prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to "assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to     outdoor recreation resources " Two main goals of the law were to facilitate participation in recreation and "to strengthen the health and vitality" of U S  citizens  To accomplish these goals, purposes of the law included "providing funds" for federal land acquisition and for federal assistance to states generally related to outdoor recreation  The fund is authorized to receive $900 million in revenues annually under the LWCF Act  Each year the fund accrues revenues at this level  The fund accumulates the majority of its revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)  It also accumulates revenues from the federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales  However, revenues that accrue under the LWCF Act are available only if appropriated by Congress through the discretionary appropriations process  The LWCF receives additional revenue (beyond the $900 million) from OCS leasing under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA)  Unlike revenues under the LWCF Act, GOMESA revenues are mandatory appropriations (and thus are not subject to annual appropriation by Congress)  They can be used only for grants to states for outdoor recreation purposes  The overall level of annual appropriations (discretionary and mandatory combined) has varied widely since the fund's origin in FY1965  Of the total revenues that have accrued throughout the program's history ($40 9 billion), less than half have been appropriated ($18 9 billion) through FY2019  Thus, the unappropriated balance in the fund is estimated at $22 0 billion through FY2019  The LWCF Act outlines uses of the fund for federal and state purposes  It states that of the total made available to the fund, not less than 40% is to be used for "federal purposes" and not less than 40% is to be used to provide "financial assistance to states " The act lists the federal purposes for which the President is to allot LWCF funds "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available " These purposes primarily relate to the acquisition of lands and waters (and interests therein) by the federal government  With regard to state purposes, the act authorizes a matching grant program to states for outdoor recreation purposes  In practice, over the history of the LWCF, appropriations acts have provided funding for three general purposes  First, for each year since FY1965, appropriations for land acquisition have been provided to some or all of the major federal land management agencies—the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS)  Second, for nearly every year since FY1965, appropriations have funded the outdoor recreation matching grant program, to assist states in recreational planning, acquiring recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor recreational facilities  Third, beginning in FY1998, appropriations from the LWCF have been provided each year, except FY1999, to fund other federal programs with related natural resource purposes  Hereinafter, the third type of appropriations is referred to as funding other purposes   The $18 9 billion appropriated from the fund through FY2019 has been allocated in different proportions among federal land acquisition, the state grant program, and other purposes  The largest portion of the total—$11 4 billion—has been appropriated for federal land acquisition  The state grant program has received the second-largest portion, $4 8 billion  Other purposes have received the remaining $2 7 billion  Appendix A shows the total LWCF appropriation for other purposes  Congress continues to consider the extent to which the LWCF should fund purposes other than federal land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states  Some traditional LWCF advocates and beneficiaries have expressed concern about expanding the use of the funds, particularly if such expansion results in lower appropriations for land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states  Some Members of Congress, Presidents, and stakeholders have supported funding other purposes in order to draw on the balance in the fund for policy priorities, to shift the focus of the fund from land acquisition, or to achieve other goals  A number of measures introduced in recent Congresses sought to authorize funding from the LWCF for various other purposes  These measures were not enacted  They included proposals to specify an amount or percentage of funding for two programs that are currently funded by the LWCF—the Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation grants—although the LWCF Act does not specifically authorize this funding  Other proposals sought to authorize programs or activities that have not been funded by LWCF in the past, or that have been rarely funded by LWCF in the past  For instance, one 115 th Congress bill would have authorized LWCF funding for certain programs and activities of the major land management agencies, including deferred maintenance, critical infrastructure, visitor services, and clean-up efforts; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program; and certain offshore energy exploration, innovation, and education activities  As another example, one 115 th Congress bill proposed to authorize LWCF funding for financial assistance from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for park and recreation infrastructure projects  The balance of this report discusses the other purposes for which LWCF appropriations have been provided throughout the fund's history  It identifies the amount of funding contained in annual appropriations laws for other purposes and the types of purposes for which funds have been appropriated  A total of $72 0 million was appropriated from the LWCF for other purposes in FY1998, the first year in which LWCF was used to fund other purposes  The total included $60 0 million for maintenance needs of the four land management agencies and $12 0 million for rehabilitation and maintenance of the Beartooth Highway (in Wyoming and Montana)  In FY1998, total LWCF appropriations had spiked to approximately $969 million from the FY1997 level of about $159 million  Both the dollar amounts and the percentages of annual LWCF appropriations for other purposes have varied widely since FY1998  (See Appendix B  ) Over the most recent 10 years, LWCF appropriations for other purposes fluctuated, declining overall from $132 5 million in FY2010 to $93 3 million in FY2019 (in current dollars)  However, the FY2019 level was the highest appropriation since FY2010  Beginning in FY2011, appropriations for other purposes in each year have been less than $100 million, as was the case for FY1998-FY2000  Appropriations for other purposes were at their lowest dollar amount in FY1999, when no funds for other purposes were appropriated  The next-lowest dollar value was provided for FY2000, when a total of $20 0 million was appropriated for three purposes: Elwha River Ecosystem restoration (in Washington), deferred maintenance of the NPS, and the FS Forest Legacy program  By contrast, from FY2001 to FY2010, appropriations for other purposes exceeded $100 million in each year  In fact, during four of these years (FY2004-FY2007), the annual appropriation was between $200 million and $225 million  The appropriation surpassed $400 million in another year during the period
