text
stringlengths 306
1.26M
| label
int64 0
2
|
|---|---|
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., speaks during a luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington in August. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption toggle caption Patrick Semansky/AP Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., speaks during a luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington in August. Patrick Semansky/AP Updated at 11:10 a.m. ET Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Baltimore attorney and civil rights advocate who served in Maryland's legislature before representing the state in the U.S. House, where he took on a lead role in investigating President Trump, has died. He was 68. Cummings, the head of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Reform, died early Thursday at Johns Hopkins Hospital from complications related to longstanding health challenges, according to The Associated Press. "He worked until his last breath because he believed our democracy was the highest and best expression of our collective humanity and that our nation's diversity was our promise, not our problem," said Cummings' wife, Maryland Democratic Party Chair Maya Rockeymoore Cummings. It's been an honor to walk by his side on this incredible journey. I loved him deeply and will miss him dearly." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Cummings "my brother in Baltimore" as she spoke about him on Thursday. "In the Congress, Elijah was considered a north star," Pelosi said. "He was a leader of towering character and integrity." She added, "He lived the American dream, and he wanted it for everyone else." President Trump issued a statement via Twitter saying: "My warmest condolences to the family and many friends of Congressman Elijah Cummings. I got to see first hand the strength, passion and wisdom of this highly respected political leader. His work and voice on so many fronts will be very hard, if not impossible, to replace!" Former President Barack Obama issued his own statement saying, "Michelle and I are heartbroken over the passing of our friend, Elijah Cummings. "As Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, he showed us all not only the importance of checks and balances within our democracy, but also the necessity of good people stewarding it," Obama said. The 12-term congressman had failed to return from an unspecified medical procedure and missed two legislative roll call votes on Tuesday, the first day after a two-week recess, according to The Baltimore Sun. In a statement on Sept. 30, Cummings said his doctors expected him to be able to return to Washington "when the House comes back into session in two weeks." It said he'd be in "constant communication" with his staff and congressional colleagues while he was away. Cummings was among the three Democratic committee chairmen who signed a letter last month that accompanied a congressional subpoena of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has declined to testify in the ongoing impeachment inquiry of the president. According to an official biography of Cummings, the Baltimore native attended Howard University, where he obtained a bachelor's degree in political science and served as student government president. He later obtained a law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. He served for 13 years in Maryland's House of Delegates before winning his congressional seat in 1996. "Congressman Cummings has dedicated his life of service to uplifting and empowering the people he is sworn to represent," his official biography says. "He began his career of public service in the Maryland House of Delegates, where he served for 14 years and became the first African American in Maryland history to be named Speaker Pro Tem," it says. "Since 1996, Congressman Cummings has proudly represented Maryland's 7th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives." Cummings was born and raised in Baltimore and lived there his entire life in what he described as the "inner inner city." He was one of seven children of parents who worked as sharecroppers before moving to the city in the 1940s, according to the Sun. Discussing Cummings' connection with his constituents in Baltimore, Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, tells NPR's Noel King, "he really was a moral force in the community." "People trusted him in the unrest after Freddie Gray was killed — it was Elijah Cummings who could walk into the crowd and be recognized and have people respond to him," Ifill says. "And so I think what the country has seen of him over the last year is a reflection of what many of us here in Baltimore have known for the 20 years of his leadership. A man of tremendous, tremendous integrity." As a prominent Democratic lawmaker, Cummings frequently found himself on the receiving end of Trump's Twitter account. In an infamous series of tweets in July, the president referred to Cummings' Baltimore district as "rat and rodent infested" and suggested that the congressman seldom goes there. Elijah Cummings spends all of his time trying to hurt innocent people through “Oversight.” He does NOTHING for his very poor, very dangerous and very badly run district! Take a look.... #BlacksForTrump2020 https://t.co/seNVESZUht— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2019 "Mr. President, I go home to my district daily," Cummings fired back in a letter to Trump. "Each morning, I wake up, and I go and fight for my neighbors." Referring to investigations of the president, which he perceived as the true impetus for the derogatory remarks, Cummings said in the letter that it is "my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. But it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents." Despite the president's remarks, Cummings continued to reach out to the White House and called on government officials to stop making "hateful, incendiary comments" that divide and distract. Mr. President, we can address this together. Two years ago, I went to the White House to ask you to endorse my bill to let the government negotiate directly for lower drug prices.— Elijah E. Cummings (@RepCummings) July 27, 2019 When Democrats took the House in the 2018 election, political pundits had predicted that Cummings' chairmanship of the Oversight Committee would be a "nightmare" for Trump. "Are we going to be the nightmare? he mused in an interview with the Sun. "It's in the eye of the beholder." NPR's Casey Noenickx contributed to this report.
| 1 |
President Barack Obama narrowly won re-election, overcoming public doubts about his performance on the economy—doubts that challenger Mitt Romney appeared well-positioned to exploit.For Mr. Obama, the victory sets up a test of whether he can forge a productive second term in a divided political system. A review of how President Obama won re-election, including where the balance of power sits in Washington. Photo: Reuters. The U.S. Presidential election was watched closely around the world, perhaps no more so than in Europe. WSJ London Bureau Chief Bruce Orwall joins the News Hub with European-focused foreign policy questions facing Barack Obama. Photo: Getty Images. WSJ Economics Reporter Brian Blackstone joins the News Hub from Germany to discuss the impact of the Presidential election on European financial issues. Photo: Getty Images. WSJ Beijing Bureau Chief Andrew Browne joins the News Hub to discuss Asian reaction to the U.S. presidential election. Photo: Getty Images. Election watchers and Obama supporters in Times Square, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Iowa react to news that the president has won a second term. Via #WorldStream.
See More Video on #WorldStream For Republicans, it raises uncomfortable questions: What went wrong, and how did Democrats manage to blunt Mr. Romney's seemingly big advantage on what was easily the top issue for voters in the 2012 race? Early analysis based on polls and other research by Democrats close to the Obama re-election effort suggests that Mr. Obama found multiple ways to chip away at the public's confidence in Mr. Romney, as well as his conservative policy prescriptions. That multifront effort succeeded in raising enough doubt about Mr. Romney—and sufficiently reinforcing Mr. Obama's own message—to allow the president to gain re-election. Some top Republicans agreed they need to rethink how they present their economic message. "We need to do a better job of making our economic case" in coming elections, GOP strategist Karl Rove said on Fox News on Wednesday morning. Mr. Rove said one reason Democrats succeeded was that they turned the presidential election into a tactical fight largely defined by negative attacks. Mr. Rove noted that while Mr. Romney appeared to score well with voters in a number of categories, including his leadership and vision, Mr. Obama by the end held a lopsided advantage on the question of which candidate cares about people like them. Democrats succeeded in defining Mr. Romney as "a rich guy who didn't care about them," Mr. Rove said. Mr. Obama also was aided by a well-executed turnout effort, one that was all the more successful because of demographic shifts that are placing more electoral power in the hands of minority voters, who tended to support Mr. Obama by large margins. His victory makes Mr. Obama the first president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 to succeed with a higher unemployment rate on Election Day than on his inauguration day four years earlier. U.S. unemployment now stands at 7.9%, compared with 7.8% when Mr. Obama took office. A poll completed this week by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin—and funded by an independent group supporting Mr. Obama—suggested that the Obama campaign succeeded in part by persuading voters that Mr. Romney's economic policies would be bad for people like themselves. "Only 38% of voters say that if Mitt Romney is elected president his economic policies will be good for people like them," the analysis says. "By comparison, 44% say President Obama's policies will be good for people like them." While a large majority of voters said they were dissatisfied with the economy, relatively few blamed Mr. Obama, pointing their fingers instead at Wall Street and the administration of former President George W. Bush. A narrow majority of voters said they believed the country was making progress economically, and those voters tended to side with Mr. Obama. The Obama campaign also succeeded in undermining voter perceptions of Mr. Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded. "In the final round of swing state polling…voters agreed by 17 points that 'as a businessman, (Romney's) priority was making millions for himself and his investors, regardless of the impact on jobs and the employees,' " according to the Garin analysis. After winning a second term, President Barack Obama ends his victory speech with his vision for the country during his speech. Photo: Getty Images.
More In his victory speech, Mr. Obama said he now looks forward to "sitting down with Gov. Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward." John Mack, the former Morgan Stanley chief executive, suggested on Wednesday that after all the campaign-season criticism of business, Mr. Obama should enlist Mr. Romney's help in mending fences, particularly given the economy's ongoing problems. "I would love to see the president reach out and ask Mitt Romney to get involved in some way to work with the business community," Mr. Mack said on Bloomberg TV. "If we could make some moves like that where we could work together…I think it's a huge positive." In retaining the presidency, Mr. Obama, 51 years old, defeated the 65-year-old former Massachusetts governor, who had been seeking the office for six years. "We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future," the president said in a victory speech that came after 1:30 a.m. Eastern time. He said he would meet with Mr. Romney in the coming weeks to discuss various issues confronting the country. "I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader," Mr. Romney said in his concession speech. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who has been one of the president's primary adversaries in Congress, extended Mr. Obama a hand—with an admonition—in a statement issued early Wednesday. "The American people did two things: they gave President Obama a second chance to fix the problems that even he admits he failed to solve during his first four years in office, and they preserved Republican control of the House of Representatives," he said. He made clear that Republicans are expecting the next four years to be different from the past four years. "To the extent he wants to move to the political center…we'll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the 'fiscal cliff' without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system," he said. President Obama gathers with his wife, Michelle, left, and daughters Sasha and Malia, right, during his election night victory rally in Chicago. Reuters Propelling Mr. Obama to victory was the unique coalition he forged four years ago, one that reflects the changing nature of the U.S. electorate—notably, the diminished influence of white Americans and the rising clout of Latino voters. Greeting Mr. Obama will be a divided Congress. Democrats retained their Senate majority, while Republicans looked set to keep control of the House of Representatives. After the election, Washington remained aligned exactly as it was Tuesday morning, despite $6 billion in spending and 1.2 million political ads in the presidential race alone. Americans handed Mr. Obama the job of navigating conflicting impulses in both Washington and the nation, a partisan divide the president has previously struggled to master. Despite Mr. Romney's focus on the economy, pitching himself as a onetime businessman capable of fixing what ails the U.S., he couldn't overcome missteps and attacks from Democrats over his work as a private-equity executive. At stake were two starkly different visions of the role of government and the recipe for economic revival. Mr. Romney called for reducing taxes and scaling back regulations, which he said would trigger economic growth. Mr. Obama laid out a model of public investment in alternative energy and education, along with tax increases on wealthier families to help cut deficits. He has also voiced plans to pursue a revamp of U.S. immigration laws. The president's re-election campaign was light on details of his second-term agenda, in contrast to the ambitious list he brought to the office in 2008. Mr. Obama sealed his victory with wins in swing states including Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. He was running neck and neck in Florida. The contest showed how dramatically the U.S. has changed in recent years. According to exit polls, Mr. Romney won 60% of the white vote. Mr. Obama won 38%, five points fewer than his 2008 showing. Not since Walter Mondale, who was swept aside by Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential race, has a Democrat recorded a smaller share of the white vote.
Casting Ballots in 2012Decision Day in America Voters headed to the polls Tuesday in a presidential contest defined by its intensity and razor-thin margins.
Readers' Election PhotosView Election Day through the lenses of Journal readers, and share your photos with us on Twitter and Instagram with #WSJvote. More Photos Mr. Obama will have little time to savor his victory. Looming almost immediately is the so-called fiscal cliff, a series of tax increase and spending cuts that come into force Jan. 1 and that could unravel the economy's fragile gains unless the president and congressional leaders engineer a compromise. The U.S. will also hit its borrowing limit in coming months, raising the prospect of a battle like the one last year that led to a downgrade of the U.S. debt rating. Mr. Obama hopes to broker a far-reaching agreement, the kind of "grand bargain" that eluded him last year, which would include raising taxes on wealthier Americans. Republicans have said they would oppose any tax increase. The White House is already working to convene a meeting between the president and congressional leaders. A key player will be Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Romney's running mate and a student of fiscal matters, who retained his House seat. Mr. Obama notched a victory in a political climate that seemed ripe for his defeat. Polls showed more than half the population believed the U.S. was on the wrong track and that the government performed too many functions best done by the private sector—attitudes that would seem to benefit Republicans. Mr. Obama was favored to win for most of the campaign, but the race narrowed in the final month after he turned in a lackluster performance in the first of three presidential debates. Presidential historian Nick Ragone joins the News Hub to discuss Mitt Romney's loss and challenges the Republicans face. (Photo: Getty Images) Mr. Romney closed the gap in the polls, raising the possibility that the nation's first African-American president might be voted from office at the end of a single term. Mr. Obama prevailed through an aggressive and well-funded campaign. He championed middle-class interests while depicting Mr. Romney as an uncaring businessman whose economic policies would favor the wealthiest Americans. The campaign's tone was coarse. Mr. Obama largely jettisoned the hopeful message of his 2008 campaign, convinced that to win he needed to paint Mr. Romney as an unpalatable alternative. Mr. Obama's rise to power might have been dismissed as a fluke had he not secured a second term. His biography is nothing like that of recent predecessors. Mr. Obama was raised by a single mother and his grandparents. His father was from Kenya and his mother's family from Kansas. Mr. Obama spent most of his childhood in Hawaii, where he attended a prestigious private school. After graduating from Columbia University, he attended Harvard Law School, becoming the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. He eventually moved to Chicago, where he became a community organizer and met his wife, first lady Michelle Obama. His political resumé is short. He served in the Illinois state Senate until 2004, when he captivated the nation with a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. He was elected to the U.S. Senate that same year and hadn't served a full term before he won the White House in 2008. His first term included passage of the health-care law, the financial-regulation bill and a series of interventions to save the banking system from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. After the midterm elections in 2010, Republicans took charge of the House and Mr. Obama was forced to curb his ambitions. The president has predicted that he would have better results in a second term. David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said any ill will from the election would quickly vanish. Mr. Obama has said he would push several pieces of unfinished business left over the first term. He wants to pass an immigration overhaul that would provide a path to legal status for the 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Republicans might conclude it is in their interest to cooperate. In Tuesday's elections, the GOP got a lesson in the dangers of alienating Latinos. Many Republicans strategists have said the party must soften its stance on illegal immigration. Latinos now account for 16% of the population, and that figure is expected to jump to 22% by 2030. With Hurricane Sandy ravaging the East Coast, Mr. Obama had a chance to show compassion to storm victims and deploy government resources to neighborhoods left in ruins. No less a critic than New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who gave the keynote speech at Mr. Romney's nominating convention, went out of his way to praise Mr. Obama's performance. About two-thirds of the public approved of the president's handling of Hurricane Sandy, a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll showed. Worse for Mr. Romney, the storm froze the race at a moment when he had been gaining momentum and cutting into Mr. Obama's lead. Sandy diverted the nation's attention for days, forcing Mr. Romney to cancel some events and to juggle attacks on Obama with expressions of sympathy for storm victims. Still, Mr. Obama's re-election would have seemed unlikely in the nadir of his presidency, the fall of 2010, when voters in the midterm election gave Republicans control of the House. Mr. Obama termed that election, "a shellacking." White House advisers turned their attention to his political revival, knowing he was in a tough spot. Unemployment hovered near 10%, and aides worried that independent voters had abandoned the president. Internal focus groups showed that voters didn't give credit to Mr. Obama for the stimulus program, even though many economists concluded that the measures staved off an even more serious downturn. Aides settled on a strategy that emphasized steady improvement in the jobless rate while positioning Mr. Obama as a champion of the middle class. Rather than save their money for the post-Labor Day race to November, the Obama campaign spent millions of dollars on TV ads attacking Mr. Romney for his record at Bain Capital. They painted him as a predatory capitalist who bought companies and laid people off in search of a quick profit. Mr. Obama burned through a good chunk of his campaign cash, making some Democrats uneasy. But he made Mr. Romney unpopular among some voters. In the end, Mr. Obama suffered no shortage of funds. In September alone, he took in $181 million in campaign donations. Altogether, the president and allied groups will have raised nearly $1 billion over the course of the campaign. —Patrick O'Connor and Colleen McCain Nelson contributed to this article. Write to Peter Nicholas at [email protected], Carol E. Lee at [email protected] and John D. McKinnon at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Infrastructure negotiations between President Biden and a group of Republicans led by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) have officially broken down, and Biden now plans to turn his attention toward striking a deal with a separate, bipartisan group of senators, administration officials said Tuesday night.What we're hearing: When Biden and Capito spoke by phone on Tuesday, the call only lasted a few minutes, and it was clear that the two sides remain too far apart to find a compromise. The two parties still hadn't agreed on how to define what constitutes infrastructure, let alone set a price tag or way to pay for it.What they're saying: Biden "informed Sen. Capito today that the latest offer from her group did not, in his view, meet the essential needs of our country," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said."He offered his gratitude to her for her efforts and good faith conversations, but expressed his disappointment that, while he was willing to reduce his plan by more than $1 trillion, the Republican group had increased their proposed new investments by only $150 billion."“While I appreciate President Biden’s willingness to devote so much time and effort to these negotiations, he ultimately chose not to accept the very robust and targeted infrastructure package, and instead, end our discussions," Capito said.Timing: The Biden administration made clear they saw this week was the deadline for real progress on a deal with Capito and other GOP senators. Now he will focus on engaging the "G20" group of Democratic and Republican senators, led by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).That group has floated a larger, $900 billion infrastructure proposal focused on roads, bridges and other traditional projects.Psaki said that Biden spoke with Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Sinema and Manchin today, and told the group he would continue to contact them by phone while in Europe over the next week.Biden also designated his Jobs Cabinet and White House aides Steve Ricchetti, Louisa Terrell and Brian Deese to meet with them in person, Psaki added.Of note: The issue of how to pay for the package remains the major stumbling block.Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that Democrats are working on a reconciliation bill as a backup plan in case talks fall through. He added that he plans to move forward with an infrastructure bill in the Senate in July, whether a deal between the two sides is reached or not.
| 1 |
The breakneck pace of hiring slumped in February, a sign that U.S. growth is cooling, though strong wage growth and earlier robust job gains suggest the economy’s near decadelong expansion will endure. U.S. nonfarm payrolls rose a seasonally adjusted 20,000 in February, the Labor Department said Friday, marking the slowest pace for job growth since September 2017—when hurricanes skewed hiring patterns—and falling well below economists’ expectations for 180,000 new jobs. Some of February’s weak job growth might have been a response to strong hiring in previous months. Payrolls grew 311,000 in January and 227,000 in December. The three-month average for job gains clocked in at 186,000, near the average for much of the expansion. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.8% in February from 4% the month before, returning to a level last seen in October. Wages grew at the fastest pace in nearly a decade. For months, strong U.S. job growth has been a counterpoint to other economic disturbances, including a partial federal-government shutdown in late December and January, a sputtering U.S. housing sector and a global economic slowdown. “The labor market has really stood out as the lone bright spot in a sea of more mixed measures,” said Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West. The latest report, he said, “is just catching up” to the mixed economic picture. Jobs were weak in some seasonal industries that snapped back from big gains in previous months, including construction, retail and hospitality. Construction employment fell 31,000 after rising 53,000 the month before. Leisure and hospitality jobs were flat after rising 89,000 the month before. Manufacturing employment stayed positive for the 19th straight month, the longest run of gains since the mid-1990s. But payroll growth in the sector slowed, possibly reflecting crimping effects from global trade tensions. Doug Smoker, president of Indiana-based boat manufacturer Smoker Craft Inc., said U.S. steel-and-aluminum tariffs enacted in 2018 drove up boat prices and hurt business with dealers, an important customer base. Retaliation from Canada further squeezed the company’s sales. If not for tariff-induced uncertainty, Smoker Craft would be in hiring mode, Mr. Smoker said. Instead, it has left some positions open and allowed its workforce to contract 5%. “There seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel from what we’re hearing about China and all this other stuff,” he said, referring to news reports that the U.S. and China could reach a trade deal, “but we really don’t know.” Some economists said Friday’s report exaggerated the extent of weakness sweeping the job market. Federal workers might have been counted twice in January, when payrolls were so strong, if they took additional part-time work during the shutdown, said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton. Those same workers who returned to their jobs in February would only be counted once, depressing the overall number. “The headline is certainly a bit of a head fake. The underlying trend is still solid,” Ms. Swonk said. The payroll estimate is closely watched by investors because it is one of the most comprehensive numbers produced by the government on how the economy is performing and it is timely, coming just a few days after month-end. Stocks fell sharply initially after the report, but investors pared the losses later in the day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 22.99 on the day, or 0.09%, to 25450.24. The Labor Department report was striking in part because it happened as new signs flashed of a global slowdown, worrying central banks. The European Central Bank this week cut its estimate of how fast Europe will grow in 2019 and introduced new stimulus measures. Beijing also has ramped up efforts to boost China’s slowing economy. For its part, the Federal Reserve has for now shelved plans to raise interest rates. Friday’s report likely reinforced the inclination of many officials to avoid changing rates for at least a few months while they assess how the economic outlook evolves. The Fed’s willingness to keep borrowing costs low in the face of new economic uncertainty is one factor easing the concern of investors that the slowdown could worsen. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimates economic output is growing at an annual rate of 0.5% in the first quarter, well below growth near 3% in 2018. Many economists see some pickup in growth after the first quarter, in part because the negative effects of the government shutdown will be reversed. There were other signs within Friday’s report that the job market wasn’t as soft in February as payrolls suggested. The jobless rate, which is based on a different survey than the hiring estimate, has stabilized between 3.7% and 4% for 12 straight months after a long march lower that started in late 2009. U.S. companies continue to report challenges finding qualified workers. Some analysts figured hiring might be slowing in part because companies can’t find enough people to fill open positions. At 3.8%, the jobless rate remains near lows rarely seen in the past half-century. At the same time, the fact that it hasn’t fallen further alleviates Fed officials of the worry that it might get so low that it ignites inflation pressures. February’s improvement in unemployment reflected, in part, the return to work of federal employees after the government shutdown, the Labor Department said. The broadest measure of unemployment—which includes the discouraged and part-time workers who want full-time work—fell to its lowest level since 2001. Another silver lining was hourly worker wages, which were up 3.4% from a year earlier in February, the strongest pace since April 2009. For much of the expansion wage growth has been anemic. It is now outpacing inflation, meaning workers are keeping more of what they bring home. Income gains for households could help sustain consumer spending and overall economic growth in the months ahead. Jermaine Waller is one worker feeling the benefits of higher wages. After eight years working minimum-wage security jobs, Mr. Waller, 31, grew frustrated and pursued training, becoming certified as a collision-repair technician. Signs solicit workers for employment opportunities on March 1 in Zelienople, Pa. Photo: Keith Srakocic/Associated Press Newsletter Sign-up Real Time Economics The latest economic news, analysis and data curated weekdays by WSJ's Jeffrey Sparshott. More In February he started work at Blossom Chevrolet in Indianapolis, Ind., which offered Mr. Waller a raise to $17.50 an hour to lure him from another dealership. He said a shorter commute means he could surprise his son with lunch at school. “I can afford the stuff I never had—and to be the Dad I never had,” he said. —Eric Morath contributed to this article. Write to Sarah Chaney at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellRepublicans take cheap shots at Fed nominees Republicans do not have a right to remain silent White House uses GOP's own rhetoric to rebut Supreme Court criticisms MORE (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday that he's barely spoken to President BidenJoe BidenCory Booker and Rosario Dawson have reportedly split US ups estimate of Russian forces on Ukraine border to 130,000 Harris heads to Munich at pivotal moment MORE since the Jan. 20 inauguration, accusing the White House of shifting to the "hard left.""I don't believe I've spoken with him since he was sworn in," McConnell said during an interview with Fox News, adding that he hadn't been invited to the White House either.Spokespeople for McConnell didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but clarified to CNN that while they had spoken since the Jan. 20 inauguration, they haven't talked about the agenda.McConnell previously told reporters on Feb. 2 that he and Biden had spoken about Myanmar and the budget process and coronavirus relief. Democrats used a special process known as budget reconciliation to pass their sweeping $1.9 trillion bill over GOP objections. The filibuster cannot be used to slow measures moved under the budgetary rules."Well the president called me on two things: Burma was one of them, the other was ... the budget process and COVID relief," McConnell told reporters.But McConnell used the Fox News interview on Wednesday to drive home his view that he doesn't believe Biden, whom he worked with in the Senate, is being bipartisan."I haven't been invited to the White House, so far this administration is not interested in doing anything on a bipartisan basis in the political center," McConnell said."There's been no efforts whatsoever by the president or the administration to do anything in the political center. It's been trying to jam through everything on the hard left," McConnell added.McConnell and Biden were able to cut some deals during the Obama administration, sparking speculation after Biden won the White House that their relationship could be crucial to the prospects for getting any big agreements through the Senate where 60 votes are still needed for most legislation.The White House is in touch with GOP senators on infrastructure and Biden previously hosted 10 Republicans to discuss coronavirus relief. But Democrats are also wary of slowing down, or narrowing bills, to try to make them bipartisan, pointing back to what they view as strategic missteps during the Obama administration."We made a big mistake in 2009 and ’10," Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocratic Senate debates merits of passion vs. pragmatism Former prisoner becomes first sworn in for seat in New York state legislature On The Money — Inflation hits highest rate since February 1982 MORE (D-N.Y.) told CNN earlier this month. "We cut back on the stimulus dramatically and we stayed in recession for five years."
| 1 |
The sentencing of one former ally of President Trump and the disclosure of a key agreement with another intensified the focus on Mr. Trump’s alleged role in coordinating efforts to suppress the stories of two women to protect his 2016 campaign. The dual developments on Wednesday came as part of a legal saga that has led Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department to directly implicate him in federal crimes, exposing him to potential legal and political peril as he enters the second half of his presidential term. Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer and personal lawyer, was sentenced Wednesday in federal court to three years in prison. He had pleaded guilty in recent months to nine felony counts, including two campaign-finance violations related to payments he arranged during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence two women who said they had sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. Shortly after Mr. Cohen’s sentencing, prosecutors publicly disclosed that American Media Inc., the National Enquirer’s parent company, had also admitted to coordinating with the Trump campaign in making one of those illegal payments. The company said the purpose of its $150,000 payment to a former Playboy model in August 2016 was to quash her story of an affair with Mr. Trump to prevent it from influencing the 2016 election—not for legitimate editorial reasons, as the company previously said. American Media has provided “substantial” assistance to investigators and agreed to future cooperation, prosecutors said. In exchange, the government said it won’t criminally prosecute the company for any campaign-finance violations. Among the assistance provided, David Pecker, American Media’s chief executive and a longtime friend of Mr. Trump, shared information with prosecutors about Mr. Trump’s direct involvement in the payment scheme and received immunity for testifying before a grand jury in the Cohen investigation, the Journal previously reported. Mr. Trump on Monday described the payments Mr. Cohen arranged as a “simple private transaction” and said if the payments were illegal, it was his lawyer’s “mistake.” The president has denied the sexual encounters with the women as well as ordering Mr. Cohen to arrange the payments to them. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said in an interview after the sentencing that the payments were legal. At his sentencing Wednesday before a packed federal courtroom in downtown Manhattan, Mr. Cohen, 52 years old, apologized for lying to the American public and told the judge his “blind loyalty to Donald Trump ” had led him astray from his values. “Time and time again, I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds, rather than listen to my own inner voice,” Mr. Cohen said, as his daughter wept in the seat behind him. Mr. Cohen said the sentencing would free him from the “personal and mental incarceration” he has been under since he started working for Mr. Trump more than a decade ago. When he took the job, he admired the real-estate tycoon’s business acumen, Mr. Cohen said, adding: “I now know there is little to be admired.” Ahead of the 2016 election, Mr. Cohen paid $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford, the former adult-film star known professionally as Stormy Daniels, to keep quiet about her allegations of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen also facilitated American Media’s payment to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal. The Journal first revealed the existence of the payments. In a pre-sentencing court filing last week, federal prosecutors in Manhattan wrote that Mr. Trump, identified in the document as “Individual-1,” directed and coordinated both illegal payments with Mr. Cohen. The filing indicated investigators have evidence corroborating Mr. Cohen’s statements, made in open court in August, that he committed the campaign-finance violations at Mr. Trump’s direction and with the purpose of influencing the 2016 election. The Wall Street Journal first reported a month ago the details of Mr. Trump’s central role in the payments, including that he was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements. The statements by Mr. Cohen and American Media could undercut Mr. Trump’s ability to argue the payments weren’t intended to protect his campaign. Mr. Trump has previously said they didn’t constitute campaign contributions. In handing down his sentence, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III said Mr. Cohen admitted to a “veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct,” including crimes that undermined democratic institutions. In addition to the campaign-finance charges, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in August to five counts of tax fraud and one count of making false statements to a bank. Last month he pleaded guilty to a charge brought by the office of special counsel Robert Mueller that he lied to Congress. Although Mr. Cohen deserves credit for taking steps to cooperate with investigators, Judge Pauley said, “that does not wipe the slate clean.” He ordered Mr. Cohen to pay more than $1.3 million in restitution and $100,000 in fines, as well as forfeit $500,000. Mr. Cohen will report to prison on March 6, and his lawyers have requested he be placed at the federal prison in Otisville, N.Y. The prison sentence caps a dramatic about-face for Mr. Cohen, who once famously said he would take a bullet for the president. He has since aimed one straight at his former boss, providing prosecutors with information that Mr. Trump and his inner circle may have taken part in federal crimes surrounding the 2016 election. Whether a payment was intended to influence the election has been a key question in prior campaign-finance prosecutions. When the Justice Department accused John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, of using illegal campaign contributions to conceal an affair during his 2008 presidential run, he argued the money was meant to hide his mistress from his wife, not to influence the election. A jury acquitted him of one charge and deadlocked on the rest. Mr. Cohen’s lawyers had asked the judge to grant him no prison time, suggesting Mr. Cohen believed the information he shared with prosecutors about the president and others should have earned him a get-out-of-jail-free card. Mr. Cohen turned on his former boss when he could have held out instead for a pardon, his lawyers wrote. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan, however, said Mr. Cohen was no hero and asked the court to impose a “substantial” prison sentence. Prosecutors cited Mr. Cohen’s refusal to pursue a formal cooperation agreement with the Southern District of New York, which would have required him to reveal his entire criminal history to the government, including information about crimes committed by other people. Mr. Cohen did provide significant and credible information to Mr. Mueller’s office, prosecutors said, but he declined to answer questions about other areas of investigative interest to Manhattan federal prosecutors beyond campaign-finance crimes. In a statement to the court on Wednesday, Guy Petrillo, one of Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, harshly criticized the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office’s handling of Mr. Cohen’s case, pointing to the “strident tone” of the office’s sentencing memorandum, including what he described as an “immature and meaningless observation” about Mr. Cohen’s temper. “Mr. Cohen had the misfortune to have been counsel to the president,” Mr. Petrillo said. Responding in court, a prosecutor said the office “treated Mr. Cohen just the way we treat every other defendant.” Lanny Davis, an adviser to Mr. Cohen, said after sentencing that Mr. Cohen would eventually “state publicly all he knows about Mr. Trump,” including to any congressional committee. Mr. Cohen has already met seven times with Mr. Mueller’s office and shared information about efforts by Mr. Trump’s inner circle to forge closer ties with Moscow in the months before the 2016 election, including previously unknown contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign from as early as fall 2015, according to court documents. Sitting presidents cannot be indicted under Justice Department guidelines, but Democrats will take over control of the House in January, enabling them to subpoena records. They have said they plan to investigate Mr. Trump’s involvement in the hush-money payments, which incoming House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) has described as “impeachable offenses.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who is expected to take control of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Sunday: “Is a crime directed and coordinated by the president which helped him obtain office sufficient to warrant his removal from that office? That’s a legitimate question to ask.” Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to “significant lengths” to assist the Russia probe. But Manhattan federal prosecutors said in a separate filing that Cohen should receive a “substantial” prison sentence because his assistance fell short of full cooperation. Photo: AP Republicans in Congress have largely dismissed the president’s involvement in the payments. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), after being told New York prosecutors had alleged the president ordered Mr. Cohen to arrange the hush-money payments, said: “OK, but I don’t care. All I can say is he’s doing a good job as president.” Mr. Cohen, who served as a Trump Organization lawyer and later as Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, will continue assisting the Russia investigation, prosecutors said. Mr. Cohen’s pleaded guilty last month to a charge of lying to Congress about the extent of efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 campaign, saying he deliberately tried to minimize Mr. Trump’s involvement in the process in an attempt to curtail the Russia investigation. While President Trump publicly fought with women leading up the the 2016 election, in private he directed schemes to silence their stories of two alleged affairs. Here’s a timeline of Trump’s personal involvement. Once the special counsel investigation concludes, Mr. Mueller is expected to submit a report to the Justice Department that is also anticipated to reach Congress. That report could incorporate any findings related to the president by New York prosecutors. —Rebecca Ballhaus contributed to this article. Write to Nicole Hong at [email protected] and Rebecca Davis O’Brien at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Monday that he plans to display battle tanks on Washington’s National Mall as part of a pumped-up Fourth of July celebration that will also feature flyovers by fighter jets and other displays of military prowess.The military hardware is just one new element in a U.S. Independence Day pageant that will depart significantly from the nonpartisan, broadly patriotic programs that typically draw hundreds of thousands of people to the monuments in downtown Washington.While past presidents have traditionally kept a low profile on July 4, Trump plans to deliver a speech at the Lincoln Memorial.Also on the agenda are an extended fireworks display and flyovers by Air Force One, the custom Boeing 747 used by U.S. presidents, and the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels jet squadron.“I’m going to say a few words, and we’re going to have planes going overhead,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “And we’re going to have tanks stationed outside.”Democrats in Congress have accused Trump of hijacking the event to boost his re-election prospects in 2020. They have also questioned how much the event will cost the cash-strapped National Park Service.Trump has pushed for a military parade in Washington since he marveled at the Bastille Day military parade in Paris in 2017. His administration postponed a parade that had been planned for Veterans Day in November 2018 after costs ballooned to $90 million, three times the initial estimate.Trump said modern M1 Abrams tanks and World War Two-era Sherman tanks would both be on display. District of Columbia officials have said the heavy military equipment could damage city streets.“You’ve got to be pretty careful with the tanks because the roads have a tendency not to like to carry heavy tanks, so we have to put them in certain areas,” Trump said.The antiwar group Code Pink said it had secured permits to fly a “Baby Trump” blimp, depicting the president in diapers, during his speech. “Babies need enormous amounts of attention and are unable to gauge the consequences of their behavior - just like Donald Trump,” co-founder Medea Benjamin said in a news release.The Interior Department, which oversees the event, has not said how much the event will cost. Two fireworks firms will put on a 35-minute display for free, which the agency said was equal to a donation of $700,000.Reporting by Andy Sullivan and Makini Brice; Additional reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Diane Craft and Peter Cooneyfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
WASHINGTON—In striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act this past week, the Supreme Court not only rejected a longstanding rationale for laws disfavoring gays and lesbians—the welfare of children. The court turned it on its head.Backers had justified the 1996 federal law as a way to ensure children didn't grow up thinking that gay relationships were equal to those of heterosexuals. The same was true for Proposition 8, the 2008 California initiative ending same-sex marriage that also fell with the Wednesday ruling by the high court. More As a testament to "moral disapproval of homosexuality," the Defense of Marriage Act could discourage "wavering children" from becoming gay themselves, the House report on the legislation said. Likewise, because "the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father," Proposition 8 would stop public schools from teaching children "that gay marriage is OK," according to the proponents' official ballot statement. House Republicans echoed that view at a news conference this past week to denounce the Supreme Court's ruling. "The Supreme Court has ignored the needs of children," said Rep. Randy Weber (R., Texas). "The desires of adults are not more important than the needs of children," added Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.). While such arguments seemed aimed at heterosexual parents who view homosexuality as a threat to their children, the Supreme Court on Wednesday looked to another group of children—those whose parents are gay. Politics Counts By denying those families legitimacy, the Defense of Marriage Act "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. DOMA, as it is known, "makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives," Justice Kennedy wrote. The harm went beyond humiliation, the court found. DOMA "raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers' same-sex spouses," Justice Kennedy wrote. "And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security." By focusing on the rights of children, who aren't responsible for their parents' identity, Justice Kennedy went beyond his prior rulings upholding gay rights. This time, his ruling was grounded in concrete harms as well as abstract notions of equality. Same-sex marriage proponents previously have raised the benefits to children in state litigation. In 2009, for instance, the Iowa Supreme Court cited the interests of children of gay parents in holding that the state Constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage. Some states have sought to head off similar rulings by amending their state constitutions to explicitly bar same-sex marriage. While Wednesday's Supreme Court decision left intact laws in 35 states that forbid gay marriages, Justice Kennedy has now made the interest of children a factor when weighing whether laws disfavoring gays violate the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court previously has invalidated state laws that injured children as a way of expressing moral disapproval of their parents' behavior. In the 1960s, the court began to strike down laws that denied rights to children of unmarried couples. Louisiana, for example, had barred such children from suing over the wrongful death of a parent. A state court upheld that statute. "Denying illegitimate children the right to recover in such a case is actually based on morals and general welfare because it discourages bringing children into the world out of wedlock," it said. The Supreme Court disagreed. "Why should the illegitimate child be denied rights merely because of his birth out of wedlock?" Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the court. "We conclude that it is invidious to discriminate against them when no action, conduct, or demeanor of theirs is possibly relevant." Separately, same-sex marriages resumed in California on Friday afternoon following a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the stay on the case after Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling. Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Media caption, President Trump confirms he's prepared to shut down the government for months or yearsUS President Donald Trump has said he could declare a national emergency to build a US-Mexico border wall without the approval of Congress.It came after he met senior Democrats, who refused his requests for funding.The stand-off has seen Mr Trump withhold support for a bill to fully fund the government until he gets money for the border wall. He said he was prepared for the partial government shutdown - now in its third week - to last years.Around 800,000 federal workers have been without pay since 22 December.Trump aides and lawmakers will meet later on Saturday in a fresh bid to resolve the impasse. What happened in Friday's meeting with Democrats?The Republican president initially gave a positive account of the 90-minute meeting at the White House, describing it as "very productive".But when asked whether he had considered using emergency presidential powers to bypass congressional approval of funding, Mr Trump said he had."I may do it. We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly. That's another way of doing it."Image source, EPAImage caption, Democrats House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer walk out of the West Wing"I'm very proud of doing what I'm doing," the president added. "I don't call it a shutdown, I call it doing what you have to do for the benefit and safety of our country."House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday's meeting had been "contentious", while Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said: "We told the president we needed the government open. He resisted."Can Trump declare a national emergency?Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, WashingtonDonald Trump says he can declare a "national emergency" and build his promised wall along the border without congressional approval. If that's the case, the question becomes why he doesn't go ahead and do that. Why put federal workers through the pain of forgoing pay and hamstring key government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, if he could bypass Democratic objections with the snap of his presidential fingers?The answer is because the solution isn't that simple. There are provisions of US law that allow the president to direct military construction projects during war or national emergency, but that money would have to come from Defence Department funds allocated by Congress for other purposes. Such a move may prompt Congress, including Republicans, to push back.Then there's the inevitable legal challenge from Democrats to such an exercise of presidential authority. Any presidential order to build a wall would be met by an equally imposing wall of court filings blocking its construction.The president's latest suggestions are best viewed as simply another attempt to gain the upper hand in negotiations with Democrats.This may not be a threat, more a bluff.What's the background?Democrats, who now hold the majority in the House, passed spending bills on Thursday to reopen the government, including $1.3bn (£1bn) of border security funds until 8 February.But the legislation cannot take effect unless it passes the Republican-controlled Senate, where leader Mitch McConnell said his party would not back any measure without the president's support.Media caption, Five historic moments as new US Congress opensThe Kentucky senator called the Democratic budget "a time-wasting act of political posturing".In Friday's news conference, Mr Trump also told reporters he might consider asking his cabinet to decline a $10,000 raise that is due to take effect because a pay freeze has expired as an inadvertent result of the shutdown.The fiscal fiasco began when Congress and Mr Trump failed to reach an agreement over a budget bill in December.Media caption, The return of the woman Republicans love to hateThe Republicans had passed an initial funding bill including $5bn (£4bn) for the wall, when they still had a majority in the House, but they could not get the necessary 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate. Two vulnerable Republican senators up for re-election in 2020 - Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine - have broken ranks to back approving the budget and ending the shutdown.The White House is again floating the idea of a deal for "Dreamers" - immigrants who illegally entered the US as children. Democrats want to ensure that these individuals are shielded from deportation, but have insisted that they will not support a deal over wall funding.Vice-President Mike Pence told Fox News the deal was being "talked about", but that Mr Trump said no deal was possible "without a wall".What does the partial shutdown mean?About 25% of the US federal government has no fundingNine departments have been affected, including Homeland Security, Justice, Housing, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and the TreasuryNative American tribes who receive substantial federal funding are strugglingNational Parks have become hazardous without staffMore on this story:More women than ever before won seats in Congress in the 2018 mid-terms.More on this story
| 1 |
BURLINGTON, Vt. (Reuters) - A resolute Bernie Sanders said on Wednesday he would stay in the Democratic presidential race despite a series of big losses to front-runner Joe Biden, promising to keep up the public pressure for his sweeping economic and social justice proposals.Sanders acknowledged falling behind the former vice president in the count of delegates needed to win the nomination, but said he remained committed to the overarching goal of defeating Republican President Donald Trump in November.“On Sunday night, in the first one-on-one debate of this campaign, the American people will have the opportunity to see which candidate is best positioned to accomplish that goal,” he told reporters.Biden, 77, and Sanders, 78, will debate in Phoenix on Sunday ahead of nominating contests next Tuesday in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio.On Tuesday, Biden notched decisive primary victories in Michigan and three other states, taking a big step toward the party’s nomination to take on Trump, 73, and casting doubt on the future of Sanders’ White House bid.Sanders - who won in North Dakota but had hoped for an upset victory in the key state of Michigan to boost his flagging chances - said his anti-corporate economic agenda was winning the ideological battle and gaining support from young people who are the country’s future.Many Democratic voters, however, still believe Biden has the best chance of beating Trump, Sanders said.“While our campaign has won the ideological debate, we are losing the debate over electability,” said the democratic socialist U.S. senator from Vermont.Sanders’ losses on Tuesday, coming after a series of Biden wins in last week’s Super Tuesday contests in 14 states, put Sanders in a deeper hole in the delegate count. Biden leads Sanders 786-645 in the race for the 1,991 delegates needed to clinch the nomination at July’s Democratic convention.Biden has already begun to look ahead to the November election, calling for party unity and making an appeal to supporters of Sanders.“We share a common goal, and together we are going to defeat Donald Trump,” Biden said in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, thanking Sanders and his supporters for their energy and passion.WAS ONCE FRONT-RUNNERJust two weeks ago, Sanders was seen as the front-runner after an impressive win in Nevada in mid-February, while Biden and the other moderate candidates split the vote of the party’s centrists.But Democrats who worried Sanders’ agenda would doom the party to defeat in November have rushed to rally around Biden. Biden’s decisive victories on Super Tuesday and in Tuesday’s showdown in Michigan created a growing sense of inevitability about his candidacy.Two of the largest Democratic super PACs said they would back Biden, and former rival Andrew Yang joined other former contenders like Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker in endorsing him.During his first presidential bid in 2016, Sanders’ battle with eventual winner Hillary Clinton lasted into June, long after the delegate math made her nomination inevitable.Sanders said he looked forward to advocating for his progressive agenda during the debate on Sunday, and previewed some of his questions for Biden.“Joe, what are you going to do to end the absurdity of the United States of America being the only major country on earth where healthcare is not a human right?” Sanders asked.“Joe, what are you going to do to end the absurdity of billionaires buying elections and the three wealthiest Americans owning more wealth than the bottom half of our people,” he said.The debate in Phoenix will not have an in-person audience because of health concerns over the coronavirus outbreak, which forced Sanders and Biden to cancel events in Cleveland on Tuesday. It was unclear how the pandemic might affect the campaign going forward.Biden planned to deliver remarks on Thursday on the issue, which he has characterized as a test of presidential leadership. His campaign canceled planned public events in Florida and Illinois and converted them into “virtual” campaign events to minimize health risks.Reporting by Michael Martina in Detroit, John Whitesides in Washington and Trevor Hunnicutt in Philadelphia; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Ginger Gibson and Chris Kahn in Washington; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Scott Malone, Howard Goller and Peter Cooneyfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, officials said Thursday, a major policy shift after the White House said it had confirmed that Damascus used chemical weapons in the country's civil war. The classified order directing the Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate arming the rebels in concert with its allies reverses a long-standing policy that limited the U.S. to providing nonlethal support. The White House declined to comment on the authorization, saying only that Mr. Obama had decided to ramp up "military support" to moderate rebels both in "scope and scale." U.S. officials also told The Wall Street Journal on Thursday that the U.S. military proposal for arming the rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced by U.S. and allied planes on Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there. Such a move, if the White House goes ahead, would represent a significantly bigger U.S. engagement in Syria's civil war. Syria in the SpotlightTrack the latest events in a map, see the key players and a chronology of the unrest.
Related Coverage The developments followed a series of high level meetings at the White House and consultations with allies in which officials discussed the intelligence findings and proposals for arming the rebels. U.S. officials said the issue divided Mr. Obama's national security team but that the administration faced little choice other than to step up its support or risk watching as rebels lose still more ground to a resurgent Assad regime backed by Russia, Iran and soldiers from the militant Hezbollah group. Rebels requested specific weapons to hold off Mr. Assad's forces and Hezbollah fighters who are closing in on rebel positions in the city of Aleppo, the Journal reported Wednesday. The head of Syria's opposition Supreme Military Council, or SMC, issued a plea to U.S. officials and others for arms. Ben Rhodes, the White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, said the U.S. has concluded that forces loyal to the Syrian regime have used chemical weapons against rebels, resulting in up to 150 deaths. The U.S. determination came the same day the United Nations reported that the number of deaths in the 27-month conflict has surpassed 90,000. The assessment on chemical weapons was based in part on laboratory analysis of physical samples taken from Syria, Mr. Rhodes said. He referred to the use of chemical weapons as a "red line" and said it has changed Mr. Obama's calculus about U.S. involvement in the conflict. In April, the White House notified Congress that U.S. intelligence agencies believed with "varying degrees of confidence" that Mr. Assad's forces had used chemical weapons, including sarin gas, in limited quantities. In the two months that followed, the U.S. came under heavy pressure from allies Britain and France to make a clear-cut determination. While U.S. officials initially voiced doubts, Britain and France said early on that they were more certain chemical weapons had been used. On Thursday, Mr. Rhodes said the U.S. now "has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information." The U.S. findings about chemical-weapons use were shared with Russia, part of a U.S. effort to get Moscow to cut support to Mr. Assad. The U.S. ramp-up will be a key issue at a gathering of leaders of the Group of 8 leading countries in Ireland next week. Mr. Rhodes highlighted four instances in which the U.S. believes chemical weapons were used: on March 19 in the Aleppo suburb of Khan Al-Asal; April 13 in the Aleppo neighborhood of Sheikh Maksud; May 14, in Qasr Abu Samra, which is north of Homs; and on May 23 in an attack in eastern Damascus. Officials said the White House has yet to decide what types of arms the U.S. will provide to the rebels. The rebels have asked for antitank missiles and antiaircraft weapons known as Manpads, as well as for large amounts of ammunition for small arms. U.S. officials have made clear the White House is unlikely to provide Manpads to the rebels because of concerns they could be turned against civilian aircraft. But the U.S. hasn't ruled out providing antitank weapons and small arms. Officials say European allies have expressed a willingness to provide Manpads and potentially other heavier weapons sought by rebels. "The red line has been crossed and now we are going to go ahead with arming the opposition," a senior U.S. official said. The move is an about-face by Mr. Obama, who last year blocked a proposal backed by then-Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the rebels. At the time, Mr. Obama voiced concerns that arms could end up in the hands of Islamists battling Mr. Assad. But administration officials who favored providing arms said the White House believes it has a clearer picture today of the opposition and confidence that sufficient safeguards can be put in place to prevent U.S. weapons from reaching Islamist fighters aligned with al Qaeda. More important, officials say, the White House was moved by concerns that Mr. Assad's forces and thousands of Hezbollah fighters may be poised for an assault on Aleppo that would deal such a serious blow to moderate rebel forces that it will be hard for them to regroup and bounce back. U.S. officials say weapons and training will likely be delivered to the rebels inside Jordan, a key ally that has been overwhelmed by a flood of refugees from Syria and has offered the U.S. use of its bases to help set up a safe zone along the Syrian border. U.S. military planners, responding to a request by the White House to develop options for Syria, recommended the limited no-fly zone along the Syrian border to protect rebels and refugees inside Jordan. The plan would create what one official called a "no fighting zone" that would stretch up to 25 miles into Syrian territory along the Jordanian border, preventing Mr. Assad's forces from launching attacks against the rebels and refugees and protecting U.S. personnel involved in distributing weapons and providing training. Under this plan, the U.S. and its allies would enforce the zone using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials. Jordan has been inundated by a flood of refugees that Jordanian and U.S. officials say is a growing threat to the kingdom, a key U.S. ally in the region. The U.S. has already moved Patriot air defense batteries and F-16 fighter planes to Jordan, which could be integral to any no-fly zone if Mr. Obama approves the military proposal. Proponents of the proposal think a no-fly zone could be imposed without a U.N. Security Council resolution, since the U.S. would not regularly enter Syrian airspace and wouldn't hold Syrian territory. U.S. planes have air-to-air missiles that could destroy Syrian planes from long ranges. But officials said that aircraft may be required to enter Syrian air space if threatened by advancing Syrian planes. Such an incursion by the U.S., if it were to happen, could be justified as self-defense, officials say. Creating even a limited buffer zone that Syrian airplanes cannot enter will be expensive, costing an estimated $50 million a day, officials said. Republican lawmakers were quick to praise the increase in aid. Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona said in a joint statement: "The president's red line has been crossed. U.S. credibility is on the line. Now is not the time to merely take the next incremental step. Now is the time for more decisive actions." Write to Adam Entous at [email protected] and Julian E. Barnes at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
President TrumpDonald TrumpHillicon Valley — Cyberattack hits Ukrainian defense On The Money — GOP senators block Biden's Fed picks Florida county clerk's typo directed ticketed drivers to site selling Trump merchandise MORE's decision to block an overseas fact-finding trip planned by Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOregon Democrat violates conflicts-of-interest law, failing to report stock trades by deadline Pelosi leading congressional delegation to Israel, Germany, UK Feehery: Washington's biggest scandal MORE (D-Calif.) and other Democrats has intensified a showdown between two of Washington’s most powerful figures over a partial federal government shutdown with no end in sight.Trump's stunning decision on Thursday to cancel the military plane scheduled to shuttle the Democrats to Brussels and Afghanistan was widely viewed as retaliation for Pelosi’s effort, just a day earlier, to postpone the president’s Jan. 29 State of the Union address until the government is reopened.Borrowing language from Pelosi’s own proposal, Trump said the Democrats can take their trip when the spending impasse has ended.“We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the shutdown is over,” Trump wrote to Pelosi. “I also feel that, during this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the shutdown.”The maneuver drew immediate howls from Democrats — and even some Republicans — who lamented the near-collapse of comity between the two parties and expressed deep concerns about how the sides will find the common ground to end what has evolved into the longest government closure in the nation’s history. Amid the finger-pointing over which party is to blame, the messages quickly devolved into acrimonious personal insults.“All too often in the last two years the president has acted like he is in the fifth grade,” said Rep. Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffPelosi leading congressional delegation to Israel, Germany, UK Trump Jan. 6 comments renew momentum behind riot probe Mask rules spark political games and a nasty environment in the House MORE (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who was poised to go on the trip.“To have someone who has that kind of character running the country is an enormous problem at every level.”Ambling through the Capitol, House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerWhite House director of broadcast media leaving for private sector Pelosi won't say if she'll run for Speaker again if Democrats win: 'That's not a question' Questions loom over how to form congressional staff union MORE (D-Md.) appeared disgusted, saying Trump’s decision “demeans the presidency.” And Rep. Dan KildeeDaniel (Dan) Timothy KildeeHouse Democrats warn delay will sink agenda Overnight Energy & Environment — Biden tries to reverse Trump on power plants 23 House Democrats call for Biden to keep full climate funds in Build Back Better MORE (D-Mich.) characterized the move as "petty, childish and counterproductive."“She's doing her duty as a senior member of the United States government, and the fact that the president would think that's not important because he's going to have another temper tantrum is just another indication just how dangerous this psychologically unfit person is to hold that office,” Kildee told The Hill.“This is not good."Trump, in his letter, characterized Pelosi’s trip as a “public relations event,” inviting the Democrats to resume their travel plans on commercial flights.“That would certainly be your prerogative,” he wrote.The message fits a familiar mold for a president with notoriously thin skin who doesn’t take kindly to criticism. His targets have transcended party and profession, to include Democrats, Republicans, the media, celebrities and just about anyone else who challenges his actions. The common theme is this: If you whack me, I’ll whack back harder.The Democrats were not alone in criticizing Trump’s response. Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamThe conservative case for nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court The Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war Anxious Democrats want Biden to speed up vetting for Supreme Court pick MORE (R-S.C.), a Trump ally, said it was “inappropriate” for Trump to postpone Pelosi’s visit with the troops. But Graham also reserved plenty of fire for the Democrats.“One sophomoric response does not deserve another,” Graham said in a statement.Other Republicans offered support for Trump's response, arguing he was fully within his rights and that Pelosi should be in Washington to work toward an end to the shutdown. Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) argued it was one thing for Trump to travel to Iraq to visit U.S. troops during the shutdown and another for Pelosi to do so."I think the president of the United States represents the entire country as commander in chief. I think if he wants to speak to the troops, that it certainly honors our entire nation," Turner told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview. "I think Nancy Pelosi's been elected from a small portion of San Francisco. She should be behind her desk right now working diligently to open this government, close the border, and not pursue the open border policies she has, and make certain that we can move forward."Trump’s decision marked the first formal response from the White House to Pelosi’s own entreaty, delivered to the White House Wednesday morning, to delay the State of the Union address until the government is fully funded. Pelosi noted that the Homeland Security Department and Secret Service are both affected by the partial shutdown, expressing concerns about security risks surrounding the president’s high-profile annual speech.Republicans pounced, accusing Pelosi of seeking to deny Trump an enormous national platform to make the case for his border wall — the source of the spending impasse — during the shutdown. Pelosi, for her part, rejected that characterization on Thursday morning.“I’m not denying the platform at all,” she told reporters in the Capitol. “We’re saying let’s get a date when government is open. Let’s pay the employees.”Trump’s letter, which arrived several hours after Pelosi’s remarks, appeared to be timed for maximum impact.A handful of Democrats were already aboard a U.S. Air Force bus outside the Longworth Office Building on Capitol Hill, waiting to be shuttled to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for a flight to Brussels. After meeting with NATO commanders and U.S. military leaders in the Belgian capital, the lawmakers were scheduled to continue on to Afghanistan, where they would visit with troops and “obtain critical national security and intelligence briefings from those on the front lines,” according to Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.When it became clear the trip was not happening, a number of those Democrats — including Reps. Schiff; Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelLawmakers pay tribute to Colin Powell NYC snafu the latest flub from a broken elections agency Cynthia Nixon backs primary challenger to Rep. Carolyn Maloney MORE (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Mark TakanoMark Allan TakanoToxic-exposed veterans have held up their part of the pact — now it's our turn This week: Democrats set for showdown on voting rights, filibuster Key House chairman wants to lead official trip to Taiwan in January MORE (D-Calif.), who chairs the Veterans’ Affairs panel — gathered in Pelosi’s office in the Capitol to discuss next steps. Engel, in cargo pants, appeared to be dressed in preparation for a long flight.Over the next six hours, with a bank of cameras and dozens of reporters outside her office, Pelosi never emerged. Instead, Schiff addressed the press, with sharp words for Trump and an elusive message about the Democrats’ response that could have been interpreted to mean that Pelosi was still seeking ways to take her trip.“We’re not going to allow the President of the United States to tell the Congress it can’t fulfill its oversight responsibilities, it can’t ensure that our troops have what they need whether our government is open or closed,” Schiff said.“As far as we can tell, this has never happened in the annals of congressional history,” he continued. “But at the end of the day, we’re determined our oversight will continue no matter what the president’s actions are.”As the Democrats plotted in Pelosi’s office, another power-meeting was happening across the Capitol, where Vice President Pence and Jared KushnerJared Corey KushnerTrump creates new Jan. 6 headaches for GOP Donald Trump slams Jan. 6 panel after Ivanka Trump interview request: 'They'll go after children' Kushner investment firm raises more than B: report MORE were huddling with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGOP scrambles to figure out what Trump legal drama means for future Senate leaders send Putin symbolic warning shot amid invasion fears GOP boycotts Biden Fed nominees' vote as bank fights inflation MORE (R-Ky.), who’s facing increasing pressure from moderate Republican senators to open the government and then negotiate border security — the same message Pelosi and the Democrats are airing.Pence and Kushner did not comment upon leaving the meeting.What happens next remains unclear. Pelosi did not rescind her State of the Union invitation to Trump in her letter this week. Instead, she suggested that — “unless government reopens this week” — the pair “work together to determine another suitable date after government has reopened.”But House lawmakers left the Capitol Thursday for the long holiday weekend without ending the impasse, leading to plenty of speculation about Pelosi’s next move. It became clear late Thursday that any such announcement wouldn’t come before Friday.“Go home,” Hammill told reporters still lingering outside Pelosi’s office Thursday night. “You’re not going to get anything else from us today.”
| 1 |
By Max Greenwood - 01/23/17 08:42 PM EST © Getty Images The Obama administration sent $221 million to the Palestinian Authority on Friday as President Obama prepared to leave the White House for the last time, The Associated Press reports.The outgoing administration formally notified Congress of the decision just hours before President Trump was inaugurated.Congress had initially approved the spending. But two House Republicans, Reps. Ed Royce (Calif.), who serves as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay GrangerNorvell (Kay) Kay Granger Negotiators reach 'breakthrough' in government funding talks House passes stopgap bill to prevent shutdown Lawmakers say spending deal up to leaders MORE (Texas), who is on the powerful Appropriations Committee, put holds on the aid money because the Palestinian Authority was seeking membership in international organizations.Former Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryWhy not try a different path to defend Ukraine? Largest companies' 'net-zero' promises avoid meaningful, immediate cuts: analysis Coming soon: Climate lockdowns? MORE notified some lawmakers about the decision to release the money on Thursday, the AP reports.The $221 million sent to the Palestinian Authority is intended to provide humanitarian aid in ares such as Gaza and the West Bank, as well as to support political reforms there.The Obama administration also notified lawmakers on Friday that it would release $6 million in foreign spending, with $4 million of it going to programs to fight climate change and $1.25 million to United Nations organizations.Trump has voiced skepticism about climate change in the past and has criticized the U.N. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are © 1998 - 2022 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
| 1 |
Progressive allies of Rep. Ilhan OmarIlhan OmarBlack women lawmakers commend Biden on commitment for Supreme Court nominee Congressional Black Caucus members press DOJ on voting rights: 'No lawsuit is too trivial' Omar seeking third term in Congress MORE (D-Minn.) are rushing to her defense as the House prepares to approve a resolution condemning anti-Semitism that is largely seen as a rebuke of the outspoken lawmaker’s remarks about Israel.Omar’s progressive allies largely stayed quiet during other recent controversies regarding Israel, which led to an apology from Omar.But this time, Omar is holding her ground, and supporters such as fellow progressive freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezThe Hill's Morning Report - Russia-Ukraine waiting game Ocasio-Cortez laments 'sh-- show' of Congress Sanders endorses Jessica Cisneros over sitting Democratic lawmaker MORE (D-N.Y.) are speaking out.Ocasio-Cortez said advancing a resolution to rebuke Omar should have only been done as a last resort if efforts to address the remarks privately didn’t work. “ ‘Calling out’ is one of the measures of last resort, not 1st or 2nd resort,” she wrote in a tweet on Tuesday. “We do it when repeated attempts to ‘call in’ are disrespected or ignored. And I believe that Ilhan, in her statement a few weeks ago, has demonstrated a willingness to listen+work w/impacted communities.”Progressive Rep. Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibOmar seeking third term in Congress Democrats press cryptomining companies on energy consumption Overnight Energy & Environment — Biden announces green buildings initiative MORE (D-Mich.), who with Omar is one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, also tweeted that her fellow freshman is “being targeted just like many civil rights icons before us who spoke out about oppressive policies.”The House resolution, which could receive a vote as soon as Wednesday, does not mention Omar at all. But it was thrown together after she accused people who back Israel of pushing allegiance to a foreign country.“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said at an event last week at Washington, D.C.’s Busboys and Poets restaurant. “I want to ask, why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy?”The resolution states that the House “rejects anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.”Ocasio-Cortez suggested there was a double standard for rebuking lawmakers with votes on resolutions.“One of the things that is hurtful about the extent to which reprimand is sought of Ilhan is that no one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx + other communities (during the shutdown, a GOP member yelled ‘Go back to Puerto Rico!’ on the floor),” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, referring to an incident in January when Rep. Jason SmithJason Thomas SmithOvernight Health Care — Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding Biden administration eyes billion for COVID-19 funding in talks with Congress Republican rep won't run for Senate, hopes to become Ways and Means chair: report MORE (R-Mo.) yelled “Go back to Puerto Rico!” at Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.). Smith later apologized and claimed he was referring to a House Democratic delegation to Puerto Rico during the shutdown.This isn’t the first time Omar has faced accusations of anti-Semitism.In January, she expressed regret over a 2012 tweet amid the Gaza war stating, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”Last month, Omar suggested that U.S. lawmakers defending Israel are motivated by campaign donations, tweeting, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” Omar later apologized under pressure from House Democratic leaders. Two days later, the House adopted a measure from Rep. David KustoffDavid Frank KustoffHouse GOP seek to block Biden from reopening Palestinian mission in Jerusalem READ: The Republicans who voted to challenge election results Lobbying world MORE (R-Tenn.) to condemn anti-Semitism as part of a resolution to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen. That resolution also didn’t specifically mention Omar, who voted for it.This time, Omar has defended herself.When House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita LoweyNita Sue LoweyTwo women could lead a powerful Senate spending panel for first time in history Lobbying world Progressives fight for leverage amid ever-slimming majority MORE (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, criticized her remarks, Omar wrote on Twitter, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”In response, the Anti-Defamation League expressed support for a resolution condemning anti-Semitism.Other, more liberal groups have taken a different tack.J Street, which describes itself as a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy group, issued a statement on Tuesday endorsing the effort to rebuke anti-Semitism but questioned the effectiveness of targeting Omar. “At the same time, we are concerned that the timing of the resolution will be seen as singling out and focusing special condemnation on a Muslim woman of color — as if her views and insensitive comments pose a greater threat than the torrent of hatred that the white nationalist right continues to level against Jews, Muslims, people of color and other vulnerable minority groups in our country,” J Street said in the statement. “By narrowly focusing on progressive critics of Israeli policy and the politics surrounding Israel-related issues, much of our current debate bears little relation to the reality of anti-Semitism in the United States today. This plays directly into the hands of the president and his allies, who act in bad faith to weaponize the debate for political gain,” J Street’s statement added.IfNotNow, a Jewish progressive activist group, started a petition urging Democratic leaders to withdraw the resolution, arguing the focus should be on white nationalism. A coalition of Muslim and left-leaning Jewish advocacy groups also plan to hold a press conference on Wednesday in support of Omar and urge Democratic leaders to “equally condemn” anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism.Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerAmerican unity is key to a Europe whole and free Anxious Democrats want Biden to speed up vetting for Supreme Court pick Democratic Senate debates merits of passion vs. pragmatism MORE (D-N.Y.) called Omar’s comments “wrong and hurtful,” but also called for condemning Islamophobia. An altercation broke out last week over the display of a poster at the West Virginia Statehouse linking Omar to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.“I also want to say that what happened linking all Muslims to the terrorist attack was wrong and hurtful and both should be condemned,” Schumer said.Conservative-leaning groups focused on Israel and GOP lawmakers have called for Omar’s removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but Democrats are signaling they have no plans to do so.Rep. Gerry ConnollyGerald (Gerry) Edward ConnollyOvernight Energy & Environment — Postal Service faces ire over vehicle plans Democrats press postmaster to go with electric vehicles Former Washington football team staffers detail sexual harassment, humiliation, racism to House panel MORE (D-Va.), a fellow House Foreign Affairs Committee member, pointed out that Republicans never removed former Rep. Dana RohrabacherDana Tyrone RohrabacherNow someone wants to slap a SPACE Tax on Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, et al 'Blue wave' Democrats eye comebacks after losing reelection Former Rep. Rohrabacher says he took part in Jan. 6 march to Capitol but did not storm building MORE (R-Calif.) from the panel despite his pro-Russia views that many disagreed with.At the same time, Connolly thinks Democratic leadership’s decision to pass the resolution in response to Omar is appropriate.“I’m not Jewish. And I’m not a member of AIPAC. And I’m offended. You don’t have to be Jewish to take offense at age-old tropes and stereotypes that led to some horrible things in the 20th century,” Connolly said Tuesday. Connolly said the current calls to reconsider Omar’s seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee could potentially grow louder if she sparks yet more controversy. “Should it happen again, I think that will be a topic of conversation,” Connolly said. Other Democrats warned the body was coming close to equating speaking against the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to anti-Semitism. “Voting to condemn antisemitism is fine, even if you feel compelled to do it twice. But I worry that accusation is a way to kill all debate about policy regarding Israel,” tweeted Sen. Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzThe Hill's 12:30 Report: Negotiations crawl as government funding deadline nears Democrats hit limits with Luján's absence Luján stroke jolts 50-50 Senate MORE (D-Hawaii), who is Jewish. “And folks need some new, non-inflammatory language to be supportive of Israel but opposed to Bibi’s policies,” Schatz added, referring to Netanyahu.Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyOn The Money — GOP senators block Biden's Fed picks Negotiators make progress in fiscal 2022 spending talks Democrats show little appetite for Biden's call for gun control MORE (D-Conn.) suggested Twitter was the problem.“We should set as a predicate that we all support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and there’s probably lots of disagreement amongst members of Congress as to the elements of that,” Murphy told reporters. “Twitter and social media is not a great place to make much of this, which seems to be where a lot of the debate is happening these days.”Jordain Carney contributed.
| 1 |
(Reuters) - A candidate backed by U.S. President Donald Trump convincingly won a two-man Republican primary run-off for governor of Georgia on Tuesday in a race that became a proxy battle between the president and the state’s popular Republican governor, Nathan Deal.Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, whose hard line campaign approach dovetailed with Trump’s, was projected to defeat Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, who had the endorsement of Deal, local media reported.Kemp earned the president’s backing last week, a surprise endorsement that analysts said gave him an edge in a race between the two conservatives.Kemp thanked Trump for his support in a speech accepting his victory.“We had the momentum in this race and those endorsements by the president and the vice president, they poured gasoline on the fire and fueled the Kemp surge to victory,” he told supporters.With about 90 percent of the votes reported, Kemp was backed by 69 percent of the Republican voters against Cagle’s 31 percent.Kemp will face Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is vying to become the first black woman to serve as a U.S. state governor in what is expected to be one of the most hotly contested races in November’s midterm elections.Trump carried Georgia by 5 percentage points in 2016.Cagle, 52, bested Kemp, 55, by 13 points in the first round of the Republican primary in May, though none of the candidates at the time won more than 50 percent of the vote, setting up a run-off election.Cagle’s support diminished, however, after secret recordings surfaced where he acknowledged supporting a bill he called “bad public policy” to undercut a rival in the race and said the primary appeared to be a contest to see who could be “craziest.”That last comment likely referred to Kemp’s political advertisements. In one, he sat in room full of guns with a shotgun on his lap while saying jokingly that a teenage boy with him should support the right to carry arms if he wanted to date his daughter and, in a second spot, promised to “round up” illegal immigrants in his pick-up truck.Deal, who cannot run again due to term limits, endorsed Cagle last week.Kemp tweeted on July 18 that would “unapologetically stand” with Trump.Both candidates embraced Trump and have similar policy positions, including support for gun rights and tough anti-illegal immigration measures.Reporting by Joseph Ax; Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Leslie Adler and Christian Schmollingerfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
ORLANDO, Fla. (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday met survivors of a massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub and relatives of the 49 people killed and said the United States must act to control gun violence and fight what he called homegrown terrorism.“I held and hugged grieving family members and parents, and they asked, ‘Why does this keep happening?’,” Obama told reporters, before urging Congress to pass measures to make it harder to legally acquire high-powered weapons like the semi-automatic rifle used in the attack on Sunday.“I’m pleased to hear that the Senate will hold votes on preventing individuals with possible terrorist ties from buying guns,” he said.Obama and Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Orlando, Florida, four days after a U.S.-born gunman claiming allegiance to various Islamist militant groups carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.During the shooting rampage the gunman, Omar Mateen, exchanged text messages with his wife, it was reported on Thursday, as well as posting on Facebook and placing a phone call to a television station. Police killed Mateen, 29, a U.S. citizen born in New York to Afghan immigrants.Obama, who has visited mass shooting victims’ families in towns from San Bernardino, California, to Newtown, Connecticut, since he has been president, laid flowers at a memorial for the victims of the attack on the Pulse nightclub.Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack but U.S. officials have said they do not believe Mateen was assisted from abroad. CIA Director John Brennan told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday that the agency had “not been able to uncover any direct link” between Mateen and militants abroad.A married couple also claiming allegiance to Islamic State shot dead 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.ORLANDO MOURNSWakes were held on Thursday for at least four victims - Kimberly Morris, Anthony Luis Laureano Disla, Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera and Roy Fernandez, as Orlando braced for what was expected to be two weeks of somber events.More than 300 people, including Florida Governor Rick Scott, came to the viewing for Ortiz-Rivera, who was born in Dorado, Puerto Rico. He was 36 when he was killed during a night of dancing to celebrate a friend’s new house - his husband had stayed home that night in the couple’s apartment.“He was in a Snapchat video that’s out there, dancing away, so we know he had some fun before the madness,” said his cousin, Orlando Gonzalez.Twenty-three of the 53 wounded remained hospitalized, six in critical condition, according to the Orlando Regional Medical Center.One of Mateen’s Facebook messages during the attack, apparently referring to air strikes against Islamic State by the United States and its allies, said: “You kill innocent women and children by doing us air strikes ... now taste the Islamic State vengeance,” according to U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, who asked Facebook to turn over material from Mateen’s accounts.CNN reported, citing a law enforcement official it did not identify, that Mateen had also exchanged text messages with his wife, Noor Salman, during the three hours he was holed up in a bathroom inside the nightclub. Salman is under investigation to find out whether she knew about Mateen’s plans ahead of time.Florida news website TCPalm reported that Mateen, who worked as a security guard, was frequently suspended while he was in junior high and high school, and was passed to the next grade despite poor academic performance. It cited records from St. Lucie County schools.CONGRESS UNDER PRESSUREThe attack sparked a new debate over how the United States responds to Islamist militant violence at home and abroad, with Republican Senator John McCain telling reporters on Thursday he viewed Obama as “directly responsible” for the Orlando attack because of his failure to prevent the rise of Islamic State.Shortly afterward, McCain said on his official Twitter feed that he was referring to Obama’s national security decisions, “not to the President himself.”Mateen carried out the slaughter with an assault weapon and handgun that had been legally purchased although he had twice been investigated by the FBI for possible connections with militant Islamist groups.Obama reiterated his frustration over the failure of Congress to pass any gun control measures in more than two decades. The massacre put pressure on Congress to act.After a marathon of speeches by Democrats on Wednesday and into the early hours of Thursday, a Democratic senator said Republicans had agreed to hold votes on measures to expand background checks and prevent people on U.S. terrorism watch lists from buying guns.No formal deal between the parties for votes was announced, and it was unclear when and how the Senate would proceed with the votes, which would be amendments to an appropriations bill funding the Commerce and Justice departments. Even if votes are scheduled, it is unclear whether any of the bills could gain enough support to pass the Senate.Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said the chamber would most likely vote on four gun control measures on Monday.Republicans, who currently hold a 54-person majority in the 100-seat Senate, have blocked a number of Democratic-backed gun control measures over the years, saying they infringed on Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump also joined the gun debate, announcing on Wednesday he would meet the National Rifle Association to talk about barring people who are on terrorism watch lists from buying guns.Additional reporting by Julia Harte and Peter Eisler in Orlando, Patricia Zengerle and Jonathan Landay in Washington and Zachary Fagenson in West Palm Beach, Florida; Writing by Scott Malone; Editing by Howard Goller, Peter Cooney and Paul Taitfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
Trump Picks Heather Nauert, Former Fox News Anchor, As U.N. Ambassador State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert speaks during a briefing last year. President Trump announced Friday that Nauert is his choice as the next ambassador to the United Nations. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption toggle caption Alex Brandon/AP State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert speaks during a briefing last year. President Trump announced Friday that Nauert is his choice as the next ambassador to the United Nations. Alex Brandon/AP Updated on Friday at 2:44 p.m. ET. From Fox & Friends to the State Department, and now likely to the United Nations. President Trump says he will nominate Heather Nauert, the State Department spokeswoman and a former Fox News host, to become the next ambassador to the U.N. "She's very talented, very smart, very quick, and I think she's going to be respected by all, so Heather Nauert will be nominated for the ambassador to the United Nations," Trump told reporters Friday. If confirmed by the Senate, Nauert will replace Nikki Haley, who is leaving the post at the end of the year. Nauert was camera-ready when she came to the State Department in April 2017, having worked at ABC and Fox. She never traveled with and was not close to her first boss at the department, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. With Mike Pompeo in charge of State, Nauert has been on the road much more. Yet she faced some criticism for a tourist-like Instagram post from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on a trip that was meant to focus on the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Nauert (left) and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speak with reporters while flying from Panama to Mexico on Oct. 18. Brendan Smialowski/Pool/AP hide caption toggle caption Brendan Smialowski/Pool/AP Nauert (left) and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speak with reporters while flying from Panama to Mexico on Oct. 18. Brendan Smialowski/Pool/AP There have been other missteps, including the time when she cited D-Day — the Allied invasion of Normandy against the Nazis — as an example of America's strong relationship with Germany. She has been a strong defender of Trump's at the podium, something he has clearly noticed. "She's excellent, she's been with us a long time, she's been a supporter for a long time," Trump told reporters on Nov. 1. The State Department used to hold daily briefings. That has been scaled back to two a week, at most. Nauert, 48, has been back and forth between her husband and two sons in New York and her job in Washington, D.C. Before joining the Trump administration, she had no government or foreign policy experience, though she did work on some overseas assignments for ABC, including in Baghdad.
| 1 |
Former presidential candidate Tom Steyer spoke at his Get Out the Vote rally in Columbia, S.C., on Friday, the day before the Democratic primary. Photo: mark makela/Reuters Updated Feb. 29, 2020 9:49 pm ET Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist and San Francisco hedge-fund founder, said he is ending his Democratic presidential bid after pouring more than $250 million of his personal fortune into it. “I said if I didn’t see a path to winning that I’d suspend my campaign, and honestly, I can’t see a path where I can win the presidency,” Mr. Steyer said late Saturday, after coming in third in South Carolina’s primary, where he had spent much of his time and resources. He added that he would support whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee. Mr. Steyer, 62 years old, has never held political office and began his long-shot campaign in July, launching a well-funded barrage of advertising calling President Trump unfit for office and sounding the alarm on climate change. But in November, an even wealthier billionaire entered the race and began outspending him. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had spent more than double Mr. Steyer’s campaign investment by the end of January. Mr. Steyer largely ignored the first few primary states and staked his candidacy on South Carolina, where he concentrated most of his time and won the backing of several prominent African-American local lawmakers. He spent about $22 million on TV and radio ads in the state—more than eight times as much as the next-highest spender, according to ad tracker Kantar/CMAG. Mr. Bloomberg has focused on states that vote in March. Nationally, Mr. Steyer’s campaign also spent much more than all of the Democrats in the race except for Mr. Bloomberg, Federal Election Commission reports show. But all that money wasn’t enough to help him break through. He averaged about 2.5% in national polls in late February, RealClear Politics shows. In the decade before he became a presidential candidate, Mr. Steyer’s generous spending on political candidates and groups supporting stricter environmental policies and his efforts to increase youth voter turnout made him one of the Democratic Party’s top donors. Those efforts and a self-financed TV campaign advocating the impeachment of Mr. Trump added up to about $350 million over the years, The Wall Street Journal found. —Sabrina Siddiqui contributed to this article. Write to Julie Bykowicz at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Appendixes and Enclosures IN THIS SECTIONAppendix I: Enclosures Economic IndicatorsVaccine ImplementationNursing Homes COVID-19 TestingHHS COVID-19 Funding Domestic Medical Supply ManufacturingDOD Vaccination Efforts for Civilians and ServicemembersStrategic National Stockpile Payment Integrity Strategic National Stockpile Federal Contracts and Agreements for COVID-19Unemployment Insurance ProgramsEconomic Impact Payments2021 Tax Filing SeasonNutrition AssistanceChild NutritionEmployer Tax ReliefLeave Benefits for EmployeesHigher Education GrantsTax Relief for Businesses Loans for Aviation and Other Eligible BusinessesFederal Reserve Lending Facilities Payroll Support Assistance to Aviation Businesses FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund Airport Grants Coronavirus State and Local Relief and Recovery Funds International TradeFederal Fraud-Related CasesPostal Service Appendix II: Highlights Pages from Recently Issued GAO COVID-19 Products Grant FlexibilitiesRemdesivir ResearchBehavioral HealthCommuter RailDepot MaintenanceGlobal Health SecurityCOVID-19 VaccinesEmergency Return of Citizens by HHSEmergency Student AidCOVID-19 LoansIndian EducationUSPS Changes since COVID-19VA COVID-19 FundingNursing Home COVID-19 OutbreaksMedicare and Medicaid FlexibilitiesVA Civilian COVID-19 ResponseEmployee Benefits Security AdministrationSBA Administrative ExpensesMilitary HealthNSF Research InfrastructureVA Community Living CentersTSA Airport CheckpointsCBP's COVID-19 Response2020 CensusVA COVID-19 ProcurementsUnemployment Insurance Potential Racial DisparitiesFourth of July 2020 Event CostsDOD Software DevelopmentAir MarshalsHHS Cybersecurity CollaborationVA Community CareImmigration Detention FacilitiesVA COVID-19 PreparednessMortgage Forbearance and Foreclosure State Fiscal Conditions in PandemicCoast Guard COVID-19 ResponseAppendix III: List of Ongoing GAO Work Related to COVID-19, as of June 23, 2021Appendix IV: Status of Our Matters for Congressional Consideration and Recommendations for Executive Action, as of June 2021Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security Appendix VIII: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Labor Appendix X: Comments from the Social Security Administration Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Treasury Appendix XII: Comments from the United States Postal Service Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of Veterans AffairsEconomic IndicatorsBookmark:Based on data available in June 2021, the national economy continued to recover, and areas of the economy we are monitoring saw broad-based improvement in recent months. Gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a 6.4 percent annual rate in the 1st quarter of 2021, to a level that was about 1 percent smaller than the size of the economy in 4th quarter 2019. Indicators for areas of the economy supported by the federal pandemic response saw broad-based improvement in recent months, with notable gains in employment, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector, and in state and local government finances (see table).[46] The strength of the economic recovery will continue to depend on the success of public health measures against the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly vaccinations.Indicators for Areas of the Economy Supported by the Federal COVID-19 Pandemic Response, Feb.–May 2021, Cumulative Changes since Feb. 2020aThe employment-to-population ratio represents the number of employed people as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over. The ratio is subject to a misclassification error with respect to identifying workers as employed and absent from work who are likely unemployed on temporary layoff. bHigher levels in the Consumer Credit Default Composite Index rate indicate more defaults on consumer loans, including auto loans, bank cards, and mortgages. The Consumer Credit Default Composite Index could be subject to seasonal variation but is not seasonally adjusted.cSeriously delinquent loans are 3 months or more past due or in foreclosure, based on mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Increases in serious delinquency rates on FHA loans could, to some extent, reflect borrowers taking advantage of mortgage forbearance provisions of the CARES Act, but may also indicate financial challenges facing the minority and low-to-moderate income households that disproportionately take out mortgages insured by FHA. We excluded February 2021 data from the figure because the delinquency rates for February 2021 are likely understated due to late reporting by a large servicer, according to FHA.dLower levels of the small business credit card delinquency index indicate more delayed payments on credit. The small business credit card delinquency index is published under license and with permission from Dun & Bradstreet, and no commercial use can be made of these data.eCorporate bond spreads are option-adjusted spreads on dollar-denominated investment grade corporate bonds from Bloomberg and are measured in basis points or 1/100th of a percentage point. Higher spreads reflect higher perceived risk among corporate borrowers by investors.fSpreads on municipal bonds are calculated relative to interest rates on Treasury securities based on the Bloomberg-Barclays Municipal Bond Index and are measured in basis points or 1/100th of a percentage point. Higher spreads reflect higher perceived risk among municipal borrowers by investors.gState and local government employment data from April 2021 and May 2021 are preliminary.Key drivers of the economic outlook. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), enacted in March 2021, includes economic provisions that are likely to influence supply and demand throughout the economy. Similar to the CARES Act, ARPA includes assistance for the unemployed and low-to-moderate income families through expanded unemployment benefits (see the Unemployment Insurance Programs enclosure in appendix I) and economic impact payments (see the Economic Impact Payments enclosure in appendix I), while offering further income support through child tax credits starting in July 2021.[47] These provisions of ARPA may reduce household financial stress and could increase demand for goods and services. The act also includes financial support to state and local governments (see the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds enclosure in appendix I) to spend on services and infrastructure, which may boost demand and supply, as well as employment in this sector of the economy.[48] Other provisions of the act may reduce supply-chain disruptions in the agricultural and health care sectors. To the extent that these provisions are effective or that ARPA increases overall economic growth, we could see these effects reflected in the economic indicators we are monitoring. The increasing availability of COVID-19 vaccinations has become a key aspect of the public health response to the pandemic and is likely to be an important driver of economic activity. The International Monetary Fund increased its 2021 forecast for the U.S. gross domestic product by 1.3 percentage points relative to the previous forecast, reflecting in part the impact of vaccinations on economic activity in the year.[49] For example, widespread vaccinations could increase consumer demand as concerns about COVID-19 decline.[50] In addition, as the number of people vaccinated has increased and COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined, many states have lifted pandemic-related restrictions, including indoor capacity limitations.[51] Altogether, the easing of pandemic-related restrictions, declining health concerns, and the opening of schools and daycare centers following more widespread vaccinations could increase the number of individuals able to return to work and allow businesses to more effectively supply goods and services.[52] See the Vaccine Implementation enclosure in appendix I for more information on COVID-19 vaccinations.The impact of ARPA and more widespread vaccinations against COVID-19 on supply and demand will have an important influence on the average level of prices in the economy and how fast those prices grow, known as inflation. A number of measures of actual and expected inflation have risen notably in recent months. For example, inflation forecasted for 2021 has risen from 1.7 percent to 3.5 percent over the last year.[53] Public debate is ongoing regarding whether such increases in inflation will be transitory or longer lasting, and how to address any persistent increases in inflation. If demand grows considerably faster than supply for an extended period of time, for example, then inflation could rise to levels that reduce long-term economic growth and exacerbate economic challenges facing low-income households.[54] While the level of inflation that is currently expected is unlikely to cause such problems, additional monitoring is warranted. Federal Reserve officials told us that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is acutely aware of the issues and has stated it feels well-prepared to act as necessary to achieve its monetary policy objectives. The FOMC is charged with conducting monetary policy to attain stable prices and maximum employment, and, in doing so, expects to achieve a rate of inflation that averages 2 percent over time. Key trends in economic indicators. Federal debt held by the public rose to $22.0 trillion in May 2021 from $21.6 trillion in December 2020, but fell slightly as a share of GDP, from 100.6 percent in the 4th quarter of 2020 to 99.7 percent of GDP in 1st quarter 2021. Interest rates on 3-month Treasury securities were relatively stable, falling to 0.02 percent in May 2021 from 0.04 percent in February 2021. Interest rates on 10-year Treasury securities, in contrast, increased from 1.26 percent to 1.62 percent over the same period. As we have noted in previous CARES Act reports, the long-term fiscal challenges facing the U.S. have been exacerbated by the pandemic and will require attention once the economy has returned to consistent growth and public health goals have been attained. Based on monthly and weekly data from the Department of Labor, labor market conditions improved in March, April, May, and June 2021 but remained worse relative to the prepandemic period. Weekly initial unemployment insurance claims fell from March to June 2021, indicating improvements in the labor market in recent months. The employment-to-population ratio in May 2021 was 58.0 percent, which was a slight increase from the previous month, but 3.1 percentage points lower than the prepandemic period (see figure). Employment-to-Population Ratio, Jan. 2019–May 2021Job growth across sectors continues to reflect the differential impact of the pandemic on different parts of the economy. For example, the industry responsible for much of the improvement in the labor market in March through May 2021 was the leisure and hospitality sector. Interest in leisure activities has improved as vaccinations have become more widespread, cases have fallen, and state and local governments have relaxed restrictions. However, despite job growth in the industry in the last few months, employment in the leisure and hospitality sector is still 15.0 percent lower than it was in February 2020. Serious delinquency rates—loans that are 90 or more days past due or in foreclosure—for single-family mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) decreased slightly from March to April 2021, to 10.58 percent of loans, but remained much higher than rates prior to the pandemic (see figure). FHA loans disproportionately serve minority and low-to-moderate income borrowers.[55] Falling delinquencies may to some extent reflect fewer borrowers taking advantage of mortgage forbearance provisions of the CARES Act.[56] In addition, falling delinquencies may indicate that FHA borrowers have seen some improvement in household finances in recent months.Serious Delinquency Rates on Single-Family Residential Mortgages, Jan. 2019–Apr. 2021Note: Seriously delinquent single-family loans are 3 months or more past due or in the foreclosure process. We excluded February 2021 data from the figure because the delinquency rates for February 2021 are likely understated due to late reporting by a large servicer, according to FHA.Employment by state and local governments increased in March through May 2021 (see figure), and spreads on municipal bonds fell over the same period, suggesting some improvement in state and local government finances.[57] State and Local Government Employment, Jan. 2019–May 2021MethodologyTo identify indicators for monitoring areas of the economy supported by the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular by the six COVID-19 relief laws, we reviewed prior GAO work, data from federal statistical agencies, information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) and relevant federal agencies responsible for the pandemic response and oversight of the health care system, data available on the Bloomberg Terminal, and input from internal GAO experts. We reviewed the most recent data from these sources as of April, May, or June 2021, depending on availability. We assessed the reliability of the economic indicators we used through a number of steps, including reviewing relevant documentation, reviewing prior GAO work, and interviewing data providers. Collectively, we determined the indicators were sufficiently reliable to provide a general sense of how the areas of the economy supported by the federal pandemic response were performing.Agency CommentsWe provided the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Labor (Labor), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Federal Reserve, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. Labor and the Federal Reserve provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. HUD, Treasury, and OMB did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe plan to monitor and report on changes in economic indicators, including developments in inflation, in future quarterly reports.Contact information: Lawrance L. Evans, Jr., (202) 512-8678, [email protected] ImplementationBookmark:To increase access to COVID-19 vaccination, the federal government has expanded the number of vaccine distribution channels and administration sites since COVID-19 vaccination began, and as of June 10, 2021, more than 372 million vaccine doses had been distributed in the United States.Entities involved: Department of Defense; Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and Health Resources and Services Administration; Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security; and the White House COVID-19 Response Team.Background Since the pandemic’s start, the federal government has played a key role in the development and manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines and the implementation of a vaccination program. Federal efforts to support vaccine development, manufacturing, and distribution to states and other jurisdictions have been led at the federal level by a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This partnership was formerly known as Operation Warp Speed, but since May 2021 it has been called the HHS-DOD COVID-19 Countermeasures Acceleration Group.[58] COVID-19 vaccine implementation, which involves the prioritization, allocation, distribution, and administration of vaccine doses, relies on communication and coordination among various stakeholders. Stakeholders include federal agencies, private industry, states and other jurisdictions, local health departments, tribal officials, and health care providers, among others.Since January 2021, the White House COVID-19 Response Team has been responsible for coordinating across the U.S. government on the COVID-19 response, including COVID-19 vaccine implementation, and for communicating to the public, state and local public health officials, and other stakeholders about these efforts. For example, since January 27, 2021, members of the Response Team have held regular public briefings to provide updates on the status of COVID-19 vaccine implementation, among other information on the federal response. Status of COVID-19 vaccines. As of June 15, 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines were available in the U.S. under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which allows for the temporary use of vaccines without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensure, provided certain statutory criteria are met. [59] Two of the three vaccines—those from Moderna and Janssen—were authorized for individuals 18 years and older; the Pfizer vaccine was authorized for individuals aged 12 years and older.[60] On May 7, 2021, the first biologics license application (BLA) for a COVID-19 vaccine was submitted to FDA, when Pfizer applied for licensure of its vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older.[61] On June 1, 2021, Moderna submitted a BLA to FDA for its vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older.[62] All three companies with authorized vaccines have announced clinical trials for children and adolescents. On May 10, 2021, FDA granted Pfizer’s request to amend its EUA to expand use of its vaccine to adolescents 12 through 15 years of age.[63] Moderna submitted a similar request on June 10, 2021, asking FDA to amend the EUA for its COVID-19 vaccine to expand its use to adolescents 12 through 17 years of age, and as of June 15, 2021, was awaiting a decision from FDA.The three authorized vaccines have varying storage requirements that may affect the type of setting where each vaccine can be administered. For example, some vaccine administration settings may not have equipment such as freezers that have the capability to store vaccine doses at ultra-cold temperatures, the recommended storage method for the Pfizer vaccine prior to use.[64] Additional research continues on storage and handling requirements to improve the vaccines’ stability and ease storage requirements, such as by increasing the amount of time the vaccine can be stored at a refrigerated temperature.[65] See table. COVID-19 Vaccines FDA Authorized for Emergency Use, as of June 15, 2021 Vaccine company Date FDA initially issued emergency use authorization (EUA)a Individuals for whom vaccine is permitted for emergency use Dosing and schedule Storage requirements (doses per vial and minimum lot size) Pfizerb 12/11/2020 12 years of age and olderc 2 doses, 3 weeks apart Stored frozen at ultra-cold temperatures. Once thawed and diluted, must be used within 6 hours. (6 doses per vial, minimum lot size 450 doses) Moderna 12/18/2020 18 years of age and olderd 2 doses, 1 month apart Stored frozen, but may be refrigerated for up to 30 days once thawed. Once first dose is withdrawn from vial, other doses must be used within 12 hours. (2 vial sizes: maximum 11 doses per vial (range 10-11) or 15 doses per vial (range 13-15), minimum lot size 10-multi-dose vials) Janssene 2/27/2021f 18 years of age and older 1 dose Refrigerated, but may be stored at room temperature for up to 12 hours. After first dose is withdrawn may be stored at 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit for up to 6 hours or at room temperature for up to 2 hours. (5 doses per vial, minimum lot size 100 doses) Source: GAO analysis of vaccine company and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) information. | GAO-21-551aDuring an emergency, as declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b), FDA may temporarily authorize unlicensed vaccines through an EUA, provided certain statutory criteria are met. FDA has indicated that issuance of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine for which there is adequate manufacturing information would require a determination by FDA that the vaccine’s benefits outweigh its risks based on data from at least one well-designed phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrates the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in a clear and compelling manner. Any COVID-19 vaccine that initially receives an EUA from FDA is expected to ultimately be reviewed and receive licensure through a biologics license application (BLA), according to FDA guidance. As of June 15, 2021, Pfizer and Moderna had submitted BLAs for their COVID-19 vaccines.bPfizer and BioNTech developed a COVID-19 vaccine together; for the purposes of this report we refer to it as the Pfizer vaccine. cOn December 11, 2020, FDA authorized the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use in individuals 16 years of age and older, and on May 10, 2021, FDA amended the EUA to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age. dOn June 10, 2021, Moderna requested that FDA amend the EUA for its vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 17 years of age. eJanssen Pharmaceutical Companies are a part of Johnson & Johnson. fOn April 13, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA recommended a pause in use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine so the agencies could review data involving six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving this vaccine. CDC and FDA lifted the pause on April 23, 2021, following a safety review, and revised the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets for vaccination providers and recipients and caregivers to include information about the risk.As we have previously reported, the federal government has also contracted to purchase COVID-19 vaccine doses from three other vaccine companies. As of June 15, 2021, none of these companies had submitted an EUA request to FDA.[66]COVID-19 vaccine administration. COVID-19 vaccinations began on December 14, 2020, in the United States. As of June 10, 2021, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed the federal government had distributed about 372.8 million COVID-19 vaccine doses, and about 305.7 million doses had been administered, including both first and second doses of the three vaccines authorized for emergency use.[67] About 61 percent of the U.S. population aged 12 and older had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and about 50 percent were fully vaccinated, as of June 10, 2021.[68]See figure for the number of vaccine doses administered each month since COVID-19 vaccine implementation began.Number of COVID-19 Vaccine Doses Administered by Month in the United States, as of June 10, 2021Note: Data show the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the U.S. as reported to CDC by state, territorial, and local public health agencies; and federal entities, since the national vaccine program began on December 14, 2020, and include doses administered through all vaccine partners including jurisdictional partner clinics, retail pharmacies, long-term care facilities, dialysis centers participating in the Federal Dialysis Center Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency partner sites, Health Resources and Services Administration-supported health centers, and federal entity facilities. According to CDC the most recent days of reporting may be more impacted by reporting delays, and all reported numbers may change over time as historical data are reported to CDC. As of June 10, 2021, three COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for emergency use; two vaccines were two-dose regimens and the third vaccine required one dose. More than 70 percent of people in two age groups –those aged 75 and older and those aged 65 through 74–were fully vaccinated as of June 10, 2021. For those under 65, the percentage of people in each age group who were fully vaccinated decreased as age decreased. See figure.Percentage of Age Group That Was Fully Vaccinated, by Age Group, in the U.S., as of June 10, 2021Notes: Texas does not report demographic-specific dose number information to CDC, so data for Texas are not represented in this figure. As of June 10, 2021, the only COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use in individuals under age 18 years of age was the Pfizer vaccine. On December 11, 2020, FDA authorized the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use in individuals 16 years of age and older, and on May 10, 2021, FDA expanded the emergency use authorization to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age. As of June 10, 2021, of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use, two vaccines were two-dose regimens and the third vaccine required one dose. In this figure, fully vaccinated is defined as having received the second dose in a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine regimen or one dose of the single-dose vaccine.CDC data, though incomplete, showed disparities in vaccine administration by race and ethnicity. Data on race and ethnicity were limited to about 61 percent of the individuals who were fully vaccinated as of June 10, 2021, or about 87 million people. These data indicated that of those who were fully vaccinated:62.7 percent were non-Hispanic White (compared to 61.2 percent of the U.S. population), 13.4 percent were Hispanic or Latino (compared to 17.2 percent of the U.S. population),8.7 percent were non-Hispanic Black (compared to 12.4 percent of the U.S. population), and6 percent were non-Hispanic Asian (compared to 5.8 percent of the U.S. population).[69]Funding for COVID-19 vaccine implementation. As of April 2021, CDC had awarded about $6.8 billion in funding, provided in three COVID-19 relief laws, to 64 jurisdictions for COVID-19 vaccine preparedness.[70] (See table.) Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Vaccine Implementation Funding for 64 Jurisdictions, as of April 2021 Legislation Description of award Month funds awarded Amount awarded ($ millions) CARES Act (Pub. L. No. 116-136) To plan for and implement COVID-19 vaccine programs. September 2020 ($200M) December 2020 ($140M) 340 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-260) To support a range of COVID-19 vaccination activities. According to CDC, it allocated funds using the population-based formula specified in the act. January 2021 ($3B) April 2021 ($1.29B) 4,290 American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) (Pub. L. No. 117-2) To support COVID-19 vaccine distribution, access, and administration efforts and to increase vaccine uptake. According to CDC, these funds are intended to ensure health equity as guided in the CDC COVID-19 Health Equity Strategy and expanded access to COVID-19 vaccines.b For example, funds could be used to identify and train trusted community members to conduct outreach to raise awareness about COVID-19 vaccines and help individuals sign up for appointments. April 2021 2,189a Total 6,819 Source: GAO analysis of CDC information and data. | GAO-21-551. Notes: Total may not sum to exact amount awarded due to rounding. CDC awarded funds to 64 jurisdictions, including all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five major U.S. cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), and eight territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). aThis total includes about $329.1 million in funding awarded to certain immunization grant recipients by using an alternative allocation formula established under ARPA, which is to be applied in addition to the base formula specified in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.This funding was awarded to 39 jurisdictions.bSee CDC. “CDC Awards $3 Billion to Expand COVID-19 Vaccine Programs,” April 6, 2021, accessed on April 20, 2021 at https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0407-covid-19-vaccine-programs.html.In addition to the awards provided by CDC to the 64 jurisdictions, other funding related to COVID-19 vaccination has been made available and includes but is not limited to the following examples:In April 2021, HHS, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), awarded about $6.1 billion in funds appropriated under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to 1,377 health centers nationwide to expand COVID-19 vaccinations, testing, and treatment for vulnerable populations.[71]As of June 1, 2021, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had provided more than $4.85 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund to states, Washington D.C., tribes, and territories for expenses related to COVID-19 vaccination.[72] Overview of Key IssuesWhen COVID-19 vaccination began in December 2020, the federal government allocated and distributed nearly all available vaccine doses primarily to jurisdictions; some of the vaccine doses that went to jurisdictions were used to vaccinate residents and staff of long-term care facilities. The federal government also distributed vaccine doses to select federal entities, including the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service, and Veterans Health Administration. Beginning in February 2021, the federal government started distributing COVID-19 vaccine doses through additional channels, including directly allocating and distributing doses to retail pharmacies and to HRSA-supported health centers.[73] See the table below for a description of these federal distribution channels.Description of Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Channels, as of June 2021 Federal channel for vaccine distribution (responsible agency) Number of doses delivered, as of June 10, 2021a Description States and other jurisdictionsb (HHS and DOD) First doses delivered: Dec. 2020 Doses delivered: 243.8 million Allocations of vaccine provided directly from the federal government to 50 states, the District of Columbia, three major cities, and eight territories based on the 62 jurisdictions’ adult population (i.e., those 18 years and older). States and other jurisdictions determine which providers in their jurisdictions are to receive the allocated doses. Vaccine doses may be further redistributed; for example, a state may redistribute its vaccine doses to a local health department or to a health care facility, such as a hospital. Vaccine doses allocated to states and other jurisdictions may be directed to CDC’s Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program or to FEMA-supported community vaccination centers.c Some states also received additional doses in their state allocations as “sovereign nation” supplements. These additional doses were allocated for American Indian/Alaskan Native populations that elected to receive vaccine doses through the state in which they are located instead of through the Indian Health Service. Selected federal entities (HHS and DOD) First doses delivered: Dec. 2020 Doses delivered: 12.2 milliond Allocations of vaccine provided directly from the federal government to selected federal entities—including the Bureau of Prisons, the Departments of Defense and State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration—to administer to their respective populations. Federal Retail Pharmacy Program(CDC) First doses delivered: Feb. 2021 Doses delivered: 103.4 millione Allocations of vaccine provided directly from the federal government to 21 national pharmacy and independent pharmacy networks—representing over 40,000 locations nationwide—through a collaboration with the federal government, states, and territories. CDC made recommendations of which pharmacy partners to initially include in the program. States and territories then made the final selections. Initially, when the program began, allocations were provided on a weekly basis, based on the available vaccine supply and determined on a per capita basis for each jurisdiction, according to CDC. The allocation was then divided among the selected pharmacy partners based on each partner’s number of stores and the store’s reach (the percent of the total U.S. population living within 5 miles of a store location).f As of June 2021, weekly allocations were based on vaccine availability, with more than half of each pharmacy partner’s vaccine supply proportional to each jurisdiction’s population, according to CDC. As the program has expanded and as vaccine supply has become more readily available, pharmacy partners are able to make additional adjustments to their allocations, according to CDC. Community Vaccination Center Pilot Site and Mobile Vaccination Program(FEMA and CDC) First doses delivered: Feb. 2021 Doses delivered: 6.6 million Allocations of additional vaccine doses are provided to FEMA and FEMA transfers its allocated vaccine doses to the states with pilot community vaccination centers for ordering vaccine doses. According to FEMA, allocations are determined by the size of the particular vaccination center being planned.g Pilot vaccination centers are a partnership between FEMA, in coordination with CDC and other federal agencies, and states, tribes, territories, and local governments. Locations for pilot community vaccination centers were chosen based on social vulnerability factors and population, according to FEMA. As of June 4, 2021, a total of 39 FEMA pilot vaccination centers and 226 satellite sites had been established across the country since the beginning of the initiative, according to FEMA. Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program (HRSA and CDC) First doses delivered: Feb. 2021 Doses delivered: 6.9 million Allocations are provided directly from the federal government to HRSA-supported health centers. This program is to increase access to vaccines to the nation’s underserved communities and disproportionately affected populations. Vaccines distributed through HRSA supplement the vaccine supply to the HRSA-supported health centers provided by the state or other jurisdictions, according to CDC. Allocations are made on a weekly basis and HRSA determines the number of doses that can be ordered by participating health centers based on factors such as the weekly allocation of vaccine the program receives, the number of participating health centers, the number of newly added participating health centers, and health center vaccine distribution capacity data, according to HRSA. Vaccine doses distributed by the program are sent directly to individual health center sites. Initially 25 health centers were selected based on criteria such as the populations the facility serves, according to HRSA.h The program grew to include 500 health centers as of April 3, 2021, according to HRSA. On April 7, 2021, HRSA and CDC invited all HRSA-supported health centers, including Health Center Program look-alikes, to participate in the program, increasing its reach to up to 1,470 health centers nationwide.i Source: GAO analysis of data and information from officials from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). | GAO-21-551Notes: In addition to the federal channels listed in the table, the federal government also allocates vaccine to two other programs: the HHS/National Institutes of Health Program, which is a small program managing doses allocated to federal departments and agencies for administration to critical federal infrastructure personnel and the Federal Dialysis Center Program, which began on March 29, 2021, and has made allocations directly to participating dialysis center participants to vaccinate patients on dialysis. Additionally, some providers receiving vaccine doses through one of the federal channels may also receive vaccine allocations from their state or other jurisdiction. For example, health centers participating in the Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program might receive doses that have been allocated to their jurisdiction, in addition to a direct allocation of vaccine doses from the federal government. aThe Pfizer vaccine is provided in 1,170 dose and 450 dose lots, Moderna’s vaccine is provided in 140 dose lots, and Janssen’s vaccine is provided in 100 dose lots. bFor COVID-19 vaccination, the federal government allocates vaccine doses to 62 jurisdictions, including all 50 states, the District of Columbia, three major cities (Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia), and eight territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Although there are 64 jurisdictions implementing COVID-19 vaccination and receiving federal funding for these efforts, allocations of vaccine doses are being made to 62 jurisdictions because two major cities considered jurisdictions—Houston and San Antonio—have their vaccine allocation consolidated with Texas. cFor the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, states and other jurisdictions allocated some of their doses to pharmacy partners including CVS and Walgreens, which then administered more than 8.3 million vaccine doses to staff and residents of eligible nursing homes and other long-term care facilities between December 2020 and May 2021, according to CDC. Additionally, between February 2021 and as of May 5, 2021, FEMA has supported a total of 1,779 community vaccination centers managed and operated by states and other jurisdictions by providing federal personnel, funding, and material, such as medical equipment and supplies, according to FEMA. See the enclosures on Nursing Homes and FEMA’S Disaster Relief Fund for more information.dData on the number of doses delivered to and administered by these federal entities are available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/distributing/jurisdiction-portfolios.html, accessed on June 15, 2021.eThis number also includes deliveries provided from states’ and other jurisdictions’ allocations, including as part of the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.fAccording to CDC, the goal is to have nearly 40,000 pharmacies participating in the program. As the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program expands and supply becomes more readily available, the allocation of vaccine doses to pharmacies may be adjusted to reflect the number of store locations nationwide, the percent of the total U.S. population living within 5 miles of a store location, and the store’s ability to vaccinate. gPilot vaccination centers range in capacity from being able to administer approximately 3,000 vaccinations per day or 6,000 vaccinations per day. According to FEMA officials, one-third of the vaccines allocated to a pilot vaccination center can be redistributed to satellite sites such as mobile vaccination centers. hFor example, HRSA initially included those health centers that served a large volume of disproportionally affected populations, such as individuals experiencing homelessness, public housing residents, migrant or seasonal agricultural workers, or patients with limited English proficiency. iHealth Center Program look-alikes are community-based health care providers that meet the requirements of the HRSA Health Center Program, but do not receive Health Center Program funding. As of June 10, 2021, CDC data showed that about 65 percent of vaccine doses had been allocated to states and other jurisdictions, and about 35 percent of the doses distributed had been provided through other federal distribution channels.[74] See figure.Percentage of COVID-19 Vaccine Doses Distributed, by Federal Distribution Channel, as of June 10, 2021Note: Percentages in figure may not total 100 due to rounding. Vaccine doses distributed include the approximately 373.1 million doses shipped and recorded through the CDC’s vaccine ordering system, Vaccine Tracking System (VTrckS), reported through June 10, 2021. aThis distribution channel includes doses distributed to jurisdictions. Although there are 64 jurisdictions implementing COVID-19 vaccination and receiving federal funding for these efforts, allocations of vaccine doses are being made to 62 jurisdictions because two major cities considered jurisdictions—Houston and San Antonio—have their vaccine allocation consolidated with Texas. For this metric, the three major cities that do receive their own allocations—Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia—are reported with their respective states. This distribution channel excludes additional doses transferred to jurisdictions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for use within the Community Vaccination Center Pilot Sites and mobile vaccination program.bThe Federal Retail Pharmacy Program includes vaccine allotments to 21 national pharmacy chains and independent pharmacy networks that represent approximately 48,000 potential vaccination sites across the country. It also includes deliveries provided from the jurisdiction allocations as part of the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program to vaccinate staff and residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Jurisdictions may transfer doses directly to a pharmacy partner, and those doses are included in this category. Doses for states that have allowed vaccine provider pharmacies to order directly from the state are excluded here and included in the jurisdictions total.cThe Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program provides allocations directly from the federal government to participating health centers for administration.dFor the FEMA Community Vaccination Center Pilot Site and Mobile Vaccination Program, FEMA receives additional allocations of vaccine doses and transfers these doses to the states with pilot community vaccination centers for ordering and administration. FEMA provides logistical, financial, and other support for vaccination clinics.eThe Other category includes two programs (1): the Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health Program, which is a small program managing doses allocated to federal departments and agencies for administration to critical federal infrastructure personnel; and (2) the Federal Dialysis Center Program, which began on March 29, 2021, and has made allocations directly to participating dialysis center participants to vaccinate patients on dialysis.fThis distribution channel includes the allocations made to the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Defense, Indian Health Service, and Veterans Health Administration.Representatives of state, territorial, and local stakeholders we interviewed said they appreciated the extra allocations of vaccine coming into jurisdictions through these different federal distribution channels. However, at the same time, they expressed concern about the level of coordination and communication between the federal government and states and providers regarding these other federal distribution channels for COVID-19 vaccine. For example, in February 2021, the National Governors Association stated that federal decisions to deliver vaccine doses directly to pharmacies and federally qualified health centers should be coordinated with state governments. Additionally, representatives of state, territorial, and local health officials we interviewed said some pharmacies and health centers receiving direct allocations of vaccine doses from the federal government were also receiving vaccine allocations from their state and local jurisdictions. They said they were unaware when new federal channels were being initiated, resulting in confusion at the state and local levels. Not knowing when or how much vaccine was being distributed to a particular pharmacy or health center prevented state and local health officials from taking that information into consideration when making decisions on how to distribute their own vaccine supply to areas in need.Vaccine implementation has continued to evolve as the supply of vaccine doses has increased and new distribution channels and groups eligible for vaccination have been added. For example, on May 4, 2021, the President announced plans to ship vaccine doses directly to rural health clinics to increase access to vaccine in rural areas.[75] And on May 10, 2021, FDA granted Pfizer’s request to expand authorized use of its COVID-19 vaccine to adolescents aged 12 through 15 years.[76] Also, many of the people eligible in the U.S. who wanted to be vaccinated have been, according to some stakeholders we interviewed. These stakeholders said outreach and communication efforts now need to focus on those who remain unvaccinated, such as by targeting messaging to build vaccine confidence among those who may be facing vaccine hesitancy or by making vaccines more accessible.[77] The federal government has expanded its efforts to make COVID-19 vaccinations more accessible. For example, on May 4, 2021, the President announced additional efforts to make it easier for people to get vaccinated. These included plans to direct pharmacies in the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program to offer walk-in appointments and redirecting FEMA resources to support additional smaller vaccination sites and more mobile clinics.Addressing these continuing changes in COVID-19 vaccine implementation—including vaccinating newly eligible adolescent populations and reaching those who have not yet been vaccinated despite increasing supply—will require continued coordinated efforts across federal, state, territorial, and local governments, and others. Stakeholder representatives we interviewed indicated that overall communication efforts with the federal government, such as calls between the White House COVID-19 Response Team, federal agencies, and state officials have facilitated the exchange of information related to federal vaccine distribution efforts, but often after they were publicly announced. The evolving challenges around COVID-19 vaccination and stakeholder concerns about coordination, reinforce the need for a national plan that clearly outlines how efforts are being coordinated across federal agencies and nonfederal entities, as we recommended in September 2020. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed CDC’s reported data on the distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccine doses and reviewed relevant federal laws, agency guidance, and documentation from the DOD and HHS partnership, CDC, FDA, HRSA, and FEMA regarding COVID-19 vaccines and efforts to distribute these vaccines. Documentation we reviewed includes EUA fact sheets for the authorized COVID-19 vaccines, other agency fact sheets and advisories, and information posted on agency websites. We obtained written responses from officials at CDC, HRSA, and FEMA, and reviewed press releases from the vaccine companies. We also conducted interviews in April and May 2021, with organizations that represent state, territorial, and local stakeholders involved in vaccination efforts.[78] To report data on COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration, we used data from CDC’s COVID Data Tracker. We assessed the reliability of this data by reviewing related documentation and reviewing the data to identify any obvious errors or omissions. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of analyzing COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration.Agency CommentsWe provided DOD; CDC, FDA, and HRSA within HHS; FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. DOD and OMB did not provide comments on this enclosure. CDC, FDA, HRSA, and FEMA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor federal efforts related to COVID-19 vaccines, including the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration efforts and its communication about these efforts. GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendations on COVID-19 vaccines from prior CARES Act bimonthly/quarterly reports.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to COVID-19 Vaccines Recommendation Status The Secretary of Health and Human Services, with support from the Secretary of Defense, should establish a time frame for documenting and sharing a national plan for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccines, and in developing such a plan ensure that it is consistent with best practices for project planning and scheduling and outlines an approach for how efforts will be coordinated across federal agencies and nonfederal entities (September 2020 report). Open. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In September and October 2020, HHS’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released initial planning documents, and in January 2021 the White House issued a national COVID-19 response strategy that broadly outlined various channels for vaccine distribution. In addition, CDC provided a high-level description of its activities in a March 2021 COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategy and its June 2021 update. While these documents provide general information on federally supported vaccine distribution activities, they do not outline the approach the federal government is taking to coordinate its efforts or roles of the federal agencies and non-federal entities. We continue to maintain that it is important for HHS to have a national plan that outlines such an approach. We will continue to monitor HHS’ efforts in this area. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify ways to uniformly disclose to the public the information from FDA’s scientific review of safety and effectiveness data—similar to the public disclosure of the summary safety and effectiveness data supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics—when issuing emergency use authorizations (EUA) for therapeutics and vaccines, and, if necessary, seek the authority to publicly disclose such information (November 2020 report on vaccine and therapeutics). Closed. In response to our recommendation, FDA said it would explore approaches to achieve the goal of transparency. On November 17, 2020, FDA made an announcement on the agency’s ongoing commitment to transparency for COVID-19 EUAs. FDA also developed a process to disclose its scientific review documents for therapeutic EUAs and released such summaries for one previous therapeutic EUA and the two additional therapeutic EUAs issued from November 2020—when we made our recommendation—through January 2021. These summaries disclosed information similar to what FDA releases to support new drug approvals and biologic licensures. Additionally, for the two vaccine EUAs FDA issued from November 2020—when we made our recommendation—through January 2021, FDA released decision memorandums containing detailed information about FDA’s review of safety and effectiveness data. FDA’s actions meet the intent of our recommendation and will improve transparency. Related GAO ProductCOVID-19: Efforts to Increase Vaccine Availability and Perspectives on Initial Implementation. GAO-21-443. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2021.Contact information: Alyssa M. Hundrup, 202-512-7114, [email protected] Homes Bookmark:Nursing homes reported steep declines in COVID-19 cases and deaths starting in mid-December 2020, which generally coincided with the start of federal vaccination efforts through the Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Entities involved: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, both within the Department of Health and Human Services. Background The health and safety of the 1.4 million elderly or disabled residents in the nation’s more than 15,000 Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes—who are often in frail health and living in close proximity to one another—has been a particular concern during the COVID-19 pandemic.[79] The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for ensuring that nursing homes meet federal quality standards to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. To monitor compliance with these standards, CMS enters into agreements with state survey agencies within each state to conduct inspections, including recurring comprehensive standard surveys and as-needed investigations.The CARES Act appropriated $100 million for this oversight, and it directed CMS to prioritize the use of funds for nursing home facilities in localities with community transmission of COVID-19.[80] HHS also designated about $10 billion from the Provider Relief Fund, which was established with funds provided under COVID-19 relief laws, as direct payments to assist nursing homes with responding to COVID-19.[81] Additionally, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 appropriated $250 million for the creation of state strike teams that will be deployed to nursing facilities with diagnosed or suspected cases of COVID–19 among residents or staff for the purposes of assisting with clinical care, infection control, or staffing during the COVID-19 emergency period and the following year.[82] In response to the pandemic, HHS, primarily through CMS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has taken a range of actions to address infection prevention and control in nursing homes, which we reported on in five prior reports from June 2020 through March 2021. One of its actions was establishing the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program in October 2020 and agreeing with pharmacy partners to conduct COVID-19 vaccination clinics for residents and staff of long-term care facilities, including nursing homes, beginning in December 2020.[83]In February 2021, CDC launched the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program for COVID-19 Vaccination, a collaboration between the federal government, pharmacy partners, and states and territories to increase access to COVID-19 vaccination across the U.S., including increased access to vaccines through long-term care pharmacy partners.[84] COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes. According to CDC case-reporting data, as of May 16, 2021, more than 99 percent of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified U.S. nursing homes had reported at least one confirmed resident or staff case, and more than 80 percent had reported at least one resident or staff COVID-19 death.[85] As we reported in May 2021, nursing homes commonly experienced multiple COVID-19 outbreaks, with 44 percent (5,943 of 13,380 reviewed nursing homes) having experienced four or more outbreaks between May 2020 and January 2021.[86] New weekly confirmed cases of COVID-19 in nursing homes peaked in December and have since declined by more than 96 percent. The decline in cases for both residents and staff generally coincided with the initiation of the federal government’s nursing home vaccination program, the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care program, on December 21, 2020.[87] (See figure below.) Similarly, new weekly resident deaths have steeply declined since peaking in the week ending December 20, 2020, again generally coinciding with the launch of federal vaccination efforts.