The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway maritime transportation system is the longest inland navigation system in the world. In 2016, the Coast Guard implemented a number of changes, including amending its methodology for setting the rates charged to shippers for using U.S. marine pilotage services in these waters. GAO was asked to review the Coast Guard's management of the Great Lakes Pilotage Program. This report (1) describes how the Coast Guard obtains stakeholder input on the Great Lakes Pilotage Program, and identifies key stakeholder issues that exist; and (2) discusses alternatives to the current structure and governance of the Great Lakes pilotage system identified by stakeholders, and the reported tradeoffs they may present. GAO reviewed applicable laws, Coast Guard rulemakings from 2016-2019, Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee meeting minutes for 2017 and 2018, and issues identified by stakeholders. GAO also interviewed a range of stakeholders, including shipping industry and pilot representatives, to obtain perspectives on the Coast Guard's management of the program and any alternative governance options that may exist. The Coast Guard manages the Great Lakes Pilotage Program to implement federal requirements that any oceangoing or foreign commercial vessel entering the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway use a registered marine pilot to safely navigate the vessel through the system. The Coast Guard employs several mechanisms for communicating with stakeholders and obtaining their input on the program. These include the federal rulemaking process, meetings of the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, and ad-hoc communications with local pilotage stakeholders. Since 2016, when the Coast Guard implemented several programmatic changes, shipping industry stakeholders and pilots have identified a number of issues that they would like to have considered for the program. The issues cited by shipping industry stakeholders relate, in large part, to the financial impacts associated with the Coast Guard's methodology for calculating pilotage rates. The issues raised by Great Lakes pilots and their representatives are varied and include changes that may be needed to respond to the increasing volume and variety of vessels needing Great Lakes pilotage services, such as cruise ships. U.S. Pilot Associations in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Shipping industry stakeholders and others have suggested potential alternatives to the structure and governance of Great Lakes pilotage. The proposed alternatives include consolidating the three U.S. pilot associations and districts, revising the existing governance structure and entities responsible for pilotage rate-setting, and introducing some level of competition for providing pilotage services. Each of these options presents various tradeoffs. For example, it is unclear if consolidating the three associations and districts would result in cost savings because there are relatively few administrative positions that could be reduced. According to the Coast Guard and pilot representatives, the specialized training and local experience needed to become registered pilots also presents a challenge to implementing competition because there is generally a limited supply of pilots available to compete in the same geographic area. Further, many of the governance structures and procedures of the existing Great Lakes pilotage system were established by statute and revisions would require legislative changes.


The Hanford Site in Washington State contains large quantities of nuclear waste. EM has been building the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant—which consists of multiple facilities, including a key pretreatment facility—to treat a large portion of the nuclear waste at Hanford. Under way since 2000 and costing over $11 billion to date—$3.8 billion of that spent on the pretreatment facility—the plant has faced technical challenges, cost overruns, and schedule delays. In late 2012, work on the pretreatment facility stopped until technical challenges could be resolved. In 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported that at current annual funding levels, completing the pretreatment facility on time would not be possible. Senate Report 116-48 accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020 included a provision for GAO to review this project. This report examines (1) the cost of pretreatment efforts from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2018, (2) the status of the technical challenges facing the pretreatment facility, and (3) the steps EM is taking to start treating waste by 2023 as required, among other things. GAO toured the facility, analyzed EM documents and expenditure data, and interviewed EM officials. The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) spent $752 million in fiscal years 2013 through 2018 on the pretreatment facility at the Hanford Site in Washington State. This facility was to separate nuclear waste into two streams for treatment in other site facilities. However, EM stopped design and construction of the facility in 2012 due to technical challenges. According to expenditure data, over half of the $752 million EM spent was for overhead, oversight, procurements, and facility maintenance. The rest was spent resolving the technical challenges. DOE's fiscal year 2020 budget request states that EM plans to continue “limited activities”—such as maintaining the existing facility and storing uninstalled equipment—while construction remains on hold. After working to address pretreatment facility technical challenges since 2012, EM and its contractor consider these challenges—ranging from facility ventilation concerns to preventing explosions during waste treatment—to be conceptually resolved. However, EM has not yet designed, engineered, or tested solutions to the challenges. In addition, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board—an independent agency that provides analysis, advice, and recommendations regarding safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities—does not consider the challenges resolved pending additional information and, in some cases, additional design and engineering work by EM. To begin treating waste by 2023 as required, EM has been pursuing alternatives to the pretreatment facility. Since 2013, EM has spent over $400 million pursuing alternatives for low-activity waste pretreatment capabilities originally planned for the pretreatment facility. However, as GAO reported in May 2015, EM did not properly define a mission need statement or a life-cycle cost estimate prior to selecting its preferred alternative for treating low-activity waste, consistent with analysis of alternatives best practices and DOE policy, and GAO recommended EM revise its analysis. In April 2019, EM began an analysis of alternatives for treating high-level waste, which EM expects to be completed in September 2020. However, as of February 2020, EM had not yet defined a mission need for this new analysis of alternatives and did not have a life-cycle cost estimate for its baseline alternative. Without these, decision makers will not have the information they need to make the best decisions for pretreating high-level waste, and EM cannot assure decision makers that alternative approaches meet mission needs.


The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is one of the federal agencies charged with addressing U.S. maternal health outcomes. HRSA's Improving Maternal Health in America initiative aims to address U.S. maternal health issues by, among other approaches, improving maternal health data, increasing maternal health research, and prioritizing quality improvement in maternal health care services. The FY2019 appropriations report language for the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 115-245 ), reserved $26 million within the Special Projects for Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) program for, among other things, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM) program and the establishment of new maternal health programs under HRSA. Using the SPRANS authority, HRSA established four new maternal health programs designed to improve maternal health outcomes and to prevent and reduce U.S. cases of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity (SMM) . SMM refers to medical conditions that adversely affect the maternal health care outcome of labor and delivery, resulting in either short-term or long-term consequences for pregnant and postpartum women. For FY2019, HRSA made awards under each of the four programs, via cooperative agreements, in which HRSA provided financial assistance to the recipients and is involved in program activities. The recipients of awards made under the previously existing AIM program and each of the four new maternal health programs must collaborate with each other. Previously Existing Maternal Health Program: Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM). This five-year maternal health program funds a single project that promotes the adoption and implementation of hospital-focused maternal safety bundles (evidence-based practices) for health care providers in birthing facilities and hospitals. Maternal Health Program 1: Alliance for Inn ovation on Maternal Health (AIMâ Community Care Initiative ) . This five-year maternal health program funds a single project that expands upon the work of the initial AIM program. The program award recipient supports the development, adoption, and implementation of nonhospital maternal safety bundles for health care providers in community-based organizations and outpatient settings. Maternal Health Program 2: Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies (RMOMS) Program. This four-year maternal health pilot program funds the development, testing, and implementation of service models, with the goal of improving access to, and continuity of, maternal and obstetrics care in rural communities. Program award recipients create strategies to address each of the following four RMOMS focus areas: (1) rural hospital obstetric service aggregation, (2) network approach to coordinating a continuum of care, (3) leveraging telehealth and specialty care, and (4) financial sustainability. Maternal Health Program 3: State Maternal Health Innovation (MHI) Program. This five-year maternal health program funds state-focused demonstration projects, with the goal of improving U.S. maternal health outcomes. State-focused demonstration projects undertake three core functions: (1) establishing a state-focused Maternal Health Task Force, (2) improving state-level maternal health data and surveillance, and (3) promoting and implementing innovations in the health care delivery of maternal health care services. Maternal Health Program 4: Supporting Maternal Health Innovation (MHI) Program. This five-year maternal health program aims to support states, key stakeholders, and recipients of HRSA-administered awards, with the goal of reducing and preventing U.S. cases of SMM and maternal mortality, and improving U.S. maternal health outcomes. For example, the Supporting MHI program provides capacity-building assistance to the state-focused demonstration projects under the State MHI program and to RMOMS program recipients. In addition, the Supporting MHI program is expected to establish a national resource center designed to help the AIMâCommunity Care Initiative recipient determine whether any of the nonhospital maternal safety bundles are evidence-informed and could reduce U.S. SMM and maternal mortality. To assist Congress as it considers measures on U.S. maternal health, this report provides an overview and the funding history of the five maternal health programs that HRSA administers. For each of the five maternal health programs, the report provides an overview of the program, discusses the main core activities and functions of the program, provides the program's criteria of eligibility and reporting requirements, and discusses the program's funding allocations.