Report 2:  actions in Iraq and Afghanistan  Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart  The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack "was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack" and "the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization " Still, some are opposed to awarding the Purple Heart for terrorist acts that were initially deemed "workplace violence" by the Department of Defense (DOD) or a criminal act, and not earned on a battlefield  This act arguably sets a precedent for the future and could make Purple Heart eligibility more subjective, allowing public sentiment to determine what events are worthy of a Purple Heart  On April 10, 2015, then-Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, 3 rd Corps and Fort Hood commanding general, presented Purple Hearts to the families of the 10 servicemembers killed and to the 26 servicemembers wounded during the attack  Defense of Freedom Medals were also awarded to DOD civilians killed and wounded during the attack  In a memorandum, Secretary McHugh directed the Army to "expedite certain other benefits for which soldiers receiving the Purple Heart are traditionally eligible " In addition to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting, the two victims of the June 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, received Purple Hearts on July 1, 2015  Army Private William Andrew "Andy" Long was killed and Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded in that attack by Abdulhakim Muhammad, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole  Encouraged by the expanded eligibility provision in the NDAA for FY2015, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress to award Purple Hearts to other military victims of domestic terrorism  Section 583 of the House-passed version of H R  1735 , the NDAA for FY2016, would have awarded the Purple Heart to servicemembers who were victims of the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma bombing  Supporters for awarding the Purple Heart to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing refer to the FY2015 NDAA as precedent  However, critics contend that the bombing was an act of domestic terrorism and does not meet the current eligibility requirements of the assailant being inspired by or motivated by an international terrorist organization  The final version of the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 ) did not include this provision  On July 16, 2015, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot at a Marine Corps recruiting center and Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN  This incident again raised congressional interest regarding the eligibility for the Purple Heart for servicemembers killed and wounded during an attack inspired by or motivated by international terrorist organizations  Four marines were killed and one was injured during the rampage, and the lone sailor later died from his injuries  The FBI investigation later concluded that Abdulazeez was "motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda," but that it was difficult to determine which terrorist group may have inspired him  On December 16, 2015, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Purple Heart would be awarded to five servicemembers killed and one wounded in the July 2015 shootings at two naval centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee  Secretary Mabus stated that "following an extensive investigation, the FBI and NCIS have determined that this attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, the final criteria required for the awarding of the Purple Heart to this Sailor and these Marines " On January 14, 2016, then-Navy Vice Admiral Robin Braun presented the Purple Heart to the family of Logistics Specialist 2 nd Class Randall Smith at the Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga  Brigadier General Terry V  Williams presented the Purple Heart on January 26, 2016, to Sergeant DeMonte R  Cheeley, who survived the attack, at a ceremony in Chattanooga  On April 20, 2016, Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, then-head of Marine Corps Forces Reserve, presented Purple Hearts to the families of Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan, Staff Sergeant David Wyatt, Sergeant Carson Holmquist, and Lance Corporal Squire "Skip" Wells in a ceremony at the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga  U S  Airman 1 st Class Spencer Stone was onboard a train from Amsterdam to Paris with two friends, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, when they subdued a heavily armed gunman who attempted to fire an AK-47 at the passengers  Stone was stabbed in the face and neck by the gunman as the trio restrained him before he could discharge his weapon  The vacationing Americans were hailed as heroes and awarded the French Legion of Honor on August 24, 2015  On September 14, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced that Stone would receive the Purple Heart along with the Airman's Medal, the Air Force's highest noncombat award  At the Pentagon on September 17, 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter presented Stone the Purple Heart and Airman's Medal  During the ceremony, Carter presented the Soldier's Medal to Oregon National Guard Specialist Alek Skarlatos, and civilian Anthony Sadler received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor  On June 12, 2016, a security guard, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida  Army Reserve Captain Antonio Davon Brown was one of the 49 people killed and may be eligible for the Purple Heart depending on the outcome of the FBI investigation  According to the FBI, Mateen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group after his attack in a call to 911  At this time, it is unclear if the Army will make a decision regarding Captain Brown's eligibility for the Purple Heart  On September 28, 2016, H R  6234 was introduced to amend Title 18, U