Public transportation in rural areas is critical to connecting people to medical services, jobs, education, and shopping. FTA allocated about $2.1 billion in formula grants over the last 3 years to support rural and tribal transit. In 2014, GAO reported that providing transit services in rural areas can be challenging and that coordination of transportation services among federal programs is limited. GAO was asked to examine ongoing efforts and challenges of coordinating rural transit systems. This report addresses (1) factors affecting rural transit coordination and selected rural and tribal transit providers' coordination efforts and (2) the extent to which FTA facilitates coordination of rural transit services. GAO reviewed program documentation and literature on rural transit coordination. GAO also interviewed federal officials from FTA and the Department of Health and Human Services, which also funds transportation services, and rural transit stakeholders, including state transportation agencies, rural and tribal transit providers, and public transit industry groups. GAO selected states and rural and tribal transit providers based on federal-funding levels and geographic representation, among other factors. Coordination of rural transportation services across geographic jurisdictions and federal- and state-funding sources has the potential to reduce costs and improve services. Such coordination by transit agencies in rural areas can lead to efficiencies. A variety of factors, however, adversely affect rural transit coordination, including the availability of resources, according to GAO's literature review and stakeholder interviews. About 70 percent of the selected stakeholders GAO interviewed, including rural and tribal transit providers, explained that it is difficult to coordinate transit services in rural communities with limited resources, such as funding, staff, and technology. For example, three rural transit providers said that program managers sometimes assume multiple duties, such as a driver and dispatcher, a practice that affects their time and ability to coordinate. Other cited factors included the extent to which different requirements of federal programs that fund rural transit are aligned to allow transit providers to coordinate trips for riders with specific needs (e.g., people with disabilities) and the availability of coordinating mechanisms, among other factors (see figure). Nonetheless, selected rural and tribal transit providers said they were engaged in various coordination efforts to improve rural transit services. The most commonly cited efforts under way included coordinating trips—for example, by establishing convenient drop-off points—and sharing resources. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has several efforts under way to facilitate coordination, but results are mixed. At the federal level, FTA and the federal interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility issued a strategic plan in October 2019, outlining their strategic goals. However, they have yet to submit to Congress a final report containing recommendations for enhancing interagency coordination. FTA officials told us they plan to submit the report by September 2020. At the state and local level, FTA has provided technical support to stakeholders to faciliate coordination. GAO, however, found limitations with FTA's current information-sharing approach. These limitations make information on coordination-related issues difficult to identify and access. Stakeholders want additional information from FTA on leading coordination practices, such as ways to coordinate with other providers. Improving communication and sharing additional coordination-related information could help rural and tribal transit providers identify additional coordination practices they could pursue to improve rural transportation services.


Public-safety officials such as police officers and firefighters rely on communications systems to do their jobs. The Department of Commerce's FirstNet must establish a nationwide public-safety broadband network for use by these officials. In March 2017, FirstNet awarded a 25-year, multibillion-dollar contract to AT&T to deploy, operate, and maintain the network. AT&T must meet milestones specified in the contract, such as for providing network coverage and for the network's adoption. FirstNet's oversight of AT&T's progress and performance is critical given the contract's scope and duration. GAO was asked to review FirstNet's progress and oversight. GAO examined the extent to which (1) AT&T is meeting milestones for the network's coverage and adoption and (2) FirstNet is overseeing AT&T in accordance with key practices. GAO analyzed FirstNet and AT&T documentation; assessed FirstNet's oversight efforts against key contract-oversight practices identified in federal regulations and other government, academic, and industry guidance; and assessed the program's master schedule against GAO best practices. GAO interviewed FirstNet officials, and selected state, local, and tribal officials and first responders representing a variety of viewpoints. Although not generalizable, they provided useful perspectives. AT&T is meeting—or on track to meet—all nationwide, contractual network coverage and usage (adoption) milestones for the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) public-safety broadband network. AT&T has met the first nationwide coverage milestone (20 percent of the final expected coverage by March 2019), but coverage varies across states. Similarly, AT&T is on track to meet the first nationwide adoption milestone (which is to have a certain number of devices connected to the network by March 2020). AT&T has exceeded adoption targets in most states but lags in others. According to FirstNet officials, variances by state are allowable, as the key milestones are nationwide. FirstNet uses various mechanisms to oversee AT&T; many of which align with key contract-oversight practices. For example, FirstNet uses a quality assurance surveillance plan to evaluate AT&T's performance. However, GAO found that FirstNet lacked (1) a reliable master schedule to review, (2) communication with relevant stakeholders regarding contract oversight, and (3) meaningful information on end-users' satisfaction to gauge performance quality. Schedule. AT&T is required to provide a current master schedule to FirstNet monthly, but the schedule only partially or minimally meets the characteristics of a reliable schedule per GAO best practices. For example, the schedule only partially captures all activities or the duration or sequence of activities. Key practices call for tracking a contractor's progress toward the expected schedule. Having a more detailed schedule to review could improve FirstNet's insight into AT&T's deployment and strengthen FirstNet's use of the schedule as a management tool. Stakeholder communication. Numerous public-safety officials GAO interviewed were dissatisfied with the level or quality of information received from FirstNet, noting that FirstNet had communicated little to no information on AT&T's progress or FirstNet's oversight. FirstNet officials said there is no contractual requirement to share such information, but key practices call for communicating appropriate information to relevant stakeholders and reporting on monitoring results. The lack of information has left stakeholders speculating about what, if any, oversight FirstNet conducts; sharing more information about the oversight FirstNet conducts could improve public-safety sentiment for and support of the program. End-users' satisfaction. FirstNet collects some information that could relate to end-users' satisfaction, but this information provides limited insight into users' experiences. For example, AT&T surveys some users to ask whether they would recommend FirstNet services, but a user might do so due to limited alternatives, not satisfaction. Although end-users' satisfaction is not a performance quality measure in the contract, key practices call for using end-user satisfaction information as a metric to gauge performance quality. By not using this information to inform FirstNet's oversight or related activities, FirstNet could be missing an opportunity to increase assurance of the program's long-term success. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in December 2019. Information that FirstNet deemed proprietary has been omitted.


Recent Administrations and Congress have demonstrated bipartisan support for increasing federal assistance to individuals pursuing training and education in postsecondary non-degree programs, sometimes referred to as short -term programs . Non-degree programs are postsecondary training and education programs that are most often shorter in duration than a bachelor's or associate's degree program. They generally provide work-based learning or educational instruction to individuals who are beyond the typical age for secondary education to prepare them for a particular occupation. Examples of support have included proposals to expand existing federal programs, create new programs, and improve coordination between existing programs. This report provides an overview of existing federal programs and benefits that support individuals pursuing training and education in non-degree programs. A prominent argument for supporting individuals pursuing training and education in non-degree programs is that there is a substantial employer need for individuals with some postsecondary credentials but no degree. In 2018, approximately 72% of jobs in the national economy were in occupations for which the typical entry-level education is less than an associate's degree. Just over 6% explicitly required a non-degree credential, but these credentials could prepare individuals for many jobs that do not require a bachelor's or higher level degree. Mean annual wages for individuals whose highest educational attainment is high school completion are similar to those for individuals with a non-degree credential. Earnings for individuals with only non-degree credentials vary based on differences in occupational field, program duration, and type of educational institution attended. Several federal programs provide direct financial support to or on behalf of students to enable them to pursue training and postsecondary education in non-degree instructional and work-based learning programs. None of these federal programs or benefits that provide such support focus exclusively on promoting non-degree program pursuits. The federal programs include the following: Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA; P.L. 113-128 ) is the primary federal workforce development statute. The program relies on state and local workforce development boards to enter into contracts with training and education program providers and oversee the quality of the providers. Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, authorizes grant and loan programs that provide financial assistance to higher education students. Non-degree program quality assessment is handled by state authorizers, accrediting agencies, and in some instances through Department of Education certification. Education tax benefits, administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), partially offset some of the costs of higher education for eligible taxpayers. Many education tax benefits are only available to individuals enrolled in a degree program, but three education tax benefits can also be claimed for postsecondary non-degree programs: the Lifetime Learning Credit, the Exclusion for Employer Provided Educational Assistance, and tax-advantaged 529 plan education savings accounts. The Post-9/11 GI Bill and Veteran Employment Through Technology Education Courses (VET TEC) were originally intended to help veterans enter the civilian workforce. Post-9/11 GI Bill program quality is primarily overseen by state agencies under contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs. VET TEC program quality is assured by withholding 50% of tuition and fees from providers until participants are employed. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment & Training (E&T) provides eligible low-income households with employment and education services. E&T funding is administered by state agencies through contracted providers, which receive funds to cover education and other program costs. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant is best known for providing monthly cash assistance to needy families with children but may be used to support subsidized employment, on-the-job training, and training and education programs.