The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes programs and activities to provide support to individuals who are pursuing a postsecondary education and to institutions of higher education (IHEs). During the 116 th Congress, the House Committee on Education and Labor marked up and ordered to be reported the College Affordability Act ( H.R. 4674 ), which would provide for the comprehensive reauthorization of most HEA programs. This report organizes the changes proposed by H.R. 4674 into seven themes: Expanding the availability of financial aid to postsecondary students . This would primarily be accomplished by increasing funding available through grant programs and by expanding student aid eligibility criteria. This includes increasing the total maximum Pell Grant award and expanding Pell Grant eligibility to new subsets of students, increasing funding for existing student aid programs, creating a new Direct Perkins Loans program, and modifying the need assessment and Free Application for Federal Student Aid filing process. I nstitutin g borrower-focused student loan reforms . This set of proposed changes aims to ease a borrower's student loan burden. It includes amending loan terms and conditions to be more generous once an individual has entered repayment on his or her loan, modifying and making efforts to streamline student loan administrative procedures, and expanding the availability of student loan refinancing options. Modifying educational, financial, and other institutional accountability requirements for receipt of federal funds. With respect to requirements IHEs must meet to participate in the Title IV federal student aid programs, these proposed changes include revising accreditation requirements, adjusting current participation metrics, and creating new participation metrics. They also include addressing regulatory requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities receiving federal funds. Revising public accountability, transparency, and consumer information requirements . This would primarily be accomplished by providing consumers with additional and more nuanced information to make more informed college-going and student loan borrowing decisions. Proposed changes include repealing the student unit record system ban and requiring annual student loan counseling. Expanding academic and personal supports to specific student populations. Proposed changes include creating several new programs and reauthorizing and increasing the authorization of appropriations for several existing programs, such as TRIO and Child Care Access Means Parents in School. Increasing financial support to IHEs , focusing on minority-serving institutions. These proposals involve reauthorizing and increasing the authorization of appropriations for numerous institutional support programs. Creating new grant programs for states and IHEs to reduce students' postsecondary costs . This would be accomplished by authorizing grants to support a federal-state partnership to provide tuition-free community college.


The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes the operation of three federal student loan programs: the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program. As of December 31, 2019, $1.5 trillion in such loans, borrowed by or on behalf of 42.8 million individuals, remained outstanding. In response to the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous questions have arisen regarding student loan repayment flexibilities and debt relief that may be available to individuals to alleviate potential financial effects related to COVID-19. The HEA authorizes several flexibilities that may be relevant to individuals facing financial difficulties resulting from COVID-19. These include the following: Loan deferment and forbearance options offer a borrower temporary relief from the obligation to make monthly payments. In certain instances, interest does not accrue during deferment periods; although interest does accrue during forbearance periods. Periods of deferment or forbearance do not count toward the 120 monthly payments required to qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), nor do they count toward the 20- or 25-year repayment periods under the income-driven repayment plans. Income-driven repayment (IDR) plans afford borrowers the opportunity to make payments in amounts that are capped at a specified share or proportion of their discretionary income over a repayment period not to exceed 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. At the end of the repayment period, the remaining balance of an individual's loans is forgiven. Recent administrative and congressional actions, including the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136 ), provide additional student loan relief measures: Interest rates on federally held student loans are being set to 0% from March 13, 2020, through September 30, 2020. Federally held student loans are being placed in a special administrative forbearance for March 13, 2020, through September 30, 2020. During this time, borrowers will not be required to make payments due on their loans. This special administrative forbearance will count toward the 120 monthly payments required to qualify for PSLF, the 20- and 25-year repayment periods under the IDR plans, and the nine voluntary payments required for individuals to rehabilitate their defaulted loans. Debt collections activities, including involuntary collection activities such as wage garnishment and offset of certain federal benefits (e.g., federal income tax return benefits, Social Security benefits) are being suspended on federally held student loans for March 13, 2020, through September 30, 2020.


The House and Senate must pass the same bill or joint resolution in precisely the same form before it can be presented to the President. Once both houses have passed the same measure, they can resolve their differences over the text of that measure either through an exchange of amendments between the houses or through the creation of a conference committee. The House and Senate each have an opportunity to amend the other chamber's amendments to a bill; thus, there can be House amendments to Senate amendments to House amendments to a Senate bill. If either chamber accepts the other's amendments, the legislative process is complete. Alternatively, each house may reach the stage of disagreement at any time by insisting on its own position or by disagreeing to the position of the other chamber. Having decided to disagree, they then typically agree to create a conference committee to propose a single negotiated settlement of all their differences. Conference committees are generally free to conduct their negotiations as they choose, but under the formal rules they are expected to address only the matters on which the House and Senate have disagreed. Moreover, they are to propose settlements that represent compromises between the positions of the two houses. When they have completed their work, they submit a conference report and joint explanatory statement, and the House and Senate vote on accepting the report without amendments. Only after the two houses have reached complete agreement on all provisions of a bill can it be sent to the President for his approval or veto.


The House pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rule is generally intended to discourage or prevent Congress from taking certain legislative action that would increase the deficit. The rule requires that legislation affecting direct spending or revenues not increase the projected deficit over either a 6-year or an 11-year period. In effect, the rule requires that any legislation projected to increase direct spending or reduce revenues must be offset by equivalent amounts of direct spending cuts, revenue increases, or a combination of the two, over the two specified periods. The House PAYGO rule applies to legislation affecting direct spending and revenues . It does not apply to discretionary spending . This rule exempts provisions designated as an emergency from being counted in determining compliance with the PAYGO rule. First established at the beginning of the 110 th Congress, the House PAYGO rule was modified during the 111 th Congress: at the beginning of the 111 th Congress, as part of the opening-day rules package; and again in the second session of the 111 th Congress, as part of a special rule providing for the consideration of an unrelated measure. At the beginning of the 112 th Congress, it was replaced with the Cut-As-You-Go (CUTGO) rule, which focused exclusively on the mandatory spending effects of legislation, eliminating any revenue effects from the budgetary evaluation under the rule. Most recently, at the beginning of the 116 th Congress, the PAYGO rule was reinstituted, covering both direct spending and revenues, with certain modifications. The House PAYGO rule exists alongside similar PAYGO requirements in statute, but with some significant differences. The House rule (1) applies the PAYGO requirement during the consideration of legislation on the House floor, (2) applies generally to each measure individually, and (3) is enforced by a point of order on the House floor. The Statutory PAYGO Act, in contrast, (1) applies the requirement to legislation after it has been enacted, (2) applies to the net effect of all legislation enacted during a session of Congress, and (3) is enforced by sequestrationâthe cancellation of budgetary resources provided by laws affecting direct spendingâto eliminate an increase in the deficit resulting from the enactment of legislation. This report updates the previous version (dated November 30, 2010) with descriptions of the changes instituted by the CUTGO rule, adopted at the beginning of the 112 th Congress, and the current PAYGO rule, adopted at the beginning of the 116 th Congress.


The INA includes provisions for eligible foreign nationals residing in the United States to obtain temporary humanitarian protection from removal, as well as work authorization, when their country of origin is designated for TPS. Since 1990, nationals of 22 countries have received TPS. The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country for TPS after consulting with other agencies and determining that the country meets statutory criteria related to armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary or temporary conditions that prevent its nationals from returning in safety. The Secretary may designate a country for TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend a TPS designation if deemed appropriate. GAO was asked to review the TPS decision process. This report, among other things, (1) describes the approach DHS takes to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security's TPS reviews and (2) examines DHS's communication to the public regarding TPS decisions and related information, including employment authorization. GAO reviewed documentation and data related to TPS decisions, including a nongeneralizable sample of 26 decisions for eight countries in fiscal years 2014 through 2018. GAO selected the countries to reflect various types of TPS decisions, among other factors. GAO also interviewed agency officials. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) reviews of countries for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) include three main steps, according to DHS and other agencies' documents and officials. First, the Secretary of Homeland Security may initiate a review of a country for TPS designation in response to various triggering factors, such as a request from a foreign government, on the basis of one or more statutory conditions. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires subsequent reviews after an initial designation. Second, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—which manages and coordinates the TPS review process for DHS—and the Department of State (State) compile country conditions reports and recommendations to inform the Secretary's decision. Although the INA does not prescribe the other agencies that must be consulted for a TPS review,State generally has a role in providing input for the Secretary of Homeland Security's consideration. GAO found DHS collected country conditions reports and recommendations from USCIS and State for all eight of the countries GAO selected for its review. Other DHS components and non-DHS entities may also provide information. Third, under the INA,the Secretary of Homeland Security exercises discretion in deciding whether to initially designate a country for TPS. For an existing designation, the Secretary determines whether country conditions warrant an extension or termination of TPS. DHS provides official notice of decisions in the Federal Register. DHS has communicated TPS decisions to the public through required Federal Register notices as well as other mechanisms. However, DHS has not provided consistent guidance regarding mechanisms it uses to communicate automatic extensions of TPS employment authorization documents. USCIS officials stated that the agency has typically communicated these extensions of documents for TPS beneficiaries through Federal Register notices. However, for five recent automatic extensions, USCIS instead mailed individual notifications to thousands of beneficiaries. USCIS guidance on its website identifies the individual notifications as a mechanism for communicating automatic extensions, but an employers' handbook and related guidance do not. As a result, some employers reportedly terminated TPS beneficiaries' employment because the employers did not understand or accept the notifications as proof of employment authorization. Consistent guidance about the mechanisms USCIS uses could help reduce the risk that TPS beneficiaries will lose their jobs because of confusion about their authorization to work in the United States.