S C , to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces  This legislation would have made selling the medal punishable by fines and up to six months in prison  H R  6234 would have placed the Purple Heart into a new protected category, keeping it away from not just con artists but also memorabilia collectors  The measure was named for Private Corrado Piccoli, a World War II infantryman killed in action in 1944, whose Purple Heart was found for sale at an antique store in 2009  This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations but saw no further action in the 114 th Congress  This legislation was reintroduced in the 115 th Congress on January 13, 2017, as H R  544 , the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act of 2017, and a related bill, S  765 , was passed by the Senate on August 3, 2017  Both bills were referred to committee in the House but saw no further action  On January 15, 2019, S  122 , Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act, was introduced in the 116 th Congress  The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee  The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2019, H R  5515 , included a provision (Section 629) that would extend certain morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Hearts recipients, and their caregivers  This bill became P L  115-232 on August 13, 2018  Section 621 of the enacted bill adopted House Section 629, which extends eligibility of certain MWR and commissary privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Heart recipients, and their caregivers starting in 2020  For additional information see section, "Defense Commissary System," in CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues   For bill summaries of Purple Heart legislation in the 116 th Congress as introduced, see Table 1   The large number of veterans with invisible wounds returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has the Department of Defense (DOD) reevaluating Purple Heart eligibility for traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and mental conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)  DOD considers some TBIs eligible for the Purple Heart, as many of those injuries can be diagnosed using brain scans and other objective medical tests  However, there is continued debate on the inclusion of mental conditions, such as PTSD, as part of the appropriate criteria for the Purple Heart  Congress, as well as various executive agencies and departments, is funding and conducting studies regarding PTSD  The National Alliance on Mental Illness, a national grassroots advocacy group representing families and people affected by mental illness, is advocating that the Purple Heart be awarded for psychological wounds including PTSD to eliminate stigma and encourage servicemembers to seek care  At this time, DOD does not consider servicemembers with PTSD eligible for the Purple Heart  Army Regulation 600-8-22 allows "concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions" but specifically disqualifies post-traumatic stress disorders  Army guidance emphasizes "the degree to which the enemy caused the injury" when determining eligibility and places PTSD in a column of noneligible injuries  The Marine Corps defines PTSD as a "severe combat stress injury" and says that combat stress injuries are "not directly caused by the enemy's intentional use of an outside force or agent," and thus do not qualify  Servicemembers are divided on this issue  Some servicemembers believe that mental injuries such as PTSD should be eligible for the Purple Heart, while others believe that it would dishonor those who have received Purple Hearts for physical injuries  Proponents argue that some veterans are less likely to seek help for their mental-health injuries because of the stigma associated with PTSD, and that stigma could be lessened by recognizing their injuries as real  Opponents, including some veterans from the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Veterans of Foreign Wars, are resistant to accepting PTSD as grounds for eligibility  A representative of The Military Order of the Purple Heart stated, "We believe strongly in and support the criteria that the wound or death should be sustained in combat at the hands of the enemies of the United States " In addition, the national spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joseph E  Davis, said, "Medals aren't awarded for illness or disease, but for 'achievement and valor '" Appendix A  Timeline of Purple Heart Eligibility August 7, 1782: George Washington creates the Badge of Military Merit  Awarded to several Continental soldiers but it quickly falls from use  February 22, 1932: Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur revives the Badge of Military Merit as an Army award, renamed "the Purple Heart," and retroactively awarded to wounded WWI veterans  December 3, 1942: Executive Order 9277—President Franklin Roosevelt expands Purple Heart eligibility to include U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard  Retroactively awards Purple Hearts to December 6, 1941  November 12, 1952: Executive Order 10409—President Truman retroactively awards Purple Hearts to U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard veterans after April 5, 1917  April 25, 1962: Executive Order 11016—President Kennedy extends eligibility to civilians serving with military forces  February 23, 1984: Executive Order 12464—President Reagan awards Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or on peacekeeping missions outside the United States  February 10, 1996: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Section 521, P L  104-106 ) includes "prisoners of war wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) " November 18, 1997: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Section 571, P L  105-85 ) limits future Purple Heart awards to members of the Armed Forces  October 17, 2006: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Section 556, P L  109-364 ) includes prisoners of war captured after December 7, 1941  April 30, 2008: Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007 ( P L  110-207 ) revises the congressional charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to authorize associate membership for the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple Heart medal  December 19, 2014: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Section 571, P L  113-291 ) expands eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization, and awards Purple Heart medals to servicemembers wounded or killed during the 2009 shootings at Ft  Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas  Appendix B  Staffer