Recent decades have seen increased national attention to the presence of "emerging contaminants" or "contaminants of emerging concern" (CECs) in surface water and groundwater. Although there is no federal statutory or regulatory definition of CECs, generally, the term refers to unregulated substances detected in the environment that may present a risk to human health, aquatic life, or the environment and for which the scientific understanding of potential risks is evolving. CECs can include many different types of manufactured chemicals and substancesâsuch as those in pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, agricultural products, and microplasticsâas well as naturally occurring substances, such as algal toxins. Data on CECs that would help determine their risk to humans and aquatic life or other aspects of the environment are often limited. Increased monitoring and detections of one particular group of chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), has recently heightened public and congressional interest in these CECs and has also prompted a broader discussion about how CECs are identified, detected, and regulated and whether additional actions should be taken to protect human health and the environment. While several statutes provide authorities to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states to address CECs, this report examines authorities available under the Clean Water Act (CWA)âwhich Congress established to restore and protect the quality of the nation's surface waters. EPA has several CWA authorities it may use to address CECs, although it faces some challenges in doing so. Under the CWA, a primary mechanism to control contaminants in surface waters is through permits. The statute prohibits the discharge of pollutants from any point source (i.e., a discrete conveyance) to waters of the United States without a permit. The CWA authorizes EPA and states to limit or prohibit discharges of pollutants in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits they issue. These permits incorporate technology-based and water-quality-based requirements. The CWA authorizes EPA and states to address CECs through technology-based effluent limitations using national Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) or by setting technology-based effluent limits in NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis. The CWA requires EPA to publish ELGs, which are the required minimum standards for industrial wastewater discharges. The CWA also requires EPA to annually review all existing ELGs and to publish a biennial plan that includes a schedule for review and revision of promulgated ELGs, identifies categories of sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants that do not have ELGs, and establishes a schedule for promulgating ELGs for any newly identified categories. In cases where EPA has not established an ELG for a particular industrial category or type of facility, or where pollutants or processes were not considered when an ELG was developed, the permitting authority (EPA or states) may still impose technology-based effluent limits on a case-by-case basis. Although EPA and states have these authorities available to address CECs, there are some challenges to doing so, including a lack of data available to support new ELGs or updates to existing ELGs. Agency officials stated that it is difficult for the agency to keep pace with the growth of new chemicals in commerce. The CWA also authorizes EPA and states to address CECs through water-quality-based requirements. States are required to adopt water quality standards for waters of the United States and review them at least once every three years. The CWA requires EPA to publish, and "from time to time thereafter revise" water quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge. States use EPA's criteria as guidance in developing their water quality standards. The CWA directs states to adopt criteria to protect their water bodies' designated uses and to also adopt criteria for all pollutants on the Toxic Pollutant List, for which EPA has published criteria. Once a state adopts water quality criteria for a contaminant as part of its water quality standards, several CWA tools are available to the state for achieving them. The primary tool is to establish water-quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Although EPA and states have authority to address CECs through water-quality-based requirements, they often lack data needed to support development of criteria or water-quality-based effluent limitations. The CWA also authorizes EPA to designate contaminants as toxic pollutants or as hazardous substances, which may trigger other actions under the CWA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Recent congressional interest in CECs has focused on addressing one particular group of CECsâPFASâand on addressing them through other statutes. However, in the 116 th Congress, H.R. 3616 and H.Amdt. 537 , Section 330A, of the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 ( H.R. 2500 ), would direct EPA to add PFAS to the CWA Toxic Pollutant List and publish ELGs that establish effluent limitations and standards for PFAS within specified time frames.


Recent developments in surveillance technologies, which provide an aircraft's location to air traffic controllers, have the potential to improve air traffic operations over the oceans. FAA has explored how to improve surveillance capabilities in U.S. oceanic airspace to take advantage of new international separation standards that could lead to the more efficient use of this airspace. GAO was asked to review planned improvements to aircraft surveillance. This report examines: (1) FAA's approach to enhancing surveillance capabilities to improve safety and efficiency in U.S. oceanic airspace and (2) selected aviation stakeholders' perspectives on FAA's approach. GAO reviewed documents related to FAA's planned investment in enhanced oceanic surveillance and interviewed FAA officials working on this effort. Interviews included those with the Air Traffic Organization and air traffic controllers who manage U.S. oceanic airspace. GAO surveyed representatives of 14 commercial airlines, including 11 U.S. and foreign passenger airlines, which were selected based on factors such as flight volume; and 3 U.S. cargo airlines, which were selected based on tons of cargo shipped. GAO also interviewed other aviation stakeholders, including trade associations, unions representing pilots, and foreign air navigation service providers that manage airspace adjacent to U.S. oceanic airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) evaluated two aircraft surveillance technologies that would allow aircraft to safely fly in closer proximity while in oceanic airspace. Based on its evaluation, FAA committed to using one in the near term and to continue to study another for future use. Specifically, in April 2019, FAA committed to implement by 2022 new international standards that allow reduced distances between aircraft, called minimum separation standards. These reduced distances would be enabled by a surveillance technology known as enhanced Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Contract (ADS-C). FAA also decided to continue studying the use of another enhanced surveillance technology known as space-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)—to further improve surveillance in U.S. airspace. Both technologies offer increased frequency in reporting of an aircraft's location, which enhances safety, and can support new minimum separation standards. FAA decided to proceed with enhanced ADS-C in the near term because the efficiency benefits to airspace users exceeded the costs of more frequent location reporting and air traffic control system upgrades by 2 to 1. In contrast, FAA determined that the costs of using space-based ADS-B in U.S. oceanic airspace outweigh the efficiency benefits by 6 to 1. FAA officials added that operational challenges to using space-based ADS-B to manage air traffic in U.S. oceanic airspace have not yet been resolved. FAA plans to continue studying potential uses for space-based ADS-B in U.S. airspace to determine if benefits can outweigh the costs (see figure). GAO found that most selected airlines (11 of 14) support FAA's overall approach to enhance oceanic surveillance. Selected airlines also said they expect the new minimum separation standards to improve access to more direct and fuel-efficient routes. FAA is taking steps to provide these benefits by restructuring routes in one area of U.S. oceanic airspace and by applying new minimum standards to give aircraft better access to fuel-efficient altitudes. According to FAA officials, however, additional benefits, such as redesigning other U.S. oceanic airspace, expected by selected airlines are limited by (1) relatively low rates of aircraft equipage with the technology that enables reduced separation and (2) the frequency of disruptive weather patterns in parts of U.S. oceanic airspace.


Recent hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding have highlighted the challenges the federal government faces in responding effectively to natural disasters. The 2017 and 2018 hurricanes and wildfires affected millions of individuals and caused billions of dollars in damages. In March 2019, the Midwest experienced historic flooding that affected millions of acres of agriculture and damaged infrastructure. Since 2005, federal funding for disaster assistance is at least $450 billion. Increasing reliance on federal help to address natural disasters is a key source of federal fiscal exposure, particularly as certain extreme weather events become more frequent and intense. This statement discusses, among other things, FEMA's and other federal agencies' progress and challenges related to disaster resilience, recovery programs, and workforce management. This statement is based on GAO reports issued from September 2012 through October 2019, and also includes preliminary observations from ongoing GAO reviews. GAO examined federal laws and documents; interviewed agency officials; and visited disaster damaged areas in California, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where GAO also interviewed federal and local officials. GAO's issued and ongoing work has identified progress and challenges in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) and other federal agencies' disaster recovery efforts, as discussed below. Disaster resilience. GAO found that federal and local efforts to improve resilience can reduce the effects and costs of future disasters. FEMA has made progress in this area, but in November 2017, GAO found that more consistent planning could help ensure that rebuilding efforts incorporate hazard mitigation, which would increase the resilience of infrastructure during future disasters. GAO recommended that FEMA take steps to consistently integrate hazard mitigation into its recovery process. FEMA is working to address these recommendations. Managing long-term recovery. GAO's work has shown that federal recovery programs are complicated and can be slow to provide assistance. For example, in October 2019, GAO reported that local officials described onerous documentation requirements in FEMA's Public Assistance program and the unique challenge of removing debris following the 2017 wildfires. GAO recommended that FEMA assess its operations to identify actions to enhance future recovery from severe wildfires. In March 2019, GAO reported that the ad hoc nature of disaster recovery block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development delayed the availability of funding. GAO recommended, among other things, that Congress consider permanently authorizing this grant program to meet the needs of disaster survivors in a timely manner. FEMA workforce management. GAO has previously reported on long-standing workforce management challenges, such as ensuring an adequately-staffed and trained workforce to provide effective assistance. For example, GAO reported in September 2018 that the 2017 disasters overwhelmed FEMA's workforce and a lack of trained staff with program expertise led to complications in its response efforts, particularly after Hurricane Maria. While FEMA has taken actions to address several of GAO's workforce management-related recommendations since 2016, a number of recommendations have not yet been implemented. GAO is currently reviewing FEMA's workforce management efforts and lessons learned from the 2017 disasters and will report its findings early next year.