The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizesâand in some cases requiresâthe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-U.S. nationals (aliens) arrested for immigration violations that render them removable from the United States. An alien may be subject to detention pending an administrative determination as to whether the alien should be removed, and, if subject to a final order of removal, pending efforts to secure the alien's removal from the United States. The immigration detention scheme is multifaceted, with different rules that turn on several factors, such as whether the alien is seeking admission into the United States or has been lawfully admitted into the country; whether the alien has engaged in certain proscribed conduct; and whether the alien has been issued a final order of removal. In many instances DHS maintains discretion to release an alien from custody. But in some instances, such as when an alien has committed specified crimes, the governing statutes have been understood to allow release from detention only in limited circumstances. The immigration detention scheme is mainly governed by four INA provisions that specify when an alien may be detained: 1. INA Section 236(a) generally authorizes the detention of aliens pending removal proceedings and permits aliens who are not subject to mandatory detention to be released on bond or on their own recognizance; 2. INA Section 236(c) generally requires the detention of aliens who are removable because of specified criminal activity or terrorist-related grounds after release from criminal incarceration; 3. INA Section 235(b) generally requires the detention of applicants for admission, such as aliens arriving at a designated port of entry as well as certain other aliens who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States, who appear subject to removal; and 4. INA Section 241 (a) generally requires the detention of aliens during a 90-day period after the completion of removal proceedings and permits (but does not require) the detention of certain aliens after that period. These provisions confer substantial authority upon DHS to detain removable aliens, but that authority has been subject to legal challenge, particularly in cases involving the prolonged detention of aliens without bond. DHS's detention authority is not unfettered, and due process considerations may inform the duration and conditions of aliens' detention. In 2001, the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis construed the statute governing the detention of aliens following an order of removal as having implicit, temporal limitations. The Court reasoned that construing the statute to permit the indefinite detention of lawfully admitted aliens after their removal proceedings would raise "serious constitutional concerns." In 2003, however, the Court in Demore v. Kim ruled that the mandatory detention of certain aliens pending their removal proceedings, at least for relatively brief periods, was constitutionally permissible. The interplay between the Zadvydas and Demore rulings has called into question whether the constitutional standards for detention prior to a final order of removal differ from those governing detention after a final order is issued. Several lower courts have interpreted Demore to mean that mandatory detention pending removal proceedings is not per se unconstitutional, but that Zadvydas cautions that if this detention becomes "prolonged" it may not comport with due process requirements. Additionally, some lower courts have recognized constraints on DHS's detention power that the Supreme Court has not yet considered. For instance, some courts have ruled that the Due Process Clause requires aliens in removal proceedings to have bond hearings when detention becomes prolonged, where the government bears the burden of proving that the alien's continued detention is justified. In addition, a settlement agreement known as the " Flores Settlement," which is enforced by a federal district court, currently limits DHS's ability to detain alien minors who are subject to removal. Further, while litigation concerning immigration detention has largely centered on the duration of detention, some courts have considered challenges to the conditions of immigration confinement, generally under the standards applicable to pretrial detention in criminal cases. Some courts have also restricted DHS's ability to take custody of aliens detained by state or local law enforcement officials upon issuance of "immigration detainers." In short, while DHS generally has broad authority over the detention of aliens, that authority is not without limitation. As courts continue to grapple with legal and constitutional challenges to immigration detention, Congress may consider legislative options that clarify the scope of the federal government's detention authority.


The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill contains funding for more than 30 agencies and entities. They include most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) as well as agencies within other departments, such as the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and other organizations and entities. Issues for Congress include determining the amount, terms, and conditions of funding for agencies and programs. Currently, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies generally are receiving appropriations at the FY2019 level (in Division E of P.L. 116-6 ). Continuing appropriations are being provided because no regular appropriations were provided before the start of the 2020 fiscal year (on October 1, 2019). Division A of P.L. 116-59 provided continuing appropriations through November 21, 2019. The House and Senate passed a measure extending continuing appropriations through December 20, 2019, unless full-year appropriations are enacted sooner. The President signed that measure on November 21, 2019. For FY2020, President Trump requested $32.47 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, including $2.25 billion for DOI and Forest Service wildfire suppression under a discretionary cap adjustment. For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the request was $11.75 billion, or 36.2% of the $32.47 billion total requested. For EPA, funded in Title II of the bill, the request was $6.22 billion, or 19.2% of the total. For the 23 agencies and other entities currently funded in Title III of the bill, the request was $14.50 billion, or 44.7% of the total. The President's FY2020 request would be $3.14 billion (8.8%) lower than the FY2019 regular enacted appropriation of $35.61 billion (in P.L. 116-6 , Division E), and $4.72 billion (12.7%) lower than the FY2019 total appropriation of $37.19 billion, which included $1.58 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief (in P.L. 116-20 , Title VII). (See the figure below.) On June 25, 2019, the House passed H.R. 3055 with $39.59 billion (in Division C) in FY2020 appropriations for agencies in the Interior bill. This total included $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the cap adjustment, as requested by the President. The FY2020 House-passed total would be $2.40 billion (6.4%) higher than the FY2019 total of $37.19 billion in regular and emergency appropriations, and $3.98 billion (11.2%) higher than the FY2019 total of $35.61 billion in regular appropriations. It would also be $7.12 billion (21.9%) higher than the President's FY2020 request of $32.47 billion and $1.48 billion (3.9%) higher than the FY2020 Senate-passed amount of $38.11 billion. On October 31, 2019, the Senate passed H.R. 3055 with $38.11 billion (in Division C) for agencies in the Interior bill. This total included $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the cap adjustment. The FY2020 Senate-passed total would be $918.8 million (2.5%) higher than the FY2019 total of $37.19 billion in regular and emergency appropriations, $2.50 billion (7.0%) higher than the FY2019 total of $35.61 billion in regular appropriations, and $5.64 billion (17.4%) higher than the FY2020 President's request of $32.47 billion. However, the Senate-passed amount would be $1.48 billion (3.7%) lower than the FY2020 House-passed amount of $39.59 billion. For individual agencies and programs in the bill, there are many differences among the funding levels enacted for FY2019 and those requested by the President for FY2020, approved by the House for FY2020, and approved by the Senate for FY2020. This report highlights funding for selected agencies and programs that have been among the many of interest to Congress, stakeholders, and the public. They include the Bureau of Land Management, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Park Service, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, Reorganization of DOI, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Geological Survey, and Wildland Fire Management.