Instructions for Medal Requests Members of Congress are able to directly request that a Service Secretary consider awarding military decorations to individuals or groups  Upon receiving a request from a Member's office, the Service Secretary concerned will review the proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration)  Based on that review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration and other necessary determinations  The Secretary shall submit a notice to the requesting Member, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee with one of the following results: (1) The award or presentation of the decoration does not warrant approval on the merits  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  (2) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval and a waiver by law of time restrictions prescribed by law is recommended  (3) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits and has been approved as an exception to policy  (4) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits, but a waiver of the time restrictions prescribed in law is not recommended  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  Source: Compiled from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 ( P L  104-106 , §526), February 10, 1996 

ground_truth: More than 4 decades ago, Congress authorized the creation of the SPR to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products. DOE manages the SPR. As a member of the International Energy Agency, the United States is obligated to maintain reserves equivalent to at least 90 days of the previous year's net imports (imports minus exports). The SPR's storage and related infrastructure is aging, and DOE has plans to modernize these facilities. Since 2015, Congress has mandated crude oil sales. As of March 2018, the SPR held about 665 million barrels of crude oil. GAO was asked to examine the SPR's ability to meet U.S. energy security needs. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which (1) DOE has identified the optimal size of the SPR, and (2) DOE's plans for modernizing the SPR take into account the effects of congressionally mandated crude oil sales. GAO reviewed DOE's plans and studies, and interviewed agency officials and nine experts selected based on prior work, referrals, and a literature review. The Department of Energy (DOE) has not identified the optimal size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In 2016, DOE completed a long-term strategic review of the SPR after its last comprehensive examination conducted in 2005. The 2016 review examined the benefits of several SPR sizes, but it did not identify an optimal size and its review was limited in several ways. In particular, DOE did not fully consider recent and expected future changes in market conditions, such as the implications of falling net imports, or the role that increased levels of private reserves (reserves held by private companies for their own purposes) may play in responding to supply disruptions. These changes have contributed to SPR and private reserves reaching historically high levels on a net imports basis (see figure). These changes are expected to continue to evolve—according to government projections, the United States will become a net exporter in the late 2020s before again becoming a net importer between 2040 and 2050. GAO has found that agencies should reexamine their programs if conditions change. Without addressing the limitations of its 2016 review and periodically performing reexaminations in the future, DOE cannot be assured that the SPR will be sized appropriately into the future. DOE has taken steps to take into account congressionally mandated sales of SPR crude oil in its $1.4 billion modernization plans for SPR's infrastructure and facilities. The SPR is projected to hold 405 million barrels of oil by the end of fiscal year 2027. However, DOE's current plans are based on information analyzed prior to recently mandated sales. According to DOE officials, the agency began a study in March 2018 to assess the effects of these sales on the SPR's modernization. However, this study is not examining all options for handling any excess SPR assets that may be created by currently mandated sales or any additional sales that may be mandated in the future, inconsistent with an agency order on real property asset management that calls for identifying excess assets. For example, DOE does not plan to examine the potential to lease unused SPR storage capacity to the private sector because DOE is not currently authorized to enter into such leases, according to agency officials. If authorized, leasing capacity could generate revenues that could help offset the costs of modernization. By not examining a full range of options, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the SPR while saving taxpayer resources. GAO is making four recommendations, including that DOE (1) supplement the 2016 review by conducting an additional analysis, (2) ensure that the agency periodically reexamines the size of the SPR, and (3) consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets as it conducts its study, among other things. DOE agreed with two, partially agreed with one, and disagreed with another recommendation on refined product reserve studies. GAO maintains that the recommendations are valid.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Oil and petroleum products markets have changed substantially in the years since the establishment of the SPR  Specifically, U S  domestic crude oil production has generally been increasing, consumption has been relatively stable, and crude oil and petroleum products markets have become increasingly global  Additionally, U S  crude oil production is projected to rise further in the future, according to EIA and IEA projections, further reversing a decades-long decline  Recent technological improvements have made onshore production from shale formations economically viable, and domestic crude oil production began to rise in about 2008  The combination of increasing production and relatively stable consumption has resulted in declining net crude oil and petroleum products imports, from a high of about 12 million barrels per day in 2005 to fewer than 4 million barrels per day in 2017  Since these trends are expected to continue, the IEA and EIA both project net U S  crude oil and petroleum products imports will decline to zero sometime in the late 2020s and the United States will become a net exporter shortly thereafter  Since the IEA 90-day reserve obligation is based on a country’s net imports, there is no such obligation for net exporters; therefore, the United States would have no 90-day reserve obligation