[88] Combined nursing home resident and staff deaths from COVID-19, as a percentage of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., consistently represented about 30 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., from May 2020 through February 2021. As of May 16, 2021, the combined percentage of total COVID-19 nursing home resident and staff deaths declined to 22 percent, indicating that the trajectory for nursing home COVID-19 related deaths had declined more than the decline in deaths in the country as a whole. (See figure below.) New Weekly Confirmed COVID-19 Cases and Deaths among U.S. Nursing Home Residents and Staff, as Reported by Medicare- and Medicaid-Certified Nursing Homes, Weeks Ending May 31, 2020, through May 16, 2021Notes: Dates refer to the end of a week (e.g., May 31 refers to the entire week from May 25 through May 31). CDC defines a confirmed case as having a positive COVID-19 test resulting from a molecular test, a nucleic acid test, or an antigen test, including antigen point-of-care test results. According to CDC, data used in this analysis are part of a live data set, meaning that facilities can make corrections to the data at any time. Data presented in this enclosure reflect the data downloaded as of May 27, 2021, which includes data through the week ending May 16, 2021. We excluded data for the week ending May 24, 2020, because it is the first week for which data are available from CDC and could include cases and deaths from multiple weeks dating back to January 1, 2020. Weekly and cumulative case and death counts are likely underreported because they do not include data for the nursing homes that did not report COVID-19 data to CDC for that week or from nursing homes that submitted data that failed data quality assurance checks. Additionally, as we previously reported, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not require nursing homes to report data prior to May 2020, although nursing homes may do so voluntarily. We recommended that the Secretary of Health and Human Services—in consultation with CMS and CDC—develop a strategy to capture more complete data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes retroactively to January 1, 2020.Weekly staff deaths reported for the weeks ending May 31, 2020 through May 16, 2021, ranged from 5 (week ending May 16, 2021) to 59 (week ending May 31, 2020).Certain individual nursing homes received their vaccinations outside of the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Facilities were not required to participate in the program and could opt to have vaccine supply and management services coordinated by a pharmacy provider of its choice. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2 percent (374 out of 15,727) of nursing homes chose not to enroll in the program, in addition to the state of West Virginia, which opted to use other local pharmacy providers to administer nursing home vaccines starting the week of December 14, 2020.Two CDC analyses of COVID-19 testing data released in April 2021 showed that vaccination generally protected individuals from COVID-19 infection and symptoms, but both studies identified post-vaccination (breakthrough infections) in a small number of Illinois and Kentucky nursing home residents and staff members.[89] Given that such breakthrough infection can occur, the studies emphasized the need for continued focus on infection prevention and control measures in nursing homes and vaccinating residents and staff.Nursing home vaccinations through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Vaccination clinics for nursing home residents and staff offered through the pharmacy partnership program, which began in mid-December, were completed in all participating nursing homes as of March 30, 2021. According to CDC, as of March 30, 2021, the program had completed 13,590 first vaccination clinics, 13,521 second vaccination clinics, and 13,145 third vaccination clinics in nursing homes.[90] Further, CDC reported that approximately 3.8 million vaccine doses were administered to residents and staff in nursing homes through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program—45 percent of all doses administered through the program.[91] See table below. CDC Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations Conducted through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program by Recipient Type, as of May 12, 2021 Recipient Number of vaccine doses administered in nursing homes Number of vaccine doses administered in all long-term care facility types Residents 1,926,170 4,564,290 Staff members 1,810,220 3,776,119 Total 3,736,390 8,341,409 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | GAO-21-551Note: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), data used in this table are part of a live data set, meaning that data can be corrected by CDC and the pharmacies participating in the pharmacy partnership program at any time. Data presented in this enclosure were reported to us by CDC as of May 12, 2021. Although CDC reports that all nursing home clinics have been completed, as CDC and its participating pharmacies review the data for accuracy, the exact numbers of doses may change. CDC said that the agency anticipates producing final data on the pharmacy partnership program at the end of May. CDC states that ensuring steady access to vaccine will be necessary after the partnership program ends in order to vaccinate new residents, new staff, and residents or staff who may have initially been hesitant and now wish to be vaccinated.[92] To support these further vaccinations, in mid-March 2021, the federal government started providing a direct allocation of COVID-19 vaccine to long-term care pharmacies participating in the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program through four companies across the country — Managed Health Care Associates, Inc., GeriMed, Innovatix, and Omnicare.[93] These companies receive a proportion of vaccine through the program to distribute to their member long-term care pharmacies that can be accessed by individual facilities. Methodology To conduct this work, we reviewed CMS and CDC data, agency guidance, and other relevant information on HHS’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also reviewed written responses from CMS and CDC.In addition, we analyzed CDC data on COVID-19 reported by nursing homes through the week ending May 16, 2021.[94] We analyzed the CDC data as they were reported by nursing homes to CDC and publicly posted by CMS. We did not otherwise independently verify the accuracy of the information with these nursing homes. We assessed the reliability of the data sets used in our analyses by checking for missing values and obvious errors and reviewing relevant CMS and CDC documents. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective.Agency CommentsWe provided HHS with a draft of this enclosure. HHS did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe have released a recent report describing the frequency and duration of COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes from May 2020 through January 2021. We also continue to examine the oversight of infection prevention and control as well as emergency preparedness in nursing homes. GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendations on nursing homes from prior bimonthly and quarterly CARES Act reports.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to COVID-19 Outbreaks in Nursing Homes Recommendation Status The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects data specific to the COVID-19 vaccination rates in nursing homes and makes these data publicly available to better ensure transparency and that the necessary information is available to improve ongoing and future vaccination efforts for nursing home residents and staff. (March 2021 report). Closed. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In March 2021, HHS said it was working towards better data transparency and noted that nursing homes have an opportunity to voluntarily report data through the National Healthcare Safety Network tracking system. On May 13, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an interim final rule establishing Long-Term Care Facility Vaccine Immunization Requirements for Residents and Staff, including for nursing homes. The rule requires facilities to report COVID-19 vaccination status of residents and staff to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to CDC, the new vaccination reporting requirement will not only assist in monitoring vaccine uptake amongst residents and staff, but will also aid in identifying facilities that may be in need of additional resources and assistance to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 10, 2021, CMS has posted resident and staff vaccination rates for over 15,000 Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes on a public COVID-19 Nursing Home Data tracking website. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, requires nursing homes to offer COVID-19 vaccinations to residents and staff and design and implement associated quality measures (March 2021 report). Open. HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation at the time of publication. However, on April 15, 2021, CMS issued a proposed rule that includes, among other things, a proposal to adopt a new quality measure for skilled nursing facilities. The measure would require facilities to submit data on COVID-19 staff vaccination beginning October 1, 2021 and would be used as part of CMS’s quality reporting program beginning in fiscal year 2023. On May 13, 2021, CMS also issued an interim final rule that establishes new requirements for nursing homes to develop and implement policies and procedures for educating residents, their representatives, and staff members about the COVID-19 vaccine and for offering these vaccines to each resident and staff member. Facilities will be assessed for compliance with the new requirements, which are effective on May 21, 2021. We will continue to monitor HHS’s progress towards implementing this recommendation. The Administrator of CMS should quickly develop a plan that further details how the agency intends to respond to and implement, as appropriate, the 27 recommendations in the final report of the Coronavirus Commission on Safety and Quality in Nursing Homes, which CMS released on September 16, 2020.a Such a plan should include milestones that allow the agency to track and report on the status of each recommendation; identify actions taken and planned, including areas where CMS determined not to take action; and identify areas where the agency could coordinate with other federal and nonfederal entities (November 2020 report). Closed. HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. HHS officials highlighted actions that CMS has taken related to Commission recommendations and said it would refer to and act upon the Commission's recommendations, as appropriate. As of May 2021, CMS has developed an internal tracking document that notes the status of each of the Nursing Home Commission’s recommendations, the responsible agency for each recommendation, and planned actions for CMS-related recommendations. According to CMS, the agency will be: conducting quarterly reviews of the tracking document, holding interim meetings to discuss the recommendations, and conducting outreach to other Federal agencies to engage them in this work. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), should develop a strategy to capture more complete data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes retroactively back to January 1, 2020, and clarify the extent to which nursing homes had reported data before May 8, 2020. To the extent feasible, this strategy to capture more complete data should incorporate information nursing homes previously reported to CDC or to state or local public health offices (September 2020 report). Open. HHS partially agreed with our recommendation. As of May 2021, no specific action had been taken by HHS, although according to HHS it continues to consider how to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS’s progress towards implementing this recommendation. aMITRE, Coronavirus Commission on Safety and Quality in Nursing Homes: Commission Final Report, PRS Release Number 20-2382, September 2020. Related GAO ProductsCOVID-19 in Nursing Homes: Most Homes Had Multiple Outbreaks and Weeks of Sustained Transmission from May 2020 through January 2021. GAO-21-367. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2021.COVID-19 in Nursing Homes: HHS Has Taken Steps in Response to Pandemic, but Several GAO Recommendations Have Not Been Implemented. GAO-21-402T. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2021.Infection Control Deficiencies Were Widespread and Persistent in Nursing Homes Prior to COVID-19 Pandemic. GAO-20-576R. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2020. Science & Tech Spotlight: COVID-19 Testing. GAO-20-584SP. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2020.Nursing Homes: Better Oversight Needed to Protect Residents from Abuse. GAO-20-259T. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2019.Health Care Transparency: Actions Needed to Improve Cost and Quality Information for Consumers, GAO-15-11. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2014.Contact information: John E. Dicken, (202) 512-7114, [email protected] TestingBookmark:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially developed a flawed COVID-19 diagnostic test in January and February 2020, which contributed to the delayed rollout of testing nationwide. The agency has taken steps to improve its process for developing tests, but additional actions could help strengthen its preparedness and enhance the nation’s testing capacity during a future infectious disease outbreak. Entities involved: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human ServicesRecommendations for Executive ActionThe Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should work with appropriate stakeholders—including public health and private laboratories—to develop a plan to enhance surge capacity for laboratory testing. This plan should include timelines, define agency and stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and address any identified gaps from preparedness exercises. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should assess the agency’s needs for goods and services for the manufacturing and deployment of diagnostic test kits in public health emergencies. This assessment should evaluate how establishing contracts in advance of an emergency could help CDC quickly and cost-effectively acquire these capabilities when responding to future public health emergencies, including those caused by novel pathogens, and should incorporate lessons learned from the COVID-19 emergency. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agreed with both of these recommendations.BackgroundAccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of its roles during an emergency response to an emerging infectious disease is to aid and equip public health laboratories around the country to conduct testing during the early stages of a response. CDC typically develops a diagnostic test for an emerging pathogen when no diagnostic test has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and no adequate alternative is available, as it had during past emergencies, such as with the 2009 H1N1 influenza and Zika.The FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for CDC’s COVID-19 test on February 4, 2020.[95] The EUA process allowed CDC to distribute its COVID-19 test kits to public health laboratories more quickly than would typically be necessary for FDA approval or clearance.[96] CDC distributed COVID-19 test kits to 93 public health and Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories between February 6 and 10, 2020.[97] Immediately after receipt of the CDC test, many public health laboratories reported to CDC that the test was not working properly.[98] Specifically, a number of public health laboratories reported to CDC that they could not validate two of the test’s three primer-probe sets, short fragments of genetic code that can be used to detect a virus’s genetic code, specifically its N1 and N3 primer-probe sets. Following these reports, CDC worked to correct the issue and, by February 28, 2020, began distributing new test kits to the laboratories. CDC’s was the only COVID-19 test available in the U.S. until February 29, 2020, when FDA announced that it did not intend to object if certain laboratories began using their own tests while they prepared EUA requests, provided the tests were validated and the laboratories notified FDA.[99] FDA played an important role in increasing access to testing during this public health emergency; we have ongoing work examining FDA’s role in authorizing and monitoring COVID-19 tests.According to CDC, CDC’s laboratory tested 3,291 total specimens, representing approximately 1,195 individuals, on behalf of public health laboratories in January and February, 2020. In contrast, other countries around the world quickly scaled up testing in late January and early February. For example, the South Korean government reported that South Korea was conducting about 20,000 tests each day by the middle of February 2020.[100]The failure of CDC’s COVID-19 test limited testing capacity in the U.S. during the critical early weeks of the pandemic when the nation needed to understand the spread of the novel virus. In addition, we previously reported that shortages of key testing supplies, such as swabs and testing reagents, also contributed to the delay in broad-scale testing early in the emergency response. These shortages were due to the unprecedented domestic demand and overall global competition.Overview of Key IssuesThe CDC’s test and the test adopted by the World Health Organization were developed concurrently. CDC began work on its first COVID-19 diagnostic test on January 10, 2020—the day that Chinese researchers publicly posted the COVID-19 virus’s genetic code—and had completed the test’s design by January 18.[101] At the same time, a research laboratory in Germany was also designing a diagnostic test. The World Health Organization (WHO) published the protocol of this German test online on January 13, 2020.[102] On January 24, 2020, CDC published its test protocol online. CDC officials told us they did this so that the global laboratory community, including private laboratories in the U.S., could use CDC’s design when developing their own tests. (See figure below.) Timeline of the Development and Distribution of CDC and WHO COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests in 2020Although the German laboratory made its test design public on January 13, 2020, CDC officials told us that any effort to use the test designed by the German laboratory would have further delayed testing in the U.S. due to the need to fully validate and manufacture all of the necessary components and obtain the required authorization from FDA. CDC officials told us that CDC developed its own test, in part, to ensure that distribution was not limited by the exercise of intellectual property rights. On February 3, 2020, WHO announced that it would ship test kits using the German laboratory’s design to qualified laboratories around the world that lacked the materials to produce the test themselves. WHO’s effort helped to quickly scale up testing in some countries, particularly in Africa. However, because CDC possessed the materials to make tests, its laboratories were not among those targeted for assistance by WHO. CDC officials told us that WHO did not raise with CDC the possibility of WHO providing test kits to CDC.Three primary factors contributed to the failure of CDC’s initial test. According to CDC, the agency’s failure to detect the problems with its test prior to distribution was a “quality process failure of incalculable cost.” The failure of CDC’s first diagnostic test for COVID-19 can largely be attributed to three primary factors, according to information we collected from CDC’s own internal review and interviews with CDC officials: laboratory quality control deficiencies, a lack of clearly defined approval criteria for test release and distribution, and poor communication within CDC about test performance problems.Laboratory quality control deficiencies. According to CDC’s internal review, the CDC laboratory that developed the test had multiple quality control deficiencies and used incorrect quality control procedures throughout the development process.[103]For example, according to CDC, because the laboratory used an incorrect testing procedure when it conducted its final quality control check on February 3, 2020, it did not detect problems then. Rather, by February 6, 2020, when problems with the test’s performance were identified, CDC had already manufactured and prepared kits for distribution to public health laboratories. At that time, although laboratory staff had discovered that one of the test’s three primer-probe sets produced some false results, the laboratory accepted the results and approved the test for distribution to public health laboratories that same day.[104] According to CDC, its laboratory that developed the COVID-19 test had never manufactured a diagnostic test before that one and had not implemented all quality system requirements that pertain to laboratories developing such tests.[105] CDC added that, although the laboratory operated under a quality system that was largely consistent with the requirements under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), the laboratory did not have effective procedures or controls in place to assure that the test kit was fit for its intended purpose, according to the agency.[106] In an internal agency report, CDC acknowledged that the decision to assign manufacturing responsibility to a laboratory that had not implemented quality manufacturing regulatory requirements contributed to the incident.[107] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) investigation of the problems with its first COVID-19 test kits After learning of the problems with its test kits from public health laboratories, CDC investigated the technical reasons for the failure, specifically within the sets of primers and probes—short fragments of genetic code—that could not be validated. CDC determined that the false results from the N1 primer-probe set likely had been caused by contamination during the development process. Problems with the N3 set were likely caused by a design flaw that led to the primers and probes attaching to each other during the reaction—known as a primer-dimer—and not as the result of contamination. Source: GAO interviews with CDC officials. | GAO-21-551 Lack of clearly defined approval criteria. CDC officials told us the agency proceeded with distributing the test kits on February 6, 2020, even though the laboratory knew of its flaws, because the laboratory had not defined a pass/fail threshold for quality control checks of the test’s components and because there was no independent quality unit in place to oversee the laboratory’s manufacturing process. Poor communication of test performance problems within CDC. CDC officials told us no one with knowledge of the test’s failure rate communicated the information beyond the laboratory when problems were initially discovered and that CDC’s response leadership was not aware of the failure rate until after CDC began receiving notices from the state public health laboratories that they had been unable to use the test. In 2016, we reported problems within CDC related to the flow of critical information to leadership about inspections of high containment laboratories that work with hazardous biological agents. Our recommendation that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should develop policies for reporting laboratory incidents to senior department officials or direct the Director of CDC to incorporate these requirements into their policies has not been implemented as of June 25, 2021.[108] Upon learning of the problems with the test from the public health laboratories, CDC first attempted to re-manufacture test kits using all three primer-probe sets. However, CDC later determined that the third set—N3—was not necessary and that removing it did not affect the test’s overall performance. Thus, the new test kits CDC began distributing to public health laboratories on February 28, 2020, contained only two primer-probe sets.[109] According to CDC, the test’s design had originally included the N3 set because it was “more broadly reactive and would identify a wider family of coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV and bat-carried strains not known to have infected humans. The inclusion of a broadly reactive primer-probe set was meant to ensure that the test would be partially reactive if sequence variants arose.” During an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Director of CDC at that time, said that CDC added the third set to the test because the agency was being “overly cautious.” Other CDC actions contributed to slower testing in the early stages of the pandemic. Beyond the failure of the initial version of CDC’s COVID-19 test, three other areas contributed to testing limitations and challenges: CDC’s early testing guidelines, communication with laboratories, and selection of a testing platform.CDC’s early testing guidelines. COVID-19 testing in the early stages of the pandemic was not widespread, in part, because of CDC’s narrow criteria for who should be tested at that time. Specifically, testing was limited in January 2020 to symptomatic individuals who had recently traveled from Wuhan City, China, or had been in close contact with individuals suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. By late February, CDC expanded its COVID-19 testing guidelines to include symptomatic individuals who had traveled through multiple international areas and those with severe respiratory illness, regardless of their travel history.[110] According to CDC, these criteria were based on the best available information about the virus at that time and what was known about Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). CDC officials told us it would not have been appropriate to implement wide-scale testing at that point in the response. CDC’s criteria were generally consistent with the WHO’s criteria in place at that time. CDC’s communication of test results to public health laboratories. According to the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents state and local-level public health laboratories, communication of test results from CDC back to public health laboratories in the period when they were unable to perform their own tests was inefficient and slow.[111] APHL and CDC attributed the slowness to the CDC laboratory’s lack of a laboratory information management system that could communicate test results back to the public health laboratories electronically and its reliance instead on telephone calls for positive results and emails for negative results. Further, APHL officials told us that it often took days to receive negative test results from CDC and that it was difficult for laboratories to process the negative results received by email because these laboratories needed to match specimen numbers to separate patient identification numbers—a labor-intensive process for laboratory staff. CDC’s selection of a testing platform. According to APHL, CDC’s first COVID-19 test kit required the laboratories to use an automated extraction platform that only 12 public health laboratories had in place at the time. CDC officials told us they were unaware of how many public health laboratories had the selected platform in place in early February 2020. The only alternative to the automated platform CDC had intended for use with its test was manual extraction of viral material, a more time-consuming method for laboratory staff to employ. APHL officials said they believe CDC’s choice of platform indicated that agency officials did not appreciate the need to move quickly to scale up testing at that time.Officials from APHL told us they worked with the CDC Foundation to purchase the new platform for use by 12 public health laboratories, and on March 15, 2020, the EUA for the CDC test kit was reissued to allow laboratories to use other types of testing platforms.[112] However, according to APHL, had the test worked as intended from the start, CDC’s selection of a platform most public health laboratories did not have would have slowed the testing response because many public health laboratories would have initially been limited in how many specimens they could have processed per day. CDC has begun taking steps to remediate the problems associated with the development of its first COVID-19 test and communication of test results. CDC has identified and has begun to make improvements to its process for developing diagnostic tests. To prevent the future distribution of a flawed test, CDC will require all tests it develops to have clearly defined approval criteria and management review. According to information posted on CDC’s website in June 2021 and agency officials, a new process, including specific release criteria and multiple levels of management review and sign-off has been developed.[113] The review process was implemented for the deployment of CDC’s latest COVID-19 test in July 2020, the Influenza SARS-CoV-2 Multiplex Assay, which was designed to test for influenza and COVID-19 simultaneously.In addition, CDC’s website stated that the agency had begun developing an internal test review board.[114] According to CDC, once developed, the test review board will require all test development and validation data to be reviewed by CDC subject matter experts from infectious disease programs outside of the program developing the test to ensure an objective review and will require multiple levels of management sign-off.[115] If implemented effectively, a review board such as this should help prevent the recurrence of a test being distributed without management having reviewed key information about the test, as occurred with CDC’s first COVID-19 test. To help ensure CDC laboratories meet high-quality standards, CDC has indicated that it will require laboratories to obtain appropriate accreditation. According to CDC, the agency began efforts in 2020 to require that CDC laboratories become accredited to an appropriate technical standard that assures compliance with regulatory requirements by October 1, 2024.[116] According to CDC officials, this would ensure that its laboratories maintain compliance with applicable regulatory requirements to the extent practicable and that quality practices, integrity and excellence in science are not compromised.[117] CDC is directing funding from the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act to support the investments necessary to bring laboratories into compliance with applicable quality system regulations and accreditations.[118] To improve communication of test results with public health laboratories, CDC plans to upgrade and modernize CDC laboratories’ information management infrastructure. According to CDC officials, CDC plans to spend a combined total of $1.1 billion appropriated through the CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2012, and its annual appropriations to support the agency’s data modernization efforts. According to CDC’s road map for these efforts, the agency intends to create interoperable laboratory information systems that will enhance data sharing between federal, state and local governments and the private health care system, and CDC has begun efforts towards this goal. For example, CDC officials told us the agency performed a gap analysis in fiscal year 2021 to identify laboratories’ current and future uses for an information management system and challenges that may hinder adoption of this system. APHL officials told us they believe this new information technology infrastructure will help prevent the inefficient communication of test results from CDC to public health laboratories described above from happening again. To ensure CDC does not release tests that are incompatible with laboratories’ testing platforms and capabilities, CDC developed a new process that includes an assessment of the platforms available at the laboratories that will use each test. CDC officials told us they employed an improved process for the development of CDC’s Influenza SARS-CoV-2 Multiplex test that included reaching out to public health laboratories to identify the platforms currently in place at those laboratories. APHL officials told us they currently collect this information and provide it to CDC. According to the June 2021 information on CDC’s website, CDC will require that all tests the agency designs for use by public health laboratories are compatible with platforms commonly used by these laboratories.[119]The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated potential opportunities for CDC to improve its testing capacity for future public health emergencies. Reducing the spread of infectious diseases may require enhanced collaboration with laboratories across the nation and the rapid deployment of large quantities of test kits. CDC could take additional steps to improve its testing response in future public health emergencies. Enhancing public-private partnerships for laboratory testing. CDC officials told us that responding to COVID-19 required additional laboratory testing surge capacity. Prior to COVID-19, CDC recognized that the need for diagnostic testing can exceed the capacity of the public health laboratory infrastructure, and that private laboratories can serve to supplement national testing capabilities during an emergency. CDC collaborated with public health and private partners beginning in 2018 to identify potential opportunities to enhance surge capacity for laboratory testing; however, CDC had not taken concrete steps to enable its partners to provide surge capacity by the time of the initial stages of the COVID-19 response. To date, CDC has not yet developed a plan for enhancing laboratory surge testing capacity that identifies objectives and outlines agency and stakeholder roles and responsibilities for achieving these objectives within defined time frames. Following the Zika outbreak in 2016, CDC initiated three key actions to explore ways to enhance laboratory testing capacity during an emergency response by coordinating with public health and private sector laboratories.1. CDC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with CDC, APHL, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA)—an association of private clinical laboratories, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), signed in April 2018. [120] CDC established the MOU, in part, in response to our May 2017 report on the 2016 Zika outbreak, which found issues in the transparency of CDC’s processes for the provision of its tests to manufacturers during an emergency.[121] The stated goal of the MOU was to build a collaborative structure to address testing surge capacity needs during an emergency. However, officials from two of CDC’s three MOU partners told us that while the agreement improved communication ahead of and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it did not have a material effect on how the nation’s testing response unfolded at the beginning of the pandemic. For example, officials from MOU partners commented that:The MOU represents the “vision” of how enhanced coordination might work. However, officials added that CDC has not used the MOU to change any processes during the COVID-19 emergency response. The MOU is a good first step, but CDC needs to broaden it to include more organizations. Officials added that CDC’s vision for the role of private laboratories remained unclear to them.According to CDC officials, the MOU was a low-level agreement with no agency resources provided for its implementation.Additionally, FDA officials told us FDA is interested in joining CDC’s MOU to enhance communication and coordination related to test development with laboratories. CDC officials told us that adding agencies such as FDA to the MOU would allow for a more thorough and consistent response from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). They added that, given FDA’s role in facilitating surge test capacity, both agencies share responsibility in stakeholder engagement and planning for enhanced laboratory testing capacity.2. CDC held a tabletop training exercise with stakeholders in May 2019 to assess laboratory preparedness during an emergency response that used a scenario where a highly infectious disease emerged that spread both before and after patients began showing symptoms. This exercise included representatives from ACLA, APHL, and CSTE, as well as other agencies in HHS. During this exercise, participants identified a number of areas for further development, including ensuring early and accurate communication with partners, integrating data more effectively, coordinating the distribution of emergency diagnostic tests and test materials, and building public-private partnerships to support surge-testing capacity during an emergency response. CDC officials told us that the tabletop exercise helped to open lines of communication with stakeholders that were vital in responding to COVID-19. For example, following this exercise, CDC began hosting quarterly conference calls with commercial laboratories to discuss challenges with electronic reporting and other private sector response-related needs. CDC held two of these calls before the COVID-19 emergency began. CDC added that it is currently hosting calls with laboratories on a monthly basis and will return to a quarterly schedule when the emergency response has ended.3. CDC began a survey of 1,000 private sector and academic laboratories in January 2021 to identify laboratory testing surge capacity. Officials told us that this survey was originally intended to identify clinical laboratories that would be able to perform CDC-developed tests during an emergency response. They added that based on the large laboratory testing surge capacity needed during the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC has also begun using the survey to identify laboratories with the capability to independently develop diagnostic tests for use during future public health emergencies. CDC officials said they would use the results of this survey to expand partnerships and improve coordination with laboratories that can participate in future response efforts.The Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program outlines principles for preparedness exercise programs, as well as a common approach to program management, design and development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning.[122] According to this program, agencies should use improvement planning to turn areas for improvement identified during an exercise into concrete, measurable corrective actions that strengthen capabilities. Additionally, the National Biodefense Strategy, which explains how the U.S. government will manage its activities when responding to biological threats, states that agencies should develop plans that implement or support surge capabilities across response sectors in coordination with relevant entities, including private sector partners.[123] The strategy states that, among other things, these plans should include: implementing enhanced surveillance and public health measures for disease control; and clinical, environmental, food testing, and forensic surge laboratory operations. Furthermore, in our prior work, we identified key elements of sound planning that can help agencies achieve their goals. Sound plans include elements such as what the plan is trying to achieve and how it will achieve these results, as well as priorities, milestones, and monitoring to assess progress toward achieving goals. COVID-19 demonstrated that the risk posed by an emerging infectious disease could exceed the testing capacity of CDC and public health laboratories. Until CDC works with appropriate stakeholders—including public health and private laboratories—to develop a plan to enhance laboratory surge testing capacity that includes timelines, defines agency and stakeholder roles and responsibilities to meet objectives, and closes gaps identified in preparedness exercises, CDC and its partners will not be best positioned to fully support diagnostic testing needs during a future infectious disease outbreak. Improving test kit manufacturing capacity. Enhancing its test kit manufacturing capacity is another way CDC could improve its ability to respond to a future infectious disease outbreak. CDC officials told us they manufactured the first batch of test kits that CDC sent to public health laboratories entirely in-house to allow the agency to make changes to the test during the design and validation process and to ensure that public health laboratories received test kits as quickly as possible. However, CDC officials told us they recognized early in the COVID-19 response that the need for tests exceeded the agency’s manufacturing capacity, and that it needed to engage private manufacturers to increase testing capacity. According to CDC, the agency awarded a contract in 2018 to support the production and distribution of test kits for a number of pathogens, including, among others, influenza, meningitis, and a 2012 strain of coronavirus. However, this contract did not support the manufacturing of a test kit for COVID-19. Instead, CDC officials told us the agency procured services to supplement its internal test kit manufacturing process using purchase orders, which were issued by January 30, 2020. CDC also reported awarding contracts to two companies on February 20, 2020, for the manufacturing of its test kits. CDC and a contractor jointly manufactured the second batch of corrected test kits that CDC sent to public health laboratories beginning on February 28, 2020.[124] However, CDC did not have manufacturing contracts in place prior to the pandemic that could have supported the COVID-19 testing response. We have previously reported that contracting during an emergency can pose a unique set of challenges, as officials face a significant amount of pressure to provide life-sustaining goods and services as quickly as possible. We have also previously reported that instead of initiating contracts during an emergency response, some agencies establish contracts and agreements in advance of an emergency or disaster to support their needs for certain goods and services, which could include manufacturing. Establishing contracts prior to an emergency, also called advance contracting, is a tool that can be leveraged to help federal agencies rapidly and cost-effectively mobilize resources.[125] Further, according to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), establishing contracts in advance of an emergency fills a critical gap in the emergency acquisition process and ensures that the agency can provide rapid support during an emergency response.[126] For example, contracts can be structured to include emergency response delivery time frames that require vendors to provide certain goods and services within a specific period of time to meet urgent needs. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget encourages federal agencies to seek out pre-positioned contractors—which agencies may obtain through advance contracting—to facilitate a timely emergency response.[127] CDC officials said they recognized that establishing contracts in advance could add some value during an emergency response but that they had not evaluated the potential benefits of establishing contracts in advance or considered how CDC could establish such contracts in the future. Specifically, they noted that having contracts in place before the COVID-19 pandemic could potentially have allowed the agency to distribute the second batch of test kits to public health laboratories one or two days sooner. While we recognize the challenges of planning for unknown events, we maintain it is critical to think through these issues before, rather than during, the public health emergency to maximize efficiencies and potentially save lives. Further, distributing test kits more quickly, even by only one day, could be valuable because each day is critical for understanding the spread of a novel virus in the early weeks of a pandemic.Having contracts with outside test kit manufacturers prior to a public health emergency is one tool that could help supplement the supply produced by CDC and aid in the rapid manufacturing and deployment of test kits during a future public health emergency. By assessing the types of goods and services that could be leveraged by advance contracting to support the manufacturing and deployment of diagnostic test kits in public health emergencies, CDC will be prepared to award advance contracts in areas it deems beneficial and be better positioned to respond to future public health emergencies, including those caused by novel pathogens. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed relevant CDC documents, such as the agency’s internal report summarizing the results of its investigation into the unanticipated failure of its COVID-19 test and its MOU with laboratory stakeholders.[128] We also reviewed transcripts of media briefings by CDC officials, academic publications, and World Health Organization documents describing international COVID-19 testing efforts. In addition, we interviewed CDC and FDA officials. We also interviewed representatives from associations representing organizations and professionals involved in COVID-19 testing, including the American Clinical Laboratory Association, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. We compared CDC’s efforts to Department of Homeland Security leading practices for exercise planning and improvement planning, the National Biodefense Strategy, Office of Management and Budget and FEMA leading practices for emergency preparedness, and key elements of sound planning from our prior work.Agency Comments We provided a draft of this enclosure to HHS for review and comment. Responses from the department, including from CDC and FDA, are reprinted in Appendix VI. CDC and FDA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In response to our first recommendation, CDC concurred and noted FDA’s shared role in improving the nation’s laboratory surge testing capacity. We agree and added language to more explicitly state FDA’s role in increasing access to testing by authorizing tests for use during a public health emergency and noted our ongoing work examining FDA’s regulation of COVID-19 tests. In response to our second recommendation, CDC concurred and stated that CDC will investigate the possibility of setting up a contract mechanism that would allow for rapid capacity to work with commercial manufacturers, or in the event CDC is unable to set up a contract, CDC will draft contract language that can be used as needed for future public health emergencies. GAO’s Ongoing WorkOur work on COVID-19 testing is ongoing. We are currently examining how FDA regulates COVID-19 tests. We are also planning to examine issues related to the deployment of testing at the beginning of the pandemic, including work to identify lessons learned from COVID-19 testing that can improve the nation’s ability to mount a robust diagnostic testing response in the future. GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendations on testing from prior bimonthly and quarterly CARES Act reports.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to COVID-19 Testing Recommendation Status The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clearly discloses the scientific rationale for any change to testing guidelines at the time the change is made (November report). Open. The Department of Health and Human Services agreed with our recommendation and has begun to implement it. For example, on February 16, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued Interim Guidance on Testing Healthcare Personnel that stated asymptomatic health care personnel who have recovered from COVID-19 may not need to undergo repeat testing or quarantine in the case of another exposure within 3 months of their initial diagnosis. To support this guidance, CDC's website provided links to studies that explained the scientific rationale. Additionally, CDC told us that it continues to consult with scientific stakeholders when issuing or updating guidance documents, and outlined a series of steps the agency plans to take to strengthen its testing guidance. However, as of May 2021, CDC had not fully completed the recommendation. For example, clear linkage to a scientific rationale for recent changes related to testing after exposure for fully-vaccinated individuals appeared to be missing. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation to ensure that these efforts continue. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should develop and make publicly available a comprehensive national COVID-19 testing strategy that incorporates all six characteristics of an effective national strategy. Such a strategy could build upon existing strategy documents that the Department of Health and Human Services has produced for the public and Congress to allow for a more coordinated pandemic testing approach (January report). Open. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) partially agreed with our recommendation. In January 2021, HHS agreed that the department should take steps to more directly incorporate some of the elements of an effective national strategy, but expressed concern that producing such a strategy at this time could be overly burdensome on the federal, state, and local entities that are responding to the pandemic, and that a plan would be outdated by the time it was finalized or potentially rendered obsolete by the rate of technological advancement. In May 2021, HHS told us that the White House and Department of Health and Human Services plan to execute a National Testing Strategy that will act upon the Administration’s testing goals. According to HHS, a finalized document is forthcoming that includes specific actions as well as timelines to achieve these goals. The National Testing Strategy will speak to the country’s short-term COVID-19 needs as well as the long-term needs associated with the country’s broader bio-preparedness. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation. Related GAO ProductsForeign Assistance: State Department Should Better Assess Results of Efforts to Improve Financial and Some Program Data. GAO-21-373. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2021.2017 Disaster Contracting: Action Needed to Better Ensure More Effective Use and Management of Advance Contracts. GAO-19-93. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2018. Emerging Infectious Diseases: Actions Needed to Address the Challenges of Responding to Zika Virus Disease Outbreaks. GAO-17-445. Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2017.High-Containment Laboratories: Comprehensive and Up-to-Date Policies and Stronger Oversight Mechanisms Needed to Improve Safety. GAO-16-305. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2016. Disaster Response: Criteria for Developing and Validating Effective Response Plans. GAO-10-969T. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2010. HHS COVID-19 Funding Bookmark:As of May 31, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services had been appropriated approximately $484 billion in COVID-19 relief funds in six relief laws. The department uses spend plans to communicate information to Congress about its COVID-19 relief funds; however, we found that the most recent spend plans generally lack information on projected time frames for obligating the remaining COVID-19 relief funds. Entity involved: Department of Health and Human Services Recommendation for Executive Action: To communicate information about and facilitate oversight of the agency’s use of COVID-19 relief funds, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide projected time frames for the planned spending of COVID-19 relief funds in the Department of Health and Human Services’ spend plans submitted to Congress. HHS partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that the department would aim to incorporate some time frames on planned spending where that information may be available such as time frames for select grants to states. However, HHS officials stated that the department would not be able to provide specific time frames for all relief funds since the evolving environment requires the department to remain flexible in responding to incoming requests for response activities. BackgroundTo assist the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received approximately $484 billion in COVID-19 relief appropriations from six COVID-19 relief laws. Many HHS COVID-19 relief funds are available for a multiyear period or are available until expended. Of the $484 billion, approximately $160 billion (about 33 percent) was appropriated in the sixth COVID-19 relief law, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), enacted on March 11, 2021. Overview of Key IssuesAs of May 31, 2021, the department reported that about $253 billion of the $324 billion appropriated in the first five COVID-19 relief laws enacted as of December 27, 2020 had been obligated (about 78 percent) and about $168 billion had been expended (about 52 percent). Of the $160 billion in appropriations from the sixth law enacted on March 11, 2021, about $75 billion had been obligated (47 percent) and about $3 billion had been expended (about 2 percent). In total, approximately $156 billion remained unobligated from all six laws. (See figure.)HHS’s Reported COVID-19 Relief Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures from COVID-19 Relief Laws, as of May 31, 2021aThese amounts reflect appropriations provided in Divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 that are specifically designated for COVID-19 relief.The table below shows HHS appropriations, obligations, and expenditures by COVID-19 relief law that HHS reported as of May 31, 2021. Three quarters of HHS’s appropriations from the first five relief laws have been obligated, and more than half have been expended. HHS also received significant additional appropriations in ARPA, about half of which had not been obligated as of May 31, 2021.Department of Health and Human Services Reported COVID-19 Relief Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures, by Relief Law, as of May 31, 2021 Legislation Date of enactment Appropriations ($ millions) Obligations ($ millions, (% obligated)) Expenditures ($ millions, (% expended)) Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. No. 116-123) March 6, 2020 6,497 5,381 (83) 3,202 (49) Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Pub. L. No. 116-127) March 18, 2020 1,314 1,288 (98) 1,253 (95) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. (Pub. L. No. 116-136) March 27, 2020 142,833 135,532 (95) 112,760 (79) Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Pub. L. No. 116-139) April 24, 2020 100,000 56,729 (57) 46,951 (47) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-260) a December 27, 2020 73,175 54,140 (74) 3,764 (5) American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Pub. L. No. 117-2) March 11, 2021 160,494 75,225 (47) 2,642 (2) Total 484,313 328,294 (68) 170,573 (35) Source: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data. | GAO-21-551Note: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that, of its total appropriations for COVID-19 relief, the agency transferred $289 million to the Department of Homeland Security, and $300 million are not available until HHS has taken certain actions.aThis amount reflects appropriations provided in Divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 that are specifically designated for COVID-19 relief. An additional $638 million in COVID-19 relief funds were appropriated under Division H to the Administration for Children and Families, an agency within HHS, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus, for necessary expenses for grants to carry out a low-income household drinking water and wastewater emergency assistance program. However, these funds were not included in the HHS-reported data on HHS COVID-19 relief appropriations, obligations, and expenditures, as HHS noted that the funds were not considered COVID-19 relief funding for USAspending.gov reporting purposes.Appropriations for HHS agencies or key funds. The table below provides COVID-19 relief appropriations to HHS under the six relief laws and the obligations and expenditures of these appropriations by HHS agency or fund as of May 31, 2021. The sixth COVID-19 relief law, ARPA, was enacted on March 11, 2021, and as of May 31, 2021, HHS had obligated $75 billion (47 percent), and expended $3 billion (two percent) of the appropriations provided under this law.Department of Health and Human Services Reported COVID-19 Relief Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures, by Agency or Key Fund, as of May 31, 2021 Agency or key fund Appropriations ($ millions) Obligations ($ millions) Expenditures ($ millions) Administration for Children and Families 63,344.0 61,886.3 5,605.3 Administration for Community Living 3,200.0 2,904.7 912.5 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 12.5 12.4 7.3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 26,770.0 12,803.8 2,580.7 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servicesa 935.0 124.9 47.4 Enhanced Use of Defense Production Act 10,000.0 0.0 0.0 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 696.0 64.2 27.6 Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 10,750.0 7,523.3 1,241.3 Indian Health Service (IHS) 7,190.0 3,158.5 3,025.6 National Institutes of Health (NIH) 3,031.4 1,144.7 463.2 Office of Inspector General (OIG) 5.0 0.0 0.0 Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF)b 350,144.5 232,162.6 156,506.3 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Healthc 9,532.0 6,913.6 3,373.1 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Responsec 20,497.5 11,776.2 7,595.9 Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority c 38,107.3 28,073.3 8,035.4 Provider Relief Fundc, d 178,000.0 134,314.1 127,232.2 CDCc 1,000.0 419.2 204.3 FDAc 22.0 1.9 1.9 HRSAc 979.8 971.1 793.5 IHSc 1,640.0 1,005.9 507.6 NIHc 1,806.0 1,031.8 501.1 OIGc 12.0 3.6 3.1 Other PHSSEFc 98,547.9 47,651.9 8,258.2 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 8,235.0 6,508.4 156.2 Grand Total 484,313.4 328,293.8 170,573.4 Source: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data. | GAO-21-551Note: HHS reported that of the total COVID-19 relief appropriations the agency transferred $289 million to the Department of Homeland Security, and that $300 million in appropriations are not available until HHS takes certain actions. HHS’s reported appropriations specifically designated for COVID-19 relief in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-260) reflect only appropriations provided under Divisions M and N. Of the $324 billion appropriated in the five relief laws enacted as of December 27, 2020, about $253 billion (about 78 percent) had been obligated and about $168 billion (about 52 percent) had been expended, as of May 31, 2021. aThese amounts do not reflect Medicaid and Medicare expenditures that resulted from statutory changes to these programs under the COVID-19 relief laws.bPHSSEF is an account through which funding is provided to certain HHS offices, such as the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Amounts have been appropriated to this fund for the COVID-19 response to support certain HHS agencies and response activities. For example, NIH received about $1.8 billion in transfers from the PHSSEF, and this amount is not included in the approximately $3 billion appropriated directly to NIH.cThe italicized amounts are subtotals of the PHSSEF and are already reflected in the total $350,144.5 million listed for the PHSSEF. Italicized amounts listed under the PHSSEF appropriations column are HHS allocations based on appropriations made in the COVID-19 relief laws and approved allotment decisions made by HHS in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget. Some amounts were appropriated to the PHSSEF for transfer to specified HHS agencies.dThe Provider Relief Fund reimburses eligible health care providers for health care-related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to COVID-19. Provider Relief Fund expenditures also may be referred to as disbursements.Allocations for selected COVID-19 response activities. HHS officials noted that allocations for COVID-19 response activities are determined by appropriations made by Congress in combination with approved spend plan decisions.[129] Some funding—such as funding for testing or vaccine-related activities—could apply to multiple response activity categories, making an exact accounting of the obligations and expenditures in certain areas difficult. For example, certain funds included in the response activity category for support to states, localities, territories, and tribal organizations were designated for testing or vaccine distribution. As of May 31, 2021, the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), which reimburses eligible health care providers for health care-related expenses or lost revenues attributable to COVID-19, had the largest allocation—comprising about 37 percent ($178 billion) of HHS allocations from the six COVID-19 relief laws. Other activities with high allocations included testing-related activities; the Child Care and Development Block Grant; vaccine-related activities; and support to state, local, territorial, and tribal organizations for preparedness, which together comprised an additional 40 percent ($194.0 billion) of HHS allocations. The following table provides HHS’s reported allocations, obligations, and expenditures by selected COVID-19 response activity. The sixth COVID-19 relief law, ARPA, was enacted on March 11, 2021, and as of May 31, 2021, HHS had obligated $75 billion (47 percent), and expended $3 billion (two percent) of the appropriations provided under this law.Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Reported Allocations, Obligations, and Expenditures by Selected COVID-19 Response Activity, as of May 31, 2021 COVID-19 response activity Description Allocations ($ millions) Obligations ($ millions) Expenditures ($ millions) Provider Relief Fund Includes reimbursements to eligible health care providers for health care-related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to COVID-19. 178,000.0 134,314.1 127,232.2 Testing Includes procurement and distribution of testing supplies, community-based testing programs, testing in high-risk and underserved populations and Indian Health Services’ programs, implementing a national strategy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) testing-related activities such as technical assistance, and other activities. 61,416.3 21,180.4 5,117.3 Child Care and Development Block Grant Includes assistance to child care providers to help maintain or resume operations in the case of decreased enrollment or closures related to COVID-19. 52,465.0 52,087.8 4,043.1 Vaccines Includes Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) funding for vaccine development and procurement; National Institutes for Health (NIH) research activities; and CDC vaccine distribution, administration, and technical assistance related activities. 40,221.5 25,063.6 6,387.7 Support to state, local, territorial, and tribal organizations’ preparedness Includes funding for states and other governments to support testing, contact tracing, and surveillance; vaccines distribution; and other activities. 40,061.5 38,701.3 6,570.4 Strategic National Stockpilea Includes acquiring, storing, and maintaining ventilators, testing supplies, and personal protective equipment (PPE) and increasing manufacturing capacity for certain PPE. 13,919.9 10,236.7 6,318.9 Drugs and therapeutics Includes BARDA funding for development and procurement of therapeutics and NIH research activities. 11,379.4 6,874.7 2,049.5 Health centers Includes support for COVID-19-related activities, such as testing, at health centers, which provide health care services to individuals regardless of their ability to pay. 9,620.0 8,178.1 1,825.4 Rural Provider Payments Includes assistance for rural providers and suppliers that will be administered using the same mechanism as the Provider Relief Fund, according to HHS officials. 8,500.0 0.0 0.0 Mental health and substance use–related services Includes substance abuse prevention and treatment, community-based mental health services, and other activities. 8,315.0 6,508.4 156.2 Diagnostics research and development Includes BARDA diagnostic development programs and NIH projects, such as the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics Initiative. 3,321.6 1,761.6 715.1 Head Start Includes grants to local programs for high-quality learning experiences and to respond to other immediate and ongoing consequences of COVID-19. 2,000.0 1,325.0 460.5 Testing for uninsuredb Includes reimbursements to eligible providers for COVID-19 testing for individuals who are uninsured. 2,000.0 1,980.9 1,973.0 Global disease detection and emergency response Includes support to governments and other organizations to rapidly diagnose cases and to ensure readiness to implement vaccines and therapeutics. 1,747.1 432.2 133.5 Telehealth Includes efforts to support safety-net health care providers transitioning to telehealth, telehealth access—especially for vulnerable maternal and child health populations—and a telehealth website. 307.5 136.5 102.8 Other response activities Includes additional activities such as activities conducted by the Administration for Community Living, certain CDC-wide activities and program support, and activities conducted by the Food and Drug Administration. 51,038.6 19,512.5 7,487.8 Total 484,313.4 328,293.8 170,573.4 Source: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data, written HHS responses, and GAO analysis of HHS spend plans. | GAO-21-551Note: The selected response activities represent examples of certain targeted activities that fall within particular HHS agencies, such as funding for health centers or Head Start, as well as broader categories of response activities that may span HHS agencies, such as testing-, vaccine-, and therapeutics-related response activities. HHS reported allocations, obligations, and expenditures for these activities based on the primary programmatic recipient organization of the funds, although some activities apply to multiple categories. For example, certain funds in the “support to state, local, territorial, and tribal organizations for preparedness” category were provided for testing but are not reflected in the “testing” category. However, HHS also noted that testing-related funding awarded to states or localities that was appropriated under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was included in the “testing” category. HHS officials explained that the activity names align with how funds were appropriated under different COVID-19 relief laws. According to HHS officials, the allocations reported for the key activities above are based on amounts appropriated for these activities in the COVID-19 relief laws, and on approved spend plan decisions made by HHS in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget. According to HHS, as of June 4, 2021, the agency used about $1.7 billion in appropriations provided under ARPA, including $1.2 billion appropriated for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, and mitigation activities, for the Administration for Children and Families’ Unaccompanied Children Program, citing the Secretary’s authorities under the Public Health Service Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. See Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. H, tit. II, § 204, 134 Stat. 1182, 1589 (2020); 42 U.S.C. 238j(a).With respect to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, the amounts reflect appropriations specifically designated for COVID-19 in Divisions M and N of the act. aAccording to HHS, the agency transferred $850 million from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, Strategic National Stockpile, to the Unaccompanied Children Program within the Administration for Children and Families, citing authority provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. See Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. M, tit. III, § 304, 134 Stat. at 1923 (2020).bAccording to HHS officials, HHS has allocated an additional $4.8 billion to the testing for the uninsured program from section 2401 of ARPA, which HHS included in the “testing” response activity category.The percentage of obligations and expenditures varied across selected COVID-19 response activities for a variety of reasons including the nature of the activities, their planned uses, and the timing of the funds provided through the six COVID-19 relief laws.Nature of funded activities. The nature of some funded activities—such as financial assistance grants or awards to state, local, and other jurisdictions—means that the full amount of the grant or award may be obligated at the time of the grant or award, but expended incrementally over time based on the budget period for the activities. For example, support to state, local, territorial, and tribal organizations’ preparedness includes assistance to states and other jurisdictions for testing, contact tracing, laboratory capacity, and vaccine distribution. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials told us that some expenditures for these awards, such as those for personnel costs, will take place over the time period for which the award is made, some of which are more than 2 years.Planned use of funds. National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials reported that certain research programs are planned in phases so that additional funds will be obligated after grantees meet certain requirements or integrate new advancements. In addition, officials from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority told us that funds obligated for vaccine manufacturing and procurement are expended as vaccine doses are shipped to administration or distribution sites. Officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response said funds obligated for replenishing the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) are not expended until products are manufactured and delivered into the SNS.Timing of COVID-relief appropriations: About 34 percent (approximately $21 billion) of funds in the testing category had been obligated as of May 31, 2021. However, a majority of these funds—approximately $49 billion—were allocated from appropriations in the sixth COVID-19 relief law, which was enacted on March 11, 2021. According to HHS data, about 45 percent of allocations in this category from the first five COVID-19 relief laws had been obligated as of February 28, 2021. With respect to expenditures, 19 percent (approximately $1.8 billion) of allocations for health centers had been expended as of May 31, 2021, mostly due to the nearly four-fold increase in funding for this activity that was appropriated in the sixth COVID-19 relief law. Spend plans. To communicate information about COVID-19 relief funds from the first five COVID-19 relief laws, HHS uses spend plans, which the laws required be developed, updated, and provided to Congress every 60 days.[130] According to HHS officials, the department is also preparing a spend plan for ARPA, which was enacted in March 2021. However, we found that the most current spend plans generally do not include time frames for obligating the remaining relief funds, which is useful information for oversight and for informing future funding decisions by Congress.[131]Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encouraged federal agencies, including HHS, to act quickly to disburse relief funds and noted the importance of spending transparency and regular reporting to help safeguard taxpayer dollars.[132] In April 2020, OMB issued guidance to agencies noting that “time is of the essence, and the Administration is committed to the rapid delivery of relief funds and response activities” and that “agencies should rapidly issue awards and fund programs to meet crucial needs.” Further, OMB noted that agencies must report information on awards to provide the public with information in a clear, accurate, and timely manner. In its effort to respond quickly to the pandemic and rapidly issue awards and fund programs consistent with OMB guidance, HHS funded some activities to support relief efforts shortly after funds were appropriated; for example, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) stated that its goal for the PRF was to distribute funds as quickly as possible. HRSA officials told us the first $30 billion was disbursed to providers by mid-April 2020—about a month after enactment of the first appropriation for provider relief. However, the timing for use of the remaining funds is unknown and highlights the importance of information to help ensure accountability for these funds. According to federal internal control standards, management should communicate quality information to external and internal stakeholders so that they can help the agency achieve its objectives and address related risks. In particular, quality information helps support Congress in making future funding decisions.As of May 31, 2021, about $156 billion of $484 billion (about 32 percent) of COVID-19 relief funds appropriated to HHS were available to be obligated—this amount includes the funds appropriated in ARPA. By not communicating its plans about when it expects to obligate these remaining funds, HHS is missing an opportunity to provide information for oversight and to guide future congressional funding decisions.[133] The figure below shows obligated and unobligated HHS COVID-19 relief funds as of May 31, 2021.Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Obligated and Unobligated COVID-19 Relief Funds, as of May 31, 2021We found that large amounts of funds for certain activities remained unobligated, and it is not clear when these funds will be obligated or expended. For example: As of May 31, 2021, about 25 percent of PRF appropriations remained unobligated ($43.7 billion of $178 billion), and HRSA has not provided time frames for obligating this balance. Of the unobligated funds, according to HHS’s October 2020 spend plan, HRSA reserved a portion of the provider relief funds to respond to needs not identified in the spend plan, and in May 2021 HHS officials told us that the reserved funds were approximately $24 billion. HHS has not specified time frames for obligating these reserved funds or for the other $29.1 billion in unobligated provider relief funds. In addition, ARPA appropriated an additional $8.5 billion for rural providers, and as of May 31, 2021, all these funds remained unobligated.[134]As of May 31, 2021, about 66 percent ($40.2 billion of $61.4 billion) of funds that HHS reported to us for testing activities remained unobligated—most of those allocated funds ($49 billion) were appropriated on March 11, 2021 when ARPA was enacted.[135] We found that the most current spend plans for the first five relief laws do not specify time frames for obligating these funds, and in April 2021 HHS officials told us that they were developing a spend plan for ARPA COVID-19 relief funds, but the plan was not yet completed.[136] In other cases where funds remained unobligated, agency officials—NIH and CDC—did not provide time frames, but said that unobligated relief funds would be spent according to their spend plans and consistent with legislative requirements. HHS officials told us that the spend plans submitted to Congress contain information about future planned activities, however, officials said that they do not provide information on time frames for obligating relief funds.Spend plans with information on projected timeframes for obligating the remaining relief funds would give Congress information useful to facilitate oversight of these resources to help ensure that relief funds are spent in an expedient and timely manner, as well as help inform future funding decisions. MethodologyWe requested, and HHS provided, data on appropriations, allocations, obligations, and expenditures of COVID-19 relief funds by HHS agency and by selected response activity, as of May 31, 2021. We also reviewed appropriation warrant information provided by the Department of the Treasury as of May 31, 2021. To assess the reliability of the data reported by HHS, we reviewed HHS documentation; Treasury appropriation warrant information; and information from the federal spending database, www.usaspending.gov; as well as HHS’s spending database, taggs.hhs.gov. We determined that the HHS reported data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective.[137] We also reviewed the six COVID-19 relief laws to assist the response to COVID-19. We requested, obtained, and analyzed HHS and agency information, including agency spend plans, and related documentation, to determine HHS and agency plans and information including time frames for spending COVID-19 relief funds on response activities. Agency CommentsWe provided HHS and OMB with a draft of this enclosure. HHS partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that the department would aim to incorporate some time frames on planned spending where such information may be available, such as time frames for select grants to states. However, HHS officials stated that they would not be able to provide specific time frames for all relief funds since the evolving environment requires the department to remain flexible in responding to incoming requests for response activities. For example, HHS cited field management activities that can change quickly depending on the incoming response requests. We agree that estimating projected time frames can be challenging and subject to changes. However, providing projected time frames would not impinge on the Department’s ability to be flexible as these spend plans are required to be updated every 60 days. Offering projected time frames to spending would give Congress useful information to help ensure relief funds are spent in an expedient and timely manner, as well as help inform future funding decisions. HHS also provided technical comments on this enclosure, which we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not provide any comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkAs HHS works to distribute funds for COVID-19 relief activities and to eligible providers, it will continue to be important that HHS officials ensure funds are appropriately distributed and used. We plan to conduct additional work examining HHS’s COVID-19 relief funds.Related GAO ProductStandards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014)Contact information: Carolyn L. Yocom, (202) 512-7114, [email protected] Medical Supply ManufacturingBookmark:The U.S. faces challenges to building a sustainable domestic manufacturing base for personal protective equipment, including high relative labor costs and limited access to raw materials that make staying competitive with foreign manufacturers difficult. There are a number of factors for the federal government to consider as it moves forward with efforts to build a sustainable manufacturing base, including the broader goal of supply chain resilience, which may call for targeted reliance on foreign manufacturers.Entities involved: The Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Federal Emergency Management AgencyBackgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE)—safety products designed to help prevent the spread of infectious disease—has been critical to the COVID-19 response. Prior to the pandemic, the U.S. generally depended on foreign suppliers for certain types of PPE, such as nitrile gloves and surgical gowns. U.S. dependence on foreign PPE manufacturers has increased over the past several decades in part because foreign manufacturers can produce their products at a lower cost.[138] Federal agencies have identified this dependence as a national security issue. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a significant increase in worldwide demand for PPE and disrupted global supply chains, which limited availability of critical equipment for U.S. health care providers. Actions taken by some governments to halt or restrict exports of PPE further affected the availability of medical supplies in the U.S., including N95 respirators, surgical masks, surgical and isolation gowns, and nitrile and other gloves for use in health care settings.[139] Just-in-time supply chain strategies, in which manufacturers and distributors produce and maintain just enough product to meet immediate fulfillment demands, also exacerbated PPE shortages. Use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) and other actions to address PPE supply chain shortages. Title III of the DPA authorizes the President to provide certain financial incentives to address industrial base capabilities essential for national defense, including maintaining, restoring, and expanding domestic manufacturing, when certain conditions are met.[140] The Department of Defense (DOD) reported awarding contracts and agreements valued at $574.1 million to expand domestic production of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic, through May 2021.[141] These investments helped manufacturers produce an additional 58 million N95 respirators and 125,000 gowns per month and are expected to result in an additional 38 million nitrile gloves and 44 million surgical masks per month by the fall of 2021. However, as shown in the figure below, the U.S. remains highly dependent on foreign manufacturers for certain types of PPE such as nitrile gloves and gowns.Estimated Domestic Production Capacity and Domestic Demand for Select Personal Protective Equipment Types, March 2020 through May 2021Overview of Key IssuesFederal planning for medical supply domestic industrial base sustainment is in its initial stages. Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and DOD acknowledged that federal actions are needed to build a sustainable domestic PPE industrial base to respond to future public health emergencies, as well as to enhance the resilience of medical product supply chains more broadly. Executive Order 14001 called for a national pandemic supply chain resilience strategy, which is due mid-July 2021.[142] ASPR officials told us that the strategy is under development, and they expect to issue it on time. Officials noted that the strategy will include a high-level discussion of the program and policies that may be needed for industrial base sustainment, as well as challenges the government faces. Once the strategy is released, ASPR and its federal partners will develop an implementation plan that includes more specific actions and timelines, as well as roles and responsibilities, according to officials, who did not provide a time frame for development or release of this implementation plan.The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 appropriated $10 billion to support the use of the DPA for medical supplies, which agency officials anticipate will result in additional industrial base expansion projects.[143] According to officials, ASPR and the Supply Chain Advisory Group developed and submitted a spend plan for this funding to the White House in April 2021, which is pending approval.[144] This draft spend plan identified $5 billion in medical supply projects for fiscal year 2021, including approximately $2.4 billion for PPE investments, according to an official. ASPR has not yet identified plans for the remaining $5 billion.Challenges to sustainable domestic PPE manufacturing. The U.S. faces challenges to building a sustainable, competitive domestic PPE manufacturing base primarily due to labor costs and limited access to raw materials.Higher U.S. labor costs result in higher product costs. Domestically produced PPE typically costs more, in part as a result of higher U.S. labor costs, making it less competitive on the global market, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) and many of the stakeholders we interviewed.[145] Certain PPE types, such as gowns and nitrile gloves, may be particularly challenging to manufacture in the United States because of the amount of labor required to produce them and the cost of labor. For example, according to USITC, surgical gowns, which may require workers to piece gowns together, cost $17 to $20 each for U.S.-made gowns, as compared to $4 to $7 per gown for those made in China.[146] The costs of U.S.-made nitrile gloves may also be higher because of the labor required to manufacture this type of PPE. According to USITC, each glove production line requires 30-40 workers on average, including workers who remove each glove manually from hand-shaped molds. Production also requires chemists, machinists, and quality assurance personnel.Limited access to raw materials makes scaling production challenging and costly. Each type of PPE requires raw materials that may be difficult to obtain domestically. For example, nitrile rubber, a raw material used to make nitrile gloves, comes predominantly from Malaysia, and domestic production is limited.[147] A representative of one U.S. nitrile glove manufacturer that gets its nitrile rubber from overseas suppliers said the cost of imported nitrile rubber accounts for more than 50 percent of the production costs of the gloves. In addition, this manufacturer cited lengthy delivery delays of nitrile rubber from suppliers in Malaysia as significantly affecting the ability of the federal government to expand domestic manufacturing of gloves in response to ongoing shortages during the pandemic. In addition, increased domestic manufacturing of PPE may affect access to raw materials also used to manufacture nonmedical products and could result in shortages of raw materials used for both, further increasing product costs. For example, some of the nonwoven fabrics needed to make N95 respirators, masks, and gowns are also used to make diapers and sanitizing wipes and in other industries such as automotive and construction.[148] Significant increases in the demand for N95 respirators and masks at the beginning of COVID-19 also contributed to short supply of these nonwoven fabrics, which contributed to the increased cost of N95 respirators.Many stakeholders we interviewed, including manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations representing end users, cited additional challenges to building a sustainable domestic PPE manufacturing base. See the below figure for the challenges cited by these stakeholders, as well as USITC, for the four types of PPE included in our review.Summary of Information from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) and Other Stakeholders on Key Challenges Affecting Domestic Production for Certain Types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)Note: Stakeholders included a nongeneralizable sample of 29 industry stakeholders, including PPE manufacturers; distributors and trade associations representing other purchasers, such as state governments, hospitals, and group purchasing organizations; and researchers.Stakeholders noted the need for federal actions to help increase long-term demand for domestically made PPE. Without a clear signal of long-term demand for PPE to help ensure a return on investment, some manufacturers—including both those with existing federal domestic industrial base expansion contracts and those who pivoted to making PPE during COVID-19—told us that they were unsure if they would continue to produce PPE after the pandemic because future business longevity seemed too uncertain.Stakeholders and federal officials provided their perspectives on actions that could help increase federal and nonfederal demand and sustain a long-term domestic base. The options presented below are being explored by ASPR, according to officials, as well as research institutes, such as the National Academies for Science, Education, and Medicine and others. Some of these actions would require regulatory action or legislation. We present the range of stakeholder perspectives on all options, even those that may be deemed less feasible or useful by some, as they may be helpful to HHS and its federal partners in their continued long-term planning.Federal funding for capital investments and long-term purchases. Funding for capital investments, such as through manufacturing expansion projects like those executed during the pandemic, could help domestic manufacturers achieve economies of scale and be more price competitive, according to some stakeholders we spoke with including manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations. Such investments would allow manufacturers to purchase equipment to expand production capacity or automate manufacturing processes to reduce manual labor costs.[149]Similarly, long-term federal funding, which could be used for contracts that commit the federal government to purchasing specified volumes of PPE over a number of years, would help create a sustainable base of demand that could justify manufacturers’ capital investments in machinery, technology, and other expansion or facility needs, according to many manufacturers we spoke with, as well as some distributors and trade associations.[150] Without federal purchasing contracts, some manufacturers who received federal contracts or agreements for PPE expansion for the COVID-19 response expressed concern about having idle manufacturing capacity after the pandemic subsides. Transparent stockpile planning to include domestically manufactured PPE. Some stakeholders, including manufacturers, distributors, trade associations, and researchers, commented that having a clear and transparent understanding of future federal plans for stockpiling would help signal longer-term demand for PPE and help manufacturers with business planning.[151] We have reported on federal actions related to the Strategic National Stockpile during COVID-19 on a regular basis, beginning in June 2020.[152] (See the Strategic National Stockpile enclosure in this report for more information.) Expanded legal requirements to prioritize federal purchasing of domestically manufactured PPE. Manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations we spoke with had mixed opinions on the effect of expanding federal purchasing requirements for domestically produced goods.Specifically, one manufacturer suggested that the Berry Amendment, which governs DOD clothing purchases and, according to textile manufacturing stakeholders, is a significant driver of their domestic textile and apparel businesses, could be expanded to include a broader range of PPE.[153] Similarly, one distributor suggested that the amendment could be extended to agencies beyond DOD. However, some other stakeholders noted that even with such expansions, the Berry Amendment may not be feasible for certain PPE types, such as gloves, if raw materials for those products cannot be sourced domestically. One manufacturer and one trade association representing manufacturers stated that expanding federal purchasing requirements under the Berry Amendment would be unlikely to provide significant or primary support to sustain a domestic manufacturing base because of the small federal share of the domestic medical supply market. One manufacturer and one company that manufactures and distributes PPE noted similar limitations to expanding purchasing requirements under the Buy American Act, which requires federal procurement of domestic products, subject to certain exceptions and waivers.[154] Use of Medicare to incentivize nonfederal purchasing of domestically manufactured PPE. Some stakeholders, including manufacturers and distributors, also discussed restructuring Medicare in several ways to incentivize health care providers to purchase domestic PPE and help increase the demand signal for such PPE. These suggestions included:restructuring Medicare conditions of participation to require commitments to domestic medical supply purchasing in order to participate in the program, restructuring Medicare reimbursement policies to reimburse providers at higher rates for using domestically made PPE, and requiring hospitals to incorporate plans for purchasing domestically made PPE into their hospital supply inventories. Officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services told us that restructuring Medicare as suggested would be challenging for several reasons. According to officials, the agency lacks the statutory authority to implement such purchasing requirements. Further, officials stated that reimbursement for PPE is bundled into overall service charges. Officials and other stakeholders, including some manufacturers, distributors, and a trade association representing end users, noted that it would be more feasible to incentivize domestic purchasing by requiring a certain percentage of providers’ PPE to be purchased from domestic manufacturers, or to provide a bonus payment for such purchases on a regular basis. However, they noted that it may be difficult for hospitals and other health care providers, as well as their suppliers, to identify which brands of PPE may be U.S.-made. Officials also agreed with a distributor who told us that any such requirements for purchasing generally higher-priced, domestically made PPE would place a bigger financial burden on smaller providers.Tax credits for domestic purchases. Some PPE distributors and a manufacturer suggested that tax credits for purchases of domestically produced PPE could help generate demand, but opinions on the utility of such tax credits were mixed. Some stakeholders cited aforementioned difficulties in identifying which PPE products are U.S.-made, which could make such credits hard to obtain. In addition, some distributors noted that tax incentives would not incentivize nonprofit hospitals to purchase domestically manufactured PPE.Domestic manufacturing is one part of broader supply chain considerations. Building a sustainable domestic PPE manufacturing base is just one part of broader supply chain considerations, according to stakeholders and federal officials we interviewed. Some manufacturers, one distributor, and several trade associations representing manufacturers and end users said that sustaining long-term demand for domestically produced PPE will require a significant shift in the way that U.S. manufacturers and purchasers, including the health care sector, conceive of effective models of just-in-time inventory and other cost control mechanisms. Other stakeholders, including two trade associations, a manufacturer, and a research group noted that investing in or sustaining domestic manufacturing will not necessarily ensure that domestic PPE supply chains alone are sufficient to respond to future public health emergencies. Stakeholders and federal officials identified several areas for consideration as the federal government moves towards creating a more resilient supply chain for PPE to effectively respond to future public health emergencies.Supply chain redundancies. Some stakeholders, including trade associations, an advocacy group, and a manufacturer, noted that it will be important to build redundancies into the domestic PPE supply chain, such as having multiple manufacturers of one kind of PPE and multiple manufacturing facilities located in geographically diverse U.S. locations. Several of these stakeholders cited the disruptions to medical supply production caused by the 2017 hurricanes in Puerto Rico and the 2021 winter storms in Texas as examples of the importance of redundant and resilient domestic supply chains that would help the U.S. to respond to future public health emergencies.[155]Targeted reliance on foreign manufacturers. Some stakeholders, including a manufacturer and two manufacturing trade associations, two distributors, and a research group, as well as federal officials, noted that targeted reliance on, and engagement with, a variety of foreign manufacturers will remain appropriate given existing trade agreements, the U.S.’s participation in complex global supply chains, and challenges in accessing certain raw materials. Supply chain visibility and mapping. Many stakeholders representing manufacturers, distributors, trade associations, and research groups we spoke with stated that developing a complete picture of the end-to-end supply chain for each type of PPE could help the federal government identify vulnerabilities and risks, determine strategies or actions to mitigate them, and plan for and respond to future disruptions. Supply chain mapping—documenting companies, suppliers, and individuals across the PPE supply chain to create a global map of the supply network—could help the federal government have a more complete picture to respond to disruptions and emergencies, according to stakeholders. However, two stakeholders, including a supply chain research group, acknowledged that such mapping would be complex and laborious.Industry outreach and engagement. Many stakeholders representing manufacturers and distributors and trade associations representing purchasers and end users noted that meaningful federal engagement with industry will enhance domestic manufacturing and supply chain resilience. In addition, such engagement could help ensure these perspectives are considered in national strategies to support and sustain the domestic PPE industry. According to some of these stakeholders, such engagement with the private sector could help:ramp up private investment in domestic PPE manufacturing;connect manufacturers with purchasers; aid in the collection of data needed for supply chain mapping; andhelp the federal government understand the unique challenges of new and small PPE manufacturers, as well as those of veteran and minority-owned businesses, including challenges related to navigating the federal medical device approval or federal contracting processes.In January 2021, we reported that HHS had not developed a process for engaging with key nonfederal stakeholders and the Congress for development of a supply chain strategy for pandemic preparedness, including the role of the Strategic National Stockpile. We recommended that HHS do so, and the department generally agreed with our recommendation. However, as of May 2021, ASPR had not proactively engaged any private or public partners in strategic discussions to implement this recommendation, although officials told us that such discussions are important and they are considering how to better engage their public and private partners.We continue to underscore that engaging with key nonfederal stakeholders—in meaningful, proactive ways to obtain their business and industry expertise—as well as engaging with Congress, is critical for developing strategies to build a sustainable domestic medical supply manufacturing base. Such engagement includes for the development of the pandemic supply chain resilience strategy required by Executive Order 14001 and future stockpiling plans.MethodologyTo conduct our work, we reviewed federal strategies and reports, including ASPR’s 2020 draft strategy for modernizing the Strategic National Stockpile and USITC’s December 2020 report on the U.S. market for COVID-related goods.[156] We reviewed written information submitted by PPE industry stakeholders to USITC and the Department of Commerce in the fall of 2020 and early 2021.[157] We also selected a judgmental sample of industry stakeholders from USITC and Department of Commerce submissions, as well as other sources, to interview for their perspectives on challenges to building a sustainable domestic manufacturing base for PPE and federal efforts that could help support and sustain such a base. Selected stakeholders included PPE manufacturers; distributors and trade associations that represent other purchasers and end users, such as state governments, hospitals, and group purchasing organizations; and researchers and policy advocates.[158] We interviewed 29 industry stakeholders, including manufacturers that produce textiles for or finished products of each type of PPE (N95 respirators, surgical and procedural masks, reusable and disposable surgical and isolation gowns, and nitrile gloves); distributors; trade associations representing manufacturers, distributors, and other purchasers and end users including state and local government officials; researchers; and standards setting organizations. Our findings from interviews with these stakeholders are not generalizable to the entire PPE industry from manufacturers to end users. We obtained information on federal domestic PPE industrial base planning efforts, including efforts to address current supply and demand needs from the Supply Chain Advisory Group and relevant federal agencies. We also interviewed officials from ASPR, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, DOD, FEMA, and USITC about their perspectives on challenges and potential actions, the feasibility of implementing such actions, and any longer-term sustainment planning the relevant agencies have conducted. Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this enclosure to the Department of Homeland Security, DOD, HHS, Office of Management and Budget, and USITC. We incorporated technical comments from DOD, HHS, and USITC as appropriate. The Department of Homeland Security and Office of Management and Budget did not submit comments. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe plan to continue to monitor federal funding and actions for domestic medical supply industrial base expansion and sustainment. This work will include evaluating the pandemic supply chain resilience strategy and related implementation plans when they become available and continuing to assess federal efforts to engage key nonfederal stakeholders and Congress to identify ways to overcome many of the challenges we identified in this enclosure. GAO’s Prior Recommendations See table below for our past related recommendations on domestic supply manufacturing from prior bimonthly CARES Act reports. Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Domestic Medical Supply Manufacturing during COVID-19 Recommendation Status The Secretary of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency—who head agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—should immediately document roles and responsibilities for supply chain management functions transitioning to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including continued support from other federal partners, to ensure sufficient resources exist to sustain and make the necessary progress in stabilizing the supply chain, and address emergent supply issues for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020). Open. HHS disagreed with our recommendation, noting, among other things, the work that the department had done to manage the medical supply chain and increase supply availability. In May 2021, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) noted that since March 2020, supply chain responsibility, coordination, and execution have been incorporated and integrated into ASPR. However, ASPR has not provided us with documentation of roles and responsibilities for these functions. See appendix IV for more information. The Secretary of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency—who head agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—should further develop and communicate to stakeholders plans outlining specific actions the federal government will take to help mitigate remaining medical supply gaps necessary to respond to the remainder of the pandemic, including through the use of Defense Production Act authorities. (September 2020 report). Open. HHS disagreed with our recommendation, noting, among other things, the work that the department had done to manage the medical supply chain and increase supply availability. However, HHS has begun to take steps that help address this recommendation. For example, in May 2021, HHS provided several examples of ASPR’s efforts to restock the Strategic National Stockpile and mitigate potential supply shortages. In addition, ASPR cited its ongoing work to develop the pandemic resilience supply chain strategy called for under Executive Order 14001 and its integration in the interagency supply chain working group run by the White House, both of which are good steps toward developing plans to mitigate supply gaps. See appendix IV for more information. The Secretary of Health and Human Services—who heads one of the agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—consistent with their roles and responsibilities, should work with relevant federal, state, territorial, and tribal stakeholders to devise interim solutions, such as systems and guidance and dissemination of best practices, to help states enhance their ability to track the status of supply requests and plan for supply needs for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic response (September 2020 report). Open. Both HHS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disagreed with our recommendation, noting, among other things, the work that the departments had done to manage the medical supply chain and increase supply availability, such as restocking the Strategic National Stockpile (as noted above). In March 2021, DHS reported that the medical supply situation has improved in both the commercial market and at the state level. The agency stated that most states have 30 to 60 days of personal protective equipment to account for spikes in demand or localized critical shortages. Although both HHS and DHS have reported separate actions taken as part of supply management efforts within their separate purviews, neither has articulated how they have worked with each other and other relevant federal, state, territorial, and tribal stakeholders to devise interim solutions to help states better track, manage, and plan for supply needs for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic. See appendix IV for more information. The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency—who heads one of the agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—consistent with their roles and responsibilities, should work with relevant federal, state, territorial, and tribal stakeholders to devise interim solutions, such as systems and guidance and dissemination of best practices, to help states enhance their ability to track the status of supply requests and plan for supply needs for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic response (September 2020 report). The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response should establish a process for regularly engaging with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and private industry, as the Department of Health and Human Services refines and implements a supply chain strategy for pandemic preparedness, to include the role of the Strategic National Stockpile (January 2021 report). Open. HHS generally agreed with our recommendation, while noting that the term "engage" is vague and unclear, and that they regularly engage with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders. HHS added that improving the pandemic response capabilities of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments is a priority. However, as of May 2021, HHS has not taken steps to engage with these stakeholders. See appendix IV for more information. Related GAO ProductDefense Production Act: Opportunities Exist to Increase Transparency and Identify Future Actions to Mitigate Supply Chain Issues. GAO-21-108. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2020.DOD Vaccination Efforts for Civilians and ServicemembersBookmark:The Department of Defense has provided active-duty servicemembers and National Guard personnel to support the federal government’s COVID-19 response and vaccination efforts and simultaneously vaccinated military servicemembers (active and reserve), dependents, retirees, and civilian and contractor personnel. Entities involved: Department of Defense, including the Defense Health Agency; the Department of Health and Human Services; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, within the Department of Homeland SecurityBackgroundThe Department of Defense’s (DOD) primary mission is to defend the nation, but the department has also played a prominent role in supporting civil authorities. In that role, DOD has responded rapidly when called on during disasters and during declared natural or manmade emergencies. DOD, which has provided such support through its Defense Support of Civil Authorities mission, is authorized to provide this support when requested by another federal agency, with approval from the Secretary of Defense, or when directed by the President.[159] DOD provides support to civil authorities through military forces (Active-Duty, Reserve, National Guard); DOD civilian and contract personnel; and DOD component assets. To manage both its support for the federal government’s and its own internal COVID-19 response, the department established the DOD COVID-19 Task Force on February 28, 2020. DOD’s Defense Health Agency (DHA) manages and oversees DOD’s immunization programs, leading efforts to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to eligible DOD personnel.[160] In March 2021, we reported that in mid-December 2020, DHA had begun a phased approach for vaccinating eligible personnel. Using that approach, DOD prioritized vaccination of individuals providing direct medical care, personnel maintaining essential national security and installation functions, deploying forces, and beneficiaries at highest risk for developing severe illness from COVID-19.Overview of Key Issues DOD has supported mass vaccination sites and other COVID-19-related civilian missions. DOD personnel support over time. More than a year after the President declared COVID-19 a national emergency, DOD has consistently provided personnel to assist in the whole-of-government response. The figure below shows the number of DOD active-duty servicemembers and National Guard personnel supporting the response efforts from March 2020 through May 2021. DOD Personnel Supporting the Federal Government’s COVID-19 Response, Mar. 2020–May 2021Note: The totals shown are as of the end of each month. The totals refer to active-duty servicemembers—which includes reservists—and National Guard personnel providing support for the federal government’s COVID-19 response at mass vaccination sites and for other COVID-19-related missions. The total number of active-duty servicemembers who provided support in March 2020 is too small to be depicted.Support at mass vaccination sites. In February 2021, DOD officials stated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had requested the department to provide personnel to staff mass vaccination sites (i.e., federally supported community vaccination centers).[161] In response, active-duty servicemembers, including medical personnel, from the four military services began supporting community vaccination center operations in mid-February 2021.[162] These servicemembers have assisted with various activities such as registering and screening patients, distributing supplies, and administering COVID-19 vaccines.From February 14, 2021, through June 22, 2021, more than 5,100 DOD active-duty servicemembers provided vaccine-related support, including administering more than 5 million vaccine doses at centers in 25 states and three territories. During this time, DOD provided active-duty servicemembers to support community vaccination centers on the basis of FEMA’s staffing needs at these centers. The figure below shows information about active-duty servicemembers’ aggregate COVID-19 vaccine support, including administering more than 5 million doses at federally supported community vaccination centers.Locations Where Active-Duty Servicemembers Provided COVID-19 Vaccine Support at Federally Supported Community Vaccination Centers, Feb. 14, 2021–June 22, 2021Notes: The shaded states and territories represent the locations where DOD provided active-duty servicemember personnel. From February 14 to June 22, 2021, DOD provided servicemembers on the basis of community vaccination centers’ needs. National Guard personnel have also been supporting efforts to help vaccinate the civilian population in 47 states and three territories. Approximately 14,000 National Guard personnel have assisted with vaccine activities, including distributing vaccines, planning and coordinating at vaccination centers, providing transportation support, and administering the vaccine across static and mobile vaccination sites. As of June 11, 2021, National Guard personnel had administered about 12 million vaccine doses. Support for other COVID-19-related missions. At the request of FEMA and the Department of Health and Human Services, DOD provided support for other COVID-19-related missions. From the pandemic’s initial emergency declaration in March 2020 until April 1, 2021, DOD provided more than 4,500 active-duty servicemembers, such as critical care nurses, to support civilian health care providers. These active-duty servicemembers supported 71 hospitals across 51 cities in 14 states and in the Navajo Nation. Additionally, National Guard personnel continue to broadly support the COVID-19 pandemic response throughout the states and territories. As of June 15, 2021, approximately 28,000 National Guard personnel were providing support in all 50 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia. They continued carrying out a range of broad missions, such as: testing and screening for COVID-19 cases; cleaning sites and equipment; distributing personal protective equipment; storing and distributing supplies and equipment in warehouses; collecting COVID-19 specimens; supporting hospitals, long-term care facilities, food banks, and call centers; recording data on, and performing contact tracing and mapping of, infected individuals; andtraining civilian medical and other personnel.As of June 9, 2021, DOD had at least partially vaccinated about 53 percent of its 2.1 million military servicemembers and was encouraging vaccinations through outreach and education.DOD’s progress in vaccinating military servicemembers and others. As of June 9, 2021, DOD had at least partially vaccinated about 53 percent—1,124,624 servicemembers, including about 39 percent or 825,954 fully vaccinated servicemembers—of its 2.1 million active-duty, reserve, and National Guard servicemembers.[163] When considering only active-duty servicemembers, DOD had fully vaccinated about 51 percent (686,915 servicemembers). DOD’s goal was to fully vaccinate 60 percent of its active-duty servicemembers and provide at least one vaccine dose to approximately 70 percent by July 4, 2021. Additionally, DOD was offering a COVID-19 vaccine to a larger population of 6.7 million individuals, which includes military servicemembers (active-duty, reserve, and National Guard) and their dependents; other uniformed personnel (members of the Coast Guard, U.S. Public Health Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); other beneficiaries (e.g., retired military servicemembers and their dependents); civilian employees; and selected contractor personnel. [164] DOD or a non-DOD vaccine provider had at least partially vaccinated about 45 percent (3,035,474 individuals) of this population as of June 9, 2021. However, the number of vaccinated individuals in this larger population may be higher, because, according to DHA officials, DOD has limited awareness of vaccinations administered to its target vaccine-eligible population at non-DOD sites, such as local retail pharmacies or through local public health vaccination sites. DOD is tracking data on those who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The DHA Director monitors daily the department’s implementation of its vaccine plan, including vaccine administration, broken out by dose (initial and second) and category of eligibility (e.g., service component, contractors, civilian employees, and other beneficiaries).[165] The figure below shows COVID-19 vaccination rates for military servicemembers and others as of June 9, 2021.COVID-19 Vaccinations in the Department of Defense (DOD), as of June 9, 2021Notes: Percentages shown may not sum to 100 because of rounding. The 6.7 million eligible individuals targeted are those DHA assessed as eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine through DOD and who live within 40 miles of a DOD vaccination site. The target population includes eligible military servicemembers (those on active duty and members of the reserve component, including the National Guard), other uniformed personnel (those members of the Coast Guard, U.S. Public Health Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), military servicemembers who have retired and their dependent family members, dependent family members of active-duty servicemembers and of certain reserve component members, civilians, and contractors. This data shown refer to individuals vaccinated at DOD and non-DOD vaccination sites. DOD has vaccinated a majority of the individuals.The percentage of fully vaccinated individuals aged 18 years and older in the U.S. population as of June 10, 2021, was larger than the percentage of fully vaccinated DOD military servicemembers as of June 9, 2021 (about 53 percent and 39 percent, respectively). However, when comparing the percentages of fully vaccinated individuals in the U.S. population and only the fully vaccinated active-duty servicemembers, the rates were more similar (53 percent and 51 percent, respectively).[166] Multiple reasons may account for the vaccination rate differences. For example, because military servicemembers tend to be younger and healthier, the majority of servicemembers did not become eligible for vaccination until April 19, 2021. DOD officials use the term “vaccine acceptance” to categorize the proportion of individuals who have received a vaccine; however, the remainder of those eligible for the vaccine may not have declined it, as the department does not track or report on the percentage of individuals who declined the COVID-19 vaccine. According to DHA officials, the department does not currently have a reliable method to track and report vaccine declinations or hesitancy. Officials stated that this is due in part to the fact that DOD’s target population is encouraged but not required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.[167] Individuals who show up for an appointment at a DOD vaccination site and decide not to receive the vaccine after reviewing educational material are asked to record their decision on DHA Form 207–COVID-19 Vaccine Screening and Immunization Document. However, DHA officials noted that this information does not reflect an accurate picture of declinations, because submitting the form is voluntary and the form reflects the individual’s decision at single point in time—that is, the individual may choose to receive the vaccine at a later date. Outreach initiatives and education. To continue encouraging all of its eligible population to be voluntarily vaccinated, DOD is conducting various efforts designed to communicate the safety and efficacy of the authorized vaccines. Specifically, DOD’s outreach efforts include:senior DOD leaders’ sharing their own vaccine experiences through social media and video recordings,press events,town halls,internal news articles on TRICARE.mil and Health.mil webpages,[168]direct email marketing,scheduling vaccination events for entire military units (e.g., a Navy ship’s crew) and making medical personal available during those events to answer questions or address concerns about the vaccines, radio and television stories on military broadcast services, anda "Get the Vax" social media campaign (see figure).Example of Department of Defense Social Media GraphicOn May 20, 2021, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff published a memo reaffirming support for multiple initiatives to increase vaccination acceptance among all military servicemembers.[169] Further, the memo highlighted multiple techniques that military commanders and leaders at all levels can use to encourage and promote vaccinations. [170] Example of such techniques include:incorporating vaccination opportunities into training events,providing educational opportunities with medical professionals,using routine personnel management tools such as time off for post-vaccination recovery, andengaging with military servicemembers one-on-one to acknowledge concerns and answer questions.MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed DOD guidance and documentation that DOD’s COVID-19 Task Force and DHA provided. The documentation included the most recent DOD COVID-19-related data available, which the task force and DHA maintained and reported to senior DOD leaders. We also interviewed DOD officials knowledgeable about the department’s COVID-19 response to corroborate our understanding of the data and DOD’s personnel support and vaccination efforts. Although we did not independently verify the accuracy of the data, we assessed their reliability by checking for obvious errors or outliers; discussing the ongoing levels of DOD personnel support and vaccination efforts with agency officials; and reviewing relevant documentation, including publicly available DOD media reports and statements. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of characterizing DOD’s support to civil authorities and its progress in vaccinating the department’s target population.Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this enclosure to DOD and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment. DOD provided technical comments on this enclosure, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe plan to continue monitoring DOD’s support of the federal government’s COVID-19 response and progress in vaccinating the department’s eligible military servicemembers, dependents, retirees, and civilian and contractor personnel. Related GAO ProductsCOVID-19: DOD Has Focused on Strategy and Oversight to Protect Military Servicemember Health. GAO-21-321. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2021Depot Maintenance: DOD Should Improve Pandemic Plans and Publish Working Capital Fund Policy. GAO-21-103. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 06, 2021Strategic National Stockpile Payment Integrity Bookmark:The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response procured and shipped critical Strategic National Stockpile supplies directly from vendors to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments and designated project areas during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it did not have documented policies and procedures, including related control and monitoring activities, to address the payment integrity risks within the direct shipment procurement process. Entities involved: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the Department of Health and Human Services.Recommendation for Executive ActionTo strengthen the current procedures, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response should update policies and procedures, including related control and monitoring activities, for the Strategic National Stockpile to document the direct shipment procurement process and address payment integrity risks. Although the Department of Health and Human Services did not agree with us regarding the need to address payment integrity risks, it stated that it will update its policies and procedures, including related control and monitoring activities to document the direct shipment procurement process.BackgroundPayment integrity is the process of ensuring that a payment is proper, including the legality, propriety, validity, and accuracy of all payments. For procurements, one of the key steps in this process is for agencies to confirm that the goods and services have been received and conform to the requirements of the purchase order. In short, it is the primary means to ensure that the government gets what it pays for. Without this control, the government faces risks including paying for: goods and services not received; goods received in the wrong quantity; goods that are damaged; andgoods that do not meet quality or other specifications. According to the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021, the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) is the largest federally owned repository of pharmaceuticals, critical medical supplies, federal medical stations, and medical equipment available for rapid delivery. It is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Through its standard procurement process, ASPR procures supplies to maintain SNS inventory in preparation for bioterrorist attacks and other public health emergencies. The SNS can be used as a short-term stopgap buffer when the supply of materials may not be immediately available in affected areas during a public health emergency. Because the nationwide need for critical supplies to respond to COVID-19 quickly exceeded the quantity of supplies contained in the SNS, in addition to its standard procurement process, ASPR used two additional procurement processes: ASPR used a procurement process involving direct shipment from vendors. According to ASPR officials, the office initially established this direct shipment procurement process in response to the 2016 Zika virus outbreak in Puerto Rico. Under this direct shipment process, supplies purchased by ASPR were not used to replenish the SNS, but rather were primarily distributed from vendors directly to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments and designated project areas. Beginning in April 2020, ASPR worked with interagency partners, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense, through interagency agreements to increase the availability of supplies to respond to COVID-19. Under these reimbursable agreements, contracting staff at interagency partners procured and distributed vital supplies on ASPR’s behalf. As of May 31, 2021, HHS reported it obligated about $10.2 billion of the $13.9 billion it planned to use for the SNS. The table below summarizes the amount of ASPR’s SNS obligations from appropriations provided by the six COVID-19 relief laws by procurement process from March 16, 2020 through May 31, 2021. Department of Health and Human Services’ Strategic National Stockpile Obligations from Appropriations Provided by the Six COVID-19 Relief Laws as of May 31, 2021 Procurement process Obligations ($ millions) Percent of obligations Direct shipment 600 6 Interagency agreement 4,700 46 Standard 4,900 48 Totala 10,200 100 Source: GAO summary of Health and Human Services obligations data. | GAO-21-551aNumbers may not total due to rounding.Overview of Key IssuesSNS direct shipment procurement process was not documented in policies and procedures. ASPR did not have documented policies and procedures, including related control and monitoring activities, to address payment integrity risks for its direct shipment procurement process. Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) states that agency management is responsible for managing payment integrity risks to reduce improper payments and protect taxpayer funds.[171] Accordingly, agencies are to develop control activities to help management achieve payment integrity objectives by establishing policies and procedures related to transaction authorization and approvals of program activities and implementing transaction reviews where detailed criteria are evaluated before funds are expended. Additionally, federal internal control standards state that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks and implement control activities through policies. Accordingly, as part of this internal control principle, agency management is to clearly document internal control, all transactions, and other significant events in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination. In addition, if there is a significant process change, management is to review the new process in a timely manner after the change to determine that the control activities are designed and implemented appropriately. Management should also establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results.According to ASPR officials, the office used its direct shipment procurement process to expedite delivery and effectively manage costs during the pandemic. Although ASPR officials verbally explained this procurement process, the office did not have the process and related control and monitoring activities documented in its policies and procedures, in accordance with federal internal control standards. ASPR officials stated that under the direct shipment procurement process, the office tracks the transportation and delivery of supplies shipped directly from vendors to recipients by requesting that vendors provide ASPR shipment tracking documentation as part of their contracted deliverables. Further, the delivery confirmation will come from an email or phone call from the recipient or a delivery confirmation from the carrier, such as a tracking report from the carrier’s website. ASPR provided examples of email communication with recipients and vendors to confirm delivery of supplies prior to authorizing payment. However, without properly documented procedures for this process, ASPR lacks assurance that this communication would take place consistently.Although ASPR officials stated that the office’s procedures for invoice receiving apply to all SNS invoices, including those for direct shipment procurements, the policies and procedures did not include specific steps to address payment integrity risks for its direct shipment procurement process, such as to:confirm vendors provide such shipment tracking documentation, orverify intended recipients actually received the correct undamaged supplies prior to issuing payment. Without a properly documented process, we could not determine if the control and monitoring activities were properly designed to provide reasonable assurance that SNS payments are properly authorized and made to eligible vendors at appropriate amounts. Until ASPR updates its policies and procedures, including related control and monitoring activities, to document its direct shipment procurement process, there is an increased risk that taxpayer funds will not be appropriately protected. For example, without written policies and procedures documenting how ASPR tracks the direct shipment and receipt of supplies prior to issuing payments, there is an increased risk that ASPR may make improper payments to vendors for incorrect supplies or quantities, or supplies the intended recipients did not receive. In addition, without adequate documentation, it is difficult for management to assess the adequacy of controls over the direct shipment procurement process and ASPR lacks assurance that its staff fully understand the process and properly and consistently perform their duties. Certain interagency transactions lacked sufficient documentation. In November 2020, HHS’s independent financial statement auditor reported a deficiency, in part due to insufficient documentation to substantiate what was purchased and when it was received for certain SNS COVID-19-related transactions with interagency partners.[172] The auditor stated that HHS is currently reviewing its processes to identify lessons learned so that new processes are developed to address potential future crisis situations similar to the current pandemic. According to ASPR officials, the office concurred with the interagency finding and is continuing to work with its interagency partners on accountability and documentation for COVID-19 relief funds expended through interagency agreements.[173] Further, according to officials, starting in March 2021, ASPR began meeting weekly with the HHS Corrective Action Planning team to discuss remediation strategies and develop Corrective Action Plans for the auditor’s SNS findings. SNS designed control activities for its standard procurement process. For supplies purchased through its standard procurement process during the COVID-19 response, ASPR used its existing SNS policies and procedures for purchasing, receiving, distributing, and payment processing activities. ASPR’s policies and procedures for this standard SNS procurement process were designed consistent with federal internal control standards for the key eligibility, processing, and existence control activities we reviewed. MethodologyWe interviewed officials from ASPR, HHS’s Program Support Center, and the HHS Office of Inspector General and reviewed policies and procedures related to the SNS payment process. We also considered HHS’s fiscal year 2020 agency financial report and the accompanying independent auditor’s reports.Based on HHS provided documentation, we assessed the design of HHS’s policies and procedures related to the SNS payment process against relevant statutory requirements, OMB guidance, and federal internal control standards to determine the extent to which HHS’s key control and monitoring activities are properly designed to achieve the SNS program’s payment integrity objectives and respond to such risks. For any key control and monitoring activities that were not properly designed and documented, we inquired with HHS officials to determine the reasons.Agency CommentsWe provided HHS with a draft of this enclosure. HHS provided written comments, reproduced in Appendix VI and technical comments on this enclosure, which we incorporated as appropriate. ASPR did not concur with our recommendation. ASPR stated that it did not find that we found or provided evidence to support the statement that there were payment integrity risks for the direct shipment process and noted that ASPR has a three-way matching procedure that is followed for all invoices. However, ASPR acknowledged that it will update its policies and procedures, including related control and monitoring activities, and work to specifically document the direct shipment procurement process.Although ASPR officials stated that the office’s procedures for invoice receiving apply to all SNS invoices, the policies and procedures did not include specific steps to address payment integrity risks for its direct shipment procurement process, such as procedures to (1) confirm vendors provide shipment tracking documentation, or (2) verify intended recipients actually received the correct undamaged supplies prior to issuing payment. Therefore, we continue to believe the recommendation is needed. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will monitor the status of our payment integrity recommendation for the Department of Health and Human Services and continue our oversight of government-wide payment integrity efforts. Related GAO ProductStandards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2014. Contact information: Beryl Davis, (202) 512-2623, [email protected] National Stockpile Bookmark:In the years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response began restructuring an interagency body that recommends procurement of vaccines, supplies, and other materials for the Strategic National Stockpile to respond to public health threats. Such restructuring has led to concerns about the effectiveness of interagency collaboration, transparency, and a lapse in statutorily required reviews used to inform the contents of the stockpile. Entities involved: Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Department of Health and Human Services, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health; Department of Homeland Security; Department of Veterans Affairs; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.Recommendations for Executive ActionTo improve the nation’s preparedness for a wide range of threats, including pandemics, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response should develop and document plans for restructuring the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise. These plans should describe how the Assistant Secretary will ensure a transparent and deliberative process that engages interagency partners in the full range of responsibilities for the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise outlined in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, including those related to the Strategic National Stockpile annual threat-based reviews. These plans should also incorporate GAO’s leading practices to foster more effective collaboration, while ensuring that sensitive information is appropriately protected.To improve organizational accountability, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response should implement records management practices that include developing, maintaining, and securing documentation related to Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise activities and deliberations, including those related to the Strategic National Stockpile. Documentation should include information such as the factors considered, the rationale for the action or decision, and the final outcomes of the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise processes.The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with the recommendations, noting that its Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response is initiating a review of the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, which will be conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the review will examine multiple aspects of the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise processes, including interagency coordination, policies and practices, and transparency, with a final report expected in fall 2021.BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of a readily available cache of medical products and supplies to treat patients and protect first responders during public health emergencies. The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) contains a multibillion dollar inventory of medical countermeasures—drugs, vaccines, supplies, and other materials—to respond to a broad range of public health emergencies resulting from exposure to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents, as well as emerging infectious diseases, including pandemic influenza.[174] Overseen by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the SNS mission has expanded since its inception in 1999 in response to statutory changes and a growing variety of threats.[175] During public health emergencies like COVID-19, the contents of the stockpile may be deployed to state and local entities when their supplies are depleted or when the necessary medical countermeasures are not commercially available, such as the antitoxin used to treat botulism. The inventory of the SNS is informed by an interagency group of experts called the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE), which is led by ASPR and comprised of multiple HHS and other federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, hereafter referred to as PHEMCE interagency partners. HHS established the PHEMCE in 2006 to advance national preparedness for natural, accidental, and intentional threats by coordinating medical countermeasure efforts within HHS and in cooperation with other federal agencies. Specifically, the key functions of the PHEMCE are to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services in: defining and prioritizing requirements for medical countermeasures in public health emergencies; integrating and coordinating research, product development, and procurement activities; andsetting deployment and use strategies for medical countermeasures held in the SNS. For example, in 2016, the PHEMCE recommended stockpiling goals for certain personal protective equipment, such as N95 respirators, which were in high demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PHEMCE was later codified in law through the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019.[176] The act specified that the PHEMCE is to use a process to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding research, procurement, and stockpiling of medical countermeasures and assist the Secretary in developing strategies for logistics, deployment, distribution, dispensing, and use of countermeasures that may be applicable to the SNS, among other things.The PHEMCE manages the SNS annual review, a year-long, multistep process that starts with an examination of the inventory. Based on PHEMCE deliberations of the gaps in the stockpile and threat priorities, this process results in recommendations for SNS medical countermeasure procurements. Required to be completed since 2006 and to be submitted to Congress since 2013, these reviews inform medical countermeasure procurements for the SNS inventory 3 years in the future.[177] For example, the 2016 SNS Annual Review examined the SNS’s inventory in 2016, was finalized in 2017, and made recommendations for the procurement of medical countermeasures for fiscal year 2019.These recommendations are prioritized based on a number of factors, such as how critical the medical countermeasures are to response and life-saving efforts and how usable they are by clinicians or laypersons. They are informed by the anticipated budget of the SNS, and we have reported there have been tensions between the limitations of the budget and procurements in response to identified threats, according to ASPR officials. As part of our CARES Act reports, we have discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted challenges related to SNS funding prior to the pandemic, raising concerns about the SNS’s ability to respond to a wide range of threats in the future. For example, we reported in January and March 2021 that SNS funding has not kept pace with the increasing number of threats for which the SNS may be needed. We also noted that funding requests have not always fully reflected SNS funding needs due to competing priorities and tradeoffs involved in aligning SNS budgetary needs with broader HHS needs and the President’s budget priorities, according to ASPR officials. We also reported in June 2020 that HHS previously noted the challenge of maintaining a stockpile of medical countermeasures to use against many low-probability, high-consequence threats, while also maintaining the capacity to rapidly respond to novel threats, like emerging infectious diseases.[178] Additionally, we reported in March 2021 that HHS did not replenish personal protective equipment to previous levels following the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009 prior to COVID-19 because of a lack of funding.As of May 31, 2021, six relief laws had been enacted to assist the COVID-19 response.[179] These laws appropriated funding for HHS activities, and, in some cases, specifically authorized their use for the SNS. [180] As of May 31, 2021, HHS reported it obligated about $10.2 billion of the $13.9 billion it planned to use for the SNS to purchase personal protective equipment and ventilators for immediate use as well as to replenish SNS inventory, among other purposes, and had expended about $6.3 billion.Overview of Key IssuesASPR significantly changed PHEMCE operations after 2017. According to officials from ASPR and three of six PHEMCE partners, ASPR made changes to the PHEMCE in response to concerns raised by the Assistant Secretary, some of which PHEMCE partners shared, including that the PHEMCE’s decision-making process was too slow.[181] According to the former Assistant Secretary who initiated the PHEMCE changes, while the body was successful in advancing the development of medical countermeasures and a model for interagency coordination and collaboration, its consensus-driven process affected the urgency with which medical countermeasures were developed and, thus, the nation’s preparedness in addressing threats. ASPR officials responsible for the administration of the PHEMCE also noted that some changes made to the PHEMCE were designed to more closely align with the Assistant Secretary’s priorities, as each new Assistant Secretary comes to the position with specific expertise and ideas for how preparedness should be addressed. The figure below illustrates the PHEMCE operations immediately prior to and after December 2017, including changes that occurred after December 2017, which narrowed the scope of issues on which the PHEMCE primarily focused its deliberations, and shifted the structure of the deliberation process about medical countermeasures from a bottom-up to a top-down approach.[182] Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) OrganizationNote: In addition to the Integrated Program Teams, the PHEMCE also established working groups for specific purposes. For example, the PHEMCE established the Emerging Infectious Disease Working Group in April 2014 to evaluate the public health risks posed by emerging infectious diseases, excluding influenza. This group was sunset in 2016 after it completed its assigned task of developing a framework for prioritizing emerging disease threats, according to an ASPR official.aThe Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not previously participate in the PHEMCE, but was identified as a PHEMCE partner in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019. bTen Integrated Program Teams were identified in the July 2015 PHEMCE Integrated Program Team charter; however, the PHEMCE was authorized to establish or disband Integrated Program Teams as needed.cASPR officials told us the PHEMCE discussed other topics as needed. For example, a Botulinum Portfolio Assessment Team was in place for a limited period of time, according to a PHEMCE member who participated on that team.Scope of PHEMCE deliberations. After 2017, ASPR narrowed the scope of work performed by the PHEMCE in terms of the range of issues for which it provided recommendations, according to officials from ASPR and three of six PHEMCE partners. Historically, the PHEMCE provided input on a comprehensive range of issues related to medical countermeasures, which ASPR officials currently responsible for the administration of the PHEMCE referred to as an end-to-end approach to planning. For example, the PHEMCE provided input on deployment strategies and clinical guidance for the use of medical countermeasures in the SNS for public health emergencies, according to officials from two of six PHEMCE partners. However, after 2017, ASPR began narrowing the PHEMCE’s scope to focus its efforts on medical countermeasure development and procurement, according to ASPR officials. ASPR and Department of Defense (DOD) officials told us that through these PHEMCE changes, the office sought to better align medical countermeasure development and procurements between HHS and DOD—the primary purchasers of medical countermeasures—including coordinating different priorities for vaccine development. As part of this change, the former Assistant Secretary made DOD a co-chair, along with ASPR, on the Enterprise Governance Board, the most senior leadership level of the PHEMCE structure. According to the former Assistant Secretary, in future iterations of the PHEMCE restructure, ASPR planned to broaden the PHEMCE’s scope to also focus on issues such as the deployment and utilization of medical countermeasures. In particular, it planned to incorporate the insight of public health organizations that represent states, local governments, tribes, and territories, such as the National Association of County and City Health Officials. ASPR also aimed to limit access to national-security-sensitive or proprietary information, as part of its scope changes, according to ASPR’s 2020-2023 Strategic Plan and the former Assistant Secretary. According to the former Assistant Secretary, a critical PHEMCE vulnerability that needed to be addressed was the security of PHEMCE proceedings. Prior to 2018, PHEMCE proceedings were conducted in unclassified and unsecured settings which, according to the former Assistant Secretary, could have enabled hostile foreign entities or other individuals to access sensitive or propriety information related to both medical countermeasure vulnerabilities and development innovations.[183] According to officials from ASPR and two of six PHEMCE partners, discussions after 2017 primarily occurred among PHEMCE partners that had appropriate security clearances to enable access to real-time information from the intelligence community. A former senior ASPR official told us that this significantly limited subject matter experts’ ability to participate in discussions. However, according to the former Assistant Secretary, the views of subject matter experts could be communicated through their respective agency representatives who participated in discussions at senior leadership levels of the PHEMCE.Structure and activities of the PHEMCE. After 2017, PHEMCE deliberations shifted from a bottom-up to a top-down approach. Prior to the reorganization efforts, the PHEMCE process consisted of 10 groups of subject matter experts (known as Integrated Program Teams, as illustrated above), which focused on a specific threat area and its associated medical countermeasures.[184] Among other responsibilities, these teams developed recommendations on the type and number of medical countermeasures HHS should buy for the SNS. These recommendations subsequently underwent further examination by increasingly senior PHEMCE leadership levels, which, according to officials from ASPR and a PHEMCE partner, took a significant amount of time. To make the process more efficient and ensure medical countermeasure development focused on national security vulnerabilities, the former Assistant Secretary shifted the PHEMCE decision-making structure so that leadership at the highest level, specifically the Assistant Secretary, identified areas of concern related to threats or medical countermeasures and assigned them to subject matter experts for analysis and assessment, according to ASPR officials and the former Assistant Secretary.Further, as illustrated in the previous figure, ASPR reduced the number of standing subject matter expert groups that convened to deliberate on specific threats and added others that met for a limited period of time. According to ASPR documentation, ASPR established two Portfolio Assessment teams in 2019 to focus on anthrax and smallpox, which have been identified by the PHEMCE as high-priority threats, among other things. The PHEMCE multiyear budget for fiscal years 2018-2022 projected that these threats would account for more than 50 percent of the SNS budget for this period and noted that estimated spending for anthrax and smallpox would increase by 15 and 47 percent, respectively. Senior ASPR officials told us that the PHEMCE also established Portfolio Assessment Teams for other threats, but ASPR did not provide us documentation of the goals of these other teams or evidence that they met regularly. Additionally, activities and deliberations among the various PHEMCE levels became less frequent and regular after 2017, according to ASPR officials and all PHEMCE partners. The precise number of meetings that occurred at different levels is unclear; ASPR was unable to provide us documentation of these meetings. According to ASPR officials, some of the change in PHEMCE activity between 2017 and 2020 was due to uncertainty about which ASPR division was responsible for the administration of the PHEMCE, the lack of a PHEMCE governance structure, and the COVID-19 pandemic.[185] Consistent with leading collaboration practices we have identified, defining and sustaining leadership is beneficial for collaborative efforts; and as such, leadership transitions and inconsistency can weaken the effectiveness of any interagency collaborative effort.PHEMCE partners’ concerns about changes. Three of six PHEMCE partners had concerns about changes to the body, including a reduced ability to provide input and reduced transparency of the process. All PHEMCE partners acknowledged that while the previous PHEMCE processes contributed to its inefficiency, these processes were effective in ensuring appropriate input and thorough deliberation on a broad range of medical countermeasure issues that affect all PHEMCE partners. For example, officials from one PHEMCE partner said that under the previous PHEMCE structure, concerns about the purpose and scientific rationale for a plan to purchase a product for the SNS inventory would have been vetted with all PHEMCE partners prior to its acquisition. In addition, two of six PHEMCE partners also told us the PHEMCE restructure resulted in a lack of clarity on how ASPR makes decisions about the medical countermeasure enterprise and the rationale behind decisions made, including for the SNS inventory.According to the former Assistant Secretary, under the new structure, input of PHEMCE partners was appropriately considered. However, he noted that his responsibility was to make the best use of ASPR resources to advance the nation’s preparedness against threats, not to ensure consensus was reached. ASPR was unable to provide us with documentation to understand the extent PHEMCE partners were involved in deliberations.Further, officials from two of six PHEMCE partners credited the prior process with enhancing preparedness and producing sound, scientifically based decisions, including recommendations on the SNS inventory. One PHEMCE partner also noted the importance of maintaining connectivity among interagency partners, which existed under the former PHEMCE operational structure. Consistent with leading collaboration practices we have identified, positive working relationships between participants from different organizations build trust and foster communication which facilitates collaboration that is vital in responding to an emergency.In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on April 14, 2021, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response from 2009-2017 noted the PHEMCE coordination process led to the development of over 50 medical countermeasures against recognized public health threats. However, she identified the degradation of the PHEMCE process as one of several actions that led to the nation being less ready for the COVID-19 pandemic than we otherwise might have been. In contrast, the former Assistant Secretary said that the revised top-down PHEMCE process was applied successfully during the COVID-19 response for Operation Warp Speed, which focused on portfolios of vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments, and were co-led by DOD and HHS.ASPR did not conduct statutorily required annual reviews of the SNS for 3 years. ASPR did not conduct statutorily required SNS annual reviews for 2017, 2018, and 2019, while the PHEMCE was undergoing operational changes, according to ASPR officials. As noted earlier, the annual reviews examine inventory relative to threat priorities and inform procurements 3 years in the future. Therefore, the first fiscal year affected by the lack of an annual review was 2020. According to ASPR officials, in the summer of 2020, they made some Congressional staff aware that these annual reviews had not been completed due to the transfer of the SNS from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ASPR and the PHEMCE reorganization, among other things. The former Assistant Secretary told us in July 2021 that he recognized the importance of conducting the annual reviews and was not aware that they had not been completed. In the absence of the annual reviews that would have informed procurements for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, ASPR officials told us that they procured medical countermeasures based on PHEMCE recommendations from SNS annual reviews conducted prior to the PHEMCE restructure and real-time direction from the Assistant Secretary. ASPR plans to use a similar approach for fiscal year 2022. ASPR officials noted that, for many years, much of the annual appropriations for the SNS had been used to replenish medical countermeasures, including anthrax therapeutics and smallpox vaccines, which have always been high priority investments, adding that the SNS’s budget does not enable it to purchase all medical countermeasures identified as priorities in the SNS annual reviews. As a result, there are still many medical countermeasures left over from previous prioritization lists to procure.Previous SNS annual reviews have identified similar challenges of competing priorities and tradeoffs due to budget limitations. The 2015 SNS Annual Review proposed reducing procurements of both anthrax vaccine and antibiotics to meet budget constraints. Additionally, the 2016 SNS Annual Review reported that the SNS inventory was below the stockpiling goals for several types of medical countermeasures, according to the PHEMCE multiyear budget for fiscal years 2018 to 2022.ASPR officials stated that the 2020 SNS Annual Threat-Based Review is currently being finalized and will inform SNS procurement priorities for fiscal year 2023.[186] This review was required to be submitted to congressional committees by March 15, 2021, but had not been submitted as of June 21, 2021; ASPR officials told us they communicated this delay to Congress. ASPR officials noted that in comparison with prior SNS annual reviews, the 2020 review was not developed through deliberative discussions of the PHEMCE and will be fairly limited due to the ongoing COVID-19 response; ASPR officials told us they plan to conduct more robust annual threat-based reviews in the future.New PHEMCE reorganization efforts underway. ASPR is in the process of re-assessing and re-establishing new organizational processes for the PHEMCE, but has not yet finalized planning documents, including an organizational charter and implementation plan, to guide those efforts. Although ASPR developed some materials outlining the structure it began implementing in 2019, a revised PHEMCE charter was never finalized, according to officials from ASPR and a PHEMCE partner, and therefore, never shared with PHEMCE partners. ASPR officials acknowledged that the changes made to the PHEMCE in the 2018 to 2020 period did not fully achieve the desired aims and created other challenges. As a result, officials said they have paused PHEMCE operations while they assess how best to move forward.ASPR officials told us they are currently developing the PHEMCE charter and policies that will describe how the PHEMCE will operate going forward, which they hoped to finalize in May 2021. However, as of June 21, 2021, the charter had not been finalized. Additionally, in April 2021, ASPR officials reported that they had engaged with PHEMCE partners to gather feedback and contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to develop recommendations on how to improve PHEMCE operations but their review had not yet begun. According to ASPR’s 2021-2022 PHEMCE Strategy and ASPR officials, the PHEMCE will return to having a broader scope of work, such as helping HHS to develop strategies for the logistics, deployment, distribution, dispensing, and use of medical countermeasures in the SNS.