As the federal government's landlord, GSA spends hundreds of millions of dollars to construct or modernize federal buildings. By delivering these major construction projects, GSA supports tenant agencies' missions and facilitates the delivery of government services. GAO was asked to review GSA's major construction projects. This report: (1) identifies costs of these projects in the last 5 years and factors that contribute to those costs; (2) examines how GSA monitors and publicly communicates cost and schedule information; and (3) assesses GSA's efforts to confirm that projects meet GSA's requirements and that tenants are satisfied with completed projects. GAO analyzed GSA's performance data from fiscal years 2014 to 2018 for 36 projects with a minimum cost each of $20 million (i.e., a major construction project); selected five case-study projects representing diversity in project type, geographic area, building type, and range in cost and scope; reviewed applicable GSA policies, procedures, guidance, and reports; and interviewed GSA officials and project stakeholders. In fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the General Services Administration (GSA) completed 36 major construction projects—projects with a minimum cost of $20 million to construct new buildings or modernize existing buildings—with a total cost of $3.2 billion. According to a GSA consultant, factors specific to federal construction projects may result in GSA's projects costing roughly 15 to 25 percent more than comparable private sector projects. For example, GSA uses more durable but more expensive materials to achieve a longer building service life compared to private owners who may plan for a shorter service life. GSA's Annual Performance Reports to Congress do not indicate how much GSA “rebaselined” projects' schedules and costs. Rebaslining reestablishes the point at which GSA measures on-schedule and on-budget performance. In accordance with agency policy, GSA rebaselined 25 of 36 projects GAO reviewed to account for issues such as design changes and tenant-funded requests. For example, GSA rebaselined one of its modernization projects for a $2.7 million increase to the construction contract initially awarded for $21.8 million. The increase resulted from a design change to add a stairwell for fire safety purposes to accomodate the tenant's plan to increase the building's occupants (see figure). After GSA rebaselines a project, costs may differ from the project estimates approved by Congress. Because GSA does not report the extent that it has rebaselined projects or projects' final costs, Congress lacks information about GSA's performance: such as whether final costs are consistently above, below, or meeting estimated costs. Reporting such information could benefit Congress' ability to carry out its oversight role and improve transparency about the full costs of major federal construction projects. GSA assesses whether projects meet requirements and tenants' needs but does not fully capture or share lessons learned. For example, GSA uses “commissioning”—testing installed building systems—to validate that the buildings' systems function as designed. However, because GSA's 2005 commissioning guide references outdated guidance, the effectiveness of its activities may be limited in assuring buildings are operating optimally. GSA also uses post occupany evaluations (POE) to assess projects' performance and tenants' satisfaction. However, in the last 5 years, GSA has not regularly conducted POEs, due in part to resource constraints, and lacks a policy for selecting projects for POEs and communicating findings from completed POEs. As a result, GSA may be missing opportunities to fully utilize POEs to gather tenants' feedback and inform the design and construction of future projects.


The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) contains a number of provisions intended to provide disaster relief. Following certain disasters, Congress has passed legislation with temporary and targeted tax relief policies. At other times, Congress has passed legislation providing tax relief to those affected by all federally declared major disasters (disasters with Stafford Act declarations) occurring during a set time period. In addition, several disaster tax relief provisions are permanent features of the IRC. This report discusses the following permanent provisions: disaster casualty loss deductions; deferral of gain from involuntary conversions of property destroyed by a disaster; disaster relief for owners of low-income housing tax credit properties; income exclusion for disaster relief payments to individuals; income exclusion for certain insurance living expense payments; and IRS administrative relief in the form of extended deadlines and waiving of certain penalties. Congress began enacting tax legislation generally intended to assist victims of specific disasters in 2002 in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Laws targeting specific disasters contained provisions that were temporary in nature. Three acts, howeverâthe Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-343 ), the 2017 tax act ( P.L. 115-97 ), and the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019 ( P.L. 116-94 )âprovided more general, but still temporary, relief for any federally declared disaster occurring during designated time periods. The acts providing temporary relief include the following: The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-147 ), which provided tax benefits for areas of New York City damaged by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; The Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 (KETRA; P.L. 109-73 ), which provided tax relief to assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005; The Gulf Opportunity Zone (GO Zone) Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-135 ), which provided tax relief to those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005; The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill; P.L. 110-234 ), which provided tax relief intended to assist those affected by severe storms and tornadoes in Kansas in 2007; The Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-343 ), which provided tax relief to assist recovery from both the severe weather that affected the Midwest during summer 2008 and Hurricane Ike (this act also included general disaster tax relief provisions that applied to federally declared disasters occurring before January 1, 2010); The Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-63 ), which provided tax relief to those affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2017; The 2017 tax act ( P.L. 115-97 , commonly referred to using the title of the bill as passed in the House, the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act") responded to major disasters occurring in 2016; The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18; P.L. 115-123 ), which provided relief to those affected by the 2017 California wildfires; and The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019 (Division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; P.L. 116-94 ), which provided relief for major disasters generally occurring in 2018 and 2019. This report provides a basic overview of existing, permanent disaster tax provisions, as well as past, targeted legislative responses to specific disasters. The report also includes a discussion of economic and policy considerations related to providing disaster tax relief to individuals and businesses, and encouraging charitable giving to support disaster relief.


The January 2, 2020, U.S. killing in Iraq of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) Commander Qasem Soleimani, generally regarded as one of the most powerful and important officials in Iran, has potentially dramatic implications for the United States. For Congress, it raises possible questions about U.S. policy in the Middle East, broader U.S. global strategy, U.S. relations with partners and allies, the authorization and legality of U.S. military action abroad, U.S. measures to protect its servicemembers and diplomatic personnel, and congressional oversight of these and related issues. This report provides background information in response to some frequently asked questions related to the strike and its aftermath, including Who was Qasem Soleimani and why did the U.S. military kill him? How have Iranians reacted? How have Iraqis reacted and how does this impact Iraqi policy and government formation? How might the strike and Iraqi reactions impact the U.S. military presence in Iraq and the U.S.-led counter-ISIS campaign (Operation Inherent Resolve)? How does the killing of Soleimani impact Israel and its security? What has been the European reaction? Under what authority did the U.S. military carry out the strike? How have Members of Congress responded legislatively or otherwise? What is the U.S. force posture in the region? How do recent regional developments align with broader U.S. strategy? The information contained in this report, which will be updated periodically as events warrant, is current as of January 13, 2020. The following CRS products provide additional background and analysis of issues discussed in this report: CRS Report R44017, Iran's Foreign and Defense Policies , by Kenneth Katzman; CRS Report R45795, U.S.-Iran Conflict and Implications for U.S. Policy , by Kenneth Katzman, Kathleen J. McInnis, and Clayton Thomas; CRS In Focus IF11403, The 2019-2020 Iran Crisis and U.S. Military Deployments , by Kathleen J. McInnis; CRS In Focus IF10404, Iraq and U.S. Policy , by Christopher M. Blanchard; CRS Report R42699, The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice , by Matthew C. Weed; CRS Report RL34544, Iran's Nuclear Program: Status , by Paul K. Kerr; and CRS In Focus IF11338, Diplomatic Security and the Role of Congress , by Cory R. Gill and Edward J. Collins-Chase.


The K-12 teacher workforce is relatively largeâeach year, about 4 million teachers are employed in U.S. elementary and secondary schools. Turnover in these schools is high relative to earlier periodsâabout 1 in 10 teachers left his or her job in 2018. This figure follows federal statistical trends that show a sizable growth in teacher attrition since the 1980s. Teacher shortages and high turnover raise a number of recruitment and retention issues that may be of interest to policymakers. One of the more difficult issues involves a debate between observers who are concerned about an overall teacher shortage, and others who see it largely as a distributional problem where some schools have a relative surplus of teachers while other schools struggle with a persistent, unmet demand for qualified teachers. Those in the former camp focus on policies that aim to improve the recruitment and retention in the teaching profession in general, while those in the latter camp focus on policies that target education funding to fill positions for certain hard-to- staff schools and/or subject areas. Current federal policy addresses recruitment and retention. The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes grant support to institutions that prepare K-12 teachers as well as financial aid to students interested in the teaching profession. Title II of the HEA authorizes grants for improving teacher education programs, strengthening teacher recruitment efforts, and providing training for prospective teachers. Title IV of the HEA authorizes Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grants to encourage students to prepare for a career in teaching and student loan forgiveness for teachers that remain in the classroom over a number of years. The HEA was last comprehensively amended in 2008 by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, P.L. 110-315 ). Congressional consideration of potentially reauthorizing the HEA is ongoing, including the introduction of numerous bills to amend the portions of current law that address teacher recruitment and retention. Issues that may arise as the reauthorization process unfolds include modifying the Title II grant partnership structure, targeting support to specific teacher shortage areas or non-instructional staff, expanding teacher preparation program accountability, reforming administration of the TEACH Grant program, and expanding or consolidating teacher loan forgiveness programs.