as long as it is a net exporter, though it would still be obligated to release reserves in response to supply disruptions  Over the longer term, EIA’s projections show U S  net exports peaking in 2037 and the United States again becoming a net importer between 2040 and 2050  At the time of the Arab oil embargo, price controls in the United States prevented the prices of oil and petroleum products from increasing as much as they otherwise might have, contributing to a physical oil shortage that caused long lines at gasoline stations throughout the United States  In addition, in the 1970s, oil prices were often set in long-term contracts, which meant that prices would not automatically rise in the face of greater scarcity  This generally reduced incentives for producers to expand production and sales as well as for consumers to reduce consumption in the face of greater scarcity caused by a supply disruption  Now that crude oil and petroleum product markets are global, the prices of these commodities are determined in the world market, primarily on the basis of supply and demand  In the absence of long-term contracted prices or price controls, scarcity from a supply disruption is generally expressed in the form of higher prices, as purchasers are free to bid as high as they are willing to pay to secure oil supply  In a global market, a large enough supply disruption anywhere in the world raises prices everywhere  This creates incentives for producers unaffected by the disruption to increase their production and release existing inventories and for consumers everywhere to reduce consumption in the ways they find most efficient and least disruptive  While it can take time for some of these actions to affect crude oil and petroleum product markets—according to DOE officials, it can take approximately 6 months from when a producer drills an oil well until oil production comes on line—all these actions tend to mitigate the effects of supply disruptions  The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 authorized the creation of the SPR, partly in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974 that caused a shortfall in the international oil market  The purposes of the SPR are, among other things, to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products and to carry out obligations of the United States under the international energy program  Specifically, the 1974 International Energy Program Agreement, a joint strategy and treaty, established the IEA to address oil security issues on an international scale  The SPR is owned by the federal government, managed by DOE’s Office of Petroleum Reserves, and maintained by Fluor Federal Petroleum Operations LLC  The SPR stores crude oil in underground salt caverns along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Texas  The SPR currently maintains four storage sites—Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, Bryan Mound, and West Hackberry—with a design capacity of 713 5 million barrels  Under conditions prescribed by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, the President has discretion to authorize the release of petroleum products from the SPR to minimize significant supply disruptions  When oil is released from the SPR, it is distributed through commercial pipelines or on waterborne vessels to refineries, where it is converted into gasoline and other petroleum products, and then transported to distribution centers for sale to the public  According to DOE documents, well-functioning infrastructure is fundamental to the SPR’s ability to maintain operational readiness and meet mission requirements  However, most of the critical infrastructure for moving SPR oil has exceeded its serviceable life, which has led to increasing maintenance costs and decreasing system reliability  Specifically, the reserve relies on a complex system of salt caverns, pipelines, wells, and pumps, with other infrastructure and equipment  Any failures, such as ruptured pipelines, could affect the readiness of a site for an oil release  According to DOE officials, a growing backlog of major maintenance needs raises concerns about the ability of the system to operate as designed  In addition, there have been equipment failures that have rendered parts of the system temporarily inoperable  For example, the SPR has experienced at least five major equipment failures since fiscal year 2013, including the Big Hill site pipe failure shown in figure 1  The United States has two regional petroleum product reserves—the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve and the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve  The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which is not part of the SPR, holds 1 million barrels of ultra low sulfur distillate, a petroleum product essentially equivalent to diesel fuel but that is also used for heating oil  The Northeast United States is heavily dependent on the use of heating oil in winter months  The distillate is stored in leased commercial tank storage in terminals in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey  In 2000, the President directed the creation of the reserve to hold approximately 10 days of inventory, the time required for ships to carry additional heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New York Harbor  The Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, a part of the SPR, holds 1 million barrels of gasoline for consumers in the northeastern United States  According to DOE’s website, this region is particularly vulnerable to gasoline disruptions as a result of hurricanes and other natural events  For example, Hurricane Sandy caused widespread gasoline shortages in the region in 2012  DOE conducted a test sale of the SPR in 2014 and used a portion of the proceeds from the sale to create the reserve  The gasoline is stored in leased commercial tank storage in terminals in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey  The SPR helps the United States meet its IEA obligation to hold the equivalent of 90 days of net imports of crude oil and petroleum products  In order to meet the IEA 90-day reserve obligation, countries, including the United States, can count existing private reserves of crude oil and petroleum products in addition to public reserves (in the United States, the SPR)  In most years, the United States has met its 90-day reserve obligation with a combination of SPR and private reserves  The days of import protection may vary based on actual net U S  crude oil and petroleum products imports as well as the inventory levels of the SPR and private reserves  As discussed previously, because the IEA 90-day reserve obligation is based on a country’s net