[187] The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated that medical countermeasure planning needs to be comprehensive, according to one ASPR official who noted that discussions among PHEMCE partner officials are underway to determine the best way to evaluate threats and develop strategies to ensure that medical countermeasures to counter those threats are available. However, responding to the daunting and specific challenges of the COVID-19 response, as well as changes within ASPR (specifically the shifting of the division responsible for PHEMCE administration as recently as July 2020), have contributed to delays in re-establishing the PHEMCE, according to ASPR officials. Developing and documenting plans for restructuring the PHEMCE would help ASPR to meet the requirements outlined in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019. Such plans would help ASPR to ensure that it develops a transparent and deliberative process that also balances the need to protect sensitive, including proprietary information. The act stipulates that the functions of the PHEMCE shall involve several activities, including the following:Making recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding research, development, procurement, stockpiling, deployment, distribution, and use of medical countermeasures;Identifying national health security needs, including gaps in public health preparedness and response related to medical countermeasures; andAssisting the Secretary of Health and Human Services in developing strategies related to logistics, deployment, distribution, dispensing, and use of medical countermeasures that may be applicable to SNS activities.[188]The act also stipulates that the annual threat-based review should be conducted in consultation with the PHEMCE.[189] In addition, developing and documenting plans that incorporate GAO’s leading collaboration practices would help ASPR ensure that its current plans for restructuring of the PHEMCE results in an effective interagency collaboration over the long term. Among our leading practices for collaboration ASPR should consider addressing the following in its plans: identifying a leadership model and detailing how it will be sustained over time, clearly identifying roles and responsibilities of interagency partners and steps for decision making, developing ways to update or monitor collaborative agreements, and establishing ways to operate across participating agencies’ boundaries to build positive relationships and bridge organizational cultures.Until ASPR develops and documents plans for restructuring the PHEMCE that addresses a number of issues, ASPR risks being unable to fulfill its responsibilities in advancing national preparedness for a wide range of threats, including a pandemic. These include having a transparent and deliberative process that engages interagency partners in the full range of PHEMCE responsibilities outlined in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, including those related to the SNS annual threat-based reviews, and incorporates leading practices to foster more effective collaboration. These plans should also reflect the need to conduct deliberations securely, so as not to risk harming our nation’s homeland security. The completion of the PHEMCE reorganization aided through the development of these plans is crucial to ensuring that the most efficacious medical countermeasures—informed by the PHEMCE partners’ broad range of scientific, regulatory, and logistical expertise—are available for rapid deployment and effective administration and utilization during the next public health emergency. ASPR lacks documentation of PHEMCE activities and deliberations. ASPR was unable to provide us with documentation of PHEMCE activities and deliberations after 2017, which raises concerns about the office’s records management practices. For example, the office was unable to provide the following items: Documentation related to PHEMCE decisions or recommendations during the 2018 to 2020 period, which could have provided information on the factors that interagency partners considered when making decisions about the medical countermeasures enterprise, including the SNS. Documentation that would support ASPR officials’ accounts of the rationale for the changes to the PHEMCE—information that was shared with PHEMCE interagency partners in 2019, according to three of six PHEMCE partner officials we interviewed. PHEMCE meeting agendas and minutes for 2018 to 2020 to know, for example, who was involved. For these reasons, we do not know whether PHEMCE partners were aware of the lapse in SNS annual reviews, which historically were managed by the PHEMCE, or if PHEMCE partners discussed the implications of this lapse for the SNS inventory. We also do not know if senior ASPR leadership provided any explicit guidance regarding the approach that should be used to determine medical countermeasure acquisition priorities for the SNS in the absence of SNS annual reviews. ASPR officials told us that several staff transitions during this time period made it challenging for them to locate documentation related to PHEMCE activities and deliberations, and acknowledged the need to improve records management going forward. Not maintaining such documentation is inconsistent with HHS’s policy for records management, which implements the Federal Records Act of 1950 and other laws and regulations.[190] The policy requires HHS components to: establish and maintain a records management program that includes managerial activities related to the creation, maintenance and use, and disposition of records, carried out in such a way as to achieve adequate and proper documentation of federal transactions and effective and economical management of agency operations; implement a records maintenance program so that complete records are filed or otherwise identified and preserved and can easily be found when needed; and ensure that departing employees’ federal records have been turned over to the appropriate successor or official to permit continued preservation of departmental federal records.[191] Until ASPR implements records management practices that include developing, maintaining, and securing documentation related to PHEMCE activities and deliberations, including those related to the SNS, Congress and key stakeholders do not have assurance that steps taken are advancing national preparedness for natural, accidental, and intentional threats. Practices should ensure information such as the factors considered, the rationale for the action or decision, and the final outcomes of PHEMCE processes are properly documented. Creation and management of PHEMCE records facilitates transparency and accountability as it provides stakeholders, including interagency partners impacted by decisions and oversight bodies that assess them, with access to information regarding how and why decisions were made. Maintaining these records can also reduce the risks of losing organizational knowledge due to staffing volatility. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed PHEMCE documentation that described the PHEMCE prior to the restructuring, including charters, a past and current PHEMCE Strategy and Implementation Plan, and information publicly available on the PHEMCE internet site, among other things. We interviewed or obtained written responses from:current and former ASPR officials that participated in the governance of the PHEMCE and that had responsibility for the administration of the PHEMCE prior to and after December 2017, including the former Assistant Secretary. seven PHEMCE interagency partners: CDC, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health, in April and May 2021. One of the seven interagency partners was unable to provide relevant information due to staff turnover. Therefore, we only included responses from the remaining six partners in our findings.officials within the Division of the Strategic National Stockpile responsible for developing the SNS budget and spend plans for the SNS and ASPR officials that liaised between the PHEMCE and the Division of the Strategic National Stockpile, including the Acting Director of the Division of the Strategic National Stockpile.Lastly, we assessed ASPR’s actions related to the PHEMCE restructure against our leading practices for effective collaboration and relevant requirements in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, and the Department of Health and Human Services Policy for Records Management, which implements the Federal Records Act of 1950 and other laws and regulations.Agency CommentsWe provided HHS, DOD, DHS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), USDA, and VA with a draft of this enclosure. HHS provided comments, which are reproduced in Appendix VI . In its comments, HHS stated that it concurred with our recommendations and that it is initiating a review of the PHEMCE by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to look at a number of issues including interagency coordination, appropriate policies and practices, scope, transparency and ethical conduct. HHS also noted that several meetings will be held to allow for stakeholder input and that the review will culminate in a report, which HHS anticipates receiving in fall 2021.HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DHS, DOD, OMB, USDA, and VA did not provide comments on this enclosure. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe are conducting a comprehensive body of work on the SNS in response to the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 and the CARES Act.[192] This work includes examining the contents and management of the SNS to include a review of procurements of medical countermeasures over time, the decisions behind these procurements, and how they help address emergency health security needs. We will also continue to monitor efforts to modernize and restructure the SNS.GAO’s Prior Recommendation The table below presents our recommendation on the Strategic National Stockpile from a prior bimonthly CARES Act report.Prior GAO Recommendation Related to the Strategic National Stockpile Recommendation Status To improve the nation’s response to and preparedness for pandemics, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response should establish a process for regularly engaging with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders—including state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and private industry—as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) refines and implements a supply chain strategy for pandemic preparedness, to include the role of the Strategic National Stockpile (January 2021 report). Open. HHS generally agreed with our recommendation, while noting that the term “engage” is vague and unclear, and that they regularly engage with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders. HHS added that improving the pandemic response capabilities of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments is a priority. Related GAO Product:Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington D.C.: September 27, 2012).Federal Contracts and Agreements for COVID-19Bookmark:As of May 31, 2021, federal agencies reported obligating tens of billions of dollars in support of COVID-19 response efforts through contracts and other transaction agreements, with the predominant types of goods and services procured changing from medical equipment and supplies to drugs and treatments over the course of the pandemic. Entities involved: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Department of Health and Human Services; and Department of Homeland Security, among others Background Federal agencies have used a variety of contracting mechanisms to provide vital goods and services in support of federal, state, and local COVID-19 response efforts.[193] For example, federal agencies have reported billions of dollars in obligations on contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation—which provides uniform policies and procedures for acquisitions by all executive agencies.[194] Our prior work on disaster contracting has found that contracts play a key role in federal emergency response efforts, and that contracting during an emergency can present a unique set of challenges as officials can face significant pressure to provide critical goods and services as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. The January 2021 National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness emphasizes the important role contracts will continue to play during the response. The strategy states that the federal government will fully leverage contract authorities to strengthen the vaccine supply chain; staff vaccination sites; and fill supply shortages for personal protective equipment, drugs, and therapeutics.In addition, federal agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have relied on the use of other transaction agreements—which are not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation—for activities such as vaccine development and manufacturing in response to COVID-19.[195] Our prior work has noted that the flexibility to tailor other transaction agreements can help agencies attract companies that do not typically do business with the government. However, their use also carries a risk of reduced accountability and transparency. The CARES Act relaxed certain limitations on the use of other transaction agreements in response to COVID-19 for HHS and DOD, such as congressional reporting requirements and requirements for who can approve certain transactions.[196] As federal contracting activity continues to play a critical role in response to the pandemic, it is important to ensure that contract actions made in response to COVID-19 are accurately reported and visible to congressional decision makers, entities with oversight responsibilities, and taxpayers. National Interest Action (NIA) codes were established in 2005 following Hurricane Katrina to enable the consistent tracking of emergency or contingency-related contracting actions in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG). The COVID-19 NIA code—used to track contract actions and associated obligations in response to COVID-19 in FPDS-NG—was originally established on March 13, 2020, and set to expire on July 1, 2020. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD subsequently extended the code three times—first to September 30, 2020, then to March 31, 2021, and more recently to September 30, 2021.[197] Overview of Key IssuesAgencies obligated $61.4 billion on federal contracts, with DOD and HHS accounting for most obligations. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, contract obligations totaled about $61.4 billion as of May 31, 2021. At the beginning of the response, HHS accounted for the most federal contract obligations. However, as the response has progressed, DOD’s contract obligations surpassed HHS’s, in part due to DOD’s support of interagency acquisition needs, which has included awarding contracts on behalf of HHS for vaccine and therapeutic production and medical supplies. As of May 31, 2021, DOD accounted for about 40 percent and HHS for about 29 percent of the total obligations made by federal agencies. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) obligations, almost all of which were in support of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, accounted for $6.1 billion, or 10 percent of total obligations made in response to COVID-19 (see figure).[198]Contract Obligations in Response to COVID-19 by Federal Agency, as of May 31, 2021In our March 2021 report, we reported that government-wide contract obligations related to COVID-19 totaled $55.5 billion through February 28, 2021; by May 31, 2021, those obligations had increased by about $5.9 billion—to $61.4 billion. HHS accounted for about $1.9 billion, or about 33 percent of the increase in total contract obligations since February 28, 2021. See figure for government-wide obligations and confirmed COVID-19 cases by month.Government-wide COVID-19-Related Contract Obligations and Confirmed COVID-19 Cases by Month, February 2020–May 2021Types of goods and services purchased and extent of competition changed over the course of the pandemic. As the response to the pandemic has progressed, the types of goods and services purchased have shifted from being primarily medical equipment and supplies—such as ventilators and personal protective equipment—to drugs and treatments—such as COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics. As we reported in March 2021, drugs and treatments surpassed medical equipment and supplies as the largest area of government-wide obligations, accounting for 23 percent of total obligations. These obligations more than tripled from $3 billion as of November 2020, prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines, to about $14.3 billion as of May 31, 2021.[199] However, these contract obligations hit their peak and have declined by about $333 million since late February.Medical equipment and supplies—including ventilators and personal protective equipment—increased by about $439.6 million since February 28, 2021, and accounted for about $9.4 billion, or 15 percent of government-wide contract obligations. Obligations for fruits and vegetables—made primarily in support of the USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program—increased by an additional $732.5 million, to $4.6 billion. See figure for obligation amounts for the most-procured goods and services over time. Contract Obligation Amounts for Top Five Goods and Services Procured in Response to COVID-19 by month, Feb. 2020–May 2021Note: In addition to what is reflected in the figure, agencies canceled, or deobligated, $176.5 million and $335.1 million for drugs and treatments in July 2020 and April 2021, respectively. As of May 31, 2021, COVID-19-related contracts for goods continued to be competed less frequently than contracts for services. About 69 percent of the obligations for goods were on contracts that were not awarded competitively, compared with about 41 percent of the obligations for services. For example, about $13.8 billion, or 97 percent, of the $14.3 billion in obligations for drugs and treatments and about $8 billion, or 85 percent, of the $9.4 billion in obligations for medical and surgical equipment were on contracts awarded noncompetitively.The proportion of COVID-19 related contracts identified as having been awarded noncompetitively decreased slightly from about 60 percent of government-wide contract obligations as of February 28, 2021, to about 58 percent as of May 31, 2021—about $35.7 billion.[200] Throughout the course of the pandemic, the percentage of obligations on contracts identified as awarded noncompetitively has fluctuated from a low of 25 percent of obligations in February 2020 to a high of 88 percent of obligations in December 2020. The higher rate of obligations on noncompetitively awarded contracts was driven in part by large noncompetitive awards for vaccine production. Agencies must provide for full and open competition when awarding contracts, unless one of several limited exceptions applies, such as when there is an unusual and compelling urgency for a needed supply or service. Agencies cited an urgent need for awarding contracts noncompetitively for about 79 percent, or about $28.3 billion, of the contract obligations associated with noncompetitive awards.[201] However, our prior work has noted that promoting competition—even in a limited form—increases the likelihood of acquiring quality goods and services at a lower price in urgent situations. Federal agencies have obligated about $5 billion on undefinitized contracts. Undefinitized contracts are one technique that agencies have reported using to respond to COVID-19. Undefinitized contracts can enable the government to quickly fulfill requirements that are urgent or need to be met quickly by allowing contractors to begin work before reaching a final agreement with the government on all contract terms and conditions.[202] As of May 31, 2021, undefinitized contract obligations for COVID-19 totaled about $5 billion, and accounted for about 8 percent of government-wide contract obligations on contracts awarded in response to COVID-19. DOD reported the highest amount of undefinitized contract obligations, identifying about $4.1 billion, or about 17 percent of its COVID-19-related contract obligations as being undefinitized for goods and services such as N95 respirator production and constructing alternate care facilities to treat COVID-19 patients. Our prior work has shown that, while undefinitized contract actions can allow the government to fulfill requirements that are urgent or need to be met quickly, these types of contracts can pose risks to the government. For example, contractors may lack incentives to control costs before all contract terms and conditions are defined.Federal agencies have obligated at least $12.5 billion through other transaction agreements. Three federal agencies—DOD, HHS, and DHS—have continued to report using other transaction agreements in response to COVID-19. From February 28, 2021, through May 31, 2021, obligations associated with other transaction agreements reported by DOD, HHS, and DHS increased from about $12.2 billion to $12.5 billion. Of the $12.5 billion, DOD reported obligating about $10.8 billion through other transaction agreements, including at least $8.5 billion on efforts to manufacture large-scale vaccines and therapeutics in response to COVID-19 through a DOD and HHS partnership formerly known as Operation Warp Speed. Our analysis of FPDS-NG data and agreement documents found that HHS continues to misreport at least four other transaction agreements with about $1.6 billion in obligations as procurement contracts. These other transaction agreements supported the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing efforts and other medical countermeasures, which can include therapeutic treatments and testing capabilities. In our January 2021 report, we recommended that HHS should accurately report data in the federal procurement database system and provide information that would allow the public to distinguish between spending on other transaction agreements and procurement contracts. HHS concurred with our recommendation and is exploring ways to address it. MethodologyTo identify agencies’ federal contract and other transaction agreement obligations and competition rate on contracts in response to COVID-19, we reviewed data reported in FPDS-NG through May 31, 2021.[203] We primarily identified contract obligations related to COVID-19 using the NIA code. We supplemented the use of the NIA code by searching for “COVID-19” and “coronavirus” in the contract description field to identify a limited number of additional contract obligations.[204] For contract actions over $1 million, we removed obligations that were identified in the contract description as not related to COVID-19. We assessed the reliability of federal procurement data by reviewing existing information about FPDS-NG and the data it collects—specifically, the data dictionary and data validation rules—and by performing electronic testing. For the four other transaction agreements that HHS misreported as contracts, we removed the $1.6 billion associated obligations from our reported contract obligations and reported them instead as other transaction agreement obligations. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing agencies’ reported contract obligations in response to COVID-19. Agency Comments We provided HHS, DOD, DHS, USDA, and the Office of Management and Budget with a draft of this enclosure. HHS, DHS, USDA, and the Office of Management and Budget did not provide comments. DOD provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe have work underway related to the federal government’s use of contracts to respond to COVID-19, including assessing contracts awarded by selected agencies in response to COVID-19 and agencies’ efforts to review prospective contractors in advance of awarding a contract.GAO’s Prior Recommendations The table below presents our recommendations on federal contracts and agreements for COVID-19 from prior bimonthly and quarterly CARES Act reports.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Federal Contracts and Agreements for COVID-19 Recommendation Status The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service to issue guidance—such as an acquisition alert or a reminder to contracting officials—on the use of the COVID-19 National Interest Action code for the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or successor food distribution program to ensure it accurately captures COVID-19-related contract obligations in support of the program (March 2021 report). Closed-Implemented. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In February 2021, following our identification of contract data reporting challenges using the COVID-19 National Interest Action code for the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, Agricultural Marketing Service officials said they conducted training with staff to review National Interest Action code data entry protocols. At that time, a senior Agricultural Marketing Service official also sent an email reminder to procurement division personnel about OMB’s guidance on the use of the COVID-19 National Interest Action code. Following this training and email, officials took action to retroactively report contract actions for the program with the National Interest Action code. In May 2021, the Agricultural Marketing Service updated its instructions for entering contract actions into the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation to include a reminder to utilize the proper National Interest Action code, if applicable. The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service to assess the contracting personnel needed to fully execute the award and administration of existing contracts in support of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or successor future food distribution program, and take the necessary steps to ensure it has adequate contracting staff in place to award and administer any future contracts for the program (March 2021 report). Open. USDA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, and as of May 2021 had not fully assessed the contracting personnel needed to execute and administer contracts in support of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or successor food distribution program. According to Agricultural Marketing Service officials, they have discontinued the program, and are using other methods of hunger relief, so do not anticipate needing additional permanent staff. Agricultural Marketing Service officials are planning to use an existing contract vehicle to obtain additional staff support for contract documentation needs for the awards that have been made under the Farmers to Families Food Box Program and other food purchasing efforts. However, as of May 2021 Agricultural Marketing Service officials had not yet determined the staffing support levels to be obtained under the contract vehicle. The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), in coordination with the appropriate offices within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), should accurately report data in the federal procurement database system and provide information that would allow the public to distinguish between spending on other transaction agreements and procurement contracts (January 2021 report). Open. ASPR agreed with our recommendation, and as of April 2021, ASPR officials stated that they have discussed within ASPR the need to consistently identify other transaction agreements in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and explored how their contract writing system may interface with the FPDS-NG other transaction agreement module in the future. ASPR officials added that in the meantime, they have identified other transaction agreements in the procurement module by manually adding designators such as “other transaction agreement” into the description of requirement data field. We will continue to monitor ASPR’s efforts to implement our recommendation. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, should (1) revise the criteria in the 2019 National Interest Action (NIA) code memorandum of agreement to clearly identify steps they will take to obtain input from key federal agencies prior to extending or closing a National Interest Action code, (2) establish timelines for evaluating the need to extend a National Interest Action code, and (3) define what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions and routine contract activity to ensure the criteria for extending or closing the National Interest Action code reflect government-wide needs for tracking contract actions in longer term emergencies, such as a pandemic (September 2020 report). Closed-Implemented. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not agree with our recommendation. However, in March 2021, DHS, in coordination with the Department of Defense (DOD), issued a revised memorandum of agreement. The revised agreement establishes a process and timelines for communicating and evaluating NIA code extensions by requiring the General Services Administration to notify other federal agencies no less than seven days before a NIA code is set to expire so that agencies can request an extension as needed. The revised agreement also more clearly defines what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions to ensure criteria for extending or closing a NIA code is consistently applied. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, should (1) revise the criteria in the 2019 National Interest Action code memorandum of agreement to clearly identify steps they will take to obtain input from key federal agencies prior to extending or closing a National Interest Action code, (2) establish timelines for evaluating the need to extend a National Interest Action code, and (3) define what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions and routine contract activity to ensure the criteria for extending or closing the National Interest Action code reflect government-wide needs for tracking contract actions in longer term emergencies, such as a pandemic (September 2020 report). Closed-Implemented. DOD did not agree with our recommendation. However, in March 2021 DOD, in coordination with DHS, issued a revised memorandum of agreement. The revised agreement establishes a process and timelines for communicating and evaluating NIA code extensions by requiring the General Services Administration to notify other federal agencies no less than seven days before a NIA code is set to expire so that agencies can request an extension as needed. The revised agreement also more clearly defines what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions to ensure criteria for extending or closing a NIA code is consistently applied. Related GAO ProductsCOVID-19 Contracting: Observations on Federal Contracting in Response to the Pandemic. GAO-20-632. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2020.Defense Acquisitions: DOD’s Use of Other Transactions for Prototype Projects Has Increased. GAO-20-84. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2019.DATA Act: Quality of Data Submissions Has Improved but Further Action Is Needed to Disclose Known Data Limitations. GAO-20-75. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2019.Disaster Contracting: FEMA Continues to Face Challenges with Its Use of Contracts to Support Response and Recovery. GAO-19-518T. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2019. 2017 Disaster Contracting: Actions Needed to Improve the Use of Post-Disaster Contracts to Support Response and Recovery. GAO-19-281. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2019.2017 Disaster Contracting: Action Needed to Better Ensure More Effective Use and Management of Advance Contracts. GAO-19-93. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2018.Federal Contracting: Noncompetitive Contracts Based on Urgency Need Additional Oversight. GAO-14-304. Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2014.Department of Homeland Security: Further Action Needed to Improve Management of Special Acquisition Authority. GAO-12-557. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2012.Defense Contracting: DOD Has Enhanced Insight into Undefinitized Contract Action Use, but Management at Local Commands Needs Improvement. GAO-10-299. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 2010.Department of Homeland Security: Improvements Could Further Enhance Ability to Acquire Innovative Technologies Using Other Transaction Authority. GAO-08-1088. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2008.Contact information: Marie A. Mak, (202) 512-4841, [email protected] Unemployment Insurance ProgramsBookmark:The number of claims for unemployment insurance benefits generally declined during spring 2021, though they remained at a high level into June 2021 as compared to pre-pandemic levels. We continue to focus on the implications of the high number of claims, including timeliness of benefits and program integrity concerns.Entity involved: Department of LaborBackgroundThe unemployment insurance (UI) system is a federal-state partnership that provides temporary financial assistance to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own. States design and administer their own UI programs within federal parameters, and the Department of Labor (DOL) oversees states’ compliance with federal requirements, such as by ensuring states pay benefits when they are due. Regular UI benefits—those provided under the state UI programs in place before the CARES Act was enacted—are funded primarily through state taxes levied on employers and are intended to typically be lower than a claimant’s previous employment earnings, according to DOL.[205]Three federally funded temporary UI programs that expanded benefit eligibility and enhanced benefits were created by the CARES Act and amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.[206]Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), generally available through September 6, 2021, generally authorizes up to 79 weeks of UI benefits for individuals not otherwise eligible for UI benefits, such as self-employed and certain gig economy workers, who are unable to work as a result of specified COVID-19 reasons.[207]Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) generally authorized an additional $600 weekly benefit through July 2020 for individuals eligible for weekly benefits under the regular UI and CARES Act UI programs. FPUC also generally authorizes an additional $300 benefit for weeks beginning after December 26, 2020, and ending on or before September 6, 2021, for these individuals.[208]Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), generally available through September 6, 2021, generally authorizes an additional 53 weeks of UI benefits for those who exhaust their regular UI benefits.[209]The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 created, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 extended, the Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensation (MEUC) program, which authorizes an additional $100 weekly benefit for certain UI claimants who received at least $5,000 of self-employment income in the most recent tax year prior to their application for UI benefits.[210] The $100 weekly benefit is in addition to other UI benefits received by claimants; however, individuals receiving PUA benefits may not receive MEUC payments. According to DOL, the MEUC program, which is voluntary for states, is intended to cover regular UI claimants whose benefits do not account for significant self-employment income and who thus may receive a lower regular UI benefit than the benefit they would have received had they been eligible for PUA.[211] As of June 8, 2021, 51 of 53 states and territories had elected to participate in the MEUC program, though just 23 had begun paying MEUC benefits, according to DOL.[212]As of June 8, 2021, 25 states had announced their intention to terminate participation in at least one of the pandemic UI programs before their September 2021 expiration dates.[213] For example, according to DOL, 21 states submitted notice to DOL that they intended to end participation in the FPUC, PEUC, and PUA programs and 3 states submitted notice that they intended to end participation in the FPUC program.[214] In addition, 1 state publicly announced its intention to end participation in the FPUC program, but as of June 8 had not submitted notice to DOL.[215] States’ planned program termination dates range from mid-June through mid-July. In public announcements, states generally cited labor shortages among the reasons for their intended withdrawals from the programs. After the first states’ announcements, the Secretaries of Commerce and Treasury stated that, nationwide, data do not support the argument that unemployment benefits are keeping people from returning to work. They identified caregiving responsibilities and health concerns as key factors in people’s decisions. The Secretary of Commerce also noted that governors had to respond to their regional labor markets, which vary.In addition to extending and expanding benefits, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 added new program integrity requirements for the CARES Act UI programs. For example, the act generally requires PUA claimants to provide documentation substantiating their prior employment or self-employment and to recertify with their state each week that they continue to meet the eligibility requirement of not being able to work as a result of COVID-19.[216] In addition, states are required to have procedures for identity verification or validation and for timely payment of PUA benefits, to the extent reasonable and practicable.[217] The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 also appropriated $2 billion for DOL to detect and prevent fraud, promote equitable access, and ensure the timely payment of UI benefits.[218]During the pandemic, regular UI claimants in certain states have also had access to the Extended Benefits program. The program, which existed prior to the pandemic and provides up to an additional 13 or 20 weeks of benefits, is activated in states during periods of high unemployment, according to DOL.[219] If unemployment is not high enough to activate the Extended Benefits program in a state, or if regular UI claimants exhaust their PEUC and Extended Benefits, they may be eligible for PUA benefits—provided they also meet PUA eligibility requirements.[220]Overview of Key IssuesAlthough weekly numbers of initial and continued claims for UI benefits have declined, their levels suggest that more individuals are still losing jobs on a weekly basis than is typical and that many others are experiencing long-term unemployment. DOL reported that 393,078 initial claims for regular UI benefits and 104,682 initial claims for PUA benefits were submitted nationwide during the week ending June 19, 2021.[221] Weekly initial claims numbers are near their lowest point since the surge at the beginning of the pandemic. However, they remain at a level that indicates that more Americans are still experiencing job losses than was typical in the year before the pandemic. For example, the 393,078 regular UI initial claims submitted during the week ending June 19, 2021, is about 74 percent higher than the number submitted during the corresponding week in 2019.Weekly Initial Claims Submitted Nationwide for Regular Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Benefits, Mar. 1, 2020–June 19, 2021Notes: The weekly counts of initial claims shown are not seasonally adjusted. Counts for weeks through June 5, 2021, are from Department of Labor (DOL) data files that include any adjustments submitted by states as of June 24, 2021. Counts for the weeks ending June 12 and 19, 2021, are from DOL’s weekly report released on June 24, 2021. Counts for the week ending June 19, 2021, reflect advance initial claims, which are preliminary and subject to revision. The number of states and territories reporting PUA claims is out of a potential total of 53. All 53 states and territories reported regular UI claims in each week shown.The number of initial claims is not intended to measure how many claimants were determined eligible to receive benefits or how many of those who filed for benefits earlier in the pandemic are still unemployed. DOL officials have stated that continued claims (i.e., weeks of unemployment claimed by individuals during a reporting period) may be a better barometer than initial claims for measuring continuing demand for benefits. For example, states reported that about 14.8 million continued claims were submitted in all programs during the week ending June 5, 2021, including:about 3.3 million in the regular UI program,about 6.0 million in the PUA program,[222]about 5.3 million in the PEUC program,[223]about 0.2 million in the Extended Benefits program,[224] andabout 0.1 million in other programs.[225]The number of regular UI continued claims submitted each week has declined overall since the peak in late April and early May 2020 (see figure). Some of this decline is due to claimants’ finding employment, though some of the decline is also likely due to other factors, such as claimants’ exhausting regular UI benefits and beginning to claim PEUC or other benefits.[226] For example, the persistently high numbers of PEUC continued claims since fall 2020 suggest that many individuals may be experiencing long-term unemployment and have likely exhausted their regular UI benefits.[227]Notably, the combined total of continued claims submitted for regular UI, PEUC, and Extended Benefits remained at a relatively consistent level from the beginning of October 2020 through the beginning of March 2021 (see figure). Since then, the combined total of continued claims submitted in these three programs has generally declined, though the number remains high.Weekly Continued Claims Submitted Nationwide for Regular Unemployment Insurance, Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, and Extended Benefits, Mar. 1, 2020–June 5, 2021Notes: The weekly counts of continued claims shown in the figure are not seasonally adjusted. Counts for weeks through May 29, 2021, are from Department of Labor (DOL) data that include any adjustments submitted by states as of June 24, 2021. The count for the week ending June 5, 2021, is from DOL’s weekly report released on June 24, 2021. The number of states and territories reporting PEUC claims is out of a potential total of 53. All 53 states and territories reported regular UI claims in each week shown. The number of states reporting Extended Benefits claims each week varies, in part based on the number of states with the program activated each week. The Extended Benefits program, which existed before the pandemic, is activated in states during periods of high unemployment, according to DOL.The persistently high number of claims across all programs suggests continued high demand for benefits. However, as we have previously reported, the number of continued claims has not approximated the number of individuals claiming benefits during the pandemic because of backlogs in processing historic numbers of claims in many states and other data issues. For example, backlogs in claims processing led to individuals claiming multiple weeks of benefits in single reporting periods and thus being counted as multiple claims for that reporting period, particularly in the PUA program. As a result, reliable conclusions about trends in the number of individuals claiming benefits cannot be drawn from data on continued claims.In November 2020, we recommended that DOL address this issue by (1) revising its weekly news releases to clarify that the numbers it reports for weeks of unemployment claimed do not accurately estimate the number of unique individuals claiming benefits and (2) pursuing options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming benefits from January 2020 onward.DOL fully agreed with our first recommendation and, starting with the December 10, 2020, weekly UI news release, clarified that the numbers it reports for weeks of unemployment claimed do not represent the number of unique individuals claiming benefits. We consider this recommendation closed.DOL partially agreed with our second recommendation, taking issue with implementing a retroactive change in state reporting. In a letter dated March 30, 2021, DOL stated that it had begun developing a new state report that would capture data related to distinct individuals claiming regular UI benefits; DOL estimated that this data collection might begin in early 2022. DOL also reiterated its concerns about the feasibility of states’ reporting this information retroactively, including for the pandemic UI programs, without detracting from their primary obligation for timely and accurate claims processing.We maintain that these data are vital to understanding the size of the population supported by the UI system during the pandemic. Even if the information is unavailable for some time, reporting the number of distinct individuals who claimed benefits for calendar year 2020 and later years will help DOL and policymakers identify lessons learned about the administration and utilization of regular and expanded UI benefit programs during the pandemic. We encourage DOL to pursue options to report this information in the most feasible and least burdensome way and at a time when providing this information retroactively will not detract from states’ primary obligation for timely and accurate claims processing.Although timeliness of regular UI first payments improved nationally from fall 2020 through early 2021, timeliness has varied since then, including by state, and some claimants still face substantial delays in receiving benefits. The timeliness of first payments of regular UI benefits declined substantially early in the pandemic, as states faced extensive claims-processing backlogs resulting from historically high numbers of claims.[228] When we last reported in March 2021, we observed that, nationwide, first payment timeliness had improved from fall 2020 through January 2021. Since then, regular UI first payment timeliness, nationwide, declined in February 2021, improved again in March and April, and then declined again in May (see figure).[229] In some states, many regular UI claimants continue to face delays before receiving their first payments. For example, in six states, at least half of regular UI claimants who received their first benefits in May 2021 had been waiting longer than 3 weeks. In addition, nationwide, about 10.3 percent of regular UI claimants who received their first benefits in May 2021 had been waiting longer than 10 weeks. By comparison, of the regular UI claimants who received their first benefits in March 2020, nationwide, less than 3 percent had been waiting longer than 3 weeks and less than 1 percent longer than 10 weeks.Timeliness of First Payments of Regular Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits, Jan. 2020–May 2021Notes: We analyzed first payment timeliness data that states had reported to the Department of Labor (DOL) as of June 21, 2021. At that point, of the 53 states and territories, 46 had reported data for May 2021, 51 had reported data for April 2021, 52 had reported data for January through March 2021, and all 53 had reported data for all months in 2020. One of DOL’s core performance measures is the percentage of all regular UI first payments made within either 14 or 21 days of the first week of benefits for which claimants are eligible, depending on whether the state requires that individuals who are otherwise eligible for benefits serve a waiting period—generally 1 week—before receiving benefits. We focus on payments made within 21 days because in guidance released at the start of the pandemic, DOL recommended that states consider temporarily waiving their waiting week requirements. According to DOL, states must pay at least 87 percent of claims within 14 or 21 days to reach an acceptable level of performance.As we have previously reported, although DOL has not tracked the timeliness of payments in the temporary PUA program, DOL officials told us that states have struggled with making PUA payments in a timely manner. For example, they said regional officials had observed a number of implementation challenges at the state level that likely contributed to claims processing backlogs and payment delays. In addition, in early 2021, DOL officials said they expected PUA program changes enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 to slow the payment of PUA benefits as states implemented the new program integrity provisions.More than half of the 47 states and territories submitting data reported average PUA benefits paid in April 2021 that were close to the minimum amount. Specifically, as of June 21, 2021, 31 states and territories reported average weekly PUA benefits paid in April 2021 that were up to 25 percent above the state’s minimum PUA benefit amount; 13 of these states and territories reported average benefits that were up to 10 percent above the minimum.[230] This suggests that many individuals in these states and territories were receiving the minimum PUA benefit in April 2021—because the average was close to the minimum. As we have previously reported, DOL officials told us that to facilitate implementation of the PUA program, most states decided to initially pay PUA claimants the minimum allowable benefit and then recalculate benefits at a later point based on claimants’ documentation of their prior earnings.[231] DOL officials said that through the regional offices’ monitoring efforts, DOL has found that some states have faced challenges and expressed confusion related to recalculating PUA benefit amounts and that DOL has required some states to implement corrective actions.Persistently high numbers of UI claims during the pandemic have led some states to take out substantial federal loans to pay UI benefits.[232] As of June 18, 2021, 19 states and territories held federal loans totaling about $53.5 billion—approximately $1.4 billion more than we reported in March 2021. This total loan balance is also greater than the approximately $40.2 billion held by 30 states and territories at the end of 2010, after the 2007-2009 recession and early recovery.[233]As we reported in March 2021, some states have used their Coronavirus Relief Fund payments, under guidance from the Department of the Treasury, to pay for UI benefits to reduce or prevent loan balances and avoid possible future increases in employer tax rates.[234] Generally, if a state holds a federal loan balance to pay UI benefits for 2 or more years, the rate of the federal tax on employers that is used to fund the UI program will increase.[235] States may continue to use these Coronavirus Relief Fund payments for expenses through the end of 2021.[236] In addition, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provided funds to states, local governments, territories, and tribal governments. States and territories may use these funds, under an interim final rule from the Department of the Treasury, to restore their UI trust funds or to pay back federal loan balances.[237]DOL and other federal and state agencies continue to take actions to address potential fraud in the UI programs.[238] As we have previously reported, DOL made two allotments of $100 million available to states, in September 2020 and January 2021, respectively, to address potential fraud and identity theft in the PUA and PEUC programs. According to DOL, states have reported using the funds from the September allotment to, among other things, hire additional staff to investigate suspicious claims, connect with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies’ (NASWA) Integrity Data Hub to utilize an identity verification service, and implement integrity tools and software to conduct further identity protections and fraud screening.[239]The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, enacted March 11, 2021, subsequently provided DOL with $2 billion to detect and prevent fraud, promote equitable access, and ensure the timely payment of UI benefits. As of May 20, 2021, DOL officials said that DOL was working to develop detailed plans for this $2 billion in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, and noted that developing spending plans across 53 states and territories involves complex considerations.In addition to providing funding, DOL continues to assist states with their fraud prevention and detection efforts. For example, on April 13, 2021, DOL issued guidance highlighting the importance of states’ identity verification efforts to stop potentially fraudulent UI claims.[240] The guidance outlines procedures that states must take when processing claims and determining UI eligibility in cases where an individual’s identity is in question. DOL officials also said that DOL is exploring new datasets that states could use to detect potential UI fraud.In addition, according to DOL officials, DOL has ongoing efforts to connect state workforce agencies with banking institutions and law enforcement to recover potentially fraudulently obtained funds that banks have intercepted. On May 4, 2021, DOL issued guidance encouraging states to work with financial institutions to detect suspicious activity, ensure that accounts are not unduly suspended, and recover overpayments.[241] This guidance also establishes instructions for banks and financial institutions on how to return recovered overpayments, such as in instances when the recovered funds span multiple states.In March 2021, DOL also launched a website to help the public better understand UI identity theft.[242] The website provides resources for those who may have been victims of identity theft, including a list of contact information for each state and territory to report UI identity theft.DOL’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Secret Service also continue to investigate potential UI fraud and examine program integrity issues. As of June 10, 2021, DOL’s OIG had opened more than 17,000 complaints and investigations involving UI fraud since the pandemic began, according to the agency’s website. According to DOL’s OIG, its efforts have directly resulted in the identification and recovery of more than $160 million in UI fraud. In addition, DOL’s OIG reported that it is currently working on a range of audit work related to UI, covering topics such as DOL’s and states’ efforts to prevent and detect overpayments and states’ capabilities to process UI claims accurately and in a timely manner with outdated information technology systems.In late May 2021, DOL’s OIG issued a report that found that DOL and states struggled to implement the three CARES Act UI programs (FPUC, PEUC, and PUA) and, among other things, that DOL’s guidance and oversight did not ensure states performed required and recommended improper payment detection and recovery activities.[243] For example, DOL’s OIG found that from March 27, 2020, to July 31, 2020, 20 states did not perform all required cross-matches, which could have prevented improper payments, including fraud.According to DOJ, from March 2020 through April 2021, DOJ filed federal charges against 207 individuals for defrauding the UI programs, 41 of whom have pleaded guilty.[244] See the enclosure on Federal Fraud-Related Cases in appendix I for more information about DOJ charges.As we previously reported, the U.S. Secret Service also conducts UI fraud investigations in coordination with various federal, state, and local partners. According to a May 2021 press release, over the last year the Secret Service has initiated more than 690 UI fraud investigations and investigative inquiries and seized more than $640 million in fraudulently obtained funds.[245]Several state auditors have also issued reports on UI program integrity issues. According to the California State Auditor, California’s Employment Development Department did not take substantive action to bolster its UI fraud detection efforts until months into the pandemic, which resulted in payments of about $10.4 billion that the department has since determined may be potentially fraudulent because it cannot verify claimants’ identities. Also, the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit found that the Kansas Department of Labor’s fraud detection process was not designed to detect large-scale fraud. According to this audit, in December 2020, the Kansas Department of Labor reported that it had partnered with a private company to enhance its fraud detection capabilities. States have continued to identify overpayments in the regular UI and CARES Act UI programs, and some states have begun reporting data to DOL on recovered PUA overpayments. Overpayments are not necessarily a result of fraud, though some may be. As we reported in January 2021, DOL data show that the dollar amount of state-reported overpayments in the regular UI program increased substantially during the pandemic, coinciding with historically high numbers of UI claims. States have also reported large amounts of overpayments in the CARES Act UI programs.As of June 21, 2021, DOL reported that states and territories had identified approximately $12.9 billion in overpayments made in UI programs during the first four quarters of the pandemic combined (April 2020 through March 2021), including:$4.3 billion in regular UI and Extended Benefits overpayments,[246]$4.6 billion in PUA overpayments,[247]$0.2 billion in PEUC overpayments, and$3.8 billion in FPUC overpayments.[248]These amounts are likely to increase as states shift their focus from program implementation and clearing claims processing backlogs to identifying overpayments, according to DOL officials.States and territories also report the amounts of fraud overpayments—a subset of the total overpayment amounts.[249] During the first four quarters of the pandemic combined (April 2020 through March 2021), states and territories reported about $1.3 billion in overpayments identified as fraud across the UI programs.[250] However, according to DOL, states do not report these overpayments until investigations are complete and fraud has been established, which may take a long time. As a result, it is likely that states and territories have not yet reported substantial amounts of fraud overpayments, which could contribute to increasing amounts reported in the coming months. For example, 7 of the 45 states and territories that have reported PUA overpayments have reported no data on fraud overpayments.States and territories may waive and not recover overpayments in certain circumstances.[251] States and territories reported waiving about $0.1 billion of regular UI, Extended Benefits, PEUC, and FPUC overpayments during the first four quarters of the pandemic combined (April 2020 through March 2021).[252] In response to a recommendation in our March 2021 report, DOL stated that it was preparing to update its state reporting requirements for the PUA program to include the collection of data on PUA overpayments waived. On June 17, 2021, DOL officials stated that the agency expected to release guidance by mid-July 2021.States and territories report the amount of overpayments they have recovered in the period the recovery occurs. For example, states and territories have reported recovering about $0.3 billion in the PEUC and FPUC programs combined from April 2020 through March 2021 (i.e., during the first 4 quarters those programs existed).[253] In response to a recommendation in our January 2021 report, DOL updated its state reporting requirements for the PUA program to include the collection of data on PUA overpayments recovered. As of June 21, 2021, 27 states had reported some data on PUA overpayments recovered, reporting a combined total of about $0.2 billion recovered.[254]Because of the limited number of states and territories reporting data to DOL as of June 21, 2021, our recommendations related to reporting PUA overpayments waived and recovered remain open. Sustained reporting by most states is needed to help inform DOL, policymakers, and the public about the amount of PUA overpayments that states have waived and recovered and about the amount that remains outstanding.In addition to reporting actual overpayments established, states also conduct independent investigations of samples of regular UI claims to estimate accuracy rates for paid and denied claims. However, estimates of improper payments from this process are not yet available for the pandemic period.[255] We reported in November 2020 that DOL had not included the CARES Act UI programs in its improper payment estimation methods and that it planned to conduct a risk assessment after the first year of each program’s operations. On April 8, 2021, officials told us that DOL would be conducting this risk assessment during the second quarter of 2021. Officials also said that DOL had formed a working group to develop new sampling and investigative methodologies for the PUA program and that DOL planned to extrapolate regular UI data to the FPUC and PEUC programs.MethodologyTo conduct this work, we analyzed regularly reported DOL data for calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021, having obtained the most recent data on June 24, 2021. We reviewed relevant federal laws, DOL guidance, and DOL OIG reports, and we interviewed DOL officials about program data and agency actions. We also reviewed data file documentation and written responses from DOL officials. In addition, we interviewed DOL officials about the UI database, PUA claims data files, and data on outstanding federal loans to pay UI benefits, specifically related to state-reported data on claims counts, overpayments, payment timeliness, and loan balance amounts by state. We examined the data for outliers, missing values, and errors. We determined the DOL data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.Agency CommentsWe provided DOL and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. DOL provided technical comments on this enclosure, which we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not have any comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe continue to examine the implementation and administration of CARES Act UI programs and the implications of high claims volumes during the pandemic on the timeliness of benefit payments and on overall program integrity. We plan to conduct additional work to examine selected claimants’ experiences during the pandemic and with accessing CARES Act UI programs. We are also continuing to analyze selected states’ data on PUA benefit receipt by race and ethnicity as part of our ongoing work on the PUA program.GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendations on UI programs from prior bimonthly CARES Act reports.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs Recommendation Status The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance collects data from states on the amount of overpayments waived in the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, similar to the regular UI program (March 2021 report). Open. The Department of Labor (DOL) agreed with our recommendation and noted that it intended to issue PUA program guidance that would include revised reporting requirements and instructions for states to provide information on the amount of PUA overpayments waived. On June 17, 2021, DOL officials stated that the agency expected to publish guidance by mid-July 2021. As of June 21, 2021, this recommendation remained open, as this guidance had not yet been issued and no states had begun reporting this data. We will continue to monitor state reporting of PUA overpayments waived. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance collects data from states on the amount of overpayments recovered in the PUA program, similar to the regular UI program (January 2021 report). Open. DOL agreed with our recommendation and on January 8, 2021, issued PUA program guidance and updated instructions for states to report PUA overpayments recovered. As of June 21, 2021, this recommendation remained open, as just 27 states had begun reporting some data on the amount of PUA overpayments recovered. Sustained reporting by most states is needed to help inform DOL, policymakers, and the public about the amount of PUA overpayments states have recovered. We will continue to monitor state reporting of PUA overpayment recovery data. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance pursues options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming benefits, such as by collecting these already available data from states, starting from January 2020 onward (November 2020 report). Open. DOL partially agreed with our recommendation. Specifically, DOL agreed to pursue options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming UI benefits. However, DOL did not agree with the retroactive effective date of the reporting. In a letter dated March 30, 2021, DOL stated that it had begun developing a new state report that would capture data related to distinct individuals claiming regular UI benefits; DOL estimated that this data collection might begin in early 2022. DOL also reiterated its concerns about the feasibility of states reporting this information retroactively, including for the pandemic UI programs, without detracting from their primary obligation for timely and accurate claims processing. As of June 21, 2021, this recommendation remained open. We maintain that DOL should pursue options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming UI benefits, retroactive to January 2020. Even if the information is unavailable for some time, these data are vital to understanding how many individuals are receiving UI benefits as well as the size of the population supported by the UI system during the pandemic. Given the substantial investment in UI programs during the pandemic, an accurate accounting of the size of the population supported by this funding may be critical to understanding the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s response to unemployment during the pandemic. An accurate accounting may also be critical to helping DOL and policy makers identify lessons learned about the administration and utilization of regular and expanded UI benefit programs. We encourage DOL to pursue options to report the actual number of individuals claiming benefits in the most feasible and least burdensome way and at a time when providing this information retroactively will not detract from states’ primary obligation for timely and accurate claims processing. Collecting data from states is one way to address the recommendation, but DOL could develop other ways of gathering and reporting this information. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance revises its weekly news releases to clarify that in the current unemployment environment, the numbers it reports for weeks of unemployment claimed do not accurately estimate the number of unique individuals claiming benefits (November 2020 report). Closed. DOL’s weekly news release of December 10, 2020, clarified that the numbers reported for weeks of UI benefits claimed do not represent the number of unique individuals claiming benefits. The Secretary of Labor should, in consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Department of the Treasury, immediately provide information to state unemployment agencies that specifically addresses SBA's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, and the risk of improper payments associated with these loans (June 2020 report). Closed. DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Following our recommendation, DOL issued guidance on August 12, 2020, that clarified that individuals working full-time and being paid through PPP are not eligible for UI, and that individuals working part-time and being paid through PPP would be subject to certain state policies, including state policies on partial unemployment, to determine their eligibility for UI benefits. Further, the guidance clarified that individuals being paid through PPP but not performing any services would similarly be subject to certain provisions of state law, and noted that an individual receiving full compensation would be ineligible for UI. Related GAO ProductManagement Report: Preliminary Information on Potential Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Receipt of Unemployment Insurance Benefits during the COVID-19 Pandemic. GAO-21-599R. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2021.Contact information: Thomas M. Costa, (202) 512-7215, [email protected] Impact PaymentsBookmark:The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service quickly issued the third round of direct payments to most eligible individuals, and have taken steps to begin issuing advance payments of the Child Tax Credit starting in July 2021, but are still not using some available data to improve outreach efforts.Entities involved: Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of the Fiscal Service, within the Department of the Treasury Recommendation for Executive Action The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should release interim findings on the effectiveness of the notices it sent in September 2020 to nonfilers who are potentially eligible for economic impact payments; incorporate that analysis into Internal Revenue Service outreach efforts as appropriate; and then, if necessary, release an update based on new analysis after the 2021 filing season. Treasury neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation and stated that it shares the underlying goal of reaching as many nonfilers as possible to encourage them to claim economic impact payments online. However, Treasury does not plan to release any interim findings until it completes its analysis. BackgroundThe American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) authorized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to issue direct payments, known as economic impact payments (EIP), to eligible individuals to help address financial stress due to the pandemic.[256] Starting on March 17, 2021, Treasury and IRS quickly issued a third round of direct payments (EIP 3) to most eligible individuals.[257] As of May 28, 2021, IRS reported that it had disbursed over 168.2 million payments totaling over $394.3 billion (see figure). From March 2021 through May 2021, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service disbursed the third round of payments in the form of direct deposits, paper checks, and debit cards. Total Number and Amount of Economic Impact Payments (EIP) Disbursed, Rounds 1, 2, and 3, as of May 28, 2021Eligible individuals who did not receive EIP 1 or EIP 2—or their maximum amount of the credit for which they were eligible—can claim a recovery rebate credit (RRC) on their tax year 2020 income tax return equal to the amount of the credit for which they are eligible, as reduced by their EIP 1 and EIP 2 amounts. According to IRS data, as of May 26, 2021, 21 million returns, nearly 21 percent of the total number of filed returns, included a claim for the RRC. Of these returns, almost 2.4 million (11 percent) only claimed an RRC; 97 percent of these returns belonged to someone with an adjusted gross income of $15,000 or less. These individuals likely would not have filed a tax return other than to claim an RRC because their income is below the minimum filing threshold or all their income is derived from federal benefits. This very low-income population is one of the groups IRS has been trying to reach through their communications efforts.ARPA also directed IRS to make supplemental payments to individuals who received an EIP 3 prior to the processing of their 2020 tax return, but who are eligible for an additional payment based on their recently processed 2020 tax returns. For example, in situations where individuals’ adjusted gross income was lower or if they claimed more qualifying dependents on their 2020 tax return than their 2019 tax return, they may be eligible for an additional supplemental payment. As of June 3, 2021, IRS had issued over 8.1 million supplemental payments totaling over $16 billion.ARPA also made several temporary changes that expand the eligibility of the child tax credit (CTC) to more families and increase the amount. The law makes the following changes:increases the maximum age of a qualifying child dependent from 16 to 17 years old, eliminates the earned income requirement, and increases the maximum amount of the CTC from $2,000 to $3,600 per qualifying child for a young child (0 to 5 years old) and $3,000 per child for an older child (6 to 17 years old). As part of implementing ARPA, beginning in July 2021, IRS and Treasury are responsible for issuing half of the expected 2021 CTC in periodic advance payments.[258] Eligible individuals can claim the remaining amount of the total 2021 credit for which they are eligible when filing their 2021 income tax return in 2022. The amount of the CTC payments advanced in 2021 is estimated based on the taxpayer’s 2020 income tax data or, if unavailable, the taxpayer’s 2019 income tax data and may be adjusted based on any other information provided by the taxpayer during 2021. IRS is developing an online portal for qualified individuals to update personal information or opt out of the advance payments. In May 2021, IRS released guidance that provides instructions for individuals who are not otherwise required to file tax returns to receive the advance CTC payments and the third-round EIPs, and also allowed those individuals to claim the 2020 RRC.[259] The guidance outlines two procedures for individuals to follow: The first procedure permits individuals to file simplified returns, while the second procedure enables these individuals to file complete returns electronically even if they have zero adjusted gross income.Overview of Key IssuesIRS’s EIP communication and outreach efforts. To publicize information about how to file a tax return with IRS to receive an EIP, IRS continued to partner with other organizations that work with communities that may not traditionally interact with IRS, such as lower-income families, senior citizens, veterans, tribal communities, and families with mixed immigration status.[260] However, according to officials from IRS partner organizations with whom we spoke, it continues to be a challenge to ensure that eligible nonfilers, particularly among hard-to-reach groups, such as those experiencing homelessness, receive their payments. IRS partners reported particular difficulties with reaching underserved communities with limited internet access. Partners said an IRS phone hotline or television and radio advertisements sponsored by IRS could be helpful outreach sources. Most partners we interviewed that have an ongoing relationship with a local IRS office that understands the unique circumstances of the local community—compared with partners that do not traditionally interact with IRS—said they had received IRS materials, that IRS had tailored those materials to meet their constituents’ needs, and that IRS was responsive to their questions and follow-up requests. Partners also told us their outreach efforts to nonfilers could be more effective if they had current data that help identify specific communities of nonfilers who may need assistance. Following our November 2020 recommendation, in January 2021, Treasury began analyzing nearly 9 million notices it sent to nonfilers who may be eligible for EIP 1 payments. However, Treasury does not plan to complete this analysis until fall 2021, more than 6 months after the first EIP 3 payments were issued. This timing will limit the usefulness of the analysis for informing EIP 3 outreach efforts. According to Treasury officials, they are incorporating information from the 2021 filing season into their analysis. The filing season ended May 17, but there is a 5-month extension to file amended returns, which means complete data would likely not be available until October. Federal standards for internal control state that management should obtain relevant data from reliable sources in a timely manner based on the identified information requirements. Moreover, Treasury issued a fact sheet in January 2021 outlining efforts Treasury planned to take to help households who had not yet been able to access payments.[261] One action Treasury identified was to analyze and better understand underserved populations to enhance outreach efforts. We acknowledge that having data from the entirety of the filing season will allow for a more robust analysis, which Treasury and IRS could use to inform their outreach efforts for the expanded child tax credit. However, by waiting to complete the analysis, Treasury and IRS are missing an opportunity to identify communities that may have higher numbers of nonfilers, and use that information to inform their outreach efforts and distribute payments to qualified individuals in a more timely manner.Similar to the previous acts authorizing EIP 1 and 2, ARPA requires Treasury and IRS to carry out a robust and comprehensive outreach program to ensure that all individuals eligible for recovery payments are informed of their eligibility and are provided assistance in applying for these payments.[262] IRS officials said they do not have a new plan to implement this outreach program; rather, they are incorporating the legislative requirements into their current communication strategy. For example, IRS is developing a database to collect feedback from its stakeholders and outreach partners to help update and assess its communication strategy on a quarterly basis.In our September 2020 report, we recommended that IRS update estimates of eligible recipients who have not received a payment and share that and other relevant information with outreach partners. Fully implementing these recommendations, along with our November 2020 recommendation to analyze notices sent to potentially eligible individuals, would provide Treasury and IRS more information on the nonfiler population and also potentially provide insights into the effectiveness of targeted outreach efforts to reach these populations. Treasury officials said they continue to work on implementing these recommendations but recent changes, such as the extension of the 2020 filing season, have further delayed their efforts.Payments to federal benefit recipients and incarcerated individuals. Treasury and IRS were able to quickly disburse the majority of EIP 3 payments to most eligible individuals within 3 weeks of the enactment of ARPA. Payments to federal benefit recipients were the last significant batch of payments to be disbursed 3 weeks after the passage of ARPA. These payments arrived later because IRS and the Social Security Administration (SSA) had to work together to put a reimbursable Memorandum of Agreement (agreement) in place to provide funding to SSA to complete non-mission work by providing IRS with up-to-date data on Social Security beneficiaries. SSA officials said they did not receive direct funding to cover any costs associated with preparing the data for IRS. SSA signed the agreement with IRS on March 16, 2021, after starting discussions with IRS in January. According to SSA officials, the agreement could not be signed until ARPA was signed into law on March 11, 2021. The agreement covered SSA’s administrative costs associated with providing SSA benefit recipient data to IRS and conducting a marketing and communication campaign to inform individuals about EIPs. SSA then provided its data to IRS on March 25, 2021. The fourth batch of payments was issued to recipients of SSA and Railroad Retirement Board benefits. The fifth batch of payments was issued to recipients of Department of Veteran Affairs benefits. According to IRS officials, all three agencies needed to submit updated payments files to IRS, but only SSA had the additional step of a new reimbursable agreement to cover the expenses incurred. SSA does not have the authority to use its funding outside of its mission. SSA officials said that IRS requested information about certain federal benefit recipients in place of using existing tax information within IRS, which required a different file format and transmission process from EIP 1.[263] According to IRS officials, IRS changed the way in which it requested data from the agencies so that it could process their data more quickly. IRS continues to experience challenges in delivering timely payments to incarcerated individuals. According to the attorneys who represented incarcerated individuals in a class action suit against Treasury regarding their eligibility for the payments, there have been several EIP-related challenges that have created confusion among this population. According to IRS data, Treasury and IRS disbursed just over 1.4 million EIP 1 payments to incarcerated individuals in 2020. IRS data also show that nearly 300,000 incarcerated individuals filed tax returns after the deadline for IRS to issue an EIP 1 or EIP 2. Of those individuals, over 70,000 were able to claim an RRC on their 2020 tax return. IRS officials said the remaining 229,000 returns that it reviewed and processed did not claim the RRC or were not eligible for it. Incarcerated individuals who filed paper returns or who filed after December 31, 2020, may be caught in an IRS backlog of unprocessed returns. IRS is experiencing delays in processing certain returns received in 2021—including millions of returns claiming the RRC—resulting in extended time frames for some taxpayers. For more information about how these errors related to the RRC are affecting the filing season, see the 2021 Filing Season enclosure in appendix I. Finally, payments to incarcerated individuals are at a higher risk of garnishment. Only statutory authorization for EIP 2 provided protection against garnishment; the statutory authorization for EIP 1 and 3 did not.[264] Federal and state prisons also have different rules regarding how and what portion of payments to incarcerated individuals can be garnished when otherwise permitted by law. According to Treasury and IRS, they have no jurisdiction over the payments once they disburse them, and there is no centralized data on how widespread garnishment is. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found fewer than 10 incidents in one state where it investigated garnishments of incarcerated individuals’ payments, upon which the state subsequently returned the EIPs to the recipients. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation officials said their agency has not received reports that incarcerated individuals’ EIPs were garnished. Payments in the U.S. territories. Residents of the five U.S. territories are eligible for EIPs from the territory tax authorities if they meet the income thresholds and other eligibility requirements.[265] IRS disbursed three rounds of economic impact funds to the U.S. territory tax administrators totaling $9.7 billion. Territory residents generally received payments later than mainland residents because territory officials were required to submit payment plans to Treasury for review and approval before receiving funds for each round of payments. The plans specify how the territory tax administrators plan to disburse payments to territory residents. According to IRS officials, improved coordination between Treasury and the territory tax administrators helped expedite the process in subsequent rounds. IRS officials said that once Treasury approved a territory plan, IRS transferred the funds within 24–48 hours. According to IRS data, over 116,000 duplicate payments—instances where both IRS and the territory tax administrators made the same payment—were issued during the first round of EIP. IRS officials said that as of March 18, 2021, IRS recovered $4.5 million from payments it had issued to 3,632 individuals. IRS does not have data on how much each of the territories has recovered. To the extent provided in the territory plans, each territory tax administrator is responsible for using available methods for recovering duplicate payments and returning the funds to Treasury. IRS is assessing its capability to collect any duplicate payments the territories are unable to recover. Expired EIP payments. As of May 31, 2021, 583,000 EIP 1 checks, totaling around $822 million, were set to expire if not cashed, representing slightly less than 1 percent of the total number of payments disbursed.[266] The majority of uncashed EIP 1 check payments will expire by July 2021 if they are not cashed. In addition, over 153,000 EIP 1 debit cards remained unactivated as of May 31, 2021. Bureau of the Fiscal Service officials said they did not send notices to remind individuals to cash checks but are considering using social media to remind individuals to activate debit cards. Additionally, around 817,000 EIP 2 checks and over 486,000 EIP 2 debit cards had not been cashed or activated, totaling over $1 billion. Bureau of the Fiscal Service officials said EIP 2 check payments will start expiring in spring 2022. IRS preparation for advance child tax credit payments. IRS officials are taking steps to begin issuing advance payments of the CTC starting in July 2021. According to Treasury and IRS, roughly 39 million households—covering 88 percent of children in the U.S.—are slated to automatically begin receiving monthly payments on July 15, 2021. Treasury and IRS also announced that CTC payments will be made on the 15th of each month, unless the 15th falls on a weekend or holiday.IRS officials are offering three online tools to help individuals with the CTC payments: a Non-filer Sign-Up Tool, a portal (CTC UP) that individuals can use to opt out of the advance payments and update personal information, and an eligibility calculator. On June 14, 2021, IRS opened the Non-filer Sign Up Tool to allow individuals who do not normally file a tax return the opportunity to file a simplified return. This simplified return will allow individuals the opportunity to receive the advance CTC payments and the EIP 3 and to claim the 2020 RRC. IRS officials said the online tool would be similar to the tool established for the first round of EIPs. The new Sign-Up Tool is not available in a mobile friendly version in that it doesn’t scale to fit a phone or tablet screen. Two IRS outreach partners had previously said that the first EIP nonfilers tool could be difficult to access and navigate, particularly on a mobile device, which may be the only device readily available to some individuals. The CTC Up portal became available on June 21, 2021. Initially, individuals will use the portal to check if they are eligible to receive advance payments and opt out of receiving them. IRS estimates that between 15 and 16 million individuals will opt-out of the advance payments. IRS is planning updates to the portal throughout 2021 to increase its functionality. For example, IRS officials said that starting on June 30, 2021, individuals will be able to update their bank account information. In September 2021, individuals will also be able to update their personal information such as marital status, income, and number of children. Lastly, in November 2021, IRS anticipates launching a Spanish version of the CTC portal, and prior to the start of the 2022 Filing Season, IRS will provide a summary of the advanced payments received to help taxpayers complete their 2021 tax returns.To raise awareness about CTC advance payments, officials said IRS plans to leverage the outreach channels it established with federal agencies for EIP and work with childcare facilities, educational organizations, and stakeholders who assist individuals experiencing homelessness. On June 14, 2021, IRS published frequently asked questions on the CTC on its website (https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/2021-child-tax-credit-and-advance-child-tax-credit-payments-frequently-asked-questions). IRS also sent two notices to alert potentially eligible taxpayers of the advance CTC payments, provide estimated amounts of monthly advance CTC payments, and explain the opt-out option. The White House declared June 21, 2021 as Child Tax Credit Awareness Day to ensure parents know about the expansion of the CTC and how it will benefit their families. As part of Child Tax Credit Awareness Day, the administration encouraged elected officials, organizations that assist children, and faith-based organizations, to help low-income families use the Non-Filer Sign Up Tool. In addition, Treasury publicly released zip code level data showing the number of children who may be eligible to be claimed for the CTC, but who had not been claimed on a recent tax return. This information could potentially help IRS and its outreach partners tailor outreach efforts for the EIP and CTC to specific communities. IRS also plans to hold in person events in a dozen cities to help eligible families prepare and file tax returns in June and July, 2021.[267] IRS officials said they are facing multiple challenges as they prepare to issue advance payments, such as the short amount of time between the enactment of ARPA in March and the July start of payments. Staffing is another challenge. The IRS team responsible for the online portal is also responsible for EIP 3, the 2021 filing season, and preparing for the 2022 filing season. IRS officials said they are also concerned about how to provide sufficient customer support to individuals given the current demands at IRS taxpayer assistance centers and the high number of telephone calls to customer support. IRS reported it intends to set up a dedicated phone line for CTC assistance (1-800-908-4184) and to redirect at least 1,800 customer service representatives and at least 220 bilingual representatives—to provide telephone assistance. As of June 2021, IRS is anticipating 12 million phone calls and expects to be able to answer 17 percent of those calls. IRS officials said that individuals who cannot access the portal can receive assistance at taxpayer assistance centers, however, IRS identified providing sufficient customer service as a risk.IRS officials said they hope a new authentication process, Secure Access Digital Identity (SADI), will help alleviate some of the pressure on customer support. While IRS has been developing SADI using a third-party service since 2019, the CTC Up portal is the first IRS system that will authenticate users’ identity using SADI. IRS officials estimate that 70 to 80 percent of online users will be able to successfully complete authentication using SADI. IRS officials anticipate that the more people who can successfully authenticate their identity and access the portal will result in fewer people calling the support line for assistance. In its comments, reproduced in appendix VIII, IRS deferred to Treasury on the recommendation. MethodologyTo review how Treasury and IRS administered EIP 3 payments, we examined Treasury and IRS data as of May 31, 2021, federal laws, and agency guidance. We reviewed the data and interviewed Treasury and IRS officials to determine the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the number and amount of payments disbursed. We interviewed officials from Treasury and IRS about the administration of EIP 3. We also interviewed officials from the Social Security Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to understand their roles in relation to Treasury and IRS’s administration of the EIP and to understand any support they are providing in preparation for advance payments of the CTC. We interviewed tax administrators from American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to understand how they administered EIP 1, 2, and 3. We asked representatives from 21 selected IRS outreach partners to provide us with their perspectives on IRS’s outreach coordination with their organizations. We selected 11 partners for their national outreach to underserved populations such as low-income families, veterans, and seniors; we also selected 10 partners for their local outreach to communities in ZIP codes with high numbers of potential nonfilers (based on IRS data). This sample is not representative, but the interviews provided us with illustrative examples of how organizations worked with IRS to reach traditionally underserved communities and what aspects of the IRS communications plan worked well, and they also highlighted potential areas for improvement. Agency Comments We provided a draft of this enclosure to Treasury, IRS, the Office of Management and Budget, Social Security Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Treasury and IRS provided comments, which are summarized below. Treasury also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget, Social Security Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation did not provide comments on this enclosure.In its comments, reproduced in appendix XI, Treasury neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, and stated that it shares the underlying goal of reaching as many nonfilers as possible to encourage them to claim EIPs online. However, Treasury also stated that it is unable to release interim findings and analysis at this time. According to Treasury, the analysis is not yet complete. Moreover, Treasury stated that disclosing partial analysis could limit the extent of its ability to publicize the currently outstanding data (as part of a future, complete data set) because of prohibitions on disclosure of taxpayer data under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. As stated in the report, we acknowledge that having data from the entirety of the filing season will allow for a more robust analysis. However, by waiting to complete the analysis, Treasury and IRS are missing an opportunity to identify communities that may have higher numbers of nonfilers, and use that information to inform their outreach efforts during the extended 2021 filing season. This type of information could support Treasury and IRS’s ongoing effort to reach eligible families to get them to register for the advance CTC payment before the nonfilers tool closes in October 2021. IRS’s outreach partners told us their outreach efforts to nonfilers could be more effective if they had current data that help identify specific communities of nonfilers who may need assistance. Treasury and IRS could also ensure any partial data releases are structured to not disclose taxpayer data. IRS has existing guidance for preparing statistical tabulations and does not allow releasing data tabulations with fewer than 10 or 20 observations, depending on the circumstances, so that the data cannot be associated with or otherwise identify a particular taxpayer.[268]GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor IRS and Treasury's efforts to analyze data that could potentially improve communication and outreach to nonfilers. We will also continue to monitor IRS and Treasury’s progress to ensure eligible individuals receive their third EIP, and their efforts to issue the advance payments of the CTC. GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendations on economic impact payments from prior bimonthly CARES Act reports.GAO’s Prior Recommendations Related to Economic Impact Payments Recommendation Status The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should periodically review control activities for issuing direct payments to individuals to determine that the activities are designed and implemented appropriately as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disburses a third round of economic impact payments (EIP) and prepares for advance payments on the child tax credit. These control activities should include appropriate testing procedures, quality assurance reviews, and processes that ensure payments distributed by tax partners reach the intended recipients (March 2021 report). Open. IRS disagreed with the recommendation. However, IRS acknowledged that it established additional procedures and reviews upon discovering that it had sent millions of payments to the wrong account. IRS also stated that it plans to assess the effectiveness of these new controls during the next round of EIPs and will adjust them as warranted. The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should begin tracking and publicly reporting the number of individuals who were mailed an EIP notification letter and subsequently filed for and received an EIP, and use that information to inform ongoing outreach and communications efforts (November 2020 report). Open. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and IRS agreed with this recommendation. According to Treasury officials, Treasury began analyzing data in January 2021 on those individuals who received a notice and subsequently filed for and received a first-round EIP (EIP 1). However, Treasury does not plan to complete this analysis until fall 2021, more than 6 months after the first payments of the third round of direct payments (EIP 3) were issued, limiting how any findings could inform EIP 3 outreach efforts. According to Treasury officials, they are incorporating information from the 2021 filing season into their analysis. The filing season ended May 17, but there is a 5-month extension to file amended returns. The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should make estimates of eligible recipients who have yet to file for an EIP, and other relevant information, available to outreach partners to raise awareness about how and when to file for EIPs (September 2020 report). Open. Treasury and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but did take some actions that are consistent with our recommendation. For example, in September 2020, the agencies used tax return information to identify nearly 9 million individuals who had not received an EIP 1 and then notified these individuals that they may be eligible for a payment. The letters also provided instructions on how to request a payment. In addition, IRS publicly released detailed ZIP code data from the notices to help community outreach partners with their own outreach efforts. The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should update and refine the estimate of eligible recipients who have yet to file for an EIP to help target outreach and communications efforts (September 2020 report). Open. Treasury and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but did take some actions that are consistent with our recommendation. For example, in January 2021, Treasury revised its estimate of eligible recipients who have yet to file for an EIP 1 to 8 million. According to Treasury officials, this estimate is based on the 9 million notices IRS sent in September 2020. Treasury officials stated that it is likely that some of the 9 million recipients have since claimed the EIP, but Treasury did not provide data supporting this claim. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should consider cost-effective options for notifying ineligible recipients on how to return payments (June 2020 report). Closed. Treasury and IRS took steps to implement our recommendation, such as providing instructions on the IRS website requesting that individuals voluntarily mail the appropriate EIP amount sent to the decedent back to IRS, for both electronic and paper check payments. Treasury has also held and canceled payments made to decedents, along with those that have been returned. As of April 30, 2021, around 57 percent (just over $704 million) of the $1.2 billion in EIP 1 sent to deceased individuals had been recovered. As of March 2021, Treasury and IRS had not taken any further action to recoup payments made to decedents that had not been returned. IRS officials determined that further actions, such as initiating erroneous refund cases against the estates of the decedents to which payments were made and not returned, could be burdensome to taxpayers, the federal court system, and IRS. As such, IRS officials concluded that doing so is not prudent at this time. Related GAO ProductStandards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2014. Contact information: James R. McTigue Jr., (202) 512-6808, [email protected] Tax Filing SeasonBookmark:The Internal Revenue Service needs to clearly communicate the nature and extent of 2021 tax refund delays to clarify expectations for taxpayers. Entity involved: Internal Revenue Service, within the Department of the Treasury Recommendation for Executive Action The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate officials to update relevant pages of irs.gov and, if feasible, add alerts to the Internal Revenue Service’s toll-free telephone lines to more clearly and prominently explain the nature and extent of individual refund delays occurring for returns taxpayers filed in 2021. The Internal Revenue Service neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation.BackgroundThe Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) annual tax filing activities include processing over 150 million individual and business tax returns electronically or on paper, issuing hundreds of billions of dollars in refunds, and providing customer service to tens of millions of taxpayers on return processing issues, such as suspected identity theft and math errors. During the 2021 filing season, IRS was also responsible for issuing a third round of economic impact payments to millions of taxpayers totaling over $388 billion as of May 12, 2021; updating its systems and procedures to incorporate tax law provisions enacted in early 2021; and processing millions of tax returns remaining from the 2020 filing season.[269]According to IRS officials, these additional responsibilities, coupled with reduced staffing due to ongoing COVID-19 pandemic conditions and an increase in manual work, have impacted IRS’s ability to assist taxpayers and process returns during the 2021 filing season. As a result, taxpayers are experiencing unusually long delays in receiving refunds and difficulty reaching IRS for assistance.Overview of Key IssuesReturns processing and refund delays. IRS is experiencing delays in processing certain returns received in 2021, resulting in extended time frames for some taxpayers. Specifically, as of the end of the 2021 filing season in mid-May, IRS had about 25.5 million unprocessed individual and business returns, including about 1.2 million returns from its 2020 backlog, and 13.7 million returns IRS suspended due to errors.[270] IRS staff must manually review these returns with errors. IRS typically has unprocessed returns in its inventory at the end of the filing season, but not to this extent. For example, at the end of the 2019 filing season, IRS had 8.3 million unprocessed individual and business returns, including 2.7 million returns suspended for errors.[271] IRS officials stated that many of the returns are being held due to potential errors in the information taxpayers provided for both the Recovery Rebate Credit, which individuals can claim on their tax year 2020 income tax return if they were eligible for but did not receive their first or second 2020 economic impact payment or did not receive the full amount, and the temporary changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which allows taxpayers to use prior year income from 2019 to increase their benefits under this credit. For example, if a taxpayer entered a different amount for the Recovery Rebate Credit than IRS has in its records (such as if the taxpayer had a child since the previous filing season), the return would be suspended for manual review to resolve the discrepancy. IRS reported that it is taking longer than usual to manually review some of these returns, but it has not provided specific time frames. Further, as discussed below, information on the reasons for delayed returns and refunds is not easy for taxpayers to find. As of May 14, 2021, IRS’s website stated that more than nine out of 10 refunds are issued in less than 21 days. This information provides taxpayers with a general sense of when they will likely receive their refund and at what point they should call IRS for more information. In interviews with representatives of the tax industry, such as software providers and tax preparer organizations, representatives noted that taxpayers were frustrated when they had not received their refunds within IRS’s posted time frames and that they could not get any explanation from IRS’s website, including the Where’s My Refund application, or when calling IRS’s toll-free telephone line.Taxpayer service limitations. With significantly more returns being held for manual review than in prior years, more taxpayers are trying to get information on the status of their returns and refunds. However, taxpayers have had a difficult time getting a status update on their refund from IRS, either via phone or online: Phone services. Specifically, during our review between January 1 and May 1, 2021, IRS’s level of telephone service—the percentage of taxpayers seeking and reaching live assistance—was 14.3 percent, compared to an average of about 78 percent level of service for the end of filing seasons 2017 through 2019. IRS’s call volume and demand for live assistors has been unprecedented this year: IRS data show that between January 1 and May 1, 2021, it received about 65.6 million calls from taxpayers, compared to about 15.6 million calls during the same period in 2019.In addition, IRS’s automated message on its toll-free telephone line for individual taxpayers has not been updated to explain refund delays or to include any other alerts associated with the 2021 filing season. The message as of May 14, 2021, informs taxpayers about refund interest payments they may have received in August 2020. In early May 2021, IRS officials stated that once the filing season starts, it is difficult for IRS to make changes to its telephone system’s automated messages due to scheduled blackout periods and other potential risks to the telephone infrastructure. However, these officials stated that they had no plans to update the recorded messages when the blackout period ends in late May 2021.Online services. IRS’s website does not contain all of the relevant information regarding 2021 return processing delays and delays in issuing taxpayers’ refunds. Rather, IRS’s webpages devoted to information on refunds state that IRS continues to process and issue refunds and that most of these are issued in 21 days or less.Further, the information IRS has posted online is not easy for taxpayers to find. While IRS added information on its “IRS Operations and Services” web page about the status of its operations, including a partial explanation for why some refunds have been delayed this filing season, this information is difficult to find because it requires navigating through several pages from the irs.gov home page and is located on a page with information on COVID-19-related tax relief and mission-critical functions. Other web pages that taxpayers might easily access, such as the “Refunds” page or related “Frequently Asked Questions” page, do not include complete information about delays in 2021 returns processing.After we explained these concerns to IRS officials in early May 2021, IRS updated its “Refunds” and “Frequently Asked Questions” pages to include some information on delays. However, the information IRS posted was inconsistent. For example, one page stated that IRS was experiencing delays in opening mail, and the other page indicated that IRS was current on opening mail. In addition, IRS updated its refund-related pages to include an alert linking to the “IRS Operations and Services” page, which contains status updates on return and refund processing (see figure). However, this alert does not clearly state that a taxpayer will learn about potential refund delays by clicking the link to the “IRS Operations and Services” page. When we asked IRS about the limited information online about current refund delays, officials said that they did have some information online and they were not sure what additional information would be helpful. We provided some examples, such as updating specific web pages related to refund information and frequently asked questions. Officials indicated they would consider making changes, but as of May 20, 2021, had not yet done so. Federal internal control standards state that management should externally communicate necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Government entities should report this information to government leaders and regulators, as well as the general public. Without clear, timely information on reasons why some refunds are being delayed during the 2021 filing season, taxpayers lack information on when they should expect to receive their refunds. This may lead taxpayers to continue to call IRS with limited success, due to IRS’s limited ability to answer a high number of incoming calls or lack of information on returns being held for errors. Further, taxpayers that count on their refunds to cover certain expenses do not have essential information to make alternative plans. Providing updated and timely information on irs.gov may help reduce the volume of calls to IRS from taxpayers and help reset taxpayers’ expectations.MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed 2021 filing season return processing and customer service performance data, reviewed federal laws and agency communications, and interviewed IRS officials. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed IRS officials and assessed the data for any limitations. Due to disruptions during the 2020 filing season affecting performance, we compared the most recent data available from the 2021 filing season to 2019 filing season data from the same period to determine the extent to which the 2021 filing season differs from a typical year. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective. Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this enclosure to the Department of the Treasury, IRS, and the Office of Management and Budget. The Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget had no comments on this enclosure. IRS’s comments are reproduced in appendix VIII and summarized below. IRS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.In its comments, IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. IRS stated that it will review its messaging on the general state of returns processing and provide clarity as needed. IRS also noted that its “Where’s My Refund” tool provides taxpayers with the most current information on the status of their return and refund. After IRS provided its comments in mid-June 2021, we found that IRS had updated irs.gov to provide clearer information about refund delays. We also found that IRS had removed outdated messaging from its automated toll-free telephone line for taxpayers. We will follow up with IRS on other planned updates to its website and taxpayer telephone line. Based on this information, we will determine if the agency’s actions are sufficient to fully address our recommendation. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe have ongoing work to evaluate IRS’s 2021 filing season performance, including the ongoing impact of COVID-19.Related GAO Product Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2014. Contact information: Jessica Lucas-Judy, (202) 512-6806, [email protected] Nutrition AssistanceBookmark:Expenditures for key federal nutrition assistance programs remain at record levels because of increased need and the federal response to the pandemic, as the Department of Agriculture works to ensure program integrity.Entities involved: Food and Nutrition Service, within the Department of Agriculture BackgroundDemand and expenditures for key federal nutrition assistance programs have remained high throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS) most recent data, 42 million individuals participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the largest federal nutrition assistance program, in March 2021. SNAP benefits in that month totaled $9 billion, about 70 percent more than the amount of benefits issued in March 2020.[272] SNAP participation also grew during this period, but to a lesser extent.[273] FNS officials said the agency anticipates it will expend all of the approximately $101.8 billion appropriated for SNAP benefits for fiscal year 2021, which would exceed the previous historic high for the program by more than $25 billion.[274]FNS, within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), administers SNAP and other federal nutrition assistance programs, including the new Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer program (Pandemic EBT); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); and the Nutrition Assistance Program for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Eligibility criteria vary across FNS’s nutrition assistance programs, and individuals and households may receive assistance from multiple programs. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, legislative and executive actions have resulted in increased funding and expenditures for FNS’s nutrition assistance programs. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) extended a temporary 15 percent increase in benefits for all SNAP participants through September 2021.[275] In April 2021, FNS announced that it would begin providing additional SNAP benefits through emergency allotments to households that were already receiving the maximum, or almost the maximum, SNAP benefit for their household size.[276] FNS estimated that this adjustment to eligibility for SNAP emergency allotments would result in approximately 25 million SNAP participants receiving additional benefits and would cost approximately $1 billion per month. FNS’s other nutrition assistance programs have also collectively received and expended billions of dollars in COVID-19 funding. The table below shows total COVID-19 funding and expenditures as of May 2021 for SNAP as well as a selection of other programs.COVID-19 Funding and Expenditures for Selected Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs as of May 31, 2021 Program Description Total COVID-19 funding ($)a COVID-19 expenditures as of May 31, 2021 ($) SNAP Provides low-income individuals and households with benefits to purchase allowed food items and achieve a move nutritious diet. 16.8 billionb Indefinite appropriationc 15.5 billion 5.7 billion Pandemic EBT Provides households with children who would have received free or reduced-price school meals if not for school closures due to COVID-19, as well as eligible children in childcare, with benefits to purchase food. Indefinite appropriationd 13.3 billione WIC Provides eligible low-income women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutrition risk with nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care. 1.4 billion 475.8 million TEFAP Provides low-income individuals with groceries through food banks. 1.25 billion 705.7 million Nutrition Assistance Program Provides block grants to Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to provide food assistance to low-income households in these territories. 1.9 billion 676.8 million Legend: Pandemic EBT = Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TEFAP = the Emergency Food Assistance Program; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Source: GAO analysis of relevant provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act; the CARES Act; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021; and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 as well as information from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), within the Department of Agriculture. | GAO-21-551Note: This table provides information about selected programs and is not intended to provide comprehensive information about all federal nutrition assistance funding provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.aAmounts shown from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 reflect amounts appropriated in Division N, pertaining to COVID-19 response and relief.bIn some cases, COVID-19 relief laws provided specific amounts of funding to carry out certain SNAP provisions, and in other cases such laws provided an indefinite appropriation for certain SNAP provisions. The $16.8 billion shown reflects total COVID-19 funding for SNAP provisions that included a specific amount in COVID-19 relief laws.cThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided an indefinite appropriation for certain COVID-19 relief provisions, including a provision that temporarily increased SNAP benefits by 15 percent through June 2021. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 extended this increase in SNAP benefits through September 2021.dThe Families First Coronavirus Response Act provided an indefinite appropriation for Pandemic EBT.eThe $13.3 billion shown reflects Pandemic EBT expenditures through March 2021, the most recent data available as of June 2021. FNS officials noted that there is a lag in reporting Pandemic EBT expenditures because FNS must manually input state-reported Pandemic EBT data into its accounting system.Our prior work has highlighted concerns with SNAP improper payments.[277] For example, in April 2020, we recommended that FNS develop and implement a process, documented in policies and procedures, to analyze the root causes of state SNAP estimated improper payments to identify potential similarities among states and develop and implement agency-level corrective actions, if appropriate, to help address them. FNS generally agreed with the recommendation and, in June 2021, officials said the agency had finalized a standard operating procedure to assist FNS in working with states to develop and implement corrective action plans for SNAP improper payments, among other things. We plan to review the standard operating procedure and monitor FNS’s implementation of it. According to the most recent FNS estimate available, the SNAP estimated improper payment rate was 7.36 percent in fiscal year 2019, totaling approximately $4 billion in estimated improper payments that year.Overview of Key IssuesFNS will assess the susceptibility of Pandemic EBT to significant improper payments. FNS officials said the agency plans to assess Pandemic EBT’s susceptibility to significant improper payments in summer 2021.[278] Pandemic EBT is a new program, authorized in March 2020, to provide benefits to households with children who would have received free or reduced-price school meals if not for school closures due to COVID-19.[279] As of March 2021, Pandemic EBT had expenditures of $13.3 billion. This amount will likely increase significantly during the remainder of fiscal year 2021. For example, FNS estimates that issuing Pandemic EBT benefits in summer 2021 will cost approximately $13 billion. FNS officials previously told us they had not assessed Pandemic EBT for susceptibility to significant improper payments, because it is a temporary program and states have considerable discretion to determine eligibility. However, in April 2021, FNS determined that the agency would perform an improper-payment risk assessment for Pandemic EBT and expects to complete the assessment in summer 2021.The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) directs the head of each executive agency to consider risk factors (examples of which are listed in the law) that are likely to contribute to susceptibility to significant improper payments.[280] See the table for examples of such risk factors that may apply to Pandemic EBT.Examples of Risk Factors Listed in the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) Compared with Characteristics of the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer Program (Pandemic EBT) PIIA risk factors for improper payments Characteristics of Pandemic EBT The program or activity is new to the executive agency. The program started in March 2020. The volume of payments made through the program or activity. The program had expenditures of $13.3 billion as of March 2021. Payments or payment eligibility decisions are made outside the executive agency, such as by a state or local government. State agencies make payment eligibility decisions. There have been recent major changes in program funding, authorities, practices, or procedures. Several changes have been made to the program since March 2020, including expansion to certain children younger than 6 years and children who are in child care as well as extension through fiscal year 2021. The program has similarities to other programs or activities that have reported improper payment estimates or been deemed susceptible to significant improper payments. Program benefits are often loaded onto Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) electronic benefits transfer cards for households also receiving SNAP. The reported SNAP improper payment rate in fiscal year 2019 was 7.36 percent. Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal law and information from the Food and Nutrition Service, within the Department of Agriculture. | GAO-21-551Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues guidance for federal agencies regarding improper payments.[281] OMB guidance provides that newly established programs should complete an improper payment risk assessment after the first 12 months of the program, a time span that the Pandemic EBT program has exceeded. Also, in general, we and many federal Inspectors General have identified reducing and preventing improper payments as a significant challenge under the COVID-19 relief laws, citing the large amount of money at issue and the need to distribute funds rapidly under emergency conditions.[282]States have experienced challenges in implementing Pandemic EBT, some of which may indicate the program’s potential susceptibility to significant improper payments. To implement Pandemic EBT, state SNAP officials we interviewed said they needed to work with other state agencies, such as educational agencies, to identify eligible participants. Some state SNAP officials we interviewed identified multiple challenges experienced in securing data to identify and verify eligible participants. For example, officials in one state said state privacy laws impeded data sharing. Officials in another state said the data systems at the SNAP agency and the educational agency were incompatible, making data matching for payment integrity difficult. In that state, the SNAP agency tried to match its data to the list of eligible students from the educational agency’s data to verify addresses and identify any duplication of participants. However, state officials noted that differences between the state SNAP agency’s and the state educational agency’s data systems made this process challenging. In one instance, a state SNAP official we interviewed noted that the agency had identified some ineligible individuals who had received Pandemic EBT benefits and that the state was unsure what recourse it could take, given the lack of FNS guidance or regulations on the issue. The official said colleagues in other states had identified similar concerns. Officials from the American Public Human Services Association similarly told us that state officials have expressed concern about ineligible individuals’ receiving Pandemic EBT and have also expressed confusion about the steps they should take if they identified ineligible recipients. Unlike for SNAP, FNS has not issued regulations on methods for recovering Pandemic EBT overpayments or states’ ability to disqualify a recipient from Pandemic EBT as a penalty.[283] Instead, for school year 2020–21, FNS’s Pandemic EBT state plan template required states to outline a process to recover or adjust benefits to correct payment accuracy errors.[284] FNS’s forthcoming assessment of Pandemic EBT’s susceptibility to significant improper payments may inform agency efforts to ensure payment integrity and may guide the agency’s efforts to offer states technical assistance, mitigation strategies, or corrective actions. FNS cannot calculate SNAP payment error rates for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 but has continued other work to ensure program integrity.Payment error rate. The payment error rate is integral to SNAP program integrity.[285] In addition to being the basis for establishing the rate of improper payments for SNAP, the error rate is an important factor in FNS oversight of state SNAP agencies. The payment error rate determines state liability for errors that exceed the national target and informs the development of corrective actions to mitigate or reduce payment errors. In February 2021, FNS announced that it cannot calculate SNAP national and state payment error rates for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.[286] FNS explained that it must develop SNAP payment error rates on the basis of a legislatively mandated Quality Control (QC) review process.[287] However, COVID-19 relief laws and FNS gave states the flexibility to suspend SNAP QC reviews from March 2020 through June 2021 in response to the pandemic.[288] According to FNS officials, all states opted to suspend QC reviews. As a result, FNS determined that it lacked the data necessary to determine error rates. USDA’s Office of General Counsel agreed with FNS’s determination that it could not calculate SNAP payment error rates for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. FNS officials said they also notified OMB of their inability to calculate the SNAP payment error rate. FNS officials said the agency considered its options for analyzing the SNAP QC data that states submitted in fiscal year 2020 before the pandemic (i.e., from October 2019 through February 2020), but several factors limited the usefulness of these data for publication. For example, FNS officials said that because the available fiscal year 2020 SNAP QC data do not cover any months during the pandemic, FNS and states could not use those data to understand the pandemic’s effect on the SNAP error rate. Officials also explained that calculating a partial-year error rate with incomplete data could expose FNS to the risk of lawsuits from states because states with a high SNAP error rate are subject to sanctions. Last, FNS officials said that using fewer than 12 months of SNAP QC data could result in estimates of the SNAP payment error rate that would be too imprecise to be instructive for FNS and the states.Oversight of state agencies. Though FNS has determined that it cannot calculate SNAP payment error rates, officials said other SNAP program integrity efforts have continued during the pandemic. Officials said they are currently developing guidance to assist states to resume SNAP QC reviews in July 2021. Several FNS regional officials we interviewed also said that, though all states had opted to suspend SNAP QC reviews, most states continued to perform QC reviews on their own, in some cases using smaller sample sizes as a part of their program integrity efforts. Officials from one regional office said that all states in their region continued to provide QC data to the regional office so that regional officials could review their cases and provide feedback.Most state SNAP officials we spoke with said they received regular technical assistance regarding payment accuracy from their FNS regional offices during the pandemic. FNS held payment accuracy training for all SNAP QC offices at both the national and regional levels, and FNS regional officials said they were continuing to provide technical assistance on payment accuracy to states both periodically, through conference calls, and on demand. To ensure compliance with program requirements, regional officials also performed scheduled Management Evaluations of states during the pandemic.[289]Finally, FNS officials told us that the lack of a payment error rate will not impede their work with states currently under sanction for having high SNAP error rates in prior years. Officials further explained that FNS will continue monitoring corrective action plans, including reviewing and updating them. Demographic information. In addition to calculating the error rate, FNS uses data derived from the SNAP QC reviews to produce the annual report Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households for a given fiscal year. The report describes the demographics of SNAP households and participants nationwide and provides an overview of SNAP benefit levels during that fiscal year. FNS officials said they are assessing the reliability of the available data to determine whether they will be able to produce the report given the SNAP QC suspension during the pandemic. They acknowledged that FNS, policymakers, and other stakeholders use information from this report for many purposes. As long as the agency determines the data are sufficiently reliable, FNS intends to issue Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households for fiscal year 2020. The agency will follow a similar process to assess the fiscal year 2021 data after the fiscal year ends, according to officials. Workforce capacity challenges affected states’ implementation of SNAP throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained the capacity of most states’ SNAP agency staff and slowed SNAP operations, according to officials we interviewed from each of FNS’s seven regional offices and from five selected state SNAP agencies. Overall, state and regional officials highlighted the following factors that affected the capacity of state SNAP agencies to administer the program during the pandemic:Higher volume of applications. Many states received and processed substantially higher numbers of SNAP applications, especially at the outset of the pandemic. For example, officials we interviewed in one state said they received double the typical number of applications per week during the early months of the pandemic.Sudden shift to remote work. Local SNAP offices were unprepared for teleworking and did not have the technology (e.g., laptops) to deliver SNAP services remotely. It was difficult for them to adjust workflow processes typically performed in person.Shortages of personnel. In some states, COVID-19 caused personnel shortages as staff adjusted work schedules to quarantine and care for children.Simultaneous operation of other programs. Some states redirected SNAP staff and resources toward planning and implementing Pandemic EBT. In a few states, the pandemic coincided with natural disasters such as hurricanes, causing these states to redirect SNAP staff toward Disaster SNAP operations.[290] States relied on several strategies to mitigate the challenges of decreased workforce capacity during the pandemic. As we have previously reported, adjustments to SNAP operations allowed by COVID-19 relief laws have helped states streamline program operations and increased their ability to process the large influx of SNAP applications efficiently.[291] For example, officials from six FNS regional offices said states in their regions benefited immensely from adjustments related to certification processes (e.g., to determine participants’ eligibility and benefit levels for SNAP). Some states also pursued innovative technological solutions—such as equipping SNAP websites with chatbots to assist applicants or mass-texting participants and eligible populations about programmatic changes—that increased staff capacity to work on other pressing issues.[292] In addition, FNS officials said that states would spend fiscal year 2021 administrative funds authorized for Pandemic EBT in ways that will reduce SNAP staff’s Pandemic EBT workload. FNS officials anticipate common types of administrative spending will include contracting with call centers to provide customer support and translating program information into multiple languages.FNS plans to modernize WIC to help promote access to WIC benefits. We have previously reported that FNS is taking steps to provide WIC participants options to purchase food online, similar to SNAP participants. FNS has several ongoing efforts in this area.WIC Task Force. In response to a Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 requirement, FNS established a WIC Task Force in March 2021 to study how to streamline and promote convenience, safety, and equitable access to WIC benefits, including online and phone ordering, curbside pickup, and home delivery. According to FNS officials, although setting up the task force in a short period of time was a challenge, recruiting members who represent various interests (as required by the act) to serve on the task force was not difficult.[293] The task force held a kickoff meeting on March 24, 2021, and is now meeting regularly to complete its study and provide results and recommendations to USDA by September 30, 2021. Grants to states. In fall 2020, FNS awarded a $2.5 million, 3-year competitive grant to the Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition to develop and test a safe and secure model for online ordering in WIC. According to FNS officials, the center plans to begin soliciting grant proposals from states in summer 2021. FNS officials said they are working closely with the center and are on track to award subgrants to states by fall 2021. In addition, FNS officials told us the center worked with experts to develop a document that includes policy, technical, and programmatic information to guide state agencies and other stakeholders as they adopt and implement WIC online ordering.WIC benefit increase and outreach. ARPA provided $490 million to USDA to offer a temporary increase of up to $35 per month to the WIC cash-value voucher for fruits and vegetables during the pandemic.[294] On March 24, 2021, FNS sent a memo to state WIC agencies to implement this provision, allowing states to provide this increase for up to 4 consecutive months through September 30, 2021. As of June 11, 2021, FNS officials said all states had opted to provide this increase.In addition, ARPA provided $390 million to USDA for fiscal year 2021 for WIC outreach, innovation, and program modernization efforts, including waivers and flexibilities, to increase participation and benefit redemption.[295] (This funding is available through fiscal year 2024.) FNS officials acknowledged that WIC is underused and said that the agency is giving high priority to conducting outreach to attract eligible people to the program, especially those in underserved populations.[296] Further, FNS officials told us that the agency’s other priorities are to simplify the WIC enrollment process and to support WIC through modernization and technology. They said FNS is currently developing strategic goals for the agency’s efforts to increase access to, and use of, WIC benefits and is also developing plans to engage with stakeholders, such as state and local agencies, on this effort. FNS plans to offer new food options to help address the continuing challenge of canceled TEFAP orders during the pandemic. FNS plans to offer new food products and ways to buy food as states continue to face challenges with canceled TEFAP orders. We previously reported that TEFAP orders FNS canceled during the pandemic led to shortages of certain products, such as canned meats, soups, and vegetables, in food banks nationwide at a time of increased demand and made it difficult for states to spend TEFAP funds provided through COVID-19 relief laws. We reported that FNS canceled orders for several reasons, including a lack of vendor bids on the orders, unavailability of food due to supply chain issues, and increased costs for transportation and raw materials. In April 2021, FNS officials told us that these factors continued to contribute to cancelations of TEFAP orders but that there were fewer canceled orders than in the past. According to FNS data from March 2020 to March 2021, the magnitude of canceled TEFAP orders in terms of both the estimated value of the food and total number of truckloads was highest in October 2020, at 33 percent, and decreased by March 2021 to 18 percent. Officials from the American Commodity Distribution Association and Feeding America agreed that canceled TEFAP orders continued to be a challenge and that the causes remained the same. To address these challenges, according to FNS officials, the agency is working to add new food products and prepackaged, fresh produce to TEFAP to help ensure states can spend COVID-19 funds before they expire on September 30, 2021. On April 9, 2021, USDA announced that it would add prepackaged produce boxes as an option for TEFAP through the rest of fiscal year 2021, as it ends a similar program that provided boxes of food to food banks and other providers.[297] FNS officials told us that, although they believe states and food banks will appreciate the fresh-produce option, the agency is testing this approach to assess demand for prepackaged produce boxes and whether to continue offering them. Officials from Feeding America said they appreciated how intentional USDA has been in gathering insight from Feeding America’s food bank network regarding adding new food products to TEFAP, including type, size, and method of packaging. Officials from the American Commodity Distribution Association said the box of mixed produce does not replace canceled shelf-stable items, as fresh produce must be distributed within 30 days of receipt and is extremely difficult to move. Further, according to Feeding America officials, although COVID-19 relief funds for TEFAP will help to some extent, they are expecting a 30 to 40 percent drop in USDA foods in Feeding America’s food bank network during 2021, given that a USDA trade mitigation program has ended.[298] MethodologyTo conduct our work, we reviewed FNS data on program participation through March 2021 that were released in June 2021 and FNS data on expenditures as of May 31, 2021—the most recent data available at the time of our analysis. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by reviewing program documentation, discussing the data with knowledgeable FNS officials, and conducting manual testing for outliers or other errors. In addition, we interviewed officials from FNS’s National Office and all seven FNS regional offices. We also interviewed SNAP officials in five states—California, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, and Virginia—selected on the basis of a variety of factors, including states’ overall SNAP participation rates, requests for certain SNAP adjustments during the pandemic, methods of issuing Pandemic EBT benefits for school year 2019–20, and geographic diversity. In interviews with FNS and state officials, we discussed their experiences in administering SNAP and Pandemic EBT during the pandemic, FNS’s guidance and assistance to states, and program integrity issues. Further, we reviewed relevant federal laws, FNS guidance, and relevant documents. Finally, we interviewed, or otherwise solicited input from, representatives of the American Commodity Distribution Association, the American Public Human Services Association, Feeding America, and the National WIC Association.Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this enclosure to FNS and OMB for review and comment. FNS provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not provide comments.GAO’s Ongoing Work Our work on FNS’s response to COVID-19 through its nutrition assistance programs is ongoing. We will continue to examine FNS’s use of COVID-19 relief funds, its efforts to ensure program integrity, and its efforts to help vulnerable populations access the programs. In addition, we will continue monitoring FNS’s actions to ensure stakeholders and the public have sufficient context to understand and interpret data on federal nutrition assistance programs during the pandemic. Moreover, we will continue monitoring FNS’s actions to ensure stakeholders and the public are aware of potential sources of error in its data on participation and expenditures for some of its nutrition assistance programs during the pandemic.GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendation from a prior bimonthly CARES Act report.Prior GAO Recommendation Related to COVID-19 Nutrition Assistance Recommendation Status The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (1) provides sufficient context to help stakeholders and the public understand and interpret data on federal nutrition assistance programs during the pandemic and (2) discloses potential sources of error that may affect data quality during the pandemic, such as manual processing. For example, the agency could publish key information from its internal communications plan that it developed for the January 2021 data release and include additional table notes in subsequent data releases to help explain these issues (March 2021 report). Open. As of June 2021, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) had taken steps toward implementing this recommendation. For example, the agency added several table notes to data it released in April 2021 to help provide stakeholders and the public with sufficient context to understand and interpret key data. FNS officials said the agency is currently discussing next steps for disclosing potential sources of error, such as manual processing of participation and expenditures data for some programs. Related GAO ProductPayment Integrity: Selected Agencies Should Improve Efforts to Evaluate Effectiveness of Corrective Actions to Reduce Improper Payments. GAO-20-336. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2020.Contact information: Kathryn A. Larin, (202) 512-7215, [email protected] NutritionBookmark:The Food and Nutrition Service has taken multiple steps to increase children’s access to meals during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, federal child nutrition programs continue to serve fewer meals than before the pandemic, and schools face ongoing challenges in increasing meal service in the 2021–22 school year. Entity involved: Food and Nutrition Service, within the U.S. Department of AgricultureBackground Federal child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) help improve children’s nutrition and combat child hunger by providing cash reimbursements for meals and snacks for eligible children in schools or at other locations when schools are closed. The largest programs, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP), subsidize meals for nearly 30 million children in approximately 95,000 elementary and secondary schools nationwide in a typical year.[299] NSLP and SBP typically serve children at school during the school year. In addition, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and Seamless Summer Option (SSO) typically provide meals for school-age children during the summer months. Finally, the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) provides meals to younger children enrolled for care at participating childcare centers and day care homes, and to school-age children participating in CACFP At-risk Afterschool programs.[300] In general, FNS provides the largest subsidies for free- or reduced-price meals and snacks served to children from low-income households.According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, from April 2020 through February 2021, the percentage of U.S. households with children reporting that they often or sometimes did not have enough to eat in the last 7 days fluctuated from roughly 12 to 15 percent.[301] As we reported in September 2020 and March 2021, FNS granted various nationwide waivers in response to pandemic-related school closures that began in spring 2020, to facilitate meal provision while limiting potential COVID-19 exposure. For example, these waivers allow meals to be served in noncongregate settings, enable parent and guardian meal pickup, and provide flexibility in foods served and meal times.[302] In addition to granting the various waiver flexibilities, in spring 2020 FNS began allowing schools and other meal providers to operate under summer meal programs—SFSP and SSO—which are generally more flexible than NSLP. FNS also waived the requirement that summer meal sites providing free meals to all children must be located in areas where at least half of the children are from low-income households. This waiver expanded the population of children eligible for free meals, which eased the administrative burden of tracking and collecting payment for school meals while maintaining social distancing guidelines. Various COVID-19 relief laws have provided funding or authority to USDA to support child nutrition programs during the pandemic. For example: The CARES Act provided $8.8 billion in supplemental funds.[303] As of May 31, 2021, FNS had disbursed nearly all of this funding to states and other meal providers, using the majority of the funds, $8.615 billion, to reimburse providers for the cost of meals served during the pandemic. FNS used the remainder of the funds, $185 million, to operate Emergency Meals-to-You, a new partnership that delivered meals to address pandemic-related nutrition needs among children from low-income households in rural areas throughout spring and summer 2020.[304] The Families First Coronavirus Response Act granted FNS authority to issue nationwide waivers in certain programs for specific purposes.[305] The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act, enacted in October 2020, extended this authority and provided an indefinite appropriation to cover the costs incurred as a result of the waiver extensions.[306] As of May 31, 2021, FNS had not obligated any of this funding for child nutrition programs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, enacted in December 2020, provided additional funding to support CACFP childcare providers and school nutrition programs by replacing some of the decline in reimbursement funding in spring 2020.[307] As of May 31, 2021, FNS had not obligated any of this funding for child nutrition programs. Overview of Key Issues School districts and other providers served one-third fewer meals in March through November of school year 2020–21 than in the previous year, but changes varied by season. Although waiver flexibilities were in place to facilitate meal provision, according to the most recent available data from FNS, 32 percent—over 2 billion—fewer meals were served under NSLP, SBP, SFSP, and CACFP from March through November 2020 than during the same months in 2019 (see figure). In total, from March through November 2020, meals served under SFSP accounted for 40 percent of all meals served under the four child nutrition programs, compared with 2 percent during the same period in 2019. From March through November 2020, the number of meals served under NSLP, SBP, and CACFP dropped by a combined 58 percent. As we reported in March, school district nutrition officials we interviewed attributed this drop in meals served to several factors, including school closures. The flexibilities allowing operators to use SFSP—which has a higher reimbursement rate and provides free meals—contributed to an increase in meals served under SFSP during the pandemic; however, the increase in meals served under SFSP did not make up for the decreases in the other programs. Although children may be accessing nutrition assistance through food banks, pantries, and other programs, such as the Pandemic EBT program, the extent to which these programs may be filling the gap is not known.Total Meals Served by Key Federal Child Nutrition Programs, Mar.–Nov. 2019 and Mar.–Nov. 2020Notes: Totals shown for CACFP include child meals only. Totals shown for SBP and NSLP include meals served through the Seamless Summer Option, a program that allows school districts operating SBP and NSLP to continue using the same meal service rules and claiming procedures as in the regular school year throughout the summer and during unanticipated school closures. According to Food and Nutrition Service, the number of meals reported for any given month is subject to marginal revisions over time for a variety of reasons, including late claims and changes that come as a result of routine monitoring activity.Although FNS data indicate the number of meals served under each child nutrition program, the expanded eligibility provided by the waivers may make it difficult to determine whether children of certain ages accessed meals through these programs. Specifically, waivers allowed more operators to offer summer meal programs, which can serve all children younger than 18 years rather than only school-age children.[308] As a result, young children who would have typically received meals from day care centers operating CACFP may have accessed meals through summer meal programs during pandemic-related day care closures.[309] At the same time, hunger advocacy officials we interviewed in one state suggested that families whose children were not yet school age may have been unaware of and therefore not accessing these meals, particularly if they did not have school-age siblings. Differences in the numbers of total meals served through NSLP, SBP, SFSP, and CACFP in school year 2020–21 and in the prior year varied by season. During spring 2020 (March through May) and fall 2020 (September through November), school district nutrition programs and other providers served 42 and 33 percent fewer meals, respectively, than during the same months in 2019. In contrast, meal providers served roughly the same number of meals in the summer 2020 (June through August) as in summer 2019, although the number of meals served in June and July was slightly higher in 2020 than in 2019.Officials from half of the district nutrition programs and most of the hunger advocacy groups we interviewed told us the flexibilities provided by FNS waivers reduced typical barriers to summer meals and presented an opportunity to expand summer food service.[310] This may explain why, in spite of the pandemic, the number of meals served was roughly the same in summer 2020 as in summer 2019. An official from one hunger advocacy group attributed an increase in meals served in July 2020 specifically to the waiver flexibilities allowing meals to be served in noncongregate settings (i.e., “grab-and-go”). In addition, nutrition program officials from two of the districts told us that schools and other providers in their areas provided more meals during summer 2020 than in prior summers. Officials from two of the hunger advocacy groups agreed, reporting that waiver flexibilities facilitated summer meal service. FNS officials said that after operating summer meal programs during the pandemic, some districts and providers may be more likely to continue to serve meals in future summers. Such an increase in summer meal providers could improve children’s access to summer meals after the pandemic.FNS leveraged an existing pilot program to distribute meals to high-need children, but participation was regionally concentrated. FNS utilized other programs to serve meals to children whose schools were closed during the pandemic, including Pandemic EBT and Emergency Meals-to-You, which both served high-need children and reduced barriers to accessing food.[311] FNS established the Emergency Meals-to-You program by repurposing an existing summer pilot project (Summer Meals-to-You) to provide boxes of shelf-stable food via mail to children in rural, high-poverty areas in spring and summer 2020.[312] Through its cooperative agreement with FNS, the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty operated Emergency Meals-to-You from April through August 2020 and provided approximately 39 million meals to more than 270,000 children in 345 school districts nationwide, according to FNS data.[313] Access to meals during school closures in rural areas has been a persistent area of concern. For example, in May 2018, we reported challenges with summer meal–site operations that might contribute to underserving of rural communities, including Indian reservations. Officials from hunger advocacy groups whom we interviewed for our current report stated that during the pandemic, rural communities experienced limited access to federal child nutrition programs because of challenges such as lack of transportation. The Emergency Meals-to-You program addressed some of these challenges by shipping boxes of shelf-stable meals directly to eligible children in participating school districts, including several districts serving American Indian and Alaska Native children. According to our analysis, schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), within the Department of the Interior, made up 6 percent of districts participating in Emergency Meals-to-You.[314] Although the program was available nationwide, almost 90 percent of meals served under Emergency Meals-to-You went to children in the South, and approximately 50 percent were served to children in Louisiana and Texas. Officials from FNS and the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty attributed this trend to high rates of rural child poverty in the South and noted that southern state agencies actively encouraged districts to apply for Emergency Meals-to-You.[315] Officials from three of the six school district nutrition programs we interviewed in non-Southern states said they were not aware of Emergency Meals-to-You or of their district’s eligibility to participate while the program was ongoing.Officials from one FNS regional office told us that state nutrition offices’ level of involvement was an important predictor of districts’ participation in the program. One state nutrition program official suggested states may not have understood that they played a critical role in notifying districts about the program. According to officials from the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty, some states were less proactive than others because their resources were already strained during the pandemic. As school year 2021–22 begins, school learning models and other factors may affect school district nutrition programs’ efforts to return meal service to prepandemic levels.School learning models. The various learning models—remote, in-person, and hybrid—that schools nationwide adopted during school year 2020–21 may continue in some schools in 2021–22, presenting challenges for school nutrition programs.[316] In its April 2021 handbook on safe reopening of schools, the U.S. Department of Education stated that school leaders should design a variety of meal distribution schedules and feeding models, such as in-person and grab-and-go, to ensure equity among recipients.[317]Nearly all of the district nutrition and hunger advocacy officials we interviewed described challenges that affected meal service under a hybrid model. For example, one district nutrition official reported that the district could use vans to deliver food when learning was fully remote in spring 2020 but had to stop food delivery when the school changed to hybrid learning, because the vans were needed for more traditional uses. In another district, a nutrition official said that variability in school learning models and student attendance made it difficult to plan meal service and estimate the number of students needing in-person versus grab-and-go meals. In addition, the official reported that the hybrid model required additional resources for serving meals in person while also packing and distributing boxes of meals for remote learners. Enrollment and staffing. Almost all of the district nutrition and hunger advocacy officials also cited consequences of the pandemic that raised uncertainties for meal service in the coming year. Some district nutrition officials said that the changes in student enrollment, in some cases due to families changing districts or electing homeschooling, would make it difficult to anticipate the number of meals needed. Most district nutrition and hunger advocacy officials described ongoing staffing challenges as a result of the pandemic. For example, nutrition officials in three districts described concerns about staff retention and shortages. In addition, officials in two districts expressed concern that potential furloughs, being considered because of financial constraints, could exacerbate staffing shortages and make it difficult to fill these positions when normal operations resume. In its handbook, the Department of Education noted that schools that are reopening will need sufficient staff to maintain services for in-person, hybrid, and remote students. According to the National CACFP Sponsors Association, staffing may also be a challenge for childcare centers and day care homes that had to let staff go during the pandemic because of low enrollment.[318]Waivers. Many officials from district offices and hunger advocacy organizations told us that the FNS waivers had been critical in enabling operators to serve meals throughout the pandemic and noted that it would be helpful if the waivers continued through school year 2021–22. In response to state and district requests for continued flexibilities, on April 20, 2021, FNS announced that it would extend through school year 2021–22 several key waivers to aid in social distancing, such as allowing meals to be served in noncongregate settings, enabling parent and guardian meal pickup, and providing flexibility in foods served and meal times. In addition, FNS issued a new waiver allowing schools to operate SSO when school is open during the regular school year.