The LDA, as amended, requires lobbyists to file quarterly disclosure reports and semiannual reports on certain political contributions. The law also includes a provision for GAO to annually audit lobbyists' compliance with the LDA. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements; (2) identify any challenges or potential improvements to compliance that lobbyists report; and (3) describe the resources and authorities available to USAO in its role in enforcing LDA compliance. This is GAO's 12th annual report under the provision. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 99 quarterly disclosure LD-2 reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2017, and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2018. GAO also reviewed two random samples totaling 160 LD-203 reports from year-end 2017 and midyear 2018. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 49,918 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 29,798 reports of federal political campaign contributions. GAO also interviewed USAO officials. GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment. The agency stated that it did not have comments. For the 2018 reporting period, most lobbyists provided documentation for key elements of their disclosure reports to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA). For lobbying disclosure (LD-2) reports and political contributions (LD-203) reports filed during the third and fourth quarter of 2017 and the first and second quarter of 2018, GAO estimates that 92 percent of lobbyists who filed new registrations also filed LD-2 reports as required for the quarter in which they first registered (the figure below describes the filing process and enforcement); 97 percent of all lobbyists who filed could provide documentation for lobbying income and expenses. However, an estimated 20 percent of these LD-2 reports were not properly rounded to the nearest $10,000; 19 percent of all LD-2 reports did not properly disclose one or more previously held covered positions as required; and 33 percent of LD-203 reports were missing reportable contributions, which was a statistically significant increase compared to prior years. Except as noted above, these findings are generally consistent with prior reports GAO issued from 2010 through 2017. GAO continues to find that most lobbyists in the sample reported some level of ease in complying with disclosure requirements and in understanding the definitions of terms used in the reporting. However, some disclosure reports demonstrate compliance difficulties, such as failure to disclose covered positions or misreporting of income or expenses. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) stated it has sufficient resources to enforce compliance. USAO continued its efforts to resolve noncompliance through filing reports or terminating registrations, as well as imposing civil and criminal penalties.


The MDH program was enacted in 1989, providing a financial benefit to some small, rural hospitals with high shares of Medicare patients. The original MDH program was established through statute for 3 years, and Congress has extended it on several occasions. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included a provision to extend the MDH program through 2022, as well as a provision for GAO to review the MDH program. This report describes, among other things, the changes that occurred in the number of MDHs and selected metrics over time. GAO analyzed data submitted to CMS by hospitals from fiscal years 2011 through 2017—the most recent year for which consistent data were available at the time of GAO's analysis—among other CMS data. GAO also reviewed CMS regulations and other agency documents. The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) operates the Medicare-dependent Hospital (MDH) program, which assists hospitals that have 60 percent or more of inpatient days or discharges from Medicare patients, 100 or fewer beds, and that are generally located in a rural area. MDHs receive an additional payment if their historic costs in one of three base years adjusted for inflation, among other things, are higher than what the hospital would have otherwise received under the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). In contrast, if the IPPS amount was higher than historic costs, the MDH would receive no additional payment. In fiscal year 2018, CMS paid approximately $119 million in additional payments to MDHs. From fiscal years 2011 through 2017, the number of MDHs declined by around 28 percent. (See figure.) In addition, the number of MDHs that received an additional payment declined by around 15 percent. Over this period of time, MDHs also experienced a 13 percent decrease in the share of their Medicare revenue that came from inpatient services. In addition, there was a decline in the share of total MDH revenue that was attributed to Medicare patients, and a decline in Medicare profit margins by about 6 percentage points.


The MIECHV program provides grants to states to support evidence-based home visiting services for at-risk pregnant women and parents with young children. HHS was appropriated $400 million per year for the MIECHV grant program for fiscal years 2018 through 2022. Families volunteer to participate in the MIECHV program and are provided regular home visits and support services from a nurse, social worker, or other professional. According to HHS, the program builds upon decades of scientific research showing that home visits during pregnancy and early childhood can improve the lives of children and families. States began receiving federal MIECHV program funds in fiscal year 2010, but many states provided home visiting services prior to the MIECHV program using state or other funds. To meet the program's MOE requirement, states are required to maintain home visiting spending that meets MIECHV program criteria. GAO was asked to review the MIECHV program's MOE requirement. GAO examined (1) what is known about the MOE spending reported by states that receive federal MIECHV program funds and (2) how HHS monitors states to ensure the MOE requirement is met. GAO reviewed MIECHV program notices of funding opportunity for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 and state grant applications for fiscal years 2016 through 2018, the most recent three years available. GAO also reviewed HHS grants monitoring documentation and interviewed HHS officials. From fiscal years 2016 through 2018, state reported maintenance of effort (MOE) spending varied from $0 to more than $25 million for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, according to GAO's review of MIECHV program grant applications. The program's authorizing statute requires states to meet an MOE requirement. MOE requirements in federal programs generally require grantees to maintain a certain level of spending to ensure grantee dollars are not replaced with federal dollars. To demonstrate their compliance with the MIECHV program's MOE requirement, states report in their annual grant applications their MOE spending for the prior fiscal year. HHS determined that states generally met the MIECHV program's MOE requirement because states did not replace state funds with federal funds, including states that reported no MOE spending or decreased MOE spending. States may be permitted to report $0 in MOE spending in certain circumstances; for example, if a state's only home visiting spending was on programs that did not meet MIECHV program criteria. According to HHS officials, state-reported decreases in MOE spending were due to errors in calculations that were subsequently corrected, clarifications to HHS's MOE guidance, or because of circumstances outside of the state agency's control. HHS uses multiple methods to monitor state compliance with the MOE requirement, according to GAO's review of HHS documentation and interviews with HHS officials. The agency's monitoring strategy includes reviews of grant applications, reviews of state single audits, and operational site visits, among other techniques. According to HHS officials, grant application reviews are the primary mechanism used to monitor state compliance, through which HHS compares state-reported MOE spending in grant applications across two fiscal years to determine if states maintained their level of spending. In addition, HHS identifies and resolves issues with state-reported MOE spending through its operational site visits and the agency's review of state single audits.


The Marine Corps requested $1.81 billion to pay for approximately 16,000 civilian employees in its fiscal year 2020 budget request. The Office of Management and Budget directs federal agencies to develop civilian personnel budgets by calculating workload requirements, the time needed to complete the work, and the number of FTEs needed. The Marine Corps uses a unique budget formulation process that relies on prior fiscal year budget data to calculate FTE estimates for future civilian personnel budget requests. Senate Report 115-290, accompanying a bill for the DOD Appropriations Act, 2019, included a provision for GAO to review how the Marine Corps develops its civilian labor requirements for both FTEs and funding and examine the benefits and shortfalls of the Manage to Payroll process. This report (1) describes how the Marine Corps formulates its civilian personnel budget request and (2) assesses the Marine Corps' management of its civilian personnel budget and FTEs, including the benefits and weaknesses of the process. GAO reviewed DOD civilian personnel budget policies, analyzed fiscal years 2013 through 2018 Marine Corps budget data that tracks spending and FTE allotment, and compared 2013 through 2018 budget execution data to budget request data. The Marine Corps develops its civilian personnel budget request using prior fiscal year budget execution data with adjustments based on input from sources such as the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) [OUSD(C)] and the Department of the Navy. As part of the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps' budget request is added to the Navy's overall budget request, which is incorporated into the Department of Defense's (DOD) overall budget request. The Marine Corps manages its civilian personnel based on dollar amounts—not full-time equivalent (FTE) workload like the other military services—through an approach called Manage to Payroll. Specifically, while the Marine Corps requests a certain number of FTEs each year as required by policy, the Marine Corps distributes the funds it receives to its commands by dollar amount and not based on the FTEs requested. This approach has benefits, such as providing flexibility to employ civilians based on current mission requirements. However, under this approach, for fiscal year 2019, internal Marine Corps' data show that four of its commands are either exceeding or not reaching their requested dollar amounts. Marine Corps policy does not provide guidance to its commands to manage FTEs to requested amounts. Without such updated guidance the Marine Corps risks overspending or underspending on its personnel requirements. In addition, internal Marine Corps civilian FTE data for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 is not consistent with data that OUSD(C) used to formulate DOD's overall civilian personnel budget request, as shown in the figure below. The Marine Corps has not identified or reconciled differences between its internal data compared to data submitted in the annual budget request. If information in the Marine Corps' budget request does not reflect internal Marine Corps data, then Congress and DOD leadership may not have sufficient and appropriate information to make informed planning decisions.