Recent hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding have highlighted the challenges the federal government faces in responding effectively to natural disasters. The 2017 and 2018 hurricanes and wildfires affected millions of individuals and caused billions of dollars in damages. In March 2019, the Midwest experienced historic flooding that affected millions of acres of agriculture and damaged significant infrastructure. Since 2005, federal funding for disaster assistance is at least $450 billion. Increasing reliance on federal help to address natural disasters is a key source of federal fiscal exposure, particularly as certain extreme weather events become more frequent and intense due to climate change. This statement discusses, among other things, FEMA's progress and challenges related to disaster resilience, response, recovery, and workforce management. This statement is based on GAO reports issued from March 2011 through May 2019, and also includes preliminary observations from ongoing GAO reviews of FEMA operations. For ongoing work, GAO reviewed federal laws; analyzed documents; interviewed agency officials; and visited disaster damaged areas in California, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where GAO also interviewed FEMA and local officials. GAO's issued and ongoing work identified progress and challenges in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) disaster resilience, response, recovery, and workforce management efforts, as discussed below. Disaster Resilience. GAO found that federal and local efforts to improve resilience can reduce the effects and costs of future disasters. FEMA has made progress in this area, but in July 2015, GAO found that states and localities faced challenges using federal funds to maximize resilient rebuilding following a disaster. GAO recommended that the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group—an interagency body chaired by FEMA—create a national strategy to better plan for and invest in disaster resilience. FEMA is working to address this recommendation and plans to publish the strategy by July 2019. Response and Recovery. In September 2018, GAO reported that the response to the 2017 disasters in Texas, Florida, and California showed progress since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Specifically, FEMA and state officials' pre-existing relationships and exercises aided the response and helped address various challenges. However, GAO and FEMA identified challenges that slowed and complicated FEMA's response to Hurricane Maria, particularly in Puerto Rico. GAO's issued and ongoing work also identified challenges in implementing FEMA Public Assistance grants. For example, FEMA and Puerto Rico officials identified challenges with Public Assistance policies and guidance that have complicated and slowed the recovery. GAO did not make recommendations, but continues to evaluate recovery efforts and will report its findings later this year. FEMA Workforce Management. GAO has previously reported on long-standing workforce management challenges, such as ensuring an adequately-staffed and trained workforce. For example, GAO reported in September 2018 that the 2017 disasters overwhelmed FEMA's workforce and a lack of trained personnel with program expertise led to complications in its response efforts, particularly after Hurricane Maria. While FEMA has taken actions to address several of GAO's workforce management-related recommendations since 2016, a number of recommendations remain open as the 2019 hurricane season begins. Also, GAO is currently reviewing FEMA's workforce management efforts and lessons learned from the 2017 disasters and will report its findings early next year.


Recent interest in Unemployment Compensation (UC) drug testing has grown at both the federal and state levels. The policy interest in mandatory drug testing of individuals who are applying for or receiving UC benefits parallels two larger policy trends. First, some state legislatures have considered drug testing individuals receiving public assistance benefits. While UC is generally considered social insurance (rather than public assistance), the concept of drug testing UC recipients (who are receiving state-financed benefits from a program authorized under state laws) could be interpreted as a potential extension of this state-level interest. Second, over recent years, Congress has considered issues related to UC pro gram integrity, including drug testing, which may be viewed as addressing UC program integrity concerns. Under the current interpretation of federal law, and subject to specific exceptions, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requires states to determine entitlement to benefits under their UC programs based only on facts or causes related to the individual's state of unemployment. Under this reasoning, individuals may be disqualified for UC benefits if they lost their previous job because of illegal drug use. Until recently, the prospective drug testing of UC applicants or beneficiaries has been generally prohibited. However, P.L. 112-96 expanded the breadth of allowable UC drug testing to include prospective drug testing based upon job searches for suitable work in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing. On October 4, 2019, DOL issued a new final rule on this type of prospective testing after a previous, promulgated rule was repealed using the Congressional Review Act. This new final rule is effective November 4, 2019. Stakeholders have made a variety of arguments for and against expanded UC drug testing. Proponents of prospective drug testing cite not only program integrity concerns, but also the importance of job readiness for UC claimants as well as state discretion in matters of UC eligibility and administration. Opponents of the prospective drug testing of UC claimants argue that it would impose additional costs and undermine the fundamental goals of the UC program, which include the timely provision of income replacement to individuals who lost a job through no fault of their own. Some stakeholders also expressed concern that expanded UC drug testing could create barriers to UC benefit receipt among eligible individuals and discourage UC claims filing. Stakeholders have also raised at least two legal concerns with the new final UC drug testing rule: (1) some commenters have argued that the new final rule may violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) some commenters have argued that the new final rule improperly delegates authority to the states to identify occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. Other policy issues to consider related to expanding UC drug testing include administrative concerns, such as state establishment of a drug testing program for UC claimants as well as the potential provision of and funding for drug treatment services. For a shorter summary of recent events related to UC drug testing, see CRS Insight IN10909, Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments in States' Ability to Drug Test Unemployment Compensation Applicants and Beneficiaries . For additional information on the federal-state UC system generally, see CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits . For additional insights on reissuing a rule that had been repealed under the Congressional Review Act, see CRS Insight IN10996, Reissued Labor Department Rule Tests Congressional Review Act Ban on Promulgating "Substantially the Same" Rules .


Recent litigation involving the President has raised legal issues concerning formerly obscure constitutional provisions that prohibit the acceptance or receipt of "emoluments" in certain circumstances. First, the Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution) prohibits any person "holding any Office of Profit or Trust under" the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from a foreign government unless Congress consents. Second, the Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) prohibits the President from receiving "any other Emolument [beyond a fixed salary] from the United States, or any of them." These two provisions (collectively, the Emoluments Clauses) have distinct, but related, purposes. The purpose of the Foreign Emoluments Clause is to prevent corruption and limit foreign influence on federal officers. The Clause grew out of the Framers' experience with the European custom of gift-giving to foreign diplomats, which the Articles of Confederation prohibited. The purpose of the Domestic Emoluments Clause is to preserve the President's independence by preventing the legislature and the states from exerting influence over him "by appealing to his avarice." An important threshold issue in examining the Emoluments Clauses is determining who is subject to their terms. The scope of the Domestic Emoluments Clause is clear: it applies to "[t]he President." The scope of the Foreign Emoluments Clause is less clear. By its terms, the Clause applies to any person holding an "Office of Profit or Trust under" the United States. The prevailing view is that this language reaches only federal, and not state, officeholders. According to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has a developed body of opinions on the Foreign Emoluments Clause, offices "of profit" include those that receive a salary, while offices "of trust" require discretion, experience, and skill. There is some disagreement over whether elected federal officers, such as the President, are subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Some legal scholars have argued that, as a matter of original public meaning, the Foreign Emoluments Clause reaches only appointed officers (and not elected officials). Other legal scholars dispute that argument, however, and OLC has presumed that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President. A recent district court opinion on this issue came to the same conclusion. Another key disputed issue over the scope of the Emoluments Clauses is what constitutes an "emolument." This question has divided legal scholars, and federal courts have only recently addressed the issue. Debate has largely centered on whether the Emoluments Clauses restrict private, arm's-length market transactions between covered officials and governments, or whether the Clauses are limited to office- or employment-based compensation. For its part, OLC has at times appeared to adopt a fact-specific, functional view of the Clauses, focusing on the purpose and potential effect of the specific payments or benefits at issue as they relate to the Clauses' goals of limiting influence on the President and federal officers. The only two courts to decide the issue adopted a broad definition of "emolument" as reaching any benefit, gain, or advantage of more than de minimis value, but those decisions are not final. Courts are divided over whether the Emoluments Clauses may be enforced through civil litigation. Among other things, the doctrine of standing may present a significant limitation on the ability of public officials or private parties to seek judicial enforcement of the Emoluments Clauses. Standing, grounded in Article III of the Constitution, requires a plaintiff to identify a personal injury (known as an "injury-in-fact") that is actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized. The injury must also be "fairly traceable" to allegedly unlawful conduct of the defendant and "likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Different plaintiffs in ongoing Emoluments Clause cases have relied on various theories to support standing, with mixed results. States and private parties, including business competitors to an office holder, have asserted injuries in the form of increased competition and loss of business from the alleged constitutional violations. Some Members of Congress have relied on the alleged deprivation of their opportunity to vote on the acceptance of emoluments under the Foreign Emoluments Clause to support their standing to sue. The lower courts have reached different conclusions on these standing issues, and the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the matter. If the courts lack jurisdiction to enforce the Emoluments Clauses, the political process would be the remaining avenue to enforce the provisions, such as through legislation or political pressure. The adequacy of those options is, however, disputed.