[319] FNS also issued a waiver allowing SSO operators to claim these meals at the higher SFSP reimbursement rate, with the intent of promoting nutritious meals while managing increases in pandemic-related costs. FNS officials noted that they are currently developing guidance related to these new waivers that will include instructions for submitting claims for reimbursements.FNS did not extend the waiver allowing schools to operate SFSP when school is open during the regular school year. However, because they are allowed to operate SSO, schools may continue to provide free meals to all students in the upcoming school year without the administrative requirement of tracking and collecting payments from students. According to FNS officials, FNS made the decision not to extend the SFSP waivers in part because SFSP has lower nutritional standards than SSO, which emphasizes, among other things, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Methodology To conduct our work, we analyzed the most recent data available from FNS on meals served through four key child nutrition programs—NSLP, SBP, SFSP, and CACFP—and the Emergency Meals-to-You program. We also used data for school year 2019–20 (the most recent available) from the Department of Education’s CCD, matching and merging these data with the list of school districts participating in Emergency Meals-to-You, to identify school district characteristics, such as BIE status, from the CCD. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed existing information about the data and reporting processes, interviewed agency officials, and conducted electronic testing of the data. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also reviewed relevant federal laws and agency guidance and documents, and we interviewed officials from FNS’s national and regional offices. Additionally, in four states—Georgia, Maine, Texas, and Washington, which we selected in part on the basis of variation in geographic location and school operating policies at the time of selection—we interviewed state nutrition directors and officials from hunger advocacy organizations as well as district nutrition officials from three school districts in each state. Further, we interviewed officials from the School Nutrition Association and National CACFP Sponsors Association. The information presented from these interviews is not intended to be representative but instead to provide examples of meal providers’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this enclosure to FNS and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment. They did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor data on the number of meals served by the child nutrition programs FNS administers, FNS’s use of COVID-19 relief funds, and its efforts to provide flexibilities to states and school districts to support child nutrition. We plan to review FNS’s monitoring and oversight of child nutrition programs in our future work. Related GAO ProductSummer Meals: Actions Needed to Improve Participation Estimates and Address Program Challenges. GAO-18-369. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2018.Contact Information: Kathryn A. Larin, (202) 512-7215 or [email protected] Employer Tax ReliefBookmark:Employers have claimed about $17.6 billion of employer tax credits, as of May 2021; new information on the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program loan forgiveness webpage, posted in response to a proposed recommendation, could help eligible borrowers make decisions to maximize their Employee Retention Credits. Entities involved: Small Business Administration and Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service Background The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the CARES Act provide tax credits to covered employers to mitigate the cost of paid sick and family leave for employees affected by COVID-19, as well as provide an Employee Retention Credit for all eligible employers, among other tax relief. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA, 2021), enacted in December 2020, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), enacted in March 2021, amended and extended some aspects of these credits. The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) capacity to implement new initiatives, such as the relief laws’ tax credits, is an ongoing challenge cited in our 2021 High-Risk Report. Tax credits for employers. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that the COVID- related tax credit provisions in the four laws will result in about $246 billion in foregone revenue for the federal government for fiscal years 2021-2031.[320] The paid leave credits and the Employee Retention Credit are both fully refundable payroll tax credits, meaning that they are credited first against certain payroll taxes (also referred to as employment taxes), and any excess over those payroll taxes is refunded to the employer. These payroll tax credits may be claimed on the employer’s employment tax return, typically Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return. To receive immediate relief, employers may reduce their semiweekly or monthly payroll tax deposits (or next day deposits, if applicable) by the amount of their anticipated credit.[321] If an anticipated credit amount remains after reducing deposits, employers may receive an advance payment by filing Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19.[322] Form 7200 must be submitted using electronic fax (e-fax). The tax credits include the following:Leave credits.[323] Businesses and tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees and certain government entities are eligible for refundable tax credits for sick and family leave.[324] The tax credits under the FFCRA, as amended and extended by the CAA, 2021, for leave taken from April 1, 2020, through March 30, 2021, are equal to qualified leave wages paid to employees, plus the employer share of Medicare taxes paid with respect to qualified wages and allocable health plan expenses. The tax credits under the ARPA for leave taken from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021, are equal to qualified leave wages paid to employees, plus the employer share of Medicare tax and the employer share of Social Security tax paid with respect to the qualified leave wages, and allocable health plan expenses and certain collectively bargained contributions as shown below. In the table, we summarize the FFCRA and ARPA paid sick and family leave tax credits. Certain self-employed persons in similar circumstances are allowed equivalent credits. Comparison of Tax Credits for Paid Leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, as amended and extended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 Families First Coronavirus Response Act American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Periods of leave for which employers may claim credits Apr. 1, 2020–Mar. 31, 2021 Apr. 1, 2021–Sept. 30, 2021 Eligible entities Businesses and tax exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees and self-employed individuals. Expanded to include state and local governments, as well as 501(c)(1) tax-exempt federal government entities. Employment tax against which the credit may be applied Employer share of Social Security tax. Changed to employer share of Medicare tax for periods of leave taken after March 31, 2021. Qualifying paid leave definitions Sick leave: Includes quarantine or isolation order (or caring for someone under these orders), seeking COVID-19 diagnosis, and childcare. Family leave: Childcare when school or other care is unavailable due to COVID-19. Sick leave: Expanded to include obtaining a COVID-19 vaccine or illness related to immunization, or waiting for COVID-19 test results. Family leave: Expanded to include all qualifying reasons for paid sick leave. Qualifying wages for the credits and credit maximums Sick leave: Wages paid for up to 80 hours for a full-time employee and allocable health plan expenses and employer share of Medicare taxes. Credit maximum is dependent on the purpose for taking the sick leave.a Family leave: After 10 days of other leave (unpaid, personal, etc.), employees receive leave that is at least two-thirds of their usual pay (max $200 per day and $10,000 total per employee) and allocable health plan expenses. Sick leave: Credit also increased for certain collectively bargained contributions and the employer’s share of Social Security tax imposed on the wages.b A new 80-hour period for paid leave eligible for the credits for leave wages after March 31, 2021. Family leave: Credit also increased for certain collectively bargained contributions and the employer’s share of Social Security tax imposed on the wages. The first 10 days of leave may qualify as paid family leave wages and the per-employee limit is increased to $12,000 and resets for periods of leave after March 31, 2021. aQualified sick leave wages cannot exceed $511 per day ($5,110 total) for employees if they are taking leave because of a government quarantine or isolation order, self-quarantine, or seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis or related to vaccination when ARPA is in effect. Qualified sick leave wages cannot exceed $200 per day ($2,000 total) for employees if they are caring for someone in quarantine or isolation or caring for a child.bCertain collectively bargained contributions’ includes defined benefit pension plan contributions which are paid or incurred by an employer during the calendar quarter on behalf of its employees to a defined benefit plan which meets certain requirements, are made based on a pension contribution rate, and are required to be made pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The term also includes contributions which are paid or incurred by an employer on behalf of its employees with respect to the calendar quarter to a registered apprenticeship program, are made based on an apprenticeship program contribution rate, and are required to be made pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Employee Retention Credit. Under the CARES Act as amended by the CAA, 2021 and ARPA, eligible employers of any size—including tax-exempt entities, certain governmental entities, and self-employed individuals with employees—can claim the refundable Employee Retention Credit.[325] The credit amount is based on qualified wages paid to employees, including certain health care expenses. Qualified leave wages for which leave credits are allowed are not included in qualified wages for which an employer may claim the Employee Retention Credit.[326] The table below describes statutory changes made to the Employee Retention Credit.Selected Changes to the Employee Retention Credit in the American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 and Previous Legislation CARES Act Changes in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Changes in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Eligibility period for qualified wages paid Mar. 13–Dec. 31, 2020 Extended Jan. 1–June 30, 2021 Extended through Dec. 31, 2021 Eligible entities Any employer operating a trade or business or a tax-exempt organization, except governments and their agencies and instrumentalities Expanded to include: public colleges or universities,government entities whose principal purpose is medical or hospital care, andcertain tax-exempt federal entities a No change Employment tax offset Employer portion of Social Security tax No change Changed to employer portion of Medicare tax Eligibility requirements Employers must experience either: full or partial suspension of operations due to governmental orders during any quarter or significant decline in gross receipts, more than 50 percent for the same calendar quarter in 2019b Amended to require that gross receipts decline to 80 percent of gross receipts for the same quarter in 2019; employers may elect to make the determination using the previous calendar quarterc Amended to also allow “recovery startup businesses”, who otherwise would not meet eligibility criteria, to be eligible to claim the creditd Percent of qualified wages eligible for credite 50 percent of qualified wages ($10,000 per employee for the year), including certain health care expenses 100 or fewer employees, all wages count toward qualified wages Increased maximum to 70 percent ($10,000 per calendar quarter per employee) for wages paid between January 1 and June 30, 2021 500 or fewer employees, all wages count toward qualified wages Maximums unchanged. “Severely financially distressed employers” may treat all wages as qualified wages f No change for small employer qualified wages Credit maximums Maximum credit of $5,000 per employee in 2020 Increased the maximum per employee to $7,000 per employee per quarter in 2021 Quarterly maximum unchanged, but extension of dates means $28,000 possible per employee in 2021 “Recovery startup businesses” may receive up to $50,000 per calendar quarter Interaction with Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Generally, an employer receiving a PPP loan is not eligible for the employee retention credit (but see retroactive change for 2020). PPP borrowers are eligible for the Employee Retention Credit retroactive to 2020. However, employers cannot use the same wages for the credit and to obtain forgiveness of the PPP loan. No change aAn organization described in section 501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code can claim the credit. bEmployers are no longer eligible in the first quarter after the one in which gross receipts are more than 80 percent of the same quarter in the previous calendar year.cBusinesses formed in 2020 may use the same quarter in 2020 to establish eligibility.dEmployers which began carrying on any trade or business after February 15, 2020, with average annual gross receipts in the prior three tax years that do not exceed $1 million and that do not experience a full or partial suspension of operations due to a governmental order or a decline in gross receipts.eSmall eligible employers may treat wages paid to employees for providing services and wages paid to employees for not providing services as qualified wages. Large eligible employers may treat only wages that are paid to employees who are not providing services as qualified wages.fSeverely financially distressed employers are those with gross receipts that are less than 10 percent of what they were in the same calendar quarter in 2019.Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) Premium Assistance Credit. Under federal COBRA requirements and comparable state laws, certain employers must provide employees who experienced specific events with the option for continued health insurance coverage.[327] Under ARPA, eligible individuals are provided with a 100 percent premium subsidy of COBRA coverage for periods of coverage from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021.[328] Employers generally are required to cover the costs of the individual’s subsidized COBRA coverage, but can offset costs with a refundable tax credit in certain instances. In other circumstances, a multiemployer plan, or health insurance issuer should cover the subsidized cost and will claim the tax credit. In cases not addressed in the prior two sentences the insurer is eligible for the credit. Deferred payroll tax payments for employer share of Social Security. The CARES Act granted all employers the option to defer deposits and payments of the employer share of Social Security tax that they would otherwise be required to make during the period beginning March 27 through December 31, 2020.[329] Self-employed individuals could defer half of their Social Security taxes imposed on net earnings from self-employment during the same period.[330] Deferred deposits and payments are to be reported on their employment tax returns, typically on Form 941.[331]Deferred payroll tax payments for employee share of Social Security. On August 8, 2020, the President signed a presidential memorandum that, in part, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to exercise authority under section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code.[332] In response, IRS issued Notice 2020-65, which allowed for deferral of the withholding, deposit, and payment of the employee share of certain employment taxes imposed on wages or compensation paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, if an employee’s wages or compensation are below a certain amount in a pay period.[333] The presidential memorandum directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make this deferral available to an employer for employees whose earnings during any biweekly pay period generally are less than $4,000 on a pre-tax basis, or the equivalent amount with respect to other pay cycles. Under the CAA, 2021, and Notice 2021-11, payments may be collected until December 31, 2021.[334] Collection of the deferred tax results in a reduction in take-home pay as compared to what would have occurred without the deferral. Overview of Key IssuesStatus of tax credit claim processing. IRS continues to process a paper return backlog, which makes the data on tax credit claims and deferrals incomplete, particularly for small employers who tend to file on paper. Additional claims for the Employee Retention Credit, with regard to 2020 qualified wages, are also being processed as Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrowers who became newly eligible for the Employee Retention Credit file retroactively.[335] Most of these newly eligible employers use Form 941-X, Adjusted Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return or Claim for Refund, which can be filed only on paper.[336] Several payroll and tax professional industry representatives said refunds from Forms 941-X are delayed. IRS officials said it is taking longer to process returns because IRS facilities that process paper employment tax returns continue to operate at reduced capacity to accommodate social distancing. As of May 2021, IRS officials said they are opening mail in normal time frames but are still processing returns received in 2020. IRS reported about 2.5 million unprocessed Forms 941 as of June 9, 2021.[337] IRS also continues to process Forms 7200 for tax credit advance refunds. As of May 13, 2021, according to IRS officials, IRS had issued $780.4 million in advance payments.[338] As of May 17, 2021, IRS was taking approximately 7 weeks to process the forms, according to IRS officials. They said they received a higher volume (compared with November and December 2020) of Forms 7200 from January to March 2021, possibly because of CAA, 2021. Six of 10 payroll and tax professional representatives we spoke with said the employers for whom they file employment tax returns were frustrated with the Form 7200 response, and in some cases were using Form 941 instead because the Forms 7200 were not resulting in timely payments. Of the approximately $17.6 billion in claims for the Employee Retention Credit and leave credits claimed, as of May 2021 we found a little over 1 percent were also filed as advance payments through a Form 7200 filing.[339] IRS designated almost 60 percent (39,722 of 67,310 ) of Form 7200 claims it received as of May 17, 2021, as “rejected,” according to IRS officials. According to IRS officials, the most common reasons for rejecting a Form 7200 claim were that the filer provided an unauthorized signature or filed a Form 7200 after submitting a Form 941 for the quarter or after the due date of the Form 941 for the quarter. Additional rejections resulted from the newly eligible PPP borrowers who submitted Forms 7200 in January 2021 claiming the Employee Retention Credit, when they should have used a Form 941-X instead because those quarters were already closed. IRS said as of May 17, 2021, it had mailed 26,858 letters to employers whose Form 7200 claims were rejected. IRS also continues to process Forms 7200 for claims for advanced payments of employer credits for COVID -19. IRS issued a “tax tip” in April 2020 outlining common errors on Form 7200 and another tip in May 2021 outlining additional steps that can help employers ensure their Form 7200 is accurate, which can prevent processing delays. IRS officials said they conduct monthly outreach calls with the payroll industry, and the Form 7200 instructions has additional tips. They said they are considering additional outreach. Data on employer use of tax credits and deferrals. Some data on the use of these tax provisions are available, though data are incomplete due to backlogs and data availability issues on annual filings. At the time of our analysis in May 2021, IRS had processed employer tax return filings claiming about $7.4 billion in leave credits and about $10.2 billion in Employee Retention Credits (see table).[340] Of the approximately 17 million employment tax return filings received, less than 1 percent of employers filed to claim the Employee Retention Credit.[341]Number and Amount of Leave Credits and Employee Retention Credits Claimed, as of May 2021 Provision Number of employers claiming Dollars claimed ($ billions) Leave credits 766,819 7.4 Employee Retention Credit 146,492 10.2 Source: GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service data. | GAO-21-551Notes: The tax credit dollar figures we are reporting are as reported by taxpayers and are subject to taxpayer reporting error. These figures may differ from IRS’s reported figures because we are reporting what was filed without adjustments. The table includes quarterly returns from second through fourth quarter 2020, including electronically filed (e-file) returns and about 6.7 million paper filings. Paper return data are as of May 5, 2021 (main Form 941) and May 19, 2021 (Schedule R), and e-file data are as of May 26, 2021. The second quarter 2020 returns include amounts for the Employee Retention Credit from the end of the first quarter because legislation passed too late in the quarter to be reported then. Dollars claimed as credits include amounts also received as advance payments requested on Form 7200. We did not analyze credits for self-employed individuals, which are reported on their income tax return, and annual employment tax returns. The Internal Revenue Service also continues to process a paper return backlog, which makes the data in the table above incomplete, particularly for small employers. We found a total of 424,354 employers deferred about $112 billion in Social Security taxes for the employer and employee share together.[342] All 10 of the payroll and tax preparer industry representatives we spoke with said the employer share deferral was the most widely used of the tax-related COVID-19 relief provisions for employee retention. For example, the deferral functioned like an interest free loan, according to one tax professional. Employee Retention Credit and PPP loan forgiveness. Certain employers who applied for forgiveness of their PPP loans may have included information in the application that subsequently reduced their eligibility for the Employee Retention Credit. Specifically, IRS Notice 2021-20, issued on March 1, 2021, states that employers who include any qualified wages in the amount reported to the Small Business Administration (SBA) as payroll costs when applying for PPP loan forgiveness, unless the loan is not forgiven, are deemed to have elected to not take those qualified wages into account for purposes of the credit.[343] See example. Example of Tax Implications from Payroll Cost Allocations for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness An employer received a PPP loan of $200,000. That employer had $200,000 in payroll costs and $70,000 of other PPP-eligible costs. The $200,000 in payroll costs could also have qualified for the Employee Retention Credit. Scenario A: The employer submitted a PPP loan forgiveness application and reported the $200,000 of qualified wages as payroll costs, but did not report the other eligible expenses (such as rent or utilities) of $70,000. The employer’s entire loan was forgiven. However because the full $200,000 of qualified wages were reported on the forgiveness application, per IRS Notice 2021-20, no portion of those wages may be treated as qualified wages for the Employee Retention Credit. The employer cannot reduce the deemed election by the amount of the other eligible expenses that it could have reported on its forgiveness application, according to the Notice. Scenario B: The employer submitted a PPP loan forgiveness application and reported $70,000 of eligible non-payroll expenses and $130,000 of payroll costs. The employer’s entire loan was forgiven. The employer may use the remaining $70,000 in payroll costs not reported on the application as qualified wages for the Employee Retention Credit. Source: GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service guidance. | GAO-21-551To qualify for full PPP loan forgiveness, borrowers must spend at least 60 percent of proceeds on wages and benefits (eligible payroll costs). The remainder may be other eligible non-payroll costs, such as rent and utilities.[344] According to our analysis of SBA data, 911,288 of the approximately 2 million PPP borrowers who applied for PPP loan forgiveness by March 1, 2021, reported more than 60 percent payroll costs on their application for PPP loan forgiveness.[345] Therefore, if they had other potentially eligible expenses that they could have reported, they may have missed opportunities to maximize the qualified wages available to claim the Employee Retention Credit. Borrowers could also make decisions about the covered period for their loan, which may affect availability of qualified wages for the Employee Retention Credit. We are continuing to analyze this situation and any possible options IRS might have for allowing additional credit eligibility, consistent with the law.As of May 10, 2021, about 37 percent of the forgiveness applications for PPP loans made in 2020 could still be submitted. SBA accepted new loan applications until May 4, 2021, according to SBA officials, and community financial institutions could still enter loan guaranty applications into SBA’s loan portal through May 31, 2021. As of May 2021, neither the loan forgiveness application, its instructions, nor the loan forgiveness frequently asked questions on SBA’s website mentioned how borrowers’ allocations of loan proceeds affect the Employee Retention Credit. In a draft of this report, we recommended to IRS and SBA that the agencies work together to disseminate information in the SBA loan forgiveness guidance on the tax implications of payroll cost allocations to the PPP loan forgiveness applicants. In response to our draft recommendations and prior to final issuance of this report, SBA worked with Treasury to develop language for its PPP loan forgiveness guidance web page noting the potential tax implications of loan forgiveness applications, and linking to IRS guidance on the Employee Retention Credit. The language was posted on June 11, 2021. This information could help employers—particularly those who do not work with tax professionals—make decisions that allow them to maximize the Employee Retention Credit. MethodologyTo conduct our work, we reviewed federal laws and agency documents; and interviewed officials at IRS and SBA, and representatives from two tax and payroll professional organizations. We selected the organizations because of their members’ prominent role in working with a large number of employers. We interviewed 10 members selected by these organizations. Because these members are from a nongeneralizable sample, we cannot make inferences about the populations of professionals. We also analyzed IRS employment tax data as of May 2021 and SBA data as of May 17, 2021. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by comparing with other data sources, such as our previous work and other IRS data, and checking for outliers.Agency Comments We provided IRS, Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and SBA with a draft of this enclosure, which included two recommendations. IRS provided written comments that are summarized below and reproduced in Appendix VIII: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service. IRS, Treasury, and SBA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget did not have any comments on this enclosure.IRS disagreed with our recommendation to work with the SBA to disseminate information in SBA loan forgiveness guidance on the tax implications of payroll cost allocations to PPP loan forgiveness applicants. However, because SBA worked with Treasury and posted IRS guidance on its loan forgiveness website, we removed the recommendations and no further action is required. GAO’s Ongoing Work We will continue to monitor information on SBA and IRS guidance. We plan to conduct additional analysis of employment tax returns on the use of these provisions, and on how IRS is adapting to the administration of the credits.GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendations on employer tax relief from prior bimonthly CARES Act reports.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Employer Tax Relief Recommendation Status The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should leverage employee counts from Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and Form 943, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return for Agricultural Employees, to identify potentially ineligible COVID-19 related sick and family leave credit claims, and address discrepancies the Internal Revenue Service deems significant. Open. IRS agreed with our recommendation. IRS provided an updated compliance plan, as of May 18, 2021. The plan states that IRS is considering Forms 941 and 943 line 1 data in conjunction with W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement) information as well as other data to identify potentially ineligible COVID-19 related credit claims, and address discrepancies IRS deems significant. We will continue to monitor IRS’s plans for evidence that the employee counts will be leveraged. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should conduct outreach to employment tax return filers to educate and promote accurate reporting of employee counts on Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and Form 943, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return for Agricultural Employees. Closed-implemented. In May 2021, IRS released a “tax tip” for employment tax return filers reminding them to ensure that line 1 of their return is accurate, and referring employers to the form instructions for details. This information could support compliance efforts, which can result in multiple benefits including—helping taxpayers understand their responsibilities for tax compliance, and a decrease in potentially ineligible credit claims. Related GAO Products High Risk Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-Risk Areas. GAO-21-119SP. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2021.Tax Filing: Actions Needed to Address Processing Delays and Risks to the 2021 Filing Season. GAO-21-251. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2021.Contact information: Jessica Lucas-Judy, (202) 512-6806, [email protected] Leave Benefits for EmployeesBookmark:The Department of Labor provided information to employers and employees about COVID-19-related paid leave provisions and has continued to enforce them, but gaps in its outreach and case management may limit its efforts to identify and resolve potential violations. Entity involved: Wage and Hour Division, within the Department of LaborRecommendations for Executive ActionThe Administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division should: better monitor data across all statutes that the Wage and Hour Division enforces, to ensure the division’s case management is consistent with established policies for assigning and prioritizing cases; ensure that the new data system under development includes mechanisms to prevent staff from assigning and prioritizing cases in a manner inconsistent with established policies; expand the Essential Workers, Essential Protections initiative on pandemic-related worker protections to include information about filing a complaint related to paid leave provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act; andengage in a comprehensive and timely effort to consult with employers, workers, and organizations that represent them, to identify and document lessons learned from the Wage and Hour Division’s administration and enforcement of COVID-19-related paid leave.The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division agreed with these recommendations. Background The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), as amended by the CARES Act, required employers covered under FFCRA—in this report, covered employers—to provide emergency paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave to eligible employees affected by COVID-19.[346] FFCRA was enacted on March 18, 2020, and the Department of Labor (DOL) developed regulations for the paid leave provisions that went into effect on April 1, 2020, and expired on December 31, 2020.[347] Though the requirement for covered employers to provide paid leave has ended, employees can file a complaint against their employer up to 2 years after the date of an alleged violation or up to 3 years after an alleged willful violation. In addition, employers may continue to provide paid leave voluntarily and, if eligible, can claim paid leave tax credits through September 30, 2021, to offset the cost of employees’ paid leave.[348]FFCRA paid leave provisions generally required covered employers to provide eligible employees (1) up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave, subject to daily and aggregate payment caps, and (2) up to 12 weeks of expanded family and medical leave, including 2 weeks of unpaid and 10 weeks of paid leave at no less than two-thirds of the eligible employee’s regular rate of pay, subject to daily and aggregate payment caps.[349] Covered employers included most public employers and private employers with fewer than 500 employees.[350] Small businesses—those with fewer than 50 employees—may have qualified for an exemption from providing leave to an employee who needed to care for a child because of closure or unavailability of the child’s school, place of care, or child care provider if the requested leave would have jeopardized the business’s viability.[351] All employees of a covered employer were eligible to take emergency paid sick leave regardless of how long they had been employed, and all employees who had been employed by a covered employer for at least 30 calendar days were eligible to take expanded family and medical leave. However, employers were not required to apply these leave requirements to employees who were health care providers or emergency responders.[352] The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administers and enforces FFCRA paid leave requirements for most employees. Covered employers generally face liability if they did not provide or improperly denied emergency paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave or if they discharged, disciplined, or discriminated against any employee for taking either type of leave.[353] Employees who believe their covered employer violated FFCRA may call a toll-free number—1-866-4US-WAGE (1-866-487-9243)—for assistance or to file a complaint. When an employee files an FFCRA paid leave complaint, WHD determines whether the complaint meets its criteria for investigation. If the complaint does not meet the criteria, WHD files the complaint with no compliance action. If the complaint meets the criteria for investigation, WHD registers the complaint as a case, determines the complaint’s priority level, and determines what type of compliance action to take. WHD generally has three priority levels for cases it investigates—tier I, tier II, and tier III. Tier I cases have the highest priority and tier III cases have the lowest priority.[354] According to internal WHD guidance, all FFCRA cases are to be assigned a priority level of tier I or tier II. Tier I cases are those in which the worker alleges violations that present a danger to safety or health, including both the employees’ safety or health and that of the community at large, or that allege an imminent or recent termination. For example, such violations include situations in which an employee was denied leave even though the employee was subject to a COVID-19 isolation order or was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. All other FFCRA complaints are to be assigned to tier II. WHD may drop a case after acceptance, even if it meets WHD’s criteria for investigation. For example, WHD may drop a case if an employer went out of business.[355] WHD can initiate one of four types of compliance actions for FFCRA complaints accepted for investigation—conciliation, office audit, limited investigation, or full investigation. Conciliations use the fewest WHD resources, and full investigations use the most resources. The type of compliance action taken depends on factors such as the number of employees involved, the level of resources involved, or the level of fact finding required to investigate the complaint. In addition to initiating compliance actions in response to complaints, WHD may initiate compliance actions, known as agency-directed investigations, on its own initiative. According to WHD guidance, agency-directed investigations are needed for effective enforcement for vulnerable worker populations, including garment workers, agricultural workers, and workers with disabilities. Overview of Key IssuesWHD used a variety of mechanisms to increase awareness and understanding of FFCRA paid leave provisions. WHD officials said one of the greatest challenges they faced in administering the paid leave provisions was making employers and employees aware of their responsibilities and rights under FFCRA. WHD officials said their outreach efforts targeted a large cross section of employers and workers, including those in certain vulnerable worker populations. Specifically, WHD reported conducting the following outreach efforts:Created an FFCRA work group. WHD created an FFCRA work group to oversee FFCRA education and outreach.[356] According to WHD officials, the group’s primary objective was to provide field support to staff responsible for educating employers and employees affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. WHD officials said the work group helped make strategic decisions about outreach. Conducted outreach efforts. WHD reported that it conducted 3,155 FFCRA outreach events targeting employers and employees from March 17, 2020, to December 31, 2020, when the paid leave requirements ended.[357] WHD officials said these events were facilitated predominantly by Community Outreach and Planning Specialist (CORPS) staff in their district offices.[358] The two most common types of outreach events were compliance consultations (37 percent of events)—meetings requested by an individual or employer to discuss methods of ensuring compliance—and meetings with stakeholder groups or organizations (15 percent). These events, along with webinars and telephone contacts, made up the vast majority of all outreach events (see table). WHD officials noted that these outreach events helped WHD target employees who may have been affected by COVID-19. For example, WHD officials said that WHD exhibits on FFCRA paid leave installed at COVID-19 testing sites reached employees who potentially needed paid leave to quarantine. Type and Number of Families First Coronavirus Response Act Outreach Events, Mar. 17, 2020–Dec. 31, 2020 Event type Number of events Percentage of total events Compliance consultation 1166 37 Stakeholder meeting 482 15 Webinar 412 13 Telephone contact/call 305 10 Presentation/seminar/speech 268 8 Exhibit booth 172 5 Committee/task force meetings 117 4 Other 233 7 Total 3,155 99a Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor data. | GAO-21-551aPercentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding. WHD officials said that, in general, CORPS staff determined which outreach events to conduct by targeting specific employer or employee organizations or by responding to requests for information. In addition, the officials said CORPS staff prioritized events expected to reach the largest number of employers and workers.[359] WHD officials said CORPS staff maintained a list of associations and organizations representing employers and workers in their districts, including state and local governments, and regularly sent these groups emails about FFCRA paid leave guidance and outreach events. WHD officials also stated that WHD staff at all levels continually looked for opportunities to collaborate with other federal agencies as well as with state and local governments to disseminate information on FFCRA paid leave, such as by partnering to provide joint presentations. Conducted a national public awareness campaign. WHD’s national public awareness efforts, which were conducted by a third-party contractor, included disseminating information about FFCRA paid leave through billboards, radio and television public service announcements, and a digital media campaign.[360] WHD officials said the national campaign generally targeted a broad audience. The contractor reported that as a result of this campaign, information about FFCRA paid leave was displayed more than 300 million times. In addition, WHD officials said that after hearing about low use of FFCRA paid leave by agricultural workers, they increased the number of Spanish-language public service announcements in rural areas to target this population. Disseminated information through other channels. WHD officials also shared information with employers and employees about the paid leave provisions when investigating complaints or responding to questions and by disseminating information on WHD’s website. WHD provides compliance assistance, which includes educating employers about their responsibilities under FFCRA while investigating them for potential violations of the law. WHD’s Operating Plan states that its education efforts play an important role in promoting compliance, because the vast majority of employers want to comply with the law but fail because they do not understand their legal obligations. WHD officials said employers were often willing to comply once WHD made them aware of the paid leave requirements. In addition, WHD provides information to employers and employees who call its toll-free number with questions.[361] WHD also created a COVID-19-related landing page on its website, providing, among other resources, links to its regulations; documents explaining employee rights, including workplace posters and fact sheets; a frequently asked questions page; and a tool to help users determine their eligibility for FFCRA paid leave.[362]Employers and employees were not always aware of, or did not always understand, the FFCRA paid leave provisions. Representatives of employer and employee organizations we interviewed acknowledged that WHD moved quickly to develop regulations, guidance, and other resources, such as frequently asked questions, fact sheets, posters, and webinars. Several of these organizations’ representatives said that they found WHD’s resources helpful. However, representatives of these organizations also described challenges related to the following areas:Educating employers about FFCRA paid leave. Like WHD officials, representatives of some employer organizations said it was challenging to ensure that employers were aware of or understood the paid leave provisions. While some representatives said employers may have received information from WHD, a representative of a small business organization with several hundred thousand members across a wide range of industries said that employers were unlikely to have learned about the provisions from the agency. In addition, a representative of a large employer organization representing restaurants across the nation said it seemed the onus was on the organization to educate employers. Representatives from each of the employer organizations we interviewed said they disseminated their own guidance on FFCRA paid leave. Moreover, several representatives noted that employers—particularly small businesses—who did not belong to a membership organization or did not have dedicated staff who knew about the requirements, such as human resources personnel, would likely have found it more difficult to learn about the paid leave requirements. Educating employees about FFCRA paid leave. Several organizations’ representatives said employees generally learned about FFCRA paid leave from sources other than DOL, including membership organizations—such as unions, trade associations, or community organizations—or by word of mouth. In addition, some representatives of employee organizations said employers may not have effectively informed employees about FFCRA paid leave, in some cases because they may not have wanted to share the information with employees. Moreover, a few organizations’ representatives said they were unaware of public service announcements or other WHD efforts to reach employees directly.Several organizations’ representatives said that low-wage workers—such as those in food services, restaurants, retail, and construction—are generally harder to reach because they may have less established relationships with their employers or may have limited English proficiency, among other reasons. More specifically, a representative from an organization representing farmworkers said many of these workers did not understand DOL’s guidance and announcements regarding FFCRA paid leave, both because of low levels of education and literacy and because some farmworkers speak indigenous languages rather than English or Spanish.[363]Complexity of guidance. Several representatives of employer organizations said DOL had provided helpful information and guidance on FFCRA; however, a few of these representatives also said some of DOL’s guidance, such as fact sheets and frequently asked questions, was too long, technical, and challenging to understand. Several organizations’ representatives told us they had created simplified guidance that they said was easier to understand than DOL’s guidance. In addition, a few representatives of employer-related organizations said it would be difficult for a business without legal consultants to follow changes to, and appropriately apply, WHD’s regulations and guidance.Applying guidance to real-world scenarios. Some employer organizations’ representatives said employers had questions about how to apply FFCRA paid leave provisions to specific scenarios not covered by DOL’s guidance. Examples of such questions included whether employees qualified for FFCRA paid leave when they were required to quarantine because of voluntary out of state travel or when someone in the employee’s household tested positive for COVID-19 but was asymptomatic.Some organizations’ representatives said employers and employees obtained clarification about FFCRA paid leave requirements from various sources, such as associations to which they belonged or legal counsel, as well as from DOL. A few organizations’ representatives also stated that employers likely used their own judgment to determine what to do in certain situations. As a result, employers may have implemented the requirements unevenly. Some representatives of both employer and employee organizations said more opportunities to interact with DOL would have been helpful—for example, to submit questions to DOL’s frequently asked questions page or to ask questions during DOL’s webinars. DOL officials said their webinars allowed time for questions, but a representative from one employer organization who attended the webinars expressed concern about the limited amount of time for questions.Understanding FFCRA exemptions. Several representatives of employer and employee organizations said employers and employees faced obstacles to understanding the health care worker exemption. For example, several representatives of employer and employee organizations said some employers and employees did not understand whether employees such as security guards or administrative personnel employed in a health care setting were covered by the health care exemption and were therefore ineligible to take FFCRA paid leave. Similarly, some organizations’ representatives said some employers and employees did not understand the small business exemption that applied to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. More specifically, representatives said some employers may have believed—or willfully acted as if—all small businesses with fewer than 50 employees were automatically exempt from providing FFCRA paid leave to any of their workers. In reality, businesses could claim the exemption only under certain circumstances described in DOL regulations.[364] Likewise, a few organizations’ representatives stated that some employees of small businesses either believed all small businesses were exempt from providing FFCRA leave or believed their employers would treat the exemption in this way. Representatives from one employer organization said they did not actively encourage small businesses to use the exemption, because they were worried employers would not understand it or know how to document their use of it. WHD engaged in a complaint-driven enforcement strategy. WHD relied primarily on employee complaints to identify employers who may have violated requirements to provide FFCRA paid leave. According to WHD officials, when WHD enforces other statutes, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), its enforcement is driven in equal parts by complaints and by agency-directed investigations targeting employers in certain industries or employers of vulnerable workers. WHD officials said they initiated a limited number of agency-directed FFCRA paid leave cases based on third-party referrals from federal or state agencies, newspaper articles, or other sources. The officials further said they did not use complaint data or external data sources to identify industries or employers for agency-directed investigations; instead, given short time frames, they focused on responding to, and resolving, the large volume of FFCRA paid leave complaints they received and on conducting outreach to educate employees and generate complaints. However, many employees were likely unaware of their right to FFCRA paid leave, according to representatives of employee organizations. In addition, interviewees said fear of retaliation may have deterred some low-wage workers, such as those in agriculture or food service, from filing complaints against their employers, even if the employees knew about the enforcement process. As a result, some employees, including those in vulnerable worker populations, may not have received the benefits to which they were entitled. WHD has concluded more than 80 percent of open FFCRA paid leave cases, primarily through conciliation. The most recent available data show that as of March 31, 2021, WHD had received 8,052 FFCRA paid leave complaints, of which 6,821 (85 percent) resulted in a case that received a compliance action.[365] WHD officials also reported initiating a limited number of agency-directed actions, for a total of 6,929 cases.[366] Of those, 5,500 cases (79 percent) had been concluded as of March 31, 2021 (see table). Number and Percentage of Concluded Families First Coronavirus Response Act Paid Leave Cases, by Compliance Action, as of Mar. 31, 2021 Compliance action Total number of registered cases Number of cases concluded Percentage of cases concluded Conciliation 5,525 4,538 82 Office audit 1,350 947 70 Limited investigation 28 14 50 Full investigation 26 1 4 Total 6,929 5,500 79 Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor data. | GAO-21-551Note: The data shown are the most recently available. WHD concluded the vast majority of cases through conciliation.[367] As we reported in our November 2020 CARES Act report, WHD officials said that conciliation is usually the most appropriate action for FFCRA paid leave complaints because most complaints are straightforward and involve one or a few employees. WHD officials further said they have emphasized conciliation because this type of compliance action provides WHD the best way to quickly resolve an employee’s complaint, such as by securing back pay or leave for the employee.[368]WHD’s data track 11 FFCRA paid leave violations that employers may have committed, on the basis of requirements laid out in the statute. The complaint data show that the most common employer violations among concluded cases were (1) failing to provide up to 2 weeks of paid sick leave—that is, the employer did not pay employees for leave that was granted (50 percent); (2) denying leave (34 percent); and (3) failing to keep accurate records (16 percent).[369] WHD staff did not correctly prioritize some FFCRA cases. Although WHD guidance calls for FFCRA cases to be assigned to a priority level of tier I or tier II when accepted for investigation, WHD staff did not always follow this guidance. As a result, some concluded cases that should have been assigned to a priority level were not assigned or were incorrectly assigned to tier III (see table). Number and Percentage of Concluded Families First Coronavirus Response Act Paid Leave Cases, by Priority Level, as of Mar. 31, 2021 Priority level Number of concluded cases Percentage of concluded cases Not assigned 977 18 Tier I 1,313 24 Tier II 3,087 56 Tier III 123 2 Total 5500 100 Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor data. | GAO-21-551Notes: The data shown are the most recently available. Tier I denotes highest priority, and tier III denotes lowest priority. According to Department of Labor guidance, all Families First Coronavirus Response Act cases are supposed to be assigned a priority level of tier I or tier II. In response to our questions, WHD officials said the 977 concluded cases not assigned to a priority level were “registered to self”—meaning they were self-assigned for investigation to the person who conducted intake. WHD officials said self-assigned cases are not assigned to a priority level because they are investigated immediately. According to WHD guidance, only conciliations—compliance actions that do not involve fact finding and are used to correct minor violations affecting only one or a few employees—can be self-assigned, allowing these cases to be registered and assigned quickly. According to WHD officials, of the 977 cases not assigned to a priority level, 933 were concluded through conciliation. The remaining 44 cases were concluded through office audits and limited investigations, which, under WHD guidance, should not have been self-assigned and should have been assigned to tier I or tier II. In addition, WHD officials said 123 cases were incorrectly assigned to tier III. Of those, 96 were concluded through conciliation and did not require assignment to a priority level, per WHD’s guidance. The remaining 27 were concluded through office audits and should have been assigned to a priority level of tier I or tier II, according to the guidance. We found that WHD officials did not monitor data or design its data system to ensure cases were correctly prioritized. WHD officials said they monitor data on the time taken to process FFCRA cases. However, their monitoring did not identify that some office audits or limited investigations either were not assigned to a priority level as they should have been—because staff incorrectly assigned cases to themselves—or were assigned to an incorrect priority level. Standards for internal control in the federal government state that management should perform ongoing monitoring of the design and operating effectiveness of the internal control system as part of the normal course of operations. In addition, WHD did not include controls in its data system to prevent staff from incorrectly assigning cases to themselves or from assigning a case to an invalid tier. Standards for internal control in the federal government state that management should design the entity’s information system and related control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. WHD officials said that all of the cases not assigned to a priority level or incorrectly assigned were ultimately investigated and concluded and that nearly all were isolated to three offices in one region. However, the officials said that as of May 12, 2021, they had not yet determined whether any ongoing cases had also been assigned incorrectly. In addition, although the number of affected FFCRA paid leave cases may be relatively small, WHD officials acknowledged that there may be cases under other statutes enforced by WHD that have not been assigned to a priority level because staff incorrectly assigned cases to themselves. In addition, cases under other statutes enforced by WHD may have been assigned to an incorrect priority level. WHD uses the same general process for prioritizing cases across all statutes it enforces. WHD had not looked into this issue further as of May 10, 2021.By not regularly examining data on the assignment of cases to priority levels or including features in its data system to prevent errors in case assignment and prioritization, WHD may have failed to prioritize ongoing cases under FFCRA and under other statutes, and it may continue making such errors in future cases. Cases that were not assigned to a priority level or were assigned to the wrong priority level may have not been investigated or concluded as rapidly as other cases that were properly assigned. To address these concerns, WHD officials said they planned to remind staff about WHD’s policies for prioritizing cases and also planned to develop a report to monitor the assignment of cases to priority levels. In addition, WHD officials said its new case management system may include features to prevent future errors. WHD cannot easily analyze data to show why certain cases are not investigated but plans to address this as it updates its data system. WHD lacks systematic data that it can easily aggregate to identify the reasons FFCRA complaints were filed with no compliance action and the reasons FFCRA cases were dropped.[370] In December 2020, we reported the same concern with respect to FLSA complaint data and recommended that WHD develop a method for systematically collecting this information to ensure complaints are handled consistently and resources are allocated appropriately. WHD agreed with our recommendation and said its new case management system will incorporate the ability to categorize, aggregate, and review data on the types of cases that are not investigated. WHD officials said changes to the enforcement database will apply to future cases filed under all statutes WHD enforces but will not apply retroactively. WHD has taken limited steps to continue informing employees about their right to file FFCRA paid leave complaints. Although WHD has done some FFCRA outreach since the paid leave provisions expired, WHD’s new Essential Workers, Essential Protections (EWEP) initiative on pandemic-related worker protections does not include information on filing a complaint related to FFCRA paid leave, even though employees can continue to file complaints for up to 2 years from the date of an alleged violation or for up to 3 years from the date of an alleged willful violation. WHD officials said the EWEP initiative includes presentations to stakeholders—including employers, employees, and organizations who work with or represent them—to share information on WHD’s role, specific worker protections, and general information on how to file a complaint. The specific worker protections included in EWEP are related to FMLA, FLSA, and protections for agricultural workers. WHD officials said they include information on tax credits available to employers who continue to voluntarily provide paid leave through September 30, 2021, but do not include additional information on FFCRA paid leave because the requirements expired in December. WHD officials said that as of April 2021, WHD had conducted 64 outreach events and planned to continue the initiative as long as the pandemic affects industries that employ essential workers.According to WHD documents, WHD promotes compliance with the statutes it enforces by conducting education and outreach to ensure that employers are aware of their responsibilities and that employees understand and exercise their rights. Standards for internal control in the federal government state that management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. By not including information about how to file a complaint about FFCRA paid leave in the scope of its EWEP initiative, WHD may be missing an opportunity to reach employees who did not obtain paid leave to which they were entitled and who could still file a complaint and receive benefits.WHD does not have specific plans to engage with stakeholders to generate lessons learned on the administration and enforcement of FFCRA paid leave. WHD officials said they have not actively sought information from stakeholders about their experiences with FFCRA paid leave, though they said some stakeholders have shared this information in the course of WHD’s outreach under the EWEP initiative. As a result, the information WHD is obtaining about stakeholder experiences with FFCRA paid leave will not be comprehensive. We previously reported that organizations that identify and apply lessons learned can ensure they factor beneficial information into planning for future efforts and limit the recurrence of challenges that can be anticipated in advance. By not engaging with employers, employees, and representative organizations specifically about their experiences with FFCRA paid leave in a comprehensive and timely manner, WHD may be missing an opportunity to improve its administration and enforcement—including its education and outreach—for future emergencies that might require a rapid response. Methodology To conduct this work, we reviewed federal laws, regulations, and agency documents; interviewed WHD officials; and reviewed WHD data on FFCRA paid leave outreach and enforcement efforts as of March 31, 2021. On the basis of interviews with WHD officials, we determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, we interviewed representatives of 12 organizations that we characterized as either (1) employer organizations (i.e., membership organizations for employers and research entities knowledgeable about employer experiences) or (2) employee organizations (i.e., member organizations for employees, worker advocacy organizations, and research entities knowledgeable about employee experiences). For these interviews, we identified organizations that represented employers and employees in workforce sectors affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as agriculture and health care, or that had conducted research on FFCRA paid leave. We determined that three internal control components identified in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government were significant to this audit: (1) the monitoring component and the underlying principle that management should perform ongoing monitoring of the design and operating effectiveness of the internal control system as part of the normal course of operations; (2) the control activities component and the underlying principle that management should design activities for the information system; and (3) the information and communication component and the underlying principle that management should communicate with, and obtain quality information from, external parties. We also reviewed our prior work on key practices of a lessons learned process. We assessed WHD’s efforts against these criteria. Agency CommentsWe provided WHD and the Office of Management and Budget with a draft of this enclosure. WHD provided written comments, reproduced in appendix IX, and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget did not have comments on this enclosure.In its comments, WHD agreed with our recommendations. More specifically: WHD agreed with our recommendation to better monitor data on assigning and prioritizing cases across all statutes WHD enforces. WHD stated that it is in the process of developing a report that will identify the priority level for concluded cases and cases currently under investigation. WHD also plans to include this recommendation in its business requirements for its new case management system. WHD agreed that its new case management system should include mechanisms to prevent staff from assigning and prioritizing cases in a manner inconsistent with established policies. WHD stated that it plans to include such mechanisms in its business requirements for the new case management system.WHD agreed that it should expand the EWEP initiative to include information about filing a complaint related to paid leave provided under FFCRA. WHD stated that it is expanding the EWEP initiative into a second phase and will incorporate outreach emphasizing how workers can file a complaint related to their rights to take FFCRA paid leave in 2020. WHD agreed that it should engage in a comprehensive and timely effort to consult with employers, workers, and organizations that represent them, to identify and document lessons learned from WHD’s administration and enforcement of COVID-19 related paid leave. WHD stated that, as part of the second phase of the EWEP initiative, it plans to conduct stakeholder listening sessions across the country that will include a component on lessons learned from FFCRA. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor WHD’s efforts to implement the recommendations we are making in this report. Related GAO Products Fair Labor Standards Act: Tracking Additional Complaint Data Could Improve DOL’s Enforcement. GAO-21-13. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2020.Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 2014.Project Management: DOE and NNSA Should Improve Their Lessons-Learned Process for Capital Asset Projects. GAO-19-25. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2018.Contact information: Thomas Costa, (202) 512-7215, [email protected] Higher Education GrantsBookmark:The Department of Education did not effectively design and implement procedures for conducting quality assurance reviews of award amounts after they were obligated to help timely identify and correct erroneous obligations, which increased the risk that improper payments could occur.Entity involved: The Office of Postsecondary Education, within the Department of EducationRecommendation for Executive ActionThe Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education should design and implement procedures for regularly conducting quality assurance reviews of obligated amounts for higher education grants, including the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, to help identify and correct erroneous obligations in a timely manner.The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation.BackgroundSince March 2020, Congress appropriated approximately $76.2 billion in relief funding for the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), which provides grants to institutions of higher education to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19.[371] In June 2020, we issued the first of a series of reports on key federal efforts to address the pandemic, which described the timeline of HEERF grants to schools. In April 2021, we issued a report on how schools distributed HEERF emergency financial aid grants to eligible students. Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) is responsible for administering HEERF. The CARES Act directed Education to allocate HEERF funding to eligible schools based on a funding formula.[372] In April 2020, Education notified schools of their individual allocations provided by the CARES Act to help inform their planning,[373] and provided the paperwork required to apply for HEERF grants, which included Certification and Agreement forms that described grantee responsibilities under the program. That same month, Education also began awarding HEERF grants to schools. As of May 31, 2021, 14 months following the enactment of the CARES Act, OPE had obligated $66 billion in HEERF funding provided by the COVID-19 relief laws—33 times the average of $2 billion in grants OPE normally administers annually.[374] To administer HEERF grants, OPE relied primarily on existing staffing levels and already established grant-management policies and procedures. Although OPE had policies and procedures in place, Education faced inherent challenges—an unusually large volume of funding, and the urgency to process and distribute the funding expeditiously due to the health and economic threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic—that increase the risk of improper payments. Overview of Key IssuesEducation procedures for approving and processing HEERF grants. Education relied on existing grant policies and procedures, including those documented in its Guide for Managing Formula Grant Programs (the Guide), for awarding HEERF grants, and modified these procedures as necessary given the emergency nature of the funding. The Guide establishes the structure and oversight responsibility over grant funding. OPE developed the process for awarding HEERF grants and provides HEERF-specific guidance, technical assistance, and other communications to grantees, such as responses to frequently asked questions, which OPE posts on its website. As part of administering HEERF, OPE is responsible for designing, implementing, and ensuring the operating effectiveness of procedures so that the funds awarded to grantees are valid and accurate. The figure below depicts Education’s procedures for approving and processing HEERF grants. Department of Education (Education) Procedures for Approving and Processing Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) GrantsOPE procedures state that only qualified staff have access to approve grant awards and record obligations in Education’s Grants Management System (G5).[375] Per the Guide, these authorized staff must possess the necessary qualifications, skills, and knowledge, and meet applicable training requirements, to obtain a system license for G5 access. OPE procedures call for staff to verify that the grant applicant adhered to the application requirements and to verify the accuracy of grant amounts prior to awarding the grants and recording obligations. The Guide requires OPE staff to verify that the applicant’s authorized representative signs and dates the applicable Certification and Agreement form(s).[376] This form is a required component of the application package for funding and is the grant recipient’s affirmation of the terms, conditions, and requirements that govern the use of grant award funds.[377] The Guide requires that OPE staff review the accuracy of award information on the Grant Award Notifications, such as funding period and formula-allocation information, prior to awarding the grant and recording the obligation.[378] The grantee initiates a payment request in G5 to obtain grant funds. The amount the grantee requests cannot exceed the available funds (i.e., obligated amount less any payments already provided) under the grantee’s G5 account. In addition, to help prevent unauthorized access to grant award funds, OPE staff initiate a verification through G5 when reviewing grant applications to validate that: (1) the grant recipient is an active registrant in the System for Award Management and (2) the applicant has an active Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number.[379] If the grantee does not have an active DUNS number, OPE staff manually restrict the grantee’s access to grant funds within G5 until the grantee successfully renews its DUNS number.We tested Education’s procedures for approving and processing HEERF grants through a sample of obligations and identified exceptions during our testing, described below. Education changed its process to no longer require that OPE staff verify authorized representative signatures on Certification and Agreement forms for HEERF. Education’s procedures in the Guide require OPE staff to verify that the applicant’s authorized representative signs and dates the required Certification and Agreement form. However, we estimate that 17.8 percent (about 848) of all schools that were awarded HEERF grants as part of the CARES Act have a Certification and Agreement form that cannot be confirmed as signed by an authorized representative from the school.[380] OPE staff told us that in order to expedite the processing of these HEERF grants, Education officials changed the department’s process to allow staff to award them regardless of the type of signature on the Certification and Agreement form submitted. OPE officials told us that applicants submitted HEERF applications, which include the Certification and Agreement form, through Grants.gov.[381] They also stated that schools designate their point of contact or authorized official what their specific roles are in Grants.gov. As such, they accepted all forms submitted through Grants.gov as appropriately authorized by the school because OPE considers applicants registering in Grants.gov as a control measure. In addition, OPE officials stated that only school-designated individuals that are also registered in G5 would have access to obtain grant funds within G5. The Certification and Agreement forms for HEERF funding provided by the CARES Act included only a signature line and did not require the “authorized representative’s title” or “typed name,” both of which would help OPE verify that the form was signed by an authorized representative. During the course of our testing, OPE updated the Certification and Agreement forms for additional HEERF funding provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to also include a line for the “authorized representative’s title” and “typed name.” OPE officials told us that they added the authorized representative name and title lines to clarify what information they are requesting from the applicant and to verify the identity of the grant applicant.[382] Standards for internal control in the federal government state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to change. In implementing control activities, management reviews controls for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the entity’s objectives and addressing related risks. Education changed its process of verifying an applicant’s authorized representative’s signature given its more immediate objective to process HEERF grants expeditiously. We believe that this change for HEERF was reasonable because of the existing control in G5 that would prevent unauthorized access to grant funds and Education’s subsequent action to revise the Certification and Agreement forms for additional HEERF funding.Education did not effectively design and implement procedures needed to identify erroneous obligations. We estimate that for 5.5 percent (about 262) of all schools receiving HEERF grants, Education awarded grants in excess of the amount allocated to the school.[383] Within our sample of obligations, we identified three instances, totaling $20 million overobligated. Two of these awards were duplicates and the third award was greater than what was allocated to the school. OPE officials stated that all these instances were due to human error. They also stated that during the initial implementation of HEERF, a team within OPE separately checked all grant awards to mitigate the risk of duplicate obligations and to confirm the accuracy of the obligation. However, this post-obligation quality assurance review was not part of OPE’s policies and procedures and, as the number of grants increased, OPE no longer conducted it on a regular basis. OPE procedures only called for staff approving awards to review the amounts as part of the award-preparation process (pre-obligation). OPE officials stated that due to time constraints and having the same staffing level to administer a significantly higher volume of grants, OPE did not regularly perform post-obligation reviews to identify and correct erroneous obligations, such as additional quality assurance reviews of HEERF grants. Instead, OPE conducted post-obligation reviews as time permitted and as it deemed appropriate. OPE officials told us that in some instances, schools have identified and self-reported discrepancies in their awards. OPE then verified those errors and processed supplemental Grant Award Notifications to correct them. Subsequent to our inquiry, we verified that OPE processed supplemental Grant Award Notifications to correct the three errors we identified in our testing. Standards for internal control in the federal government require that management design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. This includes control activities to help ensure that agencies accurately record transactions. In some instances, OPE relied on schools that self-reported to identify errors in award amounts. Absent its own review procedures to identify erroneous obligation amounts such as post-obligation quality assurance reviews, given the significant increase in volume of awards processed, this increased the risk that improper payments could occur.MethodologyTo conduct this work, we interviewed Education officials and reviewed Education’s policies and procedures related to HEERF grant awards (e.g., Education’s Formula Grant Guide, other HEERF-specific guidance, and related Frequently Asked Questions). We evaluated Education’s responses, policies and procedures, and related internal controls, against standards for internal control in the federal government. We conducted detailed transaction testing of a generalizable random sample of HEERF obligations recorded in G5 representing awards to 4,764 schools (identified by an OPE Identification Number) totaling $13.5 billion from enactment of the CARES Act, March 27, 2020, through September 30, 2020. We selected a stratified random sample of 178 grant recipients representing 514 grant awards. The strata were based on percentiles of the distribution of total obligated dollars in the sampling frame of $13.5 billion, the largest 10 grants by dollar selected with certainty. We used a confidence level of 95 percent and a tolerable error of $89.9 million. For each award in our sample, we reviewed underlying grant documentation to determine whether Education approved and obligated these awards (1) in accordance with established procedures and HEERF-specific guidance and (2) for the correct amounts. We determined the data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective. We followed a probability procedure based on random selections; as such, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we expressed our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. While we designed the sample for a 95 percent margin of error for an estimate of total dollars that is within the designed tolerable error of $89.9 million, the estimate for total dollars in error may not follow the same distribution as total dollars. Therefore, we reported our results above with larger margins of error as unweighted actual total dollars in error in the sample, rather than projecting the dollars in error to derive an estimate of erroneous obligations for the sample population.Agency Comments We provided Education and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. Education provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix V. In its comments, Education agreed with our recommendation and with the importance of conducting quality controls throughout the pre- and post-award processing of grant awards to schools. Education stated that it has already established, and will continue to enhance, procedures for quality control of grant obligations. This includes staffing and training program specialists who will have responsibility for quality controls for pre- and post-obligation, as well as for monitoring HEERF grants. Education also stated that it is committed to promptly addressing any error and making corrections to ensure accuracy of obligations. We will continue to monitor Education’s efforts to help reduce the risk of improper payments in this area. Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not provide comments on this enclosure. GAO’s Ongoing WorkAs the Department of Education works to provide COVID-19 relief funding to institutions of higher education, it will continue to be important for Education officials to properly award and disburse these funds, and that recipients properly use them. We plan to monitor the status of our recommendation in future reports and continue our oversight of government-wide payment integrity efforts. Related GAO ProductsCOVID-19: Emergency Financial Aid to Students under the CARES Act. GAO-21-312R. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2021.COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response and Recovery Efforts. GAO-20-625. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2020Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2014. Contact information: Beryl Davis, (202) 512-2623, [email protected] Relief for Businesses Bookmark:Available data indicate the Internal Revenue Service has disbursed approximately $15.8 billion in refunds for net operating loss and alternative minimum tax since the enactment of the CARES Act, but the extent of delays in processing these refunds is not transparent to taxpayers.Entities involved: Internal Revenue Service, within the Department of the TreasuryRecommendation for Executive ActionThe Commissioner of Internal Revenue should clearly communicate on the Internal Revenue Service’s website that there are delays beyond the statutory 90-day timeline in processing net operating loss and alternative minimum tax tentative refunds. IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation.Background To provide liquidity to businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, the CARES Act and other COVID-19 relief laws included tax measures to help businesses—including sole proprietors, estates, and trusts—by reducing certain tax obligations, which, in some cases, led to cash refunds.[384] The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) capacity to implement new initiatives, such as the many COVID-19 related tax provisions, is an ongoing challenge we cited in our 2021 High Risk Report.The CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 modified, among other provisions of the tax law, provisions previously enacted or amended by Public Law 115-97 commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).[385] The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates the following tax provisions will result in about $211 billion in foregone revenue for the federal government in fiscal years 2020-2030. [386] Net Operating Loss (NOL) carrybacks. An NOL occurs when a taxpayer's allowable deductions exceed its gross income for a tax year. During an NOL year, a taxpayer generally does not owe any income taxes and may be able to use the NOL to offset income in other tax years.[387] The CARES Act requires, unless waived, carrybacks for 5 years for NOLs arising in tax years beginning in 2018, 2019, and 2020, which may provide a cash refund for certain taxpayers.[388] Tax years prior to 2018 generally had a higher tax rate, so the ability of businesses to carryback post-2018 NOLs to earlier tax years tends to increase the relative value of the carryback amounts. For NOLs arising in tax years beginning after 2017, TCJA limited the deduction of NOL carrybacks and carryforwards to 80 percent of taxable income.[389] The CARES Act temporarily suspended the 80 percent limitation and those NOLs can reduce 100 percent of a taxpayer’s taxable income for tax years beginning before 2021.[390]NOL carryback refunds are typically claimed on Form 1120-X, an Amended U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return; paper Form 1139, Corporate Application for Tentative Refund; or paper Form 1045, Application for Tentative Refund.[391] From April to December 31, 2020, IRS implemented temporary procedures to allow for e-fax of Forms 1139 and 1045 for a quick tentative refund during the period that IRS campuses were closed and mail was not being processed due to COVID-19.[392]Acceleration of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Credit refunds. TCJA repealed the corporate AMT, but most corporations could claim their remaining unused minimum tax credits as a refundable credit for tax years 2018 through 2021.[393] Under the CARES Act, corporations with AMT credits may claim a refund for tax years beginning in 2018 and 2019 and may either file Form 1139 or Form 1120-X to receive a refund for some or all of these credits.[394] Increased limits on business interest. Taxpayers may generally deduct business interest expense in amounts not to exceed the sum of (1) the taxpayer’s business interest income for the tax year, (2) 30 percent of their adjusted taxable income for the tax year, and (3) their floor plan financing interest for the tax year.[395] The CARES Act modified the computation to allow for 50 percent of adjusted taxable income instead of 30 percent for tax years beginning in 2019 and 2020.[396] Taxpayers may still choose to use 30 percent of adjusted taxable income and not 50 percent to calculate and take their 2019 and 2020 business interest expense deduction, as it may affect other credits or deductions. Taxpayers may also elect to use 2019 adjusted taxable income in computing their 2020 business interest expense deduction. Excess business losses. An excess business loss is the amount by which the total deductions from all of a noncorporate taxpayer’s trades or businesses exceed the sum of the total gross income and gains from those trades or businesses, plus $250,000 ($500,000 for a joint return).[397] Under TCJA, for noncorporate taxpayers, any excess business loss generated in tax years 2018 through 2025 is not allowed as a deduction in that year. Such an amount becomes an NOL, which may lead to NOL deductions in other tax years. The CARES Act temporarily removed this limitation for tax years 2018-2020.[398] Taxpayers that applied the TCJA limits to any excess business loss that arose during the 2018 or 2019 tax year, or during both tax years, can file amended returns to claim refunds. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, enacted March 2021, extends the TCJA’s limitation on excess business losses from 2026 to 2027.[399] Overview of Key IssuesUse of excess business loss provision via amended returns. While complete data on the number of taxpayers taking advantage of the changes to excess business loss tax provisions will not be available until after tax year 2020 returns are processed, initial data are available on claims made so far on processed amended returns. As of April 29, 2021, IRS had received 311 amended returns with excess business loss refund claims. The majority of these claims were for refunds between $100,000 and $999,999. Of the business tax provisions we are monitoring, JCT had estimated that this would be the provision with the largest revenue effect, at $166 billion.Update on the status of NOL and AMT credit refunds. Initial data are available on refund requests and payments of refunds related to NOL carrybacks and AMT credits (see table).[400] As of April 29, 2021, IRS had received a total of 75,848 NOL carryback and AMT credit refund requests since the start of the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, but we cannot determine if all of these NOL and AMT credit refund requests were specific to CARES Act changes. IRS approved roughly $18.6 billion and dispersed roughly $15.8 billion of NOL and AMT refunds as of April 29, 2021. Net Operating Loss Carryback and Alternative Minimum Tax Credit Refund Requests Received as of April 29, 2021 Forma Refund requests receivedb Number of taxpayers filing Applications for tentative refund 51,372 40,622 Amended return 24,476 20,457 Totals 75,848 61,079 Source: GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service data. | GAO-21-551Notes: “Refund requests” includes applications for tentative refund on Forms 1045 and 1139 as well as amended returns on forms 1040-X and 1120-X. Since these provisions were available prior to the CARES Act, we were unable to distinguish CARES-Act-specific filings for paper applications for tentative refunds and amended returns. aApplications for tentative refund include forms 1045 and 1139 and amended return data includes Forms 1040-X and 1120-X.bA single case may include multiple submissions. Submissions for the same identification number, form, and tax period generally are one case. Submissions for the same number and form, but for different tax periods, are separate cases. The number of refund requests received via applications for tentative refund has increased by over 10,000 since we last received this data as of December 31, 2020. The general deadlines to file an application for tentative refund for tax year 2018 and 2019 were June 30, 2020, and December 31, 2020, respectively. The deadline for tax year 2020 is December 31, 2021. Since IRS closed the temporary e-fax line for these filings at the end of calendar year 2020, all applications for tentative refund must now be sent by mail. Transparency around timeliness of issuing tentative refunds. As discussed above, amendments to NOL and AMT tax provisions under the CARES Act can potentially help increase business liquidity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Internal Revenue Code and the CARES Act generally require IRS to issue certain refunds within a period of 90 days from the date on which a complete application for a tentative carryback adjustment is filed, or from the last day of the month in which the return is due, whichever is later.[401] Form 1139 and 1045 instructions refer to the statutory time frame and IRS’s temporary procedures to e-fax certain Forms 1139 and 1045 due to COVID-19 state that IRS is mindful of taxpayers’ need to get these refunds.[402] After 45 days, the taxpayer is also owed interest.[403] According to IRS data, 23,236 approved refunds included interest payments totaling nearly $280 million from the enactment of the CARES Act through April 29, 2021. Based on our analysis, nearly 62 percent of approved NOL and AMT refunds included interest payments.According to IRS data, IRS is not meeting the statutory 90-day refund requirement and the average processing time in 2021 was 154 days as of May 1, 2021. Agency records show that IRS has taken as long as 210 days to process some applications for tentative refunds. IRS officials said that number does not include the additional time it takes for IRS to finalize production and distribution of the refund to the taxpayer, which can take 2 weeks. This could potentially make the total refund processing time as long as 224 days. This would be more than 4 months later than the taxpayer would be expecting, based on the statutory requirement listed on the form instructions and temporary procedures webpage. An industry group has also said that the process to receive a refund is taking longer than expected and several tax professionals we spoke with said most of their clients have waited more than 90 days for their refund.Based on our analysis of IRS records, the average processing time first consistently surpassed 90 days for Form 1045 in October 2020 and in January 2021 for Form 1139. Prior to that, IRS had been generally meeting the 90-day requirement for the last 3 years.[404] IRS officials said it is taking longer to process returns because IRS facilities that process paper returns continue to operate at reduced capacity to accommodate social distancing. This, combined with the December 31 due date for applications for tentative refund for tax year 2019 and the close of the e-fax line for filing these forms, could be contributing to the slowdown of issuing these tentative refunds. Delays in processing refunds may continue until the backlog has reduced further. IRS reported being caught up on opening mail in December 2020; however, as of May 2021, IRS officials said they were still processing returns received in 2020.[405] IRS had about 11.7 million unprocessed returns as of May 11, 2021, and its processing backlog of tentative refund claims was roughly 15,000. We are continuing to review data on tentative refund application backlogs to determine the cause, what could have been done to mitigate the delays, and any actions IRS could take to address the issue going forward.In the meantime, transparent communication on these issues and delays could help the IRS follow the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and help the taxpayer know when to expect their refund. According to IRS’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, taxpayers are entitled to clear explanations of the laws and IRS procedures. An explanation on IRS’s website that IRS is processing tentative refunds beyond the expected 90 days due to service disruptions would provide taxpayers with more accurate information and expectations for receiving a refund. In discussions with IRS on the refund delays, we indicated that based on our findings, we are considering a recommendation regarding communication of the issue to taxpayers. In response, on May 21, 2021, IRS added an update to irs.gov indicating that due to the lingering effects of COVID-19, IRS continues to experience inventory backlogs and longer than normal processing times for Forms 1139 and 1045. The update also states that IRS cannot provide a time frame for how long taxpayers will wait for a refund. IRS’s communication effort is an improvement. However, even without an exact time frame, IRS could provide taxpayers a clearer indication of the magnitude of delays.[406] For example, IRS could indicate that processing times may exceed 90 days given current circumstances.[407]NOL and AMT approved refunds by industry sector. Analysis of IRS data from Form 1120-X and Form 1139 and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes showed that among corporations, the manufacturing; professional, scientific, and technical services; and wholesale trade industries have claimed the highest number of NOL and AMT refunds so far, making up about 37 percent of all approved refunds to corporations (see table).[408] However, the “management of companies and enterprises” industry makes up about 48 percent of all refund dollars approved for corporations, with an average refund size of nearly $6.9 million.[409] Companies under this industry classification can span or overlap with other industry classifications. We will continue to examine refund claim activity across industry types. Approved Corporate Refunds for Net Operating Loss (NOL) and Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Credit by Industry, Mar. 27, 2020–Apr. 29, 2021 Industrya Average refund size ($ in thousands)b Number of approved refunds Percentage of all approved refunds Amount approved($ in thousands) Percentage of total amount approved Management of Companies and Enterprises $ 6,872 1,162 5.56% $ 7,985,785 48.24% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction $ 1,099 224 1.07% $ 246,264 1.49% Manufacturing $ 837 2,769 13.26% $ 2,317,482 14.00% Information $ 819 489 2.34% $ 400,662 2.42% Transportation and Warehousing $ 669 668 3.20% $ 446,641 2.70% Retail Trade $ 618 1,737 8.32% $ 1,073,968 6.49% Wholesale Trade $ 558 2,159 10.34% $ 1,204,231 7.27% Finance and Insurance $ 532 1,474 7.06% $ 784,003 4.74% Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services $ 363 461 2.21% $ 167,502 1.01% Accommodation and Food Services $ 356 375 1.80% $ 133,444 >1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $ 302 1,515 7.25% $ 456,864 2.76% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $ 300 231 1.11% $ 69,213 >1% Utilities $ 252 57 >1% $ 14,374 >1% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services $ 210 2,433 11.65% $ 511,531 3.09% Health Care and Social Assistance $ 208 955 4.57% $ 198,868 1.20% Educational Services $ 187 137 >1% $ 25,574 >1% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (not covered in economic census) $ 121 936 4.48% $ 113,216 >1% Construction $ 114 2,055 9.84% $ 234,626 1.42% Other Servicesc $ 65 586 2.81% $ 37,894 >1% Total N/A 20,423 100% $16,422,144 100% Source: GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service data. | GAO-21-551Notes: This table includes data from Forms 1120-X and Forms 1139 only, which make up 55 percent of the total number of approved refunds (which is different from the table with applications received found earlier in the document). Forms 1045 and 1040-X are filed by sole proprietors, individuals, estates, and trusts that do not always have an associated NAICS code. We were not able to identify NAICS sectors in IRS data for a small number of Employer Identification Numbers, which made up roughly 2 percent of the corporate records. This does not materially affect our results.a Industry is classified by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codesb Companies may receive more than one refund. Average refund size is calculated by dividing the total approved refund dollar amount by the number of approved refunds per industry. c except Public AdministrationInsights from public company reporting of provision use. The totality of tax filings reflecting the use of COVID-19 relief provisions will not be filed and processed for a few months. Therefore, to obtain additional preliminary insights on the extent corporations are using these provisions, specifically NOL, we examined a generalizable sample of 185 public company Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings starting with the March 27, 2020, enactment of the CARES Act, through March 26, 2021.[410] Based on our review of annual and quarterly reports for sampled companies, we estimate that about 15 percent of companies said they have or will use the NOL CARES Act provision, and about 5 percent of companies mentioned NOL but were unsure of whether they will use the provision (see table).[411] Estimated Reported Usage of CARES Act Net Operating Loss Provision Based on a Sample of 185 Public Company Filings, Mar. 27, 2020–Mar. 26, 2021 Estimated percentage of companies that said they did or will usea Estimated percentage of companies unsure about usage or effectb Estimated percentage of companies not using or no effectc Unable to determined 15% 5% 61% 19% Source: GAO analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) data. | GAO-21-551Note: All estimates in this table have a margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence level, of plus or minus 7 percentage points or fewer. This analysis is not representative of all companies that are eligible for the CARES Act net operating loss (NOL) provision and represents only publicly traded companies, which may have different characteristics than private companies. We reviewed report excerpts with keywords associated with NOL and “CARES Act” within 20-40 words. However, this does not automatically mean that the use of the provision was directly related to the CARES Act.aCompanies that included the specified provision in their SEC filing and said that they either already used it or planned to.bCompanies that mention the specified provision, but are still deciding or unsure if they will ultimately use it or were ambiguous in their mention of NOL.cCompanies that mention the specified provision, but explicitly say they will not use it and companies that did not mention the provision but had populated text related to some of our keywords.dCompanies that mention the specified provision, but that GAO analysts were unable to determine whether or not the company ultimately utilized CARES NOL or the company did not have any text from their filings related to our keywords.Some companies noted that the provision helped their company, for example, receive a refund or other longer-term tax benefits. Others said that they were still deciding whether to use the NOL provision, due to potential ownership changes that place limitations on the use of net operating losses and other tax attributes. Based on our analysis of the sampled companies, 37 reported that they did or will use NOL or were unsure if they will use. Of these, we found that businesses in the manufacturing industry mentioned NOL the most, followed by the finance and insurance industry and the information industry.[412] See below for the industry breakdown of companies that mention using or were unsure if they will use NOL.[413] Sampled Public Company Filings Mentioning CARES Act Net Operating Loss by Industry, From Mar. 27, 2020–Mar. 26, 2021 Sector Number of sampled companies that said they did or will use Number of sampled companies unsure if they will use Manufacturing 16 6 Finance and insurance 2 1 Information 2 1 Retail trade 1 1 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 2 0 Utilities 1 0 Transportation & warehousing 1 0 Accommodation and food services 1 0 Professional, scientific, and technical services 1 0 Educational services 0 1 Total: 27 10 Source: GAO analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission data. | GAO-21-551Note: Industry type was taken from the Standard Industrial Classification codes that appear in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, and translated into the North American Industry Classification System and indicate the company’s type of business. MethodologyWe reviewed IRS data as of April 29, 2021, federal laws, and agency guidance; and interviewed IRS officials and tax professionals. To analyze IRS data, we extracted the data from IRS databases on the use of these provisions from March 27, 2020, through April 29, 2021. We also aligned them with industry codes as reported by taxpayers, using their Employment Identification Number to show which industries took advantage of the tax provisions. Knowledgeable IRS officials confirmed the validity of our methodology. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.We selected a generalizable, random sample of 185 publicly traded companies from the Russell 3000 Index, which represents about 98 percent of U.S. incorporated equity securities and lists 3,328 unique companies with an SEC Central Index Key.[414] We computed sample sizes necessary to obtain a precision of at least plus or minus 7 percentage points, at the 95 percent confidence level, for a proportion estimate. We reviewed SEC public company reports filed from March 27, 2020, through March 26, 2021. In our analysis, we reviewed all filed Form 10-Ks and 10-Qs in that time span and ran computer code with a designated list of key terms, and pulled 20 words before and 40 words after the term. We then applied decision rules to manually analyze if the passages indicated whether businesses are using the provisions of the CARES Act. For example, if the SEC company filing provided a monetary value associated with federal NOL carrybacks or carryforwards after any CARES Act mention, we classified the company as using the NOL provision.As noted above, the sample does not represent all companies that may use the CARES Act NOL provision and only represents publicly traded companies, which may have different characteristics than private companies.[415] Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., the margin of error is +/- 7 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. This analysis is similar to the methodology used by authors of a University of Chicago study published in June 2020.[416]Agency Comments We provided IRS, Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, with a draft of this enclosure. IRS’s written comments are reproduced in appendix VIII , and IRS and Treasury provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget did not have any comments on this enclosure.IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation to clearly communicate on its website that there are delays beyond the statutory 90-day timeline in processing net operating loss and alternative minimum tax tentative refunds. However, IRS did say it would review messaging addressing tentative refund processing times and update it as necessary. We will monitor IRS actions to address this recommendation.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor the use of these COVID-19 related tax provisions and IRS’s efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance with them.GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendation on tax relief for businesses from a prior bimonthly CARES Act report.Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Tax Relief for Businesses Recommendation Status The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should update the Form 1040-X instructions to include information on the electronic filing capability for tax year 2019 (November 2020 report) Open. IRS agreed with our recommendation and said that it would start to update the Form 1040-X instructions to include information on the electronic filing (e-file) capability for tax year 2019. As of early May 2021, IRS still planned to include this information in the next routine annual update of the instructions with an October 31, 2021, release, rather than updating them sooner, out of cycle. According to IRS, the normal revision process takes 10 months to complete properly, and would be difficult to complete in a shorter time frame. IRS’s planned revision will occur after the deadline for submitting an application for a tentative refund via the temporary electronic fax procedures, which for some taxpayers, may require an accompanying Form 1040-X. This means that taxpayers who filed their 1040-X before the December 31 deadline with the temporary procedures did not find the e-file capability in the form instructions. However, some taxpayers will use Form 1040-X for other CARES Act refunds after that deadline, so instructions that are updated in tax year 2021 will still help ensure these taxpayers are aware of this option. A timelier update to the instructions would help taxpayers filing the 1040-X between now and when the annual update to the instructions occurs in October 2021. In the meantime, IRS previously posted information about the e-file availability on the Form 1040-X product page at IRS.gov, which is referenced in the first paragraph of the Form 1040-X instructions. IRS also added a development article dated February 18, 2021, to www.irs.gov/Form1040X to notify taxpayers that e-filing is available for amending 2019 and 2020 returns that were originally e-filed. We will continue to monitor any updates to the instructions. Related GAO ProductHigh Risk Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-Risk Areas. GAO-21-119SP. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2021.Contact information: Jessica Lucas-Judy, (202) 512-6806, [email protected] Loans for Aviation and Other Eligible BusinessesBookmark:By approving nearly $22 billion in loans to aviation and other eligible businesses out of the $46 billion in available funds, the Department of the Treasury provided critical assistance to large passenger air carriers, but smaller businesses did not see the same benefits. Entity involved: Department of the Treasury BackgroundThe CARES Act authorized the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to provide up to $46 billion in loans and loan guarantees to certain aviation businesses and other businesses deemed critical to maintaining national security (national security businesses).[417] This loan program was intended to provide liquidity to targeted sectors. Of the 267 applications submitted, Treasury executed 35 loans to businesses in these targeted sectors, totaling about $22 billion, as shown in the table below.[418] Loans for the CARES Act Loan Program for Aviation and Other Eligible Businesses Loan category Number of applications Number of loans executed Assistance provided ($ millions) Passenger and cargo air carrier 102 17 21,116 Repair station operator 41 5 19 Ticket agent 50 2 21 National security business 74 11 736 Total 267 35 21,891 Source: GAO analysis of Department of the Treasury data. | GAO-21-551Note: Section 4003 of the CARES Act authorized maximum assistance available through loans in three categories: passenger air carrier, repair station operator, and ticket agent ($25 billion); cargo air carrier ($4 billion); and businesses critical to maintaining national security ($17 billion). CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 4003, 134 Stat. 281, 470 (2020). To match the Department of the Treasury’s reporting on these loans, and because air carriers that received loans could provide both passenger and cargo air services, we combined all air carriers into a single category.The loan agreements executed by Treasury, as amended, ranged in size from nearly $295,000 to $7.5 billion.[419] Treasury prioritized applications from the largest passenger air carriers and executed loan agreements with seven of them totaling about $20.8 billion. In December 2020, we reported that Treasury’s policies and procedures to evaluate loan applications were generally consistent with selected standards for internal control, although some practices, such as the quality of external communication with stakeholders, could be improved. Given that Treasury’s authority to make new loans ended on December 31, 2020, we did not make recommendations but identified lessons learned from this program—highlighted below. In March 2021, we further reported that loan applicants did not receive loans for reasons such as not responding to Treasury’s requests for financial data, entering bankruptcy, not meeting Treasury’s credit standards, and—for national security businesses—not meeting Treasury’s criteria for a business critical to maintaining national security. Given our prior work on the implementation of the loan program, we focus below on the initial effects of the loan program on applicants. This enclosure satisfies a provision in the CARES Act that directs us to submit annual reports regarding the loan program.[420]Overview of Key IssuesReceiving a loan had generally positive effects on employment and operations for the businesses we interviewed. In comparing 16 loan applicants selected to cover the range of business types and sizes that applied, those businesses that received a Treasury loan generally reported positive effects on employment levels and operations, while those that did not receive loans reported negative effects.[421] Of the eight applicants we spoke to that received loans, several said the loan had a positive effect on their employment levels by allowing them to retain employees. Most loan recipients told us they used loan proceeds for payroll and other operational expenses. In contrast, all but one of the eight applicants we spoke to that did not receive loans attributed reductions in employment levels to the inability to receive a loan. Specifically, not receiving the loan funds coupled with reduced revenues meant these applicants had to pause planned hiring or lay off employees.With regard to businesses’ ability to continue operating, those that received loans generally reported that receiving a loan had a positive effect, and those that did not reported a negative effect. For loan recipients, five said the loan positively affected their operations, in part by enabling them to lease new equipment, keep skilled staff, or take advantage of new contracts. For those that did not receive the loan, seven said the overall effect on operations was negative. The reason was, in part, that they were not able to retain staff or hire new staff and therefore were not able to move forward with planned business activities or not able to take on new contracts. Treasury officials noted that to make these loans, the CARES Act directed Treasury to determine whether various conditions related to loan risk were met, including that employment levels be maintained and that the loans be prudently incurred and fully secured or made at a rate that reflects the risk of the loan, among other things. As such, officials told us that some businesses that were not in a strong financial position and had a need for financial assistance did not qualify for a loan.Loan program provided liquidity—the intended goal—to large passenger air carriers that applied. As we reported in December 2020, large passenger carriers viewed the loan program application and review process as responsive and flexible enough to address their financial needs—during a period of unprecedented declines in passenger demand.[422] Representatives from four large passenger air carriers we interviewed—two that received loans and two that did not—told us the existence of the loan program created liquidity in financial markets. The two large passenger air carriers that received the Treasury loan reported it provided critical liquidity to maintain operations. Two large passenger air carriers that applied but did not receive Treasury loans were able to access loans through private financial markets. These air carriers’ representatives credited the Treasury loan program with increasing the confidence of lenders in private financial markets to make loans to air carriers.According to Treasury officials, the purpose of this loan program was to provide liquidity to the targeted sectors, and they view the continued operations of major airlines as an indicator of the program’s success.Loan program provided fewer benefits to smaller businesses that we interviewed. Of the 16 loan applicants we interviewed, many of the 12 smaller businesses said the program did not work or did not work as well as it could have.[423] For smaller businesses we interviewed across all application categories (national security and aviation), the application process was long and expensive. For example, several smaller businesses we spoke to said they needed to hire outside legal counsel to assist with their applications. While the six smaller businesses that received loans were positive about the effects on employment and operations, representatives of some of these same businesses raised concerns that the loan amount was too small and the loan terms were, in some cases, too restrictive to allow the businesses to adapt to the post-pandemic environment.For the six smaller businesses that did not receive loans, representatives generally saw no benefits from applying to the program. Some of these businesses noted they spent significant time and money applying for the Treasury loan, in some cases at the expense of other financing options. Unlike the experience of large passenger air carriers, smaller businesses reported the loan program did not have a positive effect on their ability to receive alternative private financing, with most noting they were not able to find financing to take the place of the Treasury loan. According to Treasury officials, the concerns highlighted by applicants from smaller businesses reflect the loan program structure and the conditions imposed by statute. For example, they said that in order for Treasury to ensure that loans were sufficiently secured or made at a rate that reflected the risk of the loan as required by the CARES Act, Treasury had to undertake extensive due diligence on each applicant to assess its financial position. Treasury officials said that these requirements and others were unavoidably complex—a situation typical with such transactions. In these situations, it is not unusual for applicants to loan programs, such as this one, to hire a lawyer to assist with the process.All applicants we spoke to received assistance from other federal programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and the Payroll Support Program (PSP).[424] These programs offered financial assistance that, for many recipients, does not have to be repaid. However, for those that did not receive Treasury loans, other federal assistance was not generally viewed as a replacement for the Treasury loan program. As Treasury rolls out new emergency financial assistance programs, it should continue to apply lessons learned from the loan program. Treasury continues to implement emergency financial assistance programs, such as the Coronavirus Economic Relief for Transportation Services (CERTS) and the third extension of PSP (for more information see the Payroll Support Assistance to Aviation Businesses enclosure in app. I).[425] According to Treasury officials, the agency is applying the lessons it has learned from administering the loan program and other financial assistance programs to these newer ones. However, our interviews with loan applicants underscore lessons learned that we reported on in December 2020. Specifically: Clear communication. In December 2020, we reported concerns from industry associations representing businesses eligible for the loan program about Treasury’s communication with applicants on the status of their application and program timelines. Some loan program applicants we spoke with that did not receive loans were critical of Treasury’s ability to communicate clearly and consistently. Specifically, most of these applicants told us they were not satisfied with the explanations they received from Treasury regarding the status or outcome of their application. For example, two applicants said they thought their application was on track, only to find out within days of closing on the loan that Treasury had changed the loan terms. According to Treasury officials, loan closing dates for all applicants were scheduled at the beginning of the application review process, but approval was subject to the results of this review. In some cases, final decisions on an applicant’s creditworthiness were made close to the previously scheduled closing date. Multiple paths within a program to better accommodate businesses of varied types and sizes. A wide range of businesses—from large passenger air carriers with tens of thousands of employees to ticket agents, repair station operators, and air carriers with only a handful of employees—were eligible for and applied to this program. According to several applicants we interviewed, the cost of applying, in terms of time, dollars, and missed opportunities, was more onerous for smaller businesses. According to Treasury officials, for smaller businesses a loan program with the terms and conditions as required by the CARES Act may have been less helpful than a program like the Paycheck Protection Program or the Payroll Support Programs, which provided funds that did not need to be repaid. As we reported in December 2020, it is difficult to implement a program quickly for a wide range of businesses, so multiple programs or multiple paths within a program may better accommodate businesses of varied types and sizes. Leveraging resources from other agencies and external parties. According to some applicants we interviewed and as we previously reported from industry associations, they thought the program was designed for larger businesses, such as large passenger air carriers. For example, several applicants described multiple exchanges with Treasury to clarify the types of collateral available or why certain businesses could not undertake secured loans. Treasury officials said that agency staff, as well as the law firms and financial advisors employed by the agency to help administer this program, had significant experience in financial transactions. As we have reported, Treasury could have made greater use of expertise at the Department of Transportation (DOT) and other entities to design the program and help communicate with eligible businesses, based on the experiences of industry associations we interviewed. According to Treasury officials, the agency is leveraging expertise at DOT and from relevant industry associations as it sets up and rolls out the CERTS program. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed Treasury reports on the status of loan withdrawals and repayments as of June 1, 2021, and interviewed Treasury officials. We also interviewed 16 loan program applicants, selected based on whether they received a loan or not, the type of business (passenger air carrier, cargo air carrier, ticket agent, repair station operator, or business critical to maintaining national security), amount of loan request, and business size (as measured by number of employees). To enable comparison between those that received and did not receive loans, we selected eight loan recipients that reflected the mix of the factors above and eight applicants that were similar across those factors but did not receive a loan. In conducting these interviews, we used two sets of interview questions—one for those that received loans and one for those that applied but did not receive a loan. The information obtained from our interviews cannot be generalized to all loan program applicants. Agency Comments We provided the Department of Transportation (DOT), Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. Treasury provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT and OMB did not provide comments on the enclosure. GAO’s Ongoing Work We continue to review Treasury’s plans to monitor borrowers’ compliance with the terms and conditions of loan agreements. We are also completing a review on the effect of the pandemic on the aviation sector and how those businesses have responded. Further, we will continue to monitor Treasury’s implementation of federal financial assistance programs for the transportation sector authorized by COVID-19 relief laws in December 2020 and March 2021.Pursuant to Section 4026(f) of the CARES Act, we will provide copies of this enclosure to the following committees: in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on the Budget; and in the Senate, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on the Budget.Related GAO Product Financial Assistance: Lessons Learned from CARES Act Loan Program for Aviation and Other Eligible Businesses. GAO-21-198. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2020.Contact information: Heather Krause, (202) 512-2834, [email protected] Federal Reserve Lending Facilities Bookmark:The last of the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities (both CARES Act and non-CARES Act) is scheduled to stop purchasing assets or extending credit on July 30, 2021. As of June 30, 2021, the CARES Act facilities had $30.1 billion in outstanding asset purchases and $36.9 billion in outstanding loans to the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve’s oversight of the facilities is ongoing and focuses on previously identified risk areas.Entities involved: Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve System Background In response to the economic effects of COVID-19, and with the Secretary of the Treasury’s approval, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) established nine facilities supported by CARES Act funding.[426] These programs were established to provide liquidity to the financial system that supports lending to states, tribes, municipalities, eligible businesses, and nonprofit organizations.[427] All nine facilities stopped purchasing assets or extending credit by January 8, 2021. The Federal Reserve also established four facilities with the Treasury Secretary’s approval that did not receive CARES Act-appropriated funds.[428] These facilities were designed to provide liquidity to the financial sector and businesses. The last of these facilities is scheduled to stop extending credit by July 30, 2021. Overview of Key Issues As of June 30, 2021, the CARES Act facilities had $30.1 billion in outstanding assets and $36.9 billion in outstanding loans to the Federal Reserve Banks managing the facilities. The Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility was the only non-CARES Act facility that was extended beyond March 31, 2021, to July 30, 2021. This facility conducted an additional $41.6 billion in transactions from April through May 2021. CARES Act facilities. For the facilities that received CARES Act funds, outstanding assets—that is, assets (for example, corporate and municipal bonds) the facilities purchased and had not disposed of through sale or other means—peaked between November 2020 and January 2021.[429] These outstanding assets have since slightly declined. In June 2021, the Federal Reserve announced that it would begin the process of selling the assets in the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York anticipates that it will complete the sale of the facility’s assets by the end of 2021. See the figure below for outstanding assets held by the facilities as of June 2021. Outstanding Assets of Federal Reserve Lending Facilities Supported by CARES Act Funding, June 2020–June 2021Note: Beginning on Feb. 24, 2021, the amount of the Main Street Lending Program’s outstanding assets is reported net of an allowance for loan losses, which is updated quarterly.The Federal Reserve analyzes all of the CARES Act facilities on a quarterly basis to determine if it is necessary to set aside an allowance for potential loan losses in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As of March 31, 2021, the most recent financial statement available, only the Main Street Lending Program reflected a loan loss allowance, in the amount of $2.7 billion.[430] Of this amount, a specific allowance of $1.2 billion is for loans for which it has been determined to be probable that the program will be unable to collect all of the contractual interest and principal payments as scheduled in the loan agreement. The remaining $1.5 billion is a general allowance for all other outstanding loans under the program.As of May 31, 2021, the Main Street facilities had reported about $4 million in actual losses.[431] These, and any future losses, are covered by the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) CARES Act funding invested in the Main Street facilities. In its most recent report to Congress in June 2021, the Federal Reserve said it continued to expect that none of the facilities will result in a loss to the Federal Reserve.Non-CARES Act facilities. As of May 31, 2021, the four non-CARES Act facilities combined had conducted a little more than $377 billion in cumulative transactions—with the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility accounting for about $182 billion and $132.7 billion, respectively (see figure below).[432] About 60 percent of the transaction volume for non-CARES Act facilities occurred before May 15, 2020. The Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility was the only non-CARES Act facility extended beyond March 31, 2021, through July 30, 2021, and it conducted an additional $41.6 billion in transactions in April and May 2021.[433] Cumulative Transaction Volume of Federal Reserve Lending Facilities Not Supported by CARES Act Funding, Apr. 2020–May 2021Note: This figure illustrates the cumulative transaction volume for non-CARES Act facilities. To the extent that loans have been repaid, the outstanding balances will be lower.As of October 14, 2020, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility had fully repaid all loans used to purchase commercial paper. As of May 9, 2021, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility had also fully repaid all loans to Federal Reserve Banks. None of the three facilities resulted in a loss to the Federal Reserve. According to the Federal Reserve’s quarterly financial reports, as of March 31, 2021, the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility did not require an allowance for loan losses, and as of May 31, 2021, it had $84.2 billion in outstanding loans. Oversight of facilities. The Federal Reserve’s Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems’ general framework for oversight of all of the facilities consists of three phases. In the initial phase of oversight, the division established oversight approaches and procedures. In the second phase, the division’s reviews assessed the adequacy of the design of the facilities’ controls and processes in ensuring effective operations. The division completed its second-phase reviews for all facilities by December 2020, and found the design of controls and processes to be effective. According to Federal Reserve officials, the division commenced the third and final phase of oversight activities in December 2020, and as of May 2021, the division was still in this phase. For this final phase of review, the division is leveraging findings from second-phase reviews to identify risk areas for continued oversight, including collateral and asset management, conflicts of interest, risk management, and internal controls. According to phase three planning documents, the division will develop and periodically review detailed work plans for each risk area. The division also plans to complete interim reports summarizing the scope of oversight activities at 6-month intervals.Methodology To conduct this work, we reviewed Federal Reserve documentation on each facility, including term sheets, reports to Congress, and the most recent Federal Reserve data available on the facilities’ transactions and outstanding loans and assets, as of June 2021. We assessed the reliability of the transaction data and outstanding asset purchases by reviewing published data on the facilities and obtaining information from Federal Reserve officials on the collection, maintenance, and compilation of the data. We found these data to be reliable for our purposes. We also interviewed Federal Reserve and Treasury officials.Agency Comments We provided a copy of this enclosure to the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The Federal Reserve provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. Treasury and OMB did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkIn our ongoing work on the Federal Reserve facilities, we will continue to monitor outstanding assets and loans, and the Federal Reserve’s oversight of the facilities. We also plan to analyze the characteristics of participants of select CARES Act-supported facilities.In July 2011, we made two recommendations regarding facilities the Federal Reserve established in response to the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Because the Federal Reserve established similar facilities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, these recommendations are relevant. The two recommendations are for the Federal Reserve to (1) strengthen procedures related to high-risk borrowers and (2) estimate and track losses within and across all facilities. We closed the first recommendation in December 2020 based on the Federal Reserve having established eligibility requirements and terms that applied to all participants, including high-risk borrowers. We closed the second recommendation in May 2021 based on the Federal Reserve conducting scenario-based analyses and documenting a policy for evaluating loan losses, among other things, and using this information to adjust facilities’ terms and inform other facility-related policy decisions. Related GAO ProductsFederal Reserve Lending Programs: Use of CARES Act-Supported Programs Has Been Limited and Flow of Credit Has Generally Improved. GAO-21-180. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2020.Federal Reserve System: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance. GAO-11-696. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2011.Contact information: Michael E. Clements, (202) 512-8678, [email protected] Payroll Support Assistance to Aviation Businesses Bookmark:The Department of the Treasury continues to provide payroll assistance to the aviation industry and has developed and implemented a risk-based approach to monitoring and overseeing recipients’ compliance with the terms of this assistance. Entities involved: The Department of Transportation and the Department of the TreasuryBackground In September 2020, November 2020, and March 2021, we reported on the initial rollout of the Payroll Support Program (PSP1), which provided $32 billion that was appropriated by the CARES Act in March 2020, and the Payroll Support Program Extension (PSP2), which provided $16 billion that was appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 in December 2020.[434] In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 extended the program again by appropriating $15 billion to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to provide additional financial support to passenger air carriers and contractors that received financial assistance under PSP2.[435] This additional support, known as PSP3, must be used exclusively for employee wages, salaries, and benefits.[436] As was the case with PSP1 and PSP2, Treasury requires passenger air carriers that receive PSP3 payments of more than $100 million and contractors receiving more than $37.5 million to provide warrants or notes as taxpayer protection through Payroll Support Program agreements.[437] PSP3 recipients—passenger air carriers and contractors—must agree to refrain from conducting involuntary furloughs or terminations and reducing pay rates and benefits until September 30, 2021, or until their funds are exhausted, whichever is later. Other conditions for PSP3 recipients include requirements related to limits on executive compensation and restrictions on dividends or other capital distributions on the recipient’s common stock. Although passenger demand for air travel seems to be rebounding and leisure travel seems to be leading to an increase in airline bookings, according to industry sources, passenger demand for air travel faces a slow, uneven recovery over the next 3 years or more. The pace of the recovery will depend on many factors, including the COVID-19 vaccination rate globally and the broader economic recovery. Overview of Key Issues Treasury has nearly completed making payments for PSP2. Treasury continues to make payments under PSP2, and, as of mid-June 2021, had made payments of about $15.6 billion out of $16 billion available. Treasury has received 520 total applications for PSP2.[438] More specifically: Of these 520 applications, 317 applications were from passenger air carriers. The 10 largest payments for this category averaged about $1.4 billion. The average for the remaining passenger air carrier payments was about $3.2 million. The other 203 applications were from aviation contractors. The 10 largest payments for this category averaged about $49.6 million. The average for the remaining contractor payments was about $2.2 million. Due to the high demand for funds, Treasury prorated the amounts that passenger air carriers and contractors received through PSP2, as authorized by the statute. These prorated amounts represent the percentage of the total approved payment amount that a recipient receives. According to Treasury officials, the prorated amounts for PSP2 payments are 46.0 percent for passenger air carriers and 30.4 percent for aviation contractors. Treasury has begun making PSP3 payments, and only PSP2 recipients are eligible for PSP3 funds, as directed by statute. PSP2 recipients are eligible for payments under PSP3, as long as they otherwise meet the statutory criteria.[439] Treasury released a guidance document on its website to provide recipients with information about PSP3. Treasury officials said that, at this time, they do not plan to release additional guidance or information about PSP3. Rather, Treasury is communicating directly with PSP2 recipients about PSP3 payments. Treasury sent notifications to all approved PSP2 recipients. According to Treasury officials, these notifications included PSP3 statutory requirements and required that recipients certify that (1) they provided passenger air transportation or performed eligible contractor functions as of March 31, 2021, and (2) they had not involuntarily terminated, furloughed, or reduced pay or benefits between March 31, 2021, and the date the recipient signs a PSP3 agreement. The terms and conditions of PSP3 are similar to those of PSP2. However, unlike PSP2, PSP3 agreements do not have requirements related to recalling employees who were involuntarily terminated or furloughed. Treasury officials said that the PSP3 notification process was still ongoing because Treasury has not completed making payments of PSP2 funds. However, Treasury officials said they have not provided PSP3 information to PSP2 applicants who have not yet received their PSP2 payment, because these PSP2 applicants cannot qualify for PSP3 unless they receive payroll support under PSP2. Treasury’s monitoring and oversight of PSP1 funds involve two levels of compliance testing. Treasury uses its monitoring and oversight approach for PSP1 to ensure that recipients are in compliance with the PSP1 agreement’s key terms.[440] Each quarter, recipients submit information to Treasury via a web portal, according to Treasury officials. If a recipient fails to submit a quarterly report, even after Treasury has followed up with the recipient, Treasury will move directly to remediation. All recipients that have submitted a quarterly report undergo Level 1 testing, which is a set of automated testing rules Treasury has developed. A Level 1 test assesses recipients’ compliance with terms and agreements such as involuntary terminations and furloughs and restrictions on executive compensation. Treasury officials said that, as of May 2021, they were still evaluating the extent to which cash payments to airline executives payable after PSP requirements expire are in compliance with PSP agreement terms. Although Treasury relies primarily on the data from recipients’ quarterly reports for the first level of testing, Treasury may also use supplemental information, such as recall and rehire information that it requests recipients submit via a web portal. The Level 2 test is a more detailed review conducted by a Treasury analyst, who can communicate with the recipient to obtain additional information. According to Treasury documents and officials, a recipient will be escalated to a Level 2 test if their Level 1 test contains discrepancies.[441] As of May 2021, recipients that have undergone a Level 2 test have been elevated to that level because there were discrepancies in their Level 1 test. According to Treasury officials, most of the issues that are elevated to Level 2 testing are resolved. However, if a recipient does not clear Level 2 testing and Treasury determines that a recipient is not in compliance with the PSP agreement terms, there is a range of penalties. For example, under the terms and conditions of PSP agreements, Treasury can withhold additional payments or require repayment of previously disbursed payments. Treasury has levied penalties against 23 recipients out of all the recipients it has tested over three quarters, according to Treasury officials.[442] Most instances of noncompliance were due to involuntary terminations or failure to submit quarterly compliance monitoring reports, according to Treasury officials. The penalty amount that a recipient incurs varies based on the infraction. For example, according to Treasury officials, if a large number of employees were terminated or if some funds were used improperly, then Treasury may ask for all PSP funds to be returned, whereas if a recipient terminated one or two employees, then Treasury would request that the recipient return funds equal to the foregone compensation of those employees. Treasury plans to use the same monitoring and oversight approach for PSP2 and PSP3, with some updates to monitor for specific requirements. Treasury officials said that Treasury will continue to test quarterly reports submitted by recipients through a web portal to monitor PSP2 and PSP3 recipient compliance with agreement terms. As we reported in March 2021, PSP2 required that recipients recall employees who were involuntarily terminated or furloughed between either October 1, 2020, (for recipients that received PSP1 assistance) or March 27, 2020, (for recipients that did not receive PSP1 assistance) and the date of the PSP2 agreement. Each PSP2 payment was allocated in two payments, and prior to making the second payment, Treasury requires recipients to certify that they complied with employee recall-related requirements. After the certification is received and processed, Treasury may make the second PSP2 payment. However, if a recipient is found to be noncompliant with the recall-related requirements or any other requirement, the second PSP2 payment will be delayed until the recipient has been cleared by Treasury. Treasury monitors recipient compliance with these requirements through additional web portals.[443] Treasury also reviews subsequent quarterly reports submitted by the recipient to ensure that all terms are met. Treasury has said that it can also offset PSP2 payment amounts with penalties incurred from a PSP1 monitoring violation. For PSP3 monitoring and oversight, Treasury officials said that PSP3 recipients will have their payment delayed if they are found to be noncompliant with PSP2 Payroll Support Program agreements. Treasury can also offset PSP3 payment amounts with penalties incurred from a PSP1 or PSP2 monitoring violation. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed the CARES Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. We also reviewed agency guidance and documentation, and we interviewed Treasury officials to understand Treasury’s approach to implementing and providing monitoring and oversight of PSP1, PSP2, and PSP3. We also analyzed Treasury data about PSP2 and PSP3 as of June 16, 2021. We reviewed these data for missing information and outliers. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of summarizing the number and value of PSP2 and PSP3 payments. Agency CommentsWe provided the Department of Transportation (DOT), Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. DOT, Treasury, and OMB did not provide comments on the enclosure. GAO’s Ongoing Work As Treasury moves to complete making payments of PSP2 funds and continues making payments of PSP3 funds, we will continue to review Treasury’s implementation and oversight of these programs. We also will continue to monitor Treasury’s implementation of federal financial assistance programs for the transportation sector authorized by COVID-19 relief laws in December 2020 and March 2021.GAO’s Prior Recommendations Prior GAO Recommendation Related to Payroll Support Assistance for Aviation Businesses Recommendation Status The Secretary of the Treasury should finish developing and implement a compliance monitoring plan that identifies and responds to risks in the Payroll Support Program (PSP) to ensure program integrity and address potential fraud, including the use of funds for purposes other than for the continuation of employee wages, salaries, and benefits (November 2020 report). Closed. In April 2021, GAO confirmed that the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) had developed, documented, and implemented a risk-based approach to monitor PSP recipients’ compliance with the terms of the assistance. Treasury’s risk-based approach entails a two level compliance review. In the first level review, automated testing is conducted on all recipients’ quarterly reports using factors/thresholds that can trigger recipients being moved to the next review. In the second level review, Treasury analysts conduct a more detailed review of recipients that failed the first level review or were selected for other reasons. Treasury has also developed penalties and a process for remediating noncompliance with PSP agreement terms through Payroll Support Program agreements. As of April 2021, Treasury has identified noncompliance by recipients and applied penalties, as appropriate. Contact information: Heather Krause, (202) 512-2834, [email protected]’s Disaster Relief Fund Bookmark:FEMA’s workforce has been stretched thin as it takes on additional responsibilities to establish mass vaccination sites and provide funeral assistance to families impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic while preparing for the upcoming hurricane season. Entities involved: Federal Emergency Management Agency, within the Department of Homeland SecurityBackground Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund—the primary source of federal disaster assistance for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments—had never before been used during a nationwide public health emergency on the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic.[444] As of May 31, 2021, FEMA had obligated over $75 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund to respond to COVID-19. The Disaster Relief Fund’s balance was over $48 billion and FEMA projected that the balance would be approximately $12.3 billion on September 30, 2021. FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund Balance by Month, Feb. 2020–May 2021FEMA has used the Disaster Relief Fund to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by providing three primary types of disaster assistance. Individual Assistance program. FEMA’s Individual Assistance program provides assistance to disaster survivors to cover necessary expenses and serious needs—such as housing assistance, counseling, or funeral assistance—which cannot be met through insurance or low-interest loans. For the COVID-19 response, FEMA has provided lost wages assistance, funeral assistance, and crisis counseling.Public Assistance program. FEMA’s Public Assistance program provides assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and certain types of private nonprofit organizations so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies. For all 59 major disaster declarations for COVID-19, FEMA has authorized Public Assistance for emergency protective measures only. This may include eligible medical care, purchase and distribution of food, non-congregate medical sheltering, operation of Emergency Operations Centers, and the purchase and distribution of personal protective equipment.[445] On February 2, 2021, the President issued a memorandum that directed FEMA to fully reimburse states, territories, and tribes for all work eligible for emergency protective measures assistance.[446] Mission assignments. FEMA also issues mission assignments—work orders directing other federal agencies to provide direct assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments—to support disaster response and recovery. For the COVID-19 response, for example, FEMA issued a mission assignment to the Department of Defense to fund National Guard deployments to support state and territorial response efforts. In recent years, we reported on long-standing workforce management, capacity, and training challenges within FEMA. For example, in May 2020, we reported that FEMA had established mechanisms to qualify and deploy staff to disasters. However, FEMA’s qualification and deployment processes did not provide reliable and complete staffing information to field officials to ensure its workforce was effectively deployed and used during the 2017 and 2018 disaster seasons. Further, FEMA’s disaster workforce experienced challenges with receiving staff development through the agency’s existing methods to enhance the skills and competencies needed during disaster deployments—challenges FEMA headquarters officials acknowledged. Additionally, in 2018, we reported that FEMA’s available workforce was overwhelmed by the response needs of four sequential disasters. While FEMA has taken actions to address several of our workforce management-related recommendations since 2016 that covered topics such as staffing levels and staff development, a number of recommendations remain open. As FEMA continues to address these existing workforce challenges, it is now faced with responding to other missions, including the COVID-19 pandemic and unaccompanied minor children arriving at the Southwest border, which could further stretch its workforce.Overview of Key IssuesFEMA’s use of the Disaster Relief Fund to support COVID-19 activities. FEMA currently uses the Disaster Relief Fund to provide funding for the three types of disaster assistance mentioned above—(1) Individual Assistance; (2) Public Assistance; and (3) mission assignments––as part of the agency’s COVID-19 response.[447] As of May 31, 2021, FEMA had obligated over $75 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund to respond to COVID-19. Specifically: Individual Assistance. On August 8, 2020, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum that directed that up to $44 billion be made available from the Disaster Relief Fund to provide lost wages assistance to supplement unemployment insurance compensation.[448] According to FEMA officials, as of April 30, 2021, FEMA had obligated approximately $39 billion for the Lost Wages Assistance program. Further, in December 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, appropriated $2 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund for eligible funeral expenses for individuals or households with COVID-19-related funeral expenses.[449] On April 12, 2021, FEMA began accepting and processing applications for Funeral Assistance via a dedicated call center number, as discussed further below. Public Assistance. FEMA officials stated that as of June 4, 2021, FEMA had received 25,168 applications for Public Assistance and awarded $26.9 billion. If all of the remaining approximately 16,000 applicants submits projects, FEMA anticipates it will receive a minimum of approximately 32,000 additional public assistance projects for an estimated additional $27.8 billion as of the end of fiscal year 2021. FEMA officials stated that previous Public Assistance policy indicated that eligibility was limited to response activities and did not extend to operational costs at facilities. However, a January 21, 2021, presidential memorandum expands the definition of eligible goods and services under FEMA’s Public Assistance program to include the costs of opening and operating facilities such as schools, domestic violence shelters, transit systems, and others and may include the funding for the provision of personal protective equipment and disinfecting services and supplies.[450] According to FEMA officials, the memorandum will likely have a significant impact on their resources and operations. Specifically, FEMA officials stated that the eligibility of reopening and operating expenses for schools and other facilities is likely to significantly increase the number of applicants and cost of eligible claims under Public Assistance. Mission assignments. FEMA has issued mission assignments to multiple federal agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Defense, among others, to assist in the COVID-19 response. For example, FEMA issued a mission assignment to the Department of Defense to fund National Guard deployments to assist in recovery efforts. The presidential memorandum issued on January 21, 2021, provided that FEMA would fully reimburse expenses for National Guard activities to respond to COVID-19, which may include vaccination distribution.[451] According to FEMA, the estimated cost is over $4.2 billion for National Guard assistance as of May 31, 2021. The figure below shows FEMA’s obligations for COVID-19 by program and activity. FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund Obligations and Projections for COVID-19 by Program and Activity through June 2021Note: This figure includes Disaster Relief Fund obligations through May 31, 2021, and estimated obligations that FEMA projected through June 30, 2021.FEMA’s workforce and hurricane season preparedness. According to an assessment report issued by FEMA in January 2021, the scale and duration of COVID-19 operations challenged FEMA’s capabilities. The record-breaking response operations included the activation of the National Response Coordination Center for over a year (and counting). Simultaneously, it included FEMA coordinating with the White House Coronavirus Task Force and other federal agencies and supporting its state, local, tribal and territorial partners, while preserving its own workforce from illness. FEMA responded to many disasters in 2020, including a record-breaking hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean, and the most active fire year on record for the West Coast, with record-breaking wildfires in California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.[452] FEMA’s daily operations briefing dated June 14, 2021, shows FEMA’s incident management workforce consisted of 13,789 employees, of which 6,393 were deployed in response to COVID-19 and other natural disasters. Meteorologists are predicting an above average Atlantic hurricane season this year.[453] With hurricane season approaching and FEMA supporting numerous efforts outside of its normal core responsibilities, such as supporting the COVID-19 response and efforts to address the recent surge in unaccompanied minor children at the Southwest border, we are concerned that FEMA personnel may not be available to deploy or prepared to manage a catastrophic natural disaster or concurrent disasters. We have made a number of recommendations to FEMA regarding workforce challenges. For example, in May 2020, we recommended that FEMA develop a mechanism to assess how effectively its disaster workforce was deployed to meet mission needs in the field. FEMA officials we spoke with on May 7, 2021, stated that they analyzed past data on deployments and disaster declarations to identify future deployment scenarios and use the results of this analysis to mitigate any workforce shortfalls. Specifically, FEMA’s planned actions to mitigate shortfalls include: (1) replacing reservists and incident management workforce at community vaccination centers with surge capacity forces and the Peace Corps by early June and (2) hiring 600 temporary FEMA employees through its local hire program. Although FEMA has taken action to address our recommendations on staffing levels, staff development and other workforce management-related recommendations since 2016, more than 10 of these recommendations remain open. We will continue to monitor issues related to FEMA’s workforce management. FEMA is focusing on hurricane season preparation, using the time to coordinate and exercise with state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and other federal agencies. According to FEMA officials, FEMA is working to scale back and provide breaks to staff and teams who are continuously deployed, such as the Incident Management Assistance Teams, before the 2021 hurricane season, while minimizing the impact to current operations. Nevertheless, with the high number of hurricanes predicted, FEMA’s number of deployed staff could be stretched thinner. Mass vaccination sites. As part of a national effort to speed the pace of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and ensure equitable access to vaccinations, FEMA was directed by the President to establish Pilot Community Vaccination Centers (CVC). CVCs are a partnership among FEMA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal agencies, and states, tribal, and territorial governments. After an initial 8-week operational period, CVC pilot sites are closed or transitioned to the state entity to fully operate. As of June 1, 2021, FEMA reported that the Pilot CVCs had given more than 5.5 million doses of vaccines across 39 locations, including sites that have extended their participation in the pilot program.[454] In addition, FEMA is coordinating with other federal agencies to meet state, local, tribal, and territorial needs to support the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, FEMA officials stated that as of May 31, 2021, it had obligated $4.85 billion to states, tribes, and territories for vaccine distribution.[455] In addition, FEMA is deploying additional personnel to vaccination sites where they will assist people obtaining the vaccine. According to FEMA officials, assistance for vaccine distribution may include but is not limited to:leasing facilities or equipment to administer and store the vaccine;providing staffing and training support;providing personal protective equipment and other administrative supplies; andusing technology to register and track vaccine administration.FEMA funeral assistance for COVID 19-related deaths. In December 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, appropriated $2 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund for eligible funeral expenses for individuals or households with COVID-19-related funeral expenses.[456] FEMA began accepting applications on April 12, 2021. According to FEMA data, as of June 28, 2021, the call center had received and is processing 222,862 applications, and as of the same date, FEMA approved 66,798 applications and awarded approximately $447.8 million. FEMA’s Funeral Assistance by State and Territory as of June 28, 2021FEMA’s interim policy on COVID-19 funeral assistance states that it will reimburse up to a maximum of $9,000 per funeral in eligible funeral expenses incurred after January 20, 2020, for deaths attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The maximum for multiple deaths under the same applicant per state or territory is $35,500. Reimbursements are given for eligible funeral expenses including remains transfer, caskets/urns, burial plots/cremation niches, and markers/headstones.[457] FEMA does not accept online applications but, according to FEMA officials, hired a contractor to establish a dedicated call center number and staff to accept and support processing applications for COVID-19 related funeral assistance. Currently, the call center is staffed by approximately 3,500 operators across the United States. According to FEMA officials, as of June 30, 2021, the average time to complete an application was about 21 minutes. After completion of the application with a call center representative, applicants are provided an application number that can be used to provide supporting documentation to FEMA online, by fax, or mail. In addition, FEMA sends applicants a letter requesting additional documents to support their application for COVID-19 funeral assistance. Applicants approved for COVID-19 funeral assistance will receive a check by mail or direct deposit, depending on the option chosen when applying for assistance. Applicants who are not approved for COVID-19 funeral assistance are sent a decision letter explaining why they are not approved, their rights to appeal the decision, and information on how to appeal it. Applicants have 60 days from the date of the decision letter to appeal FEMA’s decision. Any U.S. citizen, non-citizen national, or qualified alien who incurred funeral expenses due to a COVID-19 related death after January 20, 2020, can apply for funeral assistance. FEMA has not established a deadline to apply at this time. The scope of FEMA’s funeral assistance program for COVID-19 related deaths is unprecedented. Prior to COVID-19, FEMA officials stated that approximately 6,000 cases had been processed for funeral assistance for other natural disasters over the past decade. According to FEMA officials, FEMA has internal controls in place to mitigate fraudulent activity. FEMA officials described their internal controls as efficient for preventing and identifying fraud, and to develop them, FEMA relied on numerous sources and lessons learned from previous disasters. Since FEMA only recently began making payments, we have not fully assessed the effectiveness of these controls. However, we will continue to assess the controls FEMA is using to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in this program. We will continue to report on this program in the next CARES Act report to be issued in October 2021. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed FEMA’s monthly Disaster Relief Fund reports to obtain FEMA’s obligations data for Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and mission assignments for March 2020 through May 2021 and projected obligations data through June 2021. We reviewed federal laws and FEMA policies and guidance on how states, local, tribal, and territorial entities may apply for and receive assistance to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also reviewed data from FEMA’s Senior Leadership briefings, FEMA’s Daily Operations Briefings, and FEMA’s advisories on mass vaccination sites, public assistance, FEMA’s workforce, and funeral assistance related to COVID-19. We presented FEMA’s data on funeral assistance, but did not independently review it for accuracy. In addition, we reviewed August 8, 2020, and January 21, 2021, and February 2, 2021 presidential memorandums; FEMA’s fact sheets; and FEMA’s initial assessment of its COVID-19 response report; as well as previous GAO reports on FEMA’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other natural disasters. Finally, we interviewed FEMA officials on their initial efforts in implementing the funeral assistance program.Agency Comments We provided a draft of this enclosure to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FEMA, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In its comments, which are reproduced in appendix VII, DHS outlined various actions it has taken to respond to the COVID 19 pandemic. Specifically, DHS noted that FEMA successfully established federal Community Vaccination Centers to administer vaccines while also accomplishing its commitment to deliver impartial and equitable programs and services to communities. DHS further stated that FEMA adapted its strategy for response and recovery by making resources available for states to fund more on-the ground efforts to promote vaccinations. In addition, FEMA used funds to help individuals with funeral expenses for deaths that were attributed to COVID-19 and noted that funeral assistance at this scale is unprecedented. DHS further stated that FEMA implemented this program with numerous fraud prevention measures to ensure oversight and accountability. DHS also noted steps that FEMA is taking to prepare for hurricane season, including ensuring that the disaster workforce is prepared to address this additional workload. DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor issues related to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, workforce, and funeral assistance for COVID-19 related deaths. Specifically, we will monitor obligations for Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and mission assignments, as well as the balance in the fund. In addition, we will monitor FEMA’s workforce challenges and efforts to execute its funeral assistance program and the fraud internal controls established for it. GAO’s Prior RecommendationsThe table below presents our recommendation(s) on FEMA’s response to COVID-19 from prior CARES Act reports. Prior GAO Recommendations Related to COVID-19 Recommendation Status The Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator should adhere to the agency’s protocols listed in the updated 2019 Tribal Consultation Policy by obtaining tribal input via the four phases of the tribal consultation process when developing new policies and procedures related to COVID-19 assistance. (March 2021 report). Open. DHS concurred with our recommendation. DHS stated that FEMA’s National Tribal Affairs Adviser, based in the Office of External Affairs, will coordinate with other FEMA offices and directorates, as appropriate, to review the agency’s adherence to protocols listed in the Tribal Consultation policy. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator should provide timely and consistent technical assistance to support tribal governments’ efforts to request and receive Public Assistance as direct recipients, including providing additional personnel, if necessary, to ensure that tribal nations are able to effectively respond to COVID-19. (March 2021 report). Open. DHS concurred with our recommendation. DHS stated that FEMA’s Recovery Directorate will publish a memorandum that will contain direction to FEMA regions regarding the assignment of Public Assistance program delivery managers to promote equitable delivery of Public Assistance to tribal governments. FEMA stated that it plans to send the memorandum to tribal governments in July 2021. The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency—who heads one of the agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—consistent with their roles and responsibilities, should work with relevant federal, state, territorial, and tribal stakeholders to devise interim solutions, such as systems and guidance and dissemination of best practices, to help states enhance their ability to track the status of supply requests and plan for supply needs for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic response. (GAO-20-701) Open. In September 2020, DHS disagreed with this recommendation, noting, among other things, work that FEMA had already done to manage the medical supply chain and increase supply availability. Although DHS disagreed with our recommendation, it began taking some actions in March 2021. As of May 2021, DHS has not demonstrated action to devise interim solutions that would systematically help states, tribes, and territories effectively track, manage, and plan for supplies to carry out the COVID-19 pandemic response in the absence of state-level end-to-end logistics capabilities that would track critical supplies required for a response of this scale. We note that we made this recommendation to both DHS and HHS with the intent that they would work together under the Unified Coordination Group to address challenges reported by state officials with both public health and emergency management responsibilities. Moreover, we recommended they take actions that were consistent with the roles and responsibilities that were to be more clearly defined as HHS took a more central role in leading supply distribution. The recommendation to define those roles and responsibilities remains open. Moreover, although both DHS and HHS have reported separate actions, taken as part of other efforts within each separate purview, neither has articulated how they worked with the other nor how they assessed whether the actions changed the experiences of state officials who reported issues during our prior work. Without systematic and deliberate action to help states ensure they have the support they need to track, manage, and plan for supplies, states, tribes, and territories on the front lines of the whole-of-nation COVID-19 response may continue to face challenges that hamper their effectiveness. Related GAO Products FEMA Disaster Workforce: Actions Needed to Address Deployment and Staff Development Challenges. GAO-20-360. Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2020. The Nation's Fiscal Health: Action Is Needed to Address the Federal Government's Fiscal Future. GAO-20-403SP. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2020.Disaster Response: Federal Assistance and Selected States and Territory Efforts to Identify Deaths from 2017. GAO-19-486. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2019.Contact information: Chris Currie, (404) 679-1875, [email protected] Airport Grants Bookmark:The Federal Aviation Administration is administering grants to help the nation’s airports respond to and recover from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Entity involved: Federal Aviation Administration, within the Department of TransportationBackground Historic decreases in passenger demand for air travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected U.S. airports’ abilities to generate the revenue needed for operating and infrastructure costs. According to data filed with the Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. airlines carried about 47 percent fewer passengers in March 2021 than in March 2019. One airport association estimates that U.S. airports will face $40 billion in operating losses and additional costs related to COVID-19 from March 2020 to March 2022. The CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provide a combined total of $20 billion in federal funding for U.S. airports to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, although funding allocation and certain allowable uses differ under each act. Obligations and expenditures. Of the $20 billion combined total in federal COVID-19 relief funding provided by the CARES Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for U.S. airports, about $10.6 billion has been obligated and $6.5 billion expended as of May 14, 2021. CARES Act. The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, provided $10 billion to support U.S. airports of all sizes to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.[458] Airport owners—also known as airport sponsors—may use CARES Act funds for any purpose for which airport revenues may be lawfully used, including for airport operating expenses and debt service. As of May 14, 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had obligated about $9.5 billion and expended over $6.5 billion to reimburse airports for eligible costs and to increase the federal share for 2020 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, according to FAA officials (see table). Specifically, for larger airports, FAA has obligated about $6.5 billion, and expended about $5 billion; for smaller airports, FAA has obligated about $3 billion, and expended $1.5 billion in CARES funding.[459] As of May 14, 2021, FAA had processed CARES Act grant applications for 3,230 U.S. airports. FAA Obligations and Expenditures for CARES Act Airport Grants, as of May 14, 2021 Funding group Obligations ($ thousands) Expenditures ($ thousands) Increase federal share for 2020 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grantsa $513,706 $276,390 Commercial service airportsb $7,134,220 $5,456,731 Primary airportsc $1,628,724 $665,363 General aviation airportsd $100,311 $63,846 Reallocated CARES Act fundse $151,387 $13,795 Total $9,528,349 $6,476,125 Source: GAO analysis of CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) and data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). | GAO-21-551aThe CARES Act directed FAA to allocate funding to these groups through various formulas. Approximately 3,300 airports in the U.S. are part of the national airport system and are eligible to receive federal AIP grants to fund infrastructure projects. The CARES Act appropriated at least $500 million to increase the federal share to 100 percent for grants awarded for airport infrastructure projects under fiscal year 2020 and supplemental discretionary grants.bCommercial service airports are publicly owned airports with at least 2,500 passenger boardings per year and scheduled air service. cPrimary airports are large, medium, and small hub and non-hub airports with more than 10,000 passenger boardings per year. dGeneral aviation airports are public-use airports with fewer than 2,500 passenger boardings per year and no scheduled air service. eUnder the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, unallocated CARES funds as of December 27, 2020 were to be allocated under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 using the primary commercial service and certain cargo airports allocation formula. According to FAA officials, FAA calculated that $290,774,557 in CARES Act funds are available for reallocation under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, enacted on December 27, 2020, provided $2 billion in additional federal aid to help eligible airports and certain tenants to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19.[460] Airports must use Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 grant funding for costs related to operations, personnel, cleaning, sanitization, janitorial services, combating the spread of pathogens at the airport, and debt service payments.[461] As of May 14, 2021, FAA had obligated about $1 billion and expended about $53 million to reimburse airports for eligible costs, according to FAA officials (see table). For larger airports, FAA has obligated about $606 million, and expended about $35 million, while for smaller airports, FAA has obligated about $400 million, and expended $14 million in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 funding. As of May 14, 2021, FAA had processed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 grant applications for 2,636 U.S. airports. FAA Obligations and Expenditures for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Airport Grants, as of May 14, 2021 Funding group Obligations ($ thousands) Expenditures ($ thousands) Primary commercial service airports and certain cargo airportsa $929,416 $48,209 Non-primary commercial service and general aviation airportsb $8,833 $723 Non-primary airports participating in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Contract Tower programc $1,264 $11 Tenant relief for primary commercial service airports $65,921 $0 Small Community Air Service Development Programd $4,000 $4,000 Total $1,009,434 $52,943 Source: GAO analysis of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. M, tit. IV, 134 Stat. 1182, 1939-41 (2020), and data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). | GAO-21-551aThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 directed FAA to allocate funding to these groups through various formulas. Primary commercial service airports are publicly owned airports with more than 10,000 passenger boardings per year and scheduled air service. Cargo airports are airports that, in addition to any other air transportation services that may be available, are served by aircraft providing air transportation of only cargo with a total annual landed weight of more than 100 million pounds. bNon-primary commercial service airports have at least 2,500 and no more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year. General aviation airports are public-use airports with fewer than 2,500 passenger boardings per year or no scheduled air service. cNon-primary airports are the same as non-primary commercial service airports, and have at least 2,500 and no more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year. The Federal Contract Tower Program, established in 1982, allows the agency to contract out the operation of certain towers. dThe Small Community Air Service Development Program is a grant program designed to help small communities address air service and airfare issues. American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, enacted on March 11, 2021, provided an additional $8 billion for airport assistance (see table).[462] The allowable uses of funds are similar to those for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and are available for costs related to operations, personnel, cleaning, sanitization, janitorial services, combating the spread of pathogens at the airport, and debt service payments. Certain amounts are available to increase the federal share for AIP grants, and to provide relief from rent and minimum annual guarantees to airport concessions. As of June 2021, FAA has determined individual airport allocations for airport grants, and has begun obligating and expending funds to increase the federal share for eligible AIP grants. According to officials, FAA has obligated about $12.3 million and expended about $75 thousand in American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 funds to increase the federal share for 2021 and eligible 2020 AIP grants for airports, as of May 14, 2021. The American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 Airport Grant Allocations Funding group Funds appropriated(in dollars)a Formula applied Primary commercial service airports and certain cargo airportsb Up to $6.49 billion Allocate first based on the statutory Airport Improvement Program (AIP) primary and cargo entitlement formulas. Allocate the remainder based on the number of enplanements the airport had in calendar year 2019, the most recent calendar year of available enplanement data, as a percentage of total 2019 enplanements for all primary airports. Increase federal share for 2021 and select 2020 AIP grants Up to $608 million Increase the federal share to 100 percent for grants awarded for airport infrastructure projects under fiscal year 2021 AIP and supplemental discretionary grants and for airport development projects under fiscal year 2020 which received less than a 100 percent federal share.c Non-primary commercial service and general aviation airportsd Up to $100 million Allocate based on current National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems categories, reflecting the percentage of the aggregate published eligible development costs for each such category, and then dividing the allocated funds evenly among the eligible airports in each category. Any remaining funds are to be allocated to primary commercial service airports and certain cargo airports described in the first funding group. Tenant relief for primary commercial service airportse Up to $800 million Allocate based on the number of airport enplanements in calendar year 2019 as a percentage of total calendar year 2019 enplanements for all primary airports. Of these funds, at least $640 million shall be available to provide relief to eligible small airport concessions, and at least $160 million shall be available to eligible large airport concessions at primary airports. Source: GAO analysis of the American Rescue Plan Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 7102, 135 Stat. 4, 96-98. | GAO-21-551aThe American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 directed FAA to allocate funding to these groups through various formulas. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 gives the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the authority to retain up to 0.1 percent of the $2 billion (up to $2 million) provided for Relief for Airports to fund the award and oversight by FAA of grants made under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 7102(c)(1), 135 Stat. 4, 98.bPrimary commercial service airports are publicly owned airports with more than 10,000 passenger boardings per year and scheduled air service. Cargo airports are airports that, in addition to any other air transportation services that may be available, are served by aircraft providing air transportation of only cargo with a total annual landed weight of more than 100 million pounds. cNational system airports are eligible to receive federal funding from AIP grants for infrastructure development. The distribution of federal AIP grants is based on a combination of formula funds—also referred to as entitlement funds—that are available to national system airports, and discretionary funds that FAA awards for selected eligible projects. Entitlement funds are apportioned by formula to airports and may generally be used for any eligible airport improvement or planning project. Discretionary funds are approved by FAA based on FAA selection criteria and a priority system, which FAA uses to rank projects based on the extent to which they reflect FAA’s nationally identified priorities. The federal share for AIP grants generally ranges from 75 percent to 95 percent. dNon-primary commercial service airports have at least 2,500 and no more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year. General aviation airports are public-use airports with fewer than 2,500 passenger boardings per year or no scheduled air service.ePrimary commercial airport sponsors may only use these funds to provide relief from rent and minimum annual guarantees to in-terminal airport tenants, subject to additional conditions. An eligible large airport concession is one that is in-terminal and has maximum gross receipts, averaged over the previous three fiscal years, of more than $56,420,000. An eligible small airport concession is one that is in-terminal and is a small business with maximum gross receipts, averaged over the previous three fiscal years, of less than $56,420,000, and is a joint venture. Overview of Key IssuesAirport grant administration, challenges, and oversight. With regard to COVID-19 relief funding appropriated by the CARES Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, FAA is processing airport grant applications, obligating funds, and reviewing invoices to reimburse airport sponsors. FAA has also provided guidance on airport grant requirements for these programs, including for workforce retention and tenant relief, which we discuss further below. For funds appropriated by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, FAA has established the Airport Rescue Grants Program, and as of June 2021, has determined airport allocations and published guidance. As we previously reported, FAA has identified challenges to administering CARES Act airport grants, including the need to process grants for over 3,000 airport sponsors under expedited time frames, with expanded eligible uses for these funds. To address the increased workload of processing and monitoring three new airport relief grant programs, FAA has established a dedicated team, including two full-time employees and three annuitants with prior airport grant management experience, to review and process airport payment requests. FAA officials stated they are currently evaluating whether to hire additional employees to assist with the workload. With regard to monitoring and oversight, FAA officials also reported that the agency hired a contractor in the fall of 2020 to review FAA’s reimbursement processes for CARES Act grants, develop an electronic dashboard to monitor and track funds, and provide recommendations on auditing policies and procedures. As of May 2021, FAA stated that its contractor was reviewing its CARES Act airport grant requirements and reimbursement process, as well as FAA’s process and program controls. FAA said it received a draft of the monitoring dashboard in late April 2021, and is reviewing it to determine if any adjustments are needed. This dashboard will be used to monitor and track funds across all three COVID-19 relief programs, according to FAA officials. Additionally, the contractor is currently auditing a sample of airport payments to determine whether FAA made any improper payments to airport sponsors. FAA is currently working with the contractor to collect data from selected airports to support this effort. In late June 2021, the contractor plans to provide program recommendations and an overall CARES Act airport grant program performance report to FAA. FAA officials said that they plan to apply any recommendations made to improve the CARES Act airport grant program to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 airport grant programs.As non-federal entities, public airport sponsors that receive federal grants are also subject to the Single Audit Act, and they must undergo a single audit of those awards annually when their expenditures meet a certain dollar threshold—currently $750,000 or more in a fiscal year.[463] Single audits of an entity’s financial statements and federal awards can help identify deficiencies in an award recipients’ compliance with applicable laws and regulations, help ensure the appropriate use of federal funds, and reduce the likelihood of federal improper payments. The DOT Office of Inspector General may check compliance and review single audit reports for DOT fund recipients, and is currently reviewing DOT’s processes for verifying that these audits have been completed, among other things.Workforce retention requirements and monitoring. Certain airport sponsors accepting CARES Act grant funds were required to continue to employ directly by the airport, through December 31, 2020, at least 90 percent of the number of individuals employed as of March 27, 2020.[464] The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 extended these workforce retention requirements through February 15, 2021. Airports that accept American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 grants will be subject to the same workforce retention requirements through September 30, 2021.[465] According to FAA, the 131 largest U.S. airports were subject to this requirement under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. FAA officials said at the time that airport sponsors execute a COVID-19 relief grant, sponsors certify that they will meet the workforce retention requirements and report their employee numbers.Since we last reported in March 2021, FAA has taken actions to monitor compliance with workforce retention requirements for the 131 affected airports. Officials stated that FAA has compared airport workforce numbers submitted as of February 15, 2021, compared to their baseline number of employees as of March 27, 2020, to ensure airports met the 90 percent employment threshold.[466] FAA officials said that as of May 2021, 117 out of the 131 eligible airports complied with May reporting requirements. Of the 14 remaining, FAA officials said they are in the process of clarifying their submissions, asking for outstanding submissions, or waiting until the grant sponsor has a grant agreement in place. As of May 2021, FAA had not received any waiver requests for the workforce retention requirements. Officials said they will continue to track airport workforce requirements through September 30, 2021, as required by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Airport grant funding uses. Airport association representatives told us that the federal funding provided has been critical. FAA has begun to collect and consolidate data from airports on general spending categories for CARES Act funding through grant close-out reports, which are completed once all allocated airport funds have been expended. As of May 14, 2021, FAA officials said that 476 CARES Act airport grants, totaling $1.66 billion, have been closed out. For these grants, the majority of airport grant funds have been used for debt service (about 52 percent of these funds, totaling $864 million) and payroll (about 39 percent of these funds, totaling $643 million). While FAA continues to collect these data on airport grant spending, officials said airports are generally using CARES Act funds on payroll, utilities, minor maintenance, and debt service. As for Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 funding, airport associations said that airport sponsors are generally using these grants to pay for operational expenses and costs related to mitigating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as cleaning and sanitation, social distancing measures, and upgrading heating and cooling systems. For the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, an airport association said airports plan on using these funds to pay for operational costs, debt service, and COVID-19 mitigation related projects, such as changing air conditioning systems with better filters or increasing air flow. Airport tenant relief. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 requirements, airport sponsors that accept tenant relief funds will waive rent and minimum annual guarantee obligations for eligible airport tenants beginning December 27, 2020, until the relief equals the total tenant relief allocation amount and to the extent permissible under state and local laws.[467] Eligible airport tenants include on-airport car rental and parking, and in-terminal concession tenants. To administer the tenant relief portion of the funding, FAA officials have calculated airport allocations and informed airport sponsors of the amount of eligible concessions relief, including funds they can use for administration costs.[468] FAA is requesting that airport sponsors provide tenant relief plans with their payment requests when they are ready to accept their concessions-relief funding. FAA officials said they are reviewing these plans to ensure that airport sponsors are providing relief according to the law and FAA guidance prior to approving payment. According to FAA guidance, FAA requires airport tenants to provide certifications of eligibility directly to airport sponsors, who then keep the documentation on file for possible audits. Airport association representatives stated that airports are facing challenges with the tenant relief portion of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, especially related to airports’ roles in determining tenant eligibility and providing relief. Specifically, airport representatives said that determining tenant eligibility can be complex due to varying tenant agreements, and that tenants are not often single entities. To address some of these challenges, FAA has provided guidance on how to administer concession relief through the FAQs posted to FAA’s website, which the agency updated with additional clarifications in April 2021. FAA has also held videoconferences to answer airports’ tenant relief questions, and has established a dedicated email for airports to direct questions to FAA headquarters. FAA officials stated that airports have asked questions about how to determine which tenants are eligible for relief, ways airports can offer relief, and how to equitably apportion the relief. Airport association representatives appreciated FAA’s response to airport inquiries, but noted that airports are continuing to work through questions on how to administer this tenant relief funding. An airport concessions association told us that while airports have been working to support their tenants, and airports are showing signs of recovery, dedicated tenant relief continues to be important to help respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on airport businesses, many of which have had to permanently or temporarily close, and furlough or lay off employees. An airport tenant employee union stated that while some businesses in airports are beginning to open back up, there are no employee retention requirements associated with the tenant relief funds, and not all companies are calling back or hiring enough workers to meet increasing demand at airport terminals. The airport concessions association and employee union stated that recovery for airport tenants and their employees would likely be uneven, even as passengers begin to return to airports, due to changes in the way people are flying as a result of the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 also provides in-terminal concession tenant relief funding for eligible airport sponsors. As of May 2021, FAA was in the process of drafting guidance for airports to administer these funds.Methodology To conduct this work, we analyzed FAA data on airport funding as of May 14, 2021. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective by performing interviews with agency officials and reviewing relevant documentation. We also reviewed federal laws and agency guidance related to the CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and conducted interviews with agency officials and representatives from airport associations, an airport concessions association, and an airport tenant employee union, selected to represent a wide variety of industry and airport types.Agency CommentsWe provided FAA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure. FAA provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not have any comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkOur work on aviation industry COVID-19 grants is ongoing. We will continue to monitor FAA’s administration of grants related to the CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. We will also continue to monitor aviation operations, impacts, and lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic through other ongoing work.Contact information: Heather Krause, (202) 512-2834 or [email protected] State and Local Relief and Recovery Funds Bookmark:Lessons from the implementation of the $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund can help the federal government ensure that states, localities, tribal governments, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories appropriately use the $350 billion Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities involved: Department of the Treasury and Office of Management and BudgetRecommendation for Executive Action The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should issue timely and sufficient single audit guidance for auditing recipients’ uses of payments from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. The Office of Management and Budget neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. BackgroundCongress and the President have appropriated $500 billion to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to provide direct funding to states, localities, tribal governments, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to help them respond to, and recover from, the COVID-19 pandemic.[469] This amount includes $150 billion that the CARES Act appropriated to Treasury for the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF)[470] in March 2020 as well as $350 billion that the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) appropriated to Treasury for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) in March 2021.[471]As of July 31, 2020, Treasury had disbursed $149.5 billion of the $150 billion CRF—$142 billion to states, localities, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and approximately $7.5 billion to tribal governments.[472] These recipients can use CRF payments to offset costs related to either the pandemic’s direct effects (e.g., public health needs) or its indirect effects (e.g., harm to individuals or businesses as a result of COVID-19-related closures).[473] The CSLFRF provides payments to these recipients to cover a broader range of costs stemming from the fiscal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.[474] ARPA established four key eligible use categories, providing that recipients may use the CSLFRF payments to cover costs incurred by December 31, 2024, to:respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits or aid to impacted industries, such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 pandemic, by providing premium pay to the recipients’ eligible workers or grants to eligible employers that have eligible workers who perform essential work;provide government services to the extent of any revenue reduction resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic relative to revenues collected in the recipient government’s most recent prepandemic full fiscal year; or make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.CSLFRF recipients may not use the payments for deposit into any pension fund. Furthermore, states, the District of Columbia, and territories may not use the funds to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation made between March 3, 2021, and the end of the fiscal year in which the recipient expends the last of the funds it receives.[475] If a recipient fails to comply with these requirements and restrictions, it must repay an amount equal to the amount of funds used in violation of these requirements and restrictions.[476]Overview of Key IssuesDistribution of CSLFRF. ARPA directs Treasury to allocate and distribute:$195.3 billion to the states and the District of Columbia;$130.2 billion to localities, including $65.1 billion to counties, $45.6 billion to metropolitan cities, and $19.5 billion to other cities;[477]$20 billion to tribal governments; and $4.5 billion to U.S. territories.[478] ARPA provides that Treasury shall distribute CSLFRF payments to tribal governments and initial payments to localities within 60 days of ARPA’s enactment, or May 10, 2021, to the extent practicable.[479] To receive the payments, states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories must first provide Treasury with a signed certification stating that they require the payments to carry out allowable activities and will comply with relevant requirements when they use the payments.[480] In general, to the extent practicable, ARPA provides that Treasury shall distribute payments to those entities no later than 60 days after it has received their certifications.[481] On May 10, 2021, Treasury announced that all eligible states, territories, metropolitan cities, counties, and tribal governments could request their allocation of the CSLFRF. According to Treasury, it had distributed $141 billion in CSLFRF payments as of May 28, 2021. Use of CRF. As of March 31, 2021, state, local, and territorial CRF recipients reported having spent $118 billion (83 percent) of the $142 billion distributed to them.[482] The proportions of the payments that the recipients reported spending varied widely (see figure). Percentages of Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Payments Recipients Reported Having Spent as of March 31, 2021Note: The data shown for each state reflect CRF payments to, and spending by, eligible localities in each state. The data shown do not include CRF payments to, and spending by, tribal governments, because complete recipient reporting data for tribal governments were not available at the time of our review. In addition, the data shown do not reflect spending, if any, by Lancaster County, Pa., because that CRF recipient had not reported on its spending at the time of our review.Guidance from Treasury’s Office of Inspector General (Treasury OIG) requires CRF recipients to report their uses of CRF payments in 17 specific spending categories (e.g., COVID-19 testing and contact tracing) and one unspecified category (i.e., for spending not captured in the other categories).[483] As the figure below shows, spending in the unspecified category made up 46 percent of state, local, and territorial CRF recipients’ reported spending as of March 31, 2021. Consistent with Treasury OIG guidance, the unspecified category includes all spending that CRF recipients report in aggregate—payments of less than $50,000 and payments to individuals, regardless of amount—which made up 78 percent of reported spending in the unspecified category as of March 31, 2021. More than half of the unspecified spending consisted of payments to individuals. According to related Treasury departmental guidance, such payments may include rent, mortgage, or funeral cost assistance to individuals and families directly impacted by a loss of income due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[484] Treasury OIG guidance also directs recipients to report their payroll costs as payments to individuals.[485]Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Recipient Spending as of March 31, 2021, by Spending CategoryNote: CRF spending by tribal governments is not included, because complete recipient reporting data for tribal governments were not available at the time of our review.aCRF recipients reported spending less than 3 percent in each of 10 other specified categories: workers compensation, expenses associated with the issuance of tax anticipation notes, administrative expenses, nursing home expenses, improve telework capabilities of public employees, food programs, budgeted personnel and services diverted to a substantially different use, housing support, unemployment benefits, and medical expenses.Guidance on eligible uses of the CSLFRF. On May 10, 2021 Treasury released an interim final rule implementing the CSLFRF.[486] This rule includes, among other things, guidance for recipients on the eligible uses of CSLFRF payments.The rule states that CSLFRF recipients have flexibility, within the four key eligible use categories identified in ARPA, to determine how best to use the payments to meet the needs of their communities and populations. However, the rule provides additional guidance intended to help recipients determine the types of programs and services that are eligible and provides examples of uses they may consider. The rule states that, in general, the CSLFRF’s eligible uses build on the CRF’s eligible uses. However, the rule notes that the eligible uses have been expanded to reflect changed circumstances, such as the need to support vaccination campaigns and address the COVID-19 pandemic’s disproportionate impact on certain populations, geographies, and economic sectors. For example, the rule states that eligible uses in the category of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic impacts must respond to the disease itself or the harmful consequence of the economic disruptions it caused. The rule directs recipients considering eligible uses in this category to, first, identify a need or negative impact of the pandemic and, second, identify how the program or service addresses the identified need or impact. The rule further identifies a nonexclusive list of programs or services that may be funded under this category. The rule also provides considerations for determining whether additional programs or services meet the eligibility criteria. The nonexclusive list includes the following additional eligible uses: COVID-19 mitigation and prevention (e.g., vaccinations, testing, contact tracing); salaries and benefits for public sector staff responding to COVID-19, including health and health care workers; assistance for small businesses and unemployed workers; and services for individuals (e.g., affordable housing, child care, education) in communities disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.The rule provides additional guidance to recipients for using payments in the other three key eligible use categories. For example, the rule:provides parameters for premium pay programs, such as by defining sectors that constitute essential work and establishing that payments should prioritize lower-income essential workers; identifies how recipients should measure a reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 pandemic and describes a broad range of services the payments may be used to support; anddefines necessary infrastructure investments, such as water and sewer projects aligned with existing Environmental Protection Agency–funded programs and broadband projects targeted at underserved populations, to enable households to work or attend school.Guidance on CSLFRF record keeping and reporting. Treasury’s interim final rule identified preliminary, high-level performance and expenditure reporting requirements for recipients. The rule stated that Treasury would provide additional, specific guidance and instructions for meeting the reporting requirements at a later date. The rule established that states, territories, metropolitan cities, and counties with populations over 250,000 will be required to submit an annual Recovery Plan Performance Report to Treasury. These recipients must submit initial reports to Treasury by August 31, 2021.[487] The rule stated that the reports are to include a range of Treasury-mandated and recipient-identified performance indicators that, along with other data, are intended to provide Treasury and the public with information about recipients’ projects and about recipients’ planning to achieve outcomes in an effective, efficient, and equitable manner. The rule also established that recipients must submit quarterly expenditure reports, with an interim report due to Treasury by August 31, 2021.[488] However, the rule did not address the following challenges that affected CRF reporting and that could limit the utility of CSLFRF reporting: The rule neither listed nor defined the CSLFRF expenditure categories. According to Treasury OIG officials, CRF recipients frequently asked for clarification of the meaning of expenditure categories. The rule did not include guidance on aggregate CSLFRF reporting or indicate whether CSLFRF expenditure categories would be required for any spending reported in aggregate. In the CRF reporting, a large percentage of spending—most of which was aggregate payments to individuals—did not identify an expenditure category. Aggregate payments to individuals could include, for example, purposes as diverse as recipient payroll costs and rental assistance to those impacted by a loss of income due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2021, Treasury officials told us that Treasury’s reporting guidance would require CSLFRF prime recipients to report both payments to individuals and payments below a certain dollar threshold in aggregate to ensure that reporting captures all spending. Therefore, in a draft of this report we provided to Treasury in June 2021 for review and comment, we recommended that Treasury, in its guidance, clearly define expenditure categories and require expenditure categories for at least some of the spending to be reported in aggregate, such as payments to individuals. In written comments, Treasury agreed with our recommendation and stated that the guidance would require all CSLFRF spending to be reported by expenditure category.Treasury subsequently issued reporting guidance on June 17, 2021, that addressed our recommendation. The guidance requires CSLFRF recipients to, among other things, report on CSLFRF-funded projects by expenditure category. Such categories include, for example, “COVID-19 Vaccination,” “Aid to Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality,” and “Education Assistance: Aid to High-Poverty Districts.” In addition, the guidance directs recipients to apply expenditure categories to payments reported in the aggregate—including payments to individuals—at the project level. This information can help ensure that CSLFRF recipients’ reporting will identify the purposes for which they use payments and that their reporting will effectively facilitate oversight and transparency. Treasury outreach to CSLFRF stakeholders. In September 2020, we reported that Treasury officials, after releasing guidance on eligible uses of the CRF, participated in forums with CRF stakeholders to discuss and answer questions related to the CRF. However, despite this outreach, CRF recipients reported that they found Treasury’s guidance on eligible uses of the funds to be unclear. For example, some states needed additional guidance on eligible uses of the funds, which delayed their transferring funds to subrecipients, such as local governments. In addition, unclear guidance increased the risk of CRF recipients’ noncompliance with spending requirements. Treasury subsequently finalized CRF guidance, which it published in the Federal Register in January 2021.Treasury has taken steps intended to ensure the clarity of its CSLFRF guidance for recipients. Treasury officials told us that they have consulted with eligible recipients on various aspects of CSLFRF implementation. For example, officials told us that they met with representatives from tribal governments five times in March and early April 2021. According to the officials, tribal participants in these meetings provided feedback on a range of implementation issues, including methodologies for determining allocations and reporting requirements. Treasury officials told us that they plan to continue consultations with recipients as they make payments and recipients begin to use the funds.Furthermore, Treasury is seeking direct recipient feedback on all aspects of its interim final rule and its work in administering the CSLFRF. To facilitate this feedback, the rule includes specific questions for recipients about ways in which Treasury could improve it. For instance, Treasury asks recipients whether there are additional specific services or costs that it should consider as eligible uses related to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic impacts and how those services or costs could help recipients respond to the pandemic. Treasury has asked for comments on the rule by July 16, 2021. CRF recipients’ experiences with CRF’s guidance on eligible uses demonstrate how important it will be for Treasury to use the information it collects from recipients to improve the clarity of CSLFRF guidance. Clear guidance can help ensure that recipients use CSLFRF payments appropriately to respond to, and recover from, the COVID-19 pandemic. We will continue to monitor and report on Treasury’s CSLFRF guidance, including the extent to which recipients find it clear and useful, in future reports. CSLFRF assistance listing number. Treasury initially assigned the same assistance listing number to the CSLFRF that it had previously assigned to the CRF. Assistance listings are detailed public descriptions of federal programs that provide federal financial assistance; the listings include information such as the eligible uses of funding and compliance requirements.[489] Assistance listing numbers are unique numbers assigned to assistance listings.Local government officials and members of the accountability community told us that Treasury’s use of a single assistance listing number for the CRF and CSLFRF could reduce the transparency of, and accountability for, recipients’ uses of their payments. For example, local government officials reported that many CRF and CSLFRF recipients—such as municipalities with limited financial management capacity—could have difficulty tracking payments from each of the funds separately under a single assistance listing number, according to an official from an association that represents local governments. Such difficulty could increase the risk that a recipient would use inappropriately some of the funding it received—for example, by using its CRF payment for costs incurred after December 31, 2021. We communicated these challenges to Treasury officials. On May 28, 2021, Treasury issued a new assistance listing number for the CSLFRF that is separate and distinct from the CRF’s number. In June 2021, in technical comments on a draft of this report, Treasury officials told us that they issued initial CSLFRF payments under the CRF assistance listing number to expedite the payments and meet statutory deadlines. They added that feedback that we, Treasury OIG, CSLFRF recipients, and other stakeholders provided had informed their decision to issue a new assistance listing number for the CSLFRF. Audit guidance. The Single Audit Act establishes requirements for states, localities, tribal governments, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and nonprofit organizations that receive federal awards to undergo single audits of those awards annually (unless a specific exception applies) when their expenditures meet a certain dollar threshold.[490] Single audits are critical to the federal government’s ability to help safeguard the use of the billions of dollars distributed through the CRF and CSLFRF. Specifically, a single audit may identify deficiencies in an award recipient’s compliance with applicable provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements and in its financial management and internal control systems. Correcting such deficiencies can help to reasonably assure award recipients’ appropriate use of federal funds and reduce the likelihood of federal improper payments. Auditors who conduct single audits follow guidance in the Single Audit Act’s Compliance Supplement, which provides guidelines and policy for performing single audits. Auditors rely on the supplement to understand a federal program’s objectives, procedures, and compliance requirements. Without it, auditors would need to research compliance requirements for each program in numerous statutes and regulations. After consultation with federal agencies, OMB annually updates and issues the supplement.[491] Auditors have reported that the timely issuance of the supplement is critical in allowing them to plan their work effectively. Treasury distributed nearly all CRF funds by July 31, 2020. In August 2020, OMB issued its Compliance Supplement for 2020 audits. However, the supplement did not include guidance for new COVID-19 relief programs, including the CRF. In September 2020, we recommended that OMB, in consultation with Treasury, issue an addendum to the 2020 Compliance Supplement as soon as possible to provide the necessary audit guidance for COVID-19 relief programs. OMB issued the addendum in December 2020. In March 2021, after enactment of two additional COVID-19 relief laws appropriating additional COVID-19 relief funding, we reported that the lag between the distribution of COVID-19 relief funds and OMB’s issuance of relevant single audit guidance had delayed auditors in conducting single audits and reporting results. These delays could affect recipients’ development of corrective action plans and resolution of findings identified during the audits, as well as federal agencies’ formulation of management decisions about single audit findings. Pursuant to ARPA, Treasury told us that it had distributed $141 billion in CSLFRF funds as of May 28, 2021. In April 2021, OMB officials told us that the 2021 Compliance Supplement will not include guidance for CSLFRF or other ARPA programs. OMB officials stated that they are currently working with agencies to identify single audit requirements for ARPA programs. In addition, OMB officials stated that they will continue to work with Treasury to evaluate the need for CSLFRF audit guidance and will work with agencies to evaluate the need for an addendum to the 2021 Compliance Supplement. OMB did not provide a timeline for issuing the 2021 Compliance Supplement or the related addendum. Standards for internal control in the federal government require that management identify, analyze, and respond to change—such as by providing timely guidance—to effectively monitor operations. The lack of timely single audit guidance could prevent auditors from completing and issuing timely audit reports, which could in turn limit federal agencies’ ability to ensure their awardees’ appropriate use of the CSLFRF and reduce the likelihood of improper payments. Given that OMB has not yet issued guidance on the ARPA programs, the audits will need to be delayed. OMB provided a 6-month extension for submitting 2021 single audit reports.[492] Although deadline extensions may be needed given the delays in issuing audit guidance, it is important to note that such extensions also delay the reporting of audit findings, recipients’ corrective actions, and federal awarding agencies’ management decisions. For example, with a 6-month extension, audit findings that are normally reported within 9 months after an entity’s fiscal year ends will not be due until 15 months after the fiscal year ends (see figure). The reporting delay also affects the development of corrective actions. Specifically, the management decision letter is normally due within 15 months after the fiscal year ends; however, with the 6-month extension, the letter will not be due until 21 months—nearly 2 years—after the fiscal year ends. As we previously reported, auditors normally start in April to conduct interim testing of entities whose fiscal year ends on June 30. Impact of Extended Deadline for Single Audit Reports on Audit Findings and Development of Corrective Action Plans for Entities Whose Fiscal Year Ends on June 30 To put this in perspective, California expended approximately $7.5 billion of the $9.5 billion CRF payments allocated to the state between July 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. However, because California’s fiscal year ends June 30, the single audit results of its CRF spending will not be due until September 30, 2022, and the management decision letter regarding such findings will not be due until March 31, 2023—almost 3 years after California started spending the CRF payments. In light of the late issuance of audit guidance for the COVID-19 programs, OMB’s addendum to the 2020 Compliance Supplement directed awarding agencies to allow a single audit extension to recipients and subrecipients that received COVID-19 funding. However, the addendum also strongly encouraged auditees and auditors to complete and submit their single audit reports as early as possible, given the large size of the COVID-19 programs and the federal government’s dependency on single audit reports to assist with proper oversight over these funds. The timely issuance of single audit guidance is critical to ensuring timely completion and reporting of single audits to inform the federal government of actions needed to help safeguard the use of the billions of dollars distributed through the CRF and CSLFRF. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed Pandemic Response Accountability Committee data as of March 31, 2021; federal laws; and guidance from Treasury and Treasury OIG. In addition, we interviewed officials from Treasury, Treasury OIG, and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. We also collected written responses to questions that we posed to OMB and associations representing different types of CRF and CSLFR recipients. Further, we reviewed our prior work on the implementation of the CRF. To determine the reliability of the data, we reviewed relevant documentation, tested the data for outliers and obvious errors, and interviewed knowledgeable officials from Treasury OIG and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. We found the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective. Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this report to Treasury and OMB for review and comment. Treasury provided written comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in appendix XI. OMB did not provide written comments on this enclosure and neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Treasury and OMB each provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.As described above, in a draft of this report, we recommended that Treasury, when developing recipient reporting guidance for the CSLFRF, clearly define expenditure categories and require expenditure categories for at least some spending reported in aggregate, such as payments to individuals. Treasury agreed with the draft recommendation and stated that forthcoming recipient reporting guidance would require all CSLFRF spending to be reported by expenditure category. We reviewed the guidance that Treasury subsequently issued on June 17, 2021, and determined that it addressed our recommendation. Therefore, we removed that draft recommendation from this report. In addition, in the draft of this report, we included a second recommendation to Treasury that it issue an assistance listing number for the CSLFRF that was separate and distinct from the assistance listing number for the CRF. As described above, on May 28, 2021, Treasury issued a separate assistance listing number for the CSLFRF. We determined that that action addressed our draft recommendation. Therefore, we removed that draft recommendation from this report. GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe currently have multiple ongoing or planned reviews of the funding that federal COVID-19 relief laws appropriated for agencies across the federal government to provide payments to states, the District of Columbia, localities, territories, and tribal governments in responding to, and recovering from, the COVID-19 pandemic. Our work on the CSLFRF, in particular, is ongoing. We will continue to review the extent to which federal agencies provide effective guidance to help recipients achieve accountability and transparency for their use of payments. We also plan to examine how CSLFRF recipients plan to spend their payments, address challenges they face in managing the funds, and evaluate outcomes of their funded projects. GAO’s Prior Recommendations The table below presents our recommendation on single audits from a prior bimonthly CARES Act report.Prior GAO Recommendation Related to Single Audits Recommendation Status The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should work in consultation with federal agencies and the audit community (e.g., agency Offices of Inspector General; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), to the extent practicable, to incorporate appropriate measures in OMB’s process for preparing single audit guidance, including the annual Single Audit Compliance Supplement, to better ensure that such guidance is issued in a timely manner and is responsive to users’ input and needs (March 2021 report). Open. OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Although OMB stated that it shares the draft Compliance Supplement with the grant and audit communities as part of the Compliance Supplement preparation process, OMB has not taken additional steps to ensure the Compliance Supplement and other single audit guidance is issued in a timely manner and is responsive to users’ input and needs. In April 2021, OMB reached out to us for consultation on the development of single audit guidance for the ARPA. In May, GAO, OMB, and audit community stakeholders met to further discuss single audit guidance needed for ARPA. OMB stated during the meeting that it does not have a planned issuance date for the 2021 Compliance Supplement. We will continue to monitor the actions OMB takes in response to our recommendation. Related GAO ProductsCOVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response and Recovery Efforts. GAO-20-625. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2020.COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely and Concerted Actions. GAO-20-701. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2020. COVID-19: Sustained Federal Action Is Crucial as Pandemic Enters Its Second Year. GAO-21-387. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2021. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO-14-704G. Washington, D.C.: September 2014.Recovery Act: Grant Implementation Experiences Offer Lessons for Accountability and Transparency, GAO-14-219. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2014.International TradeBookmark:U.S. imports of COVID-19-related products, such as face masks, ventilators, gloves, and hand sanitizers, have fluctuated. BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted businesses around the world as well as international supply chains. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, world merchandise trade grew by 8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2020 from the end of the third quarter of 2020—a significant improvement from the 21 percent decline in the second quarter of 2020.[493] Overview of Key IssuesU.S. trade of COVID-19-related products. U.S. imports of COVID-19-related products, such as face masks, ventilators, gloves, and hand sanitizers, have fluctuated. Available data indicate that U.S. imports of products in categories related to the COVID-19 response decreased by 8 percent from December 2020 through February 2021 before rebounding by 18 percent from February through March 2021 (see figure).[494] Imports of these products in March 2021 were 13 percent higher than in March 2020, when transmission of COVID-19 started to become widespread in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Monthly U.S. Imports of COVID-19-Related Products, by Product Type, Jan. 2018–Mar. 2021Note: U.S. Census Bureau trade statistics—a widely used source analyzing U.S. international trade—do not contain precise data on imports of COVID-19-related products. As a result, we estimated the import value of all product types and categories within those types using Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) statistical reporting numbers and associated product groupings listed by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). See U.S. International Trade Commission, COVID-19 Related Goods: U.S. Imports and Tariffs, Investigation No. 332-576, USITC Publication 5073 (Washington, D.C.: June 2020). Revisions to the HTS on July 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021, provided several new HTS-10 statistical reporting numbers for previously identified COVID-19-related product categories. We identified these product categories and included them in our analysis. Some HTS categories represent more than one product, and some categories contain products that are not directly relevant to COVID-19 responses. Product categories that USITC identified as COVID-19 related refer only to the subset of goods considered to be COVID-19 related in each HTS-10 statistical reporting number. Therefore, the values shown may overestimate the imports of products directly relevant to COVID-19 responses. Nevertheless, the values shown are useful indicators for tracking import trends for such products. For more information about factors influencing import trends in various types of COVID-19-related products, see U.S. International Trade Commission, COVID-19 Related Goods: The U.S. Industry, Market, Trade and Supply Chain Challenges, Investigation No. 332-580 (December 2020).Many factors affecting product availability—such as supply chain constraints, export restrictions, and product demand—may drive trends in imports of COVID-19-related products. Additionally, total trends in import value are related to changes in import prices. For example, the unit value of nasal swabs increased by 4 percent from March 2020 through March 2021, possibly contributing to a rise in the import values of those products over the same period. Overall, the need for medical supplies in response to the pandemic explains the increase in imports of these products since early 2020. Fluctuations in the number of COVID-19 cases may shift the demand for some COVID-19 products, such as pharmaceuticals and diagnostic equipment, over time.From December 2020 through March 2021, imports of COVID-19-related products from China—which accounted for 15 percent of such imports in March—increased, and imports of these products from the rest of the world also rose slightly.[495] During this period, imports of COVID-19-related products from China rose by 12 percent (from $2.44 billion to $2.75 billion) and imports of such products from other countries rose by 7 percent (from $15.1 billion to $16.2 billion). Previously, from November through December 2020, imports of COVID-19-related products from China had increased by 2 percent (from $2.39 billion to $2.44 billion) and from other countries by 7 percent (from $14.12 billion to $15.09 billion).[496] In January and February 2021, total U.S. exports of COVID-19 vaccines to European Union (EU) member countries and the United Kingdom (UK) were almost 10 times greater than the total U.S. imports of the vaccines from those countries.[497] The table below shows the value of U.S. imports and exports of COVID-19 vaccines to and from EU member countries and the UK. Value of U.S. Trade of COVID-19 Vaccines with European Union Member Countries and United Kingdom in Jan. and Feb. 2021 (U.S. dollars in millions) Month U.S. imports of COVID-19 vaccines from EU countries U.S. exports of COVID-19 vaccines to EU countries U.S. imports of COVID-19 vaccines from UK U.S. exports of COVID-19 vaccines to UK Total imports of COVID-19 vaccines Total exports of COVID-19 vaccines January 2021 1.3 61.7 0 0 1.3 61.7 February 2021 5 6.2 .6 0 5.6 6.2 Total 6.4 68.7 .6 0 7 68.7 Legend: EU = European Union, UK = United Kingdom.Source: GAO analysis of EU Commission and UK trade statistics. | GAO-21-551Note: We used international trade statistics on goods published by the EU Commission’s Eurostat and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs trade in goods statistics to identify imports and exports of vaccines against SARS-related coronaviruses between the U.S. and EU member countries and between the U.S. and the UK. We converted euros and pounds sterling into U.S. dollars using exchange rate data on January 31, 2021, from Federal Economic Reserve Data. The values shown may be underestimated, because the data for some EU member countries were not available. Because of rounding, numbers in columns may not sum to totals shown.U.S. trade statistics indicate that the EU and UK are the largest exporters of COVID-19 vaccines to the U.S. According to U.S. Census Bureau trade statistics, in January and February 2021, the majority of imports in the product category that contains COVID-19 vaccines were from EU member countries or the UK.[498] The EU Commission reported that member countries had exported 1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. as of March 11, 2021. However, according to CDC data, more than 275 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in the U.S. as of May 19, 2021, which suggests that the majority of these vaccines were produced domestically.The EU and UK governments have taken steps to regulate exports and liberalize imports of COVID-19 vaccines, which could affect trade flows of these products. On January 29, 2021, the European Commission of the EU issued a regulation imposing an export authorization requirement on certain COVID-19 vaccines and on March 11, 2021, the commission extended this requirement.[499] According to the European Commission, the rationale for the regulation is to ensure timely access to COVID-19 vaccines for all EU citizens and to increase transparency regarding vaccine exports outside the EU. In 2020, the EU and the UK allowed exemptions from value-added taxes on certain imports of COVID-19 vaccines, which will reduce supply chain constraints on acquiring COVID-19 vaccines. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has taken actions to increase domestic production of the COVID-19 vaccines. For instance, the U.S. government has made efforts to encourage pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Moderna to produce COVID-19 vaccines domestically. In April 2021, we reported that government officials had negotiated with these vaccine companies a requirement for domestic, large-scale manufacturing to ensure, among other things, timely delivery. HHS used the Defense Production Act Title I authorities to ensure sufficient domestic manufacturing capacity to produce the vaccines when the supply chain could have been disrupted.[500] MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed the most recent publicly available U.S. trade statistics from the Census Bureau combined with U.S. International Trade Commission data on product categories that contain COVID-19-related products.[501] To analyze U.S. imports and exports in COVID-19 vaccines, we extracted available EU and UK trade data from the European Commission and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Specifically, we identified exports and imports of vaccines against SARS-related coronaviruses from and to EU member countries and the UK.[502] We found the trade data sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. According to an EU Commission report on the quality of EU trade statistics, data on imports and exports outside the EU from 2016 through 2019 were likely fully accounted for because they rely on customs declarations.[503] Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also conducts several validation and credibility checks of its trade data to ensure their accuracy before publication. Agency CommentsWe provided a draft of this enclosure to the Office of Management and Budget, which had no comments on this enclosure.Related GAO ProductCOVID-19: Efforts to Increase Vaccine Availability and Perspectives on Initial Implementation. GAO-21-443. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2021.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor U.S. trade of COVID-19-related products and COVID-19 vaccines.Federal Fraud-Related CasesBookmark:Federal agencies’ enforcement actions on fraud-related charges help protect consumers and ensure that taxpayer dollars and government services related to COVID-19 serve their intended purposes. Entities involved: Government-wideBackgroundThe public health crisis, economic instability, and increased flow of federal funds associated with the COVID-19 pandemic present increased pressures and opportunities for fraud.[504] By proactively managing fraud risks, federal officials can help safeguard taxpayer dollars to ensure they serve their intended purpose,[505] particularly given that Congress had appropriated about $4.7 trillion as of May 31, 2021, to fund COVID-19 response and recovery efforts.[506] According to GAO’s A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs, among other things, effective managers of fraud risks refer instances of potential fraud to Offices of Inspector General (OIG) or other appropriate parties, such as law enforcement entities or the Department of Justice, for further investigation.[507] The extent of fraud associated with the COVID-19 relief funds appropriated to date has not yet been determined. One of the many challenges is that because of fraud’s deceptive nature, programs can incur financial losses related to fraud that are never identified, and such losses are difficult to reliably estimate. However, several individuals have already pleaded guilty to federal charges of defrauding COVID-19 relief programs—including the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) unemployment insurance (UI) program, and economic impact payments (EIP) issued by the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service. Also, one individual has been convicted at trial of PPP-related fraud.[508] In addition, numerous others faced related federal charges as of April 30, 2021. Further, federal hotlines have received numerous complaints from the public alleging potential fraud involving COVID-19 relief funds. For example, from March 2020 through April 2021, our hotline—known as FraudNet—received over an estimated 2,000 complaints related to the CARES Act, many of which involve SBA’s PPP and EIDL program, DOL’s UI program, and EIPs (see text box). Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse GAO’s FraudNet supports accountability across the federal government. Allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse can be submitted via the FraudNet portal or by calling the hotline at 1-800-424-5454. In addition to fraud against federal programs, scammers are also targeting consumers, which can result in financial losses and undermine health and safety. For example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is tracking complaints related to COVID-19 fraud against consumers. According to FTC reporting, the agency had received over 274,000 reports about fraud and over 64,000 reports about identity theft as of May 3, 2021.[509] Also according to FTC reporting, fraud linked to the COVID-19 pandemic has cost Americans over $423 million. Overview of Key IssuesSince March 2020, the Department of Justice has publicly announced charges in numerous fraud-related cases.[510] The charges—filed across the U.S. and investigated by a range of law enforcement agencies—include making false statements and engaging in identity theft, wire and bank fraud, and money laundering.[511] The number of individuals facing fraud-related charges has continued to grow in the past year and will likely increase, as these cases take time to develop.[512] Fraud against federal programs. From March 2020 through April 2021, 125 individuals pleaded guilty to federal charges of defrauding COVID-19 relief programs, including SBA’s PPP and EIDL program, DOL’s UI program, and EIPs.[513] For example:In one case, an individual was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison after fraudulently obtaining nearly $2 million in PPP loans. This individual pleaded guilty to bank fraud and admitted that she had purported to own two businesses, making false representations in PPP loan applications for these two businesses. According to the guilty plea, this individual submitted a PPP application representing that one business had paid more than $1.3 million in wages and compensation, and was approved for and received a PPP loan of more than $1.5 million. Also, this individual submitted a PPP application to a separate bank for the second business and, based on false representations, received a PPP loan for more than $400,000. This individual used the proceeds to make a payment on her personal student loan and to make online retail purchases, among other transactions. As part of another case, an individual pleaded guilty to major fraud against the U.S. and money laundering conspiracy, associated with a scheme to defraud SBA’s PPP and EIDL program. The individual participated in a scheme to submit more than 20 EIDL loan applications, and submitted a PPP application falsely representing that he had 120 employees on his payroll and over $5 million in payroll expenses when, in fact, he did not operate a business at all. After receiving the funds, this individual withdrew and wired proceeds from the scheme, totaling over $1.2 million, to other individuals. Two individuals pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with defrauding victims using various online scams, including collecting UI in the name of others during the COVID-19 pandemic.[514] One of these individuals was sentenced in March 2021 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. For more information on potential fraud in the UI programs, see the enclosure on Unemployment Insurance Programs in appendix I.One individual pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to unlawfully transfer, possess, and use a means of identification in connection with EIPs. This case involved the individual knowingly stealing EIPs issued in the names of other taxpayers and converting them for the individual’s own use. As of April 30, 2021, one individual had been convicted at trial for COVID-19 relief fraud. A federal jury found this individual guilty of bank fraud, making a false statement to a lending institution, and two counts of money laundering for obtaining a $2.1 million PPP loan and for falsely stating that he intended to use the money to make payroll and pay for rent and utilities for his company.[515] According to the complaint, this individual submitted a loan application that included false and misleading statements that the PPP funds would be used only for business-related purposes, to retain workers, and to maintain payroll or make mortgage payments, lease payments, and utilities payments. The complaint, however, alleges that this individual used a portion of the PPP funds to purchase a catamaran boat, which he registered in his name. Federal charges were pending against 403 individuals for attempting to defraud COVID-19 relief programs as of April 30, 2021.[516] Consumer fraud. In addition to fraud against federal programs, fraud can result in financial losses to consumers and undermine health and safety. From March 2020 through April 2021, 11 individuals or entities pleaded guilty to federal charges related to consumer fraud.[517] For example, in one case, an individual was sentenced to 3 years of probation and fined $50,000 for selling a misbranded drug, falsely claiming it would lower a consumer’s risk of contracting COVID-19 by nearly 50 percent. This individual pleaded guilty to the charges. There were also federal charges pending against 53 individuals or entities related to consumer fraud as of April 30, 2021. For example:In April 2021, the Department of Justice and FTC announced a civil complaint against one individual and a business in the first enforcement action alleging violations of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.[518] The complaint alleges that these defendants advertised that their products could prevent or treat COVID-19 without competent or reliable scientific evidence to support their claims, and further advertised without scientific support that their products were equally or more effective at preventing COVID-19 than the currently available vaccines.[519]In another case, one individual was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud by seeking more than $4 million from a purported purchaser of personal protective equipment (PPE) that neither he nor his co-conspirator owned or otherwise had authorization to sell.[520]In a third case, an individual was indicted for making false and misleading claims in numerous press releases that his company had developed a working, break-through technology that could accurately detect COVID-19 through a quick blood test.[521]In addition, FTC and the Food and Drug Administration have issued warning letters to companies for allegedly selling fraudulent COVID-19-related products, including those making deceptive or scientifically unsupported claims about their ability to prevent or treat COVID-19. As of April 30, 2021, 64 individuals and entities had pleaded guilty or faced federal charges for different types of consumer fraud, including schemes related to PPE sales, prevention or treatment, and testing (see figure). Number of Individuals or Entities Who Have Pleaded Guilty to or Faced Federal Charges for Consumer Fraud, as of April 30, 2021Further, as COVID-19 vaccines become available, potential consumer fraud related to vaccines has emerged. While the extent of vaccine-related fraud is unknown, the Department of Justice has publicly announced charges or other actions in consumer fraud cases involving individuals or entities that claimed to offer vaccines to prevent COVID-19. For example, the Department of Justice issued a permanent injunction to address a fraud scheme in a case where an individual lured customers to “preregister” for a vaccine in exchange for bitcoin. In another case, the Department of Justice seized a domain name for a website that offered COVID-19 vaccines for sale in an effort to seize fraudulent websites that seek to illegally profit from the COVID-19 pandemic.[522] Other federal cases. The federal government is also pursuing charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, and theft that are related to COVID-19 but separate from consumer fraud—including vaccine-related fraud—and fraud against the federal programs discussed earlier. From March 2020 through April 2021, 12 individuals pleaded guilty to these types of federal charges.[523] For example, one individual pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and conspiring to commit health care fraud for paying and receiving illegal kickbacks in exchange for referring Medicare beneficiaries for testing, including COVID-19 tests. Another individual was sentenced to 3 years of probation and fined $5,000 after pleading guilty to forging prescriptions and fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs, including hydroxychloroquine sulfate.[524] There were also other federal charges pending against 27 individuals as of April 30, 2021. For example, two individuals were indicted on charges of conspiracy and wire fraud for their roles in a $30 million health care fraud and money laundering scheme in which they exploited Medicare flexibilities that went into effect during the COVID-19 pandemic to submit fraudulent claims for expensive cancer drugs that were never provided, ordered, or authorized by medical professionals.[525]Federal agency warnings to help prevent future fraud-related cases. As a result of complaints from the public alleging potential fraud involving COVID-19 relief funds received through hotlines and other fraud detection efforts, federal agencies have warned the public about emerging fraud schemes, which can help prevent future fraud-related cases against federal programs and consumers. For example:According to a December 2020 press release from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the FBI, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) OIG, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have received complaints of scammers using the public’s interest in COVID-19 vaccines to obtain personally identifiable information and money through various schemes. As a result, these agencies have warned the public about several emerging fraud schemes related to COVID-19 vaccines, including paying to be put on a wait list or to get early access (see figure).[526] Examples of Consumer Warnings about COVID-19 Vaccine ScamsIn March 2021, FTC warned consumers about a bogus COVID-19 vaccine survey that scammers are using to steal money and personal information. According to FTC, consumers are receiving email and text messages asking them to complete a survey about the various COVID-19 vaccines in exchange for a free reward, but are asked to pay shipping fees. The FBI, HHS OIG, and FTC have all issued warnings to the public about scams involving COVID-19 vaccination cards. Specifically, these agencies have warned the public not to post photos of vaccination cards on social media, as personally identifiable information contained on the cards could be stolen to commit fraud. In addition, the FBI and HHS OIG have warned the public against making or buying fake COVID-19 vaccination cards, noting that individuals misrepresenting themselves as vaccinated put themselves and others around them at risk of contracting COVID-19.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reported on its website that it has received reports of scammers reaching out to individuals and offering to register them for funeral assistance.[527] In response, FEMA included information on its website to help the public beware of such scams. Specifically, FEMA noted that it will not contact anyone for personal information until they have called FEMA or have applied for assistance, and directed individuals receiving unsolicited calls or emails from anyone claiming to be a federal employee or from FEMA not to disclose personal information and to report the incident to FEMA, the National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline, or local law enforcement agencies.[528]MethodologyTo conduct this work, we reviewed information from the Department of Justice to identify federal fraud-related charges related to COVID-19 relief funding as of April 30, 2021. We also analyzed related federal court documents. In addition, we reviewed FTC reports on complaints related to fraud and identity theft, and FEMA, FBI, HHS OIG, and FTC alerts about emerging fraud schemes related to COVID-19.Agency Comments We provided a draft of this enclosure to the Office of Management and Budget, which provided no comments.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue our oversight of government-wide fraud risk management efforts.Related GAO ProductA Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs. GAO-15-593SP. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2015.Contact information: Johana Ayers, (202) 512-6722, [email protected] Postal Service Bookmark:The U.S. Postal Service’s mail volume decreased, its on-time performance declined, and its finances improved in the first 3 months of 2021 as compared to the same period in 2020, most of which was just prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities involved: U.S. Postal ServiceBackground The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) plays a critical role in the nation’s communication and commerce, a role highlighted in 2020 as USPS delivered billions of pieces of mail throughout the COVID-19 pandemic including ballots, Census forms, and recovery rebate checks, in addition to an unprecedented surge of packages. As an independent establishment of the executive branch, USPS is expected to provide affordable, quality, and universal postal service. USPS is also expected to be financially self-sufficient by covering its expenses through revenues generated from the sale of its products and services. However, USPS has not been able to cover its expenses since fiscal year 2007 due to long-term declines in its most profitable mail products and rising expenses, such as for compensation and benefits. As a result, USPS’s financial viability has been on our High-Risk List since 2009. USPS’s mail volume, on-time delivery performance, revenue, and expenses changed significantly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We reported in April 2021 that when comparing 2020 to 2019, USPS’s: overall mail volume declined even with increases in the volume of packages; on-time performance fell with a steep decline nationwide in December 2020; and net loss grew even though revenue increased by $4.3 billion. To help USPS respond to the COVID-19 emergency, the CARES Act, as amended in late 2020, provided USPS up to $10 billion in additional funding for COVID-19-related operating expenses.[529]Overview of Key IssuesMail volume. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2021, overall mail volume declined by about 3.2 billion pieces (about 9.6 percent) when compared to the same period in fiscal year 2020.[530] This change is attributable to the continuing decline in market dominant products such as First-Class Mail (e.g., letters, cards, billing statements) and Marketing Mail (e.g., advertisements, flyers, newsletters). While the volume of market dominant products has continued to decline since 2007, competitive product (primarily packages) volume has continually increased year over year, with significant increases since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021, package volume was about 28.6 percent higher than it was in the same period in fiscal year 2020.On-time performance. Nationally, while on-time performance for market dominant products was significantly lower during the second quarter of fiscal year 2021 as compared to the same period in fiscal year 2020, performance began rebounding in January from December lows. On-time performance for First-Class Mail averaged 78.1 percent nationally from January through March 2021, as compared to 92.2 percent for the same period in fiscal year 2020. Moreover, the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 ended with a December on-time performance for First Class Mail of 69 percent. However, January 2021 showed an improvement in on-time performance, and was followed by increases in February and March as well. Over the quarter, on-time performance for First Class Mail increased from 74.9 percent in January 2021, to 76.0 percent in February 2021, to 83.8 percent in March 2021, but remained well below 2020 levels.Revenue and expenses. USPS reported a net loss of $82 million for the second quarter of fiscal year 2021, as compared to a net loss of $4.5 billion for the same period in fiscal year 2020. Excluding non-cash workers' compensation adjustments for each period that vary significantly based on interest rate and other actuarial revaluations, the loss for the 2021 second quarter would have been approximately $1.7 billion, compared to a loss of approximately $1.9 billion for the same quarter last year. USPS earned about $1 billion more in revenue in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021, when compared to the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. Following the trend we reported in April 2021, revenue from USPS’s market-dominant products declined by about $1 billion due to volume decreases while revenue for USPS’s competitive products increased by about $2 billion. USPS’s expenses decreased by approximately $3.4 billion for the second quarter in fiscal year 2021 when compared to the same period in fiscal year 2020. USPS attributed this change to a $4.3 billion decrease in worker’s compensation expenses due to changes in interest rates. USPS reported that this decrease was partially offset by increases in expenses. For example, employee compensation and benefits increased $517 million due to additional work hours needed to process higher package volumes and COVID-19 leave costs, among other things. Transportation expenses also increased $336 million due to more and bigger packages, among other things. COVID-19 funding. USPS stated that under the CARES Act, as amended, it has received about $7.2 billion in funding for operating expenses incurred due to the COVID-19 emergency from March to December 2020 and about $1.5 billion for expenses incurred from January to February 2021.[531] These expenses included categories such as overtime, hiring and training costs of new employees, absenteeism, and costs of sanitizing work areas (see table). Amounts Requested by USPS Under the CARES Act, as Amended, for COVID-19-Related Operating Expenses Incurred Mar. 2020–Feb. 2021 Expense category Mar.– Dec. 2020 ($ in millions) Jan.–Feb. 2021 ($ in millions) Supplies & services 254 15 COVID leave 426 31 Transportation 73 0 Hiring/training costs for new employees 121 19 Increase in carriers out after 6 p.m. 47 6 Overall overtime cost increase 1,371 265 Inefficiency factor – general inefficiency of 2 percent of salaries and benefits for time spent managing personal protective equipment, sanitizing work areas, social distancing in postal facilities, among other things. 987 200 Inefficiency Factor – New Hires/Absenteeism 348 24 Additional expenses incurred in providing USPS’s statutorily mandated infrastructure and operations during the COVID-19 emergencya 3,559 902.9 Total (rounded): 7,200 1,500 Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) data. | GAO-21-551Note: These funds are made available by the CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, div. A, tit. VI, § 6001, 134 Stat. 281, 504-05 (2020), as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div, N, tit. VIII, § 801, 134 Stat. 1182, 2119 (2020). USPS requests these funds pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the Department of the Treasury.aAccording to USPS’s memorandum of understanding with the Department of the Treasury, these additional expenses are due to changes in product volumes attributable to the COVID-19 Emergency versus pre-COVID forecasts in USPS’s financial plans, taking into account (1) the costs captured above for Supplies and Services, (2) the revenue and expenses of all products and services, and (3) the actions USPS was unable to undertake to account for the reduction in volumes because of its statutory mandates, such as the requirement to provide 6-days-a-week delivery. See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. E, tit. V, 134 Stat. 1182, 1423 (2020). As stated above, USPS has not been able to cover its expenses with its revenues since fiscal year 2007 due to long-term declines in its most profitable mail products and rising expenses, such as for compensation and benefits. USPS has maintained its operations since then through a combination of actions, such as taking on debt and not making required payments for pensions and retiree health care benefits. USPS stated that it took those actions to preserve cash to continue to provide universal postal service. USPS’s cash balance increased significantly in part due to CARES Act funding and the increase in packages during the pandemic. At the end of December 2020, USPS reported that its cash balance was about $15.7 billion and increased to about $25.5 billion at the end of March 2021. As we reported in April 2021, USPS continued to preserve cash in 2020 by forgoing making required retiree health care and pension payments and by borrowing more from USPS’s existing debt authority with the federal government. However, USPS reported that this increased cash amount is insufficient to support USPS’s annual operating expenses, its capital investments, and to prepare for unexpected contingencies. USPS’s cash balance could be reduced in the coming years. As stated above, USPS expects to deplete all of its CARES Act funds by the end of 2021. USPS projects that the increased volume of packages may not be sustained, which could reduce USPS’s revenue. USPS also deferred payments of about $1.8 billion for the employer’s share of the Social Security payroll tax on wages from March 27, 2020, through December 31, 2020, as allowed under the CARES Act. Payment of half of this deferred amount is due on December 31, 2021, and payment of the other half is due on December 31, 2022. MethodologyTo conduct this work, we analyzed the most recent USPS volume, on-time performance, and revenue and expense data, as of March 2021, which were the latest data available. We used USPS’s 10-Q financial statement for the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. To determine the reliability of the data we used, we interviewed relevant USPS officials about volume, on-time performance, and financial data that they either provided us directly or that we obtained from publicly available reports. They described where the data came from, how they were collected, and controls in place to provide assurance the data were complete and accurate. Based on these interviews and relevant USPS documents we reviewed, we determined all data used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting on USPS mail volumes, on-time performance levels, revenues, and expenses. We also reviewed applicable federal laws and interviewed USPS officials.Agency Comments We provided USPS and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft of this enclosure for review and comment. USPS provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. USPS also provided general comments, which are reproduced in Appendix XII. In its comments, USPS provided additional context about its financial condition, recent service performance, and anticipated plans to address these issues. OMB did not provide comments on this enclosure.GAO’s Ongoing WorkWe will continue to monitor how USPS uses funds made available by the CARES Act, as amended, as well as its volume, on-time performance, revenue, and expenses. We are currently conducting work on USPS’s strategic plan, its service in rural areas, the resilience of its facilities, and its non-career workforce.Related GAO Products U.S. Postal Service: Volume, Performance, and Financial Changes since the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic. GAO-21-261. Washington, D.C.: April 2021.High Risk Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-Risk Areas. GAO-21-119SP. Washington, D.C.: March 2021.High Risk Series: Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service to Achieve Sustainable Financial Viability. GAO-09-937SP. Washington, D.C.: July 2009.Contact information: Jill Naamane, Acting Director, (202) 512-2834, [email protected] II: Highlights Pages from Recently Issued GAO COVID-19 Products Bookmark:Grant FlexibilitiesBookmark:We issued Grants Management: OMB Should Collect and Share Lessons Learned from Use of COVID-19-Related Grant Flexibilities, GAO-21-318, on March 31, 2021.Remdesivir ResearchBookmark:We issued Biomedical Research: Information on Federal Contributions to Remdesivir, GAO-21-272, on March 31, 2021.Behavioral HealthBookmark:We issued Behavioral Health: Patient Access, Provider Claims Payment, and the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic, GAO-21-437R, on March 31, 2021.Commuter RailBookmark:We issued Commuter Rail: Information on Benefits and Funding Challenges for Service in Less Urbanized Communities, GAO-21-355R, on April 1, 2021.Depot MaintenanceBookmark:We issued Depot Maintenance: DOD Should Improve Pandemic Plans and Publish Working Capital Fund Policy, GAO-21-103, on April 6, 2021.Global Health SecurityBookmark:We issued Global Health Security: USAID and CDC Funding, Activities, and Assessments of Countries' Capacities to Address Infectious Disease Threats before COVID-19 Onset, GAO-21-359, on April 14, 2021.COVID-19 VaccinesBookmark:We issued COVID-19: Efforts to Increase Vaccine Availability and Perspectives on Initial Implementation, GAO-21-443, on April 14, 2021.Emergency Return of Citizens by HHSBookmark:We issued COVID-19: HHS Should Clarify Agency Roles for Emergency Return of U.S. Citizens during a Pandemic, GAO-21-334, on April 19, 2021.Emergency Student AidBookmark:We issued COVID-19: Emergency Financial Aid for College Students under the CARES Act, GAO-21-312R, on April 20, 2021.COVID-19 LoansBookmark:We issued COVID-19 Loans: SBA Has Begun to Take Steps to Improve Oversight and Fraud Risk Management, GAO-21-498T, on April 20, 2021.Indian EducationBookmark:We issued Indian Education: Schools Need More Assistance to Provide Distance Learning, GAO-21-492T, on April 28, 2021.USPS Changes since COVID-19Bookmark:We issued U.S. Postal Service: Volume, Performance, and Financial Changes since the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic, GAO-21-261, on April 29, 2021.VA COVID-19 FundingBookmark:We issued Veterans Affairs: Use of Additional Funding for COVID-19 Relief, GAO-21-379, on May 5, 2021.Nursing Home COVID-19 OutbreaksBookmark:We issued COVID-19 in Nursing Homes: Most Homes Had Multiple Outbreaks and Weeks of Sustained Transmission from May 2020 through January 2021, GAO-21-367, on May 19, 2021. Medicare and Medicaid FlexibilitiesBookmark:We issued Medicare and Medicaid: COVID-19 Program Flexibilities and Considerations for Their Continuation, GAO-21-575T, on May 19, 2021.VA Civilian COVID-19 ResponseBookmark:We issued COVID-19 Pandemic: VA Provides Health Care Assistance to Civilians as Part of the Federal Response, GAO-21-395, on May 20, 2021.Employee Benefits Security AdministrationBookmark:We issued Employee Benefits Security Administration: Enforcement Efforts to Protect Participants' Rights in Employer-Sponsored Retirement and Health Benefit Plans, GAO-21-376, on May 27, 2021.SBA Administrative ExpensesBookmark:We issued Small Business Administration: Use of Supplemental Funds for Administering COVID-19-Related Programs, GAO-21-489, on June 1, 2021. Military HealthBookmark:We issued COVID-19: DOD Has Focused on Strategy and Oversight to Protect Military Servicemember Health, GAO-21-321, on June 3, 2021.NSF Research InfrastructureBookmark:We issued National Science Foundation: COVID-19 Affected Ongoing Construction of Major Facilities Projects, GAO-21-417, on June 8, 2021.VA Community Living CentersBookmark:We issued VA Health Care: Additional Data Needed to Inform the COVID- 19 Response in Community Living Centers, GAO-21-369R, on June 10, 2021.TSA Airport CheckpointsBookmark:We issued COVID-19: TSA Could Better Monitor Its Efforts to Reduce Infectious Disease Spread at Checkpoints, GAO-21-364, on June 14, 2021. CBP's COVID-19 ResponseBookmark:We issued Border Security: CBP's Response to COVID-19, GAO-21-431, on June 14, 2021. 2020 CensusBookmark:We issued 2020 Census: Innovations Helped with Implementation, but Bureau Can Do More to Realize Future Benefits, GAO-21-478, on June 14, 2021.VA COVID-19 ProcurementsBookmark:We issued VA COVID-19 Procurements: Pandemic Underscores Urgent Need to Modernize Supply Chain, GAO-21-280, on June 15, 2021.Unemployment Insurance Potential Racial DisparitiesBookmark:We issued Management Report: Preliminary Information on Potential Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Receipt of Unemployment Insurance Benefits during the COVID-19 Pandemic, GAO-21-599R, on June 17, 2021.Fourth of July 2020 Event CostsBookmark:We issued Independence Day Celebrations: Estimated Costs and COVID-19 Protective Measures for 2020 Fourth of July Events, GAO-21-458, on June 21, 2021.DOD Software DevelopmentBookmark:We issued Software Development: DOD Faces Risks and Challenges in Implementing Modern Approaches and Addressing Cybersecurity Practices, GAO-21-351, on June 23, 2021.Air MarshalsBookmark:We issued COVID-19: Federal Air Marshal Service Should Document Its Response to Cases and Facilitate Access to Testing, GAO-21-595, on June 23, 2021.HHS Cybersecurity CollaborationBookmark:We issued Cybersecurity: HHS Defined Roles and Responsibilities, but Can Further Improve Collaboration, GAO-21-403, on June 28, 2021.VA Community CareBookmark:We issued, Veterans Community Care Program: VA Took Action on Veterans' Access to Care, but COVID-19 Highlighted Continued Scheduling Challenges, GAO-21-476, on June 28, 2021.Immigration Detention FacilitiesBookmark:We issued Immigration Detention: ICE Efforts to Address COVID-19 in Detention Facilities, GAO-21-414, on June 30, 2021.VA COVID-19 PreparednessBookmark:We issued COVID-19: Implementation and Oversight of Preparedness Strategies at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, GAO-21-514, on June 30, 2021.Mortgage Forbearance and Foreclosure Bookmark:We issued COVID-19 Housing Protections: Mortgage Forbearance and Other Federal Efforts have Reduced Default and Foreclosure Risks, GAO-21-554, on July 12, 2021.State Fiscal Conditions in PandemicBookmark:We issued State and Local Governments: Fiscal Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Selected States, GAO-21-562, on July 15, 2021Coast Guard COVID-19 ResponseBookmark:We issued COVID-19: The Coast Guard Has Addressed Challenges, but Could Improve Telework Documentation and Personnel Data, GAO-21-539, on July 16, 2021 Appendix III: List of Ongoing GAO Work Related to COVID-19, as of June 23, 2021Bookmark:Oversight of Unemployment InsuranceEarly Care and Education and the Coronavirus Pandemic ResponseAgency Information Technology Preparedness in Response to Coronavirus PandemicTracking Funds and Associated Activities Related to Federal Response to COVID-19Diagnostic TestingWorker Safety during COVID-19Business/Employer Tax ProvisionsAgencies’ Readiness and Use of Telework for COVID-19 ResponseInternal Revenue Service (IRS) Administration of Economic Impact PaymentsHousing Finance System in the PandemicBureau of Prisons’ Emergency Preparedness and ResponseCOVID-19 in Nursing Homes: Data and ChallengesBiodefense Preparedness and ResponseFederal Agencies’ ReentryAgencies’ Human Capital Flexibilities in Response to Coronavirus PandemicElection Assistance Commission Guidance and Grants OversightEffects of COVID-19 on Dedicated CollectionsChild Welfare ServicesDepartment of the Treasury and Department of the Interior’s COVID-19 Response to TribesDepartment of State’s Repatriation EffortsSmall Business Administration’s (SBA) Implementation of the Paycheck Protection ProgramIndian Health Service (IHS) Response to COVID-19Vaccine DevelopmentCoast Guard COVID-19 Response EffortsU.S. Department of Agriculture Human Pandemic Preparedness Plan for Food Safety InspectionsCARES Act Assistance to FarmersMedicaid Waivers and FlexibilitiesImmigration Courts ResponseEconomic Injury Disaster Loans and AdvancesTreasury Debt Management Response to COVID-19Services for Older AdultsCharacteristics of Paycheck Protection Program LoansAviation Operations in a Pandemic EnvironmentCARES Act International Humanitarian AssistanceBehavioral Health ImpactsUnemployment Assistance for Contingent WorkersOperation Warp SpeedDepartment of Health and Human Services (HHS) Medicare Telehealth WaiversVaccine Distribution and CommunicationDepartment of Veterans Affairs Nursing HomesCommunity Behavioral Health DemonstrationsBureau of Prison’ Response to COVID-19Pandemic Learning LossContracting FlexibilitiesContractor Qualifications and Agency Lessons LearnedImpact on IRS Tax Enforcement and RevenueDepartment of State and U.S. Agency for International Development Overseas OperationsFarmer Food Purchases and DistributionDepartment of Housing and Urban Development CARES Act OversightTax Policy Effects on Households by Sex, Race, and EthnicityHHS Hospital Capacity Data CollectionContractor Paid Leave Reimbursement ApproachesAir Travel Disease Research and DevelopmentK-12 Disconnected StudentsTax Policy Effects on Businesses by Sex, Race, and EthnicityTransportation Security Administration COVID-19-related Directives for Transportation SystemsDefense-wide Working Capital Fund COVID-19 EffectsHHS’s Public Health Situational Awareness CapabilityScientific Integrity at Selected HHS AgenciesContact Tracing App - Technology AssessmentCARES Act Title IV Federal Reserve Facilities IISocial Security Administration Service DeliveryFinancial Regulatory OversightCARES Act Loans for Aviation and National Security BusinessesHealth Insurance LossTribal Epidemiological Data AccessMedicaid TelehealthStrategic National Stockpile Contents and Management ReviewHHS Public Relations CampaignElection Administration during the COVID-19 PandemicIHS Contracting for COVID-19 ProductsAviation Contact TracingU.S. Customs and Border Protection Trade FacilitationFreedom of Information Act ProcessingRegulatory Flexibilities for COVID-19 ResponseRegulatory Flexibilities TimelineCOVID-19 DisparitiesMeat and Poultry Worker SafetyPost-COVID-19 Federal Space PlanningCOVID-19 in Nursing Homes: Federal PoliciesUnemployment Insurance Risks and TransformationSBA Assistance to Venues and RestaurantsState Small Business Credit InitiativeCritical Manufacturing Supply ChainAppendix IV: Status of Our Matters for Congressional Consideration and Recommendations for Executive Action, as of June 2021Bookmark:In our June 2020 CARES Act report, we made three matters for congressional consideration and three recommendations for executive action; in our September 2020 CARES Act report, we made 16 recommendations; and in our November 2020 CARES Act report, we made one matter for congressional consideration and 11 recommendations. Also, in November 2020, we issued a report on COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, in which we made one recommendation. In our January 2021 CARES report, we made 13 recommendations; and in our March 2021 CARES Act report, we made 28 recommendations. Following are the recommendations and their status, by department (see fig. 8).Figure 8: Status of Prior GAO Recommendations by Department or AgencyBelow we list by department or agency our four prior matters for congressional consideration and our 72 prior recommendations, and characterize their implementation status.Status of Matters for Congressional Consideration and Recommendations Related to the Department of Health and Human ServicesMatter. To help ensure that federal funding is targeted and timely, we urge Congress to use our Federal Medical Assistance Percentage formula for any future changes to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage during the current or any future economic downturn (June 2020 report).Status: OpenComments: Our past work has found that during economic downturns—when Medicaid enrollment can increase and state economies weaken—the formula, which is based on each state’s per capita income, does not reflect current state economic conditions. No congressional action has been taken to date.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—who head agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—should immediately document roles and responsibilities for supply chain management functions transitioning to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including continued support from other federal partners, to ensure sufficient resources exist to sustain and make the necessary progress in stabilizing the supply chain, and address emergent supply issues for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS disagreed with our recommendation. In a May 2021 update, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) noted that since March 2020, supply chain responsibility, coordination, and execution have been incorporated and integrated into ASPR. HHS stated that ASPR’s supply chain work is divided into three areas: (1) logistics and supply chain management, (2) supply chain and industrial situational awareness, and (3) industrial base expansion. The update noted that this work provides solutions to HHS and other federal partners to address supply chain shortages and vulnerabilities and supports a collaborative approach. Finally, HHS offered several examples of HHS and ASPR’s efforts, including restocking the Strategic National Stockpile; mitigating potential shortages of raw materials; continuing to partner with the Department of Defense (DOD) on supply acquisition; and helping develop the pandemic supply chain resilience strategy. However, HHS has yet to document roles and responsibilities for supply chain management that are transitioning.We noted in our September 2020 report that complex medical supply management responsibilities that had been shared between many agencies during the nationwide response to COVID-19 were transitioning to HHS. This included procuring testing supplies, monitoring the commercial supply chain, and fulfilling state, local, tribal, and territorial governments’ requests for supplies. We acknowledge the efforts made to date by HHS and ASPR, but as supply chain efforts continue—and ASPR continues to work closely with, and rely on, federal partners—we maintain that our recommendation is warranted to sustain the progress made to date, especially as the pandemic continues and variants circulate.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Administrator of FEMA—who head agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—should further develop and communicate to stakeholders plans outlining specific actions the federal government will take to help mitigate remaining medical supply gaps necessary to respond to the remainder of the pandemic, including through the use of Defense Production Act authorities (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS disagreed with our recommendation. However, HHS has taken some action that would implement this recommendation. In a May 2021 update, ASPR noted that since March 2020, supply chain responsibility, coordination, and execution has been incorporated and integrated into ASPR. HHS stated that ASPR’s supply chain work is divided into three areas: (1) logistics and supply chain management, (2) supply chain and industrial situational awareness, and (3) industrial base expansion. The update noted that this work provides solutions to HHS and other federal partners to address supply chain shortages and vulnerabilities and supports a collaborative approach. Finally, HHS offered several examples of HHS and ASPR’s supply chain work, including restocking the Strategic National Stockpile; mitigating potential shortages of raw materials; continuing to partner with DOD on supply acquisition; and helping develop the pandemic supply chain resilience strategy.We noted in our September 2020 report that HHS and FEMA had not developed plans outlining specific actions the federal government will take to help mitigate remaining medical supply gaps needed to respond to the pandemic, including through the use of Defense Production Act authorities. ASPR notes in its May 2021 update that it is the lead agency for HHS for developing the Public Health and Biological Preparedness Industrial Base Report under Executive Order 14001 – A Sustainable Public Health Supply Chain. ASPR also states that it is integrated into the interagency supply chain working groups run by the White House to reconcile and manage public health supply chain constraints and shortages. We believe these are good steps toward developing plans to mitigate supply gaps—both now and for future pandemics—and we will continue to monitor the progress to develop a supply chain strategy.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services—who heads one of the agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—consistent with its roles and responsibilities, should work with relevant federal, state, territorial, and tribal stakeholders to devise interim solutions, such as systems and guidance and dissemination of best practices, to help states enhance their ability to track the status of supply requests and plan for supply needs for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic response (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS disagreed with this recommendation, noting, among other things, work that had already been done to manage the medical supply chain and increase supply availability. As of May 2021, HHS has not demonstrated action to devise interim solutions that would systematically help states, tribes, and territories effectively track, manage, and plan for supplies to carry out the COVID-19 pandemic response in the absence of state-level end-to-end logistics capabilities that would track critical supplies required for a response of this scale. We note that we made this recommendation to both HHS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the intent that they would work together under the Unified Coordination Group to address challenges reported by state officials with both public health and emergency management responsibilities. Moreover, we recommended they take actions that were consistent with the roles and responsibilities that were to be more clearly defined as HHS took a more central role in leading supply distribution. The recommendation to define those roles and responsibilities remains open. Moreover, although both HHS and DHS have reported separate actions taken as part of other efforts within each separate purview, neither has articulated how it worked with the other nor how it assessed whether the actions changed the experiences of state officials who reported issues during our prior work. Without systematic and deliberate action to help jurisdictions ensure they have the support they need to track, manage, and plan for supplies, those on the front lines of the whole-of-nation COVID-19 response may continue to face challenges that hamper their effectiveness as the pandemic continues and variants circulate.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, with support from the Secretary of Defense, should establish a time frame for documenting and sharing a national plan for distributing and administering a COVID-19 vaccine and, in developing such a plan, ensure that it is consistent with best practices for project planning and scheduling and outlines an approach for how efforts will be coordinated across federal agencies and nonfederal entities (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In September and October 2020, HHS’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released initial planning documents, and in January 2021 the White House issued a national COVID-19 response strategy that broadly outlined various channels for vaccine distribution. In addition, CDC provided a high-level description of its activities in a March 2021 COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategy and its June 2021 update. While these documents provide general information on federally supported vaccine distribution activities, they do not outline the approach the federal government is taking to coordinate its efforts or roles of the federal agencies and non-federal entities. We continue to maintain that it is important for HHS to have a national plan that outlines such an approach. We will continue to monitor HHS’ efforts in this area.Recommendation. Based on the imminent cybersecurity threats, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should expedite the implementation of our prior recommendations regarding cybersecurity weaknesses at its component agencies (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS agreed with our recommendation and has taken steps to address it. For example, the department’s Office of Information Security has begun planning efforts for the establishment of an audit program intended to identify and centralize audit management capabilities to perform recommendation follow-up activities, among others. Planning efforts for the program are expected to be completed in September 2021. In addition, the Office of Information Security, along with other staff divisions at the department, is planning to join an enterprise effort to increase oversight and reduce the time to resolve recommendations made across HHS through use of audit tracking and storage software. Nevertheless, as of April 2021, the status of the cybersecurity recommendations we issued to the relevant HHS component agencies—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and CDC—remained the same as what we reported in March 2021. Specifically, the component agencies had implemented 421 (about 97 percent) of the total 434 recommendations we made to these agencies.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should develop and make publicly available a comprehensive national COVID-19 testing strategy that incorporates all six characteristics of an effective national strategy. Such a strategy could build upon existing strategy documents that HHS has produced for the public and Congress to allow for a more coordinated pandemic testing approach (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS partially agreed with our recommendation. In January 2021, HHS agreed that the department should take steps to more directly incorporate some of the elements of an effective national strategy, but expressed concern that producing such a strategy at this time could be overly burdensome on the federal, state, and local entities that are responding to the pandemic, and that a plan would be outdated by the time it was finalized or potentially rendered obsolete by the rate of technological advancement. In May 2021, HHS told us that the White House and HHS plan to execute a National Testing Strategy that will act upon the administration’s testing goals. According to HHS, a finalized document is forthcoming that includes specific actions as well as timelines to achieve these goals. HHS said the National Testing Strategy will speak to the country’s short-term COVID-19 needs as well as the long-term needs associated with the country’s broader bio-preparedness. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.Recommendation. To improve the federal government’s response to COVID-19 and preparedness for future pandemics, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should immediately establish an expert committee or use an existing one to systematically review and inform the alignment of ongoing data collection and reporting standards for key health indicators. This committee should include a broad representation of knowledgeable health care professionals from the public and private sectors, academia, and nonprofits (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS partially agreed with our recommendation. In its May 2021 response, HHS stated that it plans to consider ways to establish more permanent work groups to incorporate best practices for ongoing interagency data needs and to scale up as necessary during future public health emergencies. HHS also stated that the Data Strategy and Execution Workgroup, established as part of the HHS COVID-19 response, has helped address the need for a federal interagency coordination process to align ongoing COVID-19 data collection and reporting efforts. We maintain that immediately establishing an expert committee—not limited to federal agency officials—that includes knowledgeable health care professionals from the public and private sectors, academia, and nonprofits is an important and worthwhile effort to help improve the federal government’s response to COVID-19 and its preparedness for future pandemics.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should make the Department's different sources of publicly available COVID-19 data accessible from a centralized location on the internet. This could improve the federal government's communication with the public about the ongoing pandemic (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its May 2021 response, HHS stated that it makes COVID-19 content accessible on its website home page, which includes links to specific information that may be contained on other websites. HHS added that CDC’s COVID Data Tracker provides information on community transmission, cases, and vaccination rates. Given the importance of effectively communicating information about the status of the pandemic with the public, we maintain that HHS should make its publicly available COVID-19 data accessible from a centralized online location. Centralizing access to these data in a way that allows individuals to easily locate and obtain the information most relevant to them would improve the ability of the public to fully understand the extent of the pandemic and use the data to best inform their ongoing decision-making.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should finalize and implement a post-payment review process to validate COVID-19 Uninsured Program claims and to help ensure timely identification of improper payments, including those resulting from potential fraudulent activity, and recovery of overpayments (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS agreed with our recommendation to finalize and implement a post-payment review process. In response, in May 2021, HHS stated that it had developed a standard operating procedure to initiate a review process to ensure program integrity and compliance with the Uninsured Program’s terms and conditions through a detailed claims review. Additionally, HHS stated that with contractor support, it is currently developing the uninsured audit review strategy, which includes a detailed protocol and procedures for the assessments of the Uninsured Program to be executed by audit contractors. HHS officials added that all claims determined to be paid to an ineligible provider, or a provider that did not maintain supporting documentation to substantiate the claims or in any other way did not comply with the program terms and conditions, will be required to return the funds. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation to ensure that these efforts continue.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that FDA and CDC work with the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health to develop a process for sharing information to facilitate decision-making and guidance consistency related to devices with emergency use authorization (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS agreed with this recommendation. FDA commented that there is an opportunity to build on prior collaboration and lessons learned during the pandemic to ensure that there is a process in place that yields timely and consistent information for stakeholders using and purchasing authorized devices. In May 2021, CDC commented that FDA, CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had met to discuss how existing informal processes should evolve into formal processes and planned to meet again in coming months to discuss next steps.HHS CDCRecommendation. As CDC implements its COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy, the Director of CDC should determine whether having the authority to require states and jurisdictions to report race and ethnicity information for COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is necessary for ensuring more complete data and, if so, seek such authority from Congress (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: CDC agreed with our recommendation. In response, in February 2021, CDC stated that it was reviewing race and ethnicity data completeness across its core surveillance systems and engaging stakeholders from across the agency and in state and local health departments to improve the collection of race and ethnicity data. CDC noted that stakeholders include CDC leadership, key task forces from within CDC's COVID-19 emergency response, and data and surveillance experts in CDC and state health agencies. CDC reported that the information derived from this review will be discussed with the CDC Director and used to assess potential opportunities to enhance the collection of race and ethnicity data, including seeking policy changes or legislative authorities. In addition, in May 2021, CDC stated that it was conducting an analysis to determine whether additional authorities given to the agency to mandate the collection of race and ethnicity information could enhance the robustness and completeness of data shared with the agency. We will continue to examine the ongoing work of HHS, CDC, and other component agencies regarding indicators of COVID-19 and disparities that exist for various populations.Recommendation. As CDC implements its COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy, the Director of CDC should involve key stakeholders to help ensure the complete and consistent collection of demographic data (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: CDC agreed with our recommendation. In response, in February 2021, CDC stated that it was reviewing the quality of demographic data, including the completeness of race and ethnicity data, across its core surveillance systems and engaging stakeholders from across the agency and in state and local health departments on the issue. CDC noted that stakeholders include CDC leadership, key task forces from within CDC's COVID-19 emergency response, and data and surveillance experts in CDC and state health agencies. CDC reported that the information derived from this review will be discussed with the CDC Director and used to assess potential opportunities to enhance the collection of race and ethnicity data, including seeking policy changes or legislative authorities. As of May 2021, CDC reported that it had conducted listening sessions with community health workers who serve communities of color and rural populations to seek input on the importance of collecting race and ethnicity data. CDC stated that the information collected will inform the development of appropriate and tailored messages that can be used by community health workers to educate communities about the importance of providing race and ethnicity data when receiving health services, overcome hesitance in sharing this information, and describe how this information is used to promote community health. In addition, CDC stated that it is working with public health partners to automate the generation and transmission to CDC of COVID-19 case reports that contain demographic information, including race and ethnicity. According to CDC, as of May 1, 2021, more than 6,700 facilities were sending COVID-19 electronic case reports to state and jurisdictional health departments. We will continue to examine the ongoing work of HHS, CDC, and other component agencies regarding indicators of COVID-19 and disparities that exist for various populations.Recommendation. As CDC implements its COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy, the Director of CDC should take steps to help ensure CDC’s ability to comprehensively assess the long-term health outcomes of persons with COVID-19, including by race and ethnicity (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: CDC agreed with our recommendation. In response to our recommendation, CDC noted in October 2020 that it was convening a team to develop a plan to monitor the long-term health outcomes of persons with COVID-19 by identifying health care surveillance systems that can electronically report health conditions to state and local health departments. CDC said that, as of May 2021, it had various efforts underway with external partners to assess long-term health outcomes. For example, CDC is funding a number of prospective studies in partnership with universities to understand the long-term effects of COVID-19, including a study examining the neurological health outcomes of a large cohort of Black and Hispanic or Latino persons who had COVID-19. In May 2021, CDC reported that its ongoing studies will follow patients for up to 2 years and provide information on the percentage of people who develop post-COVID-19 conditions and assess risk factors for the development of these conditions. According to CDC, these studies will assess different virus strains and antibody responses and the underlying immune response in people who develop post-COVID conditions. In addition, CDC reported that it is continuing to use multiple de-identified electronic health record databases to examine the persistence of symptoms and incidence of post-COVID conditions. CDC stated that it is also partnering with health systems to perform in-depth medical record reviews, which can provide insight into the patterns of health effects that patients are experiencing and improve its ability to characterize post-COVID conditions. For example, in April 2021 CDC published a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report describing patients with post-COVID-19 conditions using electronic health records in an integrated health care system in metropolitan Atlanta. CDC added that it had updated its website on post-COVID conditions in April 2021. We will continue to examine the ongoing work of HHS, CDC, and other component agencies regarding indicators of COVID-19 and disparities that exist for various populations.Recommendation. The Director of CDC should ensure that, as it makes updates to its federal guidance related to reassessing schools’ operating status, the guidance is cogent, clear, and internally consistent (September 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: CDC agreed with this recommendation and it is closed as implemented. CDC’s guidance for school operating status during COVID-19 is more cogent, clear, and consistent. On February 12, 2021, CDC released revised guidance for returning to in-person learning, as well as mitigation strategies to help prevent and reduce the spread of COVID-19 in school settings. We found the guidance consolidated much of the earlier guidance into one document that clearly displays all five of CDC’s mitigation strategies and includes steps school officials should consider when deciding to reopen schools. In addition, we identified increased efforts to synchronize content across CDC’s website. We found that CDC had removed some information and updated other information and had begun including summaries of changes made to the guidance at the top of some webpages.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the Director of CDC clearly discloses the scientific rationale for any change to testing guidelines at the time the change is made (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS agreed with our recommendation and has begun to implement it. For example, on February 16, 2021, CDC issued Interim Guidance on Testing Healthcare Personnel that stated asymptomatic health care personnel who have recovered from COVID-19 may not need to undergo repeat testing or quarantine in the case of another exposure within 3 months of their initial diagnosis. To support this guidance, CDC's website provided links to studies that explained the scientific rationale. Additionally, CDC told us that it continues to consult with scientific stakeholders when issuing or updating guidance documents, and outlined a series of steps the agency plans to take to strengthen its testing guidance. However, as of May 2021, CDC had not fully addressed the recommendation. For example, clear linkage to a scientific rationale for recent changes related to testing after exposure for fully vaccinated individuals appeared to be missing. We will monitor the implementation of this recommendation to ensure that these efforts continue.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the Director of CDC collects data specific to the COVID-19 vaccination rates in nursing homes and makes these data publicly available to better ensure transparency and that the necessary information is available to improve ongoing and future vaccination efforts for nursing home residents and staff (March 2021 report).Status: ClosedComment: HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In March 2021, HHS said it was working towards better data transparency and noted that nursing homes have an opportunity to voluntarily report data through the National Healthcare Safety Network tracking system.On May 13, 2021, CMS issued an interim final rule establishing Long-Term Care Facility Vaccine Immunization Requirements for Residents and Staff, including for nursing homes. The rule requires facilities to report COVID-19 vaccination status of residents and staff to CDC. According to CDC, the new vaccination reporting requirement will not only assist in monitoring vaccine uptake among residents and staff, but will also aid in identifying facilities that may be in need of additional resources and assistance to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 10, 2021, CMS has posted resident and staff vaccination rates for over 15,000 Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes on a public COVID-19 Nursing Home Data tracking website.Recommendation. The Director of CDC should incorporate key elements of a national strategy in the agency's COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy. These elements include (1) specific actions to achieve intermediate outcomes, such as increased access to testing; (2) how intermediate outcomes should be prioritized within its four broad priority areas; (3) who will implement actions to achieve intermediate outcomes; and (4) how the strategy relates to other relevant strategies (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: CDC agreed with this recommendation. CDC stated that it will take steps to include key elements of a national strategy in an internal version of its COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy to help with coordination and tracking, among other actions to coordinate health equity activities across various task forces and with federal, state, and local partners. In May 2021, CDC reported that it had implemented the Health Equity Action Tracker as an internal repository of health equity activities related to COVID-19. According to CDC, this tracker includes questions about alignment with the intermediate outcomes in the CDC Health Equity Strategy, as well as questions about additional outcomes and the impact of the activities. CDC added that it launched its Health Equity in Action website in April 2021 to share activities, partnerships, and resources to advance health equity. In May 2021, CDC also clarified that it does not agree with identifying how intermediate outcomes should be prioritized within the four broad priority areas of CDC’s COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy. CDC noted that it does not intend to prioritize its intermediate outcomes because they contribute equally to the achievement of the final outcomes outlined within its COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy. Regarding who will implement actions to achieve intermediate outcomes, CDC reported that no one unit is responsible for implementing the strategy as a whole or for implementing each intermediate outcome. CDC added that the strategy provides a guide for the entire CDC response. CDC stated that it will continue to analyze and align key elements of a national strategy into its COVID-19 Response Health Equity Strategy, including identifying areas that are in alignment. We will continue to examine the ongoing work of HHS, CDC, and other component agencies regarding indicators of COVID-19 and disparities that exist for various populations.Recommendation. The Director of CDC should take steps to ensure more complete reporting of race and ethnicity information for recipients of COVID-19 vaccinations, such as working with states and jurisdictions to facilitate consistent collecting and reporting of this information (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: CDC neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. CDC stated that it is working to ensure more complete reporting of race and ethnicity information for recipients of COVID-19 vaccinations, such as by requiring providers that participate in CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program to report the race and ethnicity of vaccine recipients. We will continue to examine the ongoing work of HHS, CDC, and other component agencies regarding indicators of COVID-19 and disparities that exist for various populations.HHS CMSRecommendation. The Administrator of CMS should quickly develop a plan that further details how the agency intends to respond to and implement, as appropriate, the 27 recommendations in the final report of the Coronavirus Commission on Safety and Quality in Nursing Homes, which CMS released on September 16, 2020. Such a plan should include milestones that allow the agency to track and report on the status of each recommendation; identify actions taken and planned, including areas where CMS determined not to take action; and identify areas where the agency could coordinate with other federal and nonfederal entities (November 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. HHS officials highlighted actions that CMS has taken related to Commission recommendations and said it would refer to and act upon the Commission's recommendations, as appropriate.As of May 2021, CMS had developed an internal tracking document that notes the status of each of the Nursing Home Commission’s recommendations, the responsible agency for each recommendation, and planned actions for CMS-related recommendations. According to CMS, the agency will be conducting quarterly reviews of the tracking document, holding interim meetings to discuss the recommendations, and conducting outreach to other federal agencies to engage them in this work. Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with CMS and CDC, should develop a strategy to capture more complete data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes retroactively back to January 1, 2020, and to clarify the extent to which nursing homes have reported data before May 8, 2020. To the extent feasible, this strategy to capture more complete data should incorporate information nursing homes previously reported to CDC or to state or local public health offices (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS partially agreed with our recommendation. As of May 2021, HHS had taken no specific action, although according to HHS it continues to consider how to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS’s progress toward implementing this recommendation.Recommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that the Administrator of CMS, in consultation with CDC, requires nursing homes to offer COVID-19 vaccinations to residents and staff and design and implement associated quality measures (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. On April 15, 2021, CMS issued a proposed rule that includes, among other things, a proposal to adopt a new quality measure for skilled nursing facilities called COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage among Healthcare Personnel. The measure would require facilities to submit data on COVID-19 staff vaccination beginning on October 1, 2021, and would be used as part of CMS’s quality reporting program beginning in fiscal year 2023.On May 13, 2021, CMS also issued an interim final rule that establishes new requirements for nursing homes to develop and implement policies and procedures for educating residents, their representatives, and staff members about the COVID-19 vaccine and for offering these vaccines to each resident and staff member. Facilities will be assessed for compliance with the new requirements, which became effective on May 21, 2021. We will continue to monitor HHS’s progress toward implementing this recommendation.HHS FDARecommendation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the FDA Commissioner to identify ways to uniformly disclose to the public the information from FDA’s scientific review of safety and effectiveness data—similar to the public disclosure of the summary safety and effectiveness data supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics—when issuing emergency use authorizations (EUA) for therapeutics and vaccines, and, if necessary, seek the authority to publicly disclose such information (November 2020 report on vaccine and therapeutics).Status: ClosedComment: In response to our recommendation, FDA said it would explore approaches to achieve the goal of transparency. On November 17, 2020, FDA made an announcement on its ongoing commitment to transparency for COVID-19 EUAs. FDA also developed a process to disclose its scientific review documents for therapeutic EUAs and released such summaries for one previous therapeutic EUA and the two additional therapeutic EUAs issued from November 2020—when we made our recommendation—through January 2021. These summaries disclosed information similar to what FDA releases to support new drug approvals and biologic licensures. Additionally, for the two vaccine EUAs FDA issued from November 2020—when we made our recommendation—through January 2021, FDA released decision memorandums containing detailed information about FDA’s review of safety and effectiveness data. FDA’s actions meet the intent of our recommendation and will improve transparency.Recommendation. The Commissioner of FDA should, as the agency makes changes to its collection of drug manufacturing data, ensure the information obtained is complete and accessible to help it identify and mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities, including by working with manufacturers and other federal agencies (e.g., DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)), and, if necessary, seek authority to obtain complete and accessible information (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In HHS's response in January 2021, FDA said that it will consider our recommendation as it continues efforts to enhance relevant authorities and close data gaps. Since then, FDA has taken steps to increase its authority to collect more complete drug manufacturing data. For example, FDA’s budget justification for fiscal year 2022 included a legislative proposal to further clarify the agency’s authority to require more complete and frequent reporting for finished drug products and in-process material. Also, in June 2021, as part of a government-wide review of critical U.S. supply chains that included drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients, HHS reported that it will develop and make recommendations to Congress to grant FDA authority to obtain additional supply chain data that would include reporting of more comprehensive drug manufacturing information to the agency and require drug labels to include original manufacturers, among other things. We will continue to monitor action on these efforts and, if implemented, determine whether they satisfy the intent of our recommendation.Recommendation. The Commissioner of FDA should, as inspection plans for future fiscal years are developed, ensure that such plans identify, analyze, and respond to the issues presented by the backlog of inspections that could jeopardize the goal of risk-driven inspections (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: FDA concurred with our recommendation and stated that it is actively tracking the list of sites that need to be inspected. FDA further noted that the size of the backlog will depend on the extent to which alternative inspection tools are used.Recommendation. The Commissioner of FDA should fully assess the agency’s alternative inspection tools and consider whether these tools or others could provide the information needed to supplement regular inspection activities or help meet the agency’s drug oversight objectives when inspections are not possible in the future (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: FDA agreed with our recommendation and, as of January 2021, stated that it would continue to evaluate these alternative tools. FDA stated that the resulting information will help determine how the tools can be used to streamline and supplement regular inspection activities and to prioritize inspections when normal inspection operations are not possible.Recommendation. As FDA develops a transition plan for devices with emergency use authorizations, the Commissioner should specify a reasonable timeline and process for transitioning authorized devices to clearance, approval, or appropriate disposition that takes into account input from stakeholders (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS concurred with this recommendation. FDA stated that it believes it is important to provide such a transition period to allow sponsors to meet any additional requirements. In addition, FDA stated it will provide the transition plan in the form of draft guidance for public comment so the agency can work to incorporate suggestions from those impacted by the transition. In May 2021, FDA reiterated its intent to address our recommendation and the agency’s plan to issue draft guidance. FDA stated that given volume of device EUAs, the agency recognizes the need for transparency regarding the timeline and approach for transitioning from EUA to marketing authorization.HHS ASPRRecommendation. To improve the nation’s response to and preparedness for pandemics, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response should establish a process for regularly engaging with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders—including state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and private industry—as HHS refines and implements a supply chain strategy for pandemic preparedness, to include the role of the Strategic National Stockpile (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: HHS generally agreed with our recommendation, while noting that the term "engage" is vague and unclear, and that they regularly engage with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders. HHS added that improving the pandemic response capabilities of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments is a priority.Recommendation. The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, in coordination with the appropriate offices within HHS, should accurately report data in the federal procurement database system and provide information that would allow the public to distinguish between spending on other transaction agreements and procurement contracts (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: ASPR agreed with our recommendation. As of April 2021, ASPR officials stated that they had discussed within ASPR the need to consistently identify other transaction agreements in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation and explored how their contract writing system may interface with the other transaction agreement module of the data system in the future. ASPR officials added that in the meantime, they have identified other transaction agreements in the procurement module by manually adding designators such as “OTA” or “other transaction agreement” into the description of requirement data field.Status of Recommendations Made to the Department of the TreasuryRecommendation. The Secretary of the Treasury should finish developing and implement a compliance monitoring plan that identifies and responds to risks in the Payroll Support Program (PSP) to ensure program integrity and address potential fraud, including the use of funds for purposes other than for the continuation of employee wages, salaries, and benefits (November 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: In April 2021, GAO confirmed that the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) had developed, documented, and implemented a risk-based approach to monitor PSP recipients’ compliance with the terms of the assistance. Treasury’s risk-based approach entails a two-level compliance review. In the first-level review, automated testing is conducted on all recipients’ quarterly reports using factors/thresholds that can trigger recipients being moved to the next review. In the second-level review, Treasury analysts conduct a more detailed review of recipients that failed the first-level review or were selected for other reasons. Treasury has also developed penalties and a process for remediating noncompliance with PSP agreement terms. As of April 2021, Treasury had identified noncompliance by recipients and applied penalties, as appropriate.Recommendation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should consider cost-effective options for notifying ineligible recipients on how to return payments (June 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) took steps to implement our recommendation, such as providing instructions on the IRS website requesting that individuals voluntarily mail the appropriate economic impact payment (EIP) amount sent to the decedent back to IRS, for both electronic and paper check payments. Treasury has also held and canceled payments made to decedents, along with those that have been returned. As of April 30, 2021, around 57 percent (just over $704 million) of the $1.2 billion in first-round payments sent to deceased individuals had been recovered. As of March 2021, Treasury and IRS had not taken any further action to recoup payments made to decedents that had not been returned. IRS officials determined that further actions, such as initiating erroneous refund cases against the estates of the decedents to which payments were made and not returned, could be burdensome to taxpayers, the federal court system, and IRS. As such, IRS officials concluded that doing so is not prudent at this time.Recommendation. The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should update and refine the estimate of eligible recipients who have yet to file for an EIP to help target outreach and communications efforts (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: Treasury and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but did take some actions that are consistent with our recommendation. For example, in January 2021, Treasury revised its estimate of eligible recipients who have yet to file for a first-round EIP to 8 million. According to Treasury officials, this estimate is based on the 9 million notices IRS sent in September 2020. Treasury officials stated that it is likely that some of the 9 million recipients have since claimed the EIP, but Treasury did not provide data supporting this claim.Recommendation. The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should make estimates of eligible recipients who have yet to file for an EIP, and other relevant information, available to outreach partners to raise awareness about how and when to file for EIPs (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: Treasury and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but did take some actions that are consistent with our recommendation. For example, in September 2020, the agencies used tax return information to identify nearly 9 million individuals who had not received a first-round EIP and then notified these individuals that they may be eligible for a payment. The letters also provided instructions on how to request a payment. In addition, IRS publicly released detailed ZIP code data from the notices to help community outreach partners with their own outreach efforts.Recommendation. The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, should begin tracking and publicly reporting the number of individuals who were mailed an EIP notification letter and subsequently filed for and received an EIP, and use that information to inform ongoing outreach and communications efforts (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: Treasury and IRS agreed with this recommendation. According to Treasury officials, Treasury began analyzing data in January 2021 on those individuals who received a notice and subsequently filed for and received a first-round EIP. However, Treasury does not plan to complete this analysis until fall 2021, more than 6 months after the first third-round EIP payments were issued, limiting how any findings could inform third-round EIP outreach efforts. According to Treasury officials, they are incorporating information from the 2021 filing season into their analysis. The filing season ended on May 17, but there is a 5-month extension to file amended returns.Recommendation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should update the Form 1040-X instructions to include information on the electronic filing capability for tax year 2019 (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: IRS agreed with our recommendation and said that it would start to update the Form 1040-X instructions to include information on the electronic filing (e-file) capability for tax year 2019.As of early May 2021, IRS still planned to include this information in the next routine annual update of the instructions with an October 31, 2021, release, rather than updating them sooner, out of cycle. According to IRS, the normal revision process takes 10 months to complete properly and would be difficult to complete in a shorter time frame. IRS’s planned revision will occur after the deadline for submitting an application for a tentative refund via the temporary electronic fax procedures, which for some taxpayers may require an accompanying Form 1040-X. This means that taxpayers who filed their 1040-X before the December 31 deadline with the temporary procedures did not find the e-file capability in the form instructions. However, some taxpayers will use Form 1040-X for other CARES Act refunds after that deadline, so instructions that are updated in tax year 2021 would still help ensure these taxpayers are aware of this option. A timelier update to the instructions would help taxpayers filing the 1040-X between now and when the annual update to the instructions occurs in October 2021.In the meantime, IRS previously posted information about the e-file availability on the Form 1040-X product page at IRS.gov, which is referenced in the first paragraph of the Form 1040-X instructions. IRS also added a development article dated February 18, 2021, to www.irs.gov/Form1040X to notify taxpayers that e-filing is available for amending 2019 and 2020 returns that were originally e-filed. We will continue to monitor any updates to the instructions.Recommendation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should periodically review control activities for issuing direct payments to individuals to determine that the activities are designed and implemented appropriately as IRS disburses a third round of economic impact payments and prepares for advance payments on the child tax credit. These control activities should include appropriate testing procedures, quality assurance reviews, and processes that ensure payments distributed by tax partners reach the intended recipients (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: IRS disagreed with the recommendation. However, IRS acknowledged that it established additional procedures and reviews upon discovering that it had sent millions of payments to the wrong account. IRS also stated that it plans to assess the effectiveness of these new controls during the next round of economic impact payments and will adjust them as warranted.Recommendation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should leverage employee counts from Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and Form 943, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return for Agricultural Employees, to identify potentially ineligible COVID-19-related sick and family leave credit claims, and address discrepancies IRS deems significant (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: IRS agreed with our recommendation. IRS provided an updated compliance plan, as of May 18, 2021. The plan states that IRS is considering Forms 941 and 943 line 1 data in conjunction with W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement) information, as well as other data, to identify potentially ineligible COVID-19-related credit claims and address discrepancies IRS deems significant. We will continue to monitor IRS’s plans for evidence that the employee counts will be leveraged.Recommendation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should conduct outreach to employment tax return filers to educate and promote accurate reporting of employee counts on Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and Form 943, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return for Agricultural Employees (March 2021 report).Status: ClosedComment: In May 2021, IRS released a “tax tip” for employment tax return filers reminding them to ensure that line 1 of their return is accurate and referring employers to the form instructions for details. This information could support compliance efforts, which can result in multiple benefits, including helping taxpayers understand their responsibilities for tax compliance and decreasing potentially ineligible credit claims.Status of Recommendations Made to the Department of LaborRecommendation. The Secretary of Labor should, in consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Department of the Treasury, immediately provide information to state unemployment agencies that specifically addresses SBA's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, and the risk of improper payments associated with these loans (June 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: The Department of Labor (DOL) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Following our recommendation, DOL issued guidance on August 12, 2020, that clarified that individuals working full-time and being paid through PPP are not eligible for unemployment insurance (UI), and that individuals working part-time and being paid through PPP would be subject to certain state policies, including state policies on partial unemployment, to determine their eligibility for UI benefits. Further, the guidance clarified that individuals being paid through PPP but not performing any services would similarly be subject to certain provisions of state law, and noted that an individual receiving full compensation would be ineligible for UI.Recommendation. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance revises its weekly news releases to clarify that in the current unemployment environment, the numbers it reports for weeks of unemployment claimed do not accurately estimate the number of unique individuals claiming benefits (November 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: DOL’s weekly news release of December 10, 2020, clarified that the numbers reported for weeks of UI benefits claimed do not represent the number of unique individuals claiming benefits.Recommendation. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance pursues options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming benefits, such as by collecting these already available data from states, starting from January 2020 onward (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL partially agreed with our recommendation. Specifically, DOL agreed to pursue options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming UI benefits. However, DOL did not agree with the retroactive effective date of the reporting. In a letter dated March 30, 2021, DOL stated that it had begun developing a new state report that would capture data related to distinct individuals claiming regular UI benefits; DOL estimated that this data collection might begin in early 2022. DOL also reiterated its concerns about the feasibility of states reporting this information retroactively, including for the pandemic UI programs, without detracting from their primary obligation for timely and accurate claims processing. As of June 21, 2021, this recommendation remained open. We maintain that DOL should pursue options to report the actual number of distinct individuals claiming UI benefits, retroactive to January 2020. Even if the information is unavailable for some time, these data are vital to understanding how many individuals are receiving UI benefits, as well as the size of the population supported by the UI system during the pandemic. Given the substantial investment in UI programs during the pandemic, an accurate accounting of the size of the population supported by this funding may be critical to understanding the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s response to unemployment during the pandemic. An accurate accounting may also be critical to helping DOL and policymakers identify lessons learned about the administration and utilization of regular and expanded UI benefit programs. We encourage DOL to pursue options to report the actual number of individuals claiming benefits in the most feasible and least burdensome way and at a time when providing this information retroactively will not detract from states’ primary obligation for timely and accurate claims processing. Collecting data from states is one way to address the recommendation, but DOL could develop other ways of gathering and reporting this information.Recommendation. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should develop a plan, with time frames, to implement the agency’s oversight processes for COVID-19-adapted enforcement methods, as described in its pandemic enforcement policies (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In May 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provided an update on its plans to implement oversight processes for remote inspections, informal inquiries conducted in place of inspections, and citation discretion.For oversight of remote inspections, OSHA officials said that the agency is no longer planning to conduct the oversight outlined in its May 2020 pandemic-related enforcement policy.[532] Instead, officials said that follow-up for some, but not all, remotely conducted inspections would be performed according to area offices’ discretion as part of OSHA’s COVID-19 national emphasis program that went into effect on March 12, 2021.[533]For oversight of informal inquiries conducted in place of inspections, in February 2021, OSHA officials said they planned to conduct follow-up inspections for a random sample of cases where COVID-19-related informal inquiries were conducted. However, this plan would target all informal inquiries, and not just those that were conducted in place of inspections because of the pandemic. Therefore, this sampling technique would draw from a larger pool of cases than originally planned in OSHA’s May 2020 enforcement policy, and could make it less likely that the cases meriting further scrutiny would be identified for follow-up. In May 2021, OSHA officials told us they would consider this issue when they make further plans for this oversight.For oversight of citation discretion, in February 2021, OSHA officials said they would conduct a follow-up inspection for each case coded in the OSHA Information System as having used discretion to not cite violations. OSHA’s COVID-19 national emphasis program includes instructions for conducting these follow-up inspections. However, it is unclear whether all instances where citation discretion was used can be identified in order to conduct follow-up inspections. For example, OSHA officials said that the OSHA Information System code to identify these instances was only intended to be used for discretion related to violations of certain standards, and OSHA has not assessed the extent to which area offices consistently used the code.Our review of Worker Safety and Health during the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. We will continue to examine OSHA’s efforts to implement its oversight processes for COVID-19-adapted enforcement methods, including reviewing the planned oversight that is part of the COVID-19 national emphasis program.Recommendation. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should ensure that the OSHA Information System includes comprehensive information on use of the agency’s COVID-19-adapted enforcement methods sufficient to inform its oversight processes for these methods (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In February 2021, OSHA said that the agency believes its current OSHA Information System coding related to COVID-19 and adapted enforcement methods is sufficient to enable agency oversight, and that it will add new coding if and when it is needed. In March 2021, OSHA added a new code related to its new COVID-19 national emphasis program. While adding this code is beneficial, we remain concerned that the system is not collecting comprehensive information. Our work shows that some adapted enforcement methods are not captured in OSHA Information System coding, leaving OSHA unable to reliably track some of these methods, such as citation discretion and informal inquiries used in place of inspections. Our review of Worker Safety and Health during the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. We will continue to examine OSHA’s efforts to ensure that the OSHA Information System includes sufficient information to inform its oversight processes.Recommendation. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should determine what additional data may be needed from employers or other sources to better target the agency’s COVID-19 enforcement efforts (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In February 2021, OSHA said that it had considered our recommendation and determined that it did not need additional information from employers to identify where pandemic-related enforcement should be targeted. OSHA also said that, pursuant to the President’s January 21, 2021, Executive Order on Protecting Worker Health and Safety, OSHA was working to launch a national program to focus its COVID-19-related enforcement efforts on violations that put the largest number of workers at serious risk or that are contrary to anti-retaliation principles. In March 2021, OSHA launched its COVID-19 national emphasis program for this purpose. Our review of Worker Safety and Health during the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. We will continue to examine OSHA’s efforts in order to determine whether actions taken, including the implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 national emphasis program, address our recommendation.Recommendation. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance collects data from states on the amount of overpayments recovered in the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, similar to the regular UI program (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL agreed with our recommendation and on January 8, 2021, issued PUA program guidance and updated instructions for states to report PUA overpayments recovered. As of June 21, 2021, this recommendation remained open, as just 27 states had begun reporting some data on the amount of PUA overpayments recovered. Sustained reporting by most states is needed to help inform DOL, policymakers, and the public about the amount of PUA overpayments states have recovered. We will continue to monitor state reporting of PUA overpayment recovery data.Recommendation. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should work with FDA and CDC to develop a process for sharing information to facilitate decision-making and guidance consistency related to devices with emergency use authorization (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL concurred with the recommendation, and commented that OSHA will work with FDA and CDC to address issues. In April 2021, OSHA, FDA, and CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health met to discuss establishing a Memorandum of Understanding for sharing information related to emergency use authorizations, and work on the memorandum is ongoing.Recommendation. The Secretary of Labor should ensure the Office of Unemployment Insurance collects data from states on the amount of overpayments waived in the PUA program, similar to the regular UI program (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DOL agreed with our recommendation and noted that it intended to issue PUA program guidance that would include revised reporting requirements and instructions for states to provide information on the amount of PUA overpayments waived. On June 17, 2021, DOL officials stated that the agency expected to publish guidance by mid-July 2021. As of June 21, 2021, this recommendation remained open, as this guidance had not yet been issued and no states had begun reporting these data. We will continue to monitor state reporting of PUA overpayments waived.Status of Recommendations Made to the Small Business AdministrationRecommendation. The Administrator of SBA should develop and implement plans to identify and respond to risks in PPP to ensure program integrity, achieve program effectiveness, and address potential fraud, including in loans of $2 million or less (June 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: At the time of our report, SBA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As we reported in September 2020, SBA has said that it plans to review all PPP loans of $2 million or more and further stated that it may review any PPP loan it deems appropriate, including loans of less than $2 million. In late December 2020, SBA provided a Loan Review Plan outlining steps it planned to take to review PPP loans. The document describes three steps in the process: automated screenings of all loans, manual reviews of selected loans, and quality control reviews to ensure the quality, completeness, and consistency of the review process. In February and April 2021, SBA provided additional documents referenced in the plan that give further details on how SBA and its contractors will conduct the various reviews. However, the documents, and the plan itself, have not been updated to incorporate major changes to the program, such as the additional loans made in 2021. For example, SBA has not determined whether all of the loans made in 2021 will go through the full automatic screening that loans made in 2020 received. In addition, SBA is still implementing its oversight plan and has yet to conduct other critical steps to address potential fraud, including a fraud risk assessment.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should expeditiously estimate improper payments and report estimates and error rates for PPP due to concerns about the possibility that improper payments, including those resulting from fraudulent activity, could be widespread (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: SBA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation at the time of our report. In response to our recommendation, SBA stated that it was planning to conduct improper payment testing for PPP and that it takes improper payments seriously. SBA officials stated that SBA has submitted the sampling plan to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and will use this sampling plan to estimate both improper payments and error rates for PPP in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor SBA’s actions to address this recommendation.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should develop and implement portfolio-level data analytics across Economic Injury Disaster Loan program loans and advances made in response to COVID-19 as a means to detect potentially ineligible and fraudulent applications (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: At the time of our report, SBA neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of May 2021, SBA officials stated that the agency was in the process of developing an analysis to apply certain fraud indicators to all application data. These fraud indicators include applicants’ physical address, internet protocol address, email address, phone numbers, bank accounts, and tax identification numbers.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should conduct and document a fraud risk assessment for the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: SBA agreed with the recommendation, stating that it would work to ensure that a fraud risk assessment for the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program is completed. SBA stated that it has started the work to build a fraud risk framework. We will continue to monitor SBA’s actions to address this recommendation.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should develop a strategy that outlines specific actions to monitor and manage fraud risks in the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program on a continuous basis (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: SBA agreed with the recommendation, stating that it would work to ensure that fraud risks are monitored on a continuous basis. We will continue to monitor SBA’s actions to address this recommendation.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should implement a comprehensive oversight plan to identify and respond to risks in the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program to help ensure program integrity, achieve program effectiveness, and address potential fraud (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: SBA agreed with the recommendation, stating that it will implement a comprehensive oversight plan. We will continue to monitor SBA’s actions to address this recommendation.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should conduct and document a fraud risk assessment for the Paycheck Protection Program (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: SBA agreed with the recommendation, stating that it would work to ensure that a fraud risk assessment for PPP is completed. According to SBA officials, as of May 2021, SBA had begun conducting a formal fraud risk assessment. We will continue to monitor SBA’s actions to address this recommendation.Recommendation. The Administrator of SBA should develop a strategy that outlines specific actions to monitor and manage fraud risks in the Paycheck Protection Program on a continuous basis (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: SBA agreed with the recommendation, stating that it would work to ensure that fraud risks are monitored on a continuous basis. We will continue to monitor SBA’s actions to address this recommendation.Status of Recommendations Made to the Department of Veterans AffairsRecommendation. The VA Under Secretary for Health should develop a plan to ensure inspections of state veterans homes occur during the COVID-19 pandemic—which may include using in-person, a mix of virtual and in-person, or fully virtual inspections (November 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: On December 7, 2020, VA developed an interim process for reviewing records from state veterans homes, such as evidence that previous corrective action plans were implemented and documentation of infection control assessments, to assess the state veterans homes’ compliance with federal regulations. VA reported it implemented this process until a new inspection contract could be awarded and completed 25 of these record reviews. VA awarded a contract in January 2021 to conduct full virtual, blended virtual, or on-site inspections, and reported that the contractor began conducting inspections on January 19, 2021, which are ongoing.Recommendation. The VA Under Secretary for Health should collect timely data on COVID-19 cases and deaths in each state veterans home, which may include using data already collected by CMS (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: As of July 1, 2021, VA is publicly reporting on its website data on COVID-19 cases and deaths among residents and staff at 150 out of 158 state veterans homes. According to VA officials, the eight remaining homes are in the process of enrollment to begin reporting data to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network, but have encountered difficulty with the CDC enrollment process. VA officials told us that both VA and CDC staff are working with each home to address enrollment challenges, and that they hope to have all homes successfully reporting by mid-July 2021. We will continue to monitor their progress.Recommendation. The VA Under Secretary for Health should develop metrics to assess the number of vaccines administered by vaccine rollout phase to better assess progress and make any necessary adjustments as needed (March 2021 report).Status: ClosedComment: VA agreed with our recommendation and stated that its goal is to vaccinate all eligible veterans and employees who want to be vaccinated in 2021. In June 2021, VA provided us with evidence that it is tracking the number of vaccines administered by priority group. For example, VA has metrics on the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated veterans aged 75 and older. We are closing this recommendation as implemented.Recommendation. The VA Under Secretary for Health should develop preliminary vaccination targets for when it will move from one vaccination phase to another; or within one phase, from one group of veterans to another (March 2021 report).Status: ClosedComment: VA concurred in principle with our recommendation. VA told us that it did not independently develop vaccination targets for moving from one phase to another. Rather, according to VA, it followed CDC guidance which called for a phased approach and flexibility to ensure efficient use of vaccines while supply was limited. According to VA, it is no longer using a phased approach and vaccine supply in the United States is no longer limited. Therefore, we are closing our recommendation as not implemented because VA is no longer using a phased approach to administer vaccines.Recommendation. The VA Under Secretary for Health should collect data on the number of staff and veterans who do not show up for a vaccination appointment to better monitor for completion of the second dose of the vaccine (March 2021 report).Status: ClosedComment: VA agreed with our recommendation. In June 2021, VA provided us with evidence that is tracking the number of vaccines administered by priority group, including VHA health care staff, VA staff, and veterans. For example, it’s Veteran Outreach Tool includes data on vaccination status, including if a veteran is interested in receiving or refused vaccination, received a vaccine from VA or an outside provider, and if a veteran is overdue for their second dose of Moderna’s or Pfizer’s vaccine. According to VA, providers use these data for individual veteran outreach and scheduling. VA’s actions meet the intent of our recommendation, which was to use data to track vaccine administration and target outreach to improve completion of vaccine regimens. We are closing this recommendation as implementedStatus of Recommendations Made to the Department of Homeland SecurityRecommendation. The Administrator of FEMA—who heads one of the agencies leading the COVID-19 response through the Unified Coordination Group—consistent with its roles and responsibilities, should work with relevant federal, state, territorial, and tribal stakeholders to devise interim solutions, such as systems and guidance and dissemination of best practices, to help states enhance their ability to track the status of supply requests and plan for supply needs for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic response (September 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: In September 2020, DHS disagreed with this recommendation, noting, among other things, work that FEMA had already done to manage the medical supply chain and increase supply availability. Although DHS disagreed with our recommendation, it began taking some actions in March 2021. As of May 2021, DHS had not demonstrated action to devise interim solutions that would systematically help states, tribes, and territories effectively track, manage, and plan for supplies to carry out the COVID-19 pandemic response in the absence of state-level end-to-end logistics capabilities that would track critical supplies required for a response of this scale. We note that we made this recommendation to both DHS and HHS with the intent that they would work together under the Unified Coordination Group to address challenges reported by state officials with both public health and emergency management responsibilities. Moreover, we recommended they take actions that were consistent with the roles and responsibilities that were to be more clearly defined as HHS took a more central role in leading supply distribution. The recommendation to define those roles and responsibilities remains open. Moreover, although both DHS and HHS have reported separate actions, taken as part of other efforts within each separate purview, neither has articulated how it worked with the other nor how it assessed whether the actions changed the experiences of state officials who reported issues during our prior work. Without systematic and deliberate action to help states ensure they have the support they need to track, manage, and plan for supplies, states, tribes, and territories on the front lines of the whole-of-nation COVID-19 response may continue to face challenges that hamper their effectiveness.Recommendation. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, should (1) revise the criteria in the 2019 National Interest Action code memorandum of agreement to clearly identify steps they will take to obtain input from key federal agencies prior to extending or closing a National Interest Action code, (2) establish timelines for evaluating the need to extend a National Interest Action code, and (3) define what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions and routine contract activity to ensure the criteria for extending or closing the National Interest Action code reflect government-wide needs for tracking contract actions in longer term emergencies, such as a pandemic (September 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: DHS did not agree with our recommendation. However, in March 2021, DHS, in coordination with DOD, issued a revised memorandum of agreement. The revised agreement establishes a process and timelines for communicating and evaluating National Interest Action code extensions by requiring the General Services Administration to notify other federal agencies no less than 7 days before a code is set to expire so that agencies can request an extension, as needed. The revised agreement also more clearly defines what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions to ensure that criteria for extending or closing a National Interest Action code are consistently applied.Recommendation. The FEMA Administrator should adhere to the agency’s protocols listed in the updated 2019 Tribal Consultation Policy by obtaining tribal input via the four phases of the tribal consultation process when developing new policies and procedures related to COVID-19 assistance (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DHS concurred with our recommendation. DHS stated that FEMA’s National Tribal Affairs Adviser, based in the Office of External Affairs, would coordinate with other FEMA offices and directorates, as appropriate, to review the agency’s adherence to protocols listed in the Tribal Consultation Policy.Recommendation. The FEMA Administrator should provide timely and consistent technical assistance to support tribal governments’ efforts to request and receive Public Assistance as direct recipients, including providing additional personnel, if necessary, to ensure that tribal nations are able to effectively respond to COVID-19 (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: DHS concurred with our recommendation. DHS stated that FEMA’s Recovery Directorate would publish a memorandum that would contain direction to FEMA regions regarding the assignment of Public Assistance program delivery managers to promote equitable delivery of Public Assistance to tribal governments. FEMA stated that it plans to send the draft memo to tribal governments in July 2021.Status of Recommendations Made to the U.S. Department of AgricultureRecommendation. The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service to issue guidance—such as an acquisition alert or a reminder to contracting officials—on the use of the COVID-19 National Interest Action code for the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or successor food distribution program to ensure it accurately captures COVID-19-related contract obligations in support of the program (March 2021 report).Status: ClosedComment: The U.S. Department of Agriculture neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In February 2021, following our identification of contract data reporting challenges using the COVID-19 National Interest Action code for the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, Agricultural Marketing Service officials said they conducted training with staff to review National Interest Action code data entry protocols. At that time, a senior Agricultural Marketing Service official also sent an email reminder to procurement division personnel about OMB’s guidance on the use of the COVID-19 National Interest Action code. Following this training and email, officials took action to retroactively report contract actions for the program with the National Interest Action code. In May 2021, the Agricultural Marketing Service updated its instructions for entering contract actions into the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation to include a reminder to utilize the proper National Interest Action code, if applicable.Recommendation. The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service to assess the contracting personnel needed to fully execute the award and administration of existing contracts in support of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or successor future food distribution program, and take the necessary steps to ensure it has adequate contracting staff in place to award and administer any future contracts for the program (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: The U.S. Department of Agriculture neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, and as of May 2021 had not fully assessed the contracting personnel needed to execute and administer contracts in support of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or successor food distribution program. According to Agricultural Marketing Service officials, they have discontinued the program and are using other methods of hunger relief, and so do not anticipate needing additional permanent staff. Agricultural Marketing Service officials are planning to use an existing contract vehicle to obtain additional staff support for contract documentation needs for the awards that have been made under the Farmers to Families Food Box Program and other food purchasing efforts. However, as of May 2021, Agricultural Marketing Service officials had not yet determined the staffing support levels to be obtained under the contract vehicle.Recommendation. The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (1) provides sufficient context to help stakeholders and the public understand and interpret data on federal nutrition assistance programs during the pandemic and (2) discloses potential sources of error that may affect data quality during the pandemic, such as manual processing. For example, the agency could publish key information from its internal communications plan that it developed for the January 2021 data release and include additional table notes in subsequent data releases to help explain these issues (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: As of June 2021, the Food and Nutrition Service had taken steps toward implementing this recommendation. For example, it added several table notes to data it released in April 2021 to help provide stakeholders and the public with sufficient context to understand and interpret key data. Food and Nutrition Service officials said the agency is currently discussing next steps for disclosing potential sources of error, such as manual processing of participation and expenditure data for some programs.Status of Recommendations Made to the Office of Management and BudgetRecommendation. The Director of OMB, in consultation with Treasury, should issue the addendum to the 2020 Compliance Supplement as soon as possible to provide the necessary audit guidance (September 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. OMB issued the 2020 Compliance Supplement Addendum on December 22, 2020.Recommendation. The Director of OMB should develop and issue guidance directing agencies to include COVID-19 relief funding with associated key risks, such as provisions contained in the CARES Act and other relief legislation that potentially increase the risk of improper payments or changes to existing program eligibility rules, as part of their improper payment estimation methodologies. This should especially be required for already existing federal programs that received COVID-19 relief funding (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In November 2020, we reported that although OMB issued a memorandum providing agencies the option to incorporate new COVID-19 relief funding into their normal sampling processes, it did not specifically direct agencies to do so. In addition, the guidance did not direct agencies to consider associated risks, such as changes to eligibility rules and different payment processes, as part of their improper payment estimation methodologies. Further, OMB staff stated that OMB was actively coordinating and engaging with the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee and Inspectors General to share and discuss information relevant to COVID-19 spending risks and improper payment reduction strategies. In January 2021, OMB staff stated they believe current OMB guidance sufficiently addresses our recommendation and concerns. In March 2021, OMB issued new guidance on improper payments that implements the requirements from the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019. This guidance defines a "reliable improper payment and unknown payment estimate" as being produced from accurate sampling populations, testing procedures, and estimation calculations. The OMB guidance discusses a two-phased approach pertaining to assessing programs for susceptibility to significant improper payments and then, if a program is determined to be susceptible, for measuring and reporting improper payments. In phase 1, agencies assess the risk of improper payments, and OMB has added new guidance for how agencies can assess payment integrity risks to identify areas where improper payments may arise. When these risks exceed the established threshold, programs move into phase 2, in which agencies design and submit to OMB a sampling and estimation methodology plan. OMB's guidance states that this plan should have a mechanism for identifying, accounting for, and estimating the annual improper payments and unknown payments separately. However, OMB's guidance does not specifically direct agencies to ensure that all identified payment integrity risks are included as part of their improper payment estimation methodologies. In April 2021, OMB stated that its position remains the same as communicated to us in January 2021 and reiterated that its current guidance sufficiently addresses the intent of the recommendation. We maintain that without OMB guidance for agencies to include COVID-19 relief funding and associated key risks as part of their improper payment estimation methodologies, agencies are at increased risk that their processes may not result in reliable estimates, calling into question their usefulness for developing effective corrective actions. We will continue to monitor OMB’s actions to address this recommendation.Recommendation. The Director of OMB should work in consultation with federal agencies and the audit community (e.g., agency Offices of Inspector General; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), to the extent practicable, to incorporate appropriate measures in OMB’s process for preparing single audit guidance, including the annual Single Audit Compliance Supplement, to better ensure that such guidance is issued in a timely manner and is responsive to users’ input and needs (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Although OMB stated that it shares the draft Compliance Supplement with the grant and audit communities as part of the Compliance Supplement preparation process, OMB has not taken additional steps to ensure the Compliance Supplement and other single audit guidance is issued in a timely manner and is responsive to users’ input and needs. In April 2021, OMB reached out to GAO for consultation on the development of single audit guidance for the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). In May, GAO, OMB and audit community stakeholders met to further discuss single audit guidance needed for ARPA. OMB stated during the meeting that it does not have a planned issuance date for the 2021 Compliance Supplement. We will continue to monitor the actions OMB takes in response to our recommendation.Status of Recommendations Made to the Department of DefenseRecommendation. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, should (1) revise the criteria in the 2019 National Interest Action code memorandum of agreement to clearly identify steps they will take to obtain input from key federal agencies prior to extending or closing a National Interest Action code, (2) establish timelines for evaluating the need to extend a National Interest Action code, and (3) define what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions and routine contract activity to ensure the criteria for extending or closing the National Interest Action code reflect government-wide needs for tracking contract actions in longer term emergencies, such as a pandemic (September 2020 report).Status: ClosedComment: DOD did not agree with our recommendation. However, in March 2021 DOD, in coordination with DHS, issued a revised memorandum of agreement. The revised agreement establishes a process and timelines for communicating and evaluating National Interest Action code extensions by requiring the General Services Administration to notify other federal agencies no less than 7 days before a National Interest Action code is set to expire so that agencies can request an extension as needed. The revised agreement also more clearly defines what constitutes a consistent decrease in contract actions to ensure criteria for extending or closing a National Interest Action code are consistently applied.Status of Recommendation Made to the Department of CommerceRecommendation. The Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries should develop a mechanism to track the progress of states, tribes, and territories in meeting timelines established in spend plans to disburse funds in an expedited and efficient manner (January 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: As of February 1, 2021, the agency had developed an electronic tool to track the disbursement of funds and had begun to input data into it based on approved spend plans. The agency plans to update these data on a weekly basis as funds are disbursed. The agency anticipates that all current and relevant data will be entered into the tracking tool by May 2021 and that data will continue to be added to it until all funding has been disbursed.Status of Recommendation Made to the Department of EducationRecommendation. The Secretary of Education should regularly collect and publicly report information on school districts’ financial commitments (obligations), as well as outlays (expenditures) in order to more completely reflect the status of their use of federal COVID-19 relief funds. For example, the Department of Education (Education) could modify its annual report on state and school district spending data to include obligations data in subsequent reporting cycles (March 2021 report).Status: OpenComment: Education agreed with GAO’s recommendation and committed to working collaboratively with states to develop reporting processes that provide greater clarity on state and school district spending. As of June 11, 2021, the Department of Education posted on its website updated information on how most states and school districts spent (i.e., expended) their Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) and Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) funds (https://covid-relief-data.ed.gov/) through September 30, 2020. For example, Education’s website now includes school district expenditures on education technology, activities for underserved students, mental health supports, sanitization, and summer learning and afterschool programs. Education told us that it was following up with states that did not provide valid and reliable data.On April 21, Education released instructions for states to submit their State Plans for the use of American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) Funds. As part of these plans, Education also requested that states include in their ARP ESSER State Plans any available information on the amount of funds that have been obligated but not expended by states and school districts from the CARES Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and information on the extent to which states are able to track school district obligations. States are required to submit their plans to Education by June 7, 2021 and as of June 15, 30 states’ plans were posted on Education’s website. The plans included varying amounts of information on school district obligations and the states’ ability to track them. Education plans to update its website with updated plans from all the states as they become available and Education officials review them. Education officials told GAO that the agency is taking these efforts to improve transparency and accountability and is committed to effectively administering each of its programs and ensure accountability for all of the resources entrusted to them. We will continue to monitor Education’s efforts to improve tracking of federal COVID-19 relief funds.Status of Matter for Congressional Consideration Regarding the Social Security AdministrationMatter. To provide agencies access to the Social Security Administration’s more complete set of death data, we urge Congress to provide Treasury with access to the Social Security Administration’s full set of death records, and to require that Treasury consistently use it (June 2020 report).Status: ClosedComments: In December 2020, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, section 801(a)(7) of division FF of which requires the Social Security Administration, to the extent feasible, to share its full death data with Treasury’s Do Not Pay working system for a 3-year period through a cooperative arrangement with Treasury. This provision is effective the date that is 3 years from enactment of the act. Sharing these data will allow agencies to enhance their efforts to identify and prevent improper payments to deceased individuals. Therefore, it will be important for the Social Security Administration and Treasury to work together to implement this legislation.Status of Matter for Congressional Consideration Regarding the Department of TransportationMatter. We urge Congress to take legislative action to require the Secretary of Transportation to work with relevant agencies and stakeholders, such as HHS and DHS, and members of the aviation and public health sectors, to develop a national aviation preparedness plan to ensure safeguards are in place to limit the spread of communicable disease threats from abroad while at the same time minimizing any unnecessary interference with travel and trade (June 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: In May 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6800, referred to as the HEROES Act, which would require the Department of Transportation, in coordination with HHS, DHS, and other appropriate federal departments and agencies, to develop a national aviation preparedness plan. In September 2020, the Senate passed S. 3681, Ensuring Health Safety in the Skies Act of 2020, which would require HHS, DHS, and the Department of Transportation to form a joint task force on air travel during and after the COVID-19 public health emergency, among other provisions. Also, in October 2020, H.R. 8712, National Aviation Preparedness Plan Act of 2020, was introduced. If enacted, this bill would require the Department of Transportation, in collaboration with DHS, HHS, and other aviation stakeholders, to develop a national plan to prepare the aviation industry for future communicable disease outbreaks. Members of the House and Senate reintroduced similar bills in the new Congress. In February 2021, H.R. 884, the National Aviation Preparedness Plan Act of 2021, was introduced in the House of Representatives, and in May 2021, S. 82, Ensuring Health Safety in the Skies Act of 2021, was reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.We again urge Congress to take swift action to require a national aviation preparedness plan, without which the U.S. will not be as prepared to minimize and quickly respond to ongoing and future communicable disease events. Status of Matter for Congressional Consideration Regarding Future COVID-19 Relief FundsMatter. In November 2020, we urged Congress to consider, in any future legislation appropriating COVID-19 relief funds, designating all executive agency programs and activities making more than $100 million in payments from COVID-19 relief funds as “susceptible to significant improper payments” (November 2020 report).Status: OpenComment: No new legislation designating executive agency programs and activities making more than $100 million in payments from COVID-19 relief funds as “susceptible to significant improper payments” has been enacted to date.Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education Bookmark:Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services Bookmark:Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security Bookmark:Appendix VIII: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service Bookmark:Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Labor Bookmark:Appendix X: Comments from the Social Security Administration Bookmark:Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Treasury Bookmark:Appendix XII: Comments from the United States Postal Service Bookmark:Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of Veterans AffairsBookmark:The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
| 1 |
Roy Leonard Brackin, father of NPR editor Maquita Peters, and his wife, Rosie, are seen on their wedding day in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, circa 1981. Courtesy of Glenroy George hide caption toggle caption Courtesy of Glenroy George Roy Leonard Brackin, father of NPR editor Maquita Peters, and his wife, Rosie, are seen on their wedding day in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, circa 1981. Courtesy of Glenroy George My father has always been disappearing from my life. The first time he did so was right after my teenage mother told him she was pregnant with me. Over the next few years, he would suddenly reappear and disappear. It was never in person, but through telephone calls and letters across the ocean from his home in Trinidad and Tobago to mine in Barbados. His "here today, gone tomorrow" routine made for a rocky relationship between us; my mother, Victoria, raised me as a single parent. It would take almost a quarter-century before we met in person. After that, my dad and I eventually (and somewhat miraculously) built not just a parent-child relationship, but also a very dear friendship. We evolved from hostile father-daughter interactions to a father who doted on his first-born and a daughter whose heart danced upon hearing her father's sweet singsong Trinidadian accent. It seemed as if my dad had retired as a magician — no longer pulling disappearing stunts. For almost a decade, he was a constant in my life, and albeit late, I came to know and love what it felt like to have both a mother and a father. But another decade has now passed — and today marks the 10th Father's Day since my father again disappeared for what may have been the final time, as I fear he might be dead. How I finally met my father I never called my father "Daddy" or "Dad." He was simply Lee, short for Leonard. It was weird to address him as anything else, even after we had formed a close bond. I met Lee the year I turned 23. It was a year of many firsts: my first trip to Trinidad; first time participating in that nation's renowned carnival and first time traveling with friends to another country to watch our wonderful West Indies cricket team play. It was the latter that paved the way to meeting my father for the first time. That moment is one of the most emotional of my life. But it was initiated by neither my father nor me. NPR editor Maquita Peters' relationship with Lee Brackin evolved from hostile father-daughter interactions to a father who doted on his first-born. Courtesy of Maquita Peters hide caption toggle caption Courtesy of Maquita Peters NPR editor Maquita Peters' relationship with Lee Brackin evolved from hostile father-daughter interactions to a father who doted on his first-born. Courtesy of Maquita Peters At the time, my friend and now late West Indies' cricket legend, Malcolm Marshall, was the team's coach. "Maco," as he was affectionately known, knew my story and had long encouraged me to meet my father. Knowing I would be in Trinidad that weekend, Maco contacted my father and invited him to the hotel where the team was staying. On the morning of the cricket match, en route to Queen's Park Oval, I stopped by the hotel to collect my tickets from Maco. And standing with him was a man — unknown to me, yet familiar-looking — and an adorable boy of about 7 or 8 years old. The man began to walk in my direction. And I began to tremble. As Maco uttered the words "this is your father," the stranger grabbed and held me tightly, breaking down in tears. I, too, started to cry, as did the little boy – his youngest son and my half brother Lyndon. "My daughter, Maquita," were the first words Lee said to me. "I am so sorry." I returned his embrace still shaking, speechless. When my father and I regained our composure, Maco sat us down. He advised me to forgive and pleaded with my father to take his role seriously. He then gave us the tickets to go off and enjoy the cricket match together. First impressions Lee was an amicable man, a charmer and social butterfly. I lost count of all the people who walked up to him and in the rawest of Trinidadian accents, asked: "Lee, is how she look like you so, uh dat yuh daughtah?" He was ever at my beck and call, bringing drinks and food, repeatedly checking to see if I was doing OK. That day, I felt proud to be called his daughter. Lee (right) entertains family and friends at his then-home in Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago. Peters describes her father as an amicable man, a charmer and social butterfly. Courtesy of Glenroy George hide caption toggle caption Courtesy of Glenroy George Lee (right) entertains family and friends at his then-home in Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago. Peters describes her father as an amicable man, a charmer and social butterfly. Courtesy of Glenroy George A couple of years later, I moved to Trinidad to work as a freelance reporter. My father insisted that I come live with him and Rosie, his wife of about 20 years. I walked into their living room — and froze. There, on the wall were framed photos of me through the years. He often didn't respond to my letters — but had saved and displayed all the photos I had sent. He had also kept every letter. When Rosie showed me my room, I was in awe again. They knew I loved teddy bears and had adorned my bed with them. To protect me from the vicious Trinidadian mosquitoes, they had secured netting over my bed. They bought groceries to prepare my favorite meals, and Rosie, knowing I loved to cook, even taught me to prepare several local dishes. My father took me to his favorite entertainment event – Panorama, a steel band competition and vital part of Trinidad's Carnival. But it wasn't always a party with Lee and me. In fact, many of our early interactions when I first moved into his home ended up in disagreements. I was already set in my ways as a 20-something who had been living on her own in Barbados. I was not open to being told by a father who didn't raise me how long to stay on the phone, when to go out and with whom, or what time to come home from partying. And Lee seemingly couldn't come to terms with the fact that I was an adult and not a little girl. Plus, I resented him for deserting my mother and me. One day, I asked him why. "I don't know," he said. "I don't have an answer." This only made me angrier. After all those years, that was the best he could offer? It would take some intervention from my mother — who gave Lee pointers on how to relate to me and encouraged me to forgive him — for Lee and I to finally get along. When I eventually went back to Barbados for work, Lee and I kept in weekly phone contact. One day, in the early 2000s, Rosie called to say that Lee had been rushed to the hospital and was in critical condition. I immediately flew to Trinidad. Unbeknownst to him, Lee was a diabetic and had gone into a diabetic coma. Luckily, he received treatment in time, which saved his life. Rosie helped nurse Lee back to health, changing his diet and keeping his blood sugar under control. Because of his diabetes and the fact that I had come so close to losing him, I made sure to stay in contact when I went to New York in 2005 to further my studies. Lee and I talked several times a month, and like a true dad, he was always concerned about whether I had enough money for tuition, rent or groceries. From time to time, either he or Rosie would call to say, "Go to Western Union, uh send something fuh yuh." Lee and I never missed each other's birthday or any other special occasion. He once said, "I know if only one of my four children calls me, it would be you." It would take some intervention from Maquita's mother — who gave Lee pointers on how to relate to Maquita and encouraged her to forgive him — for the author and her father to finally get along. Courtesy of Glenroy George hide caption toggle caption Courtesy of Glenroy George It would take some intervention from Maquita's mother — who gave Lee pointers on how to relate to Maquita and encouraged her to forgive him — for the author and her father to finally get along. Courtesy of Glenroy George So when I tried without success to reach him for his birthday on Nov. 30, 2008, I knew something was wrong. Lee never answered or returned my calls. A month later, at Christmas, I still could not reach him. I was especially worried because of some events earlier in the year. Rosie had died suddenly in April after suffering a heart attack, and Lee had been depressed when he had called with the tragic news. Then, at the start of summer, he called to deliver another equally sad message; his mother, my grandmother, had also suddenly taken ill and died. While I didn't think he was the type to be so deeply drenched in grief to take his own life, I was concerned that both deaths were unbearable for him. Final disappearing act In January 2009, after countless efforts to get some word on Lee, I got a call from an employee at Trinidad's Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs in Port-of-Spain, where Lee had worked for several years. She informed me that he had been missing from work since early December and that searches by colleagues yielded nothing. My brother Lyndon said our Aunt Jean had filed a missing person report, but the police also came up empty-handed. My brothers Lyndon, Glen and other relatives and friends combed the St. Augustine area where Lee last resided — with no success. Lee's passport, identification card, important documents and all his clothing were found at his home not far from the University of the West Indies. None of his friends had heard from or seen him in months. When anyone called, his cellphone would ring and ring. For at least three years after his disappearance, I would call Lee's phone and it would still ring. I've endured endless sleepless nights. I've cried my eyes dry. I've exhausted all possibilities for help on the matter. Every day, I pray for an answer. Just these past few weeks, I tried again with my search, reaching out to a former Columbia University classmate, a journalist in Trinidad. I asked her to check her police sources for any updates. "Nothing," she said. "It is bad." I wish I could get some closure. As I finish writing this essay, with shaking hands, I dial that 868 area code for Lee. Three times. An automated recording greets me each time: "Sorry, your call cannot be processed at the moment. The number you're trying to call is not reachable." Lee — Dad, wherever you are, I hope you are at peace. I miss you, and with all my heart, I love you and wish you "Happy Father's Day." Maquita Peters is an editor at NPR.org. A version of this essay previously appeared on Peters' personal blog Caribscribe.com.
| 1 |
A nurse draws from a vial of Johnson & Johnson coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., March 25, 2021. REUTERS/Lucy NicholsonRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comWASHINGTON, March 29 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden will announce on Monday that 90% of adults in the United States will be eligible for vaccination against COVID-19 and have a vaccination site within 5 miles of their home by April 19, a White House official said.Bloomberg first reported that Biden planned to make the announcement.Biden has previously set a goal of having 200 million vaccine shots in people's arms in his first 100 days in office.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Jeff MasonOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
| 1 |
Quick Take
Social media posts falsely claim donations made on the Black Lives Matter website go “directly” to the Democratic Party, because the group uses ActBlue Charities — an online fundraising platform. Donations go to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. The funds first pass through a nonprofit that sponsors the group. Full Story As the Black Lives Matter movement captures national attention, websites and social media posts are spreading a false claim about donations made to a leading Black Lives Matter organization.
An Instagram page for the website WokeHub.com claimed, for example, that “donations made to Black Lives Matter website go directly to the DNC” and that BlackLivesMatter.com “appears to be an international money laundering program used by the Democratic National Committee.” A similar claim appeared on the conspiracy theory website InfoWars.com.
Conservative personality Candace Owens also put the claim before her more than 1 million followers on Instagram, where she claimed “BLACK LIVES MATTER FUNDING GOES DIRECTLY TO WHITE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR VARIOUS INITIATIVES TO GET DEMOCRATS INTO OFFICE.”
But the claims — perhaps worsened by public confusion over the structure of the organization, which we’ll explain later — are based on a distortion of facts regarding the nonprofit ActBlue, which provides fundraising infrastructure to Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations.
ActBlue and BlackLivesMatter.com
There are a number of groups that use the phrase “Black Lives Matter” in their name. There is a “Black Lives Matter Foundation,” for example, whose president confirmed to us that it is not related to the organization behind BlackLivesMatter.com — which is at the center of the viral claims.
BlackLivesMatter.com is operated by an umbrella Black Lives Matter organization called the Black Lives Matter Global Network. The effort started in 2013 following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
To collect donations, the website uses ActBlue Charities, a 501(c)(3) organization that specifically makes the platform available to charitable organizations.
Owens’ Instagram post features a video showing that BlackLivesMatter.com uses ActBlue for its donations. It then shows an OpenSecrets.org breakdown of expenditures by ActBlue made in the 2020 cycle; the top recipients are the presidential campaigns of Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
But the video misrepresents how ActBlue works. ActBlue isn’t itself donating money. It’s just the online platform that campaigns and groups use to solicit and collect donations.
Campaign finance experts told us that it’s false to say that donations to the Black Lives Matter group are going to the Democratic National Committee, or to Democratic presidential campaigns, simply because the website uses ActBlue.
“ActBlue lets candidates and liberal nonprofit organizations set up their separate accounts,” Michael Malbin, director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, told us in a phone interview. “There’s no crossing from one account to another. If you give the money to Sanders, it does not go to Biden.”
Malbin — a professor of political science at the University at Albany, State University of New York — said candidates and organizations use ActBlue “for the ease of transactions.”
“ActBlue has no discretion over” where to direct individuals’ contributions, he said. The money “you see coming through ActBlue is coming through it, not from it.”
A similar platform used for Republican fundraising efforts, WinRed, launched in 2019.
“When you donate on an ActBlue or ActBlue Charities page, the donation is earmarked for the group listed on the form,” Caleb Cade, a spokesperson for ActBlue, told us in an email. “We pass along the contribution directly to the receiving campaign or entity. We do not choose the recipient of the contribution, the donor does.”
In a statement to FactCheck.org, the Black Lives Matter Global Network’s managing director, Kailee Scales, said that the claims about the money being routed to Democrats are part of “an organized disinformation campaign against BLM, from actors clearly trying to blunt the growing support for this movement.”
“All contributions to the DNC are publicly reported to the FEC and review of FEC reports will confirm there has never been any donation from this organization,” she said.
The Operations of the Black Lives Matter Global Network
The claims seem to have flourished amid confusion over the structure of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which is incorporated in Delaware.
The ActBlue donations page on the website specifically says that the money given will “benefit Black Lives Matter Global Network.”
Technically, the network also has structured a foundation — the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation — which is “fiscally sponsored” by a global nonprofit called Thousand Currents, according to Jenesha de Rivera, director of finance and administration at Thousand Currents.
The partnership between the network and the nonprofit (formerly the International Development Exchange) was announced in 2016. The nonprofit organization said it would provide “fiduciary oversight, financial management, and other administrative services to BLM.”
Cade, the ActBlue spokesperson, confirmed that the donations made through ActBlue go to Thousand Currents for Black Lives Matter.
Fiscal sponsorships are common.
“Using a fiscal sponsorship arrangement offers a way for a cause to attract donors even when it is not yet recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3),” according to the National Council on Nonprofits. “In essence the fiscal sponsor serves as the administrative ‘home’ of the cause. Charitable contributions are given to the fiscal sponsor, which then grants them to support the cause.”
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation “is an organization within Thousand Currents,” de Rivera said in a phone interview, “so it can accomplish its charitable purpose prior to receiving its approval from the IRS for its own 501(c)(3).”
De Rivera said the foundation has applied to become its own 501(c)(3). We asked the Black Lives Matter group for a copy of its Form 1023, which is used to apply for that designation, but didn’t hear back. An IRS spokesperson said copies are only publicly available if the organization is approved for 501(c)(3) status.
On the claims that money is being given to Democratic campaigns, de Rivera said that Thousand Currents’ own 501(c)(3) status would be “in jeopardy” if charitable donations made through the organization were rerouted to political campaigns.
According to the IRS, “all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.”
A Thousand Currents audit for 2019 shows that, as of June 2019, the organization held nearly $3.4 million in net assets for Black Lives Matter. It had released nearly $1.8 million to the group in the last fiscal year.
The audit also provides a breakdown of how the foundation (referred to as the “fiscal project” under a statement of functional expenses, according to de Rivera) spent that $1.8 million in buckets — including on consultants and salaries.
Speaking generally about the issue of fiscal sponsorships, Benjamin Leff, a law professor at American University who specializes in the regulation of nonprofits, told us by phone that “the sponsoring organization is responsible” for ensuring “that the sponsored organization spends the money in a way that is consistent with the law.” He said the sponsored organization does not have to file its own Forms 990.
And, Leff said in an email, because ActBlue Charities is also a 501(c)(3), it is his “understanding … that both ActBlue Charities and Thousand Currents have a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the funds they receive are spent consistent with 501(c)(3) restrictions.”
On June 11, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation said in a press release that, thanks to donations, it would make $6.5 million available through grants that will be available to “all chapters affiliated” with it.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.
Sources
“ActBlue Expenditures.” OpenSecrets.gov. Accessed 11 Jun 2020.
Cade, Caleb. Spokesperson, ActBlue. Email to FactCheck.org. 11 Jun 2020.
De Rivera, Jenesha. Director of finance and administration, Thousand Currents. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 12 Jun 2020.
“Fiscal Sponsorship for Nonprofits.” National Council of Nonprofits. Accessed 11 Jun 2020.
“IDEX and Black Lives Matter announce global partnership.” Thousand Currents. 6 Sep 2016.
Leff, Benjamin. Law professor, American University. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 12 Jun 2020.
Malbin, Michael. Director, Campaign Finance Institute. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 11 Jun 2020.
Pappas, Alex. “WinRed, new GOP donor platform, reaps impeachment windfall, rakes in millions since probe launch.” Fox News. 1 Oct 2019.
Persily, Nathaniel. Law professor, Stanford University. Email to FactCheck.org. 11 Jun 2020.
“The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations.” IRS. Accessed 12 Jun 2020.
“Thousand Currents and Subsidiary Consolidated Financial Statements.” Squar Milner. 30 Jun 2019.
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have lent hardly any money under a $500 billion fund created by the economic rescue law passed in response to the coronavirus crisis, a congressional oversight panel says in a new report.The Treasury fund is being used to guarantee new, expansive Federal Reserve lending programs to companies, states and cities that could be leveraged to reach as much as $4.5 trillion. So far only one of the new Fed programs has started operating, a lending fund likely to be tapped by large public companies, the report by the Congressional Oversight Commission said. The program was started on May 11 with $37.5 billion from Treasury.The oversight panel issued its first report Monday even though it still does not have a chairman. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have not agreed on a chair, leaving the five-member commission without a leader.The commission has four other members appointed by congressional leaders. They produced a 17-page report that contains mostly questions about how the Treasury fund is going to function.For instance, the panel asked how Treasury and the Fed will assess the program’s success or failure. If the agencies use economy-wide metrics, such as economic growth, unemployment rates or wage growth, “how will they isolate the effects of this program from other factors, including other federal and state relief measures?″ the commission asked.Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is pledging to reveal names and other details of entities that borrow from emergency programs the central bank has set up to offset the economic hit from the pandemic. In prepared testimony for a Tuesday congressional hearing, Powell says the Fed will disclose amounts borrowed and interest rates levied under programs to provide credit for large corporations, state and local governments and medium-sized businesses. He and other officials “recognize that the need for transparency is heightened when we are called upon to use our emergency powers,” Powell’s testimony says. The Fed slashed its benchmark interest rate to near zero as stock markets plunged in March and bond markets froze. The Fed has also intervened by buying $2.1 trillion in bonds in an effort to keep interest rates low and smooth the flow of credit. Powell said Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes” that Congress and the Fed must be prepared to provide additional financial support to prevent permanent damage to the economy from widespread bankruptcies among small businesses and long-term unemployment. The $500 billion Treasury fund includes $46 billion to make loans and loan guarantees to the airline industry, which has been hit hard by the pandemic as air traffic has come to a near halt. None of that money has been disbursed. The Federal Reserve is setting up a Main Street Lending Program intended to facilitate lending by banks to small and medium-size businesses. The program would support lending up to $600 billion, with Treasury providing $75 billion to offset any potential losses. That program also has not disbursed any money, the report said.The economic rescue law, also known as the Cares Act, imposed a number of restrictions on the use of the Treasury fund. For example, none of the $500 billion can support an entity in which top Trump administration officials, members of Congress, or certain family members have a controlling interest. The Fed says it takes time to ensure that the program includes legal language that protects taxpayers. The Fed was criticized for failing to ensure such safeguards during the 2008 financial crisis, most notably to bail out insurance giant AIG.The failure by Pelosi and McConnell to agree on a chair for the oversight head has disappointed watchdog groups that have pushed for stricter oversight of the $2 trillion rescue law. Representatives for Pelosi and McConnell said they had no update on when the oversight position would be filled.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is set to testify along with Powell on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee.Mnuchin says in prepared testimony that the Paycheck Protection Program to provide forgiveable loans to small businesses has processed more than 4.2 million loans worth over $530 billion. The program is working “to keep tens of millions of hardworking Americans on the payroll,″ Mnuchin says. The loans don’t have to be paid back as long as the borrower uses 75% of the money to cover payroll.___AP economics writers Christopher Rugaber and Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.
| 1 |
Outgoing Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 400 people in his final days in office. Timothy D. Easley/AP hide caption toggle caption Timothy D. Easley/AP Outgoing Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 400 people in his final days in office. Timothy D. Easley/AP Updated at 4:15 p.m. ET Former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin departed the governor's mansion three days ago, but the reverberations of some of his final actions are still being felt across the state. Bevin, a Republican who narrowly lost a bid for a second term last month, issued pardons to hundreds of people, including convicted rapists, murderers and drug offenders. In one case, Bevin pardoned a man convicted of homicide. That man's family raised more than $20,000 at a political fundraiser to help Bevin pay off a debt owed from his 2015 gubernatorial campaign. In all, the former governor signed off on 428 pardons and commutations since his loss to Democrat Andy Beshear, according to The Courier-Journal. The paper notes, "The beneficiaries include one offender convicted of raping a child, another who hired a hit man to kill his business partner and a third who killed his parents." Bevin's controversial decisions have been greeted with shock and consternation from many across the state. Some residents reacted angrily to a Thursday Twitter post from Bevin's official account of a sunset along with #WeAreKY. "Winter sunset ... " Bevin wrote, "Phone camera doesn't do it justice...Truly spectacular. #WeAreKY" Twitter user Josh Trosper blasted the governor in a tweet: "I guess you can snap pics when you don't have the time to look families (or voters) in the face and tell them you pardoned murderers and rapists." Rob Sanders, the Kenton County commonwealth's attorney, told The Cincinnati Enquirer that he had backed Bevin but the pardons changed his mind. "I was somebody who supported him and believed in him and I'm disgusted at myself for having done so," Sanders said to the Enquirer about Bevin. One pardon that had Sanders — and many others — particularly outraged was that of Micah Schoettle. He's a 41-year-old convicted of raping a 9-year-old child last year. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison, according to the Courier-Journal. In his pardon order, Bevin wrote, "Micah Schoettle was tried and convicted of a heinous crime based only on testimony that was not supported by any physical evidence." He added: "This case was investigated and prosecuted in a manner that was sloppy at best. I do not believe that the charges against Mr. Schoettle are true." Bevin commuted Schoettle's sentenced to time served and ordered a full and unconditional pardon. Another of Bevin's pardons was of Patrick Brian Baker, who was convicted in 2017 of murdering Donald Mills and tampering with physical evidence, among other charges. As the Courier-Journal also reports, Baker's family "raised $21,500 at a political fundraiser last year to retire debt from Bevin's 2015 gubernatorial campaign." Baker's brother and sister-in-law also donated $4,000 to Bevin campaign, according to a state election finance database, the paper reports. "Patrick Baker is a man who has made a series of unwise decisions in his adult life," Bevin wrote in his pardon letter dated Dec. 6, adding that evidence in his conviction was "sketchy at best." "I am not convinced that justice has been served in the death of Donald Mills, nor am I convinced that the evidence has proven the involvement of Patrick Baker as murderer," Bevin wrote. Baker was sentenced to 19 years, but served just two. His sentence was commuted to time served and a pardon only for the charges connected to the conviction. Not all of Bevin's pardons were so contentious. He also pardoned Tamishia Wilson of Henderson, Ky., convicted in 2006 of trafficking marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession. She was also convicted in 2004 of theft. Bevin proclaimed in a Dec. 9 letter that she "is a new woman. She has turned her life around and become a model citizen." The former governor also spared the life of death row inmate Gregory Wilson, who was convicted in 1988 of murder. The Courier-Journal reports the trial was widely described as "a travesty of justice and a national embarrassment for Kentucky." The paper said Wilson's defense team consisted of two lawyers, one of whom "had never tried a felony before" and a lead counsel who "had no office, no law books and on his business card, he gave out the phone number to a local tavern." An array of other ethical woes plagued the case. Bevin commuted his sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole, writing that Wilson received "the short end of the justice stick. ... Regardless of the final resolution of future parole board hearings, Mr. Wilson at least deserves an equal opportunity for justice to be served." Reached on Thursday for comment by The Washington Post, Bevin said of the pardons, "I'm a believer in second chances." "If there has been a change and there's no further value that comes for the individual, for society, for the victims, for anybody, if a person continues to stay in," Bevin noted, "then that's when somebody should be considered for a commutation or a pardon." During his tenure as governor, Bevin took a special interest in criminal justice reform and creating Kentucky's Criminal Justice Policy Assessment Council. At the council's first meeting in 2016, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported the panel's mission was to "study the state's criminal code ... and suggest improvements for the 2017 General Assembly to consider." In 2017, Bevin, through an executive order, restored the voting rights of 284 people convicted of nonviolent felonies, according to member station WFPL in Louisville. Earlier this year Bevin signed a bill that deepened the pool of people eligible to have their low-level criminal records expunged. Beshear, the current Kentucky governor, spoke Friday with NPR and WBUR's Here & Now about his own move to restore voting rights to 140,000 nonviolent offenders who have completed prison sentences. He was asked about Bevin's slew of pardons and expressed displeasure over one case in particular. While he didn't refer to the case by name, Beshear mentioned the pardon of Dayton Ross Jones, who pleaded guilty to the 2014 sexual assault of a 15-year-old boy. The act was captured on video and shared on social media, according to the Kentucky New Era, and Jones was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2016. "A young man was attacked, was violated, it was filmed, it was sent out to different people at his school," Beshear said. "It was one of the worst crimes that we have seen." Kentucky's attorney general's office, which Beshear previously headed, prosecuted the case. "I fully disagree with that pardon," Beshear said. "It is a shame and its wrong." Bevin gave no explanation of why he issued Jones a pardon and commuted his sentence to time served.
| 1 |
Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event on Wednesday in Rochester, N.H. Elise Amendola/AP hide caption toggle caption Elise Amendola/AP Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event on Wednesday in Rochester, N.H. Elise Amendola/AP Former Vice President Joe Biden called for President Trump's impeachment and removal from office, on Wednesday. Up until now, Biden had reserved judgment, saying he supported the House's impeachment inquiry and wanted to see what the facts showed. But in a campaign speech in Rochester, N.H., Biden was unequivocal, saying that "to preserve our Constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, [Trump] should be impeached." Biden said the case was already clear before the public. "With his words and his actions, President Trump has indicted himself. By obstructing justice, refusing to comply with the congressional inquiry, he's already convicted himself," Biden said. "In full view of the world and the American people, Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation and committed impeachable acts." Biden later argued that "impeachment isn't only about what the president has done — it's about the threat the president poses to the nation if allowed to remain in office." Accordingly, Biden said, Congress should remove him before voters go to polls to choose the president on Election Day next year. Biden and his family were the subject of an effort by Trump to request political assistance from the government of Ukraine that was connected to U.S. military assistance and offers of engagement with Trump himself. Trump, his aides and some State Department diplomats were involved with an effort to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to launch investigations into Biden's family and into a conspiracy theory believed by Trump about the political interference in the 2016 presidential race. Trump has defended the propriety of those actions and also called for the government of China to investigate the Biden family, too. Trump and his supporters have sought to call attention to what they call the questionable business dealings of Biden's son Hunter. The president mocked the Bidens on Wednesday on Twitter in a response to the campaign speech. Deadlock in Washington The back and forth between Trump and Biden followed the White House's declaration on Tuesday that it would not accommodate Congress with documents or witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. Without a vote to initiate an inquiry by the full House, argued White House counsel Pat Cipollone, there is no impeachment inquiry the administration is bound to respect. But White House officials also won't commit to cooperating with Congress if the House were to convene a vote on launching an impeachment inquiry. Biden used his speech in New Hampshire to fault what he called that rejection laws and democratic norms, saying of the president that "he is seeing no limits to his power regardless of what the Constitution says" and that "he believes if he does something, it's legal — period." Trump "believes he can and will get away with anything he does. We all laughed when he said he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and get away with it," said Biden, alluding a statement Trump made during the 2016 campaign. "It's no joke," Biden insisted. "He's shooting holes in the Constitution, and we can not let him get away with it." Biden has led the crowded Democratic primary field since he entered the race but has since been caught in polling by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren —who earlier called for Trump's impeachment. A Biden aide says that the former vice president has seen the past two weeks as "a remarkable period in American history" that made clear what he believes are Trump's obstruction and wrongdoing. That gave Biden no choice but to make his stance on impeachment clear, the aide says. NPR political correspondent Scott Detrow contributed.
| 1 |
By Laura Meckler and Carol E. LeeAbove, video of Romney's remarks.Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney comes in for daily bashing from Democrats, but on Wednesday, he took heat from some Republicans as well. At issue was his sharp and fast criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of deadly attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions. Mr. Romney said the Obama administration was wrong to condemn a U.S. film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad and that sparked the Middle East protests. He pointed to an early statement by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, which was responding to the movie. In it, the embassy said it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.’’ That amounted to an apology for America and its values of freedom of speech, Mr. Romney said—first in a statement late Tuesday as the situation remained unclear--and again at a news conference on Wednesday. “Apology for America's values is never the right course,” he said at the news conference in Jacksonville, Fla. Most Republicans issued statements that steered clear of commenting on the administration’s handling of the attacks or Mr. Romney’s remarks. But some took the GOP presidential nominee to task. “What the Americans people are looking for after 11 years of war in their presidential candidates is coolness and calmness and a steady hand, and political statements have the tendency to inflame situations as opposed to steadying them,” Steve Schmidt, who directed Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said in an interview. “His response is evaluated through the prism of his capacity to be commander in chief, not on the political sting he can land on the incumbent president.” Mr. Schmidt, a former aide to President George W. Bush, said the Obama embassy statement calling for respect for other religions echoed comments from the Bush administration. In 2006, when the Muslim world erupted in anger over European cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, a Bush State Department spokesman said, “'We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.'' Mark Salter, a longtime adviser to Mr. McCain, wrote Wednesday that he has many problems with Obama foreign policy but that the Romney attack was off base – though as a 2008 McCain veteran he understood why the Romney campaign might feel pressure to step up its attacks on Mr. Obama. Mr. Salter also defended the original embassy statement. “There is nothing wrong in principle with making clear to people, who have yet to embrace the categorical right to free speech, that Americans and their government deplore the deplorable, that we reject vile attacks on Muslims as vigorously as we reject vile anti-Semitic attacks,” he said. “To do so does not constitute sympathy for the people besieging our embassy, as Gov. Romney alleged. Nor is at an apology for America, as some Obama critics have claimed.” Conservative writer David Frum wrote on Wednesday, “Politicians must pander, it goes with the job. But they mustn't leave their fingerprints all over their pandering. The Romney campaign's attempt to score political points on the killing of American diplomats was a dismal business in every respect.” Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan who writes a column for The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, said on Fox News that he had opened himself up to accusations that he was “trying to exploit things politically.” “I belong to the old school of thinking in times of great drama and heightened crisis, and at times when something violent is happening to your people, I always think discretion is the better way to go,” she said. “I don’t feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors…. When hot things happen, cool words- or no words- is the way to go.” Mr. Romney did get some backup. “Governor Romney is absolutely right, there is no justification for these deadly attacks and we should never apologize for American freedom,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). “It was disheartening to hear the administration condemn Americans engaging in free speech that hurt the feelings of Muslims, while real atrocities have been repeatedly committed by Islamic radicals against women, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East.” Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a potential leap forward in the global fight against the pandemic, drugmaker Merck said Friday that its experimental pill for people sick with COVID-19 reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half.If cleared by regulators, it would be the first pill shown to treat COVID-19, adding a whole new, easy-to-use weapon to an arsenal that already includes the vaccine.The company said it will soon ask health officials in the U.S. and around the world to authorize the pill’s use. A decision from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could come within weeks after that, and the drug, if it gets the OK, could be distributed quickly soon afterward.All other COVID-19 treatments now authorized in the U.S. require an IV or injection. A pill taken at home, by contrast, would ease pressure on hospitals and could also help curb outbreaks in poorer and more remote corners of the world that don’t have access to the more expensive infusion therapies.“This would allow us to treat many more people much more quickly and, we trust, much less expensively,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who was not involved in the research.Merck and its partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics said early results showed patients who received the drug, molnupiravir, within five days of COVID-19 symptoms had about half the rate of hospitalization and death as those who received a dummy pill. The study tracked 775 adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who were considered high risk for severe disease because of health problems such as obesity, diabetes or heart disease. The results have not been reviewed by outside experts, the usual procedure for vetting new medical research.Among patients taking molnupiravir, 7.3% were either hospitalized or died at the end of 30 days, compared with 14.1% of those getting the dummy pill. After that time period, there were no deaths among those who received the drug, compared with eight in the placebo group, according to Merck.The results were so strong that an independent group of medical experts monitoring the trial recommended stopping it early. Company executives said they plan to submit the data to the FDA in the coming days. Even with the news of a potentially effective new treatment, experts stressed the importance of vaccines for controlling the pandemic, given that they help prevent transmission and also reduce the severity of illness in those who do get infected. White House coronavirus coordinator Jeff Zients said that vaccination will remain the government’s main strategy for controlling the pandemic. “We want to prevent infections, not just wait to treat them when they happen,” he said.Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s foremost authority on infectious diseases, called the results from Merck “very good news.”Merck only studied its drug in people who were not vaccinated. But FDA regulators may consider authorizing it for broader use in vaccinated patients who get breakthrough COVID-19 symptoms. Andrew Pekosz of Johns Hopkins University predicted vaccines and antiviral drugs would ultimately be used together to protect against the worst effects of COVID-19.“These shouldn’t be seen as replacements for vaccination — the two should be seen as two strategies that can be used together to significantly reduce severe disease,” said Pekosz, a virology specialist.Patients take four pills of molnupiravir twice a day for five days. Side effects were reported by both groups in the Merck trial, but they were slightly more common among those who received a dummy pill. The company did not specify the problems. Earlier study results showed the drug did not benefit patients who were already hospitalized with severe disease. That’s not surprising, given that antiviral drugs are most effective when used before the virus ramps up in the body.The U.S. has approved one antiviral drug, remdesivir, for COVID-19, and allowed emergency use of three antibody therapies that help the immune system fight the virus. But all the drugs are expensive and have to given by IV or injection at hospitals or clinics, and supplies have been stretched by the latest surge of the delta variant. The antibody drugs have been shown to reduce hospitalization and death by roughly 70% when given to high-risk patients, roughly 20 percentage points more than Merck’s pill. But experts cautioned against comparing results from the two, given the preliminary nature of Merck’s data.Health experts, including Fauci, have long called for a convenient pill that patients could take when COVID-19 symptoms first appear, much the way Tamiflu is given to help speed recovery from the flu.Like other antivirals, Merck’s pill works by interfering with the virus’s ability to copy its genetic code and reproduce itself. The U.S. government has committed to purchasing enough pills to treat 1.7 million people, assuming the FDA authorizes the drug. Merck said it can produce pills for 10 million patients by the end of the year and has contracts with governments worldwide. The company has not announced prices.Several other companies, including Pfizer and Roche, are studying similar drugs and could report results in the coming weeks and months. Merck had planned to enroll more than 1,500 patients in its late-stage trial before the independent board stopped it early. The results reported Friday included patients across Latin America, Europe and Africa. Executives estimated 10% of patients studied were from the U.S.___This story has been updated to correct that patients take eight pills per day, not two.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
| 1 |
Fired Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger leaves the courtroom after a jury found her guilty of murder Tuesday. Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean, an unarmed 26-year-old neighbor, in his own apartment last year. She told police she thought his apartment was her own and that he was an intruder. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP hide caption toggle caption Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP Fired Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger leaves the courtroom after a jury found her guilty of murder Tuesday. Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean, an unarmed 26-year-old neighbor, in his own apartment last year. She told police she thought his apartment was her own and that he was an intruder. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP Updated at 6:22 p.m. ET A Dallas jury has found former police Officer Amber Guyger guilty of murder for fatally shooting a neighbor who lived in the apartment directly above hers last year. She had testified that she entered Botham Jean's unit after a long day at work, thinking it was her own home and that he was an intruder. The jury took five hours to decide Guyger had committed murder, rather than a lesser charge of manslaughter. Jurors heard testimony Tuesday afternoon in the sentencing phase of the trial. Testimony resumes Wednesday. Guyger faces a possible punishment of five to 99 years in prison. She is the first Dallas police officer to be convicted of murder since the 1970s. Prosecutors maintained that Guyger, who is white, committed murder when she overlooked signs that the apartment she entered wasn't her own — the wrong floor, the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment, a bright red doormat — and shot Jean, a 26-year-old black accountant who was sitting in his living room eating ice cream when Guyger killed him last September. "There was no other floor mat like this is the entire building. This sticks out, literally, like a red thumb," lead prosecutor Jason Hermus said during closing arguments Monday, displaying the doormat to the jury. "And she walked up to it and stood on top of it." Assistant District Attorney Jason Hermus shows Botham Jean's red doormat to the jury during opening statements in the murder trial of former Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP hide caption toggle caption Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP Assistant District Attorney Jason Hermus shows Botham Jean's red doormat to the jury during opening statements in the murder trial of former Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP But in tearful testimony last week, Guyger said she was "scared to death" when she opened what she thought was her own apartment door and saw the silhouette of a man she mistook for an intruder. "I was scared whoever was inside my apartment was going to kill me," she told the jury. "No police officer would want to hurt an innocent person." Guyger lived on the third floor of an apartment complex just south of downtown Dallas. Her lawyers said she was in uniform and had just finished a 13-hour workday on Sept. 6th, 2018, when she mistakenly opened Jean's door. "What was going through Amber's mind was just, 'I'm going home,' " defense lawyer Robert Rogers said. " 'I'm exhausted, and I'm going home.' " Guyger testified that she had put her key in the door and realized it was unlocked. Thinking someone had broken in, she drew her gun and entered the apartment. Guyger said she ordered Jean, "Let me see your hands," and that he instead started to move toward her. Prosecutors countered that nobody in the apartment complex heard her instruct Jean to raise his hands. Within seconds of opening the door, she fired two shots at Jean. One of the bullets struck him in the chest, killing him. Guyger called 911 and told the operator over and over: "I thought it was my apartment." The case transfixed observers around the country for the delicate questions it presented. Was the shooting a noncriminal accident equal to a "tragic mistake," as Guyger's lawyers argued? Or were Guyger's mistakes so reckless that they constituted manslaughter, or so intentional that it amounted to murder? In deciding that she was guilty, the jury, about half of whom were African American, sided with the prosecution's argument for murder. Under Texas law, convicting a defendant of murder requires proving someone intentionally killed another person, as opposed to manslaughter, in which prosecutors have to show someone was killed because of recklessness. Botham Jean's mother, Allison Jean, rejoices in the courtroom after fired Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger was found guilty of murder. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP hide caption toggle caption Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP Botham Jean's mother, Allison Jean, rejoices in the courtroom after fired Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger was found guilty of murder. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP Some have described the facts of the case as the latest example of a white police officer killing an unarmed black man. Civil rights groups rallied behind Jean, a native of the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. And many police officers came to the defense of Guyger, who was fired nearly three weeks after the shooting. During her testimony, Guyger seemed to cast aside race as a factor. The encounter was "not about hate," she said. "It's about being scared." To prosecutors, Guyger's distraction led to a crime. Just before Guyger entered Jean's apartment, she had a 16-minute phone conversation with a fellow officer, Martin Rivera. Authorities say the two had a romantic relationship and that they had been swapping sexually explicit messages. Prosecutors argued that Guyger was so absorbed with those communications that she was too preoccupied to realize she was heading toward the wrong apartment. In cross-examining Guyger, prosecutors emphasized that her training as a police officer should have informed her to back away from the door, hide and call for backup if she had suspected an intruder. Guyger had her police radio, and she lives just two blocks from police headquarters, so she could have had other officers arrive quickly, prosecutors pointed out. Had she done that, Guyger was asked, might Jean be alive today? "Yes, sir," she said. Before jurors began their deliberations Monday, Texas District Judge Tammy Kemp allowed them to consider what is known as the "castle doctrine" as a possible defense, despite the objections of prosecutors who called the move "absurd." Similar to self-defense laws known as "stand your ground," the Texas statute says a person is justified in using deadly force if someone enters or attempts to enter a person's own home. "It may have been a stretch for Judge Kemp to allow that jury to consider it," Tim Powers, a former Texas prosecutor and judge, told NPR. The judge's decision raised a unique set of legal facts that experts said has not been tested in Texas courts: considering a "castle doctrine" defense in a location that is not one's "castle." "This is a case of first impression, which means we don't have any precedents of this where the mistake of fact defense merges with the castle doctrine," said Peter Schulte, a Texas defense lawyer and former prosecutor. Botham Jean's mother, Allison Jean, center, escorted by attorney Daryl Washington, right, and her son, Brandt Jean, left, as she leaves the courtroom after fired Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was found guilty of murder on Tuesday. Tom Fox/Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP hide caption toggle caption Tom Fox/Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP Botham Jean's mother, Allison Jean, center, escorted by attorney Daryl Washington, right, and her son, Brandt Jean, left, as she leaves the courtroom after fired Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was found guilty of murder on Tuesday. Tom Fox/Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP But in the end, the jury rejected the controversial use of that legal standard as a possible defense. Both Powers and Schulte think the issue will be raised during Guyger's expected appeal. In the state's closing arguments on Monday, prosecutor Hermus said the only way a defendant can claim self-defense to murder is when there is no other reasonable alternative. Hermus said that was not the case when Guyger shot Jean. "Self-defense means you're acting defensively," Hermus said. "She became the aggressor. That's not self-defense." NPR's Wade Goodwyn contributed to this report.
| 1 |
A campaign organizer for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders warned about mass violence and advocated for the use of gulags for "re-education" in a conversation caught on tape by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. In the undercover video, Kyle Jurek, an Iowa field organizer for the Sanders campaign, said the country will have to "spend billions" on re-education for people that are "Nazified."
Jurek said the candidate's "free education" policies will "teach you how not to be a f*cking Nazi." He touted post-war Germany spending money to "re-educate" people not to be a "f*cking Nazi." Jurek also said that people should "expect violent reaction" for speech, and warned that "Milwaukee will burn" if Sanders does not get the nomination. Milwaukee is the location of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.
"Do you even think that some of these like MAGA people could be re-educated?" an undercover reporter asked.
"I mean, we gotta try," Jurek answered. "Like, in Nazi Germany after the fall of the Nazi party there was a shit ton of the populace that was fucking Nazified. Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their fucking people to not be Nazis."
"Like, we're probably going to have to do the same fucking thing here," he continued. "That's kind of what Bernie's fucking like, 'Hey, free education for everybody!' because we're going to have to teach you to not be a fucking Nazi."
"If Bernie doesn't get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC convention, fucking Milwaukee will burn," Jurek warned. "It'll start in Milwaukee and then when they fucking, when the police push back on that, other cities will just fucking (blow up sound)."
"The cops are going be the ones that are getting fucking beating in Milwaukee," he added.
Jurek suggested the use of gulags for "re-education" of Trump supporters and praised political labor camps. He said gulags have been misunderstood and were actually "a lot better" than described, noting people were paid "a living wage" and allowed conjugal visits.
"There's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags, right?" Jurek said. "Actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were actually meant for like re-education."
"Greatest way to breaking a fucking billionaire of their like privilege and the idea that they're superior, go out and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You're now a working-class person and you’re going to fucking learn what that means, right?"
| 1 |
By telling a racially mixed audience in Virginia on Tuesday that the Republican ticket's economic plans would "put y'all back in chains," Vice President Biden sparked the latest campaign controversy. Vice President Joe Biden. Evan Vucci/AP hide caption toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney called it an "outrageous charge" and said called on President Obama to "take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago." The Obama campaign defended Biden and said his words were meant to counter Republican promises to "unshackle" the economy from regulations. Biden himself later said he had intended to use the word "unshackle," and that "it's their policies and the effects of their policies on middle class America" that is "outrageous." Courtesy of C-SPAN's online archive, here is a clip of Biden's "chains" comment. And here is a clip of new GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan talking about the need to "unshackle our economy" when he delivered the Republican response to President Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address. In other political news from Tuesday: "Two longtime Republicans, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Rep. John Mica of Florida, turned back conservative challengers in primaries on Tuesday while 12-term Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida was trailing tea party challenger Ted Yoho, a veterinarian and political novice." (The Associated Press) Our friends at It's All Politics are tracking the 2012 campaign here.
| 1 |
WASHINGTON—A key Senate panel on Wednesday backed President Barack Obama's request to strike Syria, while the Pentagon prepared to employ greater firepower to reach a shifting array of military targets.The revised options under development, which reflect Pentagon concerns that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dispersed his military equipment, include the use of Air Force bombers to supplement the four Navy destroyers armed with missiles that are deployed in the eastern Mediterranean. Initially, Pentagon planners said they didn't intend to use aircraft in the proposed strikes. What's the short version of Syria's recent history? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. The Pentagon shift came amid an accelerating tempo toward U.S. military action in response to the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons on a large scale Aug. 21, an attack U.S. officials say killed more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children. Secretary of State Kerry is confronted by members of the antiwar group Code Pink as he arrives to address the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Wednesday saying a goal of U.S. policy will be to "change the momentum on the battlefield'' in Syria's civil war and speed a negotiated removal of Mr. Assad. The measure would ban the use of ground forces in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations" and sets a 60-day limit for Mr. Obama to launch strikes. It includes a possible 30-day extension if Mr. Obama determined that was needed to meet the resolution's goals. The committee vote was the first formal test of congressional sentiment about launching the Syria strike and illustrated how much Mr. Obama's path to victory takes him across a political tightrope. Mr. Obama and his allies will have to balance anxieties of lawmakers who worry the U.S. will get too involved in Syria with the concerns of hawks worried that isolated attacks won't accomplish enough. Beefing up the extent of any bombing mission could inflame these tensions. The measure passed only after the committee added amendments by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) designed to set a broader strategy. Mr. McCain has been a crucial supporter of Mr. Obama's push for congressional approval to use force and opposed an earlier measure as too narrow. The amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) also called for an increase in U.S. efforts to provide lethal and nonlethal support for "vetted" elements of the Syrian rebel opposition. The vote laid bare divisions in both political parties. Seven Democrats and three Republicans voted for the resolution; two Democrats and five Republicans voted against it. Related Video While making a case for military force in Syria at a House committee hearing on Wednesday, John Kerry said the debate is not about President Obama's red line but about the world's red line. Meanwhile, a protester is escorted out of the room. On Wednesday, administration officials spent a second day exhorting lawmakers to approve the resolution, arguing that while the strike is aimed specifically at the government's use of chemical weapons, it also would degrade Mr. Assad's overall military strength—suggesting a broader purpose. "Is there a downstream collateral benefit to what will happen in terms of the enforcement of the chemical weapons effort? The answer is yes, it will degrade his military capacity," Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Taking out Mr. Assad's helicopters, for example, would have a significant impact. The regime uses them to transport troops and supplies. Without them, Mr. Assad would have to rely more heavily on ground convoys, which are easier to attack. Getting Away From SyriaMore than two million people have fled the recent fighting in Syria, and the number of refugees is expected to reach 3.5 million by year-end, U.N. officials said Tuesday. Ten Largest Refugee Camps Review the list of the 10 most populous U.N. refugee settlements in the world. The White House declined to comment on the possible use of bombers or any other targeting changes. A senior administration official said the scope of targets never had been limited to Syria's chemical weapons. The Pentagon's new planning stems from Mr. Assad moving equipment, including Russian-made helicopters, to bases around the country while the U.S. debates, a change that could require the Pentagon to use many more Tomahawk cruise missiles and other types of munitions than initially envisioned. Moreover, U.S. officials say, Mr. Assad has moved aircraft and other equipment into hardened bunkers and shelters. In some cases, destroying these hardened targets, officials say, could require the use of multiple Tomahawks. The Navy destroyers in the Mediterranean carry about 40 Tomahawks each. Air Force bombers could carry dozens more munitions, potentially allowing the U.S. to carry out follow-on strikes if the first wave doesn't destroy the targets. Among options available are B-52 bombers, which can carry cruise missiles; low-flying B1s that are based in Qatar and carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles; and B-2 stealth bombers, which are based in Missouri and carry heavy guided bombs. Like Mr. Assad, the Pentagon is trying to take advantage of the extra time before a U.S. strike. A senior U.S. official said that Mr. Assad's movement of equipment has helped the Pentagon identify additional targets at previously unknown locations. "Could the delay remove a target? Yes. But it is also creating targets. We are finding things we didn't know existed," said the senior official, who declined to specify the types of targets. In testimony before Congress, officials have said they intend to "degrade" Mr. Assad's ability to deliver chemical weapons. That could include Syria's aircraft and mobile-launch systems. President Obama said "the world set a red line" on Syria when it outlawed the use of chemical weapons. Colleen McCain Nelson reports on Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images. Over the weekend, the message from administration officials in closed-door briefings with lawmakers was the strikes would directly target Mr. Assad's chemical-weapons capabilities and be "distinctly separate from the war on the ground," referring to the Syrian civil war, according to a congressional aide who attended the briefings. Since then, Messrs. Obama and Kerry have told lawmakers privately the goal would be to "change the momentum" more broadly, according to Mr. McCain and other lawmakers who have been briefed. Administration officials wouldn't say whether a "change of momentum" meant a wider set of targets could be hit with no connection to Mr. Assad's chemical-weapons capabilities. But a U.S. official said targets could include government buildings such as the Defense Ministry. Previously, officials said the targets would include command-and-control sites, artillery batteries and intelligence facilities. Mr. Obama, on a trip to Sweden before traveling to an international summit in Russia, said Wednesday the U.S. would be strengthened by congressional support for the attack, but reserved the right to act even if the resolution fails. "I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress, but I did not take this to Congress because I think it's an empty exercise," Mr. Obama told reporters in Stockholm. Asked about the "red line" he drew a year ago against Syria's use of chemical weapons, Mr. Obama declared it wasn't just his red line but a red line adopted by the international community and Congress when world leaders approved prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons. A senior administration official said Mr. Obama will formally make his case to Congress and Americans when lawmakers return to Washington next week after a break. —Janet Hook, Peter Nicholas, Corey Boles and Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article. Write to Julian E. Barnes at [email protected], Carol E. Lee at [email protected] and Adam Entous at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Google and YouTube on Thursday announced a new policy that prohibits climate deniers from being able to monetize their content on its platforms via ads or creator payments. Why it matters: It's one of the most aggressive measures any major tech platform has taken to combat climate change misinformation.Details: Google advertisers and publishers, as well as YouTube creators, will be prohibited from making ad revenue off content that contradicts "well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change," the company's ads team said in a statement. "This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change."Ads and monetization will still be allowed to run alongside other climate-related topics, like public debates on climate policy, impacts of climate change, and new research around the issue.Google said it's making these changes in response to frustration from advertisers and content creators about their messages appearing alongside climate denialism. "Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos," the company said. Yes, but: Google often makes changes to its ads policies to reduce misinformation, but this update is notable, given how hard it can be to characterize certain commentary about climate change as denialism or misinformation. The tech giant says that when evaluating content against the new policy, "we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim."The company says it has consulted with experts, like representatives of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports, to create the policy. The report found that there is "unequivocal" evidence showing that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming."Google says it will use a combination of automated tools and human review to enforce the new policy. The big picture: Internet companies have been under increased pressure from climate activists to do more to address climate change denial on their platforms. Google on Wednesday unveiled a suite of new tools that give consumers more information so they can choose to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.In February, Facebook expanded an online portal meant to counter misinformation about climate change.Why it matters: Social media platforms have immense reach, and they've come under fire from activists and some lawmakers globally for doing too little to thwart the spread of inaccurate content. What to watch: Google will begin enforcing the new policy next month.
| 1 |
Arrests by the Border Patrol are at their highest levels ever, The Washington Post reported early Wednesday, citing unpublished U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. The data also reportedly show that authorities detained more than 1.7 million migrants along the border during the fiscal year that ended last month.Migrants from outside Mexico and Central America, including Haitians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorans, Cubans, Brazilians and migrants from dozens of other nations that the CBP categorized as “other,” accounted for 367,000 arrests, according to the Post.Approximately 309,000 migrants from Honduras were also detained, along with 279,000 from Guatemala and 96,000 from El Salvador.The Biden administration has increasingly relied on Mexican authorities to stem the flow of migrants headed northward to the U.S. border. But Mexico remained the single largest source of illegal migration during the latest fiscal year, according to the Post, with the Border Patrol arresting more than 608,000 Mexican nationals. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro MayorkasAlejandro MayorkasOversight Republicans demand documents on Afghanistan withdrawal Overnight Health Care — DC ending mask, vaccine mandates Five big questions after Canadian truckers cleared from US border bridge MORE said earlier this year that the Border Patrol was likely to see a 20-year high in border crossings. In August, Mayorkas described the situation as "one of the toughest challenges" the country faces."It is complicated, changing and involves vulnerable people at a time of a global pandemic," he said at the time, the BBC reported.The number of migrants detained at the US-Mexico border in July crossed 200,000 for the first time in 21 years, government data also showed.The latest developments come as the Biden administration continues to face pressure over the surge in migrants. An AP-NORC poll in October found that 35 percent of respondents approved of Biden’s handling of immigration, down from 43 percent in April, when it was already one of his administration's worst-polling issues. Despite the soaring number of migrants detained at the border this spring, President BidenJoe BidenUS could spend M monthly on testing unvaccinated federal workers: official GOP senator opposes Biden court pick, likely blocking nominee Overnight Energy & Environment — Biden says Russia attack could spike oil prices MORE said in a press conference in April that the flood of migrants in recent months was consistent with patterns that occur “every single, solitary year” in the winter months.Customs and Border Patrol did not immediately get back to The Hill's request for comment on the Post's report.--Updated at 10:53 a.m.
| 1 |
Published18 September 2018Image source, Getty ImagesChina has hit back at President Donald Trump by announcing new trade tariffs on $60bn of US goods.It comes after the US slapped duties on $200bn of Chinese imports to take effect from next Monday, escalating its trade war with Beijing. China will target goods such as liquefied natural gas, produced in states loyal to the US president. However, in a tweet, Mr Trump warned Beijing against seeking to influence the upcoming US midterm elections."There will be great and fast economic retaliation against China if our farmers, ranchers and/or industrial workers are targeted!" he said. Aircraft, computers and textilesEarlier he had suggested that this would mean further US tariffs on another $267bn worth of Chinese products. Such a move would mean roughly all of China's exports to the US would be subject to new duties.The Chinese commerce ministry said it would impose its tariffs from 24 September - the date the US duties come into effect - but at lower rates than previously expected. It will place an additional 5% in duty on US products including smaller aircraft, computers and textiles, and an extra 10% on goods such as chemicals, meat, wheat and wine.By contrast, the US duties will apply to almost 6,000 items, making them the biggest round of trade tariffs yet from Washington.They will affect handbags, rice and textiles, although some items such as smart watches and high chairs have been exempted. They will start at 10% and increase to 25% from the start of next year unless the two countries agree a deal.On Monday Mr Trump said the latest round of tariffs was in response to China's "unfair trade practices". "We have been very clear about the type of changes that need to be made, and we have given China every opportunity to treat us more fairly. But, so far, China has been unwilling to change its practices," he said. Hasn't the US already imposed tariffs on China?Yes. In fact, the latest round of US duties marks the third set of tariffs put into motion so far this year. In July, the White House increased charges on $34bn worth of Chinese products. Then last month, the escalating trade war moved up a gear when the US brought in a 25% tax on a second wave of goods worth $16bn.This latest round means that about half of all Chinese imports to the US are now subject to the new duties.Unlike the earlier rounds, the list also targets consumer goods such as luggage and furniture. That means households may start to feel the impact from higher prices.US companies have already said they are worried about the effect of higher costs on their businesses and warned of the risk of job cuts.What items have been targeted?Many everyday items such as suitcases, handbags, toilet paper and wool are included in this latest round of tariffs.The list also includes food items from frozen cuts of meat, to almost all types of fish, soybeans, various types of fruit and cereal and rice. Why are smart watches and high chairs exempt?Image source, Getty ImagesImage caption, The Apple Watch is one of the items to escape the tariffsThe list of Chinese products slated for tariffs originally included more than 6,000 items, but US officials later removed about 300 types of items, including smart watches, bicycle helmets, play pens, high chairs and baby car seats.The changes come after fierce opposition from US companies including Apple and Dell, which fear the tariffs will increase their costs as many of their products are made in China.Earlier this month, Apple wrote to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer warning that consumers would have to pay more for its products as a result of the proposed tariffs.At the time, Mr Trump replied with a tweet urging Apple: "Make your products in the United States instead of China."Media caption, Why the US-China trade war will hit most of our pocketsWhy is the US doing this?The White House says its tariffs are a response to China's "unfair" trade policies.The import charges will make Chinese-made products more expensive - a move intended to convince US businesses and consumers to buy elsewhere. US officials hope the risk to the Chinese economy will convince Beijing to change its policies.But many US businesses are critical of the tariffs with farmers, manufacturers, retailers and other industry groups calling them taxes on American families.How has China responded?Before its latest round of tariffs, China had previously imposed duties on $50bn of US products in retaliation, targeting key parts of the president's political base, such as farmers. The aim is to put pressure on businesses in states that supported Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. The European Union has also used the tactic in its trade skirmishes with the US. Are the two sides talking?Not really. Talks between high-level officials ended in May without resolving the matter and efforts to restart discussions have failed.US and China officials had discussed a new round of talks over the past week, but Mr Trump's latest move is likely to sour relations further. Analysis:Andrew Walker, BBC economics correspondentThe immediate objective of President Trump's action against China is to address what he calls the theft of American companies' technology, but it also plays into his wider concern about the US trade deficit.He sees it as something that needs to be corrected and as the result of bad trade agreements and unfair trading by other countries. The trouble is that a trade deficit is generally regarded as being the result of savings and investment decisions rather than trade policy. A country that spends more than it earns has a trade deficit.President Trump's other policies include tax cuts that could increase government borrowing, which is equivalent to cutting national saving and could create a bigger trade deficit. What Mr Trump hopes is that the tax cuts will boost economic activity so much that they will generate more revenue - and "pay for themselves". That's another area of economic controversy. More on this story
| 1 |
Published21 February 2019Image source, ReutersImage caption, An operative employed by Republican candidate Mark Harris is accused of tampering with absentee ballotsNorth Carolina will hold a new election for a congressional seat following an investigation into alleged ballot-tampering for a Republican candidate.A consultant for Mark Harris' campaign is accused of illegally posting absentee ballots during November's mid-term election campaign.Mr Harris, who initially claimed victory over Democrat Dan McCready, has now bowed to calls for a new election.But he maintains he was unaware of any alleged fraud in his campaign.The three Democrats and two Republicans on the North Carolina Board of Elections ruled unanimously for a new vote on Thursday, wrapping up a week of hearings.Political consultant Leslie McCrae Dowless allegedly manipulated the election in Mr Harris' favour by illegally collecting, falsely witnessing and otherwise tampering with absentee ballots.On Thursday, Mr Harris took the stand and said: "The public's confidence in the ninth district seat general election has been undermined to an extent that a new election is warranted."He also acknowledged that due to recent strokes and illness, his prior testimony before the board had included "incorrect" recollections.Officials did not give a date for the new election, and the state's ninth district will continue to remain without representation in Washington as the new vote is organised.The Republican initially claimed victory after edging out Mr McCready by 905 votes, out of 282,717 ballots cast.Mr Harris said Mr Dowless had assured him his staff only helped voters obtain absentee ballots and did not do anything illegal. Mr Harris, a Baptist pastor, recalled Mr Dowless telling him: "I don't care if it's a 95-year-old woman in a wheelchair, we do not take the ballots."Image source, The Washington Post via Getty ImagesImage caption, Leslie McCrae Dowless is at the centre of the ballot-tampering controversyThe Republican candidate also referred to dramatic testimony a day earlier by his son, which left both men in tears.Mr Harris told the court his son was "a little judgmental and has a little taste of arrogance and some other things", but that he was "very proud of him".On Wednesday, John Harris told the elections board he had repeatedly warned his father about the "shady" tactics of Mr Dowless."I thought what he was doing was illegal, and I was right," John Harris testified, weeping, as his father also began to cry."I had no reason to believe that my father actually knew," the son added. Mr Dowless has refused to testify. But his former workers have testified that Mr Dowless instructed them to "pre-fill" ballot request forms, get them signed by voters, then mail in the absentee ballots.Bladen County, where Mr Dowless operated, was the only county for which Mr Harris won the mail-in absentee ballot vote.Prosecutors are reportedly considering whether to bring criminal charges against Mr Dowless, the New York Times reported.More on this story
| 1 |
In early 2015, a man who runs a small technology company showed up at Trump Tower to collect $50,000 for having helped Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, try to rig online polls in his boss’s favor before the presidential campaign.In his Trump Organization office, Mr. Cohen surprised the man, John Gauger, by giving him both a blue Walmart bag containing between $12,000 and $13,000 in cash and, randomly, a boxing glove that Mr. Cohen said had been worn by a Brazilian mixed-martial arts fighter, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Cohen disputed that he handed over a bag of cash. “All monies paid to Mr. Gauger were by check,” he said, offering no further comment on his ties to the consultant. In a tweet on Thursday, Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump knew he was trying to have the polls rigged. “What I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of [Mr. Trump],” Mr. Cohen wrote. “I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it.”
Michael Cohen: Full Coverage Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said of Mr. Cohen’s tweet: “My response will be a cleaned-up version of ‘Bullshit.’” “This is not true. The president did not know about this if it happened,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview. Mr. Gauger owns RedFinch Solutions LLC and is chief information officer at Liberty University in Virginia, where Jerry Falwell Jr. , an evangelical leader and fervent Trump supporter, is president. Mr. Gauger said he never got the rest of what he claimed he was owed. But Mr. Cohen in early 2017 still asked for—and received—a $50,000 reimbursement from Mr. Trump and his company for the work by RedFinch, according to a government document and a person familiar with the matter. The reimbursement—made on the sole basis of a handwritten note from Mr. Cohen and paid largely out of Mr. Trump’s personal account—demonstrates the level of trust the lawyer once had within the Trump Organization, whose officials arranged the repayment. The Trump Organization declined to comment. Mr. Giuliani said: “The real takeaway from your story is, didn’t he steal $37,000?” The reimbursement was mentioned by federal prosecutors when they charged Mr. Cohen in August with eight felonies, including campaign-finance violations for arranging hush-money payments to an adult-film star and a Playboy model who allege Mr. Trump had extramarital sexual encounters with them. Prosecutors wrote in a charging document that when Mr. Cohen asked Trump Organization executives for a $130,000 reimbursement for a hush payment he made to Stephanie Clifford, the porn actress known as Stormy Daniels, he also scrawled a handwritten note asking for $50,000 he said he spent on “tech services” to aid Mr. Trump’s campaign. Prosecutors didn’t name the company providing those services, but people familiar with the matter say it was RedFinch. Mr. Cohen’s dealings with the company and Mr. Gauger haven’t previously been reported. Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations, tax evasion, lying to Congress and other charges. He was sentenced last month to three years in prison. None of the charges were connected to his interactions with Mr. Gauger and RedFinch. John Gauger, owner of IT firm RedFinch Solutions. Photo: Liberty University The episode further illustrates how the former self-described fixer for Mr. Trump, who incriminated the president in the hush payments, once operated in secret to advance his boss’s political fortunes. Mr. Cohen’s dealings involving Mr. Trump over the years, including during the 2016 presidential race, will be a focus of Mr. Cohen’s testimony at a Feb. 7 hearing before the House Oversight Committee. Mr. Gauger’s lawyer, Charles E. James Jr. of the firm Williams Mullen, said federal investigators interviewed Mr. Gauger about his interactions over six years with Mr. Cohen, from their first meeting in 2012 until last April, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Mr. Cohen’s home, office and hotel room. Mr. Gauger, who recounted those dealings to The Wall Street Journal, said that though Mr. Cohen promised him lucrative work for the presidential campaign, his activities related to Mr. Trump consisted of trying unsuccessfully to manipulate two online polls in Mr. Trump’s favor. During the presidential race, Mr. Cohen also asked Mr. Gauger to create a Twitter account called @WomenForCohen. The account, created in May 2016 and run by a female friend of Mr. Gauger, described Mr. Cohen as a “sex symbol,” praised his looks and character, and promoted his appearances and statements boosting Mr. Trump’s candidacy. When Mr. Cohen requested the $50,000 reimbursement for technology services, he didn’t tell Trump Organization executives what specific services were performed, and they didn’t ask, people familiar with the matter said. The reimbursement he obtained for the deal with Ms. Clifford and the technology work was paid to him over the course of a year and characterized by the Trump Organization as legal fees, though it didn’t pertain to any legal work he performed at the time, prosecutors said. Overall, Mr. Cohen was paid $420,000, mostly from Mr. Trump’s personal account, including $180,000 to reimburse him for Ms. Clifford and RedFinch, a $60,000 bonus, and another $180,000 to cover taxes he would owe because the money would be declared as income, according to prosecutors. Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, was sentenced to three years in prison last month. In court, he said his blind loyalty to President Trump led him “to take a path of darkness.” (Photo: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images) Richard Hasen, an election-law expert and law professor at University of California, Irvine, said Mr. Cohen had an obligation to disclose the payment to RedFinch as an independent expenditure if it was for campaign-related work he didn’t discuss with the Trump campaign. Had he coordinated with the Trump camp, the campaign would have been required to report any unpaid-for work as an in-kind contribution. The connection between Messrs. Trump and Cohen and Liberty University dates at least to 2012, when Mr. Falwell invited Mr. Trump to give a speech and Mr. Cohen accompanied him. Soon after, Mr. Gauger was introduced to Mr. Cohen, helped him set up an Instagram account and gave him his cellphone number should he need more assistance, he said. Over the next several years, Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Gauger for help with services intended to elevate positive content in internet-search results for himself and for friends, Mr. Gauger said. While he didn’t pay for most of what Mr. Gauger did, Mr. Cohen often promised to connect RedFinch with executives at Mr. Trump’s hotel and golf-course businesses, though he never did, Mr. Gauger said. In January 2014, Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Gauger to help Mr. Trump score well in a CNBC online poll to identify the country’s top business leaders by writing a computer script to repeatedly vote for him. Mr. Gauger was unable to get Mr. Trump into the top 100 candidates. In February 2015, as Mr. Trump prepared to enter the presidential race, Mr. Cohen asked him to do the same for a Drudge Report poll of potential Republican candidates, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Trump ranked fifth, with about 24,000 votes, or 5% of the total. After making the cash payment at Trump Tower, Mr. Cohen kept saying he would pay the balance of the $50,000 but never did, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Cohen also promised to get RedFinch work for Mr. Trump’s campaign. He set up two phone calls for Mr. Gauger with campaign officials, who didn’t hire him, he said. Newsletter Sign-up The 10-Point. A personal, guided tour to the best scoops and stories every day in The Wall Street Journal. “Mr. Cohen promised but never was able to develop the business he predicted,” said Mr. James, Mr. Gauger’s lawyer. Mr. Cohen did give Mr. Gauger some other paying work. Early in 2016, Mr. Cohen hired RedFinch to help create positive web content about the chief executive of CareOne Management LLC, a New Jersey assisted-living company that had given Mr. Cohen a consulting contract. Mr. Cohen sent RedFinch checks totaling $50,000 for that work, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Cohen collected $200,000 from CareOne but didn’t pay taxes on it, according to the charging document filed by federal prosecutors, who didn’t identify the assisted-living company by name. Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to evading taxes on that income. CareOne didn’t respond to a request for comment. Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Gauger to create the @WomenForCohen account, still active in 2019, to elevate his profile. The account’s profile says it is run by “Women who love and support Michael Cohen. Strong, pit bull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business oriented and ready to make a difference!” Mr. Gauger said he last spoke with Mr. Cohen in April 2018, shortly after the raid by federal agents. He said Mr. Cohen told him the investigation was about taxes and how he had accessed money from some of his accounts. “It’s not a big deal,” Mr. Cohen said, according to Mr. Gauger. —Rebecca Ballhaus and Rebecca Davis O’Brien contributed to this article. Write to Michael Rothfeld at [email protected], Rob Barry at [email protected] and Joe Palazzolo at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Lawmakers from both parties denounced President Trump's Thursday morning attacks on MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski's appearance.After Trump slammed "Morning Joe" co-host Brzezinski and suggested that she had been "bleeding badly" from a "face-lift," Republican lawmakers rushed to denounce the remarks, saying they were beneath the dignity of the presidency."The President’s tweets today don't help our political or national discourse and do not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in a statement."It's hard to understand, and not presidential," Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainBiden tested by brewing Russian crisis The US can aid Afghans without boosting the Taliban Five obstacles Biden faces in battle against inflation MORE (R-Ariz.) said, according to NBC News's Frank Thorp. "I'm just embarrassed — embarrassed isn't the right word — I just regret it."MCCAIN on Trump's Tweets this morning: "It's hard to understand, and not presidential..."— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) June 29, 2017Sen McCain on Trump's Tweets: "I'm just embarrassed--embarrassed isn't the right word--I just regret it."— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) June 29, 2017"Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America," Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamThe conservative case for nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court The Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war Anxious Democrats want Biden to speed up vetting for Supreme Court pick MORE (R-S.C.) wrote on Twitter.Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America.— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) June 29, 2017Trump regularly takes to Twitter to attack media outlets. This week, the president has used the social media site to attack major news organizations like The Washington Post, CNN and The New York Times.But the broadside against Brzezinski, particularly the suggestion that she was "bleeding badly from a face-lift" during a visit to Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort last year, earned a strong rebuke from the GOP.Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) accused Trump of breeding a culture of social and political violence by tweeting such a personal attack."Personal attacks & character assassination yield a culture of social & political violence in which people can become radicalized & dangerous," he wrote on Twitter.Personal attacks & character assassination yield a culture of social & political violence in which people can become radicalized & dangerous— Carlos Curbelo (@carloslcurbelo) June 29, 2017The condemnations marked a reversal of fortunes in a week that had seen Trump on the offensive against the media.After CNN retracted an article claiming that a Senate committee was investigating a Russian bank with ties to Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, Trump and his supporters declared the move to be proof of their assertions that the mainstream media is conspiring against the president.Trump capitalized on the episode again on Tuesday after three CNN journalists involved with the retracted story resigned. The network, Trump wrote on Twitter, had been “caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories.” Trump's tweets also earned criticism from Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsOvernight Health Care — Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding Senate confirms Biden FDA nominee Biden's FDA pick clears key Senate hurdle MORE (R-Maine), a moderate and one of the key GOP critics of the Senate's ObamaCare repeal legislation."This has to stop — we all have a job — 3 branches of gov’t and media. We don’t have to get along, but we must show respect and civility," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) wrote on Twitter.This has to stop – we all have a job – 3 branches of gov’t and media. We don’t have to get along, but we must show respect and civility.— Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) June 29, 2017The president's tweets also drew outrage from lawmakers and partisans on the other side of the aisle.As lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee held a markup for a defense appropriations bill on Thursday morning, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) paused to call out Trump for his remarks, which she disparaged as "heinous and vile.""Before I deliver my statements, and frankly I hesitate to bring this up, but this morning, the president of the United States of America, the person on whom we all rely to sign our Appropriation bills into law, again made heinous and vile comments about the looks and intelligence of a prominent woman to his 33 million Twitter followers," she said.Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharDemocratic Senate debates merits of passion vs. pragmatism Klobuchar on 2 GOP lawmakers censured: 'To me, they've been patriots' Biden calls on Senate to pass his agenda to lower drug prices MORE (D-Minn.) slammed Trump for taking the time to tweet the attack against Brzezinski, painting it as a distraction from lawmakers' efforts to reform healthcare. "The U.S. economy (health care) is up in the air & the president is focused on this? Each tweet squanders American leadership," Klobuchar wrote on Twitter.1/6 of the U.S. economy (health care) is up in the air & the president is focused on this? Each tweet squanders American leadership. https://t.co/fj6gmfT9XP— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) June 29, 2017Trump's social media broadside was quickly denounced by MSNBC, who said in a statement Thursday morning that "it's a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job.”White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, however, defended the president's tweets on Thursday morning during an appearance on Fox News. Trump, she said, was simply striking back against what he views as negative and unfair coverage on "Morning Joe." “I don’t think that the president has ever been someone who gets attacked and doesn’t push back,” she said. “This is a president who fights fire with fire and certainly will not be allowed to be bullied by liberal media, and the liberal elites within the media.”
| 1 |
President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE on Tuesday evening accused Twitter of “stifling FREE SPEECH” and interfering in the 2020 election by fact-checking one of his tweets on the issue of voting by mail.“@Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post,” the president tweeted Tuesday evening. “Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”.@Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2020....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2020The social media site placed a warning on two of Trump’s tweets for the first time earlier in the day, noting that his claim that California would send mail-in ballots to anyone living in the state was false and that mail-in ballots are already in use in several states, including Oregon, Utah and Nebraska. Trump himself also voted by mail in the Florida Republican presidential primary this year."These Tweets contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots," a Twitter spokesperson told The Hill.Trump campaign manager Brad ParscaleBrad ParscaleAides tried to get Trump to stop attacking McCain in hopes of clinching Arizona: report MORE had previously condemned the addition of the fact check, saying in a statement, “Partnering with the biased fake news media 'fact checkers' is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility.” The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are © 1998 - 2022 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
| 1 |
ORLANDO, Fla. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump formally launched his 2020 re-election campaign on Tuesday by presenting himself as the same political insurgent who shook up the Washington establishment four years ago and who is now a victim of an attempted ouster by Democrats.At a packed rally at an arena in Orlando, Florida, Trump made clear he would run for re-election as an outsider, just as he did in 2016. Whether he can pull it off remains far from certain as Trump has been in office now for 2-1/2 years.He revisited campaign themes from four years ago, decrying illegal immigration, the news media and his 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.“Together we stared down a broken political establishment and we restored government by and for the people,” Trump said. “As long as you keep this team in place, we have a tremendous way to go. Our future has never looked brighter or sharper.”Trump said his Democratic challengers would radically change the United States and seek to legalize migrants coming across the southern border so they could vote and boost the Democratic political base.Democrats “want to destroy our country as we know it” and that it’s “not going to happen,” Trump said.“We believe our country should be a sanctuary for law-abiding citizens, not for criminal aliens,” he said.Two dozen Democrats are competing for their party’s nomination to face off against Trump in the November 2020 election. Many of the top Democrats lead Trump in opinion polls in battleground states.Trump called his opponents a “radical left-wing mob” who would bring socialism to the United States.“A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream,” he said.AIRING GRIEVANCESTrump made his re-election launch official at what was his 60th political rally since he took office in January 2017. He brought his wife, Melania, and a large contingent of senior White House staff.“Tonight I stand before you to officially launch my campaign for a second term as president of the United States,” Trump said. “I promise you I will never ever let you down.”Over the course of a speech that lasted an hour and 20 minutes, Trump blasted the news media as “fake news,” took credit for a strong economy, said he was putting the heat on China on trade, promoted his proposal for a “space force,” vowed to protect Americans’ rights to own guns and said he wanted to launch a space mission to Mars.Trump also declared himself a victim and aired his grievances.He made an issue of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The probe found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow. It also described numerous attempts by Trump to impede Mueller’s probe, but stopped short of declaring that he committed a crime.“We went through the biggest witch hunt in political history,” said Trump. “It was all an illegal attempt to overturn the results of the election.”Two-and-a-half years into his tenure, Trump sees plenty of positive factors, led by a growing economy with low unemployment.“If the economy stays strong, he is very likely to get re-elected,” said Trump confidant Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.But the lingering aftermath of the Russia probe, coupled with a presidential style marked by name-calling and eye-popping tweets, has undermined some Americans’ confidence in Trump.He also has stirred division with his hard-line policies on immigration and unsettled business and farm groups with his use of tariffs in trade disputes with China and some allies.Democrats cite a string of broken promises in Trump’s first term, from lowering drug prices to closing corporate tax loopholes and stopping plant closures.“Donald Trump is launching his campaign for re-election tonight and the American people face a choice - we can make Trump an aberration or let him fundamentally and forever alter the character of this nation,” said Kate Bedingfield, deputy campaign manager for Democratic front-runner Joe Biden.POLLING CONCERNSA Reuters/Ipsos poll on June 11 gave Trump a 40% job approval rating, compared with 57% who disapproved. Other opinion polls have shown him running consistently behind his main Democratic challengers, such as Biden, in key battleground states.Republican strategists say the fundamentals favor Trump as he heads into his election but that he faces challenges given his bare-knuckled approach, which he refuses to temper.The Orlando Sentinel welcomed the president’s visit with an editorial titled: “Our endorsement for president in 2020: Not Donald Trump.”Trump supporters with tents and sleeping bags started camping out at the rally venue on Monday and thousands had gathered by Tuesday afternoon in a torrential downpour. “It was like a big Trump party,” said Maureen Bailey, who slept in a tent with her twin sister, Laureen Vartanian.Reporting by Steve Holland; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu in Washington and Carlo Allegri in Orlando; Editing by Bill Trott and Peter Cooneyfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
SummaryDay two of U.N. COP26 climate conferenceDozens of countries join U.S.-led methane reduction effortOver 100 leaders pledge to halt deforestation by 2030Sparring between U.S. and China casts shadowDeveloped countries inch forward on climate financingGLASGOW, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Leaders at the COP26 global climate conference pledged on Tuesday to stop deforestation by the end of the decade and cut emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane to help slow climate change.On the second day of the two-week summit in Glasgow, Scotland, wealthy nations took some overdue actions to provide long-promised financial help for the developing countries worst hit by global warming.The United Nations conference aims to keep alive a receding target of capping temperatures at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, to avert still greater damage than has already been caused by greenhouse gases.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comBritish Prime Minister Boris Johnson, host of the event attended by almost 200 countries, said he welcomed the latest steps but urged caution."We must take care to guard against false hope and not to think in any way that the job is done, because it is not. There is still a very long way to go," he told a news conference.More than 100 countries joined a U.S.- and EU-led effort to cut emissions of methane 30% by 2030 from 2020 levels, potentially a step in stemming the overheating of the planet.U.S. President Joe Biden chided Chinese President Xi Jinping for his decision not to attend in person."It's been a big mistake, quite frankly, for China - with respect to China not showing up," Biden said at a news conference."The rest of the world is gonna look to China and say what value added are they providing? And they've lost the ability to influence people around the world and all the people here at COP, the same way I would argue with regard to Russia."China said Xi had not been given an opportunity to deliver a video address, and had to send a written response instead. Xi offered no additional pledges.China was represented in Glasgow by its chief climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua, who said in remarks to reporters on Tuesday that "five years were wasted" because Biden's predecessor Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement and it was time to "work harder and catch up". read more MOST AT RISKLeaders of developing countries most at risk from the effects of climate change, such as heatwaves, droughts, storms and flooding, told delegates the stakes could not be higher."Let's work for the survival of ours and all species. Let's not choose extinction," said Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Keith Rowley.The Global Methane Pledge, launched on Tuesday after being announced in September with just a few signatories, now covers countries representing nearly half of global methane emissions and 70% of global GDP, Biden said.Methane is more short-lived in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but 80 times more potent in warming the planet. Cutting emissions of the gas, estimated to have accounted for 30% of global warming since pre-industrial times, is one of the most effective ways of slowing climate change.Among the signatories is Brazil - one of the five biggest emitters of methane, generated in cows' digestive systems, in landfill waste and in oil and gas production. Three others - China, Russia and India - have not signed up, while Australia has said it will not back the pledge.The United States also unveiled its own domestic proposal to crack down with a focus on the oil and gas sector, where leaky infrastructure allows methane to escape into the atmosphere. read more LOST FORESTSMore than 100 national leaders also signed a promise to halt the destruction of the world's forests which absorb roughly 30% of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the nonprofit World Resources Institute.In 2020, the world lost 258,000 sq km (100,000 sq miles) of forest - an area larger than the United Kingdom, according to WRI's Global Forest Watch. The conservation charity WWF estimates that 27 football fields of forest are lost every minute.The pledge to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by the end of the decade is underpinned by $19 billion in public and private funds to be invested in protecting and restoring forests. read more The signatories again include Brazil, which has carried out soaring deforestation under right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Together they account for 85% of the world's forests.Under the agreement, 12 countries pledged to provide $12 billion of public funding between 2021 and 2025 for developing countries to restore degraded land and tackle wildfires.At least $7.2 billion will come from private sector investors representing $8.7 trillion in assets under management, who also pledged to stop investing in activities linked to deforestation such as cattle, palm oil and soybean farming and pulp production.'DOUBLE STANDARDS'The funding may help reduce mistrust among developing countries caused by the failure of wealthy nations to deliver on a 2009 promise to stump up $100 billion per year by 2020 to help them tackle climate change.This mistrust is one of the main obstacles to climate progress, making some developing countries reluctant to embrace steep emission cuts."We see double standards creeping into our thinking, whereby those who have already benefitted from carbon-driven economies would like to prevent emerging economies laying similar foundations for their political stability, social development and economic prosperity," Suriname President Chan Santokhi said.On Tuesday, Japan said it would offer up to $10 billion over five years in additional assistance to support decarbonisation in Asia.U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said this could leverage another $8 billion from the World Bank and other sources, probably allowing the $100 billion threshold of climate financing to be reached by 2022, rather than 2023 as previously expected.In another deal signed on Tuesday, Britain and India launched a plan to improve connections between the world's electricity power grids to help accelerate the transition to greener energy. read more But there was scant sign of shared resolve by the world's two biggest carbon polluters, China and the United States, which together account for more than 40% of global emissions but are at odds on numerous issues.Biden has singled out China and leading oil producer Russia for failing to step up their climate goals in Glasgow, while Beijing has rejected Washington's efforts to separate climate issues from their wider disagreements.The Communist Party-run Global Times said in an editorial on Monday that Washington's attitude had made it "impossible for China to see any potential to have fair negotiation amid the tensions". Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Kate Abnett in Brussels, Valerie Volcovici in Washington; Jake Spring, Simon Jessop, William James and Ilze Filks in Glasgow; David Stanway, Josh Horwitz and Yew Lun Tian; Writing by Kevin Liffey and Gavin Jones; Editing by Janet Lawrence, Barbara Lewis and Grant McCoolOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
| 1 |
Blame Game Ramps Up as Shutdown Draws NearThe House passed legislation Thursday to temporarily keep the government open, but it appears doomed in the Senate ahead of a potential vote Friday.