imports, there is no such reserve obligation for countries that are net exporters of crude oil and petroleum products  The United States also relies on the SPR to meet its IEA obligation to release reserves in the event of a collective action to respond to a supply disruption  Countries contribute to an IEA collective action based on their share of IEA oil consumption, and they can meet their obligation by whatever measure they choose, including release of public or private reserves, or demand restraint  IEA collective actions are designed to mitigate the negative effects of sudden supply shortages by making additional crude oil and petroleum products available to the global market through a combination of emergency response measures, which include increasing supply and reducing demand  In the event of a global market disruption, IEA member countries can call for a collective action after reaching consensus on whether a response is needed  DOE stated that the collective action IEA obligation is more relevant to the SPR’s mission of protecting the U S  economy from severe petroleum supply interruptions than the 90-day reserve obligation  The United States has participated in each of the three IEA collective actions  In 1991, with the commencement of Operation Desert Storm, DOE released 17 3 million barrels of SPR crude oil  After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, DOE released 11 million barrels of SPR crude oil  Most recently, in June 2011, in response to crude oil supply disruptions driven by hostilities in Libya, DOE released 30 6 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR  The Libya collective action is an example of how, in practice, member countries participate according to national circumstances  After consultations with IEA member countries, all IEA member countries agreed to the Libya collective action, under which 12 of the 28 members at that time contributed to the action  In addition to the three IEA collective actions, the SPR has been used 10 times in response to U S  domestic supply disturbances that were not IEA collective actions, most notably in response to severe weather events  In terms of how they meet their IEA obligations, most other IEA members differ from the United States in two basic ways  Specifically, as of December 2017, most IEA members rely at least in part on private rather than public reserves to meet their obligations, and most hold significant proportions of these reserves as petroleum products rather than as crude oil  In December 2017, before Mexico joined the IEA in early 2018, there were 29 member countries  Of these 29 countries, 25 IEA members had two common attributes: (1) as net importers, they had a 90-day reserve obligation and met that obligation, and (2) they had formal processes for holding and releasing these reserves  As of December 2017, 18 of these 25 members relied entirely or in part on private reserves to meet their reserve obligations  Specifically, based on IEA data as of December 2017, these 18 countries met their 90-day reserve obligation through private reserves and either had no public reserves or had public reserves of less than 90 days  According to a 2014 IEA report, some of these countries require industry to hold reserves and, when needed, release them  For example, according to a 2014 IEA report and documentation provided by government officials, the United Kingdom meets its entire obligation by requiring private industry to hold reserves  In contrast, New Zealand had publicly held reserves amounting to 26 days of net imports, according to IEA data as of December 2017  According to a 2014 IEA report, New Zealand relied on industry reserves held for commercial purposes to meet the rest of its 90-day reserve obligation, although New Zealand does not formally require industry to hold reserves specifically for this purpose  Unlike the 18 countries that rely at least in part on private reserves, as of December 2017, the United States and 6 other IEA members met the 90- day reserve obligation exclusively through public reserves  Specifically, according to IEA data on member reserves, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, and the United States held public reserves equal to 90 days or more of net imports  Although the United States currently meets its IEA 90-day reserve obligation solely with public reserves, for most of the SPR’s existence, public reserves were insufficient to meet this obligation, so the United States also had to rely on private reserves  Specifically, according to EIA data, the United States has relied, at least in part, on private reserves together with the SPR to meet the 90-day reserve obligation with the exception of two time periods (1984-1987 and 2012-present), when the United States has relied solely on the SPR  The United States does not require industry to hold reserves for the purposes of meeting IEA obligations  Figure 2 compares the United States’ reserves in days of net imports to the IEA’s 90-day reserve obligation  According to a 2014 IEA report, most IEA members hold at least a third of their reserves as petroleum products, such as gasoline and diesel fuel, rather than as crude oil  Holding petroleum products can be advantageous during certain disruptions because such reserves can be directly distributed to consumers, whereas crude oil must first be refined and turned into products, adding response time  According to the IEA’s 2014 report, Germany’s stockholding agency holds 55 percent of its reserve as petroleum products  Similarly, France holds only petroleum products that are distributed geographically across the country so that the reserves can be used quickly in the event of a supply disruption  In contrast, more than 99 percent of the SPR (665 5 million barrels as of March 2018) is held as crude oil, all of which is stored at the four storage sites in Louisiana and Texas  The exception is the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, which, as mentioned previously, is a 1 million barrel gasoline reserve in terminals in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey that was established in 2014 after Hurricane Sandy and that is considered part of the SPR  According to DOE officials, there are several reasons the SPR holds predominantly crude oil, including that it is more costly to store petroleum products than crude oil and that the United States has the largest refining capacity of any IEA member country  Because of the large U S  refining sector, crude oil from the SPR can be domestically refined into petroleum products to meet demand  Some IEA member countries store some of their reserves abroad, though the United States does not  According to a 2014 IEA report, some IEA member