Section 8 assistance data from HUD’s data systems, in a financial model designed to predict the proposal’s effects on the portfolio as a whole. Specifically, the model estimates the properties’ future cash flows over a 10-year period on the basis of the assumption that they would be reengineered (marked to market) when their current Section 8 contracts expire. The model classifies the loans into four categories—performing, restructure, full write-off, and nonperforming—that reflect how the properties would be affected by HUD’s proposal. Placement in one of the four categories is based on the extent to which income from the reengineered properties would be able to cover operating costs, debt service payments, deferred maintenance costs, and short-term capital expenses. Table 1 shows the results of Ernst & Young’s analysis of how properties would be affected by HUD’s proposal. We are currently evaluating Ernst & Young’s financial model and expect to issue our report late this summer. Our preliminary assessment is that the model provides a reasonable framework for studying the overall results of portfolio reengineering, such as the number of properties that will need to have their debt restructured, and to estimate the related costs of insurance claims and Section 8 subsidies. In addition, we did not identify any substantive problems with Ernst & Young’s sampling and statistical methodology. However, our preliminary assessment of the study indicates that some aspects of Ernst & Young’s financial model and its assumptions may not reflect the way in which insured Section 8 properties will actually be affected by portfolio reengineering. Also, some of the assumptions used in the model may not be apparent to readers of Ernst & Young’s May 1996 briefing report. For example, Ernst & Young’s assumptions about the transition period that properties go through in the reengineering process may be overly optimistic. During the transition, a reengineered property changes from a property with rental subsidies linked to its units to an unsubsidized property competing in the marketplace for residents. The model estimates that the entire transition will be completed within a year after the first Section 8 contract expires. In addition, the model assumes that during this year, the property’s rental income will move incrementally towards stabilization over 9 months. Lenders with whom we consulted on the reasonableness of the model’s major assumptions generally believed that a longer transition period of 1 to 2 years is more likely. They also anticipated an unstable period with less income and more costs during the transition rather than the smooth transition assumed in the model. An Ernst & Young official told us that the 9-month period was designed to reflect an average transition period for reengineered properties. While he recognized that some properties would have longer transition periods than assumed in the model, he believed that the transition periods for other properties could be shorter than 9 months. In addition, Ernst & Young’s May 1996 report does not detail all of the assumptions used in the firm’s financial model that are useful to understanding the study’s results. In particular, the model assumes that the interest subsidies some properties currently receive will be discontinued after the first Section 8 contract expires, including those in the performing category whose debts do not require restructuring. We are currently examining how the assumptions contained in Ernst & Young’s study affect its estimates of the effects of portfolio reengineering. In addition, we are assessing how the use of alternative assumptions would affect the study’s results. We also observed that although Ernst & Young’s study provided information on the cost to the government of the portfolio reengineering proposal, the May report did not provide these results. We are currently examining Ernst & Young’s data and will provide cost estimates derived from Ernst & Young’s model covering changes in the Section 8 subsidy costs and FHA insurance claims. Our preliminary review of this information indicates that the costs of claims will be significant. On average, the data indicate that mortgage balances for properties needing mortgage restructuring—including those in the full write-off and nonperforming categories that would have their mortgages totally written off—would need to be reduced by between 61 and 67 percent. This reduction would result in claims against FHA’s multifamily insurance funds. HUD’s portfolio reengineering initiative recognizes a reality that has existed for some time—namely, that the value of many of the properties in the insured Section 8 portfolio is far less than the mortgages on the properties suggest. Until now, this reality has not been recognized and we have continued to subsidize the rents at many properties above the level the properties could command in the commercial real estate market. In our view, HUD deserves credit for offering an approach that would address the major problems that have affected the portfolio. For example, the proposal, if implemented, should lead to long-term savings in the costs of Section 8 subsidies, although how soon and to what extent these savings are realized will depend on how, when, and which properties are reengineered. Furthermore, by subjecting properties to the discipline of the marketplace, the proposal should reduce the need for governmental oversight and regulation. To the extent that FHA-insured mortgages on the properties are terminated, the proposal would also relieve the government of the risk of future defaults on loans. Moreover, by making housing assistance subsidies tenant-based rather than project-based, the proposal potentially offers residents the opportunity to leave properties that fail to provide adequate housing. Unfortunately, however, these benefits may come at a high cost. As Ernst & Young’s data indicate, the vast majority of the properties will need mortgage writedowns to survive in a market-rate environment and the insurance claims associated with those writedowns will be substantial—on average, around 61 to 67 percent of the properties’ mortgages. In addition, the proposal may cause the loss of affordable housing and may displace residents if, as the study suggests, up to almost 30 percent of the properties in the portfolio will have difficulty sustaining operations without financial support in addition to a full writedown of their current mortgages. Accordingly, it will be important for the Congress to carefully examine HUD’s proposal as well as any other proposals to reengineer HUD’s insured Section 8 portfolio, taking into account the differences in the properties that make up the portfolio and the different ways that these properties will be affected by reengineering. As indicated earlier in our statement, we are continuing to review the results of Ernst & Young’s study and other issues associated with portfolio reengineering, and we will look forward to sharing the results of our work with the Subcommittee as it is completed. 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 Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) proposal to restructure its section 8 multifamily rental housing portfolio. GAO noted that: (1) the section 8 portfolio suffers from high subsidy costs, exposure to insurance losses, and deteriorating property conditions; (2) HUD has proposed to implement a mark-to-market process that would allow property owners to set rents at market levels and allow HUD to reduce mortgage debt, terminate mortgage insurance, and restructure section 8 subsidies; (3) HUD contracted for a study to obtain information on market rents and the physical condition of the properties in its portfolio; (4) the study showed that the majority of insured section 8 properties would require debt reduction or forgiveness to continue operating; (5) the study also showed that, for most properties, assisted rents are higher than estimated market rents; (6) the contractor's study methodology was reasonable; and (7) any benefits that the HUD proposal realizes may come at a high cost. |
Key Points
Question Did the implementation of Florida’s “stand your ground” self-defense law have an impact on homicide and homicide by firearm between 2005 and 2014?
Findings This study used an interrupted time series design to analyze changes in rates of homicide and firearm-related homicide. We found that the implementation of Florida’s stand your ground law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide.
Meaning The removal of restrictions on when and where individuals can use lethal force was associated with a significant increase in homicide and homicide by firearm in Florida.
Abstract
Importance In 2005, Florida amended its self-defense laws to provide legal immunity to individuals using lethal force in self-defense. The enactment of “stand your ground” laws in the United States has been controversial and their effect on rates of homicide and homicide by firearm is uncertain.
Objective To estimate the impact of Florida’s stand your ground law on rates of homicide and homicide by firearm.
Design, Setting, and Participants Using an interrupted time series design, we analyzed monthly rates of homicide and homicide by firearm in Florida between 1999 and 2014. Data were collected from the Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) web portal at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We used seasonally adjusted segmented Poisson regression models to assess whether the onset of the law was associated with changes in the underlying trends for homicide and homicide by firearm in Florida. We also assessed the association using comparison states without stand your ground laws (New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia) and control outcomes (all suicides and suicides by firearm in Florida). October 1, 2005, the effective date of the law, was used to define homicides before and after the change.
Main Outcomes and Measures Monthly rates of homicide, firearm-related homicide, suicide, and suicide by firearm in Florida and the 4 comparison states.
Results Prior to the stand your ground law, the mean monthly homicide rate in Florida was 0.49 deaths per 100 000 (mean monthly count, 81.93), and the rate of homicide by firearm was 0.29 deaths per 100 000 (mean monthly count, 49.06). Both rates had an underlying trend of 0.1% decrease per month. After accounting for underlying trends, these results estimate that after the law took effect there was an abrupt and sustained increase in the monthly homicide rate of 24.4% (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95%CI, 1.16-1.33) and in the rate of homicide by firearm of 31.6% (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.44). No evidence of change was found in the analyses of comparison states for either homicide (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.13) or homicide by firearm (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.17). Furthermore, no changes were observed in control outcomes such as suicide (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05) and suicide by firearm (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.06) in Florida between 2005 and 2014.
Conclusions and Relevance The implementation of Florida’s stand your ground self-defense law was associated with a significant increase in homicides and homicides by firearm but no change in rates of suicide or suicide by firearm.
Introduction
Throughout the United States the application of lethal force as a means of self-defense is governed by criminal law.1 Since the colonial era, it has been an individual’s “duty to retreat” from perceived threats before resorting to any use of force. When force is unavoidable for self-defense, one must demonstrate that steps were taken to retreat first. The “castle doctrine” is an exception, granting individuals who encounter threats in their own home (ie, their castle) immunity when using lethal force.2 Since 2005, states across the United States have made changes to their self-defense laws, removing the duty to retreat and allowing the use of lethal force in situations (inside and outside the home) where an individual perceives a threat of harm.3
“Stand your ground” laws have been implemented in 23 states to date, with considerable debate about their potential impact on public health (Box).4-6 Advocates of the laws suggest that the increased threat of retaliatory violence deters would-be burglars, resulting in fewer intruder encounters.4 Critics are concerned that weakening the punitive consequences of using force may serve to escalate aggressive encounters.7 They also argue that these laws may exacerbate racial disparities in homicide where threats motivated by racial stereotypes produce unnecessary fatalities.2,7
Box Section Ref ID
Box. States That Have Enacted “Stand Your Ground” Lawsa State Name (Year Original Law Signed) Utah (1994) b
Florida (2005)
Alabama (2006)
Alaska (2006)
Arizona (2006)
Georgia (2006)
Indiana (2006)
Kansas (2006)
Kentucky (2006)
Louisiana (2006)
Michigan (2006)
Mississippi (2006)
Oklahoma (2006)
South Carolina (2006)
South Dakota (2006)
Tennessee (2007)
Texas (2007)
West Virginia (2008)
Montana (2009)
Nevada (2011)
New Hampshire (2011)
North Carolina (2011)
Pennsylvania (2011) a Definitions of states that have enacted “stand your ground” laws were derived by cross-referencing several resources (eg, smartgunlaws.org and NRA.org) as well as recent publications.7,11,12 b Utah was the first state to pass a law that expanded a citizen’s right to use lethal force in public places. Florida was the first state to draft and pass a specific stand your ground law. The conditions of each law vary.
Few evaluations of the impact of stand your ground laws on homicide have been conducted. Evaluations of Arizona’s and Texas’ stand your ground laws found no statistically significant impact on homicide.8,9 Several observational studies have assessed whether homicide rates are higher in states with stand your ground laws compared with states without. Using uniform crime reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 1 study that used a difference in differences design to examine changes in 20 states that enacted stand your ground laws between 2000 and 2010 compared with all nonparticipating states found an associated 8% increase in homicide.10 A study using US vital statistics data for the same time period, using comparable methods for the same states, found that the enactment was associated, on average, with a 7.1% increase in homicides.11 In 2016 a study by Gius,12 using uniform crime reports (FBI data) between 1995 and 2010, found no relationship between the enactment of stand your ground laws and either homicide or firearm homicide.
On April 26, 2005, Governor Jeb Bush signed Florida State Bill 436, enacting Florida’s stand your ground law.3,13 The law increased the scope of self-defense claims by creating a “no duty to retreat” rule when individuals “reasonably believed” that force was necessary to prevent harm to themselves or others.2 The Florida law extended the no duty to retreat clause of the castle doctrine to public places. In addition, the law created a series of conditions to strengthen the rights of individuals claiming self defense, including extending no duty to retreat to situations where the defendant initiated a confrontation, extending the use of lethal force as a legitimate defense for the protection of private property (eg, to deter vehicle theft), entitling defendants to pretrial immunity hearings allowing judges to sanction immunity prior to jury trial, and providing defendants with immunity from any ensuing civil lawsuits.1,7
As the first state to implement a stand your ground law, Florida is an important test case about the removal of the duty to retreat principle. We used the years that have elapsed since the enactment of the Florida law as a natural experiment to assess its impact on rates of homicide and homicide by firearm.
Methods
Study Design
We used an interrupted time series design to compare monthly rates of homicide in Florida before and after the stand your ground law came into effect on October 1, 2005. Interrupted time series designs use data that are collected over time, usually recorded at regular intervals (eg, months).14-17 These data are used to identify an underlying trend and when an intervention (eg, new law) occurs at a known time, postintervention trends can be examined for distinct changes from preexisting trends—thus serving as the counterfactual.18 This study design can be valuable in situations where retrospective evaluations of population level interventions are required.19,20
A potential limitation of interrupted time series designs is the possibility that other factors that occur simultaneously may distort estimates of intervention effects. Such factors might include national changes in social or economic variables (eg, a recession) or events that have a profound and lasting impact on society (eg, natural disasters). Additional design elements can be added to interrupted time series designs to assess whether such factors are influencing statistical estimates.14,15 We employed 2 such design features: analysis of homicide rates in 4 comparison states (New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia), and analysis of control outcomes (suicide and suicide by firearm).
These analyses help to rule out the possibility of misattributing any changes to causal factors unrelated to the intervention in question. From the 27 states that had not implemented stand your ground laws as of September 2016 only 4 had consistent monthly homicide data that could be used for analysis. The analyses of suicide and suicide by firearm tested for comparable intervention effects in variables that may be equally sensitive to social and economic trends, but that we did not hypothesize to be affected by the stand your ground law. If patterns in these analyses showed changes similar to those found in our analyses of homicide and homicide by firearm, it may be reasonable to assume that any estimated intervention effect was not attributable to the stand your ground law.14,15,20-22
Data Sources
We collected monthly totals of homicides and suicides (in total and for firearm-related cases) for Florida between January 1999 and December 2014. The data were accessed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) web portal.23 We classified cases by place of occurrence (within or outside the State of Florida), cause of death (homicide or suicide), mechanism (firearms or other means), and month of occurrence. We classified causes of death using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10).24
Outcome Measures
We extracted 4 monthly time series: (a) all homicide (ICD-10, X85 to Y09); (b) all suicide (ICD-10, X60 to X84); (c) homicide by firearm (ICD-10, X93-X95); and (d) suicide by firearm (ICD-10, X72-X74). Additional analyses were disaggregated by racial and ethnic grouping (white or African American), age group (0-19 years, 20-34 years, and ≥35 years), and sex (male or female) for all outcomes. Population denominators were calculated separately for each series using annual population estimates from the US Census Bureau.25 In total, each of these time series spanned 192 months (82 preintervention and 110 postintervention).
Data Analysis
We evaluated whether postintervention trends in homicide and homicide by firearm in Florida differed significantly from preintervention trends. We used segmented quasi-Poisson regression analysis to analyze trends in both periods and estimate an effect size taking underlying trends into account. Recent technical tutorials provide a detailed explanation of these models.18,26 Time series analyses may be confounded by seasonal effects that generate stable highs and lows in data trends. To account for this we applied seasonal models, using harmonic terms that control for seasonal influences.18,19,27 Owing to the time sequencing of data points used in time series analysis, residual autocorrelation can lead to the violation of regression assumptions. Where significant residual autocorrelation was detected (P < .10) and the assumptions of the general linear models became problematic, robust standard errors were generated (using a sandwich estimator) to produce more conservative estimates of uncertainty.28
Owing to the nature of the intervention—a legal change fixed at 1 point in time—we hypothesized the potential impact of Florida’s stand your ground law as an immediate and permanent change.18 Analysis was repeated for comparison states without stand your ground laws to test the validity of any effects observed for Florida. The comparison between Florida and other states was tested statistically by including an interaction term in a single model including intervention and comparison states. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed using rates of suicide and firearm suicide as a control outcome for both Florida and comparison states. This was done to assess specific biases that may have resulted from the onset of the 2008 economic crisis in the United States, which could potentially effect homicide rates indirectly.29 We chose suicide because recent research shows a significant association between suicide and the onset of the 2008 financial crises and subsequent austerity policies.19,30,31
Stratified analysis was conducted to investigate whether the stand your ground law may have had a distributional impact on race and ethnicity, age group, and sex in Florida. Where large numbers of data points were missing or suppressed owing to small cell counts (eg, <10 cases per month), we could not analyze certain population groups separately. This included: Hispanic populations (all analyses); children and adolescents (≤19 years); African American populations (suicide and suicide by firearm); and females (homicide). Thus, analyses for these groups are not reported. All data analysis was conducted in R statistical software (version 3.1.2; RStudio, Inc) using RStudio (version 0.99.486; RStudio Inc). Statistical significance was taken as P < .05.
Results
Between 1999 and October 2005, Florida had a mean monthly homicide count of 81.93, a homicide rate of 0.49 deaths per 100 000 population and a mean monthly homicide by firearm count of 49.06, a homicide by firearm rate of 0.29 deaths per 100 000 population, with 59.1% of all homicides resulting from firearm injuries. There was a slight decline in monthly rates of homicide and homicide by firearm over this period. In the 9 years following the implementation of the stand your ground law, both rates increased with a mean monthly count of 99.22 and 69.29, respectively (homicide, 0.53 deaths per 100 000 population; homicide by firearm, 0.37 deaths per 100 000 population; 69.8% of homicides by firearm) (Table 1). After accounting for underlying trends, we estimated a 24.4% (RR, 1.24; 95% CI; 1.16-1.33; P < .001) increase in the postintervention monthly homicide rate when compared with preintervention trends. For homicide by firearm the findings were similar, with an estimated 31.6% (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.44; P < .001) increase in postintervention monthly homicides by firearm when compared with preintervention trends. Figure 1A displays the magnitude of these effects for homicide and Figure 1B shows homicide by firearm in relation to trends in the comparison states.
We compared these findings with comparison states to test whether such increases in patterns of homicide and homicide by firearm were present in states unexposed to changes in self-defense laws. We found no significant changes in postintervention homicide rates in the comparison states when compared with preintervention trends (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.13). Interaction models comparing Florida and the comparison states found a significant difference between intervention effects (RR, 1.24 vs RR, 1.06; P < .001).
For homicide by firearm rates, we found no significant changes in postintervention firearm homicide when compared with preintervention trends in control states (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.17). A formal test of difference between Florida and comparison states found a significant difference in the patterns of homicide by firearm after the Florida law took effect (RR, 1.32 vs RR, 1.08; P < .001).
Analyses of suicide and suicide by firearms in Florida following the enactment of the law showed no evidence of effects comparable to those for homicide and homicide by firearm. Prior to the implementation of the law, the mean monthly suicide rate in Florida was 1.13 per 100 000 (mean monthly count 188.30) vs after the law took effect, with 1.23 deaths per 100 000 and a mean monthly count of 232.50 (relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05; P = .97). These findings help rule out the possibility that our estimates may have been confounded by other social or economic trends (eg, the 2008 economic recession) that may have had an impact on the patterns of homicide.
Stratified analyses for Florida found that the increases in homicide affected all demographic groups, but that the magnitude of effects was distributed unevenly across the population (Table 2). Comparing preintervention and postintervention trends, the onset of the stand your ground law was associated with significant increases in homicide for whites (28.7%) (Figure 2B); African Americans (20.4%); those aged 20 to 34 years (31.7%) (Figure 2A); those 35 years or older (13.8%); males (28.1%); and females (13.5%). Similar patterns were observed when comparing preintervention and postintervention trends for homicide by firearm in Florida (Table 2). These findings suggested a statistically significant increase in homicide by firearm for whites (45.1%) (Figure 2B); African Americans (22.9%); those 20 to 34 years (35.8%) (Figure 2A); those 35 years and older (21.5%); and males (31.8%). For suicide and suicide by firearm, we found no significant differences before and after the law took effect.
Discussion
Since Florida’s stand your ground law took effect in October 2005, rates of homicide and homicide by firearm in the state have significantly increased; through 2014, monthly rates of homicide increased by 24.4% and monthly rates of homicide by firearm by 31.6%. These increases appear to have occurred despite a general decline in homicide in the United States since the early 1990s.32 In contrast, rates of homicide and homicide by firearm did not increase in states without a stand your ground law (New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia), or for either suicide or suicide by firearm. Our findings support the hypothesis that increases in the homicide and homicide by firearm rates in Florida are related to the stand your ground law. We found increases in homicide and homicide by firearm in Florida in all the demographic groupings we examined; the largest proportional increases were in those aged 20 to 34 years and among whites.
The increases in homicide and firearm homicide we report are greater than those reported elsewhere—where increases in homicide were estimated to be less than 10%.10,11 These differences may reflect differences in the stand your ground laws between states (the other studies were not of Florida’s law), and differences in sociodemographic and cultural factors, as well as firearm and other laws.
Limitations
Our study has limitations. Circumstances unique to Florida may have contributed to our findings, including those that we could not identify. We did not compare the impact of stand your ground laws across states; such analyses are susceptible to biases owing to differences in regulatory contexts and events or other factors that influence homicide and firearm homicide rates but that are unique to a particular state. Finally, there has been considerable debate over the potential of the Florida law to deter crime and improve public safety.30,31 Our study examined the effect of the Florida law on homicide and homicide by firearm, not on crime and public safety. We also did not study the effects on firearm injuries other than homicide or suicide.
Conclusions
The enactment of Florida’s stand your ground law in 2005 has been associated with abrupt and sustained increases in homicide and homicide by firearm in the state.
Back to top Article Information
Corresponding Author: David K. Humphreys, PhD, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2ER, England ([email protected]).
Accepted for Publication: September 16, 2016.
Published Online: November 14, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811
Author Contributions: Drs Humphreys and Wiebe had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analysis.
Concept and design: All authors.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Humphreys, Wiebe.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: All authors.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Humphreys.
Study supervision: Wiebe.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Emma Margolin
Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law, which gained national attention following the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, has been linked to a significant increase in gun-related homicides, according to a new study.
Published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and led by the University of Oxford, the first-of-its-kind paper found that the implementation of Florida’s self-defense law — which removes the duty to retreat when confronted with a perceived deadly threat — was associated with a 24.4 percent increase in homicides and a 31.6 percent increase in firearm-related homicides.
In 2005, Florida was the first state to enact a Stand Your Ground law, and some two dozen states have since followed suit.
Related: Convicted Road Rage Killer Gunned Down in Florida Traffic Dispute
“Our hypothesis was that these laws prevent people from taking alternative actions instead of using firearms in critical situations,” Antonio Gasparrini, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a co-author of the study, told NBC News.
He added that the purpose of the study was to fill a gap in research on the impact of such legislation, not to further a political agenda.
“Our hypothesis was that these laws prevent people from taking alternative actions instead of using firearms in critical situations."
“We just hope this evidence can be used to form a discussion on the pros and cons of these kinds of laws,” said Gasparrini. “We don’t have a preference about how this evidence will be used.”
Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER), the study analyzed the monthly rates of homicide in Florida between 1999 and 2014. Prior the law’s implementation in 2005, researchers found the mean monthly homicide rate in Florida to be 0.49 deaths per 100,000 and the rate of homicide by firearm to be 0.29 deaths per 100,000.
After the law took effect, researchers found “an abrupt and sustained increase” in both the monthly homicide rate and in the rate of homicide by firearm. The monthly homicide rate increased 24.4 percent, the study states, while the rate of homicide by firearm rose 31.6 percent.
To account for other factors that may have been contributing to the increase in homicide rates, researchers also looked at rates in four other states — New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Virginia — that did not implement Stand Your Ground laws.
Related: Florida Cop Invokes 'Stand Your Ground' in Jermaine McBean Case
“We think this design is very robust to reassure us that what we found was actually an effect of the law and not other policies or phenomena occurring within that time period,” Gasparrini said.
Stand Your Ground laws — sometimes derided by critics as “Shoot First” laws — became the subject of widespread scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who in 2012 shot and killed Martin, an unarmed black teen. Although Zimmerman’s lawyers did not ask for an immunity hearing under the self-defense law, instructions given to the jury in that case borrowed language from the statute. Zimmerman was found not guilty.
The National Rifle Association, which strongly supports Stand Your Ground laws, did not respond to NBC News’ request for comment on the JAMA study. ||||| Thanks to the National Rifle Association, academic studies examining the impact of gun laws on public health are hard to come by. The gun lobby has scared legislators from funding studies that track how gun rules affect the homicide rate.
But a few independent organizations have still taken up the cause. Yesterday the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an original investigation linking Florida's infamous "Stand Your Ground" law to an "abrupt and sustained" increase in homicides statewide.
Continue Reading
"The implementation of Florida’s stand your ground self-defense law was associated with a significant increase in homicides and homicides by firearm, but no change in rates of suicide or suicide by firearm," researchers with JAMA's Internal Medicine publication write.
After Florida's Stand Your Ground law was implemented in 2005, JAMA says, there was an "abrupt and sustained increase in the monthly homicide rate of 24.4 percent" and a 31.6 percent jump in firearm homicides each month.
Importantly, the monthly homicide rate among African-Americans increased 32 percent, from 36 deaths each month to 48.
Famously, the law let George Zimmerman walk free after he fatally shot Miami Gardens teen Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager wearing a hoodie. Martin's killing led to months of protests and national outrage, jump-starting the Black Lives Matter movement.
The law also recently allowed Peter Peraza, a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy who killed a black man carrying an unloaded air rifle, to walk away scot-free.
This isn't the first study that's warned that Stand Your Ground adds to the homicide rate: Texas A&M University researchers also made that exact claim in 2012. Despite this fact, both Govs. Jeb Bush and Rick Scott have defended the law.
Stand-your-ground laws exist in 23 states — though Utah implemented one in 1994, the idea only really took off after Florida became the second state to draft similar legislation in 2005. Since then, 21 other states have adopted similar laws.