Arctic sea ice has diminished, lengthening the navigation season and increasing opportunities for maritime shipping. However, the U.S. Arctic lacks maritime infrastructure—such as a deep-draft port and comprehensive nautical charting—to support increased traffic. The lack of infrastructure exacerbates risks inherent to shipping in the Arctic such as vast distances and dangerous weather. This report examines (1) how U.S. Arctic shipping trends have changed since 2009 and factors that have shaped shipping in the region, and (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies' efforts to address Arctic maritime infrastructure gaps have aligned with leading management practices. GAO collected U.S. Coast Guard traffic data from 2009 through 2019 and interviewed 20 stakeholders selected to represent a range of views. GAO also analyzed Arctic strategies, interviewed selected agencies involved with maritime infrastructure, and compared efforts to leading management practices. Maritime shipping activity, as indicated by the number of vessels in the U.S. Arctic, generally increased from 2009 through 2019. Domestic maritime activity declined after the discontinuation of offshore oil and gas exploration activities in Alaska's Chukchi Sea in 2015. However, since 2015, international activities related to natural gas development, particularly in the Russian Arctic, have increased, according to stakeholders. Factors affecting decisions of ship operators about whether to operate in the U.S. Arctic include increased operating costs of Arctic-capable ships, environmental changes that have caused more volatile weather and ice conditions, and concerns over environmental impacts. Agencies have taken some steps to address Arctic maritime infrastructure gaps identified by federal agencies, such as a lack of nautical charting, but federal efforts lack a current strategy and interagency leadership. Examples of agency actions include the U.S. Coast Guard developing recommended shipping routes and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continuing to chart Arctic waters. To guide federal efforts, the White House developed a National Strategy for the Arctic Region in 2013 and established an interagency Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC) in 2015. However, agency officials and stakeholders noted the strategy is now outdated due to changing conditions in the Arctic. As a result, federal efforts lack a current government-wide strategy that aligns with key management practices such as identifying goals, objectives, and establishing performance measures. Moreover, U.S. Arctic interagency groups do not reflect leading collaboration practices, such as sustained leadership and inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, and the White House has not designated which entity is to lead U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure efforts. For example, the AESC is now dormant according to agency officials and staff at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which chairs the AESC. Without a current strategy and a designated interagency entity with these collaboration practices in place, agencies may miss opportunities to leverage resources and target infrastructure improvements in areas that would best mitigate risks.


Recent media reports have detailed incidents at airports where passengers have acted disruptively or violently toward airline customer service agents, who assist passengers checking into their flights and boarding aircraft, among other things. While state and local laws generally prohibit these types of actions, some stakeholders have raised questions about these agents' safety. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a provision that GAO examine passenger violence against airline customer service agents at airports. This report examines (1) what is known about assaults by passengers against customer service agents and (2) stakeholders' perspectives on the sufficiency of state and local laws and resources to deter and address such incidents. GAO interviewed and reviewed available information from a non-generalizable sample of representatives from five large airports and six large airlines. GAO also interviewed six airport law enforcement agencies, and seven prosecutors' offices. Further, GAO reviewed documents and interviewed two unions representing customer service agents and five federal agencies with airport safety or security responsibilities. GAO developed and administered a brief, non-generalizable survey to 104 customer service agents working at four selected large airports that GAO visited in March and April 2019. Survey results on customer service agents' experiences with passengers cannot be used to make inferences about all customer service agents but nevertheless provide valuable insights. No comprehensive data are available to determine the nature and frequency of passenger assaults—e.g., verbal threats, attempted physical acts, or actual physical acts—against airline customer service agents at airports. This lack of data is due, in part, to the limited federal role in addressing such assaults. GAO's survey of 104 airline customer service agents showed that over half (61) reported experiencing such action in the past year, while almost all reported experiencing verbal harassment. About 10 percent reported experiencing physical assaults. Stakeholders GAO interviewed said that while passengers are often verbally disruptive, physical assaults are less frequent. These stakeholders also said that alcohol consumption, frustration over airlines' business practices (e.g., fees for checked or carry-on baggage), and long lines can contribute to these incidents. Of the stakeholders—i.e., airlines, airports, law enforcement, and prosecutors— GAO interviewed who provided perspectives and have responsibilities for passenger assaults, all 23 said state and local laws sufficiently deter and address such incidents, and 15 (of 20) said current resources are sufficient. One prosecutor told GAO the transitory nature of airports makes it difficult to get witnesses to testify at trial; when prosecuted, passengers generally face misdemeanor charges. While stakeholders GAO interviewed generally did not identify gaps in resources, some said incidents could be further mitigated if, for example, airports made law enforcement's presence more visible or airlines provided conflict de-escalation training to customer service agents. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 required that airlines (1) provide such training to all employees, and (2) submit plans to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by January 2019 detailing how airlines respond to passenger assaults. In July 2019, FAA issued a notification to airlines reminding them to submit their plans; officials said they will continue to follow up with airlines until they receive the plans.


Recent physical and cyberattacks on rail systems in U.S. and foreign cities highlight the importance of strengthening and securing passenger rail systems around the world. TSA is the primary federal agency responsible for securing transportation in the United States. GAO was asked to review TSA's efforts to assess passenger rail risk, as well as its role in identifying and sharing security standards and key practices. This report addresses (1) TSA's efforts to assess risk; (2) the extent to which TSA works with U.S. and foreign passenger rail stakeholders to identify security standards and key practices; and (3) the extent to which TSA shares passenger rail security standards and key practices with stakeholders. GAO analyzed TSA risk assessments from fiscal years 2015 through 2019 and reviewed TSA program documents and guidance. GAO interviewed officials from TSA, and from seven domestic rail agencies, three foreign rail agencies, and two foreign government agencies. The results from these interviews are not generalizable but provide perspectives on topics in this review. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) assesses passenger rail risks through the Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment, the Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE), and threat assessments. TSA uses the risk assessment to evaluate threat, vulnerability, and consequence for attack scenarios across various transportation modes. TSA surface inspectors use the baseline assessment, a voluntary security review for mass transit, passenger rail, and highway systems, to address potential vulnerabilities and share best practices, among other things. TSA works with U.S. stakeholders to identify security standards and key practices and identifies foreign standards and practices through multilateral and bilateral exchanges. However, TSA Representatives (TSARs), the primary overseas point of contact for transportation security matters, lack specific guidance on foreign rail stakeholder engagement. As a result, TSA is less likely to be fully aware of key practices in other countries, such as station security guidance. Specific guidance would provide TSARs with clear expectations and encourage more consistent engagement with foreign rail stakeholders. Public Awareness Campaign Canine Units Emphasize security awareness Detection of vapor from explosives TSA shares standards and key practices with stakeholders, including those related to cybersecurity, through various mechanisms including BASE reviews; however, this assessment does not fully reflect current industry cybersecurity standards and key practices. For example, it does not include any questions related to two of the five functions outlined in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Cybersecurity Framework—specifically the Detect and Recover functions. Updating the BASE questions to align more closely with this framework would better assist passenger rail operators in identifying current key practices for detecting intrusion and recovering from incidents.