The Medicaid program is typically the payer of last resort. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 changed the Medicaid third-party liability payment requirements for prenatal care services, pediatric preventive services, and services provided to CSE beneficiaries. Before the act, in the case of these three services, states were generally required to pay providers for services delivered to Medicaid beneficiaries and then obtain any payments from liable third parties. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 also included a provision for GAO to study the potential effects of these changes. In this report, GAO (1) describes the status of selected states' implementation of Medicaid third-party liability changes; (2) evaluates CMS's implementation and oversight of the Medicaid third-party liability changes; and (3) describes stakeholders' views of the possible effects of these changes on providers and beneficiaries. GAO conducted interviews with state Medicaid agencies and provider associations in nine selected states, which were selected by taking into consideration Medicaid spending and stakeholder recommendations, among other factors. GAO also conducted interviews with national experts in Medicaid, national organizations representing beneficiaries and providers, and officials from CMS. Medicaid officials in the nine selected states GAO reviewed described being in various stages of implementing third-party liability changes as required by law. These changes affect whether health care providers must seek payment from a liable third party, such as private insurance, before the state Medicaid agency pays for services. The changes apply to prenatal care services, pediatric preventive services, and services for children subject to child support enforcement (CSE beneficiaries). At the time of GAO's review, Officials from four of the nine selected states reported having fully implemented the changes for prenatal care services, which were required to be implemented starting in February 2018. Officials from the remaining five states were discussing the changes internally, researching how to implement the changes in their Medicaid payment systems, or waiting for additional guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency responsible for overseeing states' Medicaid programs. None of the nine states had implemented the changes to pediatric preventive services and services for CSE beneficiaries, which must be implemented starting in October 2019. Officials from six states told GAO that they were in the early stages of exploring how they would make the changes, while the remaining three states had not developed such plans. GAO found that guidance issued by CMS in June 2018 to assist states in implementing the third-party liability changes contains information inconsistent with the law. For example, CMS's guidance incorrectly informs states that providers do not need to seek third-party payments before the state pays for some prenatal services. In addition, CMS has not determined the extent to which states are meeting third-party liability requirements. CMS officials stated that they expect states to comply with current law for Medicaid third-party liability and that they do not verify whether states have implemented the required third-party liability changes unless the agency is made aware of non-compliance. However, this approach is inconsistent with CMS's Medicaid oversight responsibilities, including its responsibility to ensure federal funds are appropriately spent. Medicaid experts and other stakeholders told GAO that the third-party liability changes could affect some health care providers in ways that could result in decreased beneficiary access to care, because some providers might be less willing to see Medicaid patients. According to stakeholders, this could occur for two primary reasons. 1. The changes may increase administrative requirements for providers by requiring them to identify sources of coverage, obtain insurance information, and submit claims to third-party insurers before submitting them to Medicaid. 2. The changes may result in providers waiting longer to receive Medicaid payment for certain services to the extent that states require providers to seek third-party payments before paying the providers' claims.


The Mérida Initiative is a bilateral U.S.-Mexico partnership to address crime and violence and enhance the rule of law in Mexico. Through this initiative, managed by State/INL and USAID, the United States has provided a wide range of assistance, including training and equipment. Since fiscal year 2008, U.S. funding for the Mérida Initiative has totaled about $3 billion. GAO has identified key practices for monitoring foreign assistance programs that agencies should implement to address impediments, effectively manage foreign assistance, and meet assistance goals. These practices are generally consistent with policies of State, USAID, and the Office of Management and Budget. GAO was asked to review issues related to Mérida Initiative implementation and objectives. This report examines the extent to which State/INL and USAID follow key practices in monitoring Mérida Initiative projects and track project performance against established measures. GAO reviewed State and USAID documents and data for a nongeneralizable sample of 20 high-dollar value projects, and interviewed officials from State; USAID; and other U.S. agencies in Washington, D.C., and Mexico City. For the 15 Department of State (State) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State/INL) projects GAO reviewed, State/INL generally followed key monitoring practices about half of the time. (See figure.) For example, State/INL almost always assigned staff with appropriate qualifications to monitor Mérida Initiative projects. However, for most projects, State/INL did not generally follow the key practices for developing monitoring plans that identify project goals and objectives and address risks to achieving them. Furthermore, State/INL did not consistently track project performance data. By establishing procedures for following key monitoring practices, State/INL would be better positioned to stay well informed of its projects' performance, take corrective action when necessary, and help ensure that projects achieve intended results. For the five United States Agency for International Development (USAID) projects GAO reviewed, USAID almost always followed key monitoring practices and tracked performance data. USAID established procedures, such as periodic portfolio reviews, to ensure its staff consistently monitored projects. While USAID identified risks to implementing projects, it did not address those risks in its monitoring plans. (See figure.) Developing monitoring plans to address risks could help USAID determine the appropriate level of oversight for each Mérida Initiative project and manage monitoring resources more cost effectively.


The NVRA was intended to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in federal elections, protect the integrity of the electoral process, and ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained. GAO was asked to examine issues related to the NVRA's voter registration and voter registration list maintenance requirements, as well as issues related to election fraud. This report addresses (1) DOJ's efforts to ensure states and localities comply with NVRA requirements to offer registration opportunities and administer voter registration list maintenance programs, and address potential instances of election fraud; and (2) how selected data sources are used at the state and local level to help maintain voter registration lists, and perspectives on how these data sources help ensure list accuracy and address potential voter eligibility and fraud issues. GAO analyzed data on DOJ's efforts to ensure NVRA compliance and address election fraud–as measured by matters initiated and cases filed--for fiscal years 2001 through 2017 (the last full year of data available when requested from DOJ). This period covered eight federal elections. GAO also interviewed DOJ officials. GAO selected six commonly received data sources that may be used in list maintenance efforts. GAO reviewed literature and interviewed state and local election officials in five states for perspectives on how the data sources are used and any benefits and limitations. These states used at least five of the data sources and provided geographic diversity. The results from these five states are not generalizable, but provide insight into state and local perspectives on list maintenance. From fiscal years 2001 through 2017, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Voting Section (which enforces the civil provisions of voting rights laws) initiated matters (e.g., investigations), filed cases against state or local governments in federal court, and engaged in other efforts to enforce provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Specifically, the Voting Section: initiated 99 matters involving allegations of NVRA violations related to voter registration opportunities and list maintenance; filed 14 cases involving allegations of NVRA violations; eight included list maintenance allegations; four included registration opportunities allegations; and two included both types of allegations; and DOJ's Public Integrity Section (which supervises nationwide election law enforcement and prosecutes selected cases involving alleged corruption by government officials), and U.S. Attorneys' Offices (which enforce criminal laws within their districts) engaged in efforts to address election fraud from fiscal years 2001 through 2017, including filing cases against individuals in federal court. For example: The Section initiated 33 matters and filed 19 cases related to election fraud, accounting for about three percent of its overall caseload. Of these cases,17 involved vote buying and false information charges. U.S. Attorneys' Offices initiated 525 matters and filed 185 cases related to election fraud, accounting for about .02 percent of their overall caseload. Of these cases, 52 involved charges such as vote buying and voting more than once, and 49 involved conspiracy. GAO reviewed six data sources election officials may use to maintain voter registration lists and remove voters who become ineligible due to a move, death, or disqualifying criminal conviction: (1) the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address (NCOA), (2) the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, (3) returned mail, (4) the public version of the Social Security Administration's Death Master File, (5) state vital records, and (6) U.S. Attorneys' records on felony convictions. Election officials GAO interviewed and literature reviewed reported benefits and limitations associated with each source. According to officials, each source helps improve list accuracy, despite some limitations, and list maintenance efforts in general help reduce opportunities for election fraud. For example, officials said that NCOA data helped them maintain accurate lists by identifying registrants who moved outside the election jurisdiction; however, they also noted that NCOA data may not capture all address changes because people do not always notify the U.S. Postal Service when they move. GAO incorporated technical comments provided by federal agencies and state and local election officials as appropriate.