Hours after the House voted, debate in the upper chamber devolved into a partisan blame-game, with Democratic and Republican leaders digging in their heels, convinced that the other party would suffer the political consequences of a government funding lapse.
Republicans argued that they successfully funded the government in the House, and their legislation provided time to continue negotiating bipartisan agreements on immigration and long-term spending levels. The GOP also would have provided most of the votes in the Senate to keep the government open – though, crucially, they were likely several votes short of funding it on their own, even without a filibuster from Democrats.
“The only people standing in the way of keeping the government open are Senate Democrats,” Speaker Paul Ryan said shortly after the House vote. “Whether there is a government shutdown or not is now entirely up to them.”
Democrats countered that Republicans control all levers of power in government, and that it was incumbent on them to negotiate legislation that could pass both chambers, rather than force a take-it-or-leave-it option. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blamed President Trump for the lack of an immigration agreement, and said his wavering on what he would sign to solve the looming DACA crisis made it impossible to find a bipartisan agreement before the shutdown deadline.
“The White House has done nothing but sow chaos and confusion, division and disarray,” Schumer said. “And it may just lead us to a government shutdown that nobody wants, that all of us here have been striving to avoid.”
It wasn’t clear early Thursday if Democrats would need to threaten a filibuster to hold up the short-term spending bill. The hard-line conservative House Freedom Caucus had threatened to withhold enough votes to tank the bill in the lower chamber, hoping to force leadership to provide concessions. After negotiations that lasted until just an hour before the House vote, the Freedom Caucus won several minor concessions and agreed to support the short-term funding patch.
But it was clear at that point that the House measure would fail in the Senate. Most Democrats opposed it, and several Senate Republicans also said they opposed it – enough that it wouldn’t have passed even without a filibuster. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed Democrats for their intransigence, arguing on the Senate floor there was nothing in the legislation they actually opposed, but that they were holding it hostage for a solution on immigration. Schumer, meanwhile, pushed for an immediate vote, hoping it would fail and force further negotiations.
When the Senate reconvenes Friday, lawmakers will have just hours to negotiate a solution, with both parties appearing prepared to hold firm. Meanwhile, the White House expressed little immediate concern over the shutdown deadline. Trump traveled to Pennsylvania Thursday to campaign for a Republican candidate in a House special election, and is scheduled to fly to Mar-a-Lago Friday afternoon, just hours before the deadline.
If the government does shut down Saturday, it will be on the one-year anniversary of the president’s inauguration.
Lawmakers in both parties were confident they would avoid blame, but it’s unclear precisely whom the public will fault if a shutdown does occur. Democrats’ main demand remains a solution for Dreamers – the immigrants brought to this country illegally as children who gained protected status under an executive order from President Obama, which Trump rescinded, effective in March. Eighty-seven percent of respondents supported protected status for those immigrants, including an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans, according to a CBS News poll.
But only 46 percent said it was worth shutting down the government over those immigrants’ status. For the minority party, the poll provided a serious dilemma: More than half of Democratic respondents said the issue was worth shutting down the government, but 37 percent said it wasn’t. Independents were split almost down the middle.
In a Quinnipiac poll, blame for a shutdown was closely split: 21 percent would blame Trump most; 32 percent would blame congressional Republicans most; and 34 would blame congressional Democrats. Those percentages remained relatively stable for independent voters.
Voters may soon forget the brinksmanship if a deal is reached to avoid a shutdown; they may also hold incumbents in both parties equally accountable in a deal isn’t reached; or it may have little to no effect on the midterm elections still 10 months away. Republicans’ polling numbers dropped sharply after they were blamed for a government shutdown in 2013, but they nonetheless won control of the Senate a little more than a year later.
“No one is pulling the lever on that issue,” one GOP operative predicted earlier this week.
| 1 |
(This December 29 story has been corrected to rectify spelling of Perdue in paragraph six)WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday put off a vote on increasing COVID-19 relief checks from $600 to $2,000 and urged senators to override President Donald Trump’s veto of a defense bill, in a rare challenge to his fellow Republican three weeks before Trump leaves office.McConnell tied the larger checks, which were demanded by Trump and supported by Democrats, to two other measures the president wants but which most Democrats oppose.The maneuver was likely to kill off all three measures.Trump earlier on Tuesday assailed Republican leaders on Twitter, seeking to pressure them into increasing the checks and supporting his veto of the defense bill because it doesn’t repeal legal protections for social media companies that he wants scrapped.The Senate must approve the higher relief payments as soon as possible, “unless Republicans have a death wish,” Trump tweeted, appearing to refer to next week’s close Georgia runoff elections that will determine control of the Senate.A growing number of Republican Senators support raising the checks, including David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, who are running in the Georgia races.But other Republicans, worried about the cost to taxpayers, remain adamantly opposed.Democrats believe their support for the $2,000 checks and Republican opposition will help them in Georgia.McConnell introduced a bill late on Tuesday that combined the $2,000 checks with a provision scrapping the social media legal protections and another to study election security, a key issue for Trump who has claimed without evidence that fraud robbed him of victory in the November election.An aide said McConnell’s introduction of the bill was a procedural move in response to a White House request.Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described the move as a “cynical gambit” and said the legislation would never become law.Most Democrats strongly oppose the legal changes for big tech companies and will not back any measure that appears to give credibility to Trump’s allegations about election fraud.Lawmakers also have little time to act before the bill expires as a new Congress will be sworn into office on Sunday.PARTING WAYSRepublicans in Congress have largely stuck with Trump through four turbulent years, but the president is angry that his party’s lawmakers have not fully backed his false claims of fraud in his election loss to Democratic President-elect Joe Biden.He has also bristled at Republicans’ efforts to override his veto of the defense bill, and their opposition to the bigger one-time checks to Americans.A $892 billion bipartisan coronavirus relief package that Trump signed into law on Sunday contains $600 checks.Trump had dragged his feet on signing the bill, saying the checks were too small. Democrats, who had pushed for higher one-off payments to Americans during months of negotiations, revived those efforts on Monday after Trump made clear he also wanted more.Still, McConnell has rejected Schumer’s call for a standalone Senate vote on the increased stimulus checks.He has also refused to cave to Trump’s demands on the military bill, setting the stage for a vote to override the president’s veto in coming days.It would be the first time Congress overrides a Trump veto.“For the brave men and women of the United States armed forces, failure is simply not an option,” McConnell said. “So when it’s our turn in Congress to have their backs, failure is not an option either. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation one more time.”Overturning a presidential veto requires votes by two-thirds of the House and Senate. The House voted for an override on Monday and if the Senate follows, the bill becomes law despite Trump’s opposition.The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote on Trump’s veto on Wednesday evening, which could lead to final passage later in the week or over the weekend.In a Twitter storm just before the Senate session started on Tuesday morning, Trump attacked “weak and tired” Republican leaders.“WE NEED NEW & ENERGETIC REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP,” he wrote.“Republican leadership only wants the path of least resistance. Our leaders (not me, of course!) are pathetic. They only know how to lose!”Reporting by David Morgan; additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Alistair Bell, Howard Goller, Grant McCool, Michelle Price and Kieran Murrayfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
TALLAHASSEE — During a nationally televised event hosted by a fan club of former President Donald Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed into law contentious and wide-ranging changes to the state’s voting system, including provisions targeting voting by mail and limiting the use of ballot drop boxes.Highlighting the sharply partisan debate surrounding Senate Bill 90, passed by state lawmakers last week, DeSantis barred Florida reporters from attending the event held in West Palm Beach before the group Club 45 USA. Fox News was granted exclusive access.Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a voting bill in West Palm Beach while appearing on Fox and Friends. The event was closed to Florida reporters. [ Florida Governor's Office ]“We’re not resting on our laurels and me signing this bill here says, ‘Florida your vote counts,’” DeSantis told the hosts of Fox & Friends as supporters and lawmakers cheered behind him. “Your vote is going to be passed with integrity and transparency.”Confirmed: @CBS12 News is not allowed into the event where @GovRonDeSantis will sign a controversial elections bill into law, per @MadelineTV who is outside.We were a pool camera, assigned to feed this event to affiliates nationwide. Now, the only camera will be Fox News— Jay O'Brien (@jayobtv) May 6, 2021
The announcement was quickly condemned by Democrats, who pointed out the partisan setting. Multiple voting rights groups announced they were filing lawsuits against the state on the grounds the new law was unconstitutional.“This morning’s showboat for-FOX News-only bill signing effectively clenched Republicans’ grip on our state’s election system, enacting oppressive measures to restrict voter access and empower partisan poll watchers,” said Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book, D-Plantation.— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) May 6, 2021
Fox News also clarified in a statement after the event that it did not know the event was a bill signing, and it clarified that neither the network or the Fox & Friends show “requested or mandated the event be exclusive to FOX News Media entities.”Senate Bill 90, passed by the Legislature along party lines last week, takes effect immediately, with dozens of changes to the state’s voting laws.Most of the changes are administrative, but elections supervisors warned last week that the bill makes it harder to request and return vote by mail ballots:Floridians now have to give a driver’s license number, state ID number or the last four digits of their Social Security number to request a vote by mail ballot.Requests for mail ballots also don’t last as long. Instead of requesting a ballot through the next two general elections — the next four years — requests are limited to the next general election — or two years. (Current requests are grandfathered in.)Drop boxes are limited to early voting hours, unless it’s a drop box at the supervisor’s office, and the boxes must be physically manned while in use. Relying on remote video surveillance isn’t allowed.Speaking on behalf of the organization that represents the elections supervisors for Florida’s 67 counties, Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections Craig Latimer said last week the call for elections reform was “unnecessary” considering the state’s success in the 2020 election.Get insights into Florida politicsSubscribe to our free Buzz newsletterPolitical editor Emily L. Mahoney will send you a rundown on local, state and national politics coverage every Thursday.You’re all signed up!Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.Explore all your optionsFlorida was spared contentious recounts and allegations of widespread voter fraud levied by Trump last year.“Elections ran smoothly, voters participated in record numbers, and election results were verified with audits in every county in Florida,” Latimer said in a statement last week.Senate Bill 90 had been hotly debated during the two months of legislative session, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to suppress the vote and appeasing Trump’s unfounded accusations of fraud.After Georgia lawmakers faced a backlash from corporations and Major League Baseball, Florida Republicans heavily watered down their own bill. They abandoned proposals to ban the use of drop boxes and to impose strict signature-matching requirements that could have caused millions of Floridians to update their signatures on file with their county elections office.Republican lawmakers said the end result was a bill with reasonable measures to tighten up the state’s vote-by-mail laws by cracking down on fraud.DeSantis on Thursday highlighted one provision in the bill, which bans anyone from possessing more than two vote-by-mail ballots, other than those belonging to family members. That’s been illegal in Miami-Dade County for years, an effort to stop “ballot harvesting,” which involves candidates and operatives collecting ballots at voters’ homes, and in many cases, illegally pressuring voters.“We’re not going to let political operatives go and get satchels of votes and dump them in some drop box,” DeSantis said.While the state has a long history of vote by mail fraud in local races, Republicans removed the harvesting ban in 2001. A 2012 statewide grand jury urged lawmakers to ban it again, but lawmakers have taken no action on the topic until this year.“All 50 states should ban ballot harvesting, and they should have done it yesterday,” said Jason Snead, executive director the Honest Elections Project, a new conservative-leaning voting group. “That includes Florida.”Snead and Republicans have noted that Florida still has more accessible voting laws than Democratic-controlled states. For instance, Florida does not require an excuse to vote by mail, unlike New York.But the decision to target the state’s voting laws after the 2020 election, when Democrats outvoted Republicans by mail for the first time and even GOP officials such as DeSantis said the polls had run smoothly, has Democratic lawmakers skeptical of the motivations behind the changes. The state is also fresh off of years of debate and litigation over the voting rights for people with felony convictions.Just how many people could be prevented from voting under the law is not clear, however.Data from county supervisors collected by All Voting is Local, a nonpartisan voting rights group, does not show whether minority voters tended to use drop boxes more than other groups.It’s also not clear how many Floridians would be prohibited from requesting vote-by-mail ballots because they don’t have a driver’s license, state ID or a Social Security number, although Brad Ashwell, All Voting is Local’s Florida state director, said such laws have a history of affecting minority voters.“Study after study have shown they have a disproportionate impact on Black voters and other minority voters,” Ashwell said.Moments after DeSantis signed the bill, the League of Women Voters and other groups filed a federal lawsuit against Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee, a DeSantis-appointee who oversees the elections system, and county elections supervisors. The lawsuit alleges the bill violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The NAACP also filed a lawsuit against Lee.The League of Women Voters’ complaint, echoing concerns by Democrats, said the bill “appears to ban anyone except election workers from giving food or drink, including water, to voters waiting in line to vote.”The bill does not explicitly prohibit anyone from giving water, food or other non-electioneering-related items to voters waiting in line. Soliciting voters within 150 feet of a polling place was already illegal under state law.Rather, the bill clarifies the definition of “solicitation” to include “engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter.” And it extends the “no-solicitation zone” to the 150 feet around ballot drop boxes.Elections supervisors were opposed to the bill the session primarily on the numerous changes to how votes by mail are received, counted and challenged.Supervisors will have to allow candidates’ observers to closely watch, and easily dispute, the duplicate ballot process. That’s the process where supervisors duplicate ballots that are wet, wrinkled or otherwise too damaged to run through voting machines.Supervisors also asked for the ability to use video surveillance to monitor drop boxes, instead of relying on staffers, and they also objected to lawmakers imposing a $25,000 fine for leaving drop boxes unattended during early voting hours.Joe Scott, the Broward County supervisor of elections who took office in January, called the legislation “terrible” in an interview Wednesday.Requiring drop boxes be monitored in person at all times will create “a big problem for me in terms of managing the budget of this office,” Scott said. In the past, Broward has provided 24-hour drop boxes at its two elections offices once mail ballots go out, using video monitoring for security.But now, Scott said, each location will require at least two staffers at all times — in case one has to step away for any reason — to ensure the drop boxes are being watched continuously. The result could be a decision to limit overnight use of the locations, Scott said.“The new law has limitations that are unreasonable and extremely confusing,” Scott said. “That confusion in effect will lead to voter suppression. Many voters who don’t understand the rules will decide not to participate at all.”Miami Herald reporter Aaron Leibowitz, Times/Herald reporter Mary Ellen Klas and Times reporter Steve Contorno contributed to this report.• • •Tampa Bay Times Florida Legislature coverageGet updates via text message: ConText, our free text messaging service about politics news, brings you the latest from this year's Florida legislative session.Sign up for our newsletter: Get Capitol Buzz, a special bonus edition of The Buzz with Steve Contorno, each Saturday while the Legislature is meeting.We’re working hard to bring you the latest news from the state’s legislative session. This effort takes a lot of resources to gather and update. If you haven’t already subscribed, please consider buying a print or digital subscription.
| 1 |
Migrants who crossed the border from Serbia into Hungary Monday night use a fire to keep warm at dawn at a collection point Tuesday. So far in 2015, more than 367,000 refugees and migrants have crossed the Mediterranean to seek safety and better prospects in Europe, the U.N. says. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Migrants who crossed the border from Serbia into Hungary Monday night use a fire to keep warm at dawn at a collection point Tuesday. So far in 2015, more than 367,000 refugees and migrants have crossed the Mediterranean to seek safety and better prospects in Europe, the U.N. says. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images With thousands of Syrian refugees and other migrants finally reaching havens in Germany and other European countries — and thousands more arriving daily — the Obama administration says it's "actively considering" ways to help, including allowing more refugees into the U.S. The migrant crisis has placed stress on infrastructure in Greece, Macedonia and Hungary. It has also highlighted divisions between European Union countries. While Germany's vice chancellor said Tuesday that his country could accept at least 500,000 migrants annually, he also called for other European countries to do more. But in Hungary, where a bottleneck had trapped thousands of migrants in large camps before neighboring borders were opened, the prime minister is urging the completion of a 13-foot fence at its border with Serbia before the end of this year. "Hungary says the migrants are mostly fleeing bad economic conditions, and don't need asylum status to protect their lives," NPR's Eleanor Beardsley reports. "Hungarian police are hindering migrants in their trek through southeast Europe toward the West. Romania says migrant quotas are not the solution; the EU says countries must come together in solidarity if Europe is to surmount the crisis." On Monday, both France and Britain pledged to accept thousands of migrants, but the numbers — 24,000 for France and 20,000 for Britain — are vastly different from the pace set by Germany, which over this past weekend welcomed at least 20,000 migrants. Chancellor Angela Merkel also said that Germany is devoting $6.7 billion to cope with the crisis. As for what steps the U.S. might take, the White House says it is looking at "a range of approaches to be more responsive to the global refugee crisis, including with regard to refugee resettlement." The administration adds that with the U.S. having provided over $4 billion in humanitarian assistance since the Syrian crisis began, and over $1 billion in assistance this year, "The U.S. is the single largest donor to the Syrian crisis." So far in 2015, more than 367,000 refugees and migrants have crossed the Mediterranean Sea to seek safety and better prospects in Europe, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency. Of that number, more than 244,000 made their landing in Greece; at least 121,000 reached Italy. The U.N. agency says the number of migrants rose sharply in August, to nearly 130,000.
| 1 |
A magnitude 7.1 earthquake rocked Southern California Friday night, sending tremors that could be felt in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and nearly 400 miles north in Sacramento. The quake caused fires, power outages and collapsed buildings, officials said.The powerful quake struck around 8:20 p.m. local time and was centered near Ridgecrest, Calif., a community of 29,000 people on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada where a 6.4 temblor had hit Thursday morning. The latest quake lasted about 30 seconds and was the strongest in Southern California in 20 years. A series of aftershocks followed. Mark Ghilarducci, the director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, said at a press conference Saturday that state officials didn’t yet have a full tally of injuries from the quake but most were minor to moderate. About 200 people stayed in shelters Friday night because of the earthquake and aftershocks, he said. State and local emergency responders spent Saturday doing systematic assessments of property structures and checking for gas leaks in communities near the epicenter. Transportation officials have also been able to reopen roads that had been damaged or had closed because of rock slides. The overall damage from the earthquake wasn’t as severe as what officials had anticipated. “The damage that we are seeing this morning in the light is not as extensive as one could have expected,” Mr. Ghilarducci said. Still officials were monitoring the weather to ensure that wildfires wouldn’t break out. In response to Friday’s quake, Gov. Gavin Newsom formally requested a presidential emergency declaration for direct federal assistance to aid the affected communities. The governor also declared a state of emergency in San Bernardino County, where Trona, a community of about 1,800 people, is located. The town, about 25 miles east of Ridgecrest, suffered significant damage and fires in Friday’s earthquake, according to state and local officials. The governor had previously declared a state of emergency for Kern County, where Ridgecrest resides, after Thursday’s quake. “On behalf of all Californians, I offer my heartfelt support to those affected by tonight’s earthquake near Ridgecrest,“ the governor said in a statement Friday night. ”The State of California will continue to offer support to aid residents in the region.” Over the next week there is a 3% chance that an even more powerful earthquake could come and an 11% chance that an earthquake nearly as powerful could come, said Robert de Groot, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey. “It’s called stress transfer, if you release stress somewhere you increase it somewhere else,” Mr. de Groot said. USGS said in a statement Saturday that millions of people in the region felt the shaking from the latest quake. The federal agency said it issued a red alert for economic losses from the quake, estimating the financial toll to be at least $1 billion. Past events with this alert level have required a national- or international-level response, according to the USGS.
Read More The 7.1 magnitude earthquake on Friday was 11 times stronger than the 6.4 magnitude quake that hit on Thursday, said Mark Benthien, spokesman for the Southern California Earthquake Center at the University of Southern California. Friday’s quake rocked buildings in Los Angeles, interrupted a Los Angeles Dodgers game and led Disneyland to evacuate rides. Kashawn Cole, 33 years old, said she, her husband and her two children left their home in Trona after the quake on Friday and drove to her brother’s home in Ridgecrest. “I was sitting outside when the quake hit,” she said in an interview Saturday. “I watched as cracks broke on my yard.” Ms. Cole said her home was damaged and she had no power or water. She doesn’t plan on going back home. “I don’t want to go back. I love Trona, but it’s the earthquakes,” she said. “My children are terrified.” Kern County Fire Department Chief David Witt said during a press conference Saturday that local responders were going from house to house in Ridgecrest to inspect properties, but so far they hadn’t found major collapses or anyone trapped. “We do feel like there is damage but we don’t know the extent of it yet,” he said. In a press conference Friday night, Chief Witt said that his department had been inundated with emergency calls for medical assistance but so far there had been no fatalities. At least 1,800 people were without power in the area, he said. Mr. Ghilarducci said Saturday that most of Ridgecrest’s power had been restored but Trona was still suffering extensive outages. University of Michigan Prof. Ben van der Pluijm, who teaches in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science, said the two earthquakes are related but occurred within two nearby fault systems. That may explain why two relatively large quakes happened in such a short period time. “Usually an earthquake releases energy and it takes a while to build up again,” he said. “This certainly surprised many of us.” The activity doesn’t indicate a higher risk for a very large earthquake along the San Andreas fault which is about 100 miles west from the eastern California shear zone, where these took place. —James Fanelli contributed to this article. Write to Douglas Belkin at [email protected] Corrections & Amplifications Kashawn Cole said her home in Trona, Calif., was damaged from the earthquake. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said her first name was Keyshawn. (7/6/2019) Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
WILMINGTON, Del. (Reuters) - President-elect Joe Biden pleaded with Americans on Wednesday to take steps to remain safe over the Thanksgiving holiday as COVID-19 cases soar, while President Donald Trump pardoned a former aide who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.Biden gave a presidential-style speech acknowledging people’s fatigue with restrictions amid the coronavirus pandemic, but urged them to exercise caution as caseloads surge.“I know the country has grown weary of the fight. We need to remember - we’re at war with the virus, not with one another,” Biden said as he urged Americans to forgo the type of big family gatherings normally associated with Thursday’s holiday, wear protective masks and maintain social distancing.The Democratic former vice president again said he would take immediate steps to address the coronavirus pandemic when he takes office on Jan. 20. During the campaign, Biden accused Trump, a Republican, of panicking and surrendering in the face of a public health crisis.Shortly after Biden spoke, Trump pardoned his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the former Russian ambassador in Washington. [nL1N2IB2JX]It marked the latest instance in which Trump has used his power of executive clemency to benefit a friend or associate.Prominent Democrats responded quickly and angrily.“President Trump’s pardoning of Michael Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his dealings with a foreign adversary, is an act of grave corruption and a brazen abuse of power,” House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.More than 261,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, with the daily toll on Tuesday surpassing 2,000 for the first time since May, as infections and hospitalizations surge nationally. The United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases and deaths.Biden said the United States faced “a long hard winter” but that it was during the most difficult circumstances that “the soul of our nation has been forged.”He said he hoped the recent positive news on vaccine development - the first shots potentially could be made available to some Americans within weeks - would serve as an incentive for people to take simple steps to get the virus under control.Since winning the Nov. 3 election, Biden has offered a message of healing and reconciliation after Trump’s tumultuous term, while the president still refuses to concede and falsely claimed again on Wednesday that Biden’s victory was stolen.Without mentioning Trump, Biden addressed the messy aftermath of the vote.U.S. President-elect Joe Biden arrives to announce his national security nominees and appointees at his transition headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S., November 24, 2020. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts“Our democracy was tested this year,” Biden said. “In America, we have full and fair and free elections and then we honor the results. The people of this nation and the laws of the land won’t stand for anything else.”ECONOMIC APPOINTMENTSBiden plans next week to name his choices for some important positions in his administration, including his economic team, his communications director, Kate Bedingfield, said. They are expected to include former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary.Trump’s administration gave the green light on Monday to formal transition efforts even as he continues to make unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud. As a result, Biden will begin receiving presidential daily intelligence briefings.Bedingfield said Biden’s team had been encouraged by the “professional and welcoming response” of civil servants.Trump has waged a failed legal battle to overturn the election results. The outgoing president on Wednesday canceled a trip to accompany his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to a meeting of Republican state legislators in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where Giuliani repeated his unsubstantiated allegations of voting fraud.Trump spoke to the participants by speaker phone, repeating his debunked claims that the election had been stolen, drawing cheers from the partisan crowd.“This election was lost by the Democrats. They cheated. It was a fraudulent election,” Trump said, without offering evidence.In addition to beating Trump by 306-232 in the Electoral College, Biden won the nationwide popular vote by more than 6.1 million ballots.Bedingfield called the Gettysburg event “a sideshow.” State and federal officials have said there is no evidence of large-scale fraud.Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro rejected Trump’s claims.“The sitting president’s remarks today were devoid of reality,” Shapiro, a Democrat, said on Twitter. “The election is over. Pennsylvania has certified results & declared Joe Biden the winner of our Commonwealth. Lying through a cell phone at a fake hearing changes nothing.”Reporting by Simon Lewis, Jeff Mason, Makini Brice, Alexandra Alper, Eric Beech, Michael Martina, Susan Heavey, John Whitesides and Patricia Zengerle; Writing by Will Dunham and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Scott Malone, Michelle Price and Peter Cooneyfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A man seeking to run for mayor of a Southern California suburb and a co-defendant allegedly submitted 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications on behalf of homeless people, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said Tuesday.Overt acts listed in the criminal complaint did not indicate any fraudulent ballots were cast, and a press release did not specify how the homeless were involved. In an email response to queries, the prosecutor’s office declined to comment.Carlos Antonio De Bourbon Montenegro, 53, and Marcos Raul Arevalo, 34, each pleaded not guilty during arraignment Tuesday. It’s not immediately known if the men have attorneys who can comment on their behalf.The case includes allegations that Montenegro falsified names, addresses and signatures on nominations to run for mayor of Hawthorne, the press release said. The two men were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit voter fraud, eight counts of voter fraud, four counts of procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and four misdemeanor counts of interference with a prompt transfer of a completed affidavit.Montenegro was charged with an additional 10 counts of voter fraud, seven counts of procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, two counts of perjury and five misdemeanor counts of interference with a prompt transfer of a completed affidavit.
| 1 |
Iran is widely expected to use part of the billions of dollars freed up by sanctions relief under the newly minted nuclear deal to aid regional partners hostile to Washington and its allies. But with the threat of extremist group Islamic State redrawing old battle lines in the Middle East, the Iranian and U.S. camps sometimes find themselves fighting a common enemy. Iran hopes to leverage better relations with the U.S. and other Western nations to secure closer cooperation against common threats. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who played a central role in negotiating the nuclear deal agreed on Tuesday, claimed in a recent address that his country was at the forefront of the fight against extremism. “I hope my counterparts will also turn their focus and devote their resources to this existential battle,” he said. One Western diplomat echoed the sentiment, saying last month “sometimes it’s a good thing” Tehran is using its muscle to back those fighting Islamic State. Iran stands to reap more than $100 billion under the nuclear deal, as assets in foreign countries frozen by sanctions flow back into its coffers. Valiollah Seif, the head of Iran’s central bank, said Wednesday that $23 billion of the bank’s money is blocked in Japan, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates. Within 4 to 5 months, he said, Iran should be reconnected to the SWIFT network, which facilitates international banking transactions. U.S. intelligence analysts expect Tehran to use some of the imminent windfall to step up support for its closest friends in the region including the Syrian regime, Shiite militias in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Most of those allies are currently taken up with battling Islamic State, opening up potential avenues for broader U.S.-Iranian cooperation and reconciliation built on the foundation of the nuclear deal. But the nexus of alliances across the Middle East presents many complications for a thorough realignment of the balance of powers. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Iran would soon be on the receiving end of “a cash bonanza” that would allow it to continue “aggression and terror in the region and the world.” Members of the U.S. Congress have raised similar alarms about the extent of Iran’s support for regional allies. “With tens of billions of sanctions relief cash likely coming, Iran now wants free rein to arm Hezbollah terrorists, assist Assad in Syria and aid Houthi rebels in Yemen,” Rep. Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said last week. Iran gives vital support to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, which is fighting Islamic State but is also at war with Western-backed rebel groups such as the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, in the multi-sided war. His regime is sometimes accused of turning a blind eye to the Islamist radicals because they buffer between his forces and opposition fighters like the FSA. Once focused on anti-Israeli efforts, the Islamic Republic has largely redirected its efforts to groups fighting Islamic State, which has captured wide swaths of Syria and Iraq and come within 40 miles of Iran’s western border with Iraq. Iran also aids Shiite militia Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is directly involved in the Syrian war on the side of the regime and which fought a war with Israel in 2006. And it helps Shiite militias in Iraq roll back gains against the Sunni militants of Islamic State there—perhaps the clearest example of the U.S. and Iran fighting on the same side. Both countries are actively providing military support and aid to Iraqi forces fighting Islamic State. Iranians fear they could be the next target of the Sunni extremists. Related Coverage In a study last year, the Institute for International Energy Studies, an Iranian government research center, warned of Islamic State’s “advancement to Iran’s borders and [of] possible disruption in oil field production and development in western Iran.” Meanwhile, Iran has also been reducing its support to the most hard-line Palestinian factions, notably to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, according to Western officials. The group lost Iranian assistance over its refusal to offer political support to Iran’s allies in Yemen and Syria and is now struggling with cash shortfalls, one of these officials said. Daoud Shehab, a leader of Islamic Jihad, acknowledged that the organization has been struggling with financial difficulties lately because of the upheaval throughout the region, particularly in Syria. “After what has been happening recently with Arab countries and Iran, the financial situation is more complicated,” he said, without elaborating. “They are busy with the situation in the region.” Tehran has also cut assistance to Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian faction that governs the Gaza Strip and fought a war with Israel last summer, one Western diplomat said. Concern that the government will deploy freed-up funds to support its allies has grown with the completion of the nuclear deal, Western diplomats say. But despite that worry, most of the money is expected to go to address an array of domestic economic ills, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Iran has 50 incomplete major government projects that require an estimated $37.5 billion of funding, including roads, bridges, ports and other infrastructure. The cash could fund the revival of ventures such as a 75-mile highway connecting Tehran to Caspian Sea vacation spots. It could also sate demand for American and European imports, such as airplane parts and oil and gas extraction equipment. Congress still has to weigh in on the nuclear deal, and lawmakers will need assurances that Israel, the target of many Iranian allies, won't be in danger as a result. Peter Harrell, a former top sanctions official at the U.S. State Department, said he expects only a small part of the sanctions relief to benefit regional allies. But that could still pose a threat to the U.S. and its Mideast allies. Iran’s most expensive ally is Syria, which receives about $6 billion a year from Iran, Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations envoy to Syria, estimated last year. However, invoices and letters seen by The Wall Street Journal offer some new insights that suggest Iran keeps a tight leash on how money sent to Syria is used. One invoice showed the Syrian regime drew $409 million of shipments from an Iranian state-owned oil company to its Syrian counterpart over a six-month period in 2013. Iran kept tabs on each cargo and of its commercial value in great detail. Another document seen by the Journal shows Iranian institutions have been making it difficult for Syria to draw on its credit lines. In the letter sent in 2013 and marked “Top Secret/Top Urgent,” an Iranian state bank signaled it was reluctant to make a transfer unless its Syrian counterpart didn’t provide the right documentation and justifications. And in talks last year, Iran considered Syrian requests for a $150 billion budget for reconstruction as overestimated by $50 billion, according to a Western diplomat familiar with the conversations. Iranian support for Hezbollah is smaller in scale but still significant, according to people familiar with its operations. Iran recently scaled back assistance in both weapons and cash, according to a Western diplomat who tracks the militant group. But the lifting of sanctions would enable Tehran to open the spigots once more. —Aresu Eqbali and Adam Entous contributed to this article. Write to Asa Fitch at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
The fate of the cease-fire agreement negotiated by the U.S. and Turkey in northeastern Syria was uncertain Friday, as skirmishes erupted between Turkish and Syrian Kurdish forces and questions arose about the boundaries of a buffer zone from which the Kurds are expected to withdraw.President Trump said his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told him in a phone call that “minor sniper and mortar fire” had stopped. Mr. Erdogan dismissed the clash reports as “disinformation.” A U.S. official said most of the fighting has ended but it would take time for orders to stop the combat to filter through the ranks. The deal reached Thursday commits Turkey to suspending its military incursion into Kurdish-held areas for 120 hours in return for a U.S. pledge to facilitate a withdrawal of Syrian Kurdish fighters from the border area. The Kurds were allied with the U.S. in the fight against Islamic State but Ankara regards them as a terrorist threat. The agreement didn’t specify the size of what Turkey refers to as the safe zone. But Mr. Erdogan said there should be no confusion that Turkey plans to seize control over a roughly 20-mile by 300-mile area stretching from the city of Manbij all the way to Syria’s border with Iraq on the east. “This is what we call the safe zone,” Mr. Erdogan told reporters, circling the area on a large map with a laser pointer. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces have said that the zone proposed to them was significantly narrower than the one described by Mr. Erdogan. The SDF has said it would abide by the five-day cease-fire, but there were no signs they were pulling back from the area on Friday. U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper didn’t comment on the size of the buffer zone, but said the U.S., which has withdrawn its troops from combat areas, would have no role in enforcing it. A senior U.S. defense official said that the U.S. would continue to watch over the area with drones, to maintain surveillance of conditions on the ground and prison camps where Kurdish forces are holding Islamic State fighters. People living near the Syrian border town of Ras al-Ain and two officials in the SDF, reported that sporadic clashes, drone strikes and artillery shelling resumed overnight and increased into the morning. One strike hit a hospital in Ras al-Ain, according to the Kurdish Red Crescent. A woman reacts as the body of a man killed during Turkish shelling in the area surrounding the Syrian Kurdish town of Ras al-Ain arrives at a hospital in the nearby town of Tal Tamr on Friday. Photo: delil souleiman/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images SDF commanders appealed for a pause in fighting. “As part of the agreement the clashes must stop and the strikes must stop,” SDF commander Khabour Akaad said. “But until now it hasn’t stopped.” Col. Fateh Hassoun, a commander in the Turkish-backed forces, blamed the Kurds for the clashes. “Some of the SDF mercenaries are still firing mortars in Ras al-Ain and fighting,” he said. “The other areas have small clashes.” Turkey’s incursion marks a pivotal chapter in the multisided Syrian war. The Trump administration’s decision this month to withdraw its troops from northeastern Syria has created a vacuum for President Bashar al-Assad’s government and his ally, Russia, to fill. It has also forced the SDF to weigh whether to fight Turkey alone or throw their lot in with Mr. Assad. Mr. Erdogan said he wouldn’t negotiate with Kurdish forces but conceded that much had yet to be discussed with Russia to achieve his safe-zone goal. The Turkish president said he was concerned that Kurdish fighters would seek support from Mr. Assad and Russian troops in cities where they are present. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks to reporters as he leaves a mosque in Istanbul on Friday. Photo: Murat Kula/Presidential Press Office/Reuters Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is set to host Mr. Erdogan in the Russian resort town of Sochi on Tuesday, has made clear he would accommodate only a limited Turkish incursion in Syria. On Friday, spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin expected information from Ankara on the cease-fire agreement. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who helped negotiate the pause brokered by Vice President Mike Pence, said during a stop in Brussels that he is very hopeful the agreement will hold. He also said that European countries must help solve the crisis of Syrian refugees in Turkey and take back Islamic State fighters being held in northern Syria. “Europe needs to seriously consider how to respond to this, this threat, this challenge that’s presented by migration,” he said. Mr. Pompeo met with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday to brief him on deal and reaffirm the U.S. commitment to confronting Iran. Mr. Netanyahu hasn’t publicly criticized Mr. Trump’s decision to pull troops from Syria but has condemned the Turkish invasion and offered humanitarian assistance to the Kurds. Asked by reporters in Jerusalem about the cease-fire Mr. Netanyahu said, “We hope things will turn out for the best.” On Friday afternoon, a convoy organized by activists of some 100 people and 80 vehicles including ambulances, attempted to reach Ras al-Ain, also known as Sarikani, to evacuate injured civilians and supply food, but was prevented by Turkish airstrikes, according to members of the convoy. Activists said they would try again. A man injured during the Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria receives treatment at a hospital in Tal Tamr, near the Syrian Kurdish town of Ras al-Ain, on Friday. Photo: delil souleiman/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images The Turkish military campaign pushed hundreds of civilians eastward into neighboring Iraq. Rudin Hassan and her 24-year-old husband Mohammad Shukri fled the town of Tal Abiad when the airstrikes hit last week. The Syrian Kurdish authorities have prevented people from fleeing, likely to maintain numbers to fight the Turkish offensive.
Related Reading The alliance with the U.S. allowed the Syrian Kurds to establish a sizable semiautonomous, largely peaceful area, but many now see the U.S. exit as a betrayal. “The Americans use people. When you finish their work, they don’t care about you,” the 23-year-old Ms. Hassan said in an interview in a refugee camp near the Iraqi town of Bardarash. Mr. Trump had dispatched the delegation led by Mr. Pence following a Monday phone call with his Turkish counterpart amid growing bipartisan alarm in Washington. Sen., Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a critic of Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, said he spoke on Friday with SDF commander Mazloum Abdi, who he described as concerned that the safe zone sought by Turkey is tantamount to “ethnic cleansing” of Kurds. “I hope we can find a win-win situation, but I share General Mazloum’s concerns,” Mr. Graham said. —Isabel Coles in Duhok, Iraq, Felicia Schwartz in Jerusalem and Gordon Lubold and Vivian Salama in Washington contributed to this article. Write to Sune Engel Rasmussen at [email protected], Raja Abdulrahim at [email protected] and David Gauthier-Villars at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
The House Oversight and Reform Committee approved legislation on Wednesday that would make Washington, D.C., a state, sending the measure to the House for a vote later this month. The House Oversight and Reform Committee passed H.R. 51, also known as the Washington, D.C., Admission Act, in a 25-19 party-line vote.The legislation, which has 215 co-sponsors, is likely to pass the House on a narrow, party-line vote, with all Republicans voting against it.However, it will likely stall in an evenly divided Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. It is also not clear that every Democrat in the Senate will back it.After the committee vote, Sen. Tom CarperThomas (Tom) Richard CarperEquilibrium/Sustainability — Genetic testing used to crack elephant cartels Bipartisan group of lawmakers introduce coastal resilience legislation Overnight Energy & Environment — Postal Service faces ire over vehicle plans MORE (D-Del.) said in a statement that his Senate counterpart bill, S. 51, now has 44 Democratic co-sponsors, the highest yet for such legislation in the upper chamber. Notably absent from the list, however, are moderate Democratic Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinOvernight Health Care — Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding Overnight Energy & Environment — Biden says Russia attack could spike oil prices Dem plan to suspend the gas tax faces bipartisan pushback MORE (W.Va.) and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaSinema has a golden opportunity to stand with small businesses 1 in 4 Democrats say party did not take full advantage of control of power in 2021: poll Black voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why MORE (Ariz.), both of whom are opposed to nixing the filibuster.Sponsored by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes NortonEleanor Holmes NortonDC delegate: Possible bill to repeal home rule 'radical' and 'very unexpected' Black women lawmakers commend Biden on commitment for Supreme Court nominee Emhoff ushered out of DC high school event due to security threat MORE (D), the legislation takes a novel approach to D.C. statehood by shrinking the capital to the National Mall, monuments, White House and other federal buildings. The rest of the city would become a new state.D.C. statehood became a more prominent issue over the past year as the nation saw how the District was unable to control its National Guard during anti-police brutality protests following the death of George Floyd in police custody. The District’s Guard is under federal control, not local control.Most recently, the D.C. Guard's slow response to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol also drew criticism.But Norton has long advocated for the District to become a state, arguing that the city’s residents need proper representation in Congress."As American citizens, D.C. residents are entitled to equal citizenship, but they have also earned it. They have fought in every American war, including the war that led to the creation of the nation, the Revolutionary War. D.C. servicemembers have helped get voting rights for people throughout the world, yet have always been denied those same rights when they returned home," she said in her opening remarks Wednesday.Republicans, however, argue that Democrats are attempting a power grab because the city generally leans Democratic. The GOP also argues that D.C. statehood violates the 23rd Amendment, which gives the District electoral votes on presidential elections."If my Democrat colleagues want D.C. to become a state, the cleanest and fastest way for that to happen, is to repeal the 23rd Amendment before consideration of this bill," Oversight Committee ranking member James ComerJames (Jamie) R. ComerOvernight Defense & National Security — Russia throws curveball with troop withdrawal Oversight Republicans demand documents on Afghanistan withdrawal Website that raised millions for 'Freedom Convoy' protests goes offline after possible hack MORE (R-Ky.) said. "But that’s not good enough for the progressives. That’s not good enough for The Squad. That’s not good enough for the liberal left. This bill is part of their no-holds-barred plan to reshape the American landscape to one of higher taxes and daily government intrusion into the lives of Americans." Advocates for statehood have long pointed to the District's Black population to argue it should have statehood. D.C. is home to more than 700,000 people but has no senators, and its delegate in the House cannot vote on legislation. The District does have three electoral votes in presidential elections.D.C. was long a majority-Black city, though according to U.S. census data from July 2019, its Black population was 47 percent.Updated at 4:34 p.m.
| 1 |
From left: Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and others hold a bipartisan meeting on infrastructure in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday. Samuel Corum/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Samuel Corum/Getty Images From left: Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and others hold a bipartisan meeting on infrastructure in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday. Samuel Corum/Getty Images A bipartisan group of 10 U.S. senators says they agree on a "framework" for a deal on an infrastructure package, but the members did not release any details and top leaders from both parties have been mostly silent on the development. According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the agreement is focused on "core, physical infrastructure." The proposal would cost $1.2 trillion over eight years and include $579 billion in new spending. The plan would not have any tax hikes, and aides did not provide any further details on how the costs would be offset. In a short statement, the group of five Republicans and five Democrats didn't give any details on the size or scope of the proposal but said it would be "fully paid for and not include tax increases." "We are discussing our approach with our respective colleagues, and the White House, and remain optimistic that this can lay the groundwork to garner broad support from both parties and meet America's infrastructure needs," the statement said. In a statement, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said that President Biden "appreciates the Senators' work," but added that "[q]uestions need to be addressed, particularly around the details of both policy and pay-fors, among other matters." The group's 10 senators are: Bill Cassidy, R-La., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Mitt Romney, R-Utah, Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Mark Warner, D-Va. Sinema launched the talks with Romney. Senators have wrapped up business for the weekend so it's unclear whether there will be any additional updates or new details until the framework is fleshed out. The group has not indicated whether their respective party leaders are on board with the proposal — a key factor in determining whether this scaled-back approach would have any momentum in the evenly divided Senate and House. Progressive Democrats have already complained about discussing a smaller package and are pushing for Democrats to move ahead on a plan without Republicans. The latest developments come two days after Biden ended his infrastructure talks with Senate Republicans led by West Virginia's Shelley Moore Capito. In explaining the decision, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said "the latest offer from [Capito's] group did not, in his view, meet the essential needs of our country to restore our roads and bridges, prepare us for our clean energy future, and create jobs." Biden originally proposed a more than $2 trillion infrastructure and jobs plan, in addition to a separate proposal on education, child care and paid leave.
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Thursday blocked attempts to alter a $2.3 trillion coronavirus aid and government spending package, rejecting President Donald Trump’s demand for extensive changes and leaving benefits for millions of Americans at risk.Democrats in the House of Representatives sought to increase direct payments to Americans included in the bill from $600 to $2,000 per person as part of a coronavirus economic relief initiative, acting on one of Trump’s requests. Trump’s fellow Republicans, who oppose the higher amount, blocked that effort.Republicans sought to change the amount of foreign aid included in the package, seeking to address another one of Trump’s complaints. Democrats blocked that request.The flurry of activity on the House floor did nothing to break a standoff that threatens desperately needed assistance for millions of Americans and raises the prospect of a partial government shutdown at a time when officials are trying to distribute vaccines in a country where nearly 320,000 people have died from COVID-19.Embittered by his loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump in a surprise move on Tuesday pressed Congress to dramatically alter the coronavirus and government-spending package, which passed by wide, bipartisan margins on Monday.A bipartisan group of Senate and House members on Thursday urged Trump to back down and sign the legislation. The lawmakers were instrumental in getting negotiations moving forward a few weeks ago when they proposed $908 billion in coronavirus aid, slightly above the level Congress finally settled upon.“The legislation would bring desperately needed help to struggling families, unemployed workers, hard-hit small businesses, an overburdened health care system, stressed schools, and so many others,” they wrote.Eleven senators, including Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Mitt Romney of Utah, signed the statement, along with two House members, the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the “Problem Solvers Caucus.” West Virginia and Utah were among states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in the November election.Trump was playing golf in Florida on Thursday. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Trump posted multiple tweets on Thursday, most of which related to his baseless claims that the presidential election was rigged, but none discussed the spending package.U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, U.S., December 23, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner The 5,500-page bill took months to negotiate and the White House had said earlier that Trump would sign it into law.With the status quo unchanged, it was unclear whether Trump would sign the package into law or hold out for further action.If Trump does not sign the package into law, unemployment benefits for about 14 million Americans will lapse starting on Saturday and the U.S. government would be forced into a partial shutdown beginning on Tuesday.New stimulus checks, which could go out as soon as next week, would be delayed, as would payments to cash-strapped states that are administering the vaccine rollout.A moratorium on tenant evictions would expire on Dec. 31, instead of being extended for another month. The standoff comes as the U.S. economy is cooling in the face of the raging pandemic.‘HOW IRONIC’Congress could keep operations running by passing a fourth stopgap funding bill before midnight on Monday. To successfully do that, lawmakers would need Trump’s cooperation at a time when he is consumed by his bid to remain in office beyond Jan. 20, when Biden will be sworn in.A stopgap bill would not include coronavirus aid, however.Many Democrats say the $892 billion coronavirus aid package is not big enough to address the pandemic, and they have welcomed Trump’s call for larger stimulus checks.“How ironic it would be to shut down the federal government at a time of pandemic crisis, the very time when government services are needed the most,” House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer said at a news conference.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the chamber would hold a vote on the stimulus-check increase on Monday. The House will also on Monday try to override Trump’s veto of an unrelated defense-policy bill.Republicans opposed larger direct payments during negotiations as they sought to limit the size of the coronavirus aid package. Increased payments could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the overall price tag.House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Thursday that Democrats should be willing to address foreign aid and other elements of the bill that McCarthy has derided as wasteful spending. “House Democrats appear to be suffering from selective hearing,” he wrote in a letter to other House Republicans.The Trump administration had requested the foreign aid in a budget proposal earlier this year, and Trump’s lead negotiator, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, had supported the $600 stimulus payments.Biden has said a larger coronavirus aid package will be necessary to help fight the pandemic and assist those whose lives have been upended by it. His transition team declined to comment on Thursday’s developments.Trump sparked a record 35-day government shutdown two years ago when he rejected a federal spending bill over what he said was insufficient funding for building a U.S.-Mexico border wall. That idled tens of thousands of federal workers and forced military service members and public-safety employees to work without pay.Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Additional reporting by Brad Heath, Simon Lewis and Steve Holland; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Howard Goller and Leslie Adlerfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
President Trump speaks Tuesday with business leaders in New Delhi. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption toggle caption Alex Brandon/AP President Trump speaks Tuesday with business leaders in New Delhi. Alex Brandon/AP President Trump criticized remarks by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as "inappropriate" and said the Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves from cases involving the president. "I just don't know how they cannot recuse themselves for anything Trump or Trump related," Trump said Tuesday in a wide-ranging news conference in New Delhi. "What Justice Sotomayor said yesterday was highly inappropriate," Trump added. "She's trying to shame people with perhaps a different view into voting her way." The remarks are an apparent reference to a recent Sotomayor dissent in which she wrote that the administration had made a habit of turning to the Supreme Court after losses in lower courts. "Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each," Sotomayor wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow." She added that the Supreme Court was "partly to blame" because it "has been all too quick to grant the government's" requests. Ginsburg had previously criticized Trump before he was elected president. Earlier, Trump tweeted: "Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump. ... This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to 'shame' some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a 'faker'. Both should recuse themselves." The comments, made on the final day of his three-day visit to India, capped an otherwise positive trip for Trump: He was feted by the Indian government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, covered positively by the Indian media, and greeted by large crowds at a newly built cricket stadium in the western city of Ahmedabad. The visit to India offered a welcome distraction to the president who, despite his acquittal earlier this month by the U.S. Senate following his impeachment by the House of Representatives, has continued to rail against congressional Democrats. Trump has previously criticized the judge in the trial of his ally Roger Stone, prompting pushback from his attorney general, William Barr; and last week, prior to his departure, news reports said that intelligence officials had told a House panel that Russia seemed to favor Trump in the 2020 election. Addressing that issue Tuesday, Trump accused Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and who spearheaded the president's impeachment, of leaking details of the intelligence assessment. Schiff has vigorously denied the allegation. The president also said he hadn't been briefed on the intelligence that suggested Russia was helping his campaign and that of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "Nobody ever told me that," he said. He later added: "I want no help from any country, and I haven't been given any help from any country." The president tweeted repeatedly about many of those developments during his India trip. On Tuesday, he had the opportunity to address them in person. In a meeting with Indian business leaders Tuesday, Trump said he believed the U.S. economy would be hurt "if the wrong person gets elected" in November. "Everything will come to a halt," he said. Trump also addressed the U.S. stock market's plunge Monday, in which the Dow fell more than 1,000 points, or 3.56%, amid fears that the coronavirus would become a global pandemic. Trump tweeted Monday that the coronavirus "is very much under control in the USA" and that the "stock market starting to look very good to me." Earlier in the day Tuesday he said the stock market's plunge would "work out fine." Dow futures were up slightly after Trump's remarks Tuesday. On Monday, the White House sought an additional $2.5 billion from Congress to help in the fight against coronavirus. Trump leaves India later Tuesday following a state dinner in New Delhi.
| 1 |
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Saturday said he and President-elect Donald Trump held a “far-reaching conversation,” as both men moved to reconcile after spending months attacking each other on a number of fronts.Some advisers have encouraged Mr. Trump to consider Mr. Romney as secretary of state. Saturday’s meeting could have been a pivotal step toward that end. Cupping his hands to his mouth, Mr. Trump shouted to reporters following the meeting, saying “it went great,” as Mr. Romney was approaching the press. It remains unclear, however, whether their meeting was a one-off discussion or part of a broader courtship that could bring Mr. Romney into the Trump administration. Many Republicans leveled attacks at Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, including Mr. Romney, who at one point called the real estate billionaire a “con man” and a “fraud.”
Related Reading On Saturday, Mr. Romney spent more than 80 minutes at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J. The unsuccessful 2012 GOP presidential candidate has moved quickly to make amends since Mr. Trump’s stunning Nov. 8 victory over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In a brief statement to the press after the meeting, Mr. Romney didn’t mention playing a role in the Trump administration, but the types of issues he said the two discussed appeared to be similar to issues a secretary of state would address. “We had a far-reaching conversation with regards to the various threats in the world where there are interests of the United States of real significance,” Mr. Romney said. “We discussed those areas, and exchanged our views on those topics—a very thorough and in-depth discussion in the time we had. And I appreciate the chance to speak with the president-elect and I look forward to the coming administration and the things that it’s going to be doing.” Mr. Romney is one of several key figures meeting with Mr. Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence this weekend at the golf club. Immediately after Mr. Romney left the meeting, Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of public schools in Washington, D.C., arrived. She is considered to be a candidate for secretary of education. “We had a far-reaching conversation with regards to the various theaters in the world where there are interests of the United States of real significance.” — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, after meeting with President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday And shortly after she arrived, retired Gen. James Mattis entered the golf club. He is among candidates considered for secretary of defense, a person familiar with the situation has said. Gen. Mattis was at the golf club for a little more than an hour, though it wasn’t immediately clear how long he met with Mr. Trump. After the meeting was over, Mr. Trump appeared to acknowledge Gen. Mattis was under consideration for the defense secretary post. The president-elect was asked by reporters whether he would choose the retired Marine who had served as Commander of U.S. Central Command for defense secretary, and Mr. Trump said “We’ll see. We’ll see.” “He’s just a brilliant, wonderful man,” Mr. Trump said. “What a career. We are going to see what happens, but he is the real deal. Thank you.” To be sure, Mr. Trump’s characterization of Gen. Mattis’s potential role seemed to be a common one on Saturday. After Gen. Mattis left, Mr. Trump welcomed Bob Woodson, president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Reporters asked if Mr. Woodson could have a role in the Trump administration, and Mr. Trump responded, “We’ll see. We’ll see.” Mr. Trump has undertaken dozens of meetings and phone calls to vet candidates for senior jobs in his administration and to solicit thoughts on how he should plan his agenda. Marine Gen. James Mattis, shown in 2013, visited with President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday and is said to be under consideration for secretary of defense. Photo: Evan Vucci/Associated Press Some potential candidates for jobs, such as Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), who met with Mr. Trump on Thursday, have emerged from the talks saying they are willing to consider a top-level post if they are asked. Mr. Romney, in his comments on Saturday, didn’t go that far. Mr. Trump is looking at a number of candidates for Secretary of State, people familiar with situation said. They include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Corrections & Amplifications: Mitt Romney said he and Donald Trump “had a far reaching conversation with regards to the various theaters in the world where there are interests of the United States of real significance.” An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the quote. (Nov. 20) Write to Damian Paletta at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Lawmakers said on Monday night that they had reached an agreement "in principle" to avoid a second partial government shutdown set to begin on Saturday.“We’ve had a good evening. We’ve reached an agreement in principle between us on the Homeland Security and the other six bills,” Sen. Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyNegotiators make progress in fiscal 2022 spending talks The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - More blue states let mask mandates expire On The Money — Lawmakers closer to government funding deal MORE (R-Ala.) told reporters.Shelby announced the deal alongside Sen. Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyOn The Money — GOP senators block Biden's Fed picks Negotiators make progress in fiscal 2022 spending talks Senators introduce a resolution honoring Tom Brady's career MORE (D-Vt.) and Reps. Nita LoweyNita Sue LoweyTwo women could lead a powerful Senate spending panel for first time in history Lobbying world Progressives fight for leverage amid ever-slimming majority MORE (D-N.Y.) and Kay GrangerNorvell (Kay) Kay Granger Negotiators reach 'breakthrough' in government funding talks House passes stopgap bill to prevent shutdown Lawmakers say spending deal up to leaders MORE (R-Texas) — the top members of the Senate and House Appropriations committees.The breakthrough came after the core four negotiators met three times on Monday night in a last-ditch effort to get a deal after talks appeared to unravel over the weekend with only days to prevent a partial government shutdown.Negotiators refused to discuss the particulars of the deal, with staff expected to work frantically to release the legislation as early as Tuesday. Lowey said she hopes for the bill, which she called a "good product," to be released on Wednesday.A congressional source told The Hill that the bill will include $1.375 billion for physical barriers, the same amount included in the fiscal 2018 bill. The tentative agreement, according to the source, also specifically prohibits the use of a concrete wall. But, senior congressional aides separately noted that it will fund approximately 55 new miles of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley sector.If negotiators are able to hold an agreement together it would mark a dramatic U-turn from earlier Monday, when both sides were still divided on two key issues: funding for physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border and a snag on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention beds.Lawmakers refused to discuss how they resolved the ICE fight, after Democrats proposed a cap on the number of ICE detention beds, arguing it would force the Trump administration to focus on “serious criminals,” and that numbers were in line with those from the Obama administration."We worked it out in principle. We think it's going to work," Shelby said.Democrats appear to have dropped their demand to cap the number of ICE detention beds in the interior of the country, away from the border, at 16,500.But in a sign of the potential hurdles to the agreement, there seemed to be mixed signals on other details of the ICE provisions on Monday night.A congressional aide said the deal included 40,520 ICE detention beds. But senior congressional aides argued that the tentative agreement included "enough flexibility to reach the president's requested level of 52,000 beds."Shelby said the agreement includes funding for physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, but declined to say how much is included or whether it's more than the $1.6 billion included in the Senate's initial Homeland Security bill.Trump has demanded $5.7 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. But the larger group of 17 lawmakers tasked with spearheading a deal had narrowed the funding gap to between $1.3 billion and $2 billion as of late last week.Lawmakers said on Monday night that they have the support of their respective leadership teams to strike a compromise."There's not a single one of us who's going to get every single thing we want, but nobody does. But we are going to get what is best for the United States," Leahy said."If the four of us couldn't get it together, this Congress never could," he added.The group left the sticking point of disaster aid off the table, and said they would address it separately, but that they expected to include all seven remaining appropriations bills in the package.Congress has until Saturday to get the seven remaining fiscal 2019 appropriations bills to Trump's desk to fund roughly 25 percent of the federal government, including the Department of Homeland Security.The Monday night deal will leave them a tight time frame if they are going to get an agreement to Trump's desk before the deadline.But Shelby downplayed the chances of missing the Friday night cutoff, telling reporters that he didn't think there would be another partial government shutdown later this week.Lawmakers have shown little appetite for a second partial shutdown after Trump agreed to sign a three-week continuing resolution late last month that ended the longest funding lapse in U.S. history.Shelby, asked what prompted Monday night's breakthrough, pointed to the growing fear over the weekend that the stalemate in talks would spark another shutdown."All of us realized us that we had a bigger obligation to get back together. I didn't know if it would happen," he said. "I think the fact that it looked like there was going to be another shutdown imminently probably helped contribute to us getting together."There were signs that a breakthrough was imminent earlier Monday evening when Shelby and Leahy, standing side by side as they spoke to reporters, said they were closing in on a deal and could wrap up talks before Tuesday."We’re talking about reaching an agreement on all of it," Shelby told reporters.Though negotiators reached the agreement "in principle" on Monday night, there could still be political landmines they will need to navigate around before Trump signs the agreement, including potential rifts in both parties.Progressive Democrats may not want to cast votes to fund any measure of physical barriers, while conservative Republicans could balk at any potential limits on ICE or details they see as too soft on border security."I think all of us have talked to our different constituencies and different colleagues," said Granger, expressing confidence that the deal would pass.It also wasn't immediately clear if Trump would support the agreement.Shelby said that while the White House had been consulted throughout the process, he hadn't talked with the president, who was holding a campaign rally along the border on Monday evening, since Thursday.He added that while he couldn't predict what Trump will "do, say [or] write" the president told him "more than once that if you can work out a legislative solution to this, do that."Trump has floated declaring a national emergency to construct the U.S.-Mexico border wall if Congress wasn't able to reach a deal. And White House chief of staff Mick MulvaneyMick MulvaneyThese people have been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel Lobbying world Trump's relocation of the Bureau of Land Management was part of a familiar Republican playbook MORE floated over the weekend that the administration could look for ways to supplement money for the wall.“We'll take as much money as you can give us and then we will go off and find the money someplace else, legally, in order to secure that southern barrier. But this is going to get built with or without Congress,” Mulvaney told “Fox News Sunday.”One GOP lawmaker who has been involved with the negotiations said he believes the president will likely take executive action to secure funding for the barrier."I think the president will ultimately take other actions no matter what product comes out of that meeting," the lawmaker said.— Juliegrace Brufke and Niv Elis contributed to this report, which was updated at 10 p.m.
| 1 |
Sign up for our daily briefingMake your busy days simpler with the Axios AM and PM newsletters. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.Catch up on the day's biggest business storiesSubscribe to the Axios Closer newsletter for insights into the day’s business news and trends and why they matter.Sign up for Axios Pro RataDive into the world of dealmakers across VC, PE and M&A with Axios Pro Rata. Delivered daily to your inbox by Dan Primack and Kia Kokalitcheva.Sports news worthy of your timeBinge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with the Axios Sports newsletter. Sign up for free.Tech news worthy of your timeGet our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.Get the inside storiesGet an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everydayCatch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everydayWant a daily digest of the top Denver news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios DenverWant a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Des Moines newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin CitiesWant a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Tampa Bay newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios CharlotteWant a daily digest of the top Nashville news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Nashville newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Columbus news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Columbus newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Dallas news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Dallas newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Austin news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Austin newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Atlanta news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Atlanta newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Philadelphia news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Philadelphia newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Chicago news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Chicago newsletter.Sign up for Axios NW ArkansasStay up-to-date on the most important and interesting stories affecting NW Arkansas, authored by local reportersWant a daily digest of the top DC news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios DC newsletter.Photo: Tom Williams / Getty ImagesThe House passed Democrats' revised $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill 214-207 on Thursday as 11th-hour negotiations between leaders for a bipartisan deal continue. Why it matters: The legislation, a slimmed down version of the House's initial $3.4 trillion HEROES Act, is Democrats' last ditch effort to strike a stimulus deal with the White House and Senate Republicans before Election Day, though many lawmakers admit they think the legislation has little chance of becoming law.What's in the bill: The proposal would ...Restore weekly enhanced unemployment benefits to $600.Extend the small business Paycheck Protection Program, which expired in early August.Allocate $28 billion for a vaccine, and $2 billion for more personal protective equipment for industries significantly impacted by COVID. Increase federal spending on Medicaid.Expand the employee retention tax credit.Provide $436 billion for state and local governments and a 15% increase in food-stamp benefits.Provide another round of $1,200 direct payments to Americans.Increase funding for schools, airlines workers and COVID testing.What's next: The Senate is unlikely to move on the bill while bipartisan talks between Congress and the White House continue, and few on Capitol Hill are optimistic discussions will be fruitful. Go deeper: House prepares to pass revised COVID relief bill as White House talks hit roadblock
| 1 |
Liberals in the House on Monday rallied behind the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package that the Democratic-controlled Congress is set to send to President BidenJoe BidenCory Booker and Rosario Dawson have reportedly split US ups estimate of Russian forces on Ukraine border to 130,000 Harris heads to Munich at pivotal moment MORE’s desk this week, despite some frustration over changes made by the Senate to appease key centrists. House progressives signaled that they will still back the legislation following amendments adopted by the Senate to restrict income eligibility for stimulus checks and keep weekly unemployment insurance payments at $300, while ensuring that the first $10,200 of jobless benefits aren’t subject to taxes.Another key progressive provision in the original version of the bill that the House passed earlier this month would have raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour, but the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it didn’t comply with the budget reconciliation process that Democrats are using to circumvent a Senate GOP filibuster. Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalOvernight Health Care — Biden urges action on drug pricing The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - More blue states let mask mandates expire Frustrated Democrats amp up pressure on Biden over global vaccinations MORE (D-Wash.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Monday that she didn’t think the changes pursued by Senate centrists were “good policy or good politics,” but minimized them as “relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.” “Ultimately, given the makeup of the Senate, the House is always going to be more progressive than the Senate. That is actually our job, to make everything as progressive as possible in the House and then when it goes to the Senate to know that there are going to be some changes,” Jayapal told reporters in the Capitol.“We'll take the win. We believe it's our work that made it as progressive as it is,” she added. The House was initially expected to take a final vote on the massive relief package on Tuesday. But Democratic aides said that the vote could be pushed to Wednesday as the House awaits bill processing papers from the Senate.Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiUS officials warn diplomatic efforts are 'shrinking' amid Russia-Ukraine tensions Sunday shows: No breakthrough in Russia-Ukraine tensions Pelosi says 'defund the police' is 'not the position of the Democratic Party' MORE (D-Calif.) said the vote would be Wednesday morning “at the latest.”While the House had yet to officially schedule a vote on Monday afternoon, the legislation’s fate is not in doubt.Progressive Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaOvernight Energy & Environment — Virginia lawmakers block ex-Trump EPA chief Democrats go after Big Oil climate pledges, calling them insufficient Small ranchers say Biden letting them get squeezed MORE (D-Calif.) acknowledged “a lot of frustration” about the minimum wage hike’s removal from the bill, but predicted that “every Democrat, most likely” will vote for it.“Overall, no one wants to play games with people's lives. People are suffering. And the fact this is going to get checks and money directly into the pockets of people, and cut child poverty, cut poverty, I think is going to be the overriding concern,” Khanna said on CNN’s “New Day.”Democrats are moving swiftly to send the legislation to Biden before March 14, when current unemployment insurance benefits expire.Biden said Monday that he will sign the bill into law “as soon as I can get it.”White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiDemocratic Senate debates merits of passion vs. pragmatism White House uses GOP's own rhetoric to rebut Supreme Court criticisms Five obstacles Biden faces in battle against inflation MORE said that Biden will deliver his first prime-time address to the nation on Thursday night to commemorate the one-year anniversary since businesses and schools began closing down in an effort to contain the pandemic and terms like “social distancing” became part of the American lexicon.It’s expected that Biden will be able to tout final passage of the relief package as he outlines the path forward.“He will discuss the many sacrifices that the American people have made over the last year and the grave loss communities and families across the country have suffered,” Psaki said. “The president will look forward, highlighting the role that Americans will play in beating the virus and moving the country to getting back to normal.”But greater challenges lie ahead as Biden seeks to rack up more legislative accomplishments. The infighting between the progressive and centrist wings on pandemic relief exemplifies the challenges ahead for Biden and congressional Democrats as they seek to enact their agenda with razor-thin majorities and, for most future bills, the constant threats of Senate GOP filibusters. And with no Republicans expected to back the pandemic relief bill, Democratic leaders have to maintain a delicate balance to avoid defections and still pass legislation on their own.Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Sunday shows: No breakthrough in Russia-Ukraine tensions Pelosi: 'It's not right' for Manchin to say 'what we're doing is contributing to inflation' MORE (D-W.Va.), whose push for changing the unemployment insurance supplemental payments and inclination to back a GOP amendment held up Senate proceedings for several hours on Friday, signaled that he’ll keep trying to maximize his leverage for future legislation.Manchin said on “Axios on HBO” that he’ll block a climate and infrastructure package if Republicans don’t get to have any input in the 50-50 Senate.“I'm not going to do it through reconciliation,” Manchin said, referring to the budget process that would allow Democrats to bypass a GOP filibuster. “I am not going to get on a bill that cuts them out completely before we start trying.”But progressives are also flexing their muscles in a House where with their slim majority, Democrats can only afford up to four defections. Jayapal said she warned Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday morning after hearing that centrists planned to make changes so that the weekly unemployment insurance supplemental payments would remain at the current $300, rather than the increase to $400 in the original House bill.That came after Democratic senators changed the eligibility for stimulus checks so that individuals with incomes between $80,000 and $100,000 who received partial payments in previous rounds wouldn’t qualify this time. Individuals earning $75,000 or less will still be eligible for the full $1,400 checks.“I said, 'It cannot get weakened more. We can't weaken this thing any more or I don't know what's going to happen in the House,’ ” Jayapal recalled.
| 1 |
Lots of Democrats are in full panic that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination and get clobbered in the general election — and bring the party down, too. But the evidence, particularly the polling, doesn't back those doomsday warnings.Why it matters: Virtually every national and swing state poll shows Sanders tied with or beating President Trump. And, unlike every rival, he has a huge base of fervent, unshakable supporters he can only grow.Just the facts, please: A Quinnipiac Poll last week showed Sanders beating Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania. A CBS News/YouGov poll showed Sanders beating Trump nationally.A Texas Lyceum poll shows Sanders doing better against Trump in Texas than any Democrat, losing by just three points.He’s socially savvier: Sanders has much larger followings on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms than his rivals — and has consistently shown new media sophistication others lack. Loyalty matters: The guy’s base writes checks regularly, for years now, making him the best-funded non-billionaire in the Democratic game. His supporters also show up — on social, at rallies, in elections. Ask Trump if this matters. Socialism hasn’t killed him: It’s not like Sanders hides his big government socialism — he has screamed it to the nation for a half-decade. Maybe voters don’t care, just like 45% don’t care about Trump’s outlandishness. Peter Hamby, who works for Snapchat and writes for Vanity Fair, argues "bed-wetting" Democrats might have it all wrong: "Instead of asking if Sanders is unelectable, ask another question: What if Sanders is actually the MOST electable Democrat? In the age of Trump, hyper-partisanship, institutional distrust, and social media, Sanders could be examined as a candidate almost custom-built to go head-to-head with Trump this year."He’s a Trump-like celebrity: "Running for president has always been about winning the attention war, and the competition for attention has never been more difficult than it is in 2020,” Hamby writes. Sanders has way more old-school and new-age celebrity than the rest of his rivals combined. The bottom line: The truth is we are all clueless about what voters want or will accept. That includes everyone on Twitter, inside the Democratic establishment — and me!
| 1 |
Two members of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, were indicted Friday on federal charges for conspiring to obstruct law enforcement from protecting the U.S. Capitol during the pro-Trump siege on Jan. 6, the Department of Justice announced.The state of play: Dominic Pezzola, 43, and William Pepe, 31, removed temporary metal barricades erected by the Capitol Police to control access to the Capitol, and stole property belonging to Capitol Police officers, per the indictment.The indictment filed in federal court in the District of Columbia also includes charges of civil disorder, unlawfully entering restricted buildings or grounds and disorderly and disruptive conduct in restricted buildings or grounds.The charges further allege that Pezzola confronted a Capitol Police officer, stole the officer's riot shield and used it to smash a Capitol window.Pezzola was charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding; additional counts of civil disorder and aiding and abetting civil disorder ... assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers; destruction of government property; and engaging in physical violence in a restricted buildings or grounds."The big picture: Pepe and Pezzola were initially charged in a criminal complaint and arrested on Jan. 12 and 15, respectively.The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason McCullough and Erik Kenerson of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and Taryn Meeks of the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
| 1 |
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the legality of one of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies that has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed.The justices will hear a Trump administration appeal of a 2019 lower court ruling that found that the policy likely violated federal immigration law. The “remain in Mexico” policy remains in effect because the Supreme Court in March put the lower court’s decision to block it on hold while the legal battle continues.The Republican president has said the policy, which took effect in January 2019, has reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Restricting both illegal and legal immigration has been a central theme of Trump’s presidency. He has sought to reduce asylum claims through a series of policy and rule changes.Immigration advocacy groups and 11 individual asylum seekers who fled violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were returned to Mexico after entering the United States filed suit to challenge the legality of the policy.“Asylum seekers face grave danger every day this illegal and depraved policy is in effect. The courts have repeatedly ruled against it, and the Supreme Court should as well,” said Judy Rabinovitz, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union representing the challengers.A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.The “remain in Mexico” policy, which represented a fundamental change to previous U.S. practice, is one of the steps Trump has taken to try to prevent large-scale migration from Central America and other countries across the U.S.-Mexican border. His administration has said allowing the thousands of asylum seekers across the border would swamp the U.S. immigration system and damage American relations with Mexico.A federal judge blocked the program nationwide, saying that forcing these asylum applicants to wait in Mexico was contrary to the text of a law called the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated treaty-based obligations to not send refugees back to the dangerous countries from which they came.The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February partially upheld that ruling. The Supreme Court then put the injunction on hold, allowing the Trump administration to continue to carry out the asylum policy.Migrants in the program, many of them children, have faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults.The Supreme Court also may address a Trump administration request to clarify that individual federal judges do not have the power to issue nationwide injunctions, and instead must limit the scope of their rulings to the plaintiffs who filed the cases before them.A number of Trump’s policies, in particular concerning his efforts to restrict immigration, have been blocked or delayed by such nationwide injunctions.Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunhamfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
President Barack Obama vowed Wednesday to focus his final three years in office on income inequality in the U.S., calling for an increase in the federal minimum wage and defending the government's role in boosting economic mobility."I take this personally," Mr. Obama said at a speech hosted by a think tank closely aligned to the White House, noting that members of his family have benefited from government programs. It is "what drives me as a grandson, a son, a father—as an American." He said that rising income inequality and decreased economic mobility "pose a fundamental threat" to American prosperity. The economic agenda he detailed pushes a number of liberal priorities popular with the Democratic base. Mr. Obama called for eased rules for union organizers, passage of a budget that combines stimulus spending with long-term deficit reduction measures, expanded government programs for children and new antidiscrimination laws. More Republicans said the president was trying to distract attention from the problems of the health law and criticized many of the policy elements in Mr. Obama's speech. "They promote government reliance rather than economic mobility," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio). "Rather than tackling income inequality by lifting people up, he's been fixated on taxing some down," added Mr. Buck in a blog post. Republicans said a better course would be to promote school choice, approve stalled natural-resource projects and adopt other programs typically favored by the GOP. President Barack Obama said that growing income inequality is harming the U.S. economy and called on Congress to increase the minimum wage. Brookings Institution senior fellow Gary Burtless discusses on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images. "Instead of addressing people's frustrations he's trying to change the subject," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), the House GOP whip, referring to the troubled rollout of the federal health-care overhaul. Business groups said a higher federal minimum wage wouldn't accomplish Mr. Obama's goals. "Arbitrarily raising the cost of labor would increase, not reduce, the unemployment rate among young, less-skilled workers," Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a statement. Boeing Co. CEO W. James McNerney Jr. , chairman of the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of large companies, also saw a cost to raising the minimum wage. "In many cases, if the workers are not productive commensurate with the increased labor costs, then we'd move to places where the cost is commensurate," said Mr. McNerney, who also is chairman of Mr. Obama's Export Council, which advises on trade issues. Democrats in Congress are planning to press for action on the president's agenda ahead of the 2014 elections, believing the topics he raised in his speech resonate with voters. But there is little chance that they can pass legislation through a divided Congress. President Obama presented new details of his economic agenda in a speech Wednesday in Washington. Associated Press The issue first on the calendar is the expiration of expanded unemployment benefits before the end of the year. Mr. Obama called for renewing the expanded benefits, while many Republicans oppose the idea, saying the program was meant as a temporary response to the recession. House Democrats will call attention to the program on Thursday, when the party has invited unemployed workers to testify at an ad hoc hearing. The president's call for an increase in the federal minimum wage also sets him on a collision course with congressional Republicans, who often argue that the change would prompt businesses to cut low-wage jobs. Senate Democrats are readying a push either this month or next to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 in steps over several years. The federal minimum wage for most workers is currently $7.25 per hour; 10 states and the District of Columbia have higher minimums, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. Liberals welcomed Mr. Obama's speech. Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) said the president had issued "a powerful message: low-wage jobs and income inequality are only increasing.'' Mr. Harkin, the Senate sponsor of a minimum-wage bill, also noted that "today's minimum wage has one-third less buying power than it did at its peak in 1968." Democratic leaders generally see a minimum-wage increase as necessary and a strong political play, though there are concerns within the caucus about the legislation. Some Democratic Senate aides, however, said a push to increase the minimum wage could pose a risk for some vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2014. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas are among Senate Democrats expected to face tough re-election battles this year. None of the offices immediately responded to questions about their support for raising the minimum wage. Mr. Obama's 45-minute speech was hosted by the Center for American Progress. The White House billed it as a preview of his coming State of the Union address and a follow to his 2011 speech in Osawatomie, Kan., which set the tone for his re-election campaign. In addition to pushing Congress to act on his priorities, the White House is expected this month to release executive orders on economic initiatives. Mr. Obama said he and first lady Michelle Obama will hold an event next week with college presidents and nonprofits to discuss ways to provide college educations to low-income students. He said he plans to push for programs for workers to learn new skills and for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which supporters say would help prevent pay discrimination against women. Mr. Obama also called for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which aims to prevent employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual workers. The overarching theme of his speech, however, was that the government has a role to play, through these initiatives, in economic concerns. "These programs are not typically hammocks for people to just lie back and relax," Mr. Obama said. "These programs of social insurance benefit all of us, because we don't know when we might have a run of bad luck." Write to Carol E. Lee at [email protected] and Michael R. Crittenden at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
By Josh Delk - 03/13/18 09:47 AM EDT © Greg Nash A commission led by Education Secretary Betsy DeVosBetsy DeVosEducation Department revamps College Scorecard Why a few dozen zip codes dominate political giving Jury finds Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes guilty on four counts MORE will reconsider the Obama administration's guidance for school disciplinary policies. The White House announced Sunday within its new "hardening schools" proposal that DeVos will lead the new Federal Commission on School Safety and will consider whether to replace former President Obama's "Rethink School Discipline" guidelines, according to USA Today.The guidelines, which effectively discouraged schools from reporting misbehaving students to law enforcement, have been criticized following the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting last month. The suspect in the shooting had been been expelled from the school.In a letter urging DeVos and Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsWhite House unveils team for SCOTUS pick Press: For Trump endorsement: The more sordid, the better Those predicting Facebook's demise are blowing smoke MORE to put in place measures ensuring that violent students are reported to law enforcement, Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioSenate Republicans urge DOJ to reject request for 'no fly' list for unruly passengers Experts paint dark picture for region, global order if Russia invades Senate leaders send Putin symbolic warning shot amid invasion fears MORE (R-Fla.) criticized the 2014 guidance for placing the burden of discipline on teachers. Teachers' advocates, such as Catherine Lhamon, former Education Department assistant secretary for civil rights, have said repealing the guidelines for student discipline will not help protect schools from mass shootings, saying the Obama administration's emphasis was on decreasing discriminatory discipline.“It is completely divorced and should be completely divorced from how to address external shooters," Lhamon told USA Today.The commission comes as the president has waffled on which policies to pursue after the shooting in South Florida left 17 dead.Rubio has also advocated for age limits for the purchase of rifles in the state. The gunman reportedly used a legally purchased AR-15 rifle in the shooting. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are © 1998 - 2022 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
| 1 |
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol March 17, 2020 in Washington, DC.Alex WongAs Congress tries to hash out a stimulus package potentially worth more than $1 trillion, Democrats are gearing up for a fight over whether direct payments to Americans struggling with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic will be enough.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is among those arguing for expanded unemployment insurance as a source of relief."A single $1,000 check would help someone pay their landlord in March but what happens after that?" the New York Democrat said on the chamber floor Wednesday. "A thousand dollars goes by pretty quickly if you're unemployed. In contrast, expanded unemployment insurance — beefed-up unemployment insurance — covers you for a much longer time and would provide a much bigger safety net."An aide for Schumer did not immediately answer whether the senator opposed to the concept of direct payments entirely, or just the form currently outlined. President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a $100 billion coronavirus aid package into law. The measure includes provisions for emergency paid leave for workers as well as free testing for COVID-19. Congress is now racing to put together a much broader package that could to get relief into the hands of American businesses, workers and those who are sick or out of a job. A senior administration official told CNBC a bill could be released Thursday.As part of the administration's initial suggestions, the package could include two rounds of direct payments to taxpayers totaling $500 billion. Senate Republicans are still figuring out their own proposal, but some in the GOP, including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, have already promoted the idea of direct payments. The debate over direct checks and unemployment insurance comes as Congress must weigh the balance of extreme measures in extraordinary times against instituting new policy that could set a precedent historically opposed by their respective parties and backers. Some Republicans have historically opposed more government intervention, like unemployment aid. A debate over paid leave similarly divided Congress in the second round of legislation that just passed.Schumer told CNN on Wednesday night he has spoken with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin twice about the third bill. He previously criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for working only with the administration on the initial package proposal, excluding House and Senate Democrats."I know some of the things they're interested in. Some of the things we're interested in. A lot of them overlap, and there are some things that we're going want," Schumer said of his conversation with Mnuchin."The one thing I did tell him as well, though, if there are going to be some of these corporate bailouts, we need to make sure workers and labor come first. That people are not laid off. That people's salaries are not cut," Schumer said. "If these big companies, many of which did buybacks, the airlines I think did about [$45] billion of stock buybacks, they have to put their workers first if they're going to get this help."The administration is looking to set aside as part of its package $50 billion for the ailing airline industry, as well as $150 billion for "other distressed sectors." Trump has said the cruise and hotel industries are particularly feeling the pain. Trump himself owns a hotel and resort business.Beyond Schumer, other Democrats have already made clear they will push for concessions and protections for workers along with any corporate aid. An initial aid package to the airline industry after 9/11 controversially did not have protections for workers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed her own comprehensive bailout package, that would require any company taking federal money to maintain payroll for a period of time, and forbidding them from buying back stock permanently. – CNBC's Eamon Javers contributed to this report.
| 1 |
© Greg Nash Moderna on Thursday released the results of its COVID-19 vaccine trials for those aged 12 to 17, reporting it 96 percent effective against the virus. The vaccine manufacturer said its trial, involving 3,235 participants, recorded 12 COVID-19 cases that emerged beginning 14 days after the first dose. The company said it had not identified any serious safety concerns to date. The results of the adolescent trial come as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to give emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to be used among 12- to 15-year-olds in the coming days.Pfizer and BioNTech found their vaccine to be 100 percent effective among the 12-15 age group in research released last month. Unlike Moderna’s vaccine, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already has FDA emergency approval to be given to 16- and 17-year-olds. Both the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines can only be given to those who are at least 18.But the manufacturers have been taking steps to get emergency approval for children and teenagers. Moderna declared that it started testing the shots on children aged six months to 12 years last month and said on Thursday that study is ongoing. This week, Pfizer told reporters that it expects to have finished studies on children aged 2 to 11 and apply for emergency use authorization in September. Moderna published the results of its adolescent trial along with its first quarter earnings report, in which the company said it had its first profitable quarter. The vaccine manufacturer documented $1.7 billion in revenue from product sales with a net income of $1.2 billion. Last year, Moderna reported a $124 million net loss during the quarter. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are © 1998 - 2022 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
| 1 |
President Obama speaks at the commencement ceremony for the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., on Friday. The president urged new graduates to exhibit honor and courage in tackling incidents of sexual assault as they assume leadership positions in the military. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption toggle caption Patrick Semansky/AP President Obama speaks at the commencement ceremony for the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., on Friday. The president urged new graduates to exhibit honor and courage in tackling incidents of sexual assault as they assume leadership positions in the military. Patrick Semansky/AP West Point alum Donna McAleer was at her Utah home last week when she got a call asking if she'd "seen the latest." A male Army sergeant, a friend told her, had just been charged with secretly photographing and videotaping at least a dozen female cadets at McAleer's alma mater. Many of the women were naked; some images were taken in a bathroom at the U.S. Military Academy in New York. The revelations followed a rash of recent incidents, among them stunning reports that at least three ranking male officers overseeing military sexual assault prevention programs have themselves been charged in the past month with crimes ranging from sexual battery to stalking. "How many of these stories are we going to hear?" asks McAleer, a field admissions officer for the academy. "I want to be able to, with confidence, encourage people — daughters and sons — to serve their country." As the nation prepares to honor the war dead this Memorial Day weekend, a seeming epidemic of sexual assault and abuse reports has severely shaken that confidence. A new Pentagon study estimates that 26,000 people in the Armed Forces were sexually assaulted last year. It's not entirely clear top brass understands the scope of the crisis: Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh suggested in recent Senate testimony that the spike in reports of sexual assaults in the military could be blamed on the "hook up mentality" of the country's young people. Welsh has since apologized, but not before fanning outrage that's been building on Capitol Hill and beyond over the military's long failure to repair a system that has placed service members, especially women, in more danger of sexual assault than battlefield injury. From President Obama's commencement address Friday at the U.S. Naval Academy: Every day, our civil servants do their jobs with professionalism — protecting our national security and delivering the services that so many Americans expect. But as we've seen again in recent days, it only takes the misconduct of a few to further erode the people's trust in their government. That's unacceptable to me, and I know it's unacceptable to you. And against this backdrop, what I said here four years ago remains true today: Our military remains the most trusted institution in America. When others have shirked their responsibilities, our Armed Forces have met every mission we've given them. When others have been distracted by petty arguments, our men and women in uniform come together as one American team. And yet, we must acknowledge that even here, even in our military, we've seen how the misconduct of some can have effects that ripple far and wide. In our digital age, a single image from the battlefield of troops falling short of their standards can go viral and endanger our forces and undermine our efforts to achieve security and peace. Likewise, those who commit sexual assault are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that make our military strong. That's why we have to be determined to stop these crimes, because they've got no place in the greatest military on Earth. "We have relied on the chain of command to deal with this issue, and the chain of command has failed for decades," says retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich. "America gives us their sons and daughters, and we've failed to discharge the responsibility to take care of them." An Action Imperative It's been more than two decades since the sexual-assault-and-hallway-grope-a-thon at the Navy's "Tailhook" aviators' convention in Las Vegas, which led to the resignation of the Navy secretary. It's been a decade since the lid was blown off a rape and sexual assault scandal at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, where the school's top four officials were removed. It's been a year since investigators at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio found evidence that a dozen instructors had engaged in "sexual misconduct," including rape, leading to the conviction of at least nine of them. So it should come as no surprise that parents, with more and more frequency, are asking recruiters if their daughters, and sons, will be safe in the military — a question prompted not by roadside bombs, but assault statistics. McAleer, the West Point recruiter and author of Porcelain on Steel, a collection of profiles of accomplished female academy graduates, says the answer is no, as long as the military continues to rely on its chain-of-command system to hear, investigate and prosecute assault claims from the ranks. "It's delusional to think we can do this over and over and get a different result," she says, referring to statistics that show those in the chain of command are the perpetrators in a quarter of cases of alleged assault. She, and others, including New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, argue that the military should create a separate legal process to deal with sexual assault claims. Gillibrand, a Democrat, has sponsored legislation to do just that. A separate bill proposed by Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat and a member of the Armed Services Committee, would not require the new legal structure, which she argues the Pentagon would work to block. Her legislation focuses on measures that would remove commanders' ability to overturn military sexual assault convictions, and require dismissal or a dishonorable discharge for service members found guilty of rape or sexual assault. Similar legislation has also been proposed in the House, and, as in the Senate, is backed by members of both parties in efforts led by women. Commanders' authority to overturn convictions came under fire earlier this year when it was revealed that Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin reversed the aggravated sexual assault conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson and then reassigned him as safety chief at a base in Tucson, Ariz. Wilkerson had been convicted of assaulting a civilian contractor while at Aviano Air Force Base in Italy. McCaskill has held up the nomination of another top Air Force commander and former astronaut, Lt. Gen. Susan Helms, to a NASA post because she overturned the aggravated sexual assault jury conviction of an Air Force captain whose victim was a female lieutenant. Turning Point? The military, like any organization, has long focused on protecting the institution. And it has relied on the traditional chain of command to deal with the sexual assault issue. "No one wants to take bad news to their boss," said Laich, the retired major general who now works in a program at Ohio Dominican University to encourage veterans to use their college benefits. "You have an institution that consciously or unconsciously has given the message that they don't want to hear that bad news," he says. Advocates for change say that the bad news can no longer be easily hidden, however. Information networks, the 2012 Academy Award-nominated documentary The Invisible War about sexual abuse in the military, and the record number of women serving on congressional armed services committees, they argue, have put the issue before the public in a way never before seen. "There are 230,000 women serving in the military. There's a documentary like The Invisible War. There are lawsuits, and there's a technology-driven global economy that allows information to be disseminated," says McAleer. "All of that coming together has brought this front and center." Susan Burke, a Washington lawyer who represents service members, including those featured in the documentary, says several military assault cases are pending in civilian court. She notes, however, that winning outside of the military justice system is "an uphill battle." "Supreme Court jurisprudence is very protective of the military," she says. "The judiciary is reluctant to hear cases brought by service members." Military Takes Action In response to the crisis, the military has begun programs to reduce sexual assault crimes and provide victim support, and has taken steps to strengthen sexual assault investigations and prosecutions. Last year, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, after seeing The Invisible War, required that sexual assaults be reported to a higher level commander; he also established special victims units in each branch of the military. And the Obama administration recently held a bipartisan meeting of congressional women serving on the House and Senate armed services committees. Having more women on the committees "has made a tremendous difference," says Tanya Biank, author of Undaunted: The Real Story of America's Servicewomen in Today's Military. "They are the ones who are leading the way and bringing it to attention on a national level." Biank and others say they see sexual assault as an issue that compromises not only recruitment, but readiness and national security, particularly given the growing number of women in the military. The fight to change the ways of the military, by altering through congressional action the Uniform Code of Military Justice, has really only just begun in earnest. What Laich and other advocates say they want to see is the military expand its focus from prevention to aggressive prosecution. "We may have to err on the side of being perhaps overly harsh with those who are found to be guilty of these kinds of infractions," he says. "There's a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator, and that has to be turned on its head." "These aren't just social issues, these are real national security issues that affect our ability to man the force," Laich says. "When you have data that says a female service member in Afghanistan is more likely to be raped by a fellow service man than killed by the Taliban that tells you something about where we are on this issue."
| 1 |
Donald Trump continues to lead in the polls and on Sunday released his first policy position — a conservative proposal on immigration. Seth Wenig/AP hide caption toggle caption Seth Wenig/AP Donald Trump continues to lead in the polls and on Sunday released his first policy position — a conservative proposal on immigration. Seth Wenig/AP Donald Trump began his bid for president saying Mexican immigrants were "rapists," bringing drugs, and "some, I assume, are good people." And, Sunday he made headlines again talking about immigrants. He rolled out his first detailed policy position, and it was on immigration reform. His central premise is that immigrants are bad for the U.S. economy, and he ticked off a series of ways to fix both legal and illegal immigration. The full plan is outlined on his website, but here are the key nuggets: Build a wall across the southern border paid for by Mexico Seize all remittance payments "derived from illegal wages" until Mexico agrees to pay for the wall Implement a nationwide e-verify system and defund sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal law End birthright citizenship (currently enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution) Crack down on H-1B visas, which are designated for high-skilled STEM employees, by requiring companies to hire from the pool of unemployed domestic workers first Create criminal penalties for people who overstay a visa In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, Trump went further, suggesting he would rescind President Obama's executive order and deport all illegal immigrants from the country. Here's an excerpt of the conversation with Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd: TODD: You're going to split up families. You're going to deport children? TRUMP: Chuck — no, no. No, we're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together. TODD: But, you're going to keep them together out -- TRUMP: But, they have to go. But, they have to go. TODD: What if if they have no place to go? TRUMP: We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country or we don't have a country ... Trump's hard-line immigration policy could prove risky for a Republican Party desperately trying to court — or at least not offend — Latino voters. The GOP's own autopsy in the wake of the 2012 election said: "... We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only." A Gallup Poll released in July found that 65 percent of Americans favor some sort of path to citizenship compared to 19 percent who prefer deportation. Perhaps more important politically, Trump's policy could force his GOP rivals to clarify their own immigration proposals. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have previously suggested they could support some type of legalization for immigrants who entered the country illegally but are now working as law-abiding members of society. And, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was part of the Senate's "Gang of Eight," the bipartisan group of senators that led the effort on immigration reform in 2013, but he's been noticeably quiet on immigration since announcing a bid for president. As for Trump, he leads most polls, and that popularity suggests some GOP candidates are hesitant to criticize him. Earlier this morning, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told Fox News that although he hasn't yet dug into all the details of Trump's plan, he believes it's "similar" to his own: "Earlier in the year, I was on Fox News Sunday and laid out what I thought we should do, which is to secure the border, which means build the wall, have the technology, have the personnel to make sure it's safe and secure, enforce the law ... and I said no amnesty, I don't believe in amnesty." The question now is how the Trump factor forces the rest of the GOP field to respond.
| 1 |
On Wednesday Education Secretary Betsy DeVosBetsy DeVosEducation Department revamps College Scorecard Why a few dozen zip codes dominate political giving Jury finds Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes guilty on four counts MORE issued final rules on how all schools will address allegations of sexual misconduct, securing new protections for students and faculty accused of misconduct.The new rules modify Title IX, a 1972 law prohibiting “discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance,” narrowing the definition of sexual harassment and requiring schools to challenge evidence and cross-examine students via a live hearing, among other things detailed in the more than 2,000-page rule. The new regulations, which take effect in August, will only find schools in violation of Title IX if they are determined to be “deliberately indifferent” to accusations of sexual assault that occurred in their programs and activities. "Too many students have lost access to their education because their school inadequately responded when a student filed a complaint of sexual harassment or sexual assault," DeVos said in a statemnet. "This new regulation requires schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process. We can and must continue to fight sexual misconduct in our nation's schools, and this rule makes certain that fight continues."President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE issued a statement describing the new regulations as “even-handed justice” with “a transparent grievance process that treats the accused as innocent until proven guilty.”“With today’s action and every action to come, the Trump administration will fight for America’s students,” Trump said in a statement. DeVos and the Trump administration have been critical of Title IX, which they have said unjustly puts matters of sexual assault and harassment in the hands of education officials. Republicans were critical of the Obama administration’s use of Title IX, which they argue lacked public input. “This final rule respects and supports victims and preserves due process rights for both the victim and the accused,” Sen. Lamar AlexanderLamar AlexanderMcConnell gets GOP wake-up call The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Alibaba - Democrats return to disappointment on immigration Authorities link ex-Tennessee governor to killing of Jimmy Hoffa associate MORE (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said in a statement. “Under the previous administration, a single official in the U.S. Department of Education was issuing edicts, without the proper public input, to 6,000 colleges and universities about how to handle the complex and sensitive problem of sexual assault on college campuses,” Alexander added.Victim advocacy groups, such as Know Your IX, have said that the new rules are "rolling back the rights of student survivors," claiming they shield schools from liability for sexual misconduct that takes place in their facilities."If this rule goes into effect, it will make schools more dangerous and could push survivors out of school entirely," the group tweeted. Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, told The New York Times the organization plans to contest the new rules in court. “Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration are dead set on making schools more dangerous for everyone — even during a global pandemic,” Goss Graves told the Times. “And if this rule goes into effect, survivors will be denied their civil rights and will get the message loud and clear that there is no point in reporting assault.”
| 1 |
The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a Wyoming hunter charged with off-season hunting, ruling 5-4 that a 150-year-old treaty between a Native American tribe and the United States was still active and protected the man's rights.Clayvin Herrera was charged in 2014 with off-season hunting, but he argued that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe — of which he is a member — protected his ability to hunt at that time.Wyoming had argued that the treaty was invalidated when it achieved statehood and lower courts agreed, leading to Herrera's conviction on the hunting charge.The court sided with Herrera and found that the treaty with the tribe did not expire when Wyoming became a state in 1890. They also ruled against Wyoming's argument that Bighorn National Forest, where Herrera was hunting, was not "unoccupied lands" as required under the treaty.Wyoming had pointed to another Supreme Court ruling that found another Native American treaty ended when the state formally entered the union. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion that Herrera's case centered on another ruling that found "Congress 'must clearly express' any intent to abrogate Indian treaty rights.""There is simply no evidence that Congress intended to abrogate the 1868 Treaty right through the Wyoming Statehood Act, much less the 'clear evidence' this Court's precedent requires," Sotomayor wrote. "Nor is there any evidence in the treaty itself that Congress intended the hunting right to expire at statehood, or that the Crow Tribe would have understood it to do so." The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are © 1998 - 2022 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
| 1 |
Those of us blessed with freedom to learn are all — every one of us — in a bubble of our own making. It can be broad and diverse, created from all kinds of information sources. But there is still a bubble.Which is why opinion pages and books matter so much. They serve to expand the bubble. Columns can nudge us toward new ideas and broader perspectives, but it is a book that punches out the bubble and really expands the mind.The resignation this week of columnist Bari Weiss from the Opinion section of the New York Times came in the form of a scalding letter to the Times’s publisher that will burn only those who allow it inside their bubbles. What she wrote does not devalue the work of Nicholas Kristof or Bret Stephens or other writers who remain on those pages. But, combined with the absurd hysteria surrounding the op-ed last month by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the paper’s crisis — and its shrinking bubble — is fully revealed. The limited worldview that Weiss described inside the newspaper will asphyxiate everyone left behind and poison those for whom it is their only source of intellectual nourishment.I see it as relentless as the bubble that always — always — captured actor Patrick McGoohan in the late ‘60s British TV show “The Prisoner.” He could never escape it. Its real-world counterpart is the confirmation bias consuming the New York Times’ Opinion pages.The closing of the American left’s mind has advanced far beyond the condition Allan Bloom described in “The Closing of the American Mind,” his 1987 book about the rise of moral relativism on U.S. colleges and universities. That is true on the right as well. Intellectual curiosity about worlds, and worldviews, other than our own is at a low ebb.My enthusiasm for Glaude’s book came through in my interview with him this week, and it is not because we agree about Trump — we don’t — but because his work obliged me to respond. It expanded my bubble. It helps, of course, that Glaude is an elegant writer and superb scholar, but the power of the book is in its ability to teach a willing reader about the experience of black America in the years since Baldwin began writing in the late 1940s. It’s stunning to anyone who has lived overwhelmingly in an Anglo world.The left needs to make its journeys as well. I read a lot about my own religious faith, Christianity, and especially Roman Catholicism. One of Catholicism’s greatest explainers today is George Weigel. His new book, “The Next Pope: The Office of Peter and a Church in Mission,” may have the same impact on a reader who knows nothing of Catholicism as Glaude’s book did on me.Point being: This column on this page just pointed you to two very different, very deep wells from which a serious person should want to drink. If the online sources you are reading or the cable news channels you are watching don’t surprise or at least nudge you, they are failing you.Bubbles are not bad. They often suggest deep learning and lifelong commitment. But not when the subject matter is politics. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Politics . . . is sovereign.” He was correct. And politics cannot be conducted with blinkers firmly affixed.Watch the latest Opinions video: From abortion to gay rights to the president's taxes, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus outlines which Supreme Court decisions deserve our attention. (The Washington Post)Read more:
| 1 |
Ann Romney spoke to a cheering crowd at the first night of the Republican National Convention. Becky Lettenberger/NPR hide caption toggle caption Becky Lettenberger/NPR Ann Romney spoke to a cheering crowd at the first night of the Republican National Convention. Becky Lettenberger/NPR A soft murmur of familiarity rippled through the packed GOP convention hall Tuesday night when Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, spoke not of their "storybook marriage" but of one touched by cancer, multiple sclerosis and the trials of raising five sometimes screaming children. "A storybook marriage? Not at all," she said, during her much anticipated prime-time speech. "What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage." It was that moment that encapsulated the job that Ann Romney had to do, and how well she managed it. From her perch of privilege and prerogative, she managed to convey not ordinariness, but at least a familiarity with struggle and a connection with women — actually, mothers were her exclusive focus — who have gone to bed exhausted; who have struggled with health issues as she has with breast cancer and multiple sclerosis; and who, when juggling the demands of raising children and running a home while her husband pursued his education and fortune, has wondered what she'd gotten herself into. "I was so glad she had this opportunity to talk to the women of America, to have them hear about the trials they went through," said Barbara Bair, 47, a convention delegate from York, Pa. "And to hear that her husband is a man that stands behind her, supporting her through breast cancer. There is nothing scarier for families than cancer." Supporters react during Ann Romney's speech on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention. Becky Lettenberger/NPR hide caption toggle caption Becky Lettenberger/NPR Supporters react during Ann Romney's speech on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention. Becky Lettenberger/NPR The speech, the experts and pundits proclaimed, needed to humanize Mitt Romney. But it really served as a vehicle to humanize her — a woman of great attractiveness and expensive polish — and, by extension, him. And that's all intended, of course, to help him appeal more to women who have been spooked by the Republican Party's positions on reproductive and workplace rights. "She may have privilege, but she understands," said Kitty Dunn, 65, a Utah delegate who has met the Romneys. That's not to say that Ann Romney stuck with her speech's opening line, "I want to talk to you about love." About halfway through her speech, the soft tones of reminiscence of family and young love gave way to a tougher, more strident defense of her husband, his unheralded good works, his business success. "Do we want to raise our children to be afraid of success?" she asked with a tough edge. And she defended Bain as a dream launcher, a company that "has helped so many others lead better lives." That part was clearly a tougher sell. But her soft sell, from her "I love you women!" exclamation — it wasn't on the teleprompter — and the connection she made talking about her own struggles, was effective. "She gave an energetic explanation of marriage — and I know, because I have three children at home," said Greg Treat, 34, a delegate and state senator from Oklahoma. "I think Ann Romney will make a difference. Michelle Obama is a huge positive for the president, and Mrs. Romney will be for her husband as well."
| 1 |
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court upheld a pair of Arizona voting rules against Democratic claims that the state discriminated against minority voters, a decision that could make it more difficult to challenge new state efforts to tighten election regulations. The court, in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled Arizona was on solid legal ground in enforcing rules that prohibit third parties from collecting mail-in ballots and disallow votes cast in the wrong precinct.