Regulatory uncertainty has been identified as one of the main barriers to offshore aquaculture development in the United States. Many industry observers have emphasized that congressional action may be necessary to provide statutory authority to develop aquaculture in offshore areas. Offshore aquaculture is generally defined as the rearing of marine organisms in ocean waters beyond significant coastal influence, primarily in the federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Establishing an offshore aquaculture operation is contingent on obtaining several federal permits and fulfilling a number of additional consultation and review requirements from different federal agencies responsible for various general authorities that apply to aquaculture. However, there is no explicit statutory authority for permitting and developing aquaculture in federal waters. The aquaculture permit and consultation process in federal waters has been described as complex, time consuming, and difficult to navigate. Supporters of aquaculture have asserted that development of the industry, especially in offshore areas, has significant potential to increase U.S. seafood production and provide economic opportunities for coastal communities. Currently, marine aquaculture facilities are located in nearshore state waters. Although there are some research-focused and proposed commercial offshore facilities, no commercial facilities are currently operating in U.S. federal waters. Aquaculture supporters note that the extensive U.S. coastline and adjacent U.S. ocean waters provide potential sites for offshore aquaculture development. They reason that by moving offshore, aquaculturalists can avoid many user conflicts they have encountered in inshore areas. Offshore areas also are considered to be less prone to pollution and fish diseases. Environmental organizations and fishermen generally have opposed development of offshore aquaculture. They assert that poorly regulated aquaculture development in inshore areas has degraded the environment and harmed wild fish populations and ecosystems. Those who oppose aquaculture development generally advocate for new authorities to regulate offshore aquaculture and to safeguard the environment and other uses of offshore waters. Some segments of the commercial fishing industry also have expressed concerns with potential development of aquaculture on fishing grounds and competition between cultured and wild products in domestic markets. Proponents of aquaculture counter that in many parts of the world a combination of farming experiences, technological advances, proper siting, and industry regulation has decreased environmental impacts and improved efficiency of marine aquaculture. They argue that many who oppose marine aquaculture lack an understanding of the benefits and risks of aquaculture and that opposition persists despite research that contradicts the extent or existence of these risks. Generally, the outcomes associated with aquaculture development depend on a variety of factors, such as the characteristics of aquaculture sites, species, technology, and facility management. Regardless of potential environmental harm, it remains to be seen whether moving to offshore areas would be profitable and if offshore aquaculture could compete with inshore aquaculture development and lower costs in other countries. Comprehensive offshore aquaculture bills were introduced in the 109 th , 110 th , 111 th , 112 th , and 115 th Congresses, but none were enacted. In the 115 th Congress, the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act (AQUAA; S. 3138 and H.R. 6966 ) was introduced; AQUAA would have established a regulatory framework for aquaculture development in federal waters. It also would have provided National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries with the authority to issue aquaculture permits and coordinate with other federal agencies that have permitting and consultative responsibilities. Conversely, since the 109 th Congress, bills have been introduced that would constrain or prohibit the permitting of aquaculture in the EEZ. The Keep Finfish Free Act of 2019 ( H.R. 2467 ), introduced in the 116 th Congress, would prohibit the issuance of permits to conduct finfish aquaculture in the EEZ until a law is enacted that allows such action. It remains an open question whether legislation could be crafted that would provide the regulatory framework desired by potential commercial developers of offshore aquaculture and avoid or minimize risks of environmental harm to the satisfaction of those currently opposed to offshore aquaculture development.


Research has found brain injuries to be common among victims of intimate partner violence, and that such injuries are under-diagnosed and under-treated. House Report 115-952 included a provision for GAO to report on the relationship between intimate partner violence and brain injuries. GAO (1) describes efforts to provide education, screen for, or treat brain injuries resulting from intimate partner violence; and (2) examines what is known about the prevalence of brain injuries resulting from intimate partner violence, including HHS efforts to determine prevalence. GAO reviewed peer-reviewed literature, federal websites, and documentation from HHS and DOJ. GAO also interviewed officials from HHS, DOJ, and 11 non-federal stakeholders, such as domestic violence organizations. GAO identified 12 initiatives, though this list may not be exhaustive, and conducted site visits to three of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in three adults have experienced domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence includes physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression. Victims of intimate partner violence may experience brain injury, resulting from blows to the head or strangulation. To address this issue, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide grants to state and local entities that work with victims. GAO identified 12 non-federal initiatives that provide education, screen for, or treat brain injuries resulting from intimate partner violence. All 12 developed and distributed education and training materials to domestic violence shelter staff, victims, health care providers, and others. Six of the 12 initiatives used screening tools to identify potential brain injuries among intimate partner violence victims, and two included a treatment component. Additionally, eight of the 12 initiatives received HHS or DOJ grant funding, although agency officials told us the funding had no specific requirements to address brain injuries resulting from intimate partner violence. Based on its review of the literature, as well as interviews with HHS officials and other non-federal stakeholders, GAO found that data on the overall prevalence of brain injuries resulting from intimate partner violence are limited. HHS officials acknowledged that the lack of data on the prevalence of these issues is a challenge in addressing the intersection of the issues. However, HHS does not have a plan for how it would collect better prevalence data. HHS agencies have some related efforts underway; however, the efforts are limited and generally do not examine the connection between brain injuries and intimate partner violence. Enhancing the health and well-being of Americans is critical to HHS's public health mission. As part of this mission, CDC, within HHS, uses its Public Health Approach, which includes collecting prevalence data to understand the magnitude of public health issues. With better data comes a better understanding of the overall prevalence of brain injuries resulting from intimate partner violence. This, in turn, could help ensure that federal resources are allocated to the appropriate areas and used as efficiently and effectively as possible to address this public health issue.


Reverse mortgages allow seniors to convert part of their home equity into payments from a lender while still living in their homes. Most reverse mortgages are made under FHA's HECM program, which insures lenders against losses on these loans. HECMs terminate when a borrower repays or refinances the loan or the loan becomes due because the borrower died, moved, or defaulted. Defaults occur when borrowers fail to meet mortgage conditions such as paying property taxes. These borrowers risk foreclosure and loss of their homes. FHA allows HECM servicers to offer borrowers foreclosure prevention options. Most HECM servicers are supervised by CFPB. GAO was asked to review HECM loan outcomes and servicing and related federal oversight efforts. Among other objectives, this report examines (1) what FHA data show about HECM terminations and the use of foreclosure prevention options, (2) the extent to which FHA assesses and monitors the HECM portfolio, and (3) the extent to which FHA and CFPB oversee HECM servicers. GAO analyzed FHA loan data and FHA and CFPB documents on HECM servicer oversight. GAO also interviewed agency officials, the five largest HECM servicers (representing 99 percent of the market), and legal aid groups representing HECM borrowers. The vast majority of reverse mortgages are made under the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. In recent years, a growing percentage of HECMs insured by FHA have ended because borrowers defaulted on their loans. While death of the borrower is the most commonly reported reason why HECMs terminate, the percentage of terminations due to borrower defaults increased from 2 percent in fiscal year 2014 to 18 percent in fiscal year 2018 (see figure). Most HECM defaults are due to borrowers not meeting occupancy requirements or failing to pay property charges, such as property taxes or homeowners insurance. Since 2015, FHA has allowed HECM servicers to put borrowers who are behind on property charges onto repayment plans to help prevent foreclosures, but as of fiscal year-end 2018, only about 22 percent of these borrowers had received this option. FHA's monitoring, performance assessment, and reporting for the HECM program have weaknesses. FHA loan data do not currently capture the reason for about 30 percent of HECM terminations (see figure). FHA also has not established comprehensive performance indicators for the HECM portfolio and has not regularly tracked key performance metrics, such as reasons for HECM terminations and the number of distressed borrowers who have received foreclosure prevention options. Additionally, FHA has not developed internal reports to comprehensively monitor patterns and trends in loan outcomes. As a result, FHA does not know how well the HECM program is serving its purpose of helping meet the financial needs of elderly homeowners. FHA has not conducted on-site reviews of HECM servicers since fiscal year 2013 and has not benefited from oversight efforts by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). FHA officials said they planned to resume the reviews in fiscal year 2020, starting with three servicers that account for most of the market. However, as of August 2019, FHA had not developed updated review procedures and did not have a risk-based method for prioritizing reviews. CFPB conducts examinations of reverse mortgage servicers but does not provide the results to FHA because the agencies do not have an agreement for sharing confidential supervisory information. Without better oversight and information sharing, FHA lacks assurance that servicers are following requirements, including those designed to help protect borrowers.


Roughly 270,000 school-aged youth were in foster care at the end of fiscal year 2017. Youth in foster care may change schools frequently, which can negatively affect their academic achievement. ESSA, enacted in 2015, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and included provisions to improve educational stability for youth in foster care. These included requiring state educational agencies to ensure youth placed into foster care stay in their current school, unless it is not in their best interest to do so. GAO was asked to review implementation of these provisions. This report examines (1) the challenges SEAs and selected school districts face implementing the ESSA educational stability provisions for youth in foster care, and (2) how Education provides technical assistance and monitors state implementation efforts. GAO surveyed SEA foster care points of contact in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and all but one state responded. In addition to interviewing federal officials, GAO interviewed selected state and local educational and child welfare agency officials, and held discussion groups with foster youth and parents, in three states selected by number of youth in foster care, among other factors. GAO also held discussion groups with officials from 14 SEAs and 5 state child welfare agencies, and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, guidance, and technical assistance. State educational agencies (SEAs) reported several challenges in implementing the provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) related to educational stability for youth in foster care. In their responses to GAO's national survey, SEAs reported challenges, including high turnover among local educational and child welfare agency officials, and with identifying and arranging transportation to schools for students (see figure). Turnover of local staff can result in the loss of knowledge and experience needed to implement the provisions, according to SEA and local officials we interviewed. Regarding transportation, ESSA requires school districts to work with child welfare agencies to provide and fund transportation so that youth in foster care can remain in their current school when it is in their best interest. Six school district and child welfare agency officials we interviewed indicated that funding was a concern and some noted that transporting youth to their current school can result in extensive costs. The Department of Education (Education) provided technical assistance in the form of written guidance, webinars, and in-person meetings to help states implement the ESSA educational stability provisions. Education officials said they also plan to monitor state implementation of the provisions. Most SEA officials reported in GAO's survey that they would like additional assistance and more opportunities to interact with other state officials. Education plans to convene a community of practice for several states in which participants will meet regularly for several months, and is exploring other technical assistance efforts. To share information about implementing the ESSA educational stability provisions, Education maintains an email address list of SEA foster care points of contact. GAO found that the list was inaccurate and not regularly updated. Education updated the list in late summer 2019 and plans to do so quarterly. Education also provides information online, but the information is scattered across different web pages. Twenty-two SEA officials reported on GAO's survey that a clearinghouse of information would be extremely helpful. Federal standards for internal control require agencies to externally communicate necessary information in a manner that enables them to achieve their objectives. Without a dedicated web page about implementing the provisions, states may not receive the assistance they need to improve educational stability for youth in foster care.