The regulations are known informally as "shoot-first" laws because they allow gun owners to kill anyone they believe might threaten them. Florida's law states that residents have "no duty to retreat" if they "reasonably believe" they need to use force to save their lives. Floridians also have "no duty to retreat" even in situations they themselves initiated.
"Advocates of the laws suggest that the increased threat of retaliatory violence deters would-be burglars, resulting in fewer intruder encounters," JAMA writes. "Critics are concerned that weakening the punitive consequences of using force may serve to escalate aggressive encounters. They also argue that these laws may exacerbate racial disparities in homicide where threats motivated by racial stereotypes produce unnecessary fatalities."
Black activists have routinely questioned the way stand-your-ground laws are applied: During the Trayvon Martin case, critics questioned why courts assumed Zimmerman was standing his ground against Martin despite the fact that Zimmerman in his car stalked Martin and initiated the encounter between the two. Many have asked why courts did not assume Martin was standing his own ground against Zimmerman's attack.
Furthermore, mere months before Zimmerman was allowed to walk free, a black Florida woman, Melissa Alexander, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a "warning shot" at her ex-husband, whom she said was threatening her life. The bullet did not hit anyone, and activists asked why Alexander, a black woman, was not freed under the same stand-your-ground laws awarded to Zimmerman. She was freed after taking a plea deal in 2015.
The law has also been cited to support a host of bizarre shootings: One guy tried to claim he was standing his ground after shooting a whiny customer at a Little Caesar's Pizza in 2012.
Earlier this year, a Broward County court ruled that Florida's Stand Your Ground extended to police officers, after Peraza, the BSO cop, fatally shot Jermaine McBean, a black computer engineer. Photographs show McBean was likely wearing earbuds, raising the likelihood that he could not hear police officers speaking to him before he was killed.
"As the first state to implement a 'stand your ground' law, Florida is an important test case about the removal of the 'duty to retreat' principle," JAMA wrote.
Importantly, firearm homicides were decreasing in Florida before the law took effect in 2005 but shot up afterward. ||||| The rate of homicides, especially homicides by firearms, sharply increased in Florida after the "stand your ground" law was passed, according to a new study published today by The Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine.
Passed in 2005, the "stand your ground" law in Florida allows residents to use force, including deadly force, if they "reasonably believe" they are at risk of death or great bodily harm. The law specifies that people have "no duty to retreat" from their homes or vehicles if they feel threatened.
To see if they could find any measurable effects in the homicide rate after the law's passage, researchers from the University of Oxford looked at Florida homicide data at various times from 1999 to 2014. They then compared the rates with those in four control states (New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Virginia) with no "stand your ground" laws.
By examining data from a database run by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that after the law was passed in Florida, homicides increased approximately 21 percent — from an average of 82 homicides per month from 1999 to October 2005 to 99 homicides per month from October 2005 to 2014.
Additionally, they found the rate of homicide by firearm went up almost 41 percent, from a mean of 49 homicides per month to 69 during those periods.
Researchers found no similar increases in the four control states.
They also examined suicide data but did not find any comparable increase in Florida suicide rates or, more specifically, suicide by firearm rates after the law's passage. The authors acknowledged that it's possible there may be multiple factors that led to an increase in the Florida homicide rate.
"Circumstances unique to Florida may have contributed to our findings, including those that we could not identify," the study's authors wrote.
There are 23 states that have implemented some form of a "stand your ground" law, according to the researchers.
Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, has studied the effects of gun-related policies and said the study published today was important.
"These 'stand your ground' laws have proliferated, and for the people who favor them, the point is that it's going to make people safer," he told ABC News today. "You can stand your ground if you perceive your life is being threatened, [but] what we're seeing here empirically is exactly the opposite."
While the researchers found an increase in homicide rates after the law's passage, they did not find enough evidence to definitively find the law caused the increase in the homicide rate.
While the study had limitations, Swanson said the research of the four control states makes the study stronger.
"They look at comparable trends in states that didn't pass the law and don't see the effect," he noted.
Swanson said these kinds of studies must continue in order for policymakers to make clear and informed decisions about legislation.
"This is always the question of balancing risk and rights," he said.
The National Rifle Association, which backed Florida's "stand your ground" law, did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the study. | For years, people have claimed "Stand Your Ground" laws have led to an increase in violence. A new JAMA study suggests their observations were right, at least in Florida. It finds homicides in the state spiked 24% from 82 per month from 1999 to October 2005, when Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was passed, to 99 per month from October 2005 to 2014, reports ABC News. An "abrupt and sustained increase" was also seen among homicides by firearms, which jumped 32%, per NBC News. Murders of African Americans also jumped 32%, reports the Miami New Times. When researchers compared the findings to homicide rates in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, and Ohio, which don't have "Stand Your Ground" laws, they found no similar increases. Oxford University researchers didn't compare the findings to other states with such laws and admit "circumstances unique to Florida may have contributed to our findings." But they believe the results are "an effect of the law," which may "prevent people from taking alternative actions instead of using firearms in critical situations," a study author says. "We just hope this evidence can be used to form a discussion on the pros and cons of these kinds of laws." A Duke University researcher not involved in the study says the findings are "important." The point of such laws is "to make people safer," he says. "What we're seeing here empirically is exactly the opposite." (This study looked at homicide rates in 23 states with "Stand Your Ground" laws.) |
Few national television news anchors or hosts have publicly acknowledged being gay. Rachel Maddow is perhaps the best known. Her MSNBC colleague, Thomas Roberts, has also come out as gay.
Mr. Lemon has not made a secret of his sexual orientation in his work life; many of his CNN co-workers and managers have long been aware that he is gay. But he still acknowledged that going public in his book carries certain risks.
“I’m scared,” he said in a telephone interview. “I’m talking about something that people might shun me for, ostracize me for.”
Even beyond whatever effect his revelation might have on his television career, Mr. Lemon said he recognized this step carried special risk for him as a black man.
“It’s quite different for an African-American male,” he said. “It’s about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You’re taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine. In the black community they think you can pray the gay away.” He said he believed the negative reaction to male homosexuality had to do with the history of discrimination that still affects many black Americans, as well as the attitudes of some black women.
Photo
“You’re afraid that black women will say the same things they do about how black men should be dating black women.” He added, “I guess this makes me a double minority now.”
So why do it? It really came down to the act of writing the book. Mr. Lemon said he had been on a panel a couple of years ago called “The Black Man in the Age of Obama,” and was approached afterward by a publisher’s representative about writing an inspirational book.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“It was supposed to be a little pamphlet,” he said. “You know: say your prayers; have a good, hearty handshake; say good morning to your boss.”
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 as he began to write, he came to realize that he could not hold back the truth of who he was. He started to pour out the details of his personal life. How he had grown up not knowing his father, how he had suffered abuse by someone close to him.
When he informed the publisher of his new tack, the initial reaction was caution. But when the editors saw the material, they embraced it. It was left to Mr. Lemon to experience a bout of nerves and suggest at one point that the most personal material be taken out.
“But as I started to read it back, I said, no, leave it,” Mr. Lemon said. “I abhor hypocrisy. I think if you’re going to be in the business of news, and telling people the truth, of trying to shed light in dark places, then you’ve got to be honest. You’ve got to have the same rules for yourself as you do for everyone else.”
He has been assured of support by CNN, which has booked him as a guest Monday on its daytime show “CNN Newsroom.” He will also be on Joy Behar’s show on the network’s sister channel, HLN. A few other possibilities remain “up in the air,” he said.
Mr. Lemon said he knew that coming out this way would stir up a degree of comment about other television news personalities, and whether any would acknowledge being gay.
“I think it would be great if everybody could be out,” he said. “But it’s such a personal choice. People have to do it at their own speed. I respect that. I do have to say that the more people who come out, the better it is for everyone, certainly for the Tyler Clementis of the world.”
Mr. Clementi was the Rutgers student who committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his sexual encounter with a man in his dorm room was shown on the Internet.
“I think if I had seen more people like me who are out and proud, it wouldn’t have taken me 45 years to say it,” Mr. Lemon said, “to walk in the truth.” ||||| “This is one of the last industries where the subject is off limits,” said Mr. Welts, who stands now as a true rarity, a man prominently employed in professional men’s team sports, willing to declare his homosexuality. “Nobody’s comfortable in engaging in a conversation.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Dr. Richard Lapchick, the founder and director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, and the son of the basketball legend Joe Lapchick, agreed. “The fact that there’s no other man who has done this before speaks directly to how hard it must be for Rick to do this now,” he said.
Mr. Stern did not find the discussion with Mr. Welts awkward or even surprising; he had long known that his friend was gay, but never felt that he had license to broach the subject. Whatever I can do to help, the affably gruff commissioner said. He sensed the decades of anguish that had led the very private Mr. Welts to go public.
After what needed to be said had been said, the two men headed for the door. And for the first time in their 30-year friendship, they hugged.
The very next day, the gifted Los Angeles Lakers forward Kobe Bryant, one of the faces of the N.B.A., responded to a technical foul by calling the referee a “faggot.”
A Feeling of Isolation
Rick Welts always knew.
Growing up in Seattle, he was the industrious kid who landed a coveted job with the SuperSonics basketball team, first as a ball boy, then as an assistant trainer. By the time he went to the University of Washington, he had enough good-will clout to have Lenny Wilkens, then the coach of the Sonics, visit his fraternity for a chat.
But for all the fraternal respect this earned him, Mr. Welts felt isolated. What little he knew of gay culture was stereotypical, and unappealing, he recalled. “In my mind, it was effeminate: a way that I would not define as masculine.”
His growing responsibilities with the Sonics allowed him to miss class dances and other awkward obligations, but even alone, he felt out of place. Late one night, he walked two miles to slip a long confessional letter under the door of a young minister at his family’s church, but the well-intentioned minister could not help him. So he resigned himself to adapt, in private.
After college, Mr. Welts returned to the Sonics as assistant director of public relations, a position that came with a desk but not an office. His diligent omnipresence, from early morning to late evening, impressed the team’s coach at the time, the intimidating Bill Russell.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“Hey!” Mr. Russell would call. “White boy down the hall!”
And Mr. Welts would hustle up to do whatever was asked. The mutual respect that developed between the demanding basketball legend and the earnest employee gradually grew into a friendship close enough for Mr. Russell to judge him “a good teammate.”
Photo
Immersed in a business where manhood is often defined by on-court toughness and off-court conquest, Mr. Welts rose to become the public relations director for the Sonics, at a time when the team won its only championship, in 1979. He still ticks off the names of the starting five as though they were family: Dennis Johnson. John Johnson. Gus Williams. Jack Sikma. Lonnie Shelton.
An N.B.A. Career
Mr. Welts was eventually recruited by Mr. Stern, then a rising star in the N.B.A.’s front office, to become the league’s director of national promotions. That is, to ask businesses to invest marketing dollars in what was then, perhaps, the least popular professional sport.
Mr. Welts accepted. By this point, he had established a relationship with an architect he had met by chance in a Seattle restaurant in 1977. Soon Rick and Arnie became just another Manhattan couple, enjoying the live-and-let-live anonymity of the big city.
At the same time, Mr. Welts helped to raise the N.B.A.’s profile and profits. In 1984, for example, he created the N.B.A. All-Star Weekend, with a slam-dunk contest and an old-timers’ game, just as Mr. Stern became the league’s commissioner. And in 1997, he and Ms. Ackerman won accolades for their roles in establishing the W.N.B.A.
“In many ways, he had a complete understanding of the soul of the N.B.A.,” a grateful Mr. Stern said. The N.B.A., though, did not have a complete understanding of Rick Welts.
Although he had opened up to his supportive parents and to his younger, only sibling, Nancy, Mr. Welts feared that if he made his homosexuality public, it would impede his rising sports career.
“It wasn’t talked about,” he said. “It wasn’t a comfortable subject. And it wasn’t my imagination. I was there.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
But this privacy came at great cost. In March 1994, his longtime partner, Arnie, died from complications related to AIDS, and Mr. Welts compartmentalized his grief, taking only a day or two off from work. His secretary explained to others that a good friend of his had died. Although she and Arnie had talked many times over the years, she and her boss had never discussed who, exactly, Arnie was.
Around 7:30 on the morning after Arnie’s death, Mr. Welts’s home telephone rang. “It was Stern,” he recalled. “And I totally lost it on the phone. You know. Uncle Dave. Comforting.”
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.
Even then, homosexuality was never discussed — directly.
For weeks, Mr. Welts walked around the office, numb, unable to mourn his partner fully, or to share the anxiety of the weeklong wait for the results of an H.I.V. test, which came back negative.
Sometime later, he began opening the envelopes of checks written in Arnie’s memory to the University of Washington, and here was one for $10,000, from David and Dianne Stern, of Scarsdale, N.Y. In thanking Mr. Stern, Mr. Welts said they “did the guy thing,” communicating only through asides and silent stipulations.
“This was a loss that Rick had to suffer entirely on his own,” Mr. Stern said, reiterating that he was following Mr. Welts’s lead. “It’s just an indication of how screwed up all this is.”
When Mr. Welts left the N.B.A. in 1999, he was the league’s admired No. 3 man: executive vice president, chief marketing officer and president of N.B.A. Properties. By 2002, he was the president of the Suns who still kept his sexuality private — a decision that at times seemed wise, as when, in 2007, the former N.B.A. player John Amaechi announced that he was gay, prompting the former N.B.A. star Tim Hardaway to say that, as a rule, he hated gay people.
But again Mr. Welts paid a price. Two years ago, a 14-year relationship ended badly, in part because his partner finally rejected the shadow life that Mr. Welts required.
“My high profile in this community, and my need to have him be invisible,” Mr. Welts said, with clear regret. “That ultimately became something we couldn’t overcome.”
Photo
He began to think: here he was, in his mid-50s, and maybe he had sacrificed too much; and maybe he should open up about his sexuality, in a way that might help others. He kept a journal, sought advice from his sister and close friends, listed the pros and cons. He also had long talks with his widowed mother, Phyllis, in the months before she died of lung cancer, at 85, last fall. She encouraged him to do what he thought was best.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
‘Of Course. Anything.’
On an overcast spring morning in Seattle, Bill Russell, wearing a green Boston Celtics cap adorned with a shamrock and No. 6 — his old jersey number — welcomed that white boy down the hall into his home, with Mr. Welts feeling as though he were about to slip another envelope under the door. They sat down near an autographed photograph of President Obama that thanked Mr. Russell “for the inspiration.”
Mr. Welts said what he wanted to say, and asked whether Mr. Russell, whose aversion to speaking with the news media is legendary, would agree to talk to a reporter for The Times. “Of course,” Mr. Russell recalled saying. “Anything.”
As Mr. Welts shook the massive right hand offered to him, he felt a rush of nervous relief. “I was really now on this journey,” he said.
Three weeks later, he met Ms. Ackerman for a tearful Sunday brunch at a trendy restaurant in TriBeCa, during which she reassured him that the step he was taking was worth it. Then, the next morning, he met with Mr. Stern, a longtime mentor who, he thought, would likely be drawn into whatever discussion might follow his revelation.
“He was supportive but didn’t ask questions,” Mr. Welts recalled, adding, “And the litigator in him was already directing a response.”
Mr. Stern held back — a little. “What I didn’t say at the time was: I think there’s a good chance the world will find this unremarkable,” he recalled. “I don’t know if I was confusing my thoughts with my hopes.”
The next day, by coincidence, the N.B.A. began filming a public-service announcement against hurtful language. In the script, a young ballplayer calls another player’s basketball moves gay, after which two Phoenix Suns stars appear.
Grant Hill: “Using gay to mean dumb or stupid — not cool.”
Jared Dudley: “Not in my house — not anywhere.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
That night, Kobe Bryant called the referee the slur, forcing Mr. Stern once again to confront a culture in which the worst thing you can say about a man is to suggest that you think he is less than a man.
Mr. Stern quickly issued a $100,000 fine against Mr. Bryant, who has apologized. When asked weeks later about the persistent perception of the N.B.A. and other men’s team sports as homophobic, Mr. Stern removed his glasses, rubbed his eyes and said, “I think we’re going to get there.”
Meeting on the Mountain
Mr. Welts’s final stop before his public announcement was to a high-end restaurant perched on the side of Camelback Mountain, just outside Phoenix, for lunch with Steve Nash. A few weeks earlier, a mutual friend had given Mr. Nash the heads-up about what Mr. Welts wanted to discuss. Mr. Nash was surprised; he thought that everyone already knew that Mr. Welts was gay.
These two Suns employees are not friends, exactly, but they hold each other in high professional regard. “I just think it’s a shame, for all the obvious reasons, that this is a leap that he has to take,” Mr. Nash said.
With a spectacular view of Paradise Valley before them, the two basketball men talked about a topic rarely discussed in their work world. Mr. Welts asked for Mr. Nash’s support, and the ballplayer, honored by the request, said yes. Of course.
“Anyone who’s not ready for this needs to catch up,” Mr. Nash said later. “He’s doing anyone who’s not ready for this a favor.” | Don Lemon, CNN's weekend prime-time anchor, is joining a tiny group of media members: those who are openly gay. Lemon, 45, officially comes out in his new book Transparent, though many of his colleagues have long known about his sexual orientation. “I’m scared,” he tells the New York Times. “I’m talking about something that people might shun me for, ostracize me for.” Lemon, who also reveals suffering childhood sex abuse in the book, adds that he faces an especially difficult road as an African-American man. Gay is "about the worst thing you can be in black culture," he says, adding, “I guess this makes me a double minority now.” Despite his fears, Lemon is confident in his decision. "I think if you’re going to be in the business of news, and telling people the truth, of trying to shed light in dark places, then you’ve got to be honest," he says. Also in today's Times, a story about Rick Welts, president and CEO of the Phoenix Suns, who also recently came out. |
SCSEP evolved from Operation Mainstream, which trained and employed chronically unemployed adults under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. In 1965, Operation Mainstream provided funding to the Green Thumb organization, at the time a nonprofit affiliate of the National Farmers Union, to conduct a pilot training and employment program for economically disadvantaged older workers in several rural areas. Green Thumb was thus the first of the 10 nonprofit national sponsors that today administer most of the SCSEP funds. During the next 13 years (1965-1978), legislative and administrative actions instituted most of the basic aspects of today’s SCSEP: responsibility for the program was moved to the Department of Labor; the program was made part of the OAA and given the goal of providing subsidized employment in community service organizations to economically disadvantaged older Americans; all grantees were asked to attempt to place at least 10 percent of their program enrollees in unsubsidized jobs (the goal has been 20 percent since 1985); and 8 of the eventual 10 national sponsors, as well as most state governments, were made grantees for the program. Of the current 10 national sponsors, 5 were added because of OAA amendments and other congressional guidance to Labor, which directed that Labor add sponsors oriented toward certain ethnic groups with high concentrations of the elderly poor. Such direction explains Labor’s funding, as national sponsors, two African American organizations (1978) and three other organizations: one representing Hispanic Americans (1978); one, American Indians (1989); and one, Asian Americans (1989). The legislation, however, requires all sponsors to provide all SCSEP applicants an equal opportunity to participate in the program regardless of race or nationality. The OAA contains several provisions for Labor’s allocation of SCSEP funds. The hold harmless provision requires the Secretary of Labor to reserve for the national sponsors a funding amount sufficient to maintain the 1978 activity level. Any balance of the appropriation over the hold harmless amount is to be distributed to the sponsors and state governments mainly on an “equitable distribution” basis—that is, in accordance with the state-by-state distribution of persons 55 years old or older, adjusted for per capita income. A minor limitation on such a distribution is the requirement for a minimum allocation for each state, a provision designed to protect the smaller states. Another provision requires that the portion of any appropriation that exceeds the 1978 funding level in subsequent years will be split—55 percent for states and 45 percent for the national sponsors.However, the “55/45” provision—designed to provide state governments more parity with the national sponsors—has never been implemented. Every year since 1978, appropriations acts have overridden the 55/45 provision. These statutes have required that no more than 22 percent of the SCSEP appropriation be allocated to the state governments. At least 78 percent must be allocated to the national sponsors. A third provision that also still applies is the requirement for an equitable distribution of funds among areas within each state. The SCSEP appropriation for the 1994 program year ($410.5 million) accounted for about 28 percent of all OAA funds. All but two of the OAA programs are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Labor administers SCSEP through its Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Like other OAA programs, SCSEP’s authorization expired at the end of fiscal year 1995. The Congress is reviewing proposals for reauthorization. To receive a SCSEP grant, a national sponsor or state government must agree to provide a match, in cash or in kind, equal to at least 10 percent of the grant award. Many state governments make their match in the form of cash contributions. The national sponsors, on the other hand, normally provide in-kind matches in the form of donated office space, staff time, equipment, and the like. The in-kind matches for most national sponsors come not from the sponsors’ own resources but from those of the community service host agencies, where the SCSEP enrollees actually work. These host agencies typically are local libraries, nutrition centers, parks, and similar public service entities. National sponsors and state governments use the SCSEP grants to finance SCSEP part-time jobs in host agencies. The cost of such a job, or enrollee position—which generally must include at least 20 hours of work a week—is the amount determined sufficient to fund (1) an enrollee’s minimum wages, benefits, training, and incidental expenses for up to 1,300 hours a year in the program and (2) the associated administrative expenses. This cost amount, termed the “unit cost” by Labor, is adjusted periodically by Labor in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The unit cost is currently $6,061. Labor divides each year’s SCSEP appropriation by the unit cost amount to determine how many positions are available. Program enrollees, who must be 55 or older and earn no more than 125 percent of the federal poverty level, are paid the federal or local minimum wage—whichever is higher. For the 1994 program year, funding permitted the establishment of about 65,000 positions nationwide. An enrollee may leave a program position for such reasons as illness or acceptance of an unsubsidized job. Thus, during the 1994 program year, about 100,000 enrollees occupied the 65,000 positions; about three-quarters of these enrollees were women. Often, in the administration of SCSEP grants, entities other than the national sponsors and state governments participate as intermediaries between the sponsors and the host agencies. Some of these entities are municipalities; many are Area Agencies on Aging, organizations the state designates to plan and provide services to the elderly. These intermediaries sometimes enter into agreements with states and national sponsors as subgrantees to find specific host agencies for program enrollees. Of the 1994 program year appropriation, Labor allocated the national sponsors $320.2 million (78 percent) and the states and territories $90.3 million (22 percent). The 10 national sponsors that received grant awards were, as in previous years, the following: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Associacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores (ANPPM), Green Thumb, National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA), National Caucus and Center on Black Aged (NCCBA), National Council on Aging (NCOA), National Council of Senior Citizens (NCSC), National Indian Council on Aging (NICOA), National Urban League (NUL), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). National sponsors operate locally through (1) subgrant agreements with local organizations, such as agencies on aging or community groups, and (2) local affiliates. Appendix II provides a short profile of the SCSEP activities of each national sponsor. Whenever the SCSEP program has a new appropriation level, Labor conducts with the national sponsors a meeting known as the “melon cutting.” At these meetings, Labor makes known its allocations to each of the national sponsors and presides over discussions in which national sponsors often trade enrollee positions in various areas. Sometimes, a representative from the National Association of State Units on Aging (NASUA) is invited to express states’ concerns, but the states have no formal control over the distribution of positions. As seen in figure 1, program year 1994 grant amounts to the national sponsors varied widely: the $102.5 million Green Thumb grant was the largest, and the $5.1 million grants each to the NICOA and NAPCA were the smallest. This variation partially reflects the differences in time that these organizations have participated in the program. With the exception of Alaska, Delaware, and Hawaii—which operate their own SCSEP programs and have no national sponsors—each state has at least two national sponsors. Fourteen states have six or more national sponsors. The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also have SCSEP programs and national sponsors, but none of the U.S. Territories has. (See fig. 2.) As seen in figure 3, four of the sponsors operate in over half of the states; five of the sponsors operate in 16 or fewer states. Labor’s regulations allow SCSEP funds to be provided to eligible organizations through grants, contracts, or other agreements pursuant to the purposes of title V of the OAA. Department officials have chosen to fund the program through noncompetitive grants. The regulations specify that grants are the “appropriate instrument when the Department does not need to exercise considerable direction and control over the project.” Labor provides annual grant applications only to national organizations that currently sponsor SCSEP. Labor’s action is consistent with the statute and with expressions of intent by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Labor officials rely on annual Appropriations Committee report language such as the following from a recent Senate Appropriations report that seems to indicate support for the current sponsors: “It is the intent of the Committee that the current sponsors continue to build upon their past accomplishments.” In addition, the OAA, although it permits awards to other entities, creates a specific preference for awards to “national organizations and agencies of proven ability in providing employment services . . .” Labor’s procedures require that noncompetitive grants over $25,000 be included in an annual procurement plan that is forwarded for approval by the responsible Assistant Secretary to the Procurement Review Board (PRB). The PRB, whose members include designees of the Chief Financial Officer and the Solicitor, as well as the Director of the Division of Procurement and Grant Policy, is “to serve as a senior level clearinghouse to review proposed noncompetitive and major acquisitions.” The PRB advises whether competition is appropriate for each acquisition and whether long-term relationships with the same organizations are consistent with Labor policies. However, Labor exempts title V awards and does not involve the PRB in reviewing the program’s annual grant renewal decisions. Labor officials did not adequately explain the reason for this exemption. The hold harmless provision of the OAA’s title V, in effect, severely limits Labor’s ability to allocate funds among states in a way that ensures equitable distribution, that is, in accordance with the state-by-state distribution of persons 55 years old and older, adjusted to give greater weight to economically disadvantaged areas and persons. The result is a pattern of too many SCSEP positions in some states and too few in other states relative to their eligible populations. In addition, within states, Labor’s administrative inaction has permitted a continuing pattern of overserved and underserved counties. In applying the OAA’s hold harmless provision, Labor officials establish a reserve amount from each year’s SCSEP appropriation, delineated by state subtotals, to finance the 1978 level of national sponsor positions in each state. So, if the national sponsors together administered 100 positions in a certain state in 1978, they would receive thereafter, from a Labor set-aside of appropriated funds, enough funds to finance at least 100 positions in that state, assuming that the appropriation level is high enough to finance the 1978 total number of positions. Because the 1978 distribution of SCSEP positions did not, and still does not, correspond to the size of each state’s economically disadvantaged elderly population, the hold harmless provision in effect prevents a fully equitable distribution. For the 1994 program year, for example, $234.5 million of the total appropriation of $410 million was subject to the hold harmless provision and distributed accordingly. Had the $234.5 million been distributed in accordance with current age and per capita income data, every state would have received a different allocation and, in many cases, the increase or decrease would have been substantial. A total of 25 states would have gained or lost at least $500,000 each; in 13 of those states, the amount would have been over $1 million. Florida would have gained the most, $4.2 million, and New York would have lost the most, $3.9 million.