countries allow part of their reserves to be stored abroad to leverage spare storage capacity or more cost-effective storage by utilizing available storage space or excess private reserves in other countries  For example, approximately 30 percent of Ireland’s reserves are held in other European Union countries  In some of these cases, countries use short-term contracts, also known as tickets, instead of directly acquiring and storing oil and petroleum products  For example, according to documents provided by government officials, since 1995 the United Kingdom has increased its reserves held under ticket agreements outside of the country from around 10 percent of its total reserves to more than 25 percent  In addition, unlike the United States, some IEA countries specify the size of their public or private reserves in terms of net imports or consumption, rather than a specific volume  In the United States, the total volume of crude oil and petroleum products held in the SPR is the result of amounts historically purchased to fill the reserve and subsequent sales as mandated by Congress or released in response to a supply disruption  According to DOE, it cannot otherwise reduce or increase volumes held in reserve without congressional action—either through requirements to purchase additional oil or laws authorizing or mandating sales  On the other hand, some IEA countries have tied their reserves’ volumes of crude oil and petroleum products to a metric such as days of net imports or a percent of consumption  For example, according to documentation provided by government officials, in 2015 Japan changed how it specifies its target reserves from a specified amount to days of net imports  In specifying the size of reserves in this way, the amount held is adjusted as market conditions change—for example, if net imports change and require more or fewer reserves to meet the IEA 90-day reserve obligation, or when other underlying factors affecting a nation’s energy security needs change  While DOE has examined a range of sizes for the SPR, it has not identified the optimal size for the SPR to meet U S  energy security needs and IEA obligations, and DOE’s analysis of SPR sizes was limited in three ways  DOE also has not identified whether additional regional petroleum product reserves should be part of the SPR in U S  regions identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  DOE has not identified the optimal size for the SPR and though the agency examined a range of SPR sizes, its analysis was limited in at least three ways  In response to direction from Congress and recommendations from GAO and the DOE Inspector General, DOE developed and published a long-term strategic review of the SPR in August 2016  In DOE’s 2016 review, the agency examined the expected economic benefits of SPR sizes ranging from 430 million to 695 million barrels of oil over a 25-year time horizon (2016 through 2040), but it did not recommend an optimal size for the reserve  DOE’s review did not identify the optimal size for the SPR because of three limitations: DOE did not fully evaluate implications of market fluctuations and estimate needs  DOE did not fully evaluate the implications of falling net imports of crude oil and petroleum products with respect to meeting IEA obligations to hold the equivalent of 90 days of net imports and to respond to collective actions  As mentioned previously, the United States is expected to become a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products by the late 2020s  Since the IEA 90-day reserve obligation is based on a country’s net imports, this means that at that point the United States would not have a 90-day reserve obligation  However, even as a net exporter, the United States would still have to meet the IEA obligation to respond to a collective action  Yet, DOE’s analysis did not evaluate the SPR’s configuration as it relates to projected fluctuations in net imports or estimate the minimal amount of reserves needed to meet potential future collective actions  Without considering projected fluctuations in net imports or providing an analysis of how much oil is estimated to be needed to meet IEA collective actions, DOE cannot fully advise Congress on the optimal size of the SPR  DOE did not consider private-sector response  DOE’s analyses in its 2016 review focused on the publicly held reserves in the SPR as the only means to respond to oil supply disruptions and did not consider a response from the private sector or through consumers reducing demand  According to DOE’s 2016 review, the underlying analysis for the benefits of the SPR did not consider a response from the private sector for three reasons: (1) while U S  commercial stocks could conceivably address part of a supply disruption, private industry could also hold oil inventories in a crisis instead of releasing them; (2) unlike most other IEA member countries, the United States does not require private-sector response; and (3) research on the exact nature of private-sector response during a disruption is needed  DOE officials told us the agency has not studied the extent to which SPR releases of crude oil displace what would otherwise have been private releases of inventories  As we reported in September 2014, changing market conditions— most importantly the significant increase in domestic production of oil—have implications for the SPR’s size because increased production has led to increasing private reserves  According to IEA data as of December 2017, U S  private reserves held the equivalent of 194 days of net import protection coverage, up from about 59 days in 2006  Further, private reserves in the United States consist of both crude oil and petroleum products with more than half in the latter category  For example, as of January 2018, total private reserves of crude oil and petroleum products were about 1 215 billion barrels, of which about 420 million barrels were in the form of crude oil and 795 million barrels were petroleum products, according to the EIA  As of 2013, these private reserves were distributed across the entire country in more than 1,400 terminals, according to the EIA  As we reported in December 2007, international trade in oil and petroleum products has expanded significantly over the past 2 decades, making markets for gasoline and other petroleum products increasingly global in nature  In such a global oil market, higher levels of private reserves can benefit the United States and the rest of the world by helping mitigate a supply disruption  Most experts and stakeholders we interviewed generally agreed that the private sector is in a better position to respond to supply disruptions than they were when the SPR was created  With