Royalties paid on the sale of oil and gas extracted from leased federal lands and waters are a significant source of revenue for the federal government. However, Interior has faced challenges verifying the accuracy of royalty payments. In the 2000s, GAO issued reports highlighting weaknesses in Interior's royalty compliance program. In 2011, GAO added Interior's management of federal oil and gas resources to its High-Risk List, in part because its work showed Interior did not have assurance that it was collecting its share of revenue from oil and gas produced on federal leases. Interior has taken steps to operate more effectively. GAO was asked to examine ONRR's federal oil and gas royalty compliance efforts. This report examines, among other objectives, the extent to which ONRR reported meeting its compliance goals for fiscal years 2010 through 2017, the most recent data available. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, agency guidance, and Interior's annual performance plan and report and annual budget justifications for the period; analyzed ONRR compliance data for the period; and interviewed ONRR officials and state auditors who conducted work in coordination with ONRR. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) reported that it met its annual performance goals for its royalty compliance program in 6 of the 8 years from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. Under this program, ONRR conducts three levels of compliance activities—audits, compliance reviews, and data mining—to help ensure that oil and gas royalty payments submitted by companies that produce oil and gas from federal leases are accurate and comply with federal laws and regulations (see figure). Specifically, GAO's analysis of Interior's annual budget justifications for fiscal years 2010 through 2017 found that ONRR reported meeting its compliance goals for 6 of the 8 fiscal years. According to ONRR officials, ONRR did not report meeting its compliance goals for 2 years because of a shift in the agency's goals that created a short-term misalignment of planned work and available resources. ONRR's fiscal year 2017 goals for its compliance program were (1) to obtain a return of $2 of additional royalties for every dollar spent on compliance activities and (2) to collect a defined amount of additional royalties. ONRR's compliance goals generally aligned with the agency's requirement that resources should not be expended without an expected return. However, these goals may not align with the agency's mission to collect, account for, and verify royalty payments and other statutory requirements because the goals do not address accuracy—or the extent to which its compliance work is covering, for example, royalty payments. By establishing a goal that addresses accuracy, for example, by covering a portion of royalty payments with its compliance activities, ONRR could increase the extent to which it had reasonable assurance that its compliance program is fully accounting for federal oil and gas royalty payments.


Rule XVII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House of Representatives describes a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Member may call another Member to order for the use of disorderly language. Disorderly, or unparliamentary, remarks are a violation of House rules of decorum. This mechanism, which is referred to as "words taken down," may be invoked during debate on the House floor, in the Committee of the Whole, or in the standing and select committees of the House. To call a Member to order for allegedly disorderly remarks, a Member would state the following: "I demand that the gentleman's/gentlewoman's words be taken down." This call to order is to occur immediately after the words are spoken. If the demand comes after additional debate or business, the presiding officer may rule that it is untimely. (The presiding officer's decision on timeliness, however, may be appealed.) The phrase taken down refers to the writing down of the words objected to so they may be read out loud by the House Clerk. Following the reading, the presiding officer will rule on whether the remarks are in order. In the moments between the formal demand that words be taken down and the Clerk's reading of the words, the Member who made the allegedly disorderly remarks may seek unanimous consent to have them stricken from the Congressional Record . If the unanimous consent request is granted, the House may resume its business without the reading of the words or a ruling thereon. Alternatively, the Member who demanded that the words be taken down can withdraw the request. If neither occurs, then the Clerk will read the words and the Speaker or committee chair will rule on whether the words are in order, which is subject to an appeal. (If the demand for words taken down occurs in the Committee of the Whole, the committee will rise and report the words back to the House, so the Speaker can rule on the words.) When determining whether the words are unparliamentary, the Speaker will consider the words themselves, as well as the context in which they were used, and base the ruling on House rules and precedents. Rule XVII, clause 1(b), of the standing rules of the House prohibits Members from engaging in "personalities" in debate, but the text of the rule does not state explicitly what language is unparliamentary. Rather, House precedents include examples of words and phrases that were previously determined to be in order and those that were ruled out of order. On the House floor, the Parliamentarian advises the Speaker based on these precedents. The Office of the Parliamentarian is not responsible for providing procedural assistance during committee meetings, although the chair could attempt to consult with the Parliamentarian in advance of or during such meetings. If the Member's words are ruled out of order, the words may be stricken from the Congressional Record by unanimous consent on the initiative of the presiding officer. The words may also be stricken by a motion, which means the House will vote on whether to strike the remarks. In addition, Members whose words are determined to be unparliamentary may not be recognized to speak for the rest of the day (even on yielded time) unless the Member is allowed to proceed in order by unanimous consent or a motion. They may, however, vote and demand the yeas and the nays. The demand for words to be taken down was invoked 170 times on the House floor or Committee of the Whole between January 1, 1971, and July 24, 2019. In practice, when this demand occurs, the Member being called to order is usually permitted to revise the words or to strike them from the Congressional Record before the Clerk reads the words back to the House. Therefore, the Speaker does not rule on whether the remarks violate the rules of decorum. When there is a ruling, the Speaker often states that the basis for the ruling is whether the words include a personal criticism of an identifiable person (usually a Member or the President).


Rule of law strengthens protection of fundamental rights, ensures a robust civil society, and serves as a foundation for democratic governance and economic growth. According to State, countries with a strong rule of law provide a more level playing field for American businesses to engage and compete, and countries with a weak rule of law can potentially export transnational threats and economic insecurity, undermining the interests of the United States. GAO was asked to review U.S. rule of law assistance around the world. This report examines (1) how State and USAID allocated funds for this assistance in fiscal years 2014 through 2018, (2) how agencies strategically plan and allocate this assistance globally, and (3) what processes agencies have to design, implement, and coordinate this assistance in selected countries. GAO reviewed State, USAID, and DOJ documents and data for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 and interviewed officials in Colombia, Kosovo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Washington, D.C. GAO chose these countries on the basis of funding amounts and other factors. The Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated more than $2.7 billion for rule of law assistance from fiscal years 2014 through 2018—the latest available data as of GAO's review. Of that, State allocated over $2 billion and USAID allocated over $700 million. State and USAID funded some of these programs through the Department of Justice (DOJ). Rule of law assistance funded a variety of activities including improving justice institutions, legal reform, and promoting a culture of lawfulness. The agencies implemented these programs globally but allocated most funds to the Western Hemisphere and Afghanistan. After Congress appropriates funding, agencies determine rule of law allocations through the foreign assistance budget process. State and USAID identify rule of law as a goal in agency-wide strategic documents and hold an annual interagency roundtable regarding rule of law assistance to determine those allocations. Rule of law assistance is guided by national and agency-, bureau-, and mission-specific strategies that are linked to the national security goals of the United States. These strategies discuss the agencies' roles and responsibilities in improving the rule of law. State and USAID guidance highlights the importance of coordination between agencies as they design and implement rule of law assistance, but not all agencies are included in some of the key coordination mechanisms used in four countries GAO selected for review. Agency officials in the selected countries cited the use of some informal and formal coordination practices, such as the use of law enforcement working groups, but State policy does not require all entities that may be involved in rule of law assistance to participate in these working groups. For example, in three of the four selected countries, officials described coordinating rule of law assistance, in part, through these working groups, which may not include critical agencies such as USAID. According to State policy, these working groups are designed to achieve other goals using agencies and offices that are not involved in providing rule of law assistance. Without verifying that interagency coordination includes all relevant entities, missions may not know whether they are fully leveraging interagency resources or ensuring that they do not duplicate or overlap rule of law assistance.