(See app. III.) The hold harmless provision could be modified in two ways. The relevant provision states that the Secretary of Labor will reserve for the sponsors’ grants or contracts sums necessary to maintain at least their 1978 level of activities “under such grants or contracts.” Labor interprets this provision to require a state-by-state distribution of positions based on the sponsors’ 1978 activities. One option is to amend the hold harmless provision to specifically authorize Labor to base the distribution on the national sponsors’ 1978 total positions nationwide, rather than on the levels in each state. If the hold harmless provision were so amended, Labor would still be required to provide sufficient grants to the national sponsors to finance their 1978 number of total positions. But it would not necessarily be bound to the 1978 number of sponsor positions in any state. With the amendment, Labor could distribute all of the SCSEP dollars in accordance with the pattern of need, as measured by each state’s 55 and older population size and per capita income. Another approach would be to repeal the entire hold harmless provision. This would remove the authorizing legislation’s protection of the national sponsors’ historic base of positions and permit Labor officials to allocate funds according to need. Such a change could significantly shift funding from the national sponsors to the states. In some states, SCSEP positions may not be distributed among areas according to the equitable distribution provision of the OAA’s title V.Though the national sponsors administer about 80 percent of the enrollee positions, both states and national sponsors are responsible for equitably distributing enrollee positions. Deficiencies in equitable distribution, however, are evident in many cases when comparing a county-by-county pattern of SCSEP positions in a state with the county-by-county pattern of state residents who are eligible for participation as SCSEP enrollees. For such a comparison, we reviewed the states’ equitable distribution reports for 1989 and 1994. For example, in California, Illinois, and New York, we found that most counties had either too many or too few positions compared with the number that the distribution of eligible people would indicate. In California, for example, for program year 1994, 51 of the 59 counties had too many or too few positions. In some cases, the excess or shortfall was five positions or fewer, but, in several cases, the amount was greater. Fourteen of the counties had excesses or shortfalls of at least 15 positions. Orange County had a shortfall of 70 positions. Humboldt and San Francisco Counties each had an excess of 32 positions. State government and national sponsor officials offer several explanations for the sponsors’ not always distributing their SCSEP positions within a state strictly according to the equitable distribution guidance. First, the national sponsors are sometimes restricted geographically. In New York state, USFS, for example, does not enter such underserved areas as Brooklyn and the Bronx because they are urban communities and the Forest Service restricts its activities to national forests. Second, national sponsors with an ethnic focus are reluctant to serve areas that do not have significant numbers of their constituent ethnic group. Third, certain national sponsors, to save on administrative costs, may prefer to concentrate SCSEP positions in fewer locations, increasing the ratio of program enrollees to administrators. Fourth, certain national sponsors may be reluctant to shift positions from an overserved area where they have had long working relationships with subgrantees. In the case of the states, some have distributed their positions through existing administrative structures, without sufficiently considering the distribution of eligible people. Also, some states may have tried to achieve an equitable distribution among political jurisdictions rather than among eligible populations. Finally, some states have not adequately staffed their SCSEP program efforts or were not sufficiently active in coordinating distribution activities with national sponsors. In most states, the state government as well as several national sponsors operate SCSEP programs. Thirty-six states have four or more sponsors; while 14 states have six or more. In our talks with officials in 28 state governments, several expressed concern about duplicative national sponsor programs in certain areas, some of which also overlapped state government SCSEP programs. For example, in a northeastern state where eight national sponsors had been operating, a ninth sponsor was allowed to begin a SCSEP project in an area that, according to state officials, was already overserved. In addition, the state officials said, some national sponsors in the area were already using television spots to attract people to the program. In a southern state, state officials could not dissuade two national sponsors from operating in a city’s downtown area already served by the state’s SCSEP office. National—and some state—sponsors defend their remaining in overserved locations, citing many reasons for being in the communities where they are. However, Labor officials acknowledge that one consequence of several grantees operating in the same area is that program enrollees in proximity may receive different wages and benefits depending on the policies of the grantee organization. In a mid-Atlantic state, for example, the state unit on aging administers its own SCSEP positions as well as those of a national sponsor. The program that the enrollee is placed in—whether state or nationally sponsored and, consequently, the benefits package the enrollee receives—can depend on the time of day the enrollee applied for the program. For example, a morning applicant might be placed in the state program with a benefits package including federal holidays, sick leave, and annual leave benefits; the afternoon applicant might be placed in a national sponsor’s program with a different benefits package. Labor endorses an unwritten agreement among national sponsors that is intended to prevent enrollees from different sponsors from working at the same local host agency. The agreement is to help avoid situations in which host agencies or sponsors must explain why enrollees performing the same job tasks are compensated with different benefits and, perhaps, even wages. The drawback of this agreement, however, is that an applicant may be denied access to a particular host agency that could provide the best job and training experience for that person. Labor requires states and the national sponsors to ensure efficient and effective coordination of programs under this title. One goal of this coordination is to promote an equitable distribution of in-state funds. National sponsors are required to notify relevant state government officials of their plans to establish projects; state officials are to review and comment on such plans; and Labor is to review proposed project relocations and the distribution of projects within states. As part of its overview authority, Labor also has required states to compile annual distribution reports showing which of their counties are overserved or underserved, according to the size of their eligible populations. Most importantly, Labor is to make—limited by the OAA’s hold harmless and minimum funding provisions of title V—an equitable distribution of funds among and within states. It appears that Labor has taken few actions to more equitably distribute national sponsor activities within the states. The 1994 problems of underserved and overserved counties in California, Illinois, and New York were essentially the same ones that those states experienced 5 years earlier, in 1989. Labor officials acknowledge that they stop short of forcing the national sponsors to reallocate their positions, preferring instead to encourage sponsors to shift positions to underserved areas when enrollees vacate positions in overserved areas. State officials repeatedly pointed out that they lack the authority, under law or Labor regulation, to require the national sponsors to reallocate their positions to underserved counties. Labor could do more to encourage more equitably distributed national sponsor activities within a state. In extreme cases, Labor could increase national sponsors’ funding levels, rewarding sponsors willing to establish positions in underserved areas. Such encouragement would not contradict the hold harmless provision, which only applies among the states rather than within a state. Indeed, such encouragement could increase the effectiveness of the national sponsor role in the program. Another option for more equitably distributing SCSEP positions within the states is to increase the percentage of funds dedicated to state governments from each year’s appropriation from the current 22 percent to a higher percentage. If the Congress were to stop enacting the 22-percent limit on state funding, the OAA provision requiring that state governments receive 55 percent of all funding above the 1978 hold harmless amount would take effect. At our request, Labor ran a simulated allocation of the program year 1994 funding formula without the “78/22” cap in place. Under that simulation, the funds available to the states for program year 1994 would have increased from $90 million to about $155 million. National sponsor funding would have decreased from $320 million to $255 million (see app. IV). With their statewide administrative structures and additional funds, state governments might have more flexibility in serving their eligible populations or a greater incentive than the national sponsors to administer positions in underserved areas. In the three states where the state government administers 100 percent of the SCSEP grant money, comparatively few counties are underserved or overserved. For program year 1994, each of Delaware’s three counties had an equitable distribution of positions; each of Hawaii’s five counties had an equitable number of positions; and Alaska’s six geographic areas used for the program had close to equitable numbers. For example, one area of Alaska had 46 positions instead of the equitable number of 43; another had 34 instead of 36. These three states, however, are not typical in their geographic and population features. Increasing the states’ share of the SCSEP funds would most likely not result in a dramatically different profile of enrollees by ethnicity or sex. In the state programs, on average, the percentages of enrollees by ethnicity and sex were about the same as those in the national sponsor programs for the reporting period ending in June 1994. For example, in the state programs, 22 percent of the enrollees were black and 23 percent were male; the comparable percentages in the national sponsor programs were 24 percent black and 29 percent male. Congressional hearings earlier in the program’s history questioned national sponsors’ spending on their administration. In our review, we found that, in program year 1994, eight of the national sponsors shifted some administrative costs to another cost category, and therefore the true administrative costs exceeded the 15-percent statutory limit. This problem appears to be less widespread in the state-administered SCSEP programs. Each of the national sponsors has its own approach to administration. Some of the sponsors perform all of the administrative functions of the program directly. Others subcontract or delegate aspects of administration to other organizations or state agencies. In addition, all of the sponsors fund at least a portion of national headquarters operations from SCSEP grant funds. In 1994, to support about 850 full-time administrative positions, national sponsors budgeted about $6 million for travel and more than $9 million for rental and other office expenses. The 1976 SCSEP regulations permit sponsors to spend their SCSEP grant funds in three categories: administration, enrollee wages and benefits, and other enrollee costs. The OAA has established a 13.5-percent limit for administrative expenses. This limit may increase to 15 percent with a waiver from the Secretary of Labor. “. . . salaries, wages and fringe benefits for project administrators; costs of consumable office supplies used by project staff; costs incurred in the development, preparation, presentation, management and evaluation of the project; the costs of establishing and maintaining accounting and management information systems; costs incurred in the establishment and maintenance of advisory councils; travel of project administrators; rent, utilities, custodial services and indirect costs allowable to the project; training of staff and technical assistance to subproject sponsor staff; costs of equipment and material for use by staff; and audit services.” “enrollee physical examinations; transportation; enrollee training; special job or personal counseling for enrollees; and incidental expenses necessary for enrollee participation, such as work shoes, safety eyeglasses, uniforms, tools, and similar items.” Using application documents that grantees submitted for Labor’s approval—updated with some actual expense data not initially available for the period under review—we examined national sponsors’ budget documents for program year 1994 to see (1) how costs were apportioned among the categories and (2) whether administrative cost limits were being adhered to. We also discussed administrative cost matters with Labor staff and national sponsor officials. The results showed that eight of the sponsors had budgeted administrative expenses in excess of the limit by over $20 million, by classifying some administrative expenses as other enrollee costs and not including them under administrative expenses. The following case illustrates this practice: One national sponsor’s budget documents showed about $14 million for administrative expenses, placing the organization under the 13.5-percent limit. However, our examination identified other amounts, classified in the documents as other enrollee costs, that should have been treated as administrative costs. The sponsor classified as other enrollee costs, rather than as administrative costs, all salaries and benefits paid to its own field staff, including area supervisors, managers of field operations, and program development specialists ($5.9 million), and field staff’s travel ($1.8 million). If combined with the $14 million in acknowledged administrative costs, these expenses would raise total administrative costs for this grantee to more than 20 percent of the grant amount. We similarly recomputed the administrative costs for the other sponsors who understated these expenses (by classifying some as other enrollee costs). We found that the administrative percentages of the eight national sponsors that exceeded the 15-percent administrative expense limit ranged from 16.8 to 23 percent. Appendix V details the administrative expenses of each national sponsor for the 1994 program year. We also reviewed the other enrollee costs average percentages for the state governments in the SCSEP program and compared them with the national sponsors. For the state governments, the average, as a percentage of total grant amount, was about 6 percent in the 1994 program year; for the national sponsors, the comparable figure was about 8 percent. However, 23 state governments recorded other enrollee costs ranging from 7.0 to 13.2 percent. Labor’s SCSEP officials could better identify such administrative expense problems if Labor required that grantees provide better documentation of their administrative expenses, particularly those in the category of other enrollee costs. Because of grantees’ limited or vague reporting, Labor officials cannot adequately explain the other enrollee cost entries in the grantees’ application materials. For example, one grantee provided grant documentation that included an item shown as “other” in the category of other enrollee costs. This item, totaling $1,084,049, was delineated as $55,799 for the sponsor and $1,028,250 for a subgrantee, with no further information provided. At our request, Labor asked the sponsor for further documentation of this item. This documentation indicated that the sponsor and subgrantee expenses included costs that Labor could question for not being classified as administration, including $51,170 for postage, $132,874 for telephone service, and $522,494 for rent. From 1985 through the first half of 1995, the sponsors relied on grant provisions that incorporated proposed regulations instead of the 1976 regulations. These proposed regulations, published in July 1985, and never finalized, expanded the definition of other enrollee costs to permit several categories of costs that the 1976 regulations did not permit. These included expenses for orientation of host agencies, development of appropriate community service employment assignments, and “the costs associated with providing those functions, services, and benefits not categorized as administration or enrollee wages and fringe benefits.”Labor officials acknowledge that Labor operated the SCSEP program without formally amending the 1976 regulations. After the 1987 amendments to the OAA included the 1976 regulations’ 15-percent administrative expense limit as part of the law, Labor’s decision—to use as criteria the 1985 draft regulations—permitted sponsors to improperly characterize administrative expenses as other enrollee costs. Labor’s regulations permit sponsors to include in their administrative costs “. . . indirect costs allowable to the project.” A sponsor may use SCSEP grant money to pay for some of its general operating expenses provided that the sponsor can demonstrate that a part of those expenses indirectly supports SCSEP activities. Although our review concentrated on administrative issues other than indirect costs, Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified a continuing problem of improper indirect cost charges in the program. Under the policy of OMB Circular A-122, Labor’s Office of Cost Determination periodically negotiates indirect cost rates with the national sponsors. Each sponsor’s rate is the percentage of defined general operating costs—termed the “base”—that may be charged against its SCSEP grant as a SCSEP-related administrative expense. The categories of general operating expenses that may be included in the base are defined in each sponsor’s grant agreement with Labor. These categories vary somewhat among sponsors, but they typically include such expenses as executive salaries, payroll, accounting, personnel, depreciation, telephone, travel, and supply expenses. For example, one sponsor’s grant agreement with Labor specified that a rate of 35.21 percent may be applied against the sponsor’s base, defined as “Total direct costs excluding capital expenditures . . . membership fund costs, flow-through funds and program participant costs.” This means that 35.21 percent of the sponsor’s base expenses may be funded with SCSEP money, as long as that amount does not exceed the overall limit on the use of SCSEP grant money for administrative expenses. As shown in table 1, for the 1994 program year, the eight national sponsors that charge indirect costs have approved rates that ranged from 4.95 to 108.1 percent. However, exact comparisons of the rates may not be meaningful because these rates are applied to the sponsors’ different bases. SCSEP grantees have sometimes used the grant funds to pay for questionable indirect costs. One national sponsor charged to the grant more than $21,000 in indirect costs “. . . to promote employee morale and productivity including birthday, holiday and other cards, flowers, and expenses related to the company picnic and other employee morale events.” This was in addition to approximately $32,000 budgeted from direct costs for “. . . the purchase of refrigerators, microwaves, toaster ovens, and other appliances reasonably necessary to promote a positive work environment, and the purchase of bottled water for employees to promote health . . .” OMB guidance allows reasonable expenditures for such items, and we found no record of Labor’s objection to these expenditures. Sometimes, the use of SCSEP dollars for indirect costs involves considerably larger sums. On more than one occasion, Labor’s OIG questioned the propriety of a national sponsor’s use of SCSEP funds to pay for some of its operating expenses. One OIG report stated that the sponsor “. . . improperly charged to its indirect cost pool salaries and fringe benefits of employees of those divisions and offices responsible for [the national sponsor’s] own activities, such as fundraising and membership, and other non-Federal projects.” The questioned costs for program years 1988 to 1990 totaled over $700,000. The OIG stated, and program officials acknowledged, that if the amounts were upheld as improper, the national sponsor had no way of paying the money back. Yet for 3 years, while the dispute advanced through an administrative appeals process, Labor continued to award the sponsor SCSEP grants, with only a small modification to the sponsor’s indirect cost rate. A Labor official explained that the Department wanted to continue the funding while the matter was being adjudicated. However, the national sponsor and Labor decided to settle the matter before final adjudication: they agreed, early in 1995, that the sponsor would pay $400,000 (in full settlement of the $700,000 of disallowed costs) to Labor, without interest, over a 4-year period. The $400,000 is to be repaid from the sponsor’s nonfederal income in fixed quarterly installments: four payments of $12,500 in year 1, $18,750 in year 2, $31,250 in year 3, and $37,500 in year 4. At no time during the dispute did Labor’s program officials impose a cutback in total administrative spending, even a small one. Audits for additional program years are in process. Along with SCSEP’s goals of providing training and subsidized jobs, Labor has set for each sponsor a goal of placing at least 20 percent of the enrollees in unsubsidized jobs each program year. During our review, we noted that Labor had not clearly stated in any of its regulations the meaning of an unsubsidized placement. This made it virtually impossible for Labor to know how successful the sponsors are in achieving that objective. Without such a definition, the sponsors may interpret unsubsidized placement in many ways. One sponsor has defined it as one in which a program enrollee spends a specified minimum time and then moves into a paying, non-SCSEP job and holds it for a specified minimum time. Other sponsors have had no time requirements for post-SCSEP job retention or for program participation for claiming an unsubsidized placement. Labor officials agreed that determining SCSEP job placement success was a problem and initiated efforts to produce a useful definition. As we were concluding our review, Labor issued a directive defining unsubsidized placement for SCSEP purposes. States’ populations of those 55 years of age and older have changed since 1978. The statutory hold harmless provision locks in 1978 funding levels that do not correspond to each state’s eligible 55 and older population, adjusted by income; this limits Labor’s ability to equitably distribute SCSEP positions among the states. Consequently, some states in the SCSEP program are overserved and some are underserved. Labor could more equitably distribute SCSEP funds among states if the OAA’s title V hold harmless provision were amended or eliminated. Amending it to permit Labor to hold harmless only the sponsors’ 1978 nationwide total number of positions, rather than the 1978 funding level in each state, would enable Labor to (1) depart from the 1978 state-by-state pattern and (2) allot the funds so as to correct the problem of overserved and underserved states. Repealing the hold harmless provision, although an option, could significantly change the program’s character if it resulted in major shifts of funding allocations from national sponsors to state governments. Similarly, within states, the distribution of SCSEP funds leaves some counties overserved and some underserved. National sponsors are required by law to notify state governments and Labor of their plans for SCSEP positions in each state, but only Labor has the authority to effect a different pattern of positions among a state’s counties. Labor could adjust national sponsors’ funding levels to reward those willing to establish positions in underserved counties. Another step that might improve the distribution of funds within states would be legislative action to increase the percentage of positions funded by grants to state governments from the current 22 percent imposed by appropriations restrictions. The distribution patterns in the three states solely responsible for SCSEP activities were comparatively equitable. If these appropriations limitations did not exist, the share, over the hold harmless amount, going to the state governments would increase to 55 percent under the 55/45 provision of the authorizing legislation. The SCSEP program also has administrative expense problems. In the 1994 program year, we estimate that the national sponsors’ budgeted administrative expenses collectively exceeded by over $20 million the limit set by the OAA. This occurred because Labor’s 1985 draft regulations rather than the 1976 regulations guided the national sponsors’ cost allocations. Under the 1985 draft regulations, expenditures that we believe to be administrative expenses may be charged to other enrollee costs. Labor failed to require specific and useful reporting by grantees of their other enrollee costs. Therefore, sometimes, Labor could not readily identify what kinds of expenses were included in that category. The 1995 SCSEP regulations, which took effect in July 1995, allow a broad interpretation of other enrollee costs. Unless modified, these new regulations will permit the continuing allocation of administrative expenses. These funds could otherwise be spent to finance additional program positions. Labor’s use of a modified noncompetitive process for making SCSEP grants essentially results in continuing to offer grant applications only to organizations already in the program. However, in SCSEP’s case, Labor does not follow its normal procedure for noncompetitive grants, in which the PRB reviews grant decisions. If followed, PRB reviews can advise whether competition is appropriate for each acquisition and whether long-term relationships with the same grantees are consistent with Labor’s policies. Labor officials did not adequately explain the program’s exemption from this review, and we see no justification for it. If the Congress wishes to ensure equitable distribution of SCSEP funds among states, it should consider amending or eliminating the title’s hold harmless provision. Such an amendment would authorize Labor to hold harmless only the 1978 nationwide level of national sponsor positions. The Department would not be required to hold harmless the 1978 state-by-state levels. If the hold harmless provision were eliminated, (1) the national sponsors could experience reduced funding levels and (2) Labor could distribute the funds on the basis of the most current demographic data available. If the Congress wishes to better meet the OAA’s title V goal of equitably distributing SCSEP funds within states, it should consider increasing the portion of SCSEP grant funds allocated to state governments from the current 22 percent. One way to do that would be to forgo appropriations act language limiting the state governments to 22 percent of the annual appropriation. We recommend that the Secretary better meet the OAA’s title V goal of equitably distributing SCSEP funds within states. To do this, the Secretary should (1) require greater cooperation among national sponsors and states in equitable distribution matters and (2) adjust, as necessary, sponsors’ funding levels to reward sponsors that are willing to establish positions in underserved counties. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary revise the 1995 regulations to adopt the definition of administrative costs set out in the 1976 regulations. We also recommend that the Secretary enforce the statutory limit on administrative expenses and be prepared to reduce the funds available for administration of any grantee exceeding the legal limit by improperly categorizing costs or incurring improper indirect costs. Finally, we recommend that the Secretary no longer permit title V grants to be exempt from Labor’s normal review process and subject these grants to the same review as other noncompetitive grants. We provided copies of our draft report, for comment, to the Department of Labor and, through Labor, to the national sponsors. We met with Labor officials several times to discuss their concerns as well as those of the national sponsors. Where appropriate, we revised the report to include information provided by, and through, Labor. Labor’s comments and our detailed responses appear in appendix VI. Labor generally agreed with our recommendations that it (1) apply its normal noncompetitive review process to SCSEP grants and (2) require national sponsor grantees to cooperate more with states in the equitable distribution process. Specifically, Labor agreed to (1) have PRB review of SCSEP grant awards and (2) prepare procedures to enhance the role of states in the annual equitable distribution meetings. Labor also agreed to implement a process to ensure that it is apprised of disagreements on equitable distribution. Although Labor officials agreed to examine the matter more closely, they disagreed with our estimate that for the 1994 program year budget funds of over $20 million in administrative expenses were improperly allocated to the category of other enrollee costs. Citing recent audits of national sponsor organizations that did not disclose noncompliance, Labor and several of the national sponsors questioned our (1) use of budget data from grant applications and (2) criticism of criteria used for determining what costs should be allowed in the category of other enrollee costs. First, budget data submitted by the national sponsors were the only data available for the period we examined. More importantly, however, decisions by Labor officials on the appropriateness of expenses to be charged for the SCSEP program are made on budget data rather than actual expenses. Thus, our use of budget numbers that Labor uses seems appropriate. Second, with regard to Labor’s questioning of our criticism of the cost criteria used, during the period covered by our review, only the 1976 regulations had been formally promulgated. Because of Labor’s written comments about other enrollee costs, we discussed the issue with officials of Labor’s OIG and its contract auditors. Labor’s OIG staff told us that they measure grantee performance against the grant agreement. Since ETA’s program staff had incorporated the 1985 draft regulations into the grant agreements, the OIG staff had reviewed the grantees’ performance against those criteria and had not focused on this issue. However, OIG contract auditor staff agreed that administrative costs appear to have been shifted to the category of other enrollee costs after the 1985 draft regulations became part of the grant agreements. Those discussions and Labor’s position led us to recommend that the Secretary of Labor review the SCSEP regulations implemented in July 1995. Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Labor and interested congressional committees. We will make copies available to others on request. Please call me on (202) 512-7014 if you have any questions concerning the report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix VII. To identify Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) grants for program years 1993-94, we reviewed grant applications, the Older Americans Act (OAA), and Labor’s regulations that relate to grant awards and to title V. We also reviewed prior studies, audits, and reports on SCSEP, including those by Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). We interviewed officials in the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) divisions of Older Workers Programs and Acquisition and Assistance (the “Grant Office”) and in Labor’s Office of Cost Determination and Office of Procurement. We also interviewed the OIG staff currently involved in program audits and several contract auditors engaged in audits of the SCSEP national sponsors. To learn about Labor’s oversight, coordination among sponsors, subsidized placements, and the effects of administrative practices on program goals, we interviewed officials from the 10 national sponsor organizations; 28 of the state units that administer or have the opportunity to administer other organizations with an interest in SCSEP, including, the National Association of State Units on Aging (NASUA), the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the U.S. Administration on Aging; and several organizations operating as subgrantees for national sponsors and state agencies. To learn about equitable distribution requirements and Labor’s implementation of the OAA’s hold harmless provision, we interviewed staff from ETA’s Office of the Comptroller and reviewed the data used in the funding allocation process. We also reviewed states’ equitable distribution reports for 1989 and 1994 to check compliance with and progress over time in meeting the OAA’s equitable distribution provision. To trace the evolution of SCSEP, we reviewed several legislative histories, from the program’s beginning as a pilot project to its present status. We also interviewed former congressional staff who had interests in SCSEP authorization, appropriations, and oversight. To select states for review, we tried to obtain a balanced perspective in geography, size, and degree of direct involvement with SCSEP. Our selection was not random. In discussing administrative and other enrollee costs for states or the national sponsors, unless otherwise noted, we used amounts budgeted in the grants rather than costs actually incurred. Labor acts on the budget information in the sponsors’ grant application packages during its approval process. Although we reviewed audits by Labor’s OIG and others, we did not personally audit the grantees or examine specific sponsor expenditures. We did not try to assess (1) the outcomes of training offered by national sponsors, states, or U.S. Territories; (2) the 502 (e)(1) section of the OAA allowing Labor to use small amounts of SCSEP funds to conduct experimental projects that involve placing enrollees in private business concerns; or (3) the relative performance in administering SCSEP of individual states and territories or individual national sponsors. We did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy of the data provided to us. We conducted our review between April 1994 and April 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) national sponsor projects operate locally under two general approaches: (1) by subgrant agreements with local organizations, such as agencies on aging or community groups, and (2) through local affiliates of the national sponsor. National sponsor decisions on where they will administer their enrollee positions—based on how they choose to operate and the constraints that they operate under—alter the distribution of program resources within states. A profile of each national sponsor along with grant information for program year 1993 (the most recent complete year for which performance data were available) follows. (The number of staff shown as funded by the grant is based on grant application materials. The number of staff funded through the indirect cost portion of the grant may not be readily identifiable.) Year first provided funds: 1969 Administration: 10 area supervisors responsible for state projects run by AARP staff and enrollees in administrative positions Number of grant-funded employees: 144 Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 502 (7 percent) States operating in: 34 (33 and Puerto Rico) State slots administered: Florida (342), North Dakota (15) Year first provided funds: 1978 Administration: 13 regional offices, one subgrantee operates SCSEP as Project Ayuda Number of grant-funded employees: 38 (estimate) States operating in: 10 (9 states and District of Columbia) (Puerto Rico added in program year 1994) Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 45 (2.6 percent) State slots administered: Florida (23) Slots granted to states: none Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, sick leave, vacation, paid holidays, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Definition of unsubsidized placement: Placement must have occurred in the same fiscal year that a person was a SCSEP enrollee. Person must stay on the job long enough to receive “a couple of paychecks.” Follow-up is at 60 days. Year first provided funds: 1965 Administration: 30 SCSEP state offices serving one or more states coordinate Green Thumb employees and enrollees used in administration Number of grant-funded employees: 417 States operating in: 45 (44 and Puerto Rico) Number of enrollees in used in SCSEP administration: 439 (2.6 percent) State slots administered: Montana, South Dakota, Ohio, Florida Slots granted to states: none Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, personal leave (up to 50 hours maximum), bereavement leave (up to 3 days), sick leave, jury duty benefits, plus other fringe benefits in accordance with Green Thumb policy Definition of unsubsidized placement: Enrollee must have received job orientation, assessment, and counseling. Placement must be expected to last at least 90 days, must last at least 30 days. Job must have been procured within 90 days of leaving enrollee status and pay a wage equal to or greater than what they received as an enrollee. Year first provided funds: 1989 Administration: Los Angeles and Seattle projects supervised by headquarters staff, two subprojects Number of grant-funded employees: 14 States operating in: three (increases to eight in program year 1994) Number of enrollees in SCSEP administration: 26 (7.6 percent) State slots administered: none Slots granted to states: none Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, up to 13 holidays, 4 hours per month sick leave, 1 personal day, 3 days bereavement leave, 10 days jury duty Definition of unsubsidized placement: Must go directly to the job from enrollee status. No minimum time on the job is required. Year first provided funds: 1978 Administration: NCCBA staff operate state projects—no subcontracts Number of grant-funded employees: 43 States operating in: 11 (10 states and District of Columbia) Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 68 (3.7 percent) State slots administered: Florida Slots granted to states: none Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, sick leave, annual leave, 11 paid holidays Definition of unsubsidized placement: Enrollee must have come from program directly with jobs preferred to last at least 30 continuous days. Job must have minimum hourly rate at least equal to $4.25. Follow up at 30, 60, and 90 days. No minimum time as an enrollee required. Year first provided funds: 1968 Administration: 3 regional offices, 63 subsponsor agencies, direct management of Los Angeles project Number of grant-funded employees: 77 States operating in: 21 Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 188 (2.9 percent) State slots administered: (Arizona, New Jersey, Florida) Slots granted to states: (Arizona, New Jersey, Virginia) Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance (where required), as well as benefits consistent with host agency environment Definition of unsubsidized placement: Any job not federally funded or volunteer. No time limits in effect. Year first provided funds: 1968 Administration: All projects subcontracted to municipal, charitable, local, or state organizations. NCSC staff involved in training and subproject supervision. Number of grant-funded employees: 65 States operating in: 28 (27 and the District of Columbia) Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 275 (2.7 percent) State slots administered: Alabama, Florida Slots granted to states: Maryland, District of Columbia Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, 8 paid holidays, optional small hospital policy, 2 hours per pay period of leave Definition of unsubsidized placement: A job with pay equal to or better than that of the enrollee position. No time requirements exist on how long the placement must last or on how long the enrollee must have been out of the program. Year first provided funds: 1989 Administration: State coordinators in three states, one subproject Number of grant-funded employees: 10 States operating in: six (increased to 16 in program year 1994) Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: one (0.3 percent) Year first provided funds: 1978 Administration: subcontracts with 23 NUL affiliates in urban areas Number of grant-funded employees: 76 States operating in: 16 Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 100 (4.5 percent) State slots administered: Florida Slots granted to states: none Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, and unemployment compensation where applicable (New York and Michigan) Definition of unsubsidized placement: Placement in a position not funded by another government grant found within 30 days after leaving enrollee status; must have been an enrollee at least a week and must remain on the job at least 30 days. Year first provided funds: 1972 Administration: 225 projects at various USFS locations within the eight Forest Service regions, nine regional experimental stations, and headquarters; two subcontracts Number of grant-funded employees: 287 (4 full time, 283 part time) States operating in: 40 (38 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) Number of enrollees used in SCSEP administration: 1 (0 percent) State slots administered: Florida Slots granted to states: New Hampshire, Vermont Benefits to enrollees: FICA, workers’ compensation, one hour of paid leave for every 20 hours worked, up to $35 allowance for annual physical exam Definition of unsubsidized placement: USFS has no required minimum for placement duration or separation from the program. Program year 1994 by state (continued) The amounts of the SCSEP grants have been affected by appropriations language that distributes the grant funds between the national sponsors and states in a way that differs from the language in the OAA. For program year 1994, the national sponsors received about $320 million (78 percent of the funds), and the states received about $90 million (22 percent of the funds). At our request, Labor ran a simulated allocation of the program year 1994 funding formula without the 78/22 appropriations language limit in place. Under that simulation, the funds in excess of the 1978 appropriation would have been split 55 percent for the states and 45 percent for the national sponsors. Of the $410.3 million appropriated for program year 1994, funds for the state sponsors would have increased by $65 million to about $155 million; national sponsor funding would have decreased by that amount to $255 million. The first three columns of the simulation (see table IV.1) represent simulated program year 1994 funding for the state sponsors. Column 1 shows each state’s 1978 funding level; column 2 shows the additional funds, in excess of the 1978 level, that would have been distributed to states on the basis of the “55-45” split; and column 3 is the sum of these first two columns. The national total for the state sponsors, including territorial allocations, is more than $155 million. The next three columns represent simulated funding for the national sponsors. Column 4 shows the amount of national sponsor funding in each state in 1978; column 5 shows the additional funds, in excess of the 1978 level, that would have been distributed to the national sponsors on the basis of the 55-45 split; and column 6 is the sum of columns 4 and 5. The national total for the national sponsors is about $255 million. Columns 7 to 9 combine the state sponsor and national sponsor funding. Column 7 is the sum of columns 1 and 4. Nationally, column 7 totals about $201 million, the amount of the 1978 allocation for the program. Column 8 is the sum of columns 2 and 5. Nationally, column 8 totals over $209 million and represents the funds for program year 1994 that exceed of the 1978 appropriation. Column 9 is the total of columns 7 and 8; nationally, column 9 totals the $410.3 million appropriation for program year 1994. 55%/45% state sponsors 2,236,065 55%/45% national sponsors 55%/45% total (continued) For program year 1994, most of the national sponsors allocated administrative costs to the category of other enrollee costs rather than the administrative category, which has an Older Americans Act (OAA) limit of 15 percent. Officials at Labor and some of the national sponsor organizations justified this practice because the costs included support of enrollee training or assessment activities or the costs of providing these services, expenditures allowed under the 1985 proposed SCSEP regulations. However, because the 1985 proposed regulations were never published in final form, they never superseded the 1976 legally promulgated regulations. Labor, while defending the 1985 draft definition of other enrollee costs, could not specifically explain how many of these allowed costs for program year 1994 related directly to the enrollees—nor did most of the documents provided by the national sponsors in response to Labor’s request to provide explanatory data. Some grantees provided the results of internal surveys of staff activity taken in 1985 or earlier to support their budget allocations. Others provided only their stated reliance upon Labor’s 1985 proposed regulation language as the basis for their including such administrative costs as other enrollee costs. When actual costs for program year 1994 were provided, we reviewed them and, where appropriate, included them in the tables. Tables V.2 to V.11 delineate grant costs for administration and other enrollee costs (1) from the individual national sponsor grant agreements and (2) as we identified them. Our delineation identifies costs allocated to other enrollee costs that, in our judgment, were administrative costs. All costs that could be attributed directly to enrollee training, special job-related or personal counseling, incidentals, or other direct support were excluded from the following tables. A combined total of (1) administrative costs from the grant agreement and (2) additional administrative costs identified by GAO from the other enrollee costs category is also shown for each grantee organization. A combined percentage for administration is computed as well. When actual cost data were provided by the grantees, those costs are shown in an “actual costs” column. In these instances, actual costs were added to the acknowledged administrative costs from the grant to derive totals and percentages. In cases where no actual cost data were provided, the actual cost column is blank. Using the budget data from the grant applications and, where available, actual cost data provided by the grantees, we found that administrative costs for most of the sponsors were higher than the 15-percent limit in the OAA. For program year 1994, the administrative costs labeled as other enrollee costs exceeded $18 million. (Using budget data alone, the total exceeded $20 million.) Table V.1 summarizes the additional administrative costs for all the national sponsors. Additional administrative cost (budget) Additional administrative cost (with actual) Percent of grant for all administration (with actual) American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Association Nacional Pro Personas Mayores (ANPPM) National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA) National Caucus and Center on Black Aged (NCCBA) National Council on Aging (NCOA) National Council of Senior Citizens (NCSC) National Urban League (NUL) National Indian Council on Aging (NICOA) U.S. Forest Service (USFS) AARP: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($49,894,391) Subtotal (A) AARP-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) ANPPM: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($12,570,219) 15 (with waiver) Subtotal (A) ANPPM-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) 22.4 Green Thumb: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($102,509,745) Subtotal (A) Green Thumb- identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) NAPCA: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($5,067,315) Subtotal (A) NAPCA-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) NCCBA: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($12,298,332) 154,143 (est.) Subtotal (A) NCCBA-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) No actual costs provided for these categories. NCOA: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($37,442,704) Subtotal (A) NCOA-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) NCSC: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($62,845,065) Contingency for local project administration Subtotal (A) NCSC-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) NICOA: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($5,066,911) Subtotal (A) NICOA-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) NUL: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($14,341,274) Subtotal (A) NUL-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) USFS: SCSEP federal grant for program year 1994 ($26,844,903) Subtotal (A) USFS-identified administration (B) GAO total of administration (A) + (B) The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Labor’s letter dated July 31, 1995. 1. Concerning the appropriateness of the draft report title, SCSEP: Significant Changes Needed, the purpose of our review was not to question the need for the program or its results. We were asked to examine SCSEP’s administration; therefore, we have changed the title to Department of Labor: Senior Community Service Employment Program Delivery Could Be Improved Through Legislative and Administrative Actions to reflect that focus. More specifically, we found systemic flaws that may deny eligible people an opportunity to participate in the program and a cost allocation approach that allowed the improper budgeting and expenditure of millions of dollars, permitting national sponsors to exceed the statutory 15-percent limit on administrative costs. 2. SCSEP is a grant program for which applicants apply annually. Labor has the authority to decrease or deny altogether the funding amount sought if it has concerns about an applicant’s future performance. Therefore, Labor had a choice in funding the national sponsor in question. For this national sponsor, Labor had sufficient reason, on the basis of its Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, to (1) be concerned about future performance and (2) consider a change to that grantee’s funding. 3. The statement, which we have rewritten to avoid the inference mentioned, seeks to explain program funding by identifying contributors and the differences between cash and in-kind contributions. 4. The report has been changed to include Labor’s updated data that reflect the proper proportion of women in the SCSEP program. 5. Although funding amounts are related to the time sponsors have participated in SCSEP, the wide variation in sponsors’ funding has been cited as a problem by several national sponsors as well as several states. Some of the smaller, ethnically targeted national sponsors have tried to serve targeted groups, these sponsors said, but have been thwarted by a reluctance on the part of some large national sponsors to leave areas they served. According to some state officials, the significant disparity between the funding they received and that received by some national sponsors left the states in a relatively powerless position in disputes over equitable distribution. 6. Noncompetitive grant awards that total several hundred million dollars a year are sufficiently sensitive to warrant the Procurement Review Board’s review. Further, constraints on the Board members’ time is not justification for weakening internal control measures. An independent review of grant award decisions, although administratively established and not explicitly required by law, is an important internal control. 7. In objecting to our views on the inadequacy of attempts to achieve equitable distribution of enrollee positions, Labor raised several issues. Concerning the issue of responsibility by states, we have revised the report to ensure that it clearly points out the responsibility that states, as well as national sponsors, have in achieving equitable distribution of enrollee positions. Concerning the issue of administrative efficiency related to the goal of equitable distribution, Labor cited our 1979 report, The Distribution of Senior Community Service Employment Positions (GAO/HRD-80-13, Nov. 8, 1979). Labor quoted that report on the approach taken by sponsors—and particularly national sponsors—to achieve equitable distribution. The report noted that, relative to the administrative limits required of the program, the national sponsors’ efforts to become cost effective did have merit. But the relationship between national sponsors’ and Labor’s efforts to achieve equitable distribution is more fully detailed in a later report, Information on the Senior Community Service Employment Program and the Proposed Transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services (GAO/HRD-84-42, Mar. 12, 1984). This 1984 report (p. 22) noted the following: “A Labor official stated that the distribution of enrollee positions within the states may not be equitable since some national sponsors established large clusters of enrollee positions early in the development of SCSEP, and these have been carried forward.” According to the 1984 report, Labor, in February 1979, asked for SCSEP sponsors in each state to (1) discuss and agree upon a rationale for distributing SCSEP funds, (2) identify areas that showed inequitable distribution, (3) establish plans for eliminating inequities without displacing current enrollees, and (4) send these plans to Labor. Labor officials said they did not receive many plans. In 1981, following up on that request, Labor asked national sponsors and state agencies, as a group effort, to report on the progress made toward achieving equitable distribution. Labor said that it received reports from approximately 90 percent of the states. As also noted in our 1984 report, Labor officials established a panel of representatives—from Labor, national sponsors, and state agencies—to review the equitable distribution reports and determine which states were making progress. The panel examined the state reports, but, according to our 1984 report, “The results were never formalized by Labor, and no general feedback was provided to the sponsors.” Labor did suggest to the program sponsors that they use the reports during their next planning sessions. In January 1984, Labor once again requested another equitable distribution report. According to our 1984 report, “while such cooperative efforts by national and state sponsors are directed toward equitable distribution, Labor does not know that such distribution has occurred.” When we began the review leading to this latest report, we asked Labor officials if they knew the status of equitable distribution in the states compared with its status 5 years earlier. Labor officials did not know for certain which states had progressed in equitable distribution. Concerning Labor’s complaint about census data, any comparison of distribution of positions between 1989 and 1994 is, necessarily, skewed. This is because the 1989 distribution of enrollee positions was made on the basis of 1980 census data, and the 1994 distribution was made on the basis of 1990 census data. The introduction of 1990 census data in the 1994 equitable distribution reports may have obscured progress made between 1989 and 1994 in some areas and exaggerated progress in others. 8. The number of enrollee positions available depends on the level of SCSEP funding, not on the hold harmless provision. When funding levels decline, past performance indicates that sponsors—state and national—leave some positions unfilled to ensure that enrollees in other positions may continue in the program. In receiving enrollee positions formerly available to a national sponsor under the hold harmless provision, a state sponsor would have the option of (1) administering these positions itself or (2) subcontracting the administration to others, including the original national sponsor. In addition, the forward funding nature of the program (see footnote 7) would give all parties concerned ample time to adjust to a change in sponsors. Therefore, it is not likely that removing the hold harmless provision would “place many enrollees ‘on-the-street’ without alternatives.” 9. Sponsors that emphasize different activities and target different groups may, nevertheless, serve the same people. All sponsors must provide enrollees positions and training that corresponds to their aptitudes and preferences—just as all sponsors, regardless of their ethnic focus, must accept potential enrollees only on the basis of age and income criteria, not on ethnicity or sex. 10. The unwritten agreement mentioned allows national sponsors to avoid situations that might provoke dissension because of differences in salaries or benefits of enrollees participating through different sponsors. This policy could possibly deny enrollees access to the type of training best suited to their needs. Whether such a denial is permanent or not is irrelevant. The policy serves the interests of SCSEP’s national sponsors rather than those of the elderly poor, for whom the program exists. 11. Several national sponsors—the U.S. Forest Service is an example—have geographic constraints on their decisions on areas to serve. Other national sponsors have a preference for serving specific ethnic or minority groups (whose languages and cultures may require specialized knowledge), which guides some of their decisions on areas to serve. States are not likely to face such constraints or preferences. In addition, some states with small populations have said (1) their level of effort in SCSEP has been curtailed by the minimal funding they receive and (2) more funding would allow them to increase their SCSEP efforts. 12. Labor raised two issues: (1) our use of budgeted rather than actual expense data in assessing administrative and other enrollee costs and (2) our interpretation of acceptable administrative costs in the SCSEP program. Regarding the first issue, during our review, we obtained from Labor’s SCSEP staff the data relevant to SCSEP grant awards. When we discussed actual cost data, staff described the separation of Labor’s program and fiscal oversight activities and the limited use of actual cost data in program planning and new grants approval. Actual cost data are not normally available until well after the grant year is completed. When we received Labor’s enclosure, indicating its revised view on the use of actual cost data, we asked when these data would be available. Actual data would not be available for 3 months or longer, Labor said. By that time, program year 1995 allocations had already been made. We also asked for any additional data the national sponsors had used to justify their budgeted costs for the 1994-95 program year. Labor said it did not have these data but would request them from the national sponsors. Nine of the national sponsors provided data or information intended to explain and support their allocation of costs to the category of other enrollee costs. In instances in which these data indicated that the expenses had directly supported other enrollee cost services, we have revised the totals we had originally developed using budgeted amounts and noted the revisions in the actual costs columns of tables V.2 through V.11. However, little of the cost data adequately distinguished other enrollee costs as being in direct support of the enrollees rather than general administrative operations. Ultimately, the relevance of the budgeted versus actual costs issue is questionable because Labor’s SCSEP program officials historically have based their application approval and oversight decisions primarily on budgeted costs, which should be supported by up-to-date and accurate cost data. Most of the data Labor received from the national sponsors did not directly support the budgeted costs they were asked to support. Regarding the second issue, Labor’s other response to our findings of misallocations questions our interpretation of acceptable administrative costs. Labor cites the authority of the 1985 SCSEP draft regulations and their incorporation into the grant agreements. As noted earlier in this report, these draft regulations have no legal authority. In 1976, Labor published the only formal regulations in effect for SCSEP before program year 1995. Labor’s proposed amended SCSEP regulations, published in 1985, remained in draft form. Because these regulations never became final, they never gained the force and effect of law. Between 1976 and 1995, the only regulations in effect that pertained to SCSEP were the 1976 regulations. Through its comments, Labor has (1) downplayed the existence of the legally promulgated 1976 regulations and (2) interpreted the draft 1985 regulations as having the force and effect of law, when, in fact, they do not. Labor officials have not provided us with an acceptable legal basis for using the 1985 draft regulations instead of the legally promulgated regulations of 1976. Finally, these officials also suggested that other Labor programs under other legislative authority may permit a different interpretation of cost allocations. This may be true, but with respect to SCSEP, the regulations and related provisions of the Older Americans Act (OAA) speak for themselves. A brief discussion of the context of the other enrollee costs issue may help in understanding it. The national sponsors have repeatedly criticized Labor’s refusal to recalculate the unit cost to administer an enrollee position. Labor officials have informally acknowledged that the administrative costs associated with a placement have increased significantly over time. They also have acknowledged that some expenses that have been allocated to the category of other enrollee costs by national and state sponsors would have been more appropriately included in the administrative cost category. Through the introduction of the 1985 SCSEP draft regulations, Labor, in effect, used the category of other enrollee costs as a way to provide sponsors, most national and some state, with additional funds to cover administrative expenses. The purpose of our review was not to determine whether the present level of funding for administrative expenses is adequate but to identify whether administrative expenses have been properly allocated under existing law and regulations. We continue to conclude that in many instances administrative expenses have not been properly allocated. Finally, the July 1995 regulations, which became final as we concluded our review, will allow many of the cost allocations of the type that violated the 1976 regulations to continue. We believe that Labor’s interpretation of these new regulations is inconsistent with the OAA’s 15-percent limit on administrative costs. This belief has prompted our recommendation that the Secretary of Labor clearly delineate the expenses allowable as other enrollee costs and adopt the definition of administrative costs set out in the 1976 regulations. 13. Labor’s OIG officials and contract auditors have told us that significant concern has existed about grantee indirect costs for several years. These costs have been the focus of most of Labor’s OIG audit activity for several of the grantee organizations. 14. While the Office of Management and Budget guidance allows reasonable expenditures for “employee morale activities,” we questioned the use of scarce program funds for such activities. In the report example Labor cited, one of the grantee organizations budgeted about $57,000 for items to promote staff morale and for recognition of staff achievement. We have changed the report to reflect the fact that $25,000 of the budgeted amount was from indirect costs and $31,944 was from direct costs. The grantee organization in question provided actual cost data showing that program year 1994 expenditures from its employee morale account were $21,347.27 rather than the budgeted amount of $21,821. 15. We have changed the report to reflect that reporting of only legitimate unsubsidized placements is the responsibility of states as well as national sponsors. Laurel H. Rabin, Communications Analyst Stefanie G. Weldon, Senior Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO examined the Department of Labor's (DOL) Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), focusing on: (1) DOL process for awarding SCSEP grants; (2) the extent to which DOL equitably distributes SCSEP funds; and (3) SCSEP administrative costs. GAO found that: (1) in order to maintain 1978 activity levels, the Older Americans Act (OAA) requires DOL to award SCSEP grants to national sponsors and those with proven track records; (2) of the $410 million in SCSEP appropriations for program year 1994, $234.5 million was distributed under the 1978 activity level provision; (3) DOL's use of the 1978 allocation pattern severely limited its ability to achieve equitable distribution among states; (4) appropriations statutes have overriden the title V funding provision to require that no more than 22 percent of SCSEP appropriations be allocated to state governments; and (5) in program year 1994, national sponsors' administrative costs exceeded the 15-percent limit due to administrative expenses being charged to another cost category. |
(CNN) Singer Ariana Grande had just performed her last song, "Dangerous Woman," to delighted fans, and the lights had just come on.
As the crowd began to move, many of them children wearing bunny ears like their idol, eyewitnesses at Monday's concert at the Manchester Arena described a loud, sharp bang, and then chaos broke out.
"Ariana had just finished her last song. We were getting ready to leave the arena and the next minute we heard a mighty bang coming from the left-hand side of the arena," Carole Long, who was at the concert with her 10-year-old daughter Robin, told CNN.
"Everyone went crazy and was running and screaming and trying to get out and jumping over seats. How we weren't crushed to death is amazing. People were just pushing and pushing and pushing. The stewards were screaming at people to get out."
Other witnesses say the sound of what police believe was an improvised explosive device -- detonated by one man who was killed in the blast -- was short and sharp like a gun shot, and then the air was filled with smoke.
Twenty two people have been conformed dead, some of them children, and dozens others injured in the worst terror attack in Britain for 12 years.
The crowd was made up of mainly young people who had come to see Grande in her first of three scheduled concerts in the UK, on her European and Latin American tour.
Police help victims of the attack on Monday night.
Abby Mullen, who had traveled down from Scotland for the gig, posted her recollection of the horrific attack on Facebook from her hotel room.
"I thought we would leave seconds before the last song finished ... to get home quicker instead of waiting longer for a taxi. As we were leaving a bomb or explosion went off meters in front of me", she wrote.
"Peoples skin, blood and faeces where (sic) everywhere including in my hair & on my bag. I'm still finding bits of god knows what in my hair."