Read the Opinion The decision, issued on the final day before the court’s summer recess, was one of two major rulings that divided the court along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority. The court also struck down a California requirement that tax-exempt charities disclose their major donors to state regulators. Justice Alito said that while Arizona “generally makes it very easy to vote,” the process of voting entails some level of burden for everyone. “Mere inconvenience” for voters isn’t enough to establish that election regulations violate the law, Justice Alito wrote. He said the existence of some disparity in how an election regulation affects different racial and ethnic groups “does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.” The alleged racial disparity caused by Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule was small, the court said, and requiring a voter “to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the usual burdens of voting.” The court also said the ballot-collection ban was reasonable, and there was no concrete evidence that it was discriminatory. “Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence,” Justice Alito wrote. A number of states have rules similar to Arizona’s but Democrats argued historical and societal factors in that state made the measures discriminatory against the state’s Native American, Latino and Black voters. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a divided ruling last year, saying the regulations needed to be viewed in light of the state’s “long and unhappy history of official discrimination connected to voting.” That court also said Arizona adopted the ballot-collection ban with discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court overturned that decision. Joining Justice Alito were the court’s five other conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In dissent, the court’s liberals accused the majority of crippling a landmark law intended to further democratic principles that historically hadn’t been applied equally. “What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is an extraordinary law. Rarely has a statute required so much sacrifice to ensure its passage. Never has a statute done more to advance the Nation’s highest ideals. And few laws are more vital in the current moment,” she wrote. “Yet in the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse,” she wrote. Justice Kagan linked Thursday’s decision to Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 ruling that effectively eliminated requirements that states which historically discriminated against minority voters obtain federal clearance before changing election practices. Newsletter Sign-up Capital Journal Scoops, analysis and insights driving Washington from the WSJ's D.C. bureau. Justice Kagan said Congress was intent on eradicating “the subtle, as well as the obvious, ways of suppressing minority voting,” and said the court’s ruling would make it easier for states to save such schemes. Arizona, she said, threw out more out-of-precinct ballots than any state in the nation, disproportionately affecting minorities. And the ballot-collection ban harmed Native Americans who had to travel far distances to use the mail, she said. The case featured a head-to-head legal fight between the Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic National Committee and affiliated groups sued the state; Arizona Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the state Republican Party defended the rules as neutral and reasonable measures for running a fair and secure election. “The Supreme Court ruling sets out a clear test that allows states to adopt common-sense election-integrity measures,” Mr. Brnovich said. “In Arizona and across the nation, states know best how to manage their own elections,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said. Republican-led states around the U.S. are pushing for new voting regulations after Democrats won the White House and Senate during a pandemic year in which some election officials eased methods of casting ballots. Thursday’s ruling could boost those efforts by making legal challenges against voting restrictions tougher to win. Among those challenges is the suit the U.S. brought last week against Georgia, alleging the state’s new voting law aims to restrict the rights of Black voters. That lawsuit came on the heels of other new lawsuits filed around the country by voting-rights advocates. The ruling drew criticism from voting-rights groups and Democrats who said the court’s reasoning would embolden GOP efforts to make it harder for certain people to vote. Supreme Court “In a span of just eight years, the court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure,” President Biden said in a statement. “After all we have been through to deliver the promise of this Nation to all Americans, we should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them.” The Justice Department under the Trump administration supported Arizona in the case. After Mr. Biden took office, his administration chose not to argue against the state’s regulations, but it told the court that it disagreed with the prior administration’s narrower view on voting rights. The department on Thursday said it remained “strongly committed to challenging discriminatory election laws” and urged Congress to enact legislation to provide more robust protection for voters. Senate Republicans in June blocked Democrats from moving ahead with broad elections legislation. House Democrats are now working on an updated version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late Georgia congressman and civil-rights leader whose 1965 beating by Alabama troopers helped spur passage of the original Voting Rights Act. The Arizona case had been closely watched because it gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to interpret a key provision of the Voting Rights Act—known as Section 2—that prohibits states from imposing any rule “which results in a denial or abridgment” of the right to vote on the basis of race. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D., Tenn.), chairman of a civil-rights subcommittee, said the decision weakens Section 2 and “elevates the argument that states’ interests in preventing voter fraud–even when there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud–outweigh the burdens these policies place on the ability of minority communities to cast a vote.” Not so, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). “Section 2 remains a strong and crucial safeguard against racial discrimination, but the court was right to reject its attempted use by activists to eliminate common-sense voting laws,“ he said. While voter protections remain, he added, “states are rightly empowered to administer and protect America’s elections.” Write to Brent Kendall at [email protected] and Jess Bravin at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump suggested that he fired the inspector general for the intelligence community in retaliation for impeachment, saying the official was wrong to provide an anonymous whistleblower complaint to Congress as the law requires.Trump called Michael Atkinson a “disgrace” after informing Congress late Friday night that he intended to fire him. In letters to the House and Senate intelligence committees, Trump wrote that he had lost confidence in Atkinson but gave little detail. A day later, Trump was more blunt, telling reporters at the White House: “I thought he did a terrible job, absolutely terrible.” The president added: “He took a fake report and he took it to Congress with an emergency, OK? Not a big Trump fan, that I can tell you.”The whistleblower report was not fake, but a detailed complaint written by an anonymous intelligence official who described Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to investigate Democrat Joe Biden and his son. Atkinson determined the complaint was urgent and credible and therefore was required by law to disclose it to Congress, but he was overruled for weeks by the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire. After a firestorm sparked by media reports of the complaint, it was turned over and made public. A congressional inquiry led to Trump’s impeachment by the House in December. The GOP-led Senate acquitted Trump in February. On Saturday, Trump questioned why Atkinson didn’t speak to him about the complaint, though Atkinson’s role is to provide independent oversight.“Never came in to see me, never requested to see me,” Trump said. He added: “That man is a disgrace to IGs.”Atkinson’s removal is part of a larger shakeup of the intelligence community under Trump, who has always viewed intelligence professionals with skepticism. His ouster came under immediate fire from Democrats and a handful of Republicans.Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Finance Committee, said that Congress has been “crystal clear” that written reasons must be given when inspectors general are removed for a lack of confidence. “More details are needed from the administration,” Grassley said. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a GOP member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she didn’t find Trump’s reasoning in his Friday letter to be persuasive, and said Atkinson’s removal “was not warranted.” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., said an inspector general “must be allowed to conduct his or her work independent of internal or external pressure.” Trump’s criticism Saturday came after Atkinson’s peers had rushed to his defense. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the Justice Department, said Atkinson was known for his “integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight.” He said that included Atkinson’s actions in handling the Ukraine whistleblower complaint.Asked during his daily coronavirus briefing about firing Atkinson, Trump returned to his attacks on the Democratic-led impeachment investigation and trial and his defense that his phone call with Ukraine’s president was “perfect” but had been inaccurately described in the whistleblower’s account. In fact, the partial transcript later released by the president largely supported the whistleblower’s account.Atkinson is at least the seventh intelligence official to be fired, ousted or moved aside since last summer. In his letters to the intelligence committees informing them of the firing, which were obtained by The Associated Press, Trump said that it is “vital” that he has confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general, and “that is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general.” Trump said Atkinson would be removed from office in 30 days, the required amount of time he must wait after informing Congress. He wrote that he would nominate an individual “who has my full confidence” at a later date.According to two congressional officials, Atkinson has been placed on administrative leave, meaning he will not serve out the 30 days. One of the officials said Atkinson was only informed of his removal on Friday night. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Atkinson’s administrative leave had not been announced. Atkinson’s firing thrusts the president’s impeachment back into the spotlight as his administration deals with the deadly spread of the coronavirus. As Trump was removing Atkinson, the number of U.S. deaths due to the virus topped 7,000. By the time of his remarks Saturday, it was over 8,100. The top Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said it was unconscionable that Trump would fire Atkinson in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. “We should all be deeply disturbed by ongoing attempts to politicize the nation’s intelligence agencies,” Warner said. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led the House impeachment inquiry, said “the president’s dead of night decision puts our country and national security at even greater risk.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the firing “threatens to have a chilling effect against all willing to speak truth to power.” And Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Trump “fires people for telling the truth.” Tom Monheim, a career intelligence professional, will become the acting inspector general for the intelligence community, according to an intelligence official who was not authorized to discuss personnel changes and spoke only on condition of anonymity. Monheim is currently the general counsel of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Atkinson had hinted of frustration on the job in a March letter to Schumer, in which he said “the past six months have been a searing time for whistleblowers.” Atkinson was responding to a letter Schumer had sent to agency inspectors general asking them to document and investigate any instances of retaliation after Trump had threatened the anonymous whistleblower.In the letter to Schumer, obtained by the AP, Atkinson said support for whistleblowers would be rendered meaningless if “whistleblowers actually come forward in good faith with information concerning an extraordinary matter and are allowed to be vilified, threatened, publicly ridiculed, or — perhaps even worse, utterly abandoned by fair weather whistleblower champions.”Late Saturday, Schumer tweeted that he had spoken to Atkinson and thanked him for his service. Schumer said he told Atkinson that “history will remember him as a hero and those who retaliated against him as scoundrels.”
| 1 |
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in spring 2017 suggested secretly recording President Trump and recruiting cabinet members to remove him from office, former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe wrote in memos at the time, assertions that Mr. Rosenstein disputed on Friday. One person in the room when Mr. Rosenstein mentioned secret recordings said that he was clearly sarcastic and didn’t seriously consider it, according to an email from the person provided by the Justice Department on Friday. The New York Times first reported about the matter on Friday, citing people briefed about the events and about memos written by top Federal Bureau of Investigation officials, including Mr. McCabe. The existence of the McCabe memos was confirmed to The Wall Street Journal by a person familiar with them. Mr. Rosenstein called the Times report “inaccurate and factually incorrect.” Around the time that Mr. Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey, Mr. Rosenstein told Mr. McCabe that he might be able to persuade top administration officials to invoke the 25th Amendment, which allows cabinet members to deem the president incapable of performing his duties, the Times reported. In a statement, Mr. Rosenstein said, “I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false.” The White House had no immediate comment. At a rally Friday night in Springfield, Mo., Mr. Trump attacked the “bad ones” at the FBI and Justice Department, and claimed he had gotten rid of most of them. “There is a lingering stench, and we’re going to get rid of that, too,” he said, without naming anyone in particular. Earlier in his tenure, Mr. Rosenstein had a rocky relationship with Mr. Trump, say people familiar with the matter. He was a regular target of Mr. Trump’s complaints about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and any possible collusion between Moscow and Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Trump, who denies any collusion, was warned by aides in April against firing Mr. Rosenstein, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel and oversees the Mueller probe. Mr. Rosenstein led White House officials to believe last year that he would quit over what he viewed as the administration’s inaccurate depiction of his role in the firing of Mr. Comey, which led to the appointment of Mr. Mueller. One former administration official said Mr. Rosenstein might have been in a state of “shock and disbelief” during his early exposure to Mr. Trump. This person said that it was evident from Mr. Rosenstein’s demeanor that he was bewildered by the tumultuous start to the new administration, and might have told Justice Department colleagues about his concerns. But in recent months, the relationship between the two men has improved, people familiar with the matter say, as Mr. Rosenstein has regularly visited the White House and navigated sometimes-competing demands from the president and his own department. Mr. Trump last month described his rapport with Mr. Rosenstein as “fantastic.” Despite the warmer relationship, Democrats have expressed concern that Mr. Trump would try to remove Mr. Rosenstein, given his role as the overseer of the Russia probe. Mr. Rosenstein routinely briefs the president, including on aspects of the Russia investigation, and has largely tried to satisfy Mr. Trump’s congressional allies, who have demanded increasingly sensitive information about details of the probe. A lawyer for Mr. McCabe, Michael Bromwich, said that Mr. McCabe, when he was deputy FBI director, had drafted memos to memorialize “significant discussions” with high-level officials, and had given all of them to Mr. Mueller. “He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos,” Mr. Bromwich said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Mr. McCabe in March, based on findings by the Justice Department’s inspector general that Mr. McCabe had misled investigators about his role in a Wall Street Journal article regarding an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Mr. McCabe denied the allegations, which are also the subject of a criminal investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. —Peter Nicholas contributed to this article. Write to Aruna Viswanatha at [email protected] and Sadie Gurman at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Democrats took full control of the Virginia legislature for the first time in more than two decades while the race for governor in deeply Republican Kentucky was too close to call despite a last-minute boost from President Donald Trump.In Kentucky, Democratic challenger Andy Beshear held a narrow lead and declared victory in the governor’s race over Republican incumbent Matt Bevin on Tuesday, though Bevin had not conceded. And in Virginia, Democrats flipped control of the state Senate and House, gaining outright control of state government in a state that is often a battleground for the White House.“I’m here to officially declare today, Nov. 5, 2019, that Virginia is officially blue,” Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam told a crowd of supporters in Richmond.A year before the presidential election, the results offered warning signs for both parties. Voters in suburban swaths of Kentucky and Virginia sided with Democrats, a trend that would complicate Trump’s path to reelection if it holds. And the Democrats who made gains on Tuesday did so by largely avoiding positions such as “Medicare for All” that have animated the party’s left flank in the Democratic presidential primary.Democratic pickups in Virginia occurred in Washington, D.C., and Richmond suburbs that already had trended in the party’s direction in recent years. In Kentucky, Beshear gained considerable ground on Bevin in Kentucky’s suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, counties that had helped propel the Republican to office four years ago. Other statewide GOP candidates in Kentucky won by comfortable margins. But the dip at the top of the ticket still offered another example in the Trump era of suburban voters’ willingness to abandon established Republican loyalties — even with the president making a personal appeal on behalf of a GOP standard-bearer.Trump’s 2020 campaign manager tried to find a positive frame for the results in a state Trump won by 30 percentage points in 2016.“The president just about dragged Gov. Matt Bevin across the finish line, helping him run stronger than expected in what turned into a very close race at the end,” Brad Parscale said.Trump may depend on Mississippi, where he also campaigned in the final stretch before Election Day, for something to crow about. With Republican Gov. Phil Bryant term-limited, GOP nominee Tate Reeves defeated Democrat Jim Hood to extend the GOP’s 20-year hold on the state’s top office. But even that contest could finish with a single-digit margin in a state Trump won by 28 percentage points three years ago.The tighter result for Reeves reflected the same suburban trends seen in other states. Heavily Republican counties outside Jackson, Mississippi, and Memphis, Tennessee, still tilted to the GOP nominee but by noticeably narrower margins than what Bryant had four years ago to win a second term.Legislative seats also were on the ballot in New Jersey, with Democrats positioned to maintain their overwhelming majorities and quell any opportunity for Trump to suggest that the Republicans were encroaching on Democratic territory ahead of 2020.While Tuesday’s results aren’t necessarily predictive of what will happen next November, voters in multiple states tied their decisions to the national atmosphere, particularly the president.In Kentucky, 73-year-old Michael Jennings voted straight Democratic. A Vietnam veteran, retired state worker and former journalist, Jennings described the president as unfit for office and a threat to American democracy.“If Kentucky can send a small flare up that we’re making the necessary turn, that’s a hopeful sign that would have reverberations far beyond our state,” he said.Yet Richard Simmons, 63, a butcher from Glen Allen, Virginia, was just as staunchly in the GOP camp, saying he voted for GayDonna Vandergriff in a state House race. Her Republican affiliation, Simmons said, “means everything to me, especially now.”A staunch Trump support, Simmons called the impeachment investigation unfounded. “It’s one diversion after another to keep Trump from doing anything,” he said. “He’s helped the economy, like, big-time. And I trust the guy.”To explain Kentucky, Republicans undoubtedly will echo the Trump campaign and focus on Bevin’s weaknesses. He spent his term battling with state lawmakers — including Republicans — and teachers. Beshear, meanwhile, is well known as state attorney general and the son of Steve Beshear, who won two terms as governor from 2007 to 2016 even as the state trended more solidly Republican in federal elections. Still, a Bevin upset would leave Trump explaining why his signature tactic of late campaign rallies wasn’t enough in a state he won easily in 2016.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who easily defeated Bevin in a 2014 Senate primary, also has a vested interest in the outcome. McConnell is favored to win reelection next year in Kentucky, even as national Democrats harbor hopes of defeating him. The powerful senator likely will see a fundraising bonanza for a potential challenger if Beshear prevails.In Mississippi, Republicans have dominated state politics for two decades. Reeves, the current lieutenant governor, sought to capitalize on those GOP leanings after Hood, the attorney general, acknowledged that he voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016. Hood needed a high turnout of the state’s African American voters and a better-than-usual share of the white vote to pull off the upset.Reeves, Parscale said, will be “a tremendous conservative leader for Mississippians in fighting for freedom and keeping taxes low” and “a key ally” as 2020 approaches and Trump ramps up his push for reelection.Elsewhere, voters in the West were deciding several ballot measures, with residents of Tucson, Arizona, appearing to overwhelmingly reject a proposal to designate it as Arizona’s only sanctuary city.The proposal called for new restrictions on when and where people could be asked about their immigration status and required officers to first tell people that they have a right not to answer questions about whether they’re in the country legally. Tucson’s all-Democratic City Council opposed the measure, citing concerns about the potential for losing millions of dollars in state and federal funding.___Follow Bill Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP
| 1 |
Contractors working for the firm Cyber Ninjas, which was hired by the Republican-led Arizona state Senate, count Maricopa County ballots from the 2020 general election at Veterans Memorial Coliseum on Saturday in Phoenix. Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images Contractors working for the firm Cyber Ninjas, which was hired by the Republican-led Arizona state Senate, count Maricopa County ballots from the 2020 general election at Veterans Memorial Coliseum on Saturday in Phoenix. Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday expressed concerns that a controversial audit and recount of the November election in Arizona's Maricopa County may be out of compliance with federal laws. Pamela Karlan, the principal deputy assistant attorney general with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, wrote in a letter that federal officials see two issues with the election review ordered by the Republican-led state Senate. One issue is that ballots, voting systems and other election materials are no longer in the custody of election officials — a possible violation of federal law, which requires state and local election workers to store and safeguard federal voting records. The nearly 2.1 million ballots cast in Maricopa County include races for federal offices, such as the presidential and U.S. Senate races being recounted. Those ballots and other election materials were subpoenaed by Republicans in the Arizona Senate, first in December and again in January. After a judge upheld the Senate's subpoena authority, Senate President Karen Fann turned the election materials over to private firms led by Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based cybersecurity company critics say is unqualified to review the 2020 election. "We have a concern that Maricopa County election records, which are required by federal law to be retained and preserved, are no longer under the ultimate control of elections officials, are not being adequately safeguarded by contractors, and are at risk of damage or loss," Karlan wrote in the letter addressed to Fann. The other issue: Plans for door-to-door canvassing may also violate federal laws aimed at preventing voter intimidation, according to Karlan. The election review is seen at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix. Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images The election review is seen at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix. Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images The Senate's contract with Cyber Ninjas states the firms plan to "identify voter registrations that did not make sense, and then knock on doors to confirm if valid voters actually lived at the state address." Auditors also plan to ask voters about their voting history to determine "whether the individual voted in the [November] election." "Past experience with similar investigative efforts around the country has raised concerns that they can be directed at minority voters, which potentially can implicate the anti-intimidation prohibitions of the Voting Rights Act," Karlan wrote. "Such investigative efforts can have a significant intimidating effect on qualified voters that can deter them from seeking to vote in the future." Karlan asked Fann to provide details on what steps the Arizona Senate will take to ensure those federal laws aren't violated. A spokesman for Fann did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The letter followed a request by the Brennan Center for Justice and voting rights organizations, which wrote to the DOJ on April 29 and requested they send federal monitors to observe the audit and recount process. The recount effort has fallen far behind schedule, and it's not clear when their work will be complete. Ken Bennett, a liaison for the election review appointed by Fann, previously told reporters their work would be finished by May 14 — when firms are contractually obligated to vacate Veterans Memorial Coliseum, where the recount and audit are being conducted. Bennett now says there's no deadline for the recount to be completed, and that the firms involved will take their time to "get it done right." That work will likely have to finish somewhere other than the Coliseum. A state official told the Arizona Republic that it's not feasible to extend the Senate's rental agreement. This story was originally published by KJZZ in Arizona.
| 1 |
REUTERS/Jonathan ErnstSen. James Comey testifies on Capitol Hill.The Justice Department's internal watchdog has reportedly concluded that former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch acted improperly in their handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.Inspector general Michael Horowitz will reportedly characterize Comey's conduct as "insubordinate," one source told ABC News.Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal defense lawyer, said they are "anxiously awaiting" the report because they believe it will help them make the case that senior FBI and DOJ leaders are biased against Trump.Sign up for the latest Russia investigation updates here »The Justice Department inspector general has concluded that former FBI Director James Comey defied authority at times during his time leading of the bureau, ABC News reported, citing sources familiar with a draft report on the matter.The report, which has not yet been officially released, caps inspector general Michael Horowitz's investigation into the FBI's handling of the probe of former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. The report is said to focus on senior FBI leadership, like Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, rather than Clinton.One source told ABC News that the draft report about Comey described his conduct as "insubordinate." Another source reportedly agreed with that characterization but could not confirm that the exact term had been used.Horowitz will also reportedly specifically chastise Lynch for how she handled the Clinton email investigation.Comey has accused Lynch, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, of having a "tortured half-out, half-in" approach to the Clinton investigation. He also expressed disapproval at her decision not to recuse herself from the investigation and added that he considered calling for a special prosecutor to be appointed to oversee the probe because of what he believed was Lynch's bias in favor of the Clintons.Comey said it was Lynch's apparent ambivalence toward the investigation that prompted him to call a press conference in July 2016 to announce that the FBI would not recommend charges be filed against Clinton. He noted during the presser that he had not consulted with the Department of Justice (DOJ) about the statement he was about to make. Comey later said he specified that to assure the public of the FBI's independence.Nevertheless, his move was considered highly unusual, given that the attorney general - in this case Lynch - was meant to announce whether or not Clinton would be charged.Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said as much last year, writing in a memo recommending Comey's firing that it "was wrong" for Comey to "usurp the Attorney General's authority" when he held the press conference.Horowitz will also reportedly criticize Comey for sending a letter to Congress in October 2016 announcing that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Clinton. Clinton has repeatedly said the letter was the final nail in the coffin for her presidential bid.While Comey has said that he would have refrained from sending the letter if Lynch had told him not to, he drew sharp criticism for his role in sending it at all.REUTERS/Nancy WiechecLoretta Lynch in Phoenix.In particular, ABC News reported that before Comey sent the October letter to Congress, at least one senior DOJ official told the FBI that publicizing such a detail so close to the election would violate department policy and federal guidelines that restrict the disclosure of information pertaining to ongoing investigations.Comey, whom President Donald Trump fired last year, said it makes him "nauseous" to think he may have swayed the election but maintains he did what he thought was right.The final report is pending release while Comey and other parties involved have the chance to go over a draft and recommend changes and offer responses to allegations contained in the report, as is normal practice with such investigations.This is a win for TrumpTrump and his allies are gearing up to use the report to vindicate the president's claims that he fired the FBI director because of what the administration characterizes as gross misconduct.The White House initially said as much when it released a statement immediately after his firing saying that he had been dismissed because of the way he handled the Clinton email probe. But Trump later said on national television that he fired Comey because of "this Russia thing."Comey was spearheading the FBI's Russia investigation, which is examining whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the election, when he was ousted.Since then, Trump and his allies have cast Comey and other senior DOJ officials as conflicted and as seeking to use the Russia probe to undermine the Trump campaign and his presidency.Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who leads Trump's personal defense team, told Business Insider in a recent interview that they are "anxiously awaiting" the final Comey report because it will show "the lengths these guys went to to hurt the president."Trump said as much this week, writing on Twitter, "What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery James Comey. Numerous delays. Hope Report is not being changed and made weaker! There are so many horrible things to tell, the public has the right to know. Transparency!"Giuliani added that if the final report finds any fault with Comey, it will help Trump's lawyers make the case that the appointment of the special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia probe as a whole are illegitimate.
| 1 |
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, center in sunglasses, stands along the U.S. border with Mexico near Douglas, Ariz., on Friday. Photo: Sam Mircovich/Reuters Updated March 18, 2016 10:39 pm ET DOUGLAS, Ariz.—Sen. Ted Cruz made a visit to the U.S.-Mexican border on Friday to criticize the state of border security and to make the case that he, not Donald Trump, is the best candidate to tackle illegal immigration. Standing at a low-slung barrier, Mr. Cruz said that “my 5-year-old could climb this in about 3 seconds.” A contested GOP convention is looking more likely by the day as the three remaining candidates continue to split delegates. WSJ national politics reporter Janet Hook breaks down the math. Photo: AP Mr. Cruz said Mr. Trump has supported “open-border Democrats” in the past. Opposition to illegal immigration has helped propel Mr. Trump to front-runner in the Republican presidential campaign. The March 22 Arizona winner-take-all primary, where 58 delegates are at stake, is Mr. Cruz’s best shot to blunt Mr. Trump’s growing momentum. Utah also votes the same day, and Mr. Cruz is headed to Provo and Draper this weekend for a campaign swing. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, whose more moderate position on immigration makes Arizona a tougher target, is focusing more on Utah’s caucuses. The two Western contests are also the first Republican votes since Sen. Marco Rubio left the presidential race after losing his home state of Florida to Mr. Trump last week. After Arizona and Utah, the contest moves to Northern states that are considered less hospitable to Mr. Cruz. Arizona—ground zero in the contentious national debate over how to deal with the illegal immigrants living in the U.S.—is fertile ground for a fight between Messrs. Trump and Cruz over immigration policy. The state was the site of the 2010 fight over SB 1070, a bill allowing local police to enforce immigration law that was partially invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012. Mr. Trump has also been endorsed by two popular figures in the state known for their tough stance against illegal immigration, former GOP Gov. Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Mr. Cruz on Friday visited near the site where an American rancher was killed under mysterious circumstances. Authorities believe Robert Krentz was killed in 2010 by an illegal immigrant or drug traffickers. His death on his own ranch along the border has become a rallying cry for proponents of stricter border security and a crackdown on the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. Mr. Cruz toured the border with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has endorsed him, and Steve Ronnebeck, an Arizona man whose son was allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant last year. Mr. Cruz has long called for additional border security, including a wall and extra border patrol agents. A standard applause line at his rallies is his vow to end so-called sanctuary cities—municipalities that tolerate illegal immigration or refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. But Mr. Trump has dominated on the issue. His signature policy position is to build a border wall and make the Mexican government pay for it. He has also called illegal immigrants “rapists” and “criminals,” and proposed the mass deportation of the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. The only recent poll of Arizona shows Mr. Trump with a comfortable but not insurmountable lead in the state. The Phoenix-based Westgroup Research poll from March finds Mr. Trump in the lead with 31% of the vote to Mr. Cruz’s 19% of the vote. The poll was conducted before Mr. Rubio bowed out of the presidential race. He and Mr. Kasich each drew 10%. Mr. Trump is scheduled to campaign in Arizona on Saturday with an event in Fountain Hills. Write to Byron Tau at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 Appeared in the March 19, 2016, print edition as 'Cruz Takes Aim at Rival on Border.'
| 1 |
Facebook came under renewed public scrutiny Wednesday with the release of an independent audit slamming the platform’s progress on civil rights issues, adding to internal and external pressure on the company to rein in hate speech and misinformation.The audit was the third shoe to drop this month after a group of high-profile advertisers launched a boycott of the site and following a Democratic National Committee memo bashing the company just months before a crucial election.The independent review of the company’s policies released Wednesday — the third in a set of three commissioned by the social media giant in 2018 — criticized Facebook for failing to develop a mechanism for protecting civil rights and for a hands-off approach when it comes to free speech, even in cases of violent posts.Outside critics said the findings report shows the company needs to step up and make changes. If it doesn’t, they argued, government intervention would be warranted.“If Facebook won’t create rules for the platform that protect free elections and public safety, then Congress must intervene to ensure civil rights are protected,” said Rashad Robinson, head of Color of Change. “Our work continues with or without Facebook’s collaboration; we won’t rest until the platform is a safe and just place for Black people.”Auditors took particular issue with Facebook’s handling of posts from President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE. One of the posts they highlighted was one from the president in response to protests in Minneapolis over the police killing of George Floyd in which Trump wrote “when the looting shoots, the shooting starts.”The review said Facebook’s decision to leave such posts untouched has “real world consequences.”The report acknowledged Facebook has made “some significant improvements in the platform,” but the overall audit was a scathing rebuke.The report adds to growing pressure on Facebook to tighten its policies against hate speech and misinformation.Several civil rights groups last month launched an ad boycott campaign called “Stop Hate for Profit,” asking companies to pull their ad dollars from Facebook for the month of July until action is taken on those issues. Hundreds of businesses have joined the campaign.On Monday, the leaders of those civil rights groups met with Facebook executives including CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark ZuckerbergHillicon Valley — DOJ arrests couple connected to crypto hack Feehery: Rogan should have never apologized — it's a sign of weakness The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - States lifting mask mandates in schools MORE and COO Sheryl Sandberg for more than an hour. The meeting, organized by Facebook, did little to win over its critics.“The end of the conversation was the exact same thing that we started with: another dialogue, no action,” Derrick Johnson, CEO and president of the NAACP, said in an interview with The Hill on Monday.The organizers presented a list of 10 demands aimed at reducing hate on the platform, according to Johnson, including hiring a civil rights expert to a top executive position, submitting to regular audits and creating expert teams to review harassment claims.Their demands were not met.Facebook said in a statement after the meeting that it is working to “keep hate off of our platform” and that the civil rights leaders “want Facebook to be free of hate speech and so do we.”In a separate call Tuesday, executives at Facebook met with other civil rights leaders, including Vanita Gupta of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.“The company’s recent announcements have been incremental, rather than the kind of bold action needed to seriously address the harmful impact of voter disinformation and hate speech on the platform,” Gupta and Ifill said in a joint statement. “As long as the platform is weaponized to spread hate and undermine our democracy, a united civil rights community will continue to fight.”The platform has sought to position the civil rights audit as proof of its commitment to meaningful improvements. Sandberg said Wednesday that having “our shortcomings exposed by experts” has “undoubtedly been a really important process for our company.”Critics have been quick to point out that Facebook did not adopt recommendations from the previous two audits.“They have not even adapted the recommendations from the release of the prior audit,” Johnson told The Hill. “What we learned from the prior two audit releases is that the recommendations fall flat.”Criticism of Facebook has not been confined to civil rights circles.The Democratic National Committee skewered the company for failing to keep promises in a memo obtained by The Hill.The memo says the platform has not managed to limit sensational and hyperpartisan content or develop a substantial enough fact-checking team.“Following the 2016 election, Facebook made a number of public promises of change,” the memo reads. “As the company makes new commitments in response to renewed public criticism, it is worth reviewing carefully how the company’s actions measure up to its words. In many cases, as documented below, Facebook failed to keep its promises.”The platform’s approach to hate speech has drawn internal ire as well. Last month, dozens of employees staged a digital walkout while others publicly criticized Zuckerberg online.The fire from all angles has led to some changes, though.Zuckerberg recently committed to flagging political speech that violates platform policies, a marked shift from the company’s previous approach.The company also committed to a civil rights position, although not at the C-suite level as requested by the civil rights groups.However, those changes don’t match the steps taken by other social media companies. Twitter has begun labeling and reducing the spread of Trump’s posts, while Snapchat has stopped promoting the president entirely.Facebook’s commitment to free expression above all else, a position outlined in a lengthy speech Zuckerberg gave at Georgetown University last year, is likely to draw further criticism, especially as Election Day draws near.“Elevating free expression is a good thing, but it should apply to everyone,” the auditors wrote in their report.“When it means that powerful politicians do not have to abide by the same rules that everyone else does, a hierarchy of speech is created that privileges certain voices over less powerful voices,” they added. “The prioritization of free expression over all other values, such as equality and non-discrimination, is deeply troubling to the Auditors.”
| 1 |
CLEVELAND—Over the past week, voters attending rallies in battleground states have seen the marquee players in Democratic politics campaigning for Hillary Clinton : President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, among them.Who they haven’t seen is Mrs. Clinton. But that’s about to change. The Democratic nominee, after days holed up in hotel rooms preparing for this past week’s final presidential debate, returned to the trail Friday with a rally in Cleveland. A campaign blitz in the next few days will take her to Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Hampshire, where she will make a joint appearance with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
More on Election 2016 By her own admission, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t kept up an especially brisk campaign pace heading into the final sprint to Election Day. Her last campaign rallies were on Oct. 12 in Colorado and Nevada. After returning to her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., early Thursday morning following the debate in Las Vegas, she took part in the Alfred E. Smith gala in New York that evening, where she and Republican rival Donald Trump swapped jabs before a well-heeled crowd of about 1,500. At the lectern, she quipped: “This is such a special event that I took a break from my rigorous nap schedule to be here.” Prepping for the debates, her aides said, was time well spent even if it meant a hiatus from the campaign trail. Since the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, Mrs. Clinton has expanded her lead over Mr. Trump from about 2 percentage points to more than 6 points, according to a Real Clear Politics average of national polls. It’s a leap her staff attributes in part to her preparation and debate performances. “It’s also great to be able to campaign, but to prepare this way and be ready to take full advantage of that [debate] stage and make her case to voters is worthwhile,” Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri told reporters aboard Mrs. Clinton’s flight to Nevada for the debate. The final face-off drew 71.6 million television viewers, according to Nielsen. Mr. Trump has prioritized campaign rallies over debate prep, as his schedule shows. He campaigned in New Hampshire, Colorado and Maine, among other places, over the past week.In an interview Friday with The Wall Street Journal, he cited the large crowds at his rallies and the extensive news coverage of the events as justifications for his approach. “We’re doing sometimes five stops a day. We have a very rigorous campaign and we’re doing a lot of campaigning,” he said. At times Mr. Trump has questioned his rival’s stamina and whether she is up to the demands of the presidency. Asked about that contention, he said: “I hope that she is perfectly healthy. I can’t speak to her health. I can only speak to the fact that few people have ever seen a campaign that is like mine.” The race has grown increasingly bitter, as evidenced by the barbed speeches at the Smith dinner, an event normally leavened by self-deprecating humor. Still, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton shook hands at the end, a gesture the two avoided during the last debate. “It was very nice,” Mr. Trump said. “She was very nice.” As the race has wound down, Mrs. Clinton has tested the proposition that blanketing the campaign trail is a candidate’s best strategy. She has the benefit of a large roster of popular Democratic allies happy to campaign on her behalf. Still, some party activists privately say having the nominee headline an event helps energize grass-roots supporters, who can then be deployed to voter-turnout programs. Fewer prominent Republicans have been willing to campaign for Mr. Trump. Former GOP presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush didn’t attend the Republican nominating convention in July, while 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney has emerged as a vocal critic of Mr. Trump. His top surrogates have been GOP vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence and his daughter Ivanka Trump. On the Democratic side, Mrs. Obama has given some of the most memorable speeches of the race, talking bluntly about her revulsion at statements made by Mr. Trump. With polls suggesting Mrs. Clinton has consolidated her lead, Democratic activists say there has been scant compelling need for her to devote her time to rallies. Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist, said the continuous TV coverage of Mr. Trump is now working to Mrs. Clinton’s advantage. “The very same focus that made Donald Trump is now unmaking him,” he said. He suggested she campaign less and not take any risks at this stage in the race. “The more she campaigns, she takes the focus off of him,” he said. —Carol E. Lee contributed to this article. Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Gross domestic product—the value of all goods and services produced across the economy—jumped as pent-up consumer demand and government support helped power spending after disruptions related to Covid-19 eased. The increase in growth, the biggest jump in records dating to 1947, followed a record decline earlier in the pandemic when the virus disrupted business activity across the country. That puts the economy about 3.5% smaller than at the end of last year, before the pandemic hit. “Record gains aren’t enough to get us out of the hole that Covid left us in,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton, said. She cited risks from a recent U.S. surge in infections as a potential economic headwind in the current fourth quarter, saying, “It’s hard to reopen an economy unless workers and consumers feel safe and healthy.” The third-quarter GDP increase followed a 9% quarter-to-quarter decline in the second quarter, or a 31.4% annualized drop, adjusted for inflation and seasonal fluctuations. U.S. GDP is normally reported at an annual rate, or as if the quarter’s pace of growth continued for a full year. But the pandemic triggered extreme swings in output—a severe drop followed by a quick rebound—making the annualized numbers misleading because no one expects second- or third-quarter numbers to continue for a full year. The Commerce Department’s GDP report provides the last major quantitative snapshot of the economy before Tuesday’s presidential election, with President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden offering contrasting views on what the growth figures mean. Mr. Trump said the increase was proof that the pandemic-induced economic collapse was turning a corner thanks to his administration. “Next year will be FANTASTIC!!!” Mr. Trump said in a tweet. “So glad this great GDP number came out before November 3rd.” Mr. Biden said many people won’t feel like they are better off following the growth figures. “The recovery is slowing if not stalling; and the recovery that is happening is helping those at the top, but leaving tens of millions of working families and small businesses behind,” he said. Recent data suggest improvement in the economy continued into the fourth quarter, though at a slower pace than the summer’s resurgence. The number of workers filing initial claims for unemployment insurance fell by 40,000 to 751,000 last week to the lowest level since the pandemic began, suggesting layoffs are easing despite a rise in coronavirus infections. The U.S. as of September has recovered about half of the 22 million jobs lost in March and April, at the beginning of the pandemic. Forecasters predict the economy will expand more slowly through the fourth quarter as the temporary jolt from the economy’s reopening and government stimulus fades, with unemployment expected to remain high this winter. They also project the economy will end 2020 smaller than a year earlier, but grow in 2021. “There’s a long way to go until the economy’s healed,” said James Knightley, an economist at ING Financial Markets LLC, citing the “squeeze on incomes coupled with anxiety about Covid coupled with election uncertainty.” The Wall Street Journal’s October survey of economists found that more than half of respondents don’t expect GDP will return to its pre-pandemic level until next year. On average they expect that the economy will contract 3.6% this year, measured from the fourth quarter of 2019. Economists say the path of recovery hinges on getting the pandemic under control. The U.S. and Europe both face fall increases in cases. Business executives are cautious about the months ahead. “We certainly have seen some indications across the economy that across the nation and, frankly, the world that it could be a tough winter,” Discover Financial Services chief financial officer John Greene said last week on an earnings call. Restaurants have faced weak demand and capacity constraints due to the coronavirus. Plastic tents were used by a New York City restaurant on Oct. 15. Photo: angela weiss/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images General Electric Co. Chief Executive Larry Culp on Wednesday said that while his company has generally stabilized, “We still acknowledge that the full duration, magnitude and pace of this pandemic across our end markets, operations and supply chain is uncertain.” Recent private-sector data show consumer spending remains below prior-year levels, led by weaker spending on in-person services such as travel, entertainment and restaurants. JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s tracker of credit and debit-card transactions showed that spending was down 5.2% from a year earlier in the week through Oct. 25. Government support for businesses and households with stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits and the Paycheck Protection Program helped power spending in the third quarter. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic output, increased at a 40.7% annual rate in the third quarter. Newsletter Sign-up Real Time Economics The latest economic news, analysis and data curated weekdays by WSJ's Jeffrey Sparshott. Talks between congressional Democrats and the White House on a roughly $2 trillion fresh round of stimulus, including another round of government-backed loans, enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus for households, didn’t lead to an agreement before the election. Spending on long-lasting goods was particularly strong. The report showed consumer spending on durable items rose at a 82.2% rate during the quarter, a sign of increased purchases on big-ticket items such as vehicles and recreational goods. Spending on services that were hobbled earlier in the pandemic also rose sharply as people resumed health-care visits, dining out and some travel. Consumers, especially those in higher-income households, bought furniture, autos, computers and home-exercise equipment as many worked and stayed close to home because of the pandemic.
More The housing sector also has boomed, thanks to low mortgage rates and demand for larger living spaces. Residential fixed investment—spending on home building and improvements—increased at a 59.3% rate in the third quarter. Business investment picked up in the third quarter. Nonresidential fixed investment—which reflects business spending on software, research and development, equipment and structures—rose at a 20.3% annual rate. Spending on equipment rose, although spending on structures, a category tied to the struggling oil and gas sector and commercial real estate, fell at a 14.6% annual rate. Business has been thriving for Premium Service Brands, a home-services franchising company based in Charlottesville, Va., said Chief Executive Paul Flick. Third-quarter revenue is up 44% from a year earlier, following an initial drop in business in March and April when customers were reluctant to have work crews in their homes, he said. “Overall people are saving money, taking those savings and reinvesting it into their home. They’re not going to restaurants and not traveling,” Mr. Flick said. Christopher Boone, an automotive-industry data analyst in Westfield, Ind., said that “right now my spending is somewhat wary, just because of uncertainty in markets” related to the pandemic and election. He and his wife, Nancy, recently bought a car and plan to travel to Florida this winter. He expects the pandemic’s impact on his future spending “will be collateral effects,” such as the availability of products. “Disruptions in supply chains are going to create shortages in the Christmas season, I’m positive of that,” he said. “I think things are just going to be hard to get.” Economists have long used letters of the alphabet like V and U to describe economic recoveries. But the coronavirus downturn is so different from past recessions that economists are coming up with new shapes to describe the potential recovery. WSJ explains. Illustration: Jacob Reynolds Meanwhile, restaurants have faced continued weak demand and capacity constraints due to the coronavirus pandemic. Glenn Lunde, chief executive of San Jose, Calif.-based Togo’s Eateries LLC, which operates and franchises a chain of 183 sandwich restaurants, said the past few months have been “quite an adventure.” Sales were down 26% year-over-year in the second quarter and down 8% in the third quarter. In September, sales fell 6% from the prior year. “I think everyone’s concerned about cases going up, where’s the virus going to go, no one really knows. The election, stimulus, there’s a lot of uncertainty given all these unknowns,” Mr. Lunde said. Write to Harriet Torry at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Democrat Jon Ossoff debated an empty podium on Sunday night, repeatedly blasting his opponent, Georgia Sen. David PerdueDavid PerdueSunday shows preview: White House says Russia could invade 'any day'; RNC censure resolution receives backlash GOP falters in effort to recruit star governors for Senate Kemp looks to make masking optional in Georgia schools MORE (R), for refusing to participate in the debate.Ossoff and Perdue are facing off in one of the two Jan. 5 Senate runoffs in the Peach State.Atlanta’s Fox 5 evening anchor Russ Spencer, who moderated the debate, introduced the candidates, with the camera showing an empty podium as he introduced Perdue. Spencer explained that the Georgia senator "declined to participate." Perdue had said last month that he would not participate in the debate. Ossoff repeatedly slammed Perdue over his absence. "The reason that we are losing thousands of people per day to this virus is because of the arrogance of politicians like David Perdue — so arrogant that he disregarded public health expertise and so arrogant that he’s not with us here today to answer questions," the Democrat said during a question about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic in Georgia and across the country."It shows an astonishing arrogance and sense of entitlement for Georgia’s senior U.S. senator to believe he shouldn’t have to debate at a moment like this in our history," he added. Ossoff also claimed that Perdue did not attend the debate because he did not want to “incriminate himself,” referencing the Republican’s controversial record of trading stocks throughout the coronavirus pandemic.The Perdue campaign has denied allegations that the senator made trades based on insider information and has said that he has been exonerated by officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission and others.During a portion of the debate where candidates typically pose questions to each other, Ossoff said it’s “a strange situation to be asking a question of a sitting United States senator who is not here to debate as he asks for the votes of the people to be reelected.”Ossoff said he would ask Perdue “why he continues to oppose $1,200 stimulus checks for the American people at this moment in crisis, why he fought against them in the first place and why he isn’t in Washington right now championing direct financial relief.”“If I had the opportunity to ask the senator a question, if the senator were not too much of a coward to debate in public, then that’s what I’d ask him,” Ossoff added.Perdue initially opposed the stimulus checks sent to Americans in coronavirus relief legislation earlier this year. However, he later voted for the $2 trillion package that included the checks. "Tonight we witnessed something we didn't know was possible: a candidate lost a debate against himself. An epic failure," said Perdue campaign manager Ben Fry. "Jon Ossoff came out in support of blanket amnesty, a national lockdown, and made clear he doesn't want to 'get bogged down in the details' about additional COVID relief. These are serious times and Jon Ossoff just showed how unserious -- and unprepared -- he really is. Georgians will reject Jon Ossoff once again next month." Ossoff also took to Twitter to mock Perdue, tweeting an emoji of a chicken and the hashtag #WhereIsDavidPerdue.— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) December 6, 2020#WhereIsDavidPerdue— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) December 6, 2020I had to ask an empty podium a question. pic.twitter.com/wmydtUuPRw— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) December 7, 2020Republican Sen. Kelly LoefflerKelly LoefflerGOP falters in effort to recruit star governors for Senate Haley endorses Walker in Georgia Senate race These Senate seats are up for election in 2022 MORE (Ga.) and her Democratic opponent, the Rev. Raphael Warnock, both attended a debate in Georgia's other runoff election that will take place in January. The races will determine whether Republicans maintain control over the Senate.
| 1 |
President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE on Thursday appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a court order requiring his accountants to hand over eight years of tax returns, in a dramatic escalation of his fight to keep his financial records private.Trump’s request comes after a federal appeals court in New York last week said Manhattan prosecutors could enforce a subpoena against Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA for his personal and corporate financial records from 2011 to 2018. In their petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s personal lawyers called the records request “politically motivated,” and said the subpoena should not be allowed to pierce the immunity the Constitution gives to the president.“That the Constitution would empower thousands of state and local prosecutors to embroil the president in criminal proceedings is unimaginable,” the petition reads. “Indeed, politically motivated subpoenas like this one are a perfect illustration of why a sitting president should be categorically immune from state criminal process.”“We have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Second Circuit decision regarding a subpoena issued by the New York County District Attorney," Jay SekulowJay Alan SekulowJan. 6 panel releases Hannity texts, asks for cooperation Jan. 6 panel to seek Hannity's cooperation: report GOP political operatives indicted over illegal campaign contribution from Russian national in 2016 MORE, Trump's lawyer, said in a statement. "The Second Circuit decision is wrong and should be reversed. In our petition, we assert that the subpoena violates the U.S. Constitution and therefore is unenforceable."A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit last week said Manhattan prosecutors could obtain Trump’s financial records as part of a grand jury investigation, over Trump’s claims of presidential immunity.Cyrus Vance Jr., the Democratic district attorney for New York County, agreed not to enforce the subpoena because Trump's lawyers vowed to quickly appeal, within ten days, to the Supreme Court. Vance's office is investigating payments allegedly made to silence two women who allege they had affairs with Trump.Trump's lawyers have argued that the president has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. During a memorable oral argument before the circuit court last month, Trump's personal lawyer William Consovoy argued that the president could not be prosecuted even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City. The three judges on the circuit court panel, all Democratic appointees, said they were not ruling on all of Trump's broad claims of immunity and whether the president could be prosecuted. But they ruled that any immunity Trump had did not cover a subpoena to his accounting firm.Trump's appeal sets up the potential for a historic case before the high court testing separation of powers and the president's immunity from prosecution.The Supreme Court will take up the case if four justices sign on to Trump’s request. If the court does take the case, some legal analysts believe a ruling could come next summer, just months before the 2020 election.Trump has faced criticism for breaking with a decades-long tradition of presidents voluntarily releasing their tax returns, and his petition to the Supreme Court represents a last-ditch effort to keep the documents hidden.The New York case is one of two legal battles over subpoenas for Trump’s financial records that were expected to reach the Supreme Court.In a separate case in Washington, D.C., a federal appeals court on Wednesday cleared the way for House Democrats on the Oversight Committee to pursue Trump’s financial records from Mazars. Trump's lawyers indicated they would also appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.Updated at 7:00 p.m.Petition for writ by Meghashyam Mali on Scribd
| 1 |
Former New York City Mayor and possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is giving $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University. The gift is believed to be the largest ever to an academic institution. The money is earmarked for scholarships and grants for undergraduate students from low and middle-income families, Mr. Bloomberg said through a press release. The gift will enable Johns Hopkins to become one of just a handful of need-blind schools—meaning students will be considered for admission regardless of their ability to pay. Currently, 44% of Johns Hopkins students graduate with some form of debt averaging $24,000. Mr. Bloomberg, 76 years old, said he is concerned that prestigious schools that offer elite education are too often reserved for students from wealthy families. At the nation’s most prestigious and well-resourced institutions, more students come from families in the top 1% of the income distribution than the bottom half, according to Harvard economist Raj Chetty. “America is at its best when we reward people based on the quality of their work, not the size of their pocketbook,” Mr. Bloomberg said. Johns Hopkins’ endowment before the gift was $3.8 billion, according to a 2017 study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers. By comparison, Harvard University’s endowment was the largest in the country at $36 billion. The $1.8 billion gift is larger than the total endowment of all but 53 colleges and universities. Massive, tax deductible gifts from wealthy donors to affluent schools have faced criticism for being inefficient exercises in ego gratification. The accumulated wealth of these institutions has also dented their reputations and fueled a political backlash. Last year, President Trump and the Republican-led Congress passed a 1.4% annual tax on investment income earned by private-college and university endowments with at least 500 students and at least $500,000 in investments per student. Johns Hopkins’ 2017 per-student investment was $190,592. A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg said the gift wouldn’t trigger the tax at Johns Hopkins. Last year, 35 gifts to colleges and universities exceeded $50 million, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Mr. Bloomberg’s latest gift is the largest since the Chronicle began keeping records in 1967. Before this gift, Mr. Bloomberg had already given Johns Hopkins a total of $1.5 billion, part of his $6.4 billion in cumulative charitable giving, according to a spokesperson. Mr. Bloomberg, a 1964 graduate from Johns Hopkins, gave $110 million to help flip the House for the Democrats in the recent mid- term elections. He has said he is considering a run for president as a Democrat in 2020. Write to Douglas Belkin at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that President Trump cannot block people he disagrees with from his Twitter account. Above, Trump's Twitter feed is seen on June 27. J. David Ake/AP hide caption toggle caption J. David Ake/AP On Tuesday, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that President Trump cannot block people he disagrees with from his Twitter account. Above, Trump's Twitter feed is seen on June 27. J. David Ake/AP A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users, because he uses his Twitter account "to conduct official business and to interact with the public." By preventing critics from accessing his feed, the president is barring them from participating in what the judges deemed a public forum. "[The] First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees," the judges wrote. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven people who were blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after posting replies criticizing the president and his policies. That meant the users could not view the president's tweets, reply directly to them or use the account's webpage to view the comment threads associated with Trump's tweets. "Public officials' social media accounts are now among the most significant forums for discussion of government policy," Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, who argued the case before the 2nd Circuit panel in March, said in a statement. "This decision will ensure that people aren't excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints, and that public officials aren't insulated from their constituents' criticism," Jaffer said. "The decision will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy." Several of the plaintiffs celebrated the legal victory on Twitter. "We won on appeal," Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza wrote. Buckwalter-Poza, who is a writer and legal analyst in Washington, D.C., said she was banned from the president's feed after a comment she posted about Russia's involvement in the election was retweeted by thousands of people. "Take us to the Supreme Court if you dare @realDonaldTrump," wrote plaintiff Eugene Gu, a California surgeon and scientist. Plaintiff Holly Figueroa, a Grammy-nominated songwriter and one of the national organizers of the March for Truth movement, wrote in a June 2017 piece for The Washington Post that she had "accumulated a very vocal group of Twitter followers who cheer me on when I troll the president." But she says she was blocked in May 2017 after a tweet in which she called Trump a "bloody idiot." "The Founding Fathers didn't foresee Twitter, but they certainly provided a framework to make sure we could always engage with the people who purport to represent us," Figueroa wrote. The government had argued that Trump acted as a private Twitter user when he blocked people on the social media platform, "because the function is available to all users." But the panel of judges said that argument "founders in the face of the uncontested evidence" that Trump's account is "one of the White House's main vehicles for conducting official business." Trump often uses the platform to announce new policies, legislative changes, staff hirings and firings and diplomatic matters. The court also noted that then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in 2017 that Trump's tweets should be considered "official statements by the President of the United States." "In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," the judges wrote. Trump has not tweeted about the ruling, but Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement to NPR, "We are disappointed with the court's decision and are exploring possible next steps."
| 1 |
IJR Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden shot down President Donald Trump’s campaign narrative painting him as a radical socialist who is responsible for the recent violence in cities across the country. Flanked by American flags, Biden told the nation during Monday’s speech in Pittsburgh, “You know me, you know my heart. You know my story, my family’s story. Ask yourself, do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” He continued, “I want a safe America, safe from COVID, safe from crime and looting. Safe from racially motivated violence, safe from bad cops. Let me be crystal clear, safe from four more years of Donald Trump.”
Watch the video below:
Biden: ‘You know me … ask yourself, do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?!’ pic.twitter.com/wHj20DJGOo
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) August 31, 2020
Before Biden’s appearance in Pittsburgh, Trump blasted the former vice president on Twitter, writing, “Joe Biden is coming out of the basement earlier than his hoped for ten days because his people told him he has no choice, his poll numbers are PLUNGING!”
Trump added, “His problem is interesting. He must always be weak on CRIME because of the Bernie Sanders Radical Left voter. If he loses them, like Crooked Hillary did, he is ‘toast.'”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1300258464170758144?s=20
For the past two weeks, Trump has been accusing Biden of going soft on anarchists and rioters. In a Sunday tweet, Trump wrote, “When is Slow Joe Biden going to criticize the Anarchists, Thugs [and] Agitators in ANTIFA?”
During his speech, Biden criticized Trump for failing to condemn violence by his supporters. The Democrat said, “He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong, but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is.”
On his Twitter feed, Trump called a caravan of his supporters who went into Portland, Oregon, “great patriots.” Fights broke out between pro-Trump supporters and counterprotesters over the weekend in Portland. We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards. SummaryRecent PostsContact Alex is a Washington DC based contributor. He is from Delaware and holds a degree in English from Salisbury University. Find him on Twitter @AlexThomasDC Comment Down Below
| 1 |
Disgraced former acting FBI director Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeAndrew McCabe's settlement with the Department of Justice is a signal to John Durham Trump criticizes Justice for restoring McCabe's benefits The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Altria - Jan. 6 panel flexes its muscle MORE has provided clear evidence that in 2017 a small cabal of high-level officials inside the Department of Justice (DOJ) weighed whether to attempt to remove the duly-elected president of the United States. McCabe claims that he and others at the top of the FBI and DOJ held multiple discussions about invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to declare President TrumpDonald TrumpHillicon Valley — Cyberattack hits Ukrainian defense On The Money — GOP senators block Biden's Fed picks Florida county clerk's typo directed ticketed drivers to site selling Trump merchandise MORE unfit for office and install the vice president in his place. Is this proof that a rolling bloodless coup really existed within the government? McCabe himself previously provided false information to the DOJ, for which he was unceremoniously fired, rendering any statements he now makes while promoting his book highly suspect. But, given the underpinnings of the entire Russia collusion investigation and what we know now about its early steps, McCabe’s statements ring disturbingly true. The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for a way to remove a president who is unable to perform the duties of the office. (This is different from impeachment, the proscribed method to remove a president for misconduct.) The vice president and a majority of cabinet officers must agree, in writing, that the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. There is no provision for law enforcement — the FBI, lawyers at DOJ, or someone such as Andy McCabe — to force a president from office. Discussions on how, or whether, to attempt to exercise the 25th Amendment in this way is truly indicative of a coup mentality by career bureaucrats.It is hard to explain this kind of attitude except in the rankest of political contexts. McCabe’s claims that Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinRod RosensteinWashington still needs more transparency House Judiciary to probe DOJ's seizure of data from lawmakers, journalists The Hill's Morning Report - Biden-Putin meeting to dominate the week MORE was part of this coup attempt are shocking. The deputy AG makes innumerable decisions every day that impact a massive number of issues; practically every decision the federal government makes requires his approval if it implicates legal or constitutional issues. That any person in that position would consider wearing a wire to obtain evidence against the sitting president, based upon thin allegations contained in the dossier ex-British spy Christopher Steele produced for the Democratic Party and Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonRight wing criticizes media for lack of coverage on Durham probe Liberal activists need to level with their base Document dump turns toxic for Trump MORE’s campaign, should frighten every American. Though McCabe’s veracity is questionable, it does seem unlikely any serious deputy attorney general would joke about such matters.McCabe claims that he and others believed they were working for a president who might have conspired with Russia to betray this country. There must not be one scintilla of evidence of this; otherwise, special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) MuellerAn unquestioning press promotes Rep. Adam Schiff's book based on Russia fiction Senate Democrats urge Garland not to fight court order to release Trump obstruction memo Why a special counsel is guaranteed if Biden chooses Yates, Cuomo or Jones as AG MORE surely would have taken steps long before now to rid the nation of such a dangerous commander-in-chief. It apparently has not occurred to McCabe that he looks cowardly if he really believed the president was conspiring with a foreign government in a way that compromised his loyalty to this country.And yet, McCabe blithely went about meeting with the president, continued to do his normal work, and said nothing about it publicly. Is it reasonable to believe a career law officer wouldn’t shout from the rooftops, and even risk his job, to blow the whistle on such a catastrophic potential national security risk? McCabe and his cabal knew that the entire Russia collusion narrative was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. We know McCabe knew this from the congressional testimony of former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr, who swore under oath (and he, unlike McCabe, was not fired for lying) that he told McCabe and others at the FBI that the Steele dossier was being pushed by a Trump-hater and should be relied upon with caution.By May 2017, McCabe implies he was in a state of panic on behalf of the gullible nation led by a Russian asset — but as Ohr said, McCabe and his cronies were aware that the explosive claims in the dossier were unverified. How could there be panic about unverified allegations? Also by May 2017, the FBI had months and months worth of “FISA take,” or data from the electronic spying on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and all those with whom Page communicated over months, or even years, prior to October 2016 when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant was signed. According to former FBI director James ComeyJames Brien ComeyDemocrats in a fury as Trump docs revive trauma of Clinton emails Hillary 2024? Given the competition, she may be the Dems' best hope Trump draws attention with admission he 'fired Comey' MORE, none of that data resulted in any verification of the claims in the Steele dossier.Nonetheless, to these government bureaucrats it was acceptable to lie to the FISA Court by vouching for an unverified dossier. It was acceptable to them to illegally leak to the media the existence of the Russia investigation (for example, leaking the existence of a highly-classified FISA warrant on the Russian ambassador to destroy former national security adviser Michael Flynn and cripple the young presidency). And they apparently thought it acceptable to contemplate the use of the 25th Amendment to remove a president wholly capable of performing his constitutional duties.That’s a rolling coup, indeed.Francey Hakes was a prosecutor for 16 years and now consults on national security and the protection of children. As a former assistant U.S. attorney, she appeared before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, presenting applications for counterterrorism and counterespionage warrants on a special detail to the Department of Justice Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. Follow her on Twitter @FranceyHakes.
| 1 |
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., speaks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. On Sunday, Conyers announced he would be stepping down from his ranking position on the committee — though he continued to deny sexual misconduct allegations against him. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Drew Angerer/Getty Images Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., speaks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. On Sunday, Conyers announced he would be stepping down from his ranking position on the committee — though he continued to deny sexual misconduct allegations against him. Drew Angerer/Getty Images Updated at 4:34 p.m. ET Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has announced he is stepping down as ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Conyers conveyed the news in a statement released Sunday by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The announcement comes roughly a week after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced publicly against the longest-serving member of the House. Those allegations were lodged by a former female employee, who had made a wrongful dismissal complaint against him that was settled two years ago. The House Ethics Committee has launched an investigation into the incident. Conyers continues to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and says he has no intention of resigning his seat in the House. "After careful consideration and In light of the attention drawn by recent allegations made against me, I have notified the Democratic Leader of my request to step aside as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee during the investigation of these matters," Conyers said in the statement. "I deny these allegations, many of which were raised by documents reportedly paid for by a partisan alt-right blogger. I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family before the House Committee on Ethics." Last week, NPR's Susan Davis explained the allegations swirling around Conyers: "Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., settled a wrongful dismissal complaint two years ago with a former female employee who alleged Conyers made repeated sexual advances toward female staff, according to BuzzFeed. ... "Buzzfeed obtained signed affidavits, three of which are notarized and verified the documents with four people involved in the matter who confirmed their authenticity. The woman was paid over $27,000 as part of a confidentiality agreement. The money came out of Conyers' office budget, which is taxpayer-funded." Speaking earlier Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Pelosi had refrained from calling for Conyers' outright resignation, saying the longtime congressman is an "icon in our country" and asking for patience for his investigation to unfold. "He will do the right thing in terms of what he knows about his situation," she said. "He's entitled to due process, but women are entitled to due process, as well." According to a senior Democratic aide, Pelosi had spent the last few days working with Conyers and other Congressional Black Caucus members on how to "lay groundwork for him to step aside gracefully." Later Sunday in a tweeted statement, Pelosi added: "Zero tolerance means consequences." Zero tolerance means consequences. I have asked for an ethics investigation, and as that investigation continues, @RepJohnConyers has agreed to step aside as Ranking Member. No matter how great an individual’s legacy, it is not a license for harassment. pic.twitter.com/H5ikWy1iqT— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) November 26, 2017 "As a woman and mother of four daughters, I partcularly take any accusation of sexual harassment very seriously," she said. "Any credible accusation must be reviewed by the Ethics Committee expeditiously. We are at a watershed moment on this issue, and no matter how great an individual's legacy, it is not license for harassment." Politicians on both sides of the aisle have faced sexual misconduct allegations in recent weeks. Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, who has been accused of inappropriately touching several women, has been dealing with a Senate ethics investigation of his own. On Thursday, Franken issued an apology without confirming the most recent allegations lodged against him. "I'm a warm person; I hug people. I've learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many. Some women have found my greetings or embraces for a hug or photo inappropriate, and I respect their feelings about that," Franken said. "I feel terribly that I've made some women feel badly and for that I am so sorry, and I want to make sure that never happens again," he added. "And let me say again to Minnesotans that I'm sorry for putting them through this and I'm committed to regaining their trust." On Sunday, Franken told Minnesota Public Radio News he has not considered resigning, however. Meanwhile, Roy Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, continues to vehemently deny the allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct with teenage girls. Moore has hemorrhaged support from within his own national party in recent weeks, though one prominent Republican appears to be sticking by him: President Trump. "Liberal Jones would be BAD!" Trump tweeted Sunday about Moore's Democratic opponent, Doug Jones. And prior to leaving the White House for Thanksgiving last week, Trump, who faces sexual misconduct allegations of his own, told reporters Moore "totally denies" sexually assaulting multiple teenagers when Moore was in his 30s.
| 1 |
Frustrated Republicans say it’s time for the Senate to reclaim more power over foreign policy and are planning to move a measure Thursday that would be a stunning rebuke to a president of their own party. GOP lawmakers are deeply concerned over President TrumpDonald TrumpHillicon Valley — Cyberattack hits Ukrainian defense On The Money — GOP senators block Biden's Fed picks Florida county clerk's typo directed ticketed drivers to site selling Trump merchandise MORE’s reluctance to listen to his senior military and intelligence advisers, fearing it could erode national security. They say the Senate has lost too much of its constitutional power over shaping the nation’s foreign policy and argue that it’s time to begin clawing some of it back. “Power over foreign policy has shifted to the executive branch over the last 30 years. Many of us in the Senate want to start taking it back,” said a Republican senator closely allied with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGOP scrambles to figure out what Trump legal drama means for future Senate leaders send Putin symbolic warning shot amid invasion fears GOP boycotts Biden Fed nominees' vote as bank fights inflation MORE (R-Ky.). They plan to send Trump a stern admonishment by voting Thursday afternoon on an amendment sponsored by McConnell warning “the precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Syria and Afghanistan “could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.” The resolution also expresses a sense of the Senate that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda pose a “continuing threat to the homeland and our allies” and maintain an “ability to operate in Syria and Afghanistan.”It’s a pointed rebuttal to the claim Trump made on Twitter in December that “we have defeated ISIS in Syria.” Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell said his amendment “simply re-emphasizes the expertise and counsel offered by experts who have served presidents of both parties,” a subtle rebuff of Trump’s tweets from earlier in the day mocking his intelligence advisers as “naive.” Trump stunned Republican senators Wednesday by lashing out at Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDaniel (Dan) Ray CoatsAn independent commission should review our National Defense Strategy Overnight Hillicon Valley — Scrutiny over Instagram's impact on teens Former national security officials warn antitrust bills could help China in tech race MORE and CIA Director Gina Haspel after they contradicted some of his optimistic claims about the threats posed by North Korea and ISIS. The senior intelligence officials also angered Trump by testifying that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear treaty it signed with Western powers under the Obama administration. Trump tweeted “the Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!” The president added in a follow-up tweet about Iran: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” Trump appeared to be responding to television news coverage that focused on how the testimony contradicted his views on global threats.Exasperated Republican lawmakers quickly pushed back against the criticism, urging the president to show more restraint. “I don’t know how many times you can say this, but I would prefer that the president stay off Twitter, particularly with regard to these important national security issues where you’ve got people who are experts and have the background and are professionals,” said Senate Republican Whip John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneOvernight Energy & Environment — Biden says Russia attack could spike oil prices GOP scrambles to figure out what Trump legal drama means for future Dem plan to suspend the gas tax faces bipartisan pushback MORE (S.D.). “In most cases I think he ought to, when it comes to their judgment, take it into consideration.”Thune praised Coats, a former senator, as “an incredibly capable, principled guy” who “is very committed to doing the right thing for the country.” Thune predicted that most Republican senators will vote for the resolution urging Trump to exercise caution in assessing troop forces in Syria and Afghanistan.“It reflects the widely held view in our conference — again — you want to trust our military leaders when it comes to some of these decisions,” he said. He added that “a number of our members” talk to the president on a regular basis “and have articulated to him that they think that the policies that currently he wants to employ with regard to Syria, for example, are not the right ones.” Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyOvernight Health Care — Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding GOP scrambles to figure out what Trump legal drama means for future Senate confirms Biden FDA nominee MORE (R-Utah), who has emerged as a high-profile counterweight to the president on foreign policy issues, said, “I have full confidence in our intelligence community and its leadership. They are highly sophisticated and capable, and I take them at their word.” “Precipitous withdrawal from Syria would put our allies at risk and be detrimental to our allies in the region,” he added. Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntOvernight Health Care — Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding Biden administration eyes billion for COVID-19 funding in talks with Congress Senate confirms Biden FDA nominee MORE (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said “this is an intel community that the president has largely put in place.”“I have confidence in them, and I think he should, too,” he said. Coats told the Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that U.S. analysts believe “North Korea will seek to retain” its ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction and “is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and productions capabilities because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival.” The statement undercut Trump’s praise of a declaration made with North Korea last year pledging to normalize relations in exchange for the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Coats also testified that U.S. intelligence does not believe that Iran is undertaking any “key activities” to produce a nuclear device. On the subject of ISIS, Coats warned that the group is planning a comeback and numbers thousands of fighters in Syria and Iraq. Haspel warned that North Korea is committed to developing a long-range missile that could strike the United States and corroborated Coats’s testimony that Iran is still in compliance with the nuclear deal. Trump and some of his supporters have long accused a so-called deep state of national security and intelligence officials of attempting to subvert his presidency. But one former White House official who worked on national security issues chalked up Trump’s reaction on Wednesday to his penchant to hit back at critics, no matter who they are. “Trump is always going to respond to somebody who is going against him or who he thinks is trying to make him look bad,” the official said. “It doesn’t matter if you’re the intelligence community. It doesn’t matter if you’re the Agriculture secretary.”Sen. John CornynJohn CornynDemocrats show little appetite for Biden's call for gun control Poll finds Abbott with 10-point lead on Beto O'Rourke in Texas Photos of the Week: Marking COVID-19 deaths, Mt. Etna and Olympic snowboarders MORE (R-Texas), another member of the Intelligence panel, praised Coats and Haspel as “great patriots” who “tell it like it is.”“Sometimes facts are inconvenient,” Cornyn said. “But they work for him,” he added, referring to Trump. “He ought to call them on the phone.” Asked about Trump’s tweeted criticism, Cornyn said: “Just say no. No more Twitter.”Trump has long disagreed with the intelligence community and the national security establishment on a long list of issues, especially engagement with Russia. That dynamic has caused resentments to fester. “Whether there is merit to it or not, Trump views the Russia conversation as a direct threat to his legitimacy and he is very sensitive about it,” the former official said. “He’s not willing to give an inch on that.”The hearings also struck a nerve among some of the president’s supporters, which amplified the issue on cable television.Fred Fleitz, former chief of staff to national security adviser John Bolton, said Coats should be fired over his comments to Congress. “I gotta tell you, I would let him go because of this and I’ve thought this for some time,” Fleitz said Tuesday in an interview with Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs, a Trump favorite. “I think Mr. Coats is a great guy, but intelligence is to inform presidential policy. It’s not supposed to undermine it. It’s not supposed to second-guess presidential policy.”Fleitz also said the intelligence community should stop issuing an unclassified, public assessment of threats to the U.S. because it “undermines” Trump’s policies.“This is crazy. This has to stop,” he said. A turning point for many Republicans was Trump’s unexpected announcement on Dec. 19 that “we have won against ISIS” and he would order the withdrawal of 2,000 American troops from Syria. The next day, Secretary of Defense James MattisJames Norman MattisTrump's 'Enemies List' — end of year edition The US can't go back to business as usual with Pakistan The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Senate nears surprise deal on short-term debt ceiling hike MORE announced his resignation, citing policy differences and his concern over the future of U.S. alliances. Even before that, there was growing sentiment within the Senate GOP conference to constrain Trump’s power as commander in chief. Seven Republicans voted with Democrats on Dec. 13 for a resolution directing the president to withdraw U.S. forces from participating in the civil war in Yemen. It marked the first time the Senate successfully passed a resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act, which was enacted to constrain executive power at the end of the Vietnam War. McConnell has tried to shift focus away from the differences between Trump and Republican senators on national security by highlighting divisions among Democrats over the resolution on Syria and Afghanistan.“Democrats objected to a vote on this amendment, apparently because it would expose a rift among their membership. A division between those Senate Democrats who still subscribe to this vision for American leadership and their colleagues who have abandoned those principles at the urging of the far left — or are too afraid to take either position,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.Democrats, however, were quick to pounce on Trump’s comments and draw a comparison to the president’s controversial joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin last year when he appeared to give equal weight to U.S. intelligence findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and Putin’s categorical denial. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffPelosi leading congressional delegation to Israel, Germany, UK Trump Jan. 6 comments renew momentum behind riot probe Mask rules spark political games and a nasty environment in the House MORE (D-Calif.) accused Trump of undercutting U.S. intelligence officials. “It gives a great opening to our adversaries who can discredit our intelligence agencies, who can say: ‘Well look, even the president of the United States doesn’t believe his intelligence agencies so why should we believe what the intelligence community says about Russia’s intervention in our election? Why should we believe what the intelligence community has to say about Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal?’ ” he said Wednesday.
| 1 |
SURFSIDE, Fla. (AP) — A fire official says four more victims have been found in the rubble of a collapsed condominium building in Florida, bringing the death toll to 32. Miami-Dade Assistant Fire Chief Raide Jadallah gave the news to family members during a closed-door morning briefing Tuesday. He said rescuers have also been locating more human remains.Jadallah said there was a two-hour delay early Tuesday as a result of lightning. He said workers have removed 5.5 million pounds of debris from the pile.THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.SURFSIDE, Fla. (AP) — Rescuers searched through fresh rubble Monday after the last of the collapsed Florida condo building was demolished, which allowed crews into previously inaccessible places, including bedrooms where people were believed to be sleeping at the time of the disaster, officials said.But they faced a new challenge from thunderstorms that hit the area as Tropical Storm Elsa approached the state.Four more victims were discovered in the new pile, Miami-Dade Assistant Fire Chief Raide Jadallah told family members, raising the death toll to 28 people. Another 117 people remain unaccounted for.The demolition late Sunday was crucial to the search-and-rescue effort, officials said, and raised the prospect that crews could increase both the pace of their work and the number of searchers at the site, although the chance of finding survivors 12 days after the June 24 collapse has diminished.“We know that with every day that goes by, it is harder to see a miracle happening,” said Maggie Castro, a firefighter and paramedic with the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department who briefs families daily.Teams had been unable to access areas closest to the remaining structure because of its instability, Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava said.“Truly we could not continue without bringing this building down,” she said at a news conference.Part of the existing debris pile was also helping to support the remaining structure, City of Miami Fire Rescue Capt. Ignatius Carroll said. Rescuers were still holding out hope of reuniting loved ones.“We continue to remain focused on our primary mission, and that is to leave no stone unturned and to find as many people as we can and to help bring either some answers to family and loved ones or to bring some closure to them,” Carroll said.The newly accessible area includes master bedrooms where people were believed to be sleeping when the building collapsed, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said. “We will be able to access every part of that pile, which they hadn’t been able to do up to this point,” DeSantis said. “I think it’s going to move the pace. I think the momentum is very strong.”Crews could be seen climbing a mound of debris at the site Monday alongside a piece of heavy equipment that was picking up rubble. Jadallah said rescuers focused on a stairwell section, but inclement weather hampered the search, particularly in a garage area that was filling with water. Crews had to pump out water.The latest forecasts showed the storm moving westward, mostly sparing South Florida, but the area near the collapsed building experienced thunderstorms, and the National Weather Service issued a severe thunderstorm warning for Miami Beach, which is just south of Surfside.Lightning caused temporary stops to the search, frustrating rescue crews, Levine Cava said. “Truly they live to save lives, and they’ve pushed ahead no matter what is thrown in their way.”After the demolition, workers immediately began clearing some of the new debris, and the search resumed around midnight, officials said. It had been called off Saturday to allow specialists to drill holes for explosives needed for the demolition.“As a result of the contractor who brought it down, he did it in such a way that literally we actually were back on the original pile in less than 20 minutes,” Jadallah told family members of those missing earlier Monday, drawing applause in a rare upbeat moment for the twice-daily meetings.Rescuers hoped to get a clearer picture of voids that may exist in the rubble as they search for those believed to be trapped under the fallen wing of the Champlain Towers South. Crews, however, have found very few voids, Jadallah said.No one has been rescued alive since the first hours after the collapse.During the demolition, a loud rat-a-tat of explosions echoed from the structure. Then the building began to fall, one floor after another, cascading into an explosion of dust. Plumes billowed into the air as crowds watched the scene from afar.Some residents had pleaded to return to their homes one last time before the demolition to retrieve belongings, but they were denied. Others wondered about the pets left behind. Officials said they found no signs of animals after making three final sweeps, including the use of drones to peer into the abandoned structure.Levine Cava said teams are working to save personal items and have asked residents to catalog what they’re missing to match with items as soon as they are recovered.“The world is mourning for those who lost their loved ones and for those who are waiting for news from the collapse,” she said at the news conference. “To lose your home and all your belongings in this manner is a great loss as well.”The decision to demolish the remnants of the building came after concerns mounted that the damaged structure was at risk of falling, endangering the crews below. Parts of the remaining building shifted on Thursday, prompting a 15-hour suspension in the work.___Calvan reported from Tallahassee, Florida; Associated Press writers Cody Jackson and Rebecca Santana in Surfside, Florida; Freida Frisaro in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Ian Mader in Miami; David Fischer in Miami Beach, Florida; and Sudhin Thanawala in Atlanta contributed to this report.
| 1 |
Authorities in St. Louis have executed a search warrant at the home of the couple who made national headlines when they brandished a pair of guns at Black Lives Matter protesters who were marching past their house.Two local news stations, KMOV and KSDK, reported that the warrant was carried out Friday night at Mark and Patricia McCloskey's home in St. Louis's affluent Central West End neighborhood.KSDK reported that the search resulted in police seizing the rifle that Mark McCloskey was seen holding during the incident.Protesters passed the McCloskey's home on June 28 while making their way to Mayor Lyda Krewson's (D) home to call for her resignation because of comments she made during a livestreamed briefing. Krewson lives in one of the neighborhood's gated communities.According to police filings, the McCloskeys at the time told police that they heard a commotion and saw "a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with 'No Trespassing' and 'Private Street' signs.""The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims," St. Louis police told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police."St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, the city's prosecutor, said that she would be investigating the matter. "My office is currently working with the public and the police to investigate these events," she said on June 29. "Make no mistake: We will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable."Missouri has a slew of laws that could protect the McCloskeys from criminal charges, including "stand your ground," the "castle doctrine" and open carry.No charges of any kind have been brought against the couple. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 faxThe contents of this site are © 1998 - 2022 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
| 1 |
Sign up for our daily briefingMake your busy days simpler with the Axios AM and PM newsletters. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.Catch up on the day's biggest business storiesSubscribe to the Axios Closer newsletter for insights into the day’s business news and trends and why they matter.Sign up for Axios Pro RataDive into the world of dealmakers across VC, PE and M&A with Axios Pro Rata. Delivered daily to your inbox by Dan Primack and Kia Kokalitcheva.Sports news worthy of your timeBinge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with the Axios Sports newsletter. Sign up for free.Tech news worthy of your timeGet our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.Get the inside storiesGet an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everydayCatch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everydayWant a daily digest of the top Denver news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios DenverWant a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Des Moines newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin CitiesWant a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Tampa Bay newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios CharlotteWant a daily digest of the top Nashville news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Nashville newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Columbus news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Columbus newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Dallas news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Dallas newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Austin news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Austin newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Atlanta news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Atlanta newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Philadelphia news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Philadelphia newsletter.Want a daily digest of the top Chicago news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios Chicago newsletter.Sign up for Axios NW ArkansasStay up-to-date on the most important and interesting stories affecting NW Arkansas, authored by local reportersWant a daily digest of the top DC news?Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with the Axios DC newsletter.Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos at the White House with Jill Biden in 2016. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesAmazon's worldwide consumer CEO Dave Clark has offered to help the Biden administration with its coronavirus vaccination goals by mobilizing efforts to inoculate its employees, according to a letter sent to President Biden on Wednesday.Why it matters: As demand for the coronavirus vaccine is outstripping supply, Amazon has about 800,000 employees, many of whom are essential workers. The Biden administration wants to vaccinate 100 million Americans in 100 days. Amazon also offered up any technologies, communications and personnel to the White House to help move along tracking and vaccinations. What they're saying: "Amazon stands ready to assist you in reaching your goal," the letter says. "The essential employees working at Amazon fulfillment centers, AWS data centers and Whole Foods Market stores across the country who cannot work from home should receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the earliest appropriate time. We will assist them in that effort."
| 1 |
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory delivers the State of the State address in February in Raleigh. Ted Richardson/AP hide caption toggle caption Ted Richardson/AP North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory delivers the State of the State address in February in Raleigh. Ted Richardson/AP North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law Monday a controversial measure that overhauls the state's election laws. It requires government-issued photo IDs at the polls, reduces the early voting period by one week and ends same day registration. McCrory, a Republican, called it "common sense reforms," and said it will help ensure the "integrity" of the voting process. His office announced the signing in a statement, and the governor appeared in a 95-second Youtube video. In the video, McCrory said that "photo ID has become a part of our everyday life," and reminded residents they can get a free photo ID at local Department of Motor Vehicle offices throughout the state. To make sure everyone has enough time, he added, "photo ID won't be required until the 2016 elections." Democrats and minority groups say the new law will suppress voting and it make it harder for minorities, the elderly and youth to cast ballots. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups have vowed to fight the changes. "It is a trampling on the blood, sweat and tears of the martyrs — black and white — who fought for voting rights in this country," the Rev. William Barber, president of the state chapter of the NAACP, told The Associated Press. "It puts McCrory on the wrong side of history." The chapter has filed its own legal challenge to the measure. NPR's Kathy Lohr reports McCory signed the bill into law just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act that required North Carolina and other states to get approval from the federal government to change its election laws. "The Justice Department is fighting a similar law in Texas and may file suit against this one," Kathy tells NPR's Newscast unit.
| 1 |
FUKUOKA, Japan—The Group of 20 major economies decried worsening trade tensions and their impact on global growth, with the U.S. and China locked in a protracted trade battle since negotiations fell apart a month ago.Finance ministers and central bankers fretted about the trade and geopolitical tensions and agreed to stand ready with action in case those risks intensify, according to a statement released Sunday after a weekend meeting in Japan. Their statement didn’t mention the tariffs the U.S. and China have used, though the measures and their effect weighed on the officials’ closed-door discussions. Over the weekend, the U.S. offered a prospective break in trade hostilities with China. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Saturday that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would meet at the G-20 summit in Japan at the end of this month. Separately, Mr. Trump said the U.S. struck a deal with Mexico over immigration and that he would suspend punitive tariffs there. On Sunday, Mr. Mnuchin met with China central bank chief Yi Gang, the first high-level meeting to discuss trade issues since the breakdown in talks. Mr. Mnuchin called the exchange candid and constructive. Mr. Yi, in a statement, urged G-20 countries to cooperate to resolve trade frictions, but made no mention of the meeting with Mr. Mnuchin. Those announcements and actions did little to ease the worries of the officials from most of the other G-20 countries, who expressed increasing concern that the U.S. tariffs are taking a toll on the global economy. “It is high time that we put an end to trade tensions that today are weighing on growth,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said in closing remarks to reporters Sunday. “All of our debates made clear the very big preoccupation on the risk of a trade war linked to trade tensions between the U.S. and China.” Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso called on countries to consider how their trade policies impact a wider web of trade relations, instead of targeting any one country. ”It is difficult to talk about trade unless we see it multilaterally,” he said in a press conference. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have all cut global growth forecasts and flagged weakening investment in recent months. The IMF estimates that tariffs imposed by the U.S. and China alone could reduce the size of the global economy next year by about $455 billion, or 0.5%. It expects the world economy to grow 3.6% in 2020. Tensions between the U.S. and China have ticked up since their talks foundered in early May over Trump administration accusations that Beijing was backsliding. Since then, both governments have raised tariffs on each country’s goods, the U.S. has restricted technology transfers and Beijing has warned of doing something similar. For most of the weekend in the southern city of Fukuoka, finance and central bank leaders wrangled over how to describe trade tensions for their public statement. A Japanese finance official said the countries took a long time before agreeing to describe trade tensions as having “intensified.” He said that Japan fought successfully to include a call for countries to consider services in addition to goods, a veiled message for the U.S. to focus less on its trade deficit. Agreeing on a communiqué wasn’t a given—members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization failed to issue a communiqué late last year for the first time in its nearly three-decade history. The U.S. was at odds with most countries on how tariffs have impacted global growth and how to resolve trade conflicts between countries, according to officials. In a briefing Saturday, Mr. Mnuchin echoed President Trump and denied that trade tensions were causing a global slowdown. Instead he said some countries would enjoy a “big boom,” as firms moved production out of China. U.S. officials had to check with Washington overnight Saturday on what language would be acceptable for the statement, according to a person familiar with the matter, and then discussions picked up midday Sunday. “All the other parties really wish to go back to multilateral negotiations,” instead of having to weather U.S. tariffs, the person said. “There’s this unanimous feeling that this is derailing global growth.” The final communiqué, released at the end of the two-day meeting, made vague reference to those complaints, avoiding any direct mention of “tariffs” and of the U.S. and China. “Growth remains low” and “trade and geopolitical tensions have intensified,” said the statement. “We will continue to address these risks, and stand ready to take further action.” The statement didn’t elaborate on how governments would respond if conditions get worse. IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, who attended the meeting, urged countries to eliminate tariffs and avoid new ones. “The first priority should be to resolve the current trade tensions,” she said in a statement Sunday. —Alastair Gale contributed to this article. Write to Chao Deng at [email protected] and Megumi Fujikawa at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
Republicans remain in a favorable position heading into the midterm election, but the outlook is unsettled amid unusually low voter interest, high dissatisfaction with leaders in Washington and a reordering of issues on voters’ minds, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds. Voters’ excitement about the campaign hasn’t increased as Election Day approaches, defying the trend in recent years. The share of voters who see the country on the wrong track has reached the highest level ever in a midterm-election year. And an election that once was thought to hinge on health care and other domestic issues is increasingly shadowed by international crises that weren’t on the radar just a few months ago. Pollsters for both parties who conducted the survey predict Republican gains in the House and Senate, as the poll found that likely voters prefer a GOP-controlled Congress over a Democratic one, 46% to 44%. But they also said the unusually volatile environment, combined with the large number of close races for control of the Senate and governors’ offices, raised the potential for unexpected results. “Something weird will happen on election night,” predicted Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who conducted the survey with Democrat Fred Yang. “When you are sitting on top of an unstable, ticked-off electorate, there is a joker in the deck that ought to give us a little bit of caution.” The slight preference for a GOP Congress comes amid continued low job-approval ratings for President Barack Obama, including a record-low 31% approval for his handling of foreign policy among registered voters, with 61% disapproving. But the GOP advantage is narrower than the 50%-to-43% edge the Republicans enjoyed at this point before the 2010 wave that gave them a majority in the House. The poll finds that half of all voters have negative impressions of the GOP—a level substantially higher than in September and close to the record registered during last fall’s government shutdown. One of the wild cards in the final weeks of the midterm campaign is the rise of foreign affairs as an issue on voters’ minds. The fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria ranked third among issues that voters said would be important in their vote for Congress, beyond job creation and breaking the partisan gridlock in Washington. The poll also found support rising for the use of U.S. ground forces to fight Islamic State. Some 35% in the new survey said military action against the group should be limited to air strikes, with 41% saying it should include combat troops, as well. A month earlier, some 40% called for airstrikes only, with 34% saying the U.S. should use combat troops as well as air strikes. The outbreak of Ebola also is making an impression on voters, as 98% have heard or read about the deadly virus, a record level of awareness of major news events tracked by Journal/NBC polling. The poll of 1,000 voters was taken Oct. 8-12, including the period when news was just emerging that a Dallas nurse had contracted Ebola. The emergence of ISIS and Ebola as attention-grabbing issues underscores the uncertainty surrounding which factors will shape the final three weeks of the campaign. “With all that is happening internationally, there can easily be an event that will redefine or define this election,” Mr. Yang said. ”This is a cake that’s not quite baked yet.” Another wild card, and a symptom of voter discontent, is the growing appeal of third-party candidates. The poll found that voters are more likely than four years ago to say they would vote for Libertarian and Green party candidates if given a chance, with Libertarians drawing support from 9% of likely voters. The poll indicated that the presence of third-party candidates was a greater drag on the GOP than on Democratic prospects. The poll comes as many Republicans are bullish about the prospects of gaining the net of six seats they need for a majority in the Senate, and of expanding their majority in the House. Fifty-two percent of Republicans said they were more enthusiastic about this election than past ones, compared with 40% of Democrats. “I think that it’s very crucial this year that the conservative element takes back the Senate,” said Sam Hunter, a 68-year-old veterinarian from Sikeston, Mo. “We really do have a chance to move forward with a conservative agenda.” But asked to rate their interest in the midterms on a scale of 1-to-10, only half rated their interest level as 9 or 10—about the same as in a June poll. In 2010, those showing a high level of interest rose sharply from 51% in June to 61% in October. That is just one indicator of voter disillusionment. Approval of Congress matched its record low of 12%. One in eight said they would vote for a third-party candidate if they had a chance.Amid Mr. Obama’s low approval ratings, one-third of registered voters said their vote for Congress was intended to send a signal of opposition to the president. One-quarter said it was to send a signal of support to Mr. Obama. Several voters said they were unlikely to cast ballots this year. “I am not interested anymore,” said Angela Teague, a Republican in San Diego. “I’ve always voted since I turned 18, but now I don’t think our votes count. I will still stay with my Republican Party, but they haven’t been doing much, either, just fighting.” Ashley Jones, a nurse in Blytheville, Ark., also says she won’t vote, even though her state is hosting one of the year’s most competitive Senate races. “Politics are politics,’’ said Ms. Jones. ”Everyone just puts on a face, and everyone is telling a lie." Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko waves while getting a standing ovation after delivering remarks to a joint meeting of Congress on Sept. 18. European Pressphoto Agency The Washington establishment of both parties came in for scorn. Asked who is most responsible for Congress’s ineffectiveness, 26% named Republican House Speaker John Boehner, while 21% named Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with about the same share citing his fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader. Some 30% of registered voters said their representative deserves to be re-elected, while 57% said it was time to give a new person a chance. But half of voters said their own representative was “part of the solution” to problems facing the country, while one-third said they were “part of the problem.” That underscores the phenomenon of voters often disparaging Congress but liking their own representatives, and it suggests the 2014 election could produce less change than the anti-incumbent sentiment would indicate. “They have told us they would lash out against the system, but it sure looks like more of the same,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who worked on the survey. “The voters roar like lions, but they vote like lambs.” WSJ/NBC News Poll Methodology The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll was based on nationwide telephone interviews of 1,000 registered voters, including 350 respondents who use only a cellphone. It was conducted from Oct. 8-12, 2014, by the polling organizations of Bill McInturff at Public Opinion Strategies and Fred Yang at Hart Research Associates. The sample was drawn in the following manner: Individuals were selected proportionate to the nation’s population in accordance with a probability sample design that gives all landline telephone numbers, listed and unlisted, an equal chance to be included. Adults age 18 or over were selected by a systematic procedure to provide a balance of respondents by sex. The cellphone sample was drawn from a list of cellphone users nationally. Of those interviewed, 350 respondents were reached on a cellphone and screened to ensure their cellphone was the only phone they had. In addition, 41 respondents were reached on a cellphone but reported also having a landline. The data’s margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for registered voters and 3.8 percentage points for likely voters. Sample tolerances for subgroups are larger. —Reid J. Epstein contributed to this article. Write to Janet Hook at [email protected] Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
| 1 |
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! It was a leak clearly designed to make William Barr's day on Capitol Hill far more unpleasant.The source or sources who showed The Washington Post a letter of complaint that Bob Mueller had written Barr created a media explosion that reverberated all day yesterday, when the attorney general had been slated to testify before a Senate committee. Even before he took the hot seat, some Democrats were calling on Barr to resign — which has virtually no chance of happening.Once the Judiciary Committee hearing got underway, it was so utterly partisan that it seemed Republicans and Democrats were operating in parallel universes — and that tended to muffle the uproar over the once-secret Mueller letter.Still, the letter hurts Barr's reputation, no question about it. The missive provides ammunition to the AG's critics, who say he acted like a Trump partisan in spinning and perhaps minimizing the Mueller report's findings.But let's face it: the special counsel's letter would have been far more damaging had it emerged before the report was made public, when the debate over Barr's conduct was at its peak. Now that we've all had the 448-page report for a couple of weeks, this has the feel of relitigating a process question that's been overtaken by events."The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president," the Post says.The paper quotes the Mueller note as dissing Barr's famous four-page summary before the report was out:"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."Mueller asked that his own executive summaries be quickly released, but Barr declined.BARR ACCUSES DEMS OF USING CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AS 'POLITICAL WEAPON' AS HEARING TENSIONS FLAREOne reason the leaked letter landed with considerable force is that we never hear Mueller express opinions in his own voice, rather than in legal filings or the rare statements from his office. He is the offstage presence, the opposite of a grandstander, even with the report having been made published. The public will finally hear Mueller speak in House testimony this month, according to an agreement announced yesterday.But clearly one of his allies — whether it was with Mueller's acquiescence or not, we don't know — wanted to turn up the heat before Barr's testimony.The GOP side, led by Lindsey Graham, mainly wanted to talk about Hillary Clinton's emails and Trump-sliming emails from the FBI's Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (complete with an F-word that the senator read on live television). The Democratic side, led by Dianne Feinstein, read damaging passages from the report and pressed Barr about his disagreements with Mueller and why he didn't see many of the findings as obstruction of justice.What was most noteworthy was Barr admitting he was surprised when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction allegations and saying he could not get a clear explanation while meeting with him. The implication was that Mueller, given his independence, should have made the call, and instead made the report what Barr called "my baby."The attorney general insisted that Mueller "was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report." In a shot at the media, Barr said Mueller told him that "the press reporting had been inaccurate and that the press was reading too much into it."Oddly enough, Barr also said Mueller declined his offer to review the four-page summary in advance.Feinstein pressed the AG about the finding that Trump told his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Mueller fired, and that McGahn refused and threatened to resign.This was not an attempt to obstruct the probe, Barr said, because "there is a distinction between saying to someone, 'Go fire him, go fire Mueller,' and saying, 'Have him removed based on conflict.'" But there was no obstruction, Barr said, because "presumably" someone else would have been named to replace Mueller. (McGahn regarded the conflict questions as "silly.")CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPThings turned absurdly partisan when Sen. Mazie Hirono demanded that Barr resign, saying he had sacrificed his "once-decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office." Graham shot back, "Listen, you slandered this man!" And the three presidential candidates on the panel — Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker — all got their licks in. Harris, Booker and former Vice President Joe Biden also demanded the AG's resignation.In the end, the spat between Barr and Mueller will be a historical footnote. But it provides more fodder for the Democrats and Trump's media critics to try to keep the investigation alive.
| 1 |
In mid-March, as San Francisco mayor London Breed issued a citywide stay-at-home order, Peggy Cmiel started getting prepared. Cmiel is the director of clinical operations at the San Francisco Center for Jewish Living, or SFCJL, a 9-acre senior housing complex in the Excelsior neighborhood that includes long-term care facilities, short-term rehab housing, and a memory care wing. The campus houses over 300 elderly residents, members of one of the populations most vulnerable to the deadly and highly infectious coronavirus that has spread across the globe.Here's all the WIRED coverage in one place, from how to keep your children entertained to how this outbreak is affecting the economy. Cmiel’s staff stocked up on personal protective equipment and masks for workers and residents; screened everyone who walked in the door for symptoms; hired more staff to clean bathrooms and common areas; and started educating everyone on best practices for containing the virus, like washing hands, avoiding close contact, and keeping an eye out for symptoms like fevers or coughs. And while nursing homes account for nearly half of California’s coronavirus fatalities, at the SFCJL not a single resident has tested positive for the virus. “Getting an early start was really the most helpful thing we did,” says Cmiel. “The doorknobs in this facility have never been more clean before.”Not every home was so lucky and so well prepared. Nursing homes across the US have been devastated by Covid-19. In many states including Colorado, Massachusetts, and Virginia, nursing home resident deaths account for 50 percent or more of coronavirus deaths. But the success of a handful of homes, like SFCJL, might offer their colleagues some clues about how to keep residents safe as the nation braces for a potential second wave of infections.Geriatricians and nursing home operators understand why these spaces are so vulnerable. Long-term care facilities are, in many ways, perfect virus incubators. Residents, who are older, frail, and often have comorbidities like heart disease or diabetes, are more susceptible to severe Covid-19 infections. Many need help performing basic tasks like eating, dressing, or bathing—care that can’t be delivered through a video appointment, making it more likely they could get an infection from the aides who help them, or pass the virus along to their caretakers. Those aides may work at several different facilities, and unknowingly carry it from one home to another.The layout of these facilities also furthers contact in various areas. Most residents share bedrooms, bathrooms, activity rooms, and dining rooms—and staffers share a break room. Those group spaces are designed partly to cut costs, and also to encourage socializing. But shared spaces have also helped spread the virus. Senior facilities do have protocols to handle outbreaks like the flu, but the pandemic arrived so quickly and the SARS-CoV-2 virus is so contagious that many facilities were caught unprepared. “There’s an extent to which this virus just had the upper hand,” says Anna Chodos, a geriatrician at the UCSF. Unlike hospitals, most nursing homes aren't ordinarily well stocked with gear like masks and gowns, which aren’t necessary when containing the flu.Now, as states slowly start to reopen, senior care facilities are facing a more complicated endeavor: figuring out how to keep residents safe and maintain their quality of life as the Covid-19 pandemic stretches on. Even for facilities like SFCJL, the path forward is far from clear. “How do we safely and slowly introduce visitation and group activities? It’s going to be very careful and very cautious,” says Cmiel. “It will just be very scary to start bringing people back into the community again.”Unlike hospitals, most nursing home residents live in these facilities permanently, so staff have to create environments that are comfortable for people’s long-term emotional, social, and physical well-being. But the novel coronavirus has put those important psychological services on hold. “The way of life inside nursing homes is so disrupted,” says Kathleen Unroe, an assistant professor of geriatrics at the University of Indiana. “This is where people live. These are social places.”Or at least they used to be. Many facilities currently are restricting movement as much as possible, keeping people in their rooms and out of shared spaces. Unroe consults for several nursing facilities, and says that at one of them, family members haven’t been allowed to visit for two months. “I have these family members who say to me, ‘I have never been away from my 95-year-old mother for this long in my life,’” she adds. “It’s profound.”Unroe also points out that at some facilities, even people who have recovered from Covid-19 can’t always go back to their own rooms. If they continue to shed virus and test positive for weeks after their symptoms have resolved, they have to stay in isolation, which can be scary and upsetting. Some don’t understand why they can’t go back to their usual rooms; “others just feel abandoned and are just confused or mad.”Early BirdsSo what helped the SFCJL fare better than many of its counterparts? It’s likely a combination of early action and luck. The facility was one of the first in California to start screening visitors before they entered the premises. They stocked up on protective equipment and were ready to hand out masks to every single resident and staff member. Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, another long-term care facility in San Francisco that quarantined early, has over 700 beds and has had similar success—reporting only 29 cases among residents and staff. “San Francisco acted really early, so I don’t think it’s by chance,” says Troy Williams, the chief quality officer at Zuckerberg SF General Hospital and Trauma Center, who has been in charge of Laguna Honda's response to the pandemic.UCSF’s Chodos agrees that Laguna Honda’s early moves to lock down the facility and isolate infected residents were integral in abating the outbreak. “They crushed it like a bug,” she says. But she says facilities in San Francisco also got lucky: “Got lucky in that we had great leadership. Got lucky in that we had less virus.” San Francisco issued stay-at-home orders early compared with the rest of the nation, and has seen relatively low infection rates. With less viral spread in the community, it’s less likely that staff would accidentally introduce it into the facility.Another factor is likely that both Laguna Honda and SFCJL participated in San Francisco’s universal testing program, mandated by the mayor and spearheaded by the city’s Department of Public Health. Both facilities will continue to test all staff and residents every few weeks, testing more often if they start to see more positive results. (Staff go home every night, and each day teams of physical and respiratory therapists, aides, nurses, and other staff reenter these complexes, potentially bringing new infections with them.) “We have to keep our pedal to the metal,” Williams says, “because it could change.”They are also working on other strategies to reduce risk. For example, SFCJL has opened a new wing that accepts patients from local hospitals who are recovering from Covid-19, and who need short-term rehab care before they can go home again. That unit has an entirely separate medical, nursing, and cleaning staff. Patients use a different entrance, and staffers clean the elevator immediately after they are taken to their rooms.For all seniors in nursing homes, whether or not there is a viral outbreak, staying in bed without any physical contact with loved ones is bad for mental and physical health. Normally, facilities have lots of activities and visitors; volunteers play music, bring therapy dogs, or play card games with residents. To adapt during the pandemic, both Laguna Honda and SFCJL staff bought iPads so residents can video call their families. Laguna Honda is now starting to run a few socially distanced activities like bingo games and art classes where participants can be six feet apart and wear masks.Chodos says these measures can help stem the spread of the virus from asymptomatic carriers. With a virus this infectious, she adds, “no precaution is superfluous in any circumstance.”But those precautions are only helpful to a point, according to Unroe. “These outbreaks are continuing and they’re going to continue in nursing homes,” she says. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about how and why the virus has spread so quickly in some homes, but not in others. Based on early data, she says: “It’s about the size of the facility and the amount of spread in your community.”Nevertheless, Unroe warns that while researchers are working furiously to figure out solutions, they still don’t have all the answers: “It's a turbulent time and we're trying to make clinical and operational decisions with incomplete information.”As San Francisco starts to reopen, SFCJL’s Cmiel is nervous. “This scares me to death,” she says. “I actually think we need to tighten up now that the city is reopening.” If community transmission of the virus starts to increase in the city, nursing home residents will be at an even greater risk. But how long can people go without seeing their loved ones, or getting exercise or intellectual stimulation? “It’s this constant balance,” adds Cmiel, “between the safety and health of our residents and the needs of the families.”Read all of our coronavirus coverage here.A much more far-reaching approach to keep older people safe from Covid-19 would be to care for them in their homes, keeping them out of long-term residential settings. Two initiatives in California, Community-Based Adult Services and Multipurpose Senior Services Program (CBAS and MSSP, respectively), serve thousands of low-income seniors—the majority of whom are people of color. The programs provide essential services like at-home nursing care, physical and emotional therapy, meals, and transportation that are on-par with the support received by residents in senior homes.Out of the nearly 10,000 seniors served by MSSP, only three have died of Covid-19 so far, says Claire Ramsey, a senior staff attorney at Justice in Aging, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income seniors. “This is a way safer way to provide care,” she comments. Chodos notes that seniors who receive care in their homes also have lower rates of depression, and experience slower cognitive and physical decline. And home care is also usually what seniors would prefer, says Unroe: “People should be cared for where they want to be cared for. Almost anyone would say that is in their homes.”Advocates say that nursing homes are necessary, but they shouldn’t be the default care solution for seniors who need some assistance. “There should be a continuum of care, and institutional care should really be reserved for people who need it, who can’t be successful and safe in their own homes,” says Ramsey.But the economic effects of Covid-19 are forcing states to cut budgets; both California and New York have proposed cuts to programs that provide low-income seniors with at-home help that keeps them out of institutions. In the Golden State, Governor Gavin Newsom’s revised budget will eliminate both CBAS and MSSP and reduce the hours of in-home care MediCal funds by 7 percent. New York state already has decided to limit eligibility to the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, which pays for home nursing aides for disabled or chronically ill New Yorkers. Ramsey says that without these programs, many seniors will have no choice but to move into long-term care facilities. “You are literally going to have more people die if you do this,” she adds.Another worry is that even if seniors aren’t forced into high-risk living situations, other cuts could jeopardize their overall health. California’s proposed budget would also cut eligibility for MediCal and eliminate optional MediCal benefits like podiatry, physical therapy, and diabetes prevention programs. Those benefits are important for keeping people healthy and alive, regardless of the threat from the novel coronavirus. “One of the things we’re very worried about is how bad these are cumulatively for people,” says Ramsey. “It’s really death by 1,000 cuts.”More From WIRED on Covid-19“You’re Not Alone”: How one nurse is confronting the pandemicI enrolled in a coronavirus contact tracing academyHow much is a human life actually worth?What’s the strange ailment affecting kids with Covid-19?FAQs and your guide to all things Covid-19Read all of our coronavirus coverage here
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday blasted drugmakers and healthcare “middlemen” for making prescription medicines unaffordable for Americans, but healthcare stocks rose as his administration avoided aggressive direct measures to cut prices.Trump made the remarks at the White House Rose Garden in a speech to introduce what he called “the most sweeping action in history” to lower drug prices. The effort comes as a growing number of Americans struggle with the cost of their medications, and cite healthcare concerns as a top priority for Washington ahead of congressional elections in November.Trump said his administration would take aim at the “middlemen” in the drug industry who became “very, very rich,” an apparent reference to health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). He also said the pharmaceutical industry is making an “absolute fortune” at the expense of American taxpayers.“Everyone involved in the broken system - the drugmakers, insurance companies, distributors, pharmacy benefit managers, and many others - contribute to the problem,” Trump said.Trump campaigned on lowering prescription drug prices ahead of the 2016 presidential election, even accusing drugmakers of “getting away with murder.” Healthcare investors had braced for months for more direct attempts to regulate U.S. prices that would cut into industry profits.But Trump has since abandoned ideas to lower drug costs he supported during the campaign, including allowing the government’s Medicare plan for older Americans to negotiate prices directly with drugmakers, and enabling U.S. consumers to import lower-cost medicines from other countries.On Friday, Trump’s senior health officials outlined more modest policy proposals to introduce more competition among drugmakers and pass on savings to consumers.Critics said the policies pointed to the influence the pharmaceutical industry wields with the administration.“I think very expensive champagne will be popping in drug company boardrooms across the country tonight,” said Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings.Senator Ron Wyden, also a Democrat, said the proposals “amount to asking drug companies nicely to lower their prices with zero accountability.”Shares of major drugmakers, insurers and PBMs rose after the speech. The S&P 500 healthcare index .SPXHC, a broad gauge of large healthcare stocks, closed up 1.5 percent, its biggest single-day percentage gain in a month. “The plan was a lot less aggressive than investors expected,” wrote Alex Arfaei, analyst at BMO Capital Markets.‘AMERICAN PATIENTS FIRST’Trump also placed blame on foreign governments, saying they “extort unreasonably low prices” from U.S. drugmakers, forcing companies to charge more in this country.“America will not be cheated any longer, and especially will not be cheated by foreign countries,” he said, adding that he has instructed the U.S. Trade Representative to make the issue a top priority with trading partners.As the speech was underway, the Department of Health and Human Services released what it called a blueprint titled “American Patients First” with details of its plan.It said near-term actions would include giving commercial plans that administer Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits for seniors more power to negotiate prices with drugmakers. Federal health plans would also test ways to pay for drugs based on their effectiveness.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration would evaluate requiring drugmakers to include the list prices they set on medicines in their advertising. Drugmakers argue that list prices do not reflect actual cost after discounts and rebates.Some of the administration’s longer-term priorities include restricting use of rebates, creating incentives for drugmakers to lower list prices, and investigating tools to address foreign government practices that it said could be harming innovation and driving up U.S. prices.“There’s not a big proposal here that is going to make a huge difference. There are a bunch of smaller technical changes,” said Sam Richardson, Associate Professor of Economics at Boston College.Regarding forcing other countries to pay more for drugs, Richardson said: “We don’t really have the policy levers to get that to happen.”Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former pharmaceutical company executive, said many of the actions the government was considering would not require approval by Congress and could take place through executive action within months. He said it would take years to restructure the U.S. drug system.Trump also blasted the pharmaceutical and insurance industries for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying to “protect the status quo.”His remarks follow a renewed focus on the influence of the drugmaker lobby, which spends the most of any lobbying group in Washington.Earlier this week, Swiss drugmaker Novartis NOVN.S admitted it paid $1.2 million to a consulting firm created by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Reporting by Yasmeen Abutaleb in Washington, additional reporting by Caroline Humer, Lewis Krauskopf and Michael Erman in New York; editing by Michele Gershberg and Bill Berkrotfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned a conservative commentator and said he was considering pardoning lifestyle maven Martha Stewart and commuting a former Illinois governor’s prison sentence, prompting critics to accuse him of subverting the rule of law.Trump announced on Twitter his decision to pardon pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who pleaded guilty in 2014 to U.S. campaign finance law violations and was an outspoken critic of Democratic former President Barack Obama, saying he had been “treated very unfairly by our government!”The Republican president then told reporters on a flight to Houston he was also considering a pardon for Stewart, who was convicted in 2004 on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements in an insider-trading probe.James Comey, whom Trump fired as FBI director last year and has repeatedly assailed, was the lead federal prosecutor in Stewart’s case and played a role in the prosecution of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney. Trump pardoned Libby in April.Trump also said he might commute the 14-year prison sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat convicted of corruption charges, and was considering pardoning a woman convicted of a drug-related charge after reality TV star Kim Kardashian discussed the case with him on Wednesday.White House spokesman Hogan Gidley, briefing reporters on Air Force One as Trump later flew to Dallas for Republican fundraising events, denied that celebrity was a consideration in whom the president decides to pardon.“Look, there are plenty of people the president is looking at right now under the pardon process,” he said.The U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to issue pardons, and Trump sometimes has used that authority to benefit convicted figures revered by some on the political right such as former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and Libby.After D’Souza’s pardon, some constitutional scholars, legal analysts and Democratic lawmakers accused Trump of undermining the rule of law with pardons based on political considerations.‘SENDING A MESSAGE’Critics said the president was sending a message to people caught up in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia, including his longtime private lawyer Michael Cohen, whose business dealings are separately under scrutiny in New York.“Trump’s Dinesh D’Souza pardon today, on top of his pardons of Scooter Libby and Joe Arpaio, make sense only as an elephant-whistle to Michael Cohen & all who know damning things about Trump: protect me & I’ll have your back. Turn on me & your goose is cooked. More obstruction!” Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter.“As with the pardon of Joe Arpaio, Trump is sending a message that he will reward political allies for loyalty with get-out-of-jail-free cards,” Democratic U.S. Representative Don Beyer said on Twitter. “He doesn’t care about the rule of law.”Trump denies any collusion with Russia and has called Mueller’s probe a “witch hunt.”D’Souza, 53, admitted in 2014 he illegally reimbursed two “straw donors” who donated $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the 1980s.He was sentenced to five years of probation after telling the judge he was ashamed of his actions and contrite. “I cannot believe how stupid I was, how careless, and how irresponsible,” D’Souza wrote in a statement to the judge.Some conservatives complained of selective prosecution of D’Souza. The prosecutor, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, was an Obama appointee later fired by Trump.On Thursday, D’Souza thanked Trump in Twitter posts that also slammed Bharara. “KARMA IS A BITCH DEPT: @PreetBharara wanted to destroy a fellow Indian American to advance his career. Then he got fired & I got pardoned,” D’Souza wrote.Bharara earlier said on Twitter: “The President has the right to pardon but the facts are these: D’Souza intentionally broke the law, voluntarily pled guilty, apologized for his conduct & the judge found no unfairness. The career prosecutors and agents did their job.”Stewart and Blagojevich both were involved with Trump’s “Apprentice” reality TV television show.Blagojevich was convicted of corruption offenses including soliciting bribes for appointment to the U.S. Senate seat Obama vacated after being elected president in 2008.Last August, Trump pardoned Arpaio less than a month after his conviction for criminal contempt in a case involving racial profiling of Hispanics. Arpaio was known for his crackdown on illegal immigrants in Arizona’s Maricopa County.Libby was convicted in 2007 of lying in an investigation into the unmasking of a CIA agent.Trump last week posthumously pardoned boxer Jack Johnson, the first black world heavyweight champion, who was jailed a century ago because of his relationship with a white woman.Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Steve Holland; Additional reporting by Makini Brice; Editing by Will Dunham and Peter Cooneyfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up
| 1 |
Several past residents of the White House came together to honor former first lady Barbara Bush on Saturday, and gathered for a photo shared by the office of former President George H.W. Bush on Sunday.1 of 2: Final photos from the funeral of former First Lady Barbara P. Bush. (Credit: @PaulMorsePhoto - Office of George H. W. Bush) pic.twitter.com/r9ElE3Av56— Jim McGrath (@jgm41) April 22, 2018Former Presidents Obama and Clinton attended the service in Houston with former first ladies Michelle ObamaMichelle LeVaughn Robinson ObamaObama Presidential Center to feature Obergefell marriage certificate, Sesame Street puppets Parties split on Trump, Biden bids in 2024: poll The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - More blue states let mask mandates expire MORE and Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonRight wing criticizes media for lack of coverage on Durham probe Liberal activists need to level with their base Document dump turns toxic for Trump MORE. They joined members of the Bush family, including former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush.Noticeably absent from the group was President TrumpDonald TrumpHillicon Valley — Cyberattack hits Ukrainian defense On The Money — GOP senators block Biden's Fed picks Florida county clerk's typo directed ticketed drivers to site selling Trump merchandise MORE, who said Saturday that he would watch the funeral services from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla.ADVERTISEMENT It’s not uncommon for sitting presidents not to attend the funerals of former first ladies.The White House said the president would skip the funeral "to avoid disruptions due to added security, and out of respect for the Bush Family and friends attending the service."Melania TrumpMelania TrumpTrump used Secret Service agent's phone to call Melania Trump after Stormy Daniels report: CNN Melania Trump's 'high teas' under investigation in Florida Hillicon Valley — FCC nominee faces divided Senate panel MORE brought two White House staff members who were close to the Bush family as her guests to the funeral.Trump was accompanied by former White House head maitre d' George Hainey and current White House usher Buddy CarterEarl (Buddy) Leroy CarterTrump endorses Hershel Walker for Georgia Senate seat Herschel Walker's entrance shakes up Georgia Senate race Herschel Walker files paperwork to run for Senate in Georgia MORE, the first lady’s office said.Barbara Bush died Tuesday night at age 92.
| 1 |
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israel slammed the Gaza Strip with airstrikes, in a dramatic escalation that included bombing the home of a senior Hamas leader, killing a family of 10 in a refugee camp — most of them children — and pulverizing a high-rise that housed The Associated Press and other media.The Hamas militant group continued a stream of rocket volleys into Israel, including a late-night barrage on Tel Aviv. One man was killed Saturday when a rocket hit his home in a suburb of the seaside metropolis.With a U.S. envoy on the ground, calls increased for a cease-fire after five days of mayhem that have left at least 145 Palestinians dead in Gaza — including 41 children and 23 women — and eight dead on the Israeli side, all but one of them civilians, including a 5-year-old. President Joe Biden, who has called for a de-escalation but has backed Israel’s campaign, spoke separately by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.Still, Israel stepped up its assault, vowing to shatter the capabilities of Gaza’s Hamas rulers. The week of deadly violence, set off by a Hamas rocket Monday, came after weeks of mounting tensions and heavy-handed Israeli measures in contested Jerusalem.Early Sunday, Israeli warplanes struck several buildings and roads in a vital part of Gaza City. Photos circulated by residents and journalists showed the airstrikes created a crater that blocked one of the main roads leading to Shifa, the largest hospital in the strip. The Health Ministry said the latest airstrikes left at least two dead and 25 wounded, including children and women. There has been no immediate comment from the Israeli military.On Saturday, Israel bombed the home of Khalil al-Hayeh, a senior figure in Hamas’ political branch, saying the building served as part of the group’s “terrorist infrastructure.” There was no immediate report on al-Hayeh’s fate or on any casualties.The bombing of al-Hayeh’s home showed Israel was expanding its campaign beyond just the group’s military commanders. Israel says it has killed dozens in Hamas’ military branch, though Hamas and the smaller group Islamic Jihad have only acknowledged 20 dead members. Since the conflict began, Israel has leveled a number of Gaza City’s tallest office and residential buildings, alleging they house elements of the Hamas military infrastructure. On Saturday, it turned to the 12-story al-Jalaa Building, where the offices of the AP, the TV network Al-Jazeera and other media outlets are located, along with several floors of apartments.“The campaign will continue as long as it is required,” Netanyahu said in a televised speech on Saturday evening. He alleged that Hamas military intelligence was operating inside the building. Israel routinely cites a Hamas presence as a reason for targeting certain locations in airstrikes, including residential buildings. The military also has accused the militant group of using journalists as human shields, but provided no evidence to back up the claims.The AP has operated from the building for 15 years, including through three previous wars between Israel and Hamas, without being targeted directly. During those conflicts as well as the current one, the news agency’s cameras from its top floor office and roof terrace offered 24-hour live shots as militants’ rockets arched toward Israel and Israeli airstrikes hammered the city and its surroundings.“We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building,” AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a statement. “This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We would never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”In the afternoon, the military called the building’s owner and warned a strike would come within an hour. AP staffers and other occupants evacuated safely . Soon after, three missiles hit the building and destroyed it, bringing it crashing down in a giant cloud of dust. “The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today,” Pruitt said. “We are shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza.”“This is an incredibly disturbing development. We narrowly avoided a terrible loss of life,” he said, adding that the AP was seeking information from the Israeli government and was engaged with the U.S. State Department to learn more. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken later spoke by phone with Pruitt, offering “his unwavering support for independent journalists and media organizations around the world and noted the indispensability of their reporting in conflict zones,” according to a statement.Mostefa Souag, acting director-general of Al-Jazeera Media Network, called the strike a “war crime” aiming to “silence the media and to hide the untold carnage and suffering of the people of Gaza.” Later in the day, White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted that the U.S. had “communicated directly to the Israelis that ensuring the safety and security of journalists and independent media is a paramount responsibility.”In the early hours Saturday, another airstrike hit an apartment building in Gaza City’s densely populated Shati refugee camp, killing two women and eight children.Mohammed Hadidi told reporters that his wife and her brother’s wife had gathered at the house with their children to celebrate the Eid al-Fitr holiday ending the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The only survivor was Hadidi’s 5-month-old son, Omar. The blast left the children’s bedroom covered in rubble and smashed the salon. Amid the wreckage were children’s toys, a Monopoly board game and, sitting on the kitchen counter, unfinished plates of food from the holiday gathering. “There was no warning ... You filmed people eating and then you bombed them?” a neighbor, Jamal Al-Naji, said, referring to Israel’s surveillance over the Gaza Strip.The Israeli military did not immediately respond to a request for comment.In his call with Netanyahu, Biden expressed his “strong support” for Israel’s campaign but raised concern about civilian casualties and protection of journalists, the White House said.U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin tweeted Saturday that he had spoken again with Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz and reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and condemned “Hamas’ deliberate targeting of Israeli citizens.” Austin added: “I also expressed my hope that calm can be restored soon.”The bombings took place a day after U.S. diplomat Hady Amr arrived in Israel as part of Washington’s efforts to de-escalate the conflict. Israel turned down an Egyptian proposal for a one-year truce that Hamas rulers had accepted, an Egyptian intelligence official said Friday on condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.Mediators from Egypt, which works closely with Israel on security issues and shares a border with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, appeared to be growing alarmed. The intelligence official said Egypt hopes the U.S. intervention could halt the Israeli assault. The U.N. Security Council was set to meet Sunday.The tensions began in east Jerusalem earlier this month, when Palestinians protested attempts by settlers to forcibly evict a number of Palestinian families from their homes and Israeli police measures at Al-Aqsa Mosque, a frequent flashpoint located on a mount in the Old City revered by Muslims and Jews.Hamas fired rockets toward Jerusalem late Monday, triggering the Israeli assault on Gaza. Since then, Hamas has fired more than 2,000 rockets, though most have either fallen short or been intercepted by anti-missile defenses. Israel’s warplanes and artillery have struck hundreds of targets around blockaded Gaza, where some 2 million Palestinians live. The turmoil has also spilled over elsewhere, fueling protests in the occupied West Bank and stoking violence within Israel between its Jewish and Arab citizens, with clashes and vigilante attacks on people and property. Palestinians on Saturday marked the Day of al-Nakba, or “the Catastrophe,” commemorating the estimated 700,000 people who were expelled from or fled their homes in what was now Israel during the 1948 war surrounding its creation. Thousands of Arab Israelis marched in a Nakba rally in the northern Israeli city of Sukhnin, and scattered protests took place in the West Bank. Palestinian health officials reported the deaths of two Palestinians by Israeli fire in the West Bank on Saturday. One of the shootings occurred when the army said it thwarted an alleged car ramming.___Keath reported from Cairo. Associated Press writers Bassem Mroue in Beirut and Samy Magdy in Cairo contributed to this report.
| 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.