Russia possesses the world's largest stockpile of weapons-usable nuclear materials, largely left over from the Cold War. These nuclear materials could be used to build a nuclear weapon if acquired by a rogue state or terrorist group. Starting in 1993, and for the next 2 decades, DOE worked with Russia to improve security at dozens of sites that contained these nuclear materials. In 2014, following Russian aggression in Ukraine and U.S. diplomatic responses, Russia ended nearly all nuclear security cooperation with the United States. The Senate report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision for GAO to review NNSA's efforts to improve Russian nuclear material security. This report (1) examines the extent to which NNSA had completed its planned nuclear material security efforts when cooperation ended and what nuclear security concerns remained, (2) describes what is known about the current state of nuclear material security in Russia, and (3) describes stakeholder views on opportunities for future U.S.-Russian nuclear security cooperation. To address all three objectives, GAO interviewed U.S. government officials, personnel from DOE's national laboratories, and nongovernmental experts. In this report, GAO refers to all of these groups as stakeholders. GAO also reviewed relevant U.S. government plans, policies, and program documentation. GAO requested the opportunity to interview Russian officials and representatives at nuclear material sites for this review, but the Russian government denied this request. Over more than 2 decades starting in the early 1990s, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) completed many of their planned efforts to improve nuclear material security in Russia, according to DOE documentation, U.S. government officials, and nuclear security experts. These efforts, carried out primarily through NNSA's Material Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program, included a range of projects to upgrade security at dozens of Russian nuclear material sites, such as the installation of modern perimeter fencing, surveillance cameras, and equipment to track and account for nuclear material. However, not all planned upgrades were completed before cooperation ended in late 2014. NNSA also completed many—but not all—of its planned efforts to help Russia support its national-level security infrastructure, such as by helping improve the security of Russian nuclear materials in transit. In addition, NNSA made some progress in improving each site's ability to sustain its security systems, such as by training Russian site personnel on modern MPC&A practices and procedures. NNSA documentation that GAO reviewed showed that by the time cooperation ended, Russian sites had generally improved their ability to sustain their MPC&A systems, but this documentation showed that concerns remained. According to stakeholders, there is little specific information about the current state of security at Russian nuclear material sites because U.S. personnel no longer have access to sites to observe security systems and discuss MPC&A practices with Russian site personnel. However, stakeholders said there is some information on national-level efforts. Specifically, stakeholders said that Russia has improved regulations for some MPC&A practices, and there are signs that Russian sites receive funding for nuclear material security, though it is unlikely that Russian funding is sufficient to account for the loss of U.S. financial support. Regarding threats to Russia's nuclear material, nongovernmental experts GAO interviewed raised concerns about the risk of insider theft of Russian nuclear materials. Experts stated that it is likely that Russian sites have maintained nuclear material security systems to protect against threats from outsiders, but it is unlikely that sites are adequately protecting against the threat from insiders. Stakeholders said that there may be opportunities for limited future cooperation between the two countries to help improve Russian nuclear material security. Such opportunities could include technical exchanges and training. These opportunities could provide the United States with better information about the risk posed by Russia's nuclear materials and could help address areas of concern, such as by training Russian personnel to help sites better address the insider threat. However, any potential cooperation faces considerable challenges, according to stakeholders, most notably the deterioration of political relations between the two countries. In addition, stakeholders said that cooperation is challenged by current U.S. law, which generally prohibits NNSA from funding nuclear security activities in Russia; by Russian antagonism toward U.S. proposals to improve nuclear material security internationally; and by Russian conditions for cooperation that the United States has not been willing to meet.


Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the President "to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The power has its roots in the king's prerogative to grant mercy under early English law, which later traveled across the Atlantic Ocean to the American colonies. The Supreme Court has recognized that the authority vested by the Constitution in the President is quite broad, describing it as "plenary," discretionary, and largely not subject to legislative modification. Nonetheless, there are two textual limitations on the pardon power's exercise: first, the President may grant pardons only for federal criminal offenses, and second, impeachment convictions are not pardonable. The Court has also recognized some other narrow restraints, including that a pardon cannot be issued to cover crimes prior to commission. The pardon power authorizes the President to grant several forms of relief from criminal punishment. The most common forms of relief are full pardon s (for individuals) and amnesties (for groups of people), which completely obviate the punishment for a committed or charged federal criminal offense, and commutations , which reduce the penalties associated with convictions. An administrative process has been established through the Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney for submitting and evaluating requests for these and other forms of clemency, though the process and regulations governing it are merely advisory and do not affect the President's ultimate authority to grant relief. Legal questions concerning the President's pardon power that have arisen have included (1) the legal effect of clemency; (2) whether a President may grant a self-pardon; and (3) what role Congress may play in overseeing the exercise of the pardon power. With respect to the first question, some 19th century Supreme Court cases suggest that a full pardon broadly erases both the punishment for an offense and the guilt of the offender. However, more recent precedent recognizes a distinction between the punishment for a conviction , which the pardon obviates, and the fact of the commission of the crime , which may be considered in later proceedings or preclude the pardon recipient from engaging in certain activities. Thus, although a full pardon restores civil rights such as the right to vote that may have been revoked as part of the original punishment, pardon recipients may, for example, still be subject to censure under professional rules of conduct or precluded from practicing their chosen profession as a result of the pardoned conduct. As for whether a President may grant a self-pardon, no past President has ever issued such a pardon. As a consequence, no federal court has addressed the matter. That said, several Presidents have considered the proposition of a self-pardon, and scholars have reached differing conclusions on whether such an action would be permissible based on the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. Ultimately, given the limited authority available, the constitutionality of a self-pardon is unclear. Finally, regarding Congress's role in overseeing the pardon process, the Supreme Court has indicated that the President's exercise of the pardon power is largely beyond the legislature's control. Nevertheless, Congress does have constitutional tools at its disposal to address the context in which the President's pardon power is exercised, including through oversight, constitutional amendment, or impeachment.


Russia's nuclear forces consist of both long-range, strategic systemsâincluding intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombersâand shorter- and medium-range delivery systems. Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces, replacing Soviet-era systems with new missiles, submarines and aircraft while developing new types of delivery systems. Although Russia's number of nuclear weapons has declined sharply since the end of Cold War, it retains a stockpile of thousands of warheads, with more than 1,500 warheads deployed on missiles and bombers capable of reaching U.S. territory. Doctrine and Deployment During the Cold War, the Soviet Union valued nuclear weapons for both their political and military attributes. While Moscow pledged that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, many analysts and scholars believed the Soviet Union integrated nuclear weapons into its warfighting plans. After the Cold War, Russia did not retain the Soviet "no first use" policy, and it has revised its nuclear doctrine several times to respond to concerns about its security environment and the capabilities of its conventional forces. When combined with military exercises and Russian officials' public statements, this evolving doctrine seems to indicate that Russia has potentially placed a greater reliance on nuclear weapons and may threaten to use them during regional conflicts. This doctrine has led some U.S. analysts to conclude that Russia has adopted an "escalate to de-escalate" strategy, where it might threaten to use nuclear weapons if it were losing a conflict with a NATO member, in an effort to convince the United States and its NATO allies to withdraw from the conflict. Russian officials, along with some scholars and observers in the United States and Europe, dispute this interpretation; however, concerns about this doctrine have informed recommendations for changes in the U.S. nuclear posture. Russia's current modernization cycle for its nuclear forces began in the early 2000s and is likely to conclude in the 2020s. In addition, in March 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia was developing new types of nuclear systems. While some see these weapons as a Russian attempt to achieve a measure of superiority over the United States, others note that they likely represent a Russian response to concerns about emerging U.S. missile defense capabilities. These new Russian systems include, among others, a heavy ICBM with the ability to carry multiple warheads, a hypersonic glide vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, and a nuclear-powered cruise missile. The hypersonic glide vehicle, carried on an existing long-range ballistic missile, entered service in late 2019. Arms Control Agreements Over the years, the United States has signed bilateral arms control agreements with the Soviet Union and then Russia that have limited and reduced the number of warheads carried on their nuclear delivery systems. Early agreements did little to reduce the size of Soviet forces, as the Soviet Union developed and deployed missiles with multiple warheads. However, the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, combined with financial difficulties that slowed Russia's nuclear modernization plans, sharply reduced the number of deployed warheads in the Russian force. The 2010 New START Treaty added modest reductions to this record but still served to limit the size of the Russian force and maintain the transparency afforded by the monitoring and verification provisions in the treaty. Congressional Interest Some Members of Congress have expressed growing concerns about the challenges Russia poses to the United States and its allies. In this context, Members of Congress may address a number of questions about Russian nuclear forces as they debate the U.S. nuclear force structure and plans for U.S. nuclear modernization. Congress may review debates about whether the U.S. modernization programs are needed to maintain the U.S. nuclear deterrent, or whether such programs may fuel an arms race with Russia. Congress may also assess whether Russia will be able to expand its forces in ways that threaten U.S. security if the United States and Russia do not extend the New START Treaty through 2026. Finally, Congress may review the debates within the expert community about Russian nuclear doctrine when deciding whether the United States needs to develop new capabilities to deter Russian use of nuclear weapons.