As the federal government's landlord, GSA works with lessors and real estate brokers to identify space for other federal agencies to use. As part of this process, GSA uses leases that include requirements not commonly used in the private sector. These requirements and GSA's lengthy and complex leasing process can affect federal leasing costs and competition for leases. GAO was asked to review issues related to cost and competition for GSA leases with private sector lessors. This report examines: (1) lease requirements selected stakeholders identified as affecting cost and competition and steps GSA has taken to address stakeholders' concerns, and (2) how GSA has identified stakeholders' concerns and evaluated its simplified lease model. GAO reviewed pertinent federal statutes and regulations and GSA's contracting policy and leasing data from fiscal years 2016–2018. GAO conducted interviews with 20 GSA lessors selected from GSA's data to represent a range of location, and cost of the leases and the six real estate brokers that work with GSA. Stakeholders, including 20 lessors (e.g., building owners) and the six real-estate brokers that negotiate federal government leases, identified several aspects of the General Services Administration's (GSA) leases that can affect cost and competition. For example, specific lease requirements such as early termination (see table) can lead lessors to increase their rent rates or decide not to bid on a lease—thereby increasing federal leasing costs or decreasing competition. According to GSA officials, many of these lease aspects reflect contracting policy rather than being required by law, regulation, or executive order. GSA has made some changes, such as lengthening the term of some leases, to address stakeholder concerns. Stakeholders also identified the time it takes to complete a lease and GSA's propensity for staying in a space beyond the term of a lease as increasing costs and making GSA leases less attractive to potential bidders. Source: GAO analysis of stakeholder information. | GAO-20-181 GSA has undertaken initiatives to identify stakeholders' concerns to inform its reform efforts, but it lacks complete information to address concerns or evaluate its efforts. Specifically, GSA has not gathered information from a representative group of lessors because its recent outreach has involved two industry groups that focus primarily on organizations such as real estate brokers and investment trusts that are experts in GSA leasing. These organizations may not have the same concerns as smaller, less experienced, organizations. By obtaining information from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, GSA would be better positioned to know whether its leasing reforms are addressing stakeholders' concerns. Additionally, to expedite processing of lower-value leases, GSA developed a simplified lease model that excludes some requirements that stakeholders identified as challenging but may protect GSA, such as tenant substitution. GAO found that for fiscal years 2016 to 2018, GSA used the model for only about one-third of potentially eligible leases. GSA has proposed increasing use of the model, but it does not know whether the model as currently used is achieving the anticipated benefits, including reduced lease processing times, or the impact of financial or other risks from this model because GSA has not evaluated its use. Without such an assessment, GSA does not have the information needed to determine whether the simplified lease model is achieving its intended results, whether to make improvements, or how to mitigate any risks.


The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the primary source of flood insurance coverage for residential properties in the United States, with more than five million policies in over 22,000 communities in 56 states and jurisdictions. FEMA is planning to introduce the biggest change to the way the NFIP calculates flood insurance premiums, known as Risk Rating 2.0 , since the inception of the NFIP in 1968 . The new premium rates are scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2021, for all NFIP policies across the country. Risk Rating 2.0 will continue the overall policy of phasing out NFIP subsidies, which began with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and continued with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. Under the change, premiums for individual properties will be tied to their actual flood risk. Because the limitations on annual premium increases are set in statute, Risk Rating 2.0 will not be able to increase rates faster than the existing limit for primary residences of 5%-18% per year. According to FEMA, Risk Rating 2.0 will reflect an individual property's risk, reflect more types of flood risk in rates, use the latest actuarial practices to set risk-based rates, provide rates that are easier to understand for agents and policyholders, and reduce complexity for agents to generate a flood insurance quote. The NFIP's current rating structure follows general insurance practices in effect at the time that the NFIP was established and has not fundamentally changed since the 1970s . The current NFIP rating structure uses several basic characteristics to classify properties based on flood risks. Structures are evaluated by their flood zone on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), occupancy type, and the elevation of the structure. FEMA uses a nationwide rating system that combines flood zones across many geographic areas, and calculates expected losses for groups of structures that are similar in flood risk and key structural aspects, assigning the same rate to all policies in a group. According to FEMA, flood zones will no longer be used in calculating a property's flood insurance premium following the introduction of Risk Rating 2.0. Instead, the premium will be calculated based on the specific features of an individual property, including structural variables such as the foundation type of the structure, the height of the lowest floor of the structure relative to base flood elevation, and the replacement cost value of the structure. The current rating system includes two sources of flood risk: the 1%-annual-chance fluvial (river) flood and the 1%-annual-chance coastal flood. As proposed, Risk Rating 2.0 will incorporate a broader range of flood frequencies and sources than the current system, as well as geographical variables such as the distance to water, the type and size of nearest bodies of water, and the elevation of the property relative to the flooding source. According to FEMA, although flood zones on a FIRM will not be used to calculate a property's flood insurance premium, flood zones will still be used for floodplain management purposes, and the boundary of the Special Flood Hazard Area will still be required for the mandatory purchase requirement.


The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA; 42 U.S.C. Â§4001 et seq.), and was most recently reauthorized until September 30, 2020 ( P.L. 116-93 ). The general purpose of the NFIP is both to offer primary flood insurance to properties with significant flood risk, and to reduce flood risk through the adoption of floodplain management standards. A longer-term objective of the NFIP is to reduce federal expenditure on disaster assistance after floods. The NFIP also engages in many "non-insurance" activities in the public interest: it disseminates flood risk information through flood maps, requires community land use and building code standards, and offers grants and incentive programs for household- and community-level investments in flood risk reduction. Unless reauthorized or amended by Congress, the following will occur on September 30, 2020: (1) the authority to provide new flood insurance contracts will expire and (2) the authority for NFIP to borrow funds from the Treasury will be reduced from $30.425 billion to $1 billion. Issues that Congress may consider in the context of reauthorization include (1) NFIP solvency and debt; (2) premium rates and surcharges; (3) affordability of flood insurance; (4) increasing participation in the NFIP; (5) the role of private insurance and barriers to private sector involvement; (6) non-insurance functions of the NFIP such as floodplain mapping and flood mitigation; and (7) future flood risks, including future catastrophic events. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the need to increase flood insurance coverage across the nation as a major priority for the current reauthorization and beyond, with a goal of doubling flood insurance coverage by 2023 through the increased sale of both NFIP and private policies. The NFIP's premium rates do not reflect the full risk of loss because of various legislative requirements, which may exacerbate the program's fiscal exposure. The categories of properties which pay less than the full risk-based rate are determined by the date when the structure was built relative to the date of adoption of a Flood Insurance Rate Map, rather than the flood risk or the ability of the policyholder to pay. A reformed NFIP rate structure could have the effect of encouraging more private insurers to enter the primary flood market; however, full risk-based premiums could be unaffordable for some households. Although the NFIP has always had borrowing authority from Congress, an approach has not been developed by which the NFIP can repay catastrophic flood losses. To ensure the future financial solvency of the NFIP after catastrophic events, FEMA has suggested that a systematic analysis may consider the costs and benefits of using the reserve fund, borrowing authority, reinsurance, other forms of risk transfer, and perhaps a Treasury backstop at some catastrophic loss level. The House Financial Services Committee reported a bill for the long-term reauthorization of the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019 ( H.R. 3167 ), on October 28, 2019. One bill has been introduced in the Senate, on July 18, 2019, to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the NFIP: the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2019 ( S. 2187 ), with a House companion bill ( H.R. 3872 ) introduced on July 22, 2019. This report identifies issues for congressional consideration as part of the possible reauthorization of the NFIP and outlines selected provisions that relate to the issues listed above in the bills to reauthorize the NFIP in the 116 th Congress ( H.R. 3167 and S. 2187 ).