Helpers attend to injured people at Manchester Arena on Monday night.
Andy James had taken his nine-year-old brother to what was his first ever pop concert. He said the explosion happened at around 10:40 p.m. as they were walking up the stairs to leave.
"It must have been about 40 feet from where we were. We heard the explosion and the boom rattled in my chest. You could just feel it on the ground.
"We left to go in the opposite direction of where the explosion happened. There was a stampede of people, I was trying to help people up as we were leaving.
James said that as he ushered his little brother out, "I had my hand on his chest and his heart was beating so fast."
The scene outside Manchester Arena on Monday night.
'Bodies scattered'
"There was just bodies scattered about everywhere ... it was just chaos," Kiera Dawber told CNN. "There was at least 20 or 30 people on the floor, some that you could see straight off were just ... just dead."
Dawber said she saw a man holding his wife. "She wasn't in a very good state," Dawber said.
"The injuries I saw ... it didn't look like the sort of injuries that people get from tripping over people in a hurry," said Joel Goodman, a freelance photographer on the scene.
Parents shouting out and yelling names
Ivo Delgado, another witness, recalled hearing one explosion before he saw people running.
"It was more a moment of confusion, but still the bang was really great, really massive," he said. "I saw at least 3 people on the floor injured."
"There was a lot of little girls running out, and parents shouting out and yelling names," Delgado said.
Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People in Manchester, England, gather in St. Ann's Square on Thursday, May 25. They were observing a national minute of silence to remember the victims of a suicide bombing at an Ariana Grande concert. Hide Caption 1 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Britain's Queen Elizabeth II speaks to 15-year-old Millie Robson and her mother, Marie, during a visit to the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital on May 25. The Queen was visiting those injured in the attack. Hide Caption 2 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert A police officer guards a house in Manchester as investigations continued on May 25. Police say a man carrying explosives acted as a lone attacker and died in the blast. Hide Caption 3 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Flowers and tribute messages are left for victims in St. Ann's Square. Hide Caption 4 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert A women sheds tears after observing the minute of silence in St. Ann's Square. Hide Caption 5 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert A Manchester road is closed off as police raids continued on May 25. Hide Caption 6 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Local residents hold Manchester City and Manchester United soccer jerseys during the national minute of silence. Hide Caption 7 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Police officers deliver flowers to a makeshift memorial in Manchester on Wednesday, May 24. Hide Caption 8 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Women cry after placing flowers in Manchester on May 24. Hide Caption 9 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert A forensics team works at the scene of the explosion on Tuesday, May 23. Hide Caption 10 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert British Prime Minister Theresa May condemns the "callous terrorist attack" as she delivers a statement in London on May 23. Hide Caption 11 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Police help someone after the attack at Manchester Arena on Monday, May 22. Hide Caption 12 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People gather outside the arena. "We can confirm there was an incident as people were leaving the Ariana Grande show last night," police said on Twitter early on Tuesday. "The incident took place outside the venue in a public space. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims." Hide Caption 13 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People receive medical attention at a railway station close to the arena. The incident happened shortly after Grande had left the stage, shortly after 10:30 p.m. (5:30 p.m. ET) according to eyewitnesses. Calvin Welsford, an 18-year-old concertgoer, said that he heard a "loud bang" a couple of minutes after Grande's set had finished. Hide Caption 14 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Paramedics respond to the scene. Hide Caption 15 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Emergency workers and concert attendees gather outside the arena. Hide Caption 16 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People stand by a cordoned-off street close to the arena. Hide Caption 17 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert Greater Manchester Police tweeted that emergency services were "responding to (a) serious incident at Manchester Arena. Avoid the area. More details will follow as soon as available." Hide Caption 18 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People are escorted away from the arena. Hide Caption 19 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People sit outside near the arena. The crowd was made up of mainly younger people who had come to see Grande in her first of three scheduled concerts in the UK. Hide Caption 20 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert An injured man is helped at the scene. Hide Caption 21 of 22 Photos: Deadly explosion at Ariana Grande concert People hug near armed police who responded to the scene. Hide Caption 22 of 22
Sam Ward, who lives by the arena, said the loud bang sounded "really nothing like I have ever heard in the city center before."
"Initially after the first wave of sirens and the initial evacuation, it was filled with cars. The roads were actually bedlam. People actually going through red lights," he said.
Search for the missing
JUST WATCHED Mom: I don't know if daughter is dead or alive Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mom: I don't know if daughter is dead or alive 01:22
Meanwhile the search goes on for those still missing, including Charlotte Campbell's 15-year-old daughter Olivia, who had gone to the concert with her friend Adam to celebrate his birthday.
Campbell had spoken to her daughter just before 10 p.m. but hasn't heard from her since.
"We've tried everything we can. They're telling us to wait by the phones," Campbell told CNN. "Her dad is out looking ... It's the most horrible feeling ever, to know your daughter is there and you don't know whether she's dead or alive.
"I want her home and I want her safe ... I just want her to walk through the door."
Her daughter has been registered as a missing person. ||||| ES News Email Enter your email address Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid Email cannot be used. Try another or register with your social account
This is the first picture of one of the concert-goers killed in a suicide bomb attack at an Ariana Grande show in Manchester.
Ariana Grande superfan Georgina Callander, 18, was one of the 22 people killed along with the attacker who set off an explosive device at the end of the concert in Manchester Arena.
Friends today said she was one of the first people rushed to hospital after the attack.
The teenager, from Tarleton in Lancashire, died with her mother at her bedside in hospital, according to a close friend.
They spoke of their devastation after her mother confirmed her death to them.
Shelby Wharton, 17, told the Standard she was “kind and loving” saying : “We were all praying for her to be found safely. Then we were told she had passed away.
“She was always very open, would talk to everyone. She was so nice. It does not feel real. I just pray for her family.”
In her excitement leading up to the concert, Georgina had tweeted US pop singer Grande on Sunday, writing: “SO EXCITED TO SEE YOU TOMORROW.”
She had met Grande back in 2015 and shared a photo of them together with the caption: "Thank you for everything my love I miss you."
Posting the image online she told friends: “I can’t believe this happened.”
Grande tweeted after news broke of the explosion saying she was "broken".
She wrote: "From the bottom of my heart, I am so so sorry, I don't have words."
A relative of the teen told the Standard the family were distraught at the killing, but that it was “too soon” to say anything.
Friends of Georgina, also known as Gina, described her as “a beautiful girl with the kindest heart and soul”.
They paid tribute to her on social media, with one writing: "Rest in peace Gina. I love you so incredibly much, you deserved the world & more. I'm so lucky to have met you and known you."
She was also a fan of American fairytale show Once Upon a Time and, in April, met the stars of the series.
After news of her death broke, actor Sean Maguire - who played Robin Hood in the show - tweeted that he had met Georgina and described her as "young and sweet".
He wrote: "Just met this girl in April. She was so young & sweet. She was killed last night Manchester.
"My love to her and all the families of the victims."
Georgina had been a student at Runshaw College in Leyland, where she studied Health and Social Care.
The college released a statement at 11am announcing her death "with enormous sadness".
The statement read: "Our deepest sympathies, thoughts and prayers go out to all of Georgina’s friends, family, and all of those affected by this loss.
"We are offering all available support possible at this tragic time, including counselling with our dedicated student support team."
The attacker, believed to be a lone male, was killed at the scene after detonating an improvised explosive device.
A further 59 people were injured in the incident and are being treated at hospitals across the city.
The explosion happened shortly after the conclusion of the pop concert, which was attended by more than 21,000 people mainly consisting of children and young adults.
Police officers were called to reports of an explosion at 10.33pm.
Manchester Arena explosion aftermath - In pictures 35 show all Manchester Arena explosion aftermath - In pictures 1/35 Stephanie Brodie and mother Lisa Brodie who were inside the foyer when the explosion happened Jeremy Selwyn 2/35 Armed police patrol near Victoria station in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 3/35 Police close to the Manchester Arena the morning after a terrorist attack at the end of a concert by Ariana Grande left 22 dead PA 4/35 Prime Minister Theresa May addresses the media in Downing Street Stefan Rousseau/PA 5/35 A police officer moves a floral tribute close to the Manchester Arena PA 6/35 A man embraces a woman and a teenager as he collects them from the Park Inn Hotel where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at the Manchester Arena Getty Images 7/35 Police forensic officers investigate the scene of an explosion at Victoria Station Getty Images 8/35 People affected by the deadly terror attack at Manchester Arena look out from a hotel window in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 9/35 Police stand guard at the scene of a suspected terrorist attack during a pop concert by Ariana Grande in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 10/35 A flag flies at half-mast from the Houses of Parliament AFP/Getty Images 11/35 Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham and Manchester City Council Leader Sir Richard Leese speak to the media outside Manchester Town Hall after a suicide bomber killed 22 people, including children, as an explosion tore through fans leaving a pop concert in Manchester. PA 12/35 Police forensic investigators walk along a bridge linking Victoria Station with the Manchester Arena where a suspected terrorist attack at the end of a concert Ariana Grande PA 13/35 Tributes left outside St Ann's Church in Manchester Ben Birchall/PA 14/35 The scene at Manchester Royal Infirmary as the death toll from the Manchester bomb attack rose to 22 with 59 injured PA 15/35 Armed police patrol inside Victoria Station adjacent to Manchester Arena Getty Images 16/35 A flag flies at half-mast from the Treasury Office in London AFP/Getty Images 17/35 Tributes left outside St Ann's Church in Manchester PA 18/35 Greater Manchester Police chief constable Ian Hopkins speaks to the media in Manchester where he said that the death toll from the Manchester bomb attack has risen to 22 with 59 injured PA 19/35 Susan Walton and her daughter Katie who attended the pop concert by US star Ariana Grande pose in Mancheste AFP/Getty Images 20/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 21/35 A police officer escorts people near to Manchester Arena Getty Images 22/35 Police stand guard at the scene of a suspected terrorist attack during a pop concert by Ariana Grande in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 23/35 Tributes left outside St Ann's Church in Manchester PA 24/35 A man embraces a woman and a teenager as he collects them from the Park Inn Hotel where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at the Manchester Arena Getty Images 25/35 People leave Victoria Station adjacent to Manchester Arena Getty Images 26/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Karen Moore and her daughter Molly Steed, aged 14, from Derby, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 27/35 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about the attack in Manchester Reuters 28/35 A Union Flag flies above Victoria Railway Station, close to the Manchester Arena Getty Images 29/35 An ambulance arrives as police officers stand at the Miller Street and Corporation Street Crossroads, near the Manchester Arena Getty Images 30/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Vikki Baker and her daughter Charlotte, aged 13, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last night's explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 31/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Vikki Baker and her daughter Charlotte, aged 13, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last night's explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 32/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Vikki Baker and her daughter Charlotte, aged 13, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last night's explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 33/35 Home Secretary Amber Rudd arrives for a COBRA meeting in Downing Street Getty Images 34/35 British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon arrives for COBRA meeting at the Cabinet Office on Whitehall Getty Images 35/35 Flags fly at half mast above Downing Street, London, after a suicide bomber killed 22 people, including children, as an explosion tore through fans leaving a pop concert in Manchester PA 1/35 Stephanie Brodie and mother Lisa Brodie who were inside the foyer when the explosion happened Jeremy Selwyn 2/35 Armed police patrol near Victoria station in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 3/35 Police close to the Manchester Arena the morning after a terrorist attack at the end of a concert by Ariana Grande left 22 dead PA 4/35 Prime Minister Theresa May addresses the media in Downing Street Stefan Rousseau/PA 5/35 A police officer moves a floral tribute close to the Manchester Arena PA 6/35 A man embraces a woman and a teenager as he collects them from the Park Inn Hotel where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at the Manchester Arena Getty Images 7/35 Police forensic officers investigate the scene of an explosion at Victoria Station Getty Images 8/35 People affected by the deadly terror attack at Manchester Arena look out from a hotel window in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 9/35 Police stand guard at the scene of a suspected terrorist attack during a pop concert by Ariana Grande in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 10/35 A flag flies at half-mast from the Houses of Parliament AFP/Getty Images 11/35 Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham and Manchester City Council Leader Sir Richard Leese speak to the media outside Manchester Town Hall after a suicide bomber killed 22 people, including children, as an explosion tore through fans leaving a pop concert in Manchester. PA 12/35 Police forensic investigators walk along a bridge linking Victoria Station with the Manchester Arena where a suspected terrorist attack at the end of a concert Ariana Grande PA 13/35 Tributes left outside St Ann's Church in Manchester Ben Birchall/PA 14/35 The scene at Manchester Royal Infirmary as the death toll from the Manchester bomb attack rose to 22 with 59 injured PA 15/35 Armed police patrol inside Victoria Station adjacent to Manchester Arena Getty Images 16/35 A flag flies at half-mast from the Treasury Office in London AFP/Getty Images 17/35 Tributes left outside St Ann's Church in Manchester PA 18/35 Greater Manchester Police chief constable Ian Hopkins speaks to the media in Manchester where he said that the death toll from the Manchester bomb attack has risen to 22 with 59 injured PA 19/35 Susan Walton and her daughter Katie who attended the pop concert by US star Ariana Grande pose in Mancheste AFP/Getty Images 20/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 21/35 A police officer escorts people near to Manchester Arena Getty Images 22/35 Police stand guard at the scene of a suspected terrorist attack during a pop concert by Ariana Grande in Manchester AFP/Getty Images 23/35 Tributes left outside St Ann's Church in Manchester PA 24/35 A man embraces a woman and a teenager as he collects them from the Park Inn Hotel where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at the Manchester Arena Getty Images 25/35 People leave Victoria Station adjacent to Manchester Arena Getty Images 26/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Karen Moore and her daughter Molly Steed, aged 14, from Derby, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last nights explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 27/35 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about the attack in Manchester Reuters 28/35 A Union Flag flies above Victoria Railway Station, close to the Manchester Arena Getty Images 29/35 An ambulance arrives as police officers stand at the Miller Street and Corporation Street Crossroads, near the Manchester Arena Getty Images 30/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Vikki Baker and her daughter Charlotte, aged 13, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last night's explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 31/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Vikki Baker and her daughter Charlotte, aged 13, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last night's explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 32/35 Ariana Grande concert attendees Vikki Baker and her daughter Charlotte, aged 13, leave the Park Inn where they were given refuge after last night's explosion at Manchester Arena Getty Images 33/35 Home Secretary Amber Rudd arrives for a COBRA meeting in Downing Street Getty Images 34/35 British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon arrives for COBRA meeting at the Cabinet Office on Whitehall Getty Images 35/35 Flags fly at half mast above Downing Street, London, after a suicide bomber killed 22 people, including children, as an explosion tore through fans leaving a pop concert in Manchester PA
Greater Manchester Police said they deployed 400 armed police to the area overnight and are still working to establish the full details of what happened.
In a press conference on Tuesday morning, Chief Constable Ian Hopkins confirmed incident is being treated as terrorist-related.
Theresa May gave a statement shortly after 11am before she travelled from London to Manchester.
She said: "It is now beyond doubt that the people of Manchester and of this country have fallen victim to a callous terrorist attack, an attack that targeted some of the youngest people in our society with cold calculation.
"This was among the worst terrorist incidents we have ever experienced in the United Kingdom, and, although it was not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way, it is the worst attack the city has experienced and the worst ever to hit the North of England." ||||| Add a location to your Tweets
When you tweet with a location, Twitter stores that location. You can switch location on/off before each Tweet and always have the option to delete your location history. Learn more | The first victim publicly identified in the Manchester concert attack is 18-year-old college student Georgina Callander. And it was no mere whim that brought her to Ariana Grande's concert—she was a huge fan. "SO EXCITED TO SEE U TOMORROW," Callander tweeted the day before the show. And a poignant photo from Instagram in wide circulation is one showing her with Grande herself in 2015. "Thank you for everything my love I miss you," Callander wrote in the caption. "We were all praying for her to be found safely," a friend tells the Evening Standard. "Then we were told she had passed away." Callander had been studying health and social care at Runshaw College, which issued a statement expressing sympathy and offering counseling to those who knew her. Friends were mourning her online: "Rest in peace Gina," one wrote on Twitter. "I'm so lucky to have met you and known you." Meanwhile, some parents were still trying to track down their missing children. Charlotte Campbell, for instance, has been featured on various media outlets, including CNN, as she searches for 15-year-old daughter Olivia. "They're telling us to wait by the phones," she says. |
OPM is the central management agency of the federal government charged with administering and enforcing federal civil service laws, regulations, and rules and aiding the President in carrying out his responsibilities for managing the federal workforce. OPM has policy responsibilities related to hiring, managing, compensating, and separating federal employees. Moreover, OPM endeavors to ensure compliance with civil service policies through a program of overseeing the personnel activities of covered federal agencies. OPM helps federal program managers in their personnel responsibilities through a range of programs, such as training and performance management, designed to increase the effectiveness of federal employees. In addition to these responsibilities, OPM also promulgates regulations related to federal employee benefits, including retirement, health, and life insurance benefits. OPM directly administers all or major portions of these benefit programs, which serve millions of current and former federal employees. Top OPM officials said they envision OPM as providing human resource management (HRM) leadership for the federal government. Through that leadership, OPM officials say they intend to ensure that the merit principles that are the basis for the federal civil service system are followed throughout the government and that human resource management is effective. The Results Act is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results. Specifically, the Act requires executive agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. OPM and other agencies submitted their first cycle of agency multiyear strategic plans to OMB and Congress in September 1997. Like other agencies, OPM also submitted its first draft annual performance plan to OMB in the fall of 1997. The Results Act requires each performance plan to identify annual performance goals that cover all of the program activities in the agency’s budget. OMB Circular A-11 specifies that the annual performance goals reflect the agency’s strategic goals and mission. OMB used these draft performance plans to develop and submit the first federal governmentwide performance plan to Congress in February 1998 with the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget. OPM and other agencies submitted their final performance plans to Congress after the submission of the President’ s budget. OPM’s annual performance plan specifies quite clearly its goals—generally expressed as planned activities—for fiscal year 1998 and how those planned activities relate to the goals in its published strategic plan and to program activity accounts in its proposed fiscal year 1999 budget. OPM’s plan specifies over 100 performance goals, with each OPM unit linking its planned activities and processes to OPM’s five strategic goals and to program activities in its budget request. Consistent with congressional suggestions and OMB guidance, the plan also describes the means OPM intends to use to validate performance and discusses its coordination with other agencies on crosscutting activities. In this sense, the annual performance plan provides a picture of OPM’s intended performance. However, this picture is incomplete because the annual performance plan often does not give a sense of how those activities will help OPM achieve a desired end result. Rather, OPM’s performance plan often would enable policymakers to determine whether OPM has completed a set of actions, but not whether those actions made any difference in such things as the management of the federal workforce or whether the actions would cause that workforce to be more or less able to effectively and efficiently carry out its responsibilities. The performance goals in OPM’s plan are generally measurable and linked to the agency’s strategic goals and objectives; however, they are typically more activity- or output-oriented rather than results-oriented as envisioned by the Results Act. The lack of a results focus likely would impede policymakers in determining whether OPM’s efforts have “made a difference” in how well the federal government’s human resources are actually managed. Generally, OPM’s performance goals are expressed as activities to be completed or results to be achieved by the end of fiscal year 1999. For example, OPM’s Employment Service says that in fiscal year 1999, it will complete a review of all governmentwide policies and programs that are its responsibility, and OPM’s Workforce Compensation and Performance Service says it will lead a study of allowances, differentials, premium pay, and hours of duty as part of a 3-year comprehensive review of governmentwide compensation policies and programs. Both of these performance goals, like many others, commit OPM to undertake or complete a specific piece of work in fiscal year 1999 and thus, in a literal sense, define a minimal level of expected performance. OPM officials acknowledged that many of the annual performance goals are activity- or process-oriented, but said that, particularly with respect to policy development and implementation, successful accomplishment of several of its performance goals will require a sequence of steps from policy analysis and development through policy implementation to policy evaluation. In many cases, this sequence of steps will extend over several years. Consequently, OPM officials said it is impractical to specify a results-oriented goal in any year until the sequence of steps is complete and changes in policy have been made and implemented so that the new policies can actually effect a change in agencies’ practices. OPM officials also noted that this circumstance is recognized in OMB’s guidance on annual performance plans, which notes that outcome goals may only be achieved at certain points during the lifespan of a strategic plan and requires that an annual plan include outcome goals when their achievement is scheduled for the fiscal year covered by the annual performance plan. The OPM officials’ observations highlight that results-oriented annual performance goals can be difficult to set on an annual basis in certain circumstances. However, a key intent of the Results Act was that agencies should focus their planning on what they are intending to achieve, the result that they are provided resources to accomplish, rather than on traditional measures of output like activities undertaken. We have previously reported that OPM’s strategic plan goals do not provide a sense of the results OPM expects to achieve or how they might be measured. If neither the strategic goals nor the annual performance goals are results-oriented, policymakers likely will have an inadequate basis on which to judge whether agencies are making meaningful progress toward an overall desired outcome. OPM officials also told us that they were obligated to develop an annual performance plan that presented annual performance goals that would carry out their existing strategic plan’s goals. Although the officials did not necessarily agree that the OPM strategic goals were inadequately results-oriented, they said that their annual performance goals could not be inconsistent with the strategic plan. OMB guidance does advise agencies that their annual performance plans should be specifically linked to their strategic plans and that, for example, performance goals and indicators in the annual plan should be based on the general goals and objectives in the agency’s strategic plan. Accordingly, OPM may have been somewhat constrained in developing annual goals that were results-oriented given that, in our judgment, the strategic goals did not give a clear sense of the results OPM was intending to achieve. Other agencies have recognized that their strategic plans did not communicate their desired results adequately and have initiated efforts to revise those plans. For example, the Department of Labor has consolidated the six strategic goals outlined in its September 1997 strategic plan into the three strategic goals contained in its annual performance plan. According to Labor, this revision fosters greater cohesion within the Department and also responds to concerns raised by external reviewers that the agency’s strategic plan did not adequately reflect the integration and crosscutting nature of Labor’s programs. A results-oriented goal in OPM’s annual performance plan illustrates how such goals can provide a better basis for OPM, Congress, and the public to determine if the agency is achieving the intended impact or results with the resources that it is provided. OPM’s Employment Service has a goal that states, in part, that agency-delegated examining units (offices within agencies that assess whether job applicants meet the requirements of jobs being advertised) “will operated according to merit principles.” This is directly related to OPM’s mission of ensuring that merit system requirements are followed in federal human resources management. This results-oriented goal is included even though the rest of the goal stresses activities to be undertaken, that is, to complete the first 3-year cycle of recertification for all delegated examining units by the end of fiscal year 1999. However, the results-oriented goal provides a framework for OPM and Congress to use to determine whether the activities lead to an improved result. That is, OPM and Congress can track the number of instances in which delegated examining units do or do not operate in accordance with the merit principles specified in statute. This example also shows that even if a results-oriented annual performance goal cannot be set in any given year, tracking data related to a desired result or outcome can nevertheless occur and be useful. Measures that track yearly results can be useful in establishing a baseline performance level to use in establishing future results-oriented performance goals and in determining whether specific activities are moving the agency closer to the desired end result. OPM’s plan has some measures that are related to achieving results. For example, the Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness (OMSOE) has a fiscal year 1999 goal to promote the growth of merit principle awareness and understanding governmentwide. OPM has statutory responsibility for overseeing compliance with the merit principles specified in title 5 of the U.S. Code. One measure, or target, for OMSOE’s performance goal is an increase from 39 to 41 percent in the proportion of employees who say they know what the merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices are as measured by an employee survey. OPM’s annual performance plan could be more useful if additional results-oriented performance measures were identified. For example, the Employment Service’s performance goal of reviewing all governmentwide human resource management policies and programs during fiscal year 1999 is in support of OPM’s strategic goal of providing leadership to recruit and retain the federal workforce required for the 21st century. Policymakers could reasonably expect OPM to define the characteristics of the workforce that is needed—in essence, the result being sought in part through the improved human resource management policies OPM hopes to develop—and to track the extent to which the federal government is being more or less successful in recruiting and retaining that workforce. OPM has no such measure in its fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan and had not proposed such a measure in its strategic plan. OPM’s annual performance plan also does not appear to have cost-based performance measures, as intended by Congress and encouraged in OMB guidance, that would show how efficiently it performed certain business-like operations (e.g., the administration of health and retirement programs). Relevant measures might include the cost of doing business per unit of output, such as the cost to process civil service retirement payments made either by electronic funds transfer or check. Cost-based efficiency measures could be useful to managers as they attempt to improve their operations. Such measures could serve as benchmarks for determining whether private firms might be able to perform certain services more cost-effectively than OPM can with federal civilian employees. If such cost-based measures were developed, however, it would be important for OPM’s salaries and expenses and revolving funds to have accurate financial and cost data. The reliability of these data is not currently determinable since OPM’s Inspector General (IG) has been unable to express an unqualified opinion on these funds’ financial statements because of inadequate or nonexistent internal controls and standard accounting policies, procedures, and records. OPM’s annual performance plan clearly connects its performance goals to the agency’s mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its fiscal year 1999 budget request. For nearly all of its program activities, OPM’s plan lists strategic and annual goals. The plan also provides the total budgetary resources proposed for the program activity and a breakdown of how much of the program activity will be used for each of OPM’s five strategic goals. For example, OPM’s fiscal year 1999 annual goal to assist agencies to raise the levels of underrepresented groups in key federal occupations and at key grade levels by 2 percent over fiscal year 1998 levels