SBA assists most types of businesses regardless of size and others affected by natural and other declared disasters through its Disaster Loan Program. Disaster loans can be used to help rebuild or replace damaged property or continue business operations. GAO was asked to review SBA's response to three 2017 hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria). This report examines SBA's (1) planning for and response to the 2017 hurricanes; (2) disaster loan application and review process; and (3) implementation of the Express Bridge Loan Pilot Program. GAO analyzed SBA planning documents; summary data from SBA's Disaster Credit Management System for applications submitted between August 31, 2017, and September 24, 2018 (the period in which SBA processed nearly all loan applications for each hurricane); and SBA guidance on the bridge loan program. GAO interviewed small business owners and officials from local governments, business advocacy organizations, and Small Business Development Centers in Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Disaster Assistance, which administers the Disaster Loan Program, regularly develops disaster plans but does not discuss risks and risk mitigation in detail in its planning documents. Specifically, SBA's current Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Plan lacks an in-depth discussion of risks (including extended power and communications outages) that could affect its disaster response. SBA's disaster response includes deploying staff to and establishing centers in disaster areas to accept loan applications. The aftermath of the 2017 hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) illustrates how the risks affected SBA's disaster loan operations. For example, because of widespread power outages (particularly in Puerto Rico), loan applicants often could not submit applications electronically and SBA often could not call or e-mail applicants. As a result, SBA may not be adequately prepared to respond to challenges that arise during its disaster response efforts. Changes SBA made to the loan application process since 2005 (such as implementing electronic applications) improved timeliness. For the 2017 hurricanes, SBA processed more than 90 percent of all loan applications (including those quickly declined or withdrawn) within its 45-day goal, averaging less than 18 days for each hurricane. Overall, about 49 percent of applications submitted after the 2017 hurricanes were approved (see figure). Applicants and others with whom GAO spoke noted some application challenges, including frequent changes to SBA contact staff and having to resend documents. According to SBA officials, staff changes resulted from turnover, among other reasons. Many applicants in Puerto Rico also encountered translation challenges during interactions with SBA. SBA has no plans to evaluate its Express Bridge Loan Pilot Program, a loan guarantee program that began in October 2017 and is set to expire on September 30, 2020, and is intended to offer small businesses quicker funding after disasters. As of September 2019, SBA had received 93 applications, but most of them were incomplete and SBA had guaranteed only two loans. The Office of Capital Access, which manages the pilot, had not sought feedback from lenders on why so few loans had been made. Without evaluating program design and implementation, SBA's ability to make an informed decision on the program's future, including assessing potential demand for bridge loans, is limited.


SBA's SBDC Program provides training and counseling to small businesses through a nationwide network of 62 lead centers and more than 900 service centers. Each year, SBDC lead centers submit grant applications based on an estimated amount in SBA's funding opportunity announcement. GAO was asked to review SBA's procedure for the SBDC funding estimate. This report discusses SBA's change to the way it estimates funding in the funding opportunity announcement, its rationale for the change, and views of SBDC grantees on the effect of the change on their budgeting and operations. GAO reviewed SBDC funding opportunity announcements, Presidents' budget requests, and appropriations for fiscal years 2012–2020; examined relevant laws and guidance; and interviewed SBA officials and OMB staff. GAO also reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable sample of eight SBDCs (selected to achieve diversity in funding amount, budget cycle, and host institution) and surveyed all 62 lead SBDCs. The Small Business Administration (SBA) annually issues a funding opportunity announcement with an estimate of total funding for the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Program. Individual SBDCs are required to use this estimate to apply for their portion of the funding. In fiscal year 2016, SBA began using the lowest funding estimate—the amount in the President's budget—rather than an estimate reflecting historical funding levels. In fiscal year 2019, the amount in the President's budget was 15 percent lower than the prior-year appropriation and in 2020, 23 percent. If SBA continues its practice for fiscal year 2021, the funding estimate will be 35 percent lower than the 2020 appropriation. When appropriations are enacted for the program, the funding amount is revised and SBDCs submit a final budget. SBA officials said they changed how they set the funding estimate to conform to federal standards and appropriations law. In a 2019 letter to the House and Senate Small Business Committees, SBA said it adopted the change to help the program operate more effectively and be consistent with federal financial management standards. SBA officials could not point to specific regulations or guidance to support this statement. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for grants states that estimates based on the previous year's funding are acceptable if current appropriations are not yet available, as was the case when recent SBDC funding opportunity announcements were issued. SBA officials also cited the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation. But staff from OMB and SBA's Office of General Counsel told GAO that the Antideficiency Act does not apply to a funding opportunity announcement because the announcement does not obligate federal funds. A majority of SBDCs that GAO surveyed said using the President's budget request for the initial funding estimate created budgeting, operational, and performance burdens and challenges—mostly stemming from the large gap between the initial estimate and appropriated amounts. For example, SBDCs surveyed said that they now spend more time on budgeting (determining what to cut from initial budgets to meet the lower estimate and then recalculating for final budgets); have a harder time obtaining matching funds (from state, local, or private-sector sources) or increasing the amounts from initial to final funding levels; have difficulty hiring or retaining staff; face challenges providing services to small businesses (particularly if SBDCs have staffing gaps); and thus also face challenges meeting performance goals (which include number of clients served). Under SBA's current practice for funding estimates, SBDCs will continue to experience (or may experience increasing) challenges given the growing divergence between the initial estimate and appropriated amounts.


Sales of U.S. agricultural products to foreign markets absorb about one-fifth of U.S. agricultural production, thus contributing significantly to the health of the farm economy. Farm product exports, which totaled $136 billion in FY2019 (see chart), make up about 8% of total U.S. exports and contribute positively to the U.S. balance of trade. The economic benefits of agricultural exports also extend across rural communities, while overseas farm sales help to buoy a wide array of industries linked to agriculture, including transportation, processing, and farm input suppliers. A major area of interest for the 116 th Congress during its first session was the loss of export demand for agricultural products in the wake of tariff increases imposed by the Trump Administration on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum from certain countries and other imported products from China. Some of the affected countries levied retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, contributing to a 53% decline in value of U.S. agricultural exports to China in 2018 and a broader decline in exports across countries imposing retaliatory tariffs in 2019. To help mitigate the economic impact from export losses, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authorized two short-term assistance ("trade aid") programs to producers of affected agricultural commodities, valued at up to $12 billion in 2019 and $16 billion in 2019. Other major agricultural trade developments in 2019 included efforts to ratify the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), trade negotiations with China, Japan, and the European Union, and continued review of U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The USMCA was ratified by Mexico and the U.S. Congress, and awaits ratification by Canada before it can enter into force. The United States and Japan signed an agreement increasing market access for many U.S. agricultural exports to Japan. This agreement, which does not require congressional approval, excludes provisions pertaining to non-tariff measures that could become future trade barriers for U.S. agricultural exporters. A second-stage negotiation toward a more comprehensive pact could commence in 2020. In January 2020, President Trump signed a "Phase One" executive agreement (that also does not require congressional approval) with the Chinese government on trade and investment issues, including agriculture. Under the agreement, China is not required to repeal any tariffs, but it has reduced certain retaliatory tariffs and is granting tariff exclusions for various agricultural products in order to reach a target level of U.S. importsâ$32 billion (relative to a 2017 base of $24 billion) over a two-year period. The coronavirus outbreak since January 2020 may affect China's ability to meet these commitments. In addition to further negotiations with Japan and China, the Administration has stated its intent to pursue trade agreements with the European Union, India, Kenya, the United Kingdom, and possibly other countries. The Trump Administration has also indicated that reforming the WTO is a priority for 2020. The WTO Ministerial Conference in June 2020 presents an opportunity to address pressing concerns over agricultural reform efforts. Among other agricultural trade issues that may arise in the 116 th Congress are proposed changes to U.S. trade remedy laws to address imports of seasonal produce affecting growers in the Southeast, the establishment of a common international framework for approval, trade, and marketing of the products of agricultural biotechnology, and foreign restrictions on U.S. exports of meat that are inconsistent with international trade protocols. Additionally, U.S. beef and pork face trade barriers in several markets because of U.S. producers' use of growth promotants and the feed additive ractopamine.