The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires each federal agency to establish a preservation program that ensures properties are identified and evaluated for historic significance, as well as managed and maintained in a way that considers their preservation. Senate Report 115-130 accompanying a bill for the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018, included a provision that GAO assess DOD's management of historic properties in use on U.S. installations. This report examines the extent to which DOD (1) identifies and evaluates properties for historic significance, including those that have been privatized, and (2) assesses the condition of its historic properties and has guidance on the training of installation personnel maintaining and those working in historic properties. GAO reviewed DOD fiscal year 2017 real property data and policies and procedures; visited a non-generalizable sample of 10 installations, selecting them based factors such as military service representation and concentration of historic properties; and interviewed DOD officials, privatized housing developers, and installation personnel. The Department of Defense (DOD) reported that it has identified and evaluated about 60,000 of its approximately 375,000 properties on installations as historic as of October 2017. DOD's practice is to identify and evaluate property for historic significance as installations have an identified need for or a project planned for the property, according to DOD officials. However, GAO identified opportunities for DOD to enhance its efforts in several areas. DOD lacks complete and consistent data on historic properties. Specifically, GAO identified data gaps and discrepancies between the data reported at the installation and department levels for fiscal year 2017. For example, for one installation, GAO found that 150 more historic properties were listed in its installation data than were listed in department-level data for that installation. In November 2018, GAO reported on issues concerning DOD's data and made recommendations to improve the data quality. DOD concurred and reported actions it plans to take to improve data quality. Doing so would help DOD to ensure it has complete information on properties of historic significance and prevent further data discrepancies. DOD has limited visibility of privatized homes that could be historic. When the military departments transferred military homes to private developers, DOD officials said they also transferred the responsibility to identify and evaluate homes for historic significance to the private developers. However, the military departments do not verify that private developers are doing so. Private developers at seven of the nine installations with privatized housing that GAO visited said they do not identify or evaluate homes for historic significance. Taking steps to verify that private developers carry out this responsibility could help DOD ensure that renovations or repairs are not made to privatized properties that could compromise their historic nature. Additionally, DOD does not routinely assess the condition of its historic properties and a lack of guidance on training could hamper maintenance and preservation efforts. First, inventories of historic properties, including physical inspections, required every 3 years, are not being conducted at six of the 10 installations GAO visited. Officials at these six installations said that the inventory was not conducted because they were unaware of or misunderstood the requirement. Second, while each installation GAO visited had an established process for approving maintenance work orders, DOD officials reported problems with the maintenance of historic properties at these installations, ranging from maintenance personnel not addressing issues, to maintenance being conducted improperly. At nine of the 10 installations GAO visited, individuals who work in historic buildings said that they believed maintenance personnel did not know what maintenance could or could not be done to the historic buildings, and installation officials expressed concerns about a lack of training related to historic preservation. By clarifying the requirement to conduct a physical inventory and developing guidance on training, DOD would be better positioned to preserve the historic properties under its purview.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently supports natural, nature-based, or green infrastructure and other related types of features (hereinafter referred to as nature-based infrastructure) as part of its statutory mandates to support, research, restore, and conserve natural resources. NOAA's nature-based activities primarily fall under three line offices: the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. NOAA uses the term nature-based infrastructure and other related terms interchangeably to describe natural systems or engineered systems that mimic natural processes built to minimize flooding, erosion, and runoff. Nature-based infrastructure projects may include features that are completely natural, such as open lands and trees (e.g., coastal mangroves), or may incorporate varying degrees of hard or "gray" steel and concrete structures, such as seawalls. Often, multiple types of nature-based infrastructure features are combined within a project. Stakeholder selection of nature-based infrastructure features may depend on a combination of factors, including available funding, space constraints, technical feasibility, hydrologic impact, and community acceptance, among other factors. According to NOAA, nature-based infrastructure can provide several benefits such as flood, erosion, and runoff management, wave buffering, improved water quality, wildlife habitat, opportunity for groundwater recharge, recreation uses, and aesthetic appeal, among others. The extent to which nature-based infrastructure features provide these benefits is partially dependent on the types of features used and the location. Historically, Congress has directed funding to some federal agencies for the design and construction of hard infrastructure, such as breakwaters, revetments, and bulkheads or seawalls that provide a measurable and expected level of flood, erosion, and runoff management. However, these features also have demonstrated limitations and some unintended consequences. Researchers and practitioners have studied the potential impacts and benefits of hard structures relatively well, whereas similar research on nature-based infrastructure is ongoing. Practitioners and decisionmakers have been using the term nature-based infrastructure and supporting nature-based infrastructure features since at least the late 2000s (although these types of features have likely been studied and implemented under various terms for several decades). Nature-based infrastructure may continue to be appealing due to (1) stakeholder emphasis on infrastructure features that benefit both humans and the environment in multiple ways and (2) recognition that infrastructure may be longer lasting if it can adjust to changing environmental conditions in the short and long terms. Members of Congress may consider whether and how federal agencies, including NOAA, can support nature-based infrastructure activities by federal agencies. Congress has neither defined nature-based infrastructure in statutes related to NOAA activities nor directed in statute that the agency support such activities. Congress has provided some statutory direction related to nature-based infrastructure for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Congress may consider whether to define nature-based infrastructure for NOAA or explicitly authorize NOAA to support nature-based infrastructure in specific cases, similar to USACE and EPA, or require NOAA to consider nature-based infrastructure activities across the agency. Congress also may consider requiring federal (and federal with nonfederal) coordination of nature-based infrastructure activities in an existing federal working group (e.g., the System Approach to Geomorphic Engineering community of practice), a new group, or other mechanism. Finally, as NOAA does not identify its nature-based infrastructure activities as separate budget line items, Congress may consider (1) directing NOAA, and other federal agencies, to report its nature-based infrastructure spending and (2) whether to retain existing or establish new mechanisms to fund nature-based infrastructure activities at NOAA.


The Natural Resources Defense Council reported that in the United States up to 40 percent of the food supply goes uneaten. FLW has significant economic, environmental, and social effects on various stakeholders, including businesses and consumers. In 2015, EPA and USDA announced a national goal to reduce FLW in the United States by half by 2030. In 2018, FDA joined EPA and USDA in these efforts. GAO was asked to examine efforts by federal agencies to reduce FLW. This report (1) describes nonfederal stakeholder views on key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States, (2) describes actions EPA and USDA have taken to address key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States, and (3) examines federal planning efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. GAO reviewed federal reports on FLW; analyzed agency documents; interviewed officials from EPA, FDA, USDA, and states and representatives of nonfederal stakeholders, such as academic institutions, industry, international organizations, nonprofit organizations, and a tribal organization, based on their demonstrated expertise on FLW; and attended conferences on FLW. GAO identified three key areas in which challenges exist to reducing food loss and waste (FLW) in the United States: (1) limited data and information about FLW; (2) a lack of awareness and education about FLW; and (3) limited infrastructure and capacity. For example, the causes of FLW vary across the stages of the food supply chain (see figure), but the share of total FLW due to each of these causes is currently unknown, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report. GAO identified these challenges through interviews with selected stakeholders. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA have taken initial actions to address key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States since announcing a national FLW reduction goal in 2015. These actions include conducting a study to identify gaps in information about farm-level FLW and building public awareness about ways to reduce FLW. EPA, USDA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have taken some actions to plan and organize their efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. For example, EPA developed an internal plan that established action areas, goals, and activities for reducing FLW, and USDA designated an individual to guide USDA's FLW efforts. In October 2018, EPA, USDA, and FDA signed an interagency agreement committing them to developing a strategic plan to improve their collaboration and coordination in reducing FLW. In April 2019, the agencies announced an interagency strategic plan with prioritized action areas to reduce FLW, but this strategic plan does not address how it will incorporate key practices for interagency collaboration that GAO identified, including (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. By incorporating such practices as they implement their interagency strategic plan, EPA, USDA, and FDA would have better assurance that they were effectively collaborating toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal.


The Navy has identified the Columbia class submarine program as its top acquisition priority. It plans to invest over $100 billion to develop and purchase 12 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to replace aging Ohio class submarines by 2031. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and House Report 115-200 included provisions that GAO review the status of the program. This report examines (1) the Navy's progress and challenges, if any, in meeting design goals and preparing for lead submarine construction; (2) the reliability of the Navy's cost estimate; and (3) how the Navy is implementing a special fund and associated authorities to construct Columbia class submarines. GAO reviewed Navy and shipbuilder progress reports, program schedules, and construction plans. GAO assessed the Navy's cost estimate and compared it to best practices for cost estimating. GAO also reviewed certain Navy funding and acquisition authorities and interviewed program officials. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in March 2019. Information that the Department of Defense (DOD) deemed sensitive has been omitted. The Navy's goal is to complete a significant amount of the Columbia class submarine's design—83 percent—before lead submarine construction begins in October 2020. The Navy established this goal based on lessons learned from another submarine program in an effort to help mitigate its aggressive construction schedule. Achieving this goal may prove to be challenging as the shipbuilder has to use a new design tool to complete an increasingly higher volume of complex design products (see figure). The shipbuilder has hired additional designers to improve its design progress. The Navy also plans to start advance construction of components in each major section of the submarine, beginning in fiscal year 2019, when less of the design will be complete. The Navy's $115 billion procurement cost estimate is not reliable partly because it is based on overly optimistic assumptions about the labor hours needed to construct the submarines. While the Navy analyzed cost risks, it did not include margin in its estimate for likely cost overruns. The Navy told us it will continue to update its lead submarine cost estimate, but an independent assessment of the estimate may not be complete in time to inform the Navy's 2021 budget request to Congress to purchase the lead submarine. Without these reviews, the cost estimate—and, consequently, the budget—may be unrealistic. A reliable cost estimate is especially important for a program of this size and complexity to help ensure that its budget is sufficient to execute the program as planned. The Navy is using the congressionally-authorized National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to construct the Columbia class. The Fund allows the Navy to purchase material and start construction early on multiple submarines prior to receiving congressional authorization and funding for submarine construction. The Navy anticipates achieving savings through use of the Fund, such as buying certain components early and in bulk, but did not include the savings in its cost estimate. The Navy may have overestimated its savings as higher than those historically achieved by other such programs. Without an updated cost estimate and cost risk analysis, including a realistic estimate of savings, the fiscal year 2021 budget request may not reflect funding needed to construct the submarine.