supports OPM’s strategic goal to provide policy direction and leadership to recruit and retain the federal workforce required for the 21st century and is 1 of 11 major performance goals expected to use almost $12 million from the Employment Service program activity. The portions of OPM’s plan that provide fiscal year 1999 budgetary information for its mandatory spending program activities related to federal health, life, and retirement programs do not include annual performance goals and do not show linkage to OPM’s strategic goals. Although goals and linkages are not included in these specific portions of the plan, OPM does have annual performance goals related to these activities listed under the Transfers from Trust Funds section of the Salaries and Expenses Account portion of its plan. OPM officials believe that it is more appropriate to discuss the goals and linkages in the Transfers section because this is the budgetary account that funds the activities that are expected to achieve OPM’s goals. For example, OPM set a goal to maintain, at fiscal year 1998 levels, customer satisfaction, processing times, and accuracy rates pertinent to processing new claims for annuity and survivor benefits and shows baseline data on processing these claims. OPM also set a goal to develop a proposal, expected to be completed in fiscal year 1998, to implement the design, financing, and service delivery of federal earned benefits recommended by its benefits vision study. Providing a reference to these goals in the relevant presentation of the mandatory spending program activities would be a useful guide to quickly steer users of the plan to goals and measures associated with these program activities. OPM’s specific goals related to its information technology (IT) program are also linked to its strategic goals. This is a useful linkage that is consistent with recent legislation that emphasizes that IT investments should be made in direct support of the mission-related activities of agencies. In addition, OPM’s performance plan includes goals for dealing with Clinger-Cohen Act requirements, Year 2000 computer conversion efforts, and information security; specifies the means for achieving the goals; and includes performance indicators for measuring results. Given the importance of these issues, their focused presentation in the annual performance plan appears to be appropriate. OPM could further strengthen its performance indicators by including information on (1) how it plans to deal with its other systems that may not be mission-critical but may have some impact on its operations in 2000, and (2) contingency plans in place in the event that Year 2000 corrections are not successful or systems fail to operate. OPM’s performance plan partially addresses the need to coordinate with other agencies and individuals having an interest in OPM’s mission and services. As a central management agency, OPM must work with or through other federal agencies to ensure that federal personnel policies are appropriate and are followed properly. Thus, OPM’s core responsibilities do, in some sense, cut across a large portion of the federal government. OPM’s performance goals reflect the crosscutting nature of its activities. In many cases, the plan discusses OPM’s planned efforts to coordinate its crosscutting functions with the federal community. These discussions are consistent with Results Act requirements. However, in some cases, a more explicit discussion of OPM’s intended coordination with other agencies would be helpful. For example, OPM has a performance goal to seek improvement in adjudicatory processes that address conflicts in the workplace and to work to make them more understandable, timely, and less costly. The means, or strategy, OPM proposes to achieve this goal implicitly recognizes that OPM has limited authority to set or influence policy regarding adjudicatory processes. It states that OPM will “promote and provide active participation in response to governmentwide efforts to improve the adjudicatory process.” Meaningful participation by OPM would require ongoing coordination with the adjudicatory agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, but such coordination is not discussed in the plan. OPM’s relationship with the adjudicatory agencies and its approach to coordination could be described more fully to portray the status of OPM’s involvement in this issue and the extent to which it intends to participate in interagency efforts to improve the adjudicatory process. OPM’s performance plan could more fully discuss the strategies and resources the agency will use to achieve its performance goals. Because many of OPM’s annual performance goals are not results-oriented, it would be difficult for policymakers to judge from the plan, itself, how the strategies associated with these performance goals would add up to achieving a significant result related to OPM’s mission. Nevertheless, the plan specifies strategies for achieving each of its performance goals. But in many cases, the plan does not provide a rationale for how the strategy will contribute to accomplishing the expected level of performance. OPM’s performance plan could also be enhanced by discussing external factors that could significantly affect performance. We found that OPM’s strategies are connected to its performance goals, but because many of the performance goals are not results-oriented, it is unclear how the strategies will contribute to achieving an intended result related to OPM’s mission. For example, OPM’s performance goal to improve recognition of OPM as a leading source for effective, efficient technical assistance in a broad range of employment programs does not readily indicate what result this would help OPM to achieve. Consequently, it is also difficult to determine whether its corresponding strategy to monitor current and emerging issues, trends, and stakeholder interests will contribute to achieving a results-oriented change, such as improving the effectiveness of federal employees. In other cases, it was unclear how a strategy related to its associated performance goal. For example, OPM has a goal to complete a plan for central personnel data file (CPDF) modernization in fiscal year 1999 in coordination with the Human Resources Technology Council. That performance goal has an associated strategy to “use electronic media to collect and disseminate information widely and cost-effectively.” While this strategy may be useful for improving the collection and dissemination of CPDF information, it is not clear how this strategy is related to getting the CPDF modernization plan, itself, done. OPM’s plan discusses the actions it plans to take to use information technology and capital investments to improve performance and help achieve performance goals in terms of (1) reducing costs, (2) increasing productivity, (3) decreasing cycle or processing time, (4) improving service quality, and (5) increasing customer satisfaction. For example, OPM has established a goal placing responsibility with its Chief Information Officer for providing independent oversight of major OPM information technology initiatives and investments to ensure that OPM’s core functions can meet their business goals and objectives through the prudent application of technology and improved use of IT through the implementation of the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act. OPM also plans to oversee major IT initiatives, including modernization of the retirement program’s service delivery systems and the earned benefit financial systems, modernization of the CPDF system, and development and integration of OPM’s employment information systems; implement a sound and integrated IT architecture; manage OPM’s IT capital planning and investment control process and implement a performance-based IT management system; and implement an agencywide systems development life-cycle methodology and train staff in its use to support OPM’s achievement of Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model level 3 for systems development. One area that is unclear from OPM’s discussion in its plan for the Clinger-Cohen Act implementation is whether or not OPM has or plans to establish a separate Investment Review Board to ensure that senior executives are involved in information management decisions. The Clinger-Cohen Act calls for agencies to establish such boards to help improve performance and meet strategic goals. Although not stated in the plan, OPM officials have told us they plan to establish an Investment Review Board. In its September 1997 strategic plan, OPM identified several external factors that could affect achievement of its goals and objectives, which it organized by the following categories: (1) governmentwide issues, (2) relationships with other federal agencies, and (3) the personnel community. OPM’s performance plan does not explicitly discuss these factors or their impact on achieving the performance goals. While not required by the Results Act, we believe that a discussion of these external factors would provide additional context regarding anticipated performance. For example, several large agencies recently have been granted, or are seeking to be granted, wide flexibility to deviate from standard provisions of title 5 of the U.S. Code. These include the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense (civilian workforce). Although these changes could significantly affect OPM’s role as the central personnel agency, the plan has little discussion of how such changes were taken into account in setting performance goals. OPM’s performance plan partially discusses the resources it will use to achieve the performance goals. OPM’s plan does not consistently describe the capital, human, information, and other resources the agency will use to achieve its performance goals. For example, the plan explains that OPM will spend approximately $2.6 million in fiscal year 1999 on implementing an action plan to develop a governmentwide electronic personnel recordkeeping system that will support its goal of helping the Human Resources Technology Council design an electronic official personnel folder to replace paper records. In contrast, the plan generally does not mention specific training or workforce skills that will be needed to achieve OPM’s performance goals. We found that OPM’s performance plan could better provide confidence that its performance information will be credible. OPM’s annual performance plan material for each program activity includes a verification and validation section. The material in those sections generally describes various assessments and measures that OPM intends to use in gauging progress toward the performance goals and how they will be audited, benchmarked, and validated. These sections sometimes do not provide a clear view of the current problems OPM faces with data verification and validation. We also found that the plan does not discuss or identify any significant data limitations and their implications for assessing the achievement of performance goals. OPM’s performance plan partially discusses how the agency will ensure that its performance information is sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent. Specifically, the plan highlights the importance of having credible data and generally meets the intent of the Results Act by identifying actions that OPM believes will identify data problems. These actions include audits of its financial statements by an independent accounting firm. The plan also includes specific actions or goals that could contribute to improved reliability of data, such as installing a new financial management system. However, it does not include plans for audits of nonfinancial data, which were one technique for ensuring data integrity as envisioned by Congress. Although the performance plan provides proposed indicators for each performance goal, it is not clear that data exist for all of the indicators or that the specific data OPM proposes to use would be a valid measure for assessing progress toward achieving its associated performance goal. For instance, for its goal of supporting OPM leadership of the Human Resources Technology Council, OMSOE proposes to use as an indicator “improved HRM operations as measured by 10-year efficiency and quality indicators, e.g., improved ratios of personnel operations staff to employees covered.” However, the plan does not indicate what data OPM would use to measure the quality of HRM operations. Further, the proposed efficiency measure, the ratio of personnelists to other employees, while a potentially useful measure, can be imprecise when agencies have staff performing personnel-related duties who are not specifically in job classifications normally considered to be “personnelist” occupations. OPM’s performance plan does not discuss a number of known data limitations that may affect the validity of many performance measures OPM plans to use. OPM lacks the timely, accurate, and reliable program data needed to effectively manage and oversee some of its various activities and programs. For example, OPM’s December 1997 report on the agency’s management controls required by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act noted that there are a number of key areas where controls and reconciliations are either weak or not implemented. This report noted that OPM does not have an effective system in place to ensure the accuracy of claims paid by experience-rated carriers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The report also noted that a significant opportunity exists for fraudulent claims to persist undetected owing to the lengthy audit cycle of FEHBP carriers, which was 15 years in 1992—longer than the requirement for carriers to retain auditable records (3 to 5 years). Similarly, in his October 31, 1997, semiannual report to Congress, OPM’s Inspector General expressed concern with the infrequency of IG audits of FEHBP insurance carriers and with the consolidation of unaudited data from experience-rated carriers with agency data, which contributed to the disclaimer of opinion on OPM’s health benefit program financial statements. The annual performance plan section on the Inspector General’s Office requests five additional staff to meet the goal of a shorter audit cycle. OPM’s plan states that in addition to providing increased FEHBP oversight, reducing the audit cycle to 5 years would result in considerable financial recoveries. Finally, the independent audit of OPM’s 1996 and 1997 financial statements noted internal control weaknesses in a number of areas for OPM’s retirement, health benefits, and life insurance programs. For example, OPM has prescribed minimum records, documentation, and reconciliation requirements to the employer agencies, but it does not monitor the effectiveness of employer agencies’ controls or their degree of compliance with controls. As a result, OPM does not have a basis for relying on other agencies’ internal controls as they relate to contributions recorded in its accounting records and other data received, which support amounts recorded in the financial statements. The independent accountant also noted in the 1997 report that OPM’s financial management system does not support all program decisionmaking because the system does not produce cost reports or other types of reports at meaningful levels. Despite such evidence that suggests that internal controls over data reliability are still a major problem area, the performance plan deals with these problems only on a very broad level in those portions of the plan that alert readers to the limitations associated with data that OPM intends to use to gauge its performance against planned goals. Although OPM’s fiscal year 1997 retirement and life insurance program financial statements received unqualified opinions, the independent auditor disclaimed an opinion on the health benefits program financial statements for reasons related to inadequate controls. At a minimum, it would have been helpful if the plan had an explicit discussion of specific current program performance data problems and how OPM plans to address them. We provided OPM with copies of a draft of our observations on its annual performance plan. On April 10, 1998, we met with OPM’s Chief of Staff and other officials to discuss the draft. In an April 13, 1998, letter, the OPM Director raised a number of concerns about the draft observations, which we addressed in a revised draft. In an April 30, 1998, letter, the OPM Director provided written comments on the revised draft (see app. I). OPM said that it found the meeting with us to be particularly helpful as OPM further develops and refines its plan—which OPM views as an evolutionary process that will enable it to continually improve and articulate its focus on improving federal human resource management. OPM also said that it was especially pleased to see that the revised draft included changes on some of the points discussed in the meeting. OPM also said that the revised draft contains an inappropriate “imbalance in its overall negative tone,” which may lead readers to conclude that the OPM plan is substantially weaker than it is strong. OPM described our discussions of the plan’s weaknesses as “lengthy” and said that they overwhelm our “relatively short” statements regarding the plan’s strengths. We agree that the Results Act planning process is evolutionary and assessed OPM’s annual performance plan from the standpoint of how well it can, as currently written, assist Congress and OPM as they work to realize the potential of a results-focused planning process. We believe that our assessment recognizes strengths in OPM’s annual performance plan while also providing a sufficiently in-depth discussion to adequately describe areas in which further improvement is warranted. Thus, it was not our intention to create an unduly negative tone, and we have made changes to avoid such an impression. OPM made additional comments that, for example, provided an explanation of its intentions in developing its annual performance plan and suggested additional context concerning some of our observations. We made changes where appropriate to reflect these comments. Appendix I includes OPM’s letter and our additional comments. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of interested congressional committees; the Director, Office of Personnel Management; and other interested parties. Upon request, we will also make copies available to others. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Please contact me on (202) 512-8676 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. The following are GAO’s comments on the Office of Personnel Management’s letter dated April 30, 1998. 1. OPM stated that in several cases where we suggested its annual performance plan could be improved, the underlying problem seemed to be a continuing disagreement between us and OPM on the strategic goals, objectives, and measures included in its Results Act strategic plan. OPM further said it was required by law to develop an annual performance plan that presented annual performance goals for fiscal year 1999 that it determined to be necessary to achieve that strategic plan’s goals and outcomes. In a previous analysis of OPM’s strategic plan, we did find that the goals in OPM’s strategic plan tended to be process or activity goals as opposed to results-oriented goals. This may contribute to the annual plan goals’ also focusing on processes or activities, which is one of the key areas in which we believe the annual performance plan could be improved. Nevertheless, even with a set of strategic goals that are process- or activity-focused, annual performance goals can to some extent be results-oriented. This is demonstrated in part by OPM’s performance plan itself, which does include some results-oriented goals. Further, even when actual results-oriented goals are not established, identifying and tracking results-oriented performance measures can be useful to establish performance baselines and to lead to more informed goal-setting in the future. We have revised the report to make these points more clearly. In addition, although the Results Act requires that strategic plans be updated at least every 3 years, it does not prohibit more frequent revisions. More frequent revisions might be appropriate in these early years of implementing the Act as all parties gain experience with the challenges and benefits of results-oriented planning. At least two agencies began revising their strategic plans even as they were developing their first annual performance plans. Thus, if OPM believes that its current strategic plan inhibits its ability to achieve a results orientation in its annual performance plans, it could reconsider its strategic plan. 2. OPM said that it continues to believe that the Transfers from the Trust Funds section of the Salaries and Expenses Account portion of its performance plan is the proper location for its annual performance goals for its mandatory spending program activities related to federal, health, life, and retirement programs. Nevertheless, OPM said that its annual performance plans for fiscal year 2000 and beyond will include appropriate statements that direct readers to the Transfers and Trust Funds section for goals that would pertain to the mandatory spending program activities. We agree that providing a reference to the relevant goals in OPM’s presentation of its mandatory spending accounts would appropriately guide users of the plan to the goals and measures associated with the accounts. OPM also stated that our report implies that, because of the method OPM used to establish and communicate relevant annual performance goals for its mandatory spending program activities, OPM’s performance plan is not consistent with its strategic plan and is, consequently, deficient. It was not our intention to imply that OPM’s plan was inconsistent with its strategic plan. We have revised the appropriate section of the report to more accurately reflect our observations. 3. OPM also disagreed with our assessment that its performance plan deals with certain internal and management control weaknesses in the earned benefits programs only on a very broad level. OPM said that its plan contains five specific annual performance goals in the Transfers from Trust Funds section and an additional two such goals in the Office of Inspector General section that deal specifically with these problems. More importantly than how broad its description of how it approaches a matter, according to OPM, is the fact that OPM has made a commitment to overcome a problem, solve an issue, or otherwise deal with an important matter affecting the government’s Human Resource Management Program. We think it is commendable that OPM is committed to overcoming its internal control problems. However, our comment about OPM’s dealing with these problems only on a very broad level was made in the context of pointing out that these internal control problems affect the reliability of the performance measures OPM proposes to use to gauge progress toward achieving its goals. Our report, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decision Making (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18, p. 23) states that explaining the limitations of performance information can provide Congress with a context for understanding and assessing agencies’ performance and the costs and challenges agencies face in gathering, processing, and analyzing needed data. Thus, we believe a more specific discussion of internal control problems and their effect on data limitations would be desirable. We made clarifying changes to the report on this matter. 4. OPM expressed concern that we cited one of its performance goals as one of “several” other performance goals using almost $12 million from the Employment Service program activity rather than state that the particular performance goal is 1 of “11” major performance goals in the program activity. We have revised the report to reflect this fact. 5. In reference to our statement that OPM’s plan does not mention specific training or workforce skills that will be needed to achieve its performance goals, OPM referenced the statement in its plan that states that OPM has a major initiative underway to ensure that gaps in core competencies are addressed. Our position on this issue remains unchanged since OPM’s plan does not specify the training or skills needed nor does it link these needs to specific performance goals. This information is needed for policymakers to make informed judgments concerning whether OPM’s staffing will in fact be adequate to successfully execute its plan. Alan N. Belkin, 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. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) annual performance plan for fiscal year (FY) 1999, focusing on whether OPM's plan complies with the statutory requirements and congressional intent as contained in the Government Performance and Results Act and related guidance. GAO noted that: (1) OPM's annual performance plan addresses the six program components required by the Results Act; (2) the plan has several performance goals and measures listed under each of its five strategic goals as identified in OPM's September 1997 strategic plan; (3) some of these goals and measures are objective and quantifiable, providing a way to judge whether the goal has been achieved; (4) the plan also lays out, very well, a clear linkage between the FY 1999 performance goals and OPM's mission and strategic goals and also between its goals and its specific program activities and related funding as presented in its 1999 budget; (5) the principal area in which the performance plan could be improved to better meet the purposes of the Results Act is in the statement of its goals; (6) OPM's annual performance plan goals, like those in its strategic plan, tend to be process or activity goals; (7) the Results Act, in contrast, envisions a much greater emphasis on outcome goals that state what overall end result the agency will achieve, such as increasing the effectiveness of the federal civilian workforce; (8) Congress sought this emphasis to help ensure that processes and activities that agencies undertake actually add up to a meaningful result that is commensurate with the resources expended; and (9) OPM's annual performance plan could also be improved by including more discussion on how its resources will be used to achieve its goals and adding a discussion of known data limitations that may affect the validity of various performance measures that OPM plans to use. |
Are you there? Send us your images, but please stay safe.
Cairo (CNN) -- Egypt, including its capital Cairo, teetered on the edge early Thursday as clashes persisted following the bloodiest day since the revolution two years ago that was envisioned to bring peace and democracy to Egypt -- but has not.
The violence Wednesday pitted Egypt's military and current government against backers of deposed President Mohamed Morsy, though others also were caught in the fray.
At least 278 people were killed, including 235 civilians, state TV reported, citing an Egyptian emergency official. Interim Interior Minister Gen. Mohammed Ibrahim said that an additional 43 police officers died.
"It's an open war," said a protester who escaped one of two Cairo camps that were raided.
The intensity and violence lingered into Thursday morning, when state TV reported Morsy backers were attacking police stations, hospitals and government buildings despite a government-mandated curfew. More Egyptian troops were being deployed at entrances to Cairo and Giza, with the unrest prompting the closure Thursday of banks and the nation's stock market.
The 2011 revolution that led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, who'd kept a firm grip on power for 30 years, was followed by Egypt's first democratic elections. Morsy -- a leader of the Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood -- won the presidency in that 2012 vote, but was forced out by the military last month.
Morsy hasn't been seen since he was taken into custody. Yet his supporters have very public in voicing their opinions, massing on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere to slam military leaders and demand Morsy's return to the presidency.
Egypt's new government refused to back down, criticizing elements of the protest movement and specifically ordering them to leave two spots where they'd been gathering in Cairo for six weeks, or else they'd force them out.
On Wednesday, they did.
Bloody 'war zone' as security forces clear Cairo square
The story of what exactly transpired -- who attacked whom, who opened fire, who was to blame -- varied 180 degrees depending on where one stood in the debate over Egypt's past, present and future.
On the one side, there were Morsy supporters, one of whom accused government forces of waging a "full-on assault" on what they said had been, to-date, peaceful demonstrations. On the other, there were those like Ibrahim, who professed to being "surprised" by the "Muslim Brotherhood's (decision) to attack the security forces."
What couldn't be mistaken was the chaos, the bloodshed and the sense -- even with Prime Minister Hazem Elbeblawi's pledge "we hopefully will rebuild our nation" -- that the already volatile situation in Egypt could be getting worse.
"I think what we're seeing right now is just the beginning of what is promising to be a very, very long and bloody battle as the interim government and the security forces try to regain control of the streets," CNN's Arwa Damon reported from Cairo.
Diplomats condemn violence, calling it 'deplorable'
The government on Wednesday, according to state TV, issued a month-long state of emergency. This a loaded term in Egypt, given that Mubarak long ruled under such a decree that barred unauthorized assembly, restricted freedom of speech and let police jail people indefinitely.
The prime minister said the government felt compelled to act to ensure stability, praising security forces for their "calm" and claiming some activists had intent to undermine the government.
"We are here to build a democracy based on justice," Elbeblawi said. "... We have to reason and use common sense. We are all part of this nation."
Yet not everyone expressed faith in his government.
Mohammed ElBaradei -- a secular leader who was one of Morsy's biggest critics before joining the government that replaced him -- submitted his resignation Wednesday as vice president of foreign affairs, saying he didn't agree with decisions being carried out by the ruling government and "cannot be responsible for a single (drop of) blood." His decision spurred scorn from some former allies, with youth groups and June 30th coalition members questioning his stepping down "at this critical and historic phase," according to state-run EGYNews.
Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, sharply criticized "ongoing violence" by Brotherhood supporters against Coptic Christian churches in the country. He also chastised the government's crackdown on the Islamist group.
"Didn't have to happen," Roth tweeted. "MB had right to protest. No need for massive lethal force."
World urges Egypt to show restraint, protect civilians
The European Union's top diplomat, Catherine Ashton, urged "security forces to exercise utmost restraint and ... the interim government to end the state of emergency as soon as possible, to allow the resumption of normal life."
In light of the ongoing violence, the United States is considering canceling next month's planned biennial military training exercise with Egyptian forces, an official in President Barack Obama's administration said.
Pressing Egypt's government "to respect basic human rights," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Wednesday's "deplorable" events "run counter to Egyptian aspirations for peace, inclusion and genuine democracy."
"The path toward violence leads only to greater instability, economic disaster and suffering," he said.
'They're prepared to die'
For weeks, the two makeshift Cairo protest camps had become cities unto themselves -- with people sleeping in tents, vendors hawking everything from haircuts to masks, and children playing in inflatable castles and splashing in kiddie pools.
At dawn on Wednesday, they came under siege.
Security forces rushed in, bulldozing tents and escorting away hundreds. Some mothers and fathers managed to whisk away their children, gas masks on their faces.
Within three hours, the smaller camp -- Nahda, near Cairo University -- was clear, except for shreds of torn-down tents that remained.
But the larger protest, near the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque in eastern Cairo, proved trickier. Facing heavy resistance, the military called in special forces.
Chaos ensued. Along with smoke, bursts of rapid gunfire filled the air, as did people's wails. Many protesters refused to leave, even in the face of bulldozers and surrounded by the injured and dead.
"They said they're prepared to die," CNN's Reza Sayah reported.
State TV reported that snipers from the Muslim Brotherhood -- Morsy's party -- exchanged gunfire with Egyptian security forces near a university building.
The dead included cameraman Mick Deane, who'd worked for UK-based news channel Sky News for 15 years and for CNN before that. Habiba Abdel Aziz of Gulf News, who was in Egypt on her own time having celebrated the Eid holiday, also died, editor-at-large Francis Matthew told CNN.
And Reuters photojournalist Asmaa Waguih was shot and wounded, the news agency told CNN. She was being treated in a hospital.
'Walking on the blood of the victims'
Ibrahim, the interim interior minister, claimed armed protesters were the aggressors -- including trying to storm police stations, the Ministry of Finance building and other targets in Cairo.
The fighting wasn't limited to the capital. Morsy backers reportedly besieged churches in Sohag, setting fire to Saint George's Church, a tour bus and a police car, EGYNews said.
Naguib Sawiris, an Egyptian billionaire who helped found the anti-Morsy Free Egyptian Party, said his party had video of Muslim Brotherhood members "shooting machine guns on civilians, on police. So anyone who wants to call this a peaceful demonstration would be wrong."
But Ahmed Mustafa, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, told CNN that Sawiris was trying to misrepresent video of masked people with weapons.
Besides claiming they'd been shot at, the Muslim Brotherhood also accused police of throwing Molotov cocktails at makeshift clinics.
Security forces pushed doctors out of one hospital at gunpoint, a witness said, and a CNN crew at one point was "literally walking on the blood of the victims."
Yet Ibrahim said government forces had done what they could to limit casualties, with his ministry insisting, "Egyptian security forces are committed to the utmost self-restraint in dealing with the protesters."
Divisions rife, future uncertain in Egypt
Rather than uniting Egypt after Mubarak's fall, divisions remained rife -- and, in some ways, intensified -- during Morsy's time as president.
Critics accused him of being authoritarian, trying to force the Brotherhood's Islamic agenda, not being inclusive and failing to deliver freedom and justice.
'Nail in coffin' for Arab Spring?
The military coup to dismiss him, they said, was necessary since Morsy didn't fairly represent all Egyptians. So, too, were the efforts to force his supporters off the streets.
"We believe in human rights," said Shehab Wagih, a spokesman for the Free Egyptian Party speaking in favor of the military. "But at the same time, we cannot accept the idea of having a state inside a state."
Morsy's backers, meanwhile, accuse the military -- and the government it appointed -- of undermining the people's will, as expressed at the polls. The deposed president wasn't given a fair chance, they say, and his supporters have been unfairly targeted for expressing their opinion.
Talking Wednesday on CNN, Abdul Mawgoud Dardery of the pro-Morsy Anti-Coup National Alliance blamed "corrupt elements" in the Egyptian army for the bloodshed, calling their actions a "crime against humanity" and "state terrorism."
"All presidents make mistakes, but you don't have the army to remove them," Dardery said of Morsy. "... What are we telling to the rest of the Arab world, the Muslim world -- that bullets are better than ballots?"
Opinion: Morsy holds key to Egypt's future
CNN's Ian Lee reported from Cairo; CNN's Greg Botelho and Josh Levs reported from Atlanta; CNN's Saad Abedine, Holly Yan, Barbara Starr, Ali Younes, Slma Shelbayah and Salma Abdelaziz contributed to this report. ||||| Sky News cameraman Mick Deane has been shot and killed in Egypt this morning.
Mick, 61, had worked for Sky for 15 years, based in Washington and then Jerusalem.
The married father of two was part of our team covering the violence in Cairo. The rest of the team are unhurt.
The Head of Sky News John Ryley described Mick as the very best of cameramen, a brilliant journalist and an inspiring mentor to many at Sky.
Mick Deane was described as an inspiring mentor
"Mick Deane was a really lovely, lovely guy," he said. "He was great fun to work with, he was an astonishingly good cameraman who took some brilliant pictures.
"But he also had a first class editorial brain. He had brilliant ideas.
"He was also good fun after the job was done. He was laid back, and I'm really going to miss him, like lots of people here."
Sky's Foreign Affairs Editor Tim Marshall called Mick "a friend, brave as a lion but what a heart… what a human being".
He added: "Micky was humorous in a dry way, he was wise and when you're on the road with small teams, people like that are diamonds to be with.
"Our hearts go out to his family. He died doing what he'd done so brilliantly for decades."
Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted: "I am saddened to hear of the death of cameraman Mick Deane, covering Egyptian violence.
"My thoughts are with his family and the Sky News team." ||||| White House condemns crackdown in Egypt, state of emergency
By Justin Sink and Julian Pecquet -
The White House on Wednesday condemned violence in Egypt that has killed more than 100 people and said it opposed the state of emergency declared in that country.
The escalating violence poses a challenge to the Obama administration, which refused to declare it a coup when Egypt's military toppled Mohamed Morsi, who had been democratically elected president.
A growing number of lawmakers are raising concerns that the Egyptian military is ignoring U.S. calls for moderation as it continues to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is alligned with Morsi.
President Obama was briefed about the latest violence at Martha's Vineyard, where he is vacationing. National Security Adviser Susan Rice briefed Obama, who then headed out for a vacation round of golf.
The White House said Obama would receive subsequent briefings later on Wednesday. The U.S. embassy in Cairo announced via Twitter that it would remain shuttered after closing early on Wednesday amid the unrest.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said actions taken by Egypt's military run "directly counter to pledges" by the interim government to "respect basic rights."
"We will continue to hold the interim government accountable for the promise they have made to speed the transition to a civilian democratic government," Earnest said, calling the violence a "step in the wrong direction."
The White House spokesman wouldn't detail what form that accountability would take, but stressed that administration officials had been in contact with their counterparts in Egypt in the buildup to the crackdown and said conversations would continue in the coming days to "remind them of the promises they have made."
Earnest would not say whether the president or any other senior administration officials had called officials in Egypt in the immediate aftermath of the violence.
Labeling the military's ouster of Morsi a coup which would have automatically frozen the $1.3 billion in annual military aid to the country.
By not calling it a coup, the adminsitration believes it will preserve U.S. leverage and contracts with Americans arms-makers.
Earnest repeated on Wednesday that the White House was not likely to make a determination about whether a coup had occurred.
"It has been determined by senior foreign policy officials in this administration to not make a determination" on the subject, Earnest said.
The violence comes days after Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with military leaders in Egypt and urged them to hold new elections and quickly shift to civilian rule.
McCain said on Sunday that Congress should consider cutting aid to Egypt if the military violently cracked down on the protesters.
“If they go ahead and crack down in a violent way,” McCain told Fox News, “I’m afraid the Congress of the United States would have to consider carefully the elimination of aid.”
The United Nations quickly condemned in the “strongest terms” the army's move against pro-Morsi sit-ins that has left dozens dead, as did the British government.
“The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest terms the violence today in Cairo that occurred when Egyptian security services used force to clear Cairo of sit-ins and demonstrations,” Ban Ki-moon's spokesman said in a statement. “While the UN is still gathering precise information about today's events, it appears that hundreds of people were killed or wounded in clashes between security forces and demonstrators.”
British Foreign Secretary William Hague shared similar sentiments in a statement carried by the British embassy in Washington.
“I am deeply concerned at the escalating violence and unrest in Egypt, and regret the loss of life on all sides,” Hague said. “The UK has been closely involved in intensive diplomatic efforts directed at reaching a peaceful resolution to the standoff.
“I am disappointed that compromise has not been possible. I condemn the use of force in clearing protests and call on the security forces to act with restraint. Leaders on all sides must work to reduce the risk of further violence. Only then will it be possible to take vital steps towards dialogue and reconciliation.”
— This story was first posted at 10:54 a.m. and has been updated.
||||| Protesters throw stones at Egyptian security forces trying to clear a sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in the eastern Nasr City district of Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug.... (Associated Press)
Firefighter attempt to put out fires as Egyptian security forces clear a sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in the eastern Nasr City district of Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday,... (Associated Press)
Injured supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi lie on the ground after Egyptian security forces clear a sit-in camp set up by supporters of Morsi in Nasr City district, Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday,... (Associated Press)
Egyptian security forces clear a sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in the eastern Nasr City district of Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013. Egyptian security forces,... (Associated Press)
A member of the Egyptian security forces speaks to a woman holding a stick at they clear a sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, at the smaller of the two camps, near the Cairo... (Associated Press)
A police vehicle is pushed off of the 6th of October bridge by protesters close to the largest sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in the eastern Nasr City district of Cairo,... (Associated Press)
Egyptian security forces clear a sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in the eastern Nasr City district of Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013. Egyptian security forces,... (Associated Press)
Egyptian security forces clear a sit-in camp set up by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in Nasr City district, Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013. Egyptian security forces, backed... (Associated Press)
Egyptian security forces detain protesters as they clear a sit-in by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in the eastern Nasr City district of Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013.... (Associated Press)
A wounded protester lies on the ground as Egyptian security forces clear the smaller of the two sit-ins by supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, near the Cairo University campus in Giza,... (Associated Press)
A member of the security forces lies on the ground as protesters gather, and one strikes him with his shoe, after his police vehicle was pushed off the 6th of October bridge by protesters, near the largest... (Associated Press) ||||| “I firmly condemn the attacks against the cultural institutions of the country and the looting of its cultural property,” said the Director-General of the UN Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Irina Bokova.
“This constitutes irreversible damage to the history and identity of the Egyptian people.
” ||||| CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian security forces crushed the protest camps of thousands of supporters of the deposed Islamist president on Wednesday, shooting almost 200 of them dead in the bloodiest day in decades and polarizing the Arab world's most populous nation.
At least 235 people were killed in all, including at least 43 police, and 2,000 wounded, a health official said, in fierce clashes that spread beyond Cairo to towns and cities around Egypt. Deposed president Mohamed Mursi's Muslim Brotherhood said the death toll of what it called a "massacre" was far higher.
While bodies wrapped in carpets were carried to a makeshift morgue near the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque, the army-backed rulers declared a one-month state of emergency, restoring to the military the unfettered power it wielded for decades before a pro-democracy uprising toppled autocrat Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim said 43 police were among the dead. Security forces had completely cleared two protest camps in the capital and would not tolerate any further sit-ins, he said, vowing to restore Mubarak-era security.
Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi defended the use of force, condemned by the United States and European governments, saying the authorities had no choice but to act to end "the spread of anarchy".
"We found that matters had reached a point that no self-respecting state could accept," he said in a televised address.
The authorities imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew in Cairo and several other cities including Alexandria, Egypt's second city on the Mediterranean coast.
The use of force prompted Mohamed ElBaradei, a former U.N. diplomat and the most prominent liberal supporter of Mursi's overthrow, to resign as vice president, saying the conflict could have been resolved by peaceful means.
"The beneficiaries of what happened today are those call for violence, terrorism and the most extreme groups," he said.
Thousands of Mursi's supporters had been camped at two major sites in Cairo since before he was toppled on July 3, and had vowed not to leave the streets until he was returned to power.
The assault, ending a six-week stand-off, defied international pleas for restraint and a negotiated political solution. Straddling the Suez Canal, a vital global trade route, Egypt is a key U.S. ally at the heart of the Middle East and was the first Arab state to make peace with Israel.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon all deplored the use of force and called for the state of emergency to be lifted as soon as possible.
VIOLENCE SPREADS
A U.S. official told Reuters that Washington was considering cancelling the biennial "Bright Star" joint military exercise with Egypt, due this year, after the latest violence, in what would be a direct snub to the Egyptian armed forces.
Violence rippled out from Cairo, with Mursi supporters and security forces clashing in the cities of Alexandria, Minya, assiut, Fayoum and Suez and in Buhayra and Beni Suef provinces.
The bloodshed also effectively ended for now the open political role of the Brotherhood, with the harshest crackdown on a movement that survived underground for 85 years to emerge after the 2011 uprising and win every election held since.
Security officials initially said senior Brotherhood figures Mohamed El-Beltagi and Essam El-Erian had been arrested, joining Mursi himself and other Brotherhood leaders in jail, but later acknowledged they had not been captured. Beltagi's 17-year-old daughter was among the dead.
Beltagi warned of wider conflict, and urged people to take to the streets to oppose the head of the armed forces, who deposed Mursi on July 3 following mass protests.
"I swear by God that if you stay in your homes, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will embroil this country so that it becomes Syria. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will push this nation to a civil war so that he escapes the gallows."
ElBaradei's political movement, the anti-Islamist National Salvation Front, did not share his qualms, declaring that "Egypt has held its head high in the sky announcing victory over political groups that abuse religion".
Since Mursi was toppled, the security forces had twice before killed scores of protesters in attempts to drive Mursi's followers off the streets. But they had held back from a full-scale assault on the tented camp where followers and their families have lived behind makeshift barricades.
After the assault on the camp began, desperate residents recited Koranic verses and screamed "God help us! God help us!" while helicopters hovered overhead and armored bulldozers ploughed over their makeshift defenses.
Reuters journalists on the scene saw masked police in dark uniforms pour out of police vans with sticks and tear gas canisters. They tore down tents and set them ablaze.
"They smashed through our walls. Police and soldiers, they fired tear gas at children," said Saleh Abdulaziz, 39, a secondary school teacher clutching a bleeding wound on his head.
DEAD BODIES, SMASHED SKULLS
After shooting with live ammunition began, wounded and dead lay on the streets among pools of blood. An area of the camp that had been a playground and art exhibition for the children of protesters was turned into a war-zone field hospital.
Seven dead bodies were lined up in the street, one of them a teenager whose skull was smashed, with blood pouring from the back of his head.
At another location in Cairo, a Reuters reporter was in a crowd of Mursi supporters when he heard bullets whizzing past and hitting walls. The crowd dived to the ground for cover. A man was killed by a bullet to the head.
The government insists people in the camp were armed. Television stations controlled by the state or its sympathizers ran footage of what appeared to be pro-Mursi protesters firing rifles at soldiers from behind sandbag barricades.
Reuters journalists and other Western media did not witness such incidents. The crowds appeared to be armed mainly with sticks, stones and concrete slabs against police and troops with rifles.
The violence was the worst in Egypt since war with Israel in 1973 and forces tough decisions upon Egypt's Western allies, especially Washington, which funds Egypt's military with $1.5 billion a year and has so far refused to label the army's overthrow of Mursi a "coup".
"The United States strongly condemns the use of violence against protesters in Egypt," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "We extend our condolences to the families of those who have been killed, and to the injured. We have repeatedly called on the Egyptian military and security forces to show restraint."
"We also strongly oppose a return to a State of Emergency law, and call on the government to respect basic human rights such as freedom of peaceful assembly, and due process under the law. The world is watching what is happening in Cairo."
The United States and Europe had pressed hard for Egypt's generals not to crush the demonstrators. A diplomatic effort to open talks between the Brotherhood and the authorities, backed by Washington, Brussels and Arab states, collapsed last week.
CHURCHES TORCHED
Outside of Cairo, state media said Mursi supporters had besieged and set fire to government buildings and attacked several churches. Christians, who make up 10 percent of the population of 85 million, have feared reprisals from Islamists since the Coptic Pope Tawadros endorsed the military takeover.
Among the dead in Cairo were at least two journalists. A Reuters photographer was shot in the foot.
At a makeshift morgue at the camp field hospital, a Reuters reporter counted 29 bodies, with others still arriving. Most had died of gunshot wounds to the head.
A 12-year-old boy, bare-chested with tracksuit trousers, lay out in the corridor, a bullet wound through his neck. His mother was bent over him, rocking back and forth and silently kissing his chest. One of the nurses was sobbing on her hands and knees as she tried to mop up the blood with a roll of tissue.
Adli Mansour, the judge appointed president by the army when it overthrew Egypt's first elected leader on July 3, announced a state of emergency for one month and called on the armed forces to help police enforce security. Rights activists said the move would give legal cover for the army to make arrests.
Turkey urged the U.N. Security Council and Arab League to act quickly to stop a "massacre" in Egypt. Iran warned of the risk of civil war. The European Union and several of its member countries deplored the killings.
Mursi became Egypt's first freely elected leader in June 2012, but failed to tackle a deep economic malaise and worried many Egyptians with apparent efforts to tighten Islamist rule.
Liberals and young Egyptians staged huge rallies demanding that he resign, and the army said it had removed him in response to the will of the people. Since he was deposed, Gulf Arab states have pledged $12 billion in aid, buying the interim government valuable time to try to put its finances back in order.
By late afternoon, the campsite where Mursi's supporters had maintained their vigil for six weeks was empty. One man stood alone in the wreckage reciting the central tenet of Islam through a loudspeaker: "There is no God but Allah."
He wept, and then his voice broke off into silence.
(Additional reporting by Michael Georgy, Tom Perry, Shadia Nasralla, Omar Fahmy and Ashraf Fahim in Cairo, Adrian Croft in Brussels and Carolyn Cohn in London; Writing by Peter Graff and Paul Taylor) For an interactive look at Egypt in crisis, please click on link.reuters.com/quw49t | It's been a bloody, chaotic day in Egypt: Security forces raided two pro-Mohamed Morsi protest camps in Cairo, and reports of casualties are rising quickly. The country's health ministry now says 149 are dead and about 1,400 injured in Cairo and elsewhere, reports AP. The Muslim Brotherhood says the figures are even higher. Nobel prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei resigned from his post as vice president in protest of the violent crackdown, reports Reuters. The government put into place a one-month state of emergency and ordered the army to help police enforce it, reports the BBC. The White House condemned both the violence and the emergency declaration, adds the Hill. "We will continue to hold the interim government accountable for the promise they have made to speed the transition to a civilian democratic government," said a spokesman. Trains to Cairo have been halted, and the Muslim Brotherhood says the move is to prevent outside aid from arriving. Protesters had held the two camps for some six weeks now, and they were braced for an eventual raid following the end of Ramadan last week, reports CNN. Among those reported killed is the 17-year-old daughter of Mohamed al-Beltagy, a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. Sky News is confirming that cameraman Mick Deane was also among those killed, and a Reuters reporter saw at least 20 protesters shot in the legs. |
The serious breakdown in internal controls at the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego are the result of a weak overall internal control environment, flawed or nonexistent policies and procedures, and employees that do not adhere to valid policies. We found significant problems with every aspect of purchase card management that we reviewed at SPAWAR and the Navy Public Works Center. To fix these problems, SPAWAR and Navy Public Works Center management will need to demonstrate leadership in this area and establish accountability, proper incentives, and consequences for their employees in order to ensure acceptable behavior. The following are our recommendations to address the key findings related to the weak management control environment discussed in our testimony. Proliferation of Cardholders We recommend that the Commanding Officer of the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center San Diego work with the Naval Supply Systems Command and DOD’s Purchase Card Joint Program Management Office to do the following. Establish specific policies and strategies governing the number of purchase cards to be issued with a focus on minimizing the number of cardholders. Develop criteria for identifying employees eligible for the privilege of cardholder status. As part of the effort to develop these criteria, assess the feasibility and cost-benefit of performing credit checks on employees prior to assigning them cardholder responsibilities to ensure that employees authorized to use government purchase cards have demonstrated credit worthiness and financial integrity. Develop policies and strategies on credit limits provided to cardholders with a focus on minimizing specific cardholder spending authority and minimizing the federal government’s financial exposure. We recommend that the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command confirm that required training has been completed and documented, and incorporate into purchase card training programs any relevant changes in policies and procedures made as a result of the recommendations in this report. We recommend that the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command work with the Navy Comptroller and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to investigate ways to maximize potential rebates, such as (1) working with Citibank to facilitate timely receipt of monthly purchase card statements and (2) reducing the time associated with mailing and receipt of hard copy billing statements, establish effective policies and procedures for routinely calculating and verifying Citibank rebates, and develop guidance for routine distribution of rebate earnings to Navy units and activities. We recommend that the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command establish in NAVASUP Instruction 4200.94, further guidelines for an effective internal review program, such as having reviewers analyze monthly summary statements to identify (1) potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases and (2) any patterns of improper cardholder transactions, such as purchases of food or other prohibited items, revise NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 to require that (1) written reports on the results of internal reviews along with any recommendations for corrective actions be prepared and submitted to local management and cognizant commands and (2) commands identify and report systemic weaknesses and corrective action plans to the Naval Supply Systems Command for monitoring and oversight, require purchase card Agency Program Coordinators to report in writing to the unit commander and the Commander of Naval Supply Systems Command any internal control weakness identified during the semiannual program reviews, and disclose systemic purchase card control weaknesses along with corrective action plans in the Secretary of the Navy’s Annual Statement of Assurance prepared under 31 U.S.C. 3512(d) (commonly referred to as the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982). The following are our recommendations to address breakdowns in key controls over the purchase card program at the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego. the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command revise NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 to eliminate ambiguous language suggesting that advance independent authorization of a purchase can be substituted for independent confirmation that goods and services ordered and paid for with a purchase card have been received and accepted by the government, and the Commanding Officer of the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center San Diego implement procedures to require and document independent confirmation of receipt of goods and services acquired with a purchase card. To provide assurance that certifications of monthly purchase card statements for payment reflect certifying officer responsibilities in 31 U.S.C. 3325, 3528, and the approving official’s informed judgment that purchases are proper, we recommend that the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command revise NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 to require that (1) cardholders notify approving officials prior to payment that purchase card statements have been reconciled to supporting documentation, (2) approving officials certify monthly statements only after reviewing them for potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive transactions, and (3) approving officials verify, on a sample basis, supporting documentation for various cardholders’ transactions prior to certifying monthly statements for payment, and the Navy Comptroller withdraw the June 3, 1999, policy memorandum or revise the policy guidance to be consistent with the preceding recommendation for revising payment certification guidance in NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94. the Commanding Officer of the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center San Diego monitor and confirm that purchase card transactions are recorded to projects that benefited from the goods and services or to relevant overhead accounts in a timely manner, in accordance with internal control standards and federal accounting standards, the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command revise NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 to require that purchase card expenses be properly classified in the Navy’s detail accounting records, and the Commanding Officer of the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center San Diego verify that their detail purchase card transaction records reflect the proper object classification of expense. We recommend that the Commanding Officer of the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center San Diego require and verify that accountable property obtained using a purchase card is promptly recorded in property records as it is acquired, in accordance with DOD and Navy policies and procedures. The following are our recommendations to identify and address potentially fraudulent, abusive and improper purchase card transactions prior to payment. We recommend that the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command do the following. Act immediately to cancel all known active compromised purchase card accounts. Determine whether purchases of excessive cost, questionable government need, or both, such as items for personal use, including personal digital assistants (such as Palm Pilots), and flat screen computer monitors, that were identified by GAO are proper government purchases. If not, the Commander should prohibit their purchase. Establish written policies and criteria requiring documented justifications and procurement management approval for types of items that can be acquired with a government purchase card. Examine purchase card acquisition guidance to determine whether the purchase card is the right vehicle for acquiring certain goods and services, such as vehicle and equipment maintenance, installation of upgraded computer software, and other recurring or installationwide services, or whether these items should be subject to negotiated contracts. Work with the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and DOD’s Purchase Card Joint Program Office to determine whether the purchase card should be used to acquire computers and other equipment or property items individually that could be more economically and efficiently procured through bulk purchases. Revise NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 to make the Instruction consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. 13.301(a), which states that the “card may be used only for purchases that are otherwise authorized by law or regulation.” The clarifying guidance should specifically state that in the absence of specific statutory authority, purchases of items for the personal benefit of government employees, such as flowers or food, are not permitted and are therefore improper transactions. We recommend that the Commanding Officer of the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center San Diego prohibit splitting purchases into multiple transactions as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation and emphasize this prohibition in purchase card training provided to cardholders and approving officials, and require approving officials to monitor monthly purchase card statements and identify and report to them regarding any split purchases and the names of cardholders who made the transactions. To help ensure that cardholders adhere to applicable purchase card laws, regulations, internal control and accounting standards, and policies and procedures, we recommend that the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command revise NAVSUP Instruction 4300.94 to include specific consequences for noncompliance with these guidelines and enforce the guidelines. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it was in overall agreement with 19 of our 29 recommendations. DOD did not concur with three recommendations, and it partially concurred with seven other recommendations. In addition, DOD indicated that the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego have initiated or completed corrective actions on certain of our recommendations. We plan to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the corrective actions during the next few months and advise you of the results of our assessment. The DOD comment letter is reprinted in appendix II. The recommendations that DOD disagreed with related to four major issues addressed in our work—(1) the need for specific policies and strategies on minimizing the number of cardholders, (2) the need for Navy- wide criteria on the types of items that can be acquired using a government purchase card, (3) whether their purchases of food and flowers are proper, and (4) the need for Navy guidelines setting forth specific consequences for noncompliance with applicable purchase card laws, regulations, internal controls and accounting standards, and policies and procedures. DOD stated that the Navy executes the department’s purchase card program in a decentralized manner consistent with DOD policy. We are concerned that the lack of adequate Navy-wide guidance and the delegation of policy-making responsibility to local commands without Navy Department oversight will continue to result in a weak management control environment and the types of problem transactions identified in this report. We plan to examine this issue as part of our ongoing, broader review of the Navy's purchase card program. DOD stated that it believed that the intent of our recommendation to establish specific policies and strategies governing the number of credit cards to be issued was to encourage a manageable span of control between billing officials and cardholders. DOD maintained that in accordance with DOD policy, the Navy's decentralized execution of the purchase card program allows individual commands to issue purchase cards to employees as mission requirements warrant. DOD noted that the Naval Supply Systems Command’s recently released policy implementing DOD “Span of Control Goals” will result in approving officials being responsible for review and payment certification of a reasonable number of cardholder statements. DOD's "Span of Control Goals" states that as a general rule, billing officials should have no more than five to seven cardholders assigned to them for oversight. We agree with DOD that our recommendation is intended, in part, to ensure a manageable span of control between approving, or billing, officials and cardholders. At SPAWAR, we found only one approving official responsible for reviewing and certifying payment of 1,526 cardholders' monthly purchase card statements, creating a substantial span of control issue. Providing several hundred approving officials to create a reasonable span of control over SPAWAR's 1,526 cardholders would not be a practical or economical course of action for SPAWAR. We found no valid justification for 1,526, 36 percent, of SPAWAR's employees to have purchase cards. Further, the intent of our recommendation is broader than the span of control issue. We are also concerned about the financial exposure associated with the excessive number of cardholders. As stated in our testimony, the two Navy units had given purchase cards to over 1,700 employees, most of whom had credit limits of $20,000 or more and the authority to make their own purchase decisions. For example, most of SPAWAR's 1,526 cardholders had a $25,000 credit limit and most of the Navy Public Works Center's 254 cardholders had a $20,000 credit limit. The proliferation of cardholders, particularly at SPAWAR San Diego, significantly increased the government's financial exposure and created a situation where it was virtually impossible to maintain a positive control environment. To reduce the financial exposure associated with the large number of cardholders, we continue to recommend that the two Navy commands establish specific policies and strategies governing the number of purchase cards to be issued with a focus on minimizing the number of cardholders. In addition, the Naval Supply Systems Command guidance implementing the Department's "Span of Control Goals" merely restates DOD’s guideline that approving officials should have no more than five to seven cardholders under their purview—it does not provide specific guidance for reducing the number of cardholders. DOD also stated that the criteria for employees being issued purchase cards should be a function of mission requirements and the level of trust between the cardholder and supervisor. Further, DOD stated that the Navy believes the supervisor's judgment is sufficient as to the trustworthiness of the employee to obligate on the part of the government. We continue to believe that DOD should assess the feasibility and cost benefit of performing credit checks on employees prior to issuing a purchase card. Individuals who have a history of personal credit problems are more likely to improperly use their government purchase cards if their access to personal credit has been limited. In fact, our review of the Navy purchase card fraud cases discussed in our testimony shows this to be true for at least one of the cases. Further, as discussed in our testimony, we identified several cases of potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive transactions at both the SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego that had been certified as proper for payment. We are continuing to investigate several of these cases as part of our follow-up work and plan to assess the correlation between fraudulent, abusive, and improper use of the government purchase card and cardholders who have personal credit problems. DOD stated that it is the responsibility of the local Navy commands to establish written policies and procedures and ensure that purchases are made for official use, meet mission requirements, and are made at a fair and reasonable price. DOD also stated that due to differing and unique mission requirements throughout the Navy, it is difficult to develop a general listing of what items can be purchased with or without special justification. For example, DOD stated that ticket purchases to Disneyland may be an appropriate purchase not requiring special justification within a “Non-Appropriated Funded activity,” but may require such documentation for an “Appropriated Funded activity.” We continue to believe there is a need for Navy-wide guidance in the form of written policies and criteria requiring documented justifications and procurement management approval for types of items can be acquired with a government purchase card. For example, we found some instances where employees were buying flat panel monitors costing from $800 to $2,500 each while others were buying traditional monitors costing about $300 each. In addition, at SPAWAR, we found that employees made abusive purchases of high-cost personal items, including two designer brief cases costing about $400 each and several designer palm pilot cases costing about $100 each. In these instances, the decision of what to buy and the quality of the items purchased often appeared to be a matter of cardholder preference. Further, the fact that such purchases were not questioned supports our recommendation that specific written guidelines be established for purchases of these types of items. DOD’s example of the purchase of tickets for Disneyland is another example of the type of purchase card use that should be specifically addressed in the NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 to avoid misuse of the card and abusive purchases. Establishing criteria for determining the propriety of purchases of high- cost items and prohibiting the purchase of personal preference items, such as designer brief cases and designer palm pilot cases, would help prevent abusive purchases in the future and avoid unnecessary federal expenditures. DOD stated that the present language in the policy section of NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 provides clear guidance on the propriety of buying food and flowers using the purchase card. We disagree. The policy section of NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 merely states that the “purchase card shall only be used for authorized U.S. Government purchases.” We found numerous potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases that had been approved by supervisors as authorized government purchases. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. 13.301(a), states that the Governmentwide Commercial Purchase Card "may be used only for purchases that are otherwise authorized by law or regulations." Therefore, a procurement using the purchase card is lawful only if it would be lawful using conventional procurement methods. Further, the Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) requires agencies to establish guidance on approved uses of the government purchase card and limitations on types of transactions permitted. The NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 policy statement does not address these specific purchase card requirements of the FAR or the TFM. As stated in our testimony, without statutory authority, appropriated funds may not be used to furnish meals or refreshments to employees within their normal duty stations. Free food and other refreshments normally cannot be justified as a necessary expense of an agency's appropriation because these items are considered personal expenses that federal employees should pay for from their own salaries. Likewise, appropriated funds may not be used to purchase gifts for employees or others unless an agency can demonstrate that the items further the purposes for which the appropriation was enacted. The purchase of the flowers and food were both personal rather than official in nature and, therefore, may not be paid for with appropriated funds. Given the problems we found, clarifyng the current guidance on the propriety of purchasing food, flowers, and similar personal items could help reduce improper purchase card use for these items. DOD stated that the present language in the NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 policy section clearly identifies the consequences for fraud, abuse, and misuse of the purchase card. We disagree. The policy section of the NAVSUP Instruction only states that deliberate misuse of the purchase card may be prosecuted as fraud. It does not identify any specific consequences for failure to follow control requirements, such as the failure to (1) obtain independent documentation of receipt and acceptance of goods and services, (2) notify property book officers of accountable items acquired with a purchase card, (3) properly certify purchase card statements for payment, and (4) comply with prohibitions on certain purchases and split transactions. Our work identified pervasive failures to follow established controls in these and other areas. To ensure that the Navy's purchase card controls are effective, it is critical that the Navy enforce those controls by establishing specific disciplinary consequences—such as removal of cardholder status, reprimands, suspension from employment for several days, and firing—for those employees who fail to follow established controls even if their action does not amount to fraud against the United States. Unless cardholders and approving officials are held accountable for following key internal controls, the Navy is likely to continue to experience the types of fraudulent, abusive, and improper transactions identified in our work. As agreed with your offices, unless you announce the contents of this report earlier, we will not distribute this report until 30 days from its date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), the Director of the Department’s Purchase Card Joint Program Management Office, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretary of the Navy, the Navy Comptroller, the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command, the Commander of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, the Commanding Officer of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command’s Systems Center in San Diego, the Commander of the Navy Public Works Center, the Commanding Officer of the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego, and the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. We are also sending copies to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Government Reform; the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, House Committee on Government Reform; other interested congressional committees; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon request. Please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-9095 or [email protected], Robert H. Hast at (202) 512-7455 or [email protected], or Gayle Fischer, Assistant Director at (202) 512-9577 or [email protected], if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this work are acknowledged in appendix III. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, and Senator Grassley: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Department of Defense (DOD) internal controls and accounting practices for purchase card transactions and payments. DOD reported that it used purchase cards—MasterCard or VISA cards issued to its civilian and military personnel—for more than 10 million transactions valued at $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2000. DOD has increased the use of purchase cards with the intention of eliminating the bureaucracy and paperwork long associated with making small purchases and intends to expand the use of purchase cards over the next several years. Given the rapid growth of purchase card use at DOD, ensuring that key controls are in place over the program is critical to protecting the government from fraud, waste, and abuse. We began looking into this issue at the request of Senator Grassley, who was concerned about internal control weaknesses that may have contributed to reports of purchase card fraud related to Navy programs based in San Diego, California. As a result, we agreed to obtain and review DOD fraud case information related to Navy purchase card programs in the San Diego area and to review purchase card controls and accounting for two Navy units based in San Diego—the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) Systems Center and the Navy Public Works Center. Further background information on the Navy purchase card program is included in appendix I. Today, I will discuss the results of our review of Navy purchase card controls, including (1) the purchase card control environment at the two Navy units’ San Diego activities and overall management issues that affect the Navy-wide purchase card program, (2) the results of our test work on statistical samples of purchase card transactions at the two Navy units, which identified control weaknesses in four critical areas, and (3) potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive transactions made by the two Navy units. Some of these transactions are similar to those involved in five specific fraud cases related to Navy programs based in San Diego that had been identified at the time of our work. Information on the five fraud cases is presented in appendix II. The Navy’s purchase card program is part of the Governmentwide Commercial Purchase Card Program, which was established to streamline federal agency acquisition processes by providing a low-cost, efficient vehicle for obtaining goods and services directly from vendors. DOD reported that it used purchase cards for 95 percent of its eligible transactions—more than 10 million transactions, valued at $5.5 billion—in fiscal year 2000. The Navy’s reported purchase card activity represented nearly one third of the reported DOD total during fiscal year 2000—2.7 million transactions, valued at $1.7 billion. According to unaudited DOD data, SPAWAR and Navy Public Works Center San Diego-based activities accounted for $68 million (about 15 percent) of the $451 million in fiscal year 2000 Navy purchase card payments processed by DFAS San Diego. Although SPAWAR San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego are both working capital fund activities, their missions are very different. SPAWAR San Diego is a highly technical systems operation staffed by scientists and engineers who provide research, technology, and engineering support to other Navy programs worldwide. The Navy Public Works Center San Diego provides maintenance, construction, and operations support to other Navy programs in the San Diego area. Under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement guidelines, eligible purchases include (1) micro-purchases (transactions up to $2,500 for which competitive bids are not needed); (2) purchases for training services up to $25,000; and (3) payment of items costing over $2,500 that are on the General Services Administration’s (GSA) pre-approved schedule, including items on requirements contracts. The streamlined acquisition threshold for such contract payments is $100,000. Accordingly, cardholders may have single transaction purchase limits of $2,500 or $25,000, and a few cardholders may have transaction limits of up to $100,000 or more. Under the GSA blanket contract, the Navy has contracted with Citibank for its purchase card services, while the Army and the Air Force have contracted with U.S. Bank. the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, has established departmentwide policies and procedures governing the use of purchase cards. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) has established related financial management policies and procedures in various sections of DOD’s Financial Management Regulation. The Navy Supply Systems Command is responsible for the overall management of the Navy’s purchase card program, and has published the Navy Supply Command (NAVSUP) Instruction 4200.94, Department of the Navy Policies and Procedures for Implementing the Governmentwide Purchase Card Program. Under the NAVSUP Instruction, each Navy Command’s head contracting officer authorizes purchase card program coordinators in local Navy units to obtain purchase cards and establish credit limits. The program coordinators are responsible for administering the purchase card program within their designated span of control and serve as the communication link between Navy units and the purchase card issuing bank. When a supervisor requests that a staff member receive a purchase card, the agency program coordinator is to first provide training on purchase card policies and procedures and then establish a credit limit and issue a purchase card to the staff member. The Navy had a total of about 1,700 purchase card program coordinators during fiscal year 2000, including one program coordinator at SPAWAR San Diego and one at the Navy Public Works Center San Diego. Purchase cardholders are delegated contracting officer ordering responsibilities, but they do not negotiate or manage contracts. SPAWAR San Diego and Navy Public Works Center San Diego cardholders use purchase cards to order goods and services for their units as well as their customers. Cardholders may pick up items ordered directly from the vendor or request that items be shipped directly to end users (requestors). Upon receipt of items acquired by purchase cards, cardholders are to record the transaction in their purchase log and obtain independent confirmation from the end user, their supervisor, or another individual that the items have been received and accepted by the government. They are also to notify the property book officer of accountable items received so that these items can be recorded in the accountable property records. The purchase card payment process begins with receipt of the monthly purchase card billing statements. Section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, requires DOD to issue regulations that ensure that purchase card holders and each official with authority to authorize expenditures charged to the purchase card reconcile charges with receipts and other supporting documentation. NAVSUP Instruction 4200.94 states that upon receipt of the individual cardholder statement, the cardholder has 5 days to reconcile the transactions appearing on the statement by verifying their accuracy to the transactions appearing on the statement and notify the approving official in writing of any discrepancies in the statement. In addition, under the NAVSUP Instruction, the approving official is responsible for (1) ensuring that all purchases made by the cardholders within his or her cognizance are appropriate and that the charges are accurate and (2) the timely certification of the monthly summary statement for payment by DFAS. The Instruction further states that within 5 days of receipt, the approving official must review and certify for payment the monthly billing statement, which is a summary invoice of all transactions of the cardholders under the approving official’s purview. The approving official is to presume that all transactions on the monthly statements are proper unless notified in writing by the purchase cardholder. However, the presumption does not relieve the approving official from reviewing for blatant improper purchase card transactions and taking the appropriate action prior to certifying the invoice for payment. In addition, the approving official is to forward disputed charge forms to the unit’s comptroller’s office for submission to Citibank for credit. Under the Navy’s contract, Citibank allows the Navy up to 60 days after the statement date to dispute invalid transactions and request a credit. generates a tape for payment by electronic funds transfer to the purchase card bank, and sends the file to the accounting station for recording the payment as a summary record in the Navy’s accounting system. Figure 1 illustrates the current purchase card payment process used by SPAWAR and the Naval Public Works Center in San Diego. The Navy earns purchase card rebate revenue from Citibank of up to 0.8 percent based on sales volume (purchases) and payment timeliness. According to the DOD Deputy Director of DOD’s Purchase Card Joint Program Management Office, rebate revenue is generally to be recorded to the purchase card statements and used to offset monthly charges. Pursuant to Senator Grassley’s request, we identified five fraud cases related to Navy programs based in the San Diego, California, area and investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). All of these cases can be linked to the types of internal control weaknesses discussed in this testimony. Of these five cases, two involved Navy Public Works Center San Diego employees and one involved 2,600 compromised purchase card accounts, including 22 currently active SPAWAR San Diego accounts. One of the remaining cases, which has been concluded, was related to a fraud that occurred at the Navy’s Millington (Tennessee) Flying Club—an activity of the Navy Morale, Welfare, and Recreation entity, which is based in San Diego. The other case involved a military officer and other service members who were assigned to the Marine Corps Station in Miramar, near San Diego. The first San Diego-related purchase card fraud case is an example of the lack of segregation of duties. This case involved the cardholder at the Navy’s Millington (Tennessee) Flying Club, an entity of the U.S. Navy’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation activity, which is based in San Diego, California. The cardholder, who was having financial problems, was hired by her stepfather, who was the club’s treasurer. The stepfather delegated nearly all purchase card duties to the cardholder, as well as the authority for writing checks to pay the Flying Club’s monthly purchase card statements. The cardholder made over $17,000 in fraudulent transactions to acquire personal items from Wal-Mart, The Home Depot, shoe stores, pet stores, boutiques, an eye care center, and restaurants over an 8-month period from December 1998 through July 1999. The fraud was identified when the club’s checking account was overdrawn due to excessively high purchase card payments and a bank official contacted the president of the Flying Club. The cardholder pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 months in jail and assessed about $28,486 in restitution due to purchase card fraud and bounced checks. The defendant commented that illegal use of the card was “too easy” and that she was the sole authorizer of the card purchases. documentation of independent confirmation of receipt and acceptance and recording accountable items in property records would have made detection easier. In this instance, the military officer allegedly conspired with cardholders under his supervision to make nearly $400,000 in fraudulent purchases from five companies—two that he owned, one owned by his sister, and the other two owned by friends or acquaintances. They charged thousands of dollars for items such as DVD players, Palm Pilots, and desktop and laptop computers. The officer also allegedly made cash payments to employees to keep silent about the fraud and provided auditors with falsified purchase authorizations and invoices to cover the fraud. The fraud occurred from June 1999 through September 2000. The total amount of the alleged fraud is unknown. The alleged fraud was identified based on a tip from a service member. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego has accepted the case for prosecution and four other active service members are under investigation. The third case involved a Navy Public Works Center San Diego maintenance/construction supervisor who allegedly made at least $52,000 in fraudulent transactions to a suspect contractor on work orders for which the work was not performed by that contractor. Adequate monitoring of purchase card transactions along with enforcing controls such as independent, documented receipt and acceptance and recording accountable items in property books would have made detection easier. Navy investigators believe that the employee also may have used his government purchase card to make unauthorized purchases for personal use, including jewelry, an air conditioner, and other personal items from The Home Depot from April 1997 through October 1998. The total amount of this alleged purchase card fraud is unknown. The alleged fraud was identified when the employee’s supervisor reviewed Navy Public Works Center work orders and noticed that four work orders totaling approximately $7,000 were completed by the employee and paid for with the suspect’s government purchase card. Further inquiry by the supervisor revealed that Navy Public Works Center employees, not the contractor, had completed the work. NCIS investigators and Naval Audit Service auditors identified approximately $52,000 in purchase card transactions made by the employee to a suspect contractor for work that was performed by either the Public Works Center or other legitimate contractors. The employee has resigned and an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and NCIS is ongoing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego has accepted the case for prosecution. The fourth case involved a Navy Public Works Center San Diego purchasing agent that allegedly made at least $12,000 in fraudulent purchases and planned to submit approximately $103,000 in fraudulent disputed charge forms, including payments for hotels, airline tickets, computers, phone cards, and personal items from The Home Depot. The alleged fraud occurred from April 1997 through July 1999. As with the other cases, adequate monitoring of purchase card transactions along with enforcing controls such as independent, documented receipt and acceptance and recording accountable items in property books would have made detection easier. The alleged fraud was identified during an investigation of a possible bribery/kickback scheme. The employee has resigned and an NCIS investigation is ongoing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego has accepted the case for prosecution. The fifth Navy purchase card fraud case is ongoing and involves the compromise of up to 2,600 purchase card accounts assigned to Navy activities in the San Diego area. Investigators were only able to obtain a partial list consisting of 681 compromised accounts so the exact number is not known. At least 45 of the compromised accounts were for SPAWAR San Diego and one of the compromised accounts was for the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego. Of these 46 compromised accounts, 22 SPAWAR San Diego accounts were still active in May 2001. None of the active accounts on the partial listing found by investigators were for the Navy Public Works Center San Diego. Although the account numbers showed up on a computer printer in a community college library in San Diego in September 1999, the Navy has not canceled all of the compromised accounts. Instead, according to NCIS and Navy Supply Command officials, the Navy is canceling the compromised accounts as fraudulent transactions are identified. Naval Supply Systems Command, SPAWAR San Diego, and Navy Public Works Center San Diego officials told us that they were aware of this incident but did not have a listing of the account numbers affected. As a result, the Navy did not take any measures to flag the compromised accounts and implement special monitoring procedures to detect any potential fraudulent use of these accounts. associated with the 22 compromised accounts showed that SPAWAR continued to have an aggregate monthly financial exposure of $900,000 associated with these accounts nearly 2 years after the compromised list was discovered in a San Diego community college library in September 1999. Further, with the lack of controls over receipt of goods and certification of purchase card statements that we identified at the two activities we reviewed, it is impossible for the Navy to identify fraudulent purchases as they occur or to determine the extent of the fraudulent use of the compromised accounts. As a result, when fraudulent use of one of the comprised accounts was identified, the Navy could not determine if the incident was due to cardholder fraud or use of the compromised account by an outside party. A joint task force in San Diego, comprised of NCIS, the U.S. Secret Service, local police, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, investigated this fraud. The task force investigators recently traced the list of compromised accounts to a vendor used by the Navy, which acknowledged that the list came from its database. The vendor identified two former employees as possible suspects. Pursuant to Senator Grassley’s request, we obtained and reviewed information on five fraud cases related to Navy purchase card programs in the San Diego, California, area and to review purchase card controls and accounting for two Navy units based in San Diego—the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) Systems Center and the Navy Public Works Center. Our assessment of SPAWAR San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego purchase card controls covered the overall management control environment, including (1) span of control issues related to the number of cardholders, (2) training for cardholders and accountable officers, (3) management of rebates, and (4) monitoring and audit of purchase card activity; tests of statistical samples of key controls over purchase card transactions, including (1) documentation of independent confirmation that items ordered by purchase card were received, (2) proper certification of purchase card statements for payment, and (3) proper accounting for purchase card transactions; substantive tests of accountable items in our sample transactions to verify whether they were recorded in property records and whether they could be found; and analysis of the universe of transactions to identify (1) any potentially improper, fraudulent, and abusive transactions and (2) purchases that were split into one or more transactions to avoid micro-purchase thresholds or other credit limits. concepts and standards in the GAO internal control standards to the practices followed by management in the four areas reviewed. To test controls, we selected stratified random probability samples of 135 SPAWAR San Diego purchase card transactions from a population of 47,035 transactions totaling $38,357,656, and 121 Navy Public Works Center San Diego transactions from a population of 53,026 transactions totaling $29,824,160 that were recorded by the Navy during fiscal year 2000. We stratified the samples into two groups—transactions from computer vendors and other vendors. With this statistically valid probability sample, each transaction in the population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that probability could be computed for any transaction. Each sample element was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all the transactions in the population, including those that were not selected. Table 7 presents our test results on three key transaction-level controls and shows the confidence intervals for the estimates for the universes of fiscal year 2000 purchase card transactions made by SPAWAR and the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego. Projection (millions) Projection (millions) Projection (millions) 65% (+/- 10%) $14.5 (+/- $4.4) 83% (74-90%) $20.4 (+/- $5.1) 47% (+/- 12%) $12.9 (+/- $6.3) 35% (+/- 11.4%) $11.2 (+/- $ 6.2) The projections represent point estimates for the population based on our sampling tests at a 95- percent confidence level. All seven approving officials with certifying officer responsibilities told us that they did not review support for transactions before certifying purchase card statements for payment. of store receipts (such as those from The Home Depot) were missing, we were unable to determine whether certain purchases were made for personal use. In addition, we did not physically examine purchases made to determine whether goods and services were received and used for government purposes. While we identified some improper and potentially fraudulent and abusive transactions, our work was not designed to identify, and we cannot determine, the extent of fraudulent, improper, or abusive transactions. We briefed DOD managers, including officials in DOD’s Purchase Card Joint Program Management Office and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and Navy managers, including Navy Supply Command, Navy Comptroller, SPAWAR San Diego, and Navy Public Works Center San Diego officials on the details of our review, including our objectives, scope, and methodology and our findings and conclusions. We conducted our audit work from August 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, and we performed our investigative work in accordance with standards prescribed by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Following this testimony, we plan to issue a report, which will include recommendations to DOD and the Navy for improving internal controls over purchase card activity. (918994) The following are GAO’s comments on the DOD letter dated October 3, 2001. Comment 1. See the "Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section of this report. Comment 2. We are concerned that DOD’s support of the current process whereby Agency Program Coordinators report the results of their purchase card internal reviews to their unit’s contracting activity or their local commanding officer will not ensure that the results of purchase card internal reviews are fully communicated to central Navy management to support oversight and corrective actions on systemic control weaknesses. During our review, we found documented evidence that SPAWAR management ignored written reports on results of Agency Program Coordinator internal reviews, which identified problems that are consistent with the control weaknesses discussed in our testimony and summarized in this report. For example, SPAWAR Agency Program Coordinator reviews identified the lack of independent documentation that the Navy had received items ordered by purchase card, accountable items that were not recorded in the property records, inadequate documentation for transactions, split purchases, and transactions that did not appear to be related to government business purposes. SPAWAR San Diego management ignored the internal review results, primarily due to complaints from cardholders and their supervisors regarding the administrative burden associated with procedural changes that would be needed to address the review findings. Further, although the Naval Audit Service reviewed Navy Public Works Center San Diego purchase card activity and the SPAWAR San Diego Command Inspector General reviewed SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego purchase card activities, reports were not issued on the results of either of these reviews. Therefore, we continue to recommend that Agency Program Coordinators report any internal control weaknesses identified during semiannual reviews to the Commander of the Naval Supply Systems Command in addition to their unit commanders. Comment 3. While DOD stated that using a single object class for all micro- purchases streamlines the accounting process and reduces the numbers of problem disbursements resulting from manual keystrokes when entering such data, this practice results in unreliable expense data. As we stated in our testimony, aggregating all micro-purchases under one object class does not show the nature and type of expenditures made using purchase cards. Because SPAWAR San Diego and the Navy Public Works Center San Diego did not ensure that their detail transaction records reflected the proper classification of expense, 100 percent of the SPAWAR and Navy Public Works Center transactions in our samples were recorded to the wrong object class. For example, although the majority of the SPAWAR purchase card transactions in our sample—76 transactions totaling over $73,000— were for equipment purchases, none of these transactions were properly classified and recorded. Further, SPAWAR did not maintain sufficient documentation to determine the correct object class for 15 of the transactions in our sample totaling $12,000. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates, requires federal agencies to report obligations and expenditures by object class, such as salaries, benefits, travel, supplies, services, and equipment, to indicate the nature of expenditures of federal funds. Accurate object classification data are critical to the reliability of information reported in the President's budget submission and budget projections and other analyses that are based on these data. In addition, because the Congress has asked for and is using object class information for its oversight activities, it is important that these data be properly recorded. Therefore, we continue to recommend that detail purchase card transaction records reflect the proper object classification of expense. Further, an appropriate procedure for summarizing detail purchase card transactions would be to record a separate summary record for each classification of expense--such as services, supplies, and equipment. Comment 4. The steps outlined in DOD's response do not ensure that cardholders will obtain reasonable prices or the best value. For example, we found numerous examples of individual purchases of computers and property items, and purchases of services, such as the installation of upgraded computer software, that were not made as part of a negotiated contract or a bulk purchase. Because these purchases did not appear to be cost-effective, we continue to recommend that the Navy determine whether the purchase card is (1) the right vehicle for acquiring certain items and services and (2) if items, such as computers, should be procured individually or through bulk purchases. The intent of our recommendation is that these determinations would result in Navy-wide policy guidance on the cost-effective use of purchase cards. Staff making key contributions to this report were Bertram Berlin, Francine DelVecchio, Steve Donahue, Douglas Ferry, Kenneth Hill, Jeffrey Jacobson, John Kelly, and John Ryan. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.” Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm, E-mail: [email protected], or 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system). | GAO reviewed purchase card activity at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) Systems Center and the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego and found significant breakdowns in internal controls over purchase card transactions, including fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases and theft and misuse of government property. Neither SPAWAR nor the Navy Public Works Center had effective policies for issuing purchase cards, establishing credit limits, and minimizing the federal government's financial exposure. Any employee having supervisory approval could get a card. GAO found that the units did not do credit checks on prospective cardholders. GAO also found that nearly half of SPAWAR's fiscal year 2000 purchase card transactions and more than half of the Navy Public Works Center's transactions were made by employees who did not have documented evidence of timely training. Policies for rebate management were deficient, including a lack of procedures to maximize rebates and ensure that bank calculations of rebates were correct. Management was not effectively using internal reviews and audits to determine whether purchase card internal controls were effectively implemented. These internal control weaknesses allowed purchases that were potentially fraudulent, improper, or abusive. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress ( GAO-01-995T , July 2001). |
Subsets and Splits