regard to demand response, DOE officials told us they do not consider this because there is no mechanism to require industry to respond to supply disruptions or consumers to reduce demand in response to a supply disruption  However, DOE has not studied how voluntary response to changes in petroleum product prices affects the need for or efficacy of strategic releases  Without conducting an analysis of how private parties respond to supply disruptions, DOE cannot advise Congress on the optimal size of the SPR because it cannot know how effective such private responses could be in mitigating supply disruptions  DOE did not fully examine costs of differently sized reserves  DOE’s review of the expected economic benefits of differently sized reserves did not fully examine the corresponding costs of those sizes  According to DOE officials, there was no requirement or need to conduct a formal cost benefit analysis of the SPR because the SPR’s oil acquisition and initial capital costs to create the reserve are sunk costs and the ongoing operational costs to maintain the reserve are minimal in comparison  However, this does not take into account the opportunity cost to the government that holding reserves represents; as Congress has mandated several times recently, crude oil from the reserve can be sold to fund other federal priorities  Without additional analysis, such as of the costs and benefits of SPR’s size, DOE cannot fully advise Congress on the optimal size of the SPR  When we reviewed the SPR in 2006 and 2014, we found that DOE had not periodically re-examined the strategic reserves  In 2006, we recommended that the Secretary of Energy reexamine the appropriate size of the SPR  In its response to our recommendation, DOE stated that its reexamination had taken the form of more “actionable items,” including not requesting expansion funding in its 2011 budget and canceling and redirecting the prior year’s expansion funding to general operations of the SPR, based on the Administration’s decision that the SPR’s current size at the time was adequate  Similarly, as previously mentioned, in 2014 we found that changing market conditions have implications for the size, location, and composition of the SPR, but DOE had not reexamined the SPR’s size since 2005  Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretary of Energy undertake a comprehensive reexamination of the appropriate size of the SPR  In response to our recommendation, the 2014 DOE Inspector General recommendation mentioned previously, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, DOE published its 2016 review  As previously mentioned and reported, crude oil and petroleum markets are constantly changing, but DOE conducted its full evaluations of the SPR more than a decade apart  According to DOE officials, there is no formal policy to periodically reevaluate the SPR  We previously found that federal programs should be reexamined if there have been significant changes in the country or the world that relate to the reason for initiating the program  In that report, we found that many federal programs and policies were designed decades ago to respond to trends and challenges that existed at the time of their creation  Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs includes guidelines that apply to any analysis used to support government decisions to initiate, renew, or expand programs or projects that would result in a series of measurable benefits or costs extending for 3 or more years into the future  Given changing market conditions and future projections, without conducting additional analysis to supplement its 2016 review and thereafter periodically reexamining the SPR to take into account changes in market conditions and include a thorough consideration of the costs and benefits of a wide range of SPR sizes, DOE cannot provide information to Congress to inform decisions about the appropriate size of the SPR and risks holding too much or too little in the SPR to meet the United States’ evolving energy security needs and IEA obligations  DOE has also not fully identified whether additional regional petroleum product reserves should be part of the SPR  Because the SPR stores oil nearly exclusively along the Gulf Coast, the SPR is configured primarily to respond to global oil supply disruptions  However, as we reported in November 2017, the SPR has primarily been used in response to domestic disruptions  The SPR is limited in its ability to respond to domestic disruptions because reserves are almost entirely composed of crude oil and not refined petroleum products, which may not be effective in responding to disruptions that affect the refining sector  For example, as we reported in November 2017, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria damaged infrastructure and property, caused the loss of life, and disrupted the operations of refineries representing at least 15 percent of the nation’s refining capacity  DOE has identified regions subject to product supply vulnerabilities as shown in Figure 3  The Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that the agency analyze the need for additional or expanded regional product reserves by undertaking updated cost-benefit analyses for all of the regions of the United States that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  In response to this recommendation, DOE studied the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves in the West Coast and Southeast Coast  According to DOE officials, weather events in the Southeast Coast are of higher probability but lower consequence, and events in the West Coast are of lower probability but higher consequence  DOE did not finalize its 2015 studies on regional petroleum product reserves and make them publicly available  However, the draft 2015 studies concluded that a product reserve in the Southeast would provide significant net economic benefits to the region and the United States, particularly in the event of a major hurricane, while further analyses are needed to determine the potential benefits of a reserve on the West Coast  A prior DOE study also suggests that petroleum product reserves merit consideration—in 2011, DOE carried out a cost-benefit study of the establishment of a refined product reserve in the Southeast and estimated that such a reserve would reduce the average gasoline price rise by 50 percent to 70 percent in the weeks immediately after a hurricane landfall, resulting in consumer cost savings, according to the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015  According to DOE officials, the agency has no plans to conduct additional studies  DOE’s 2016 review of the SPR did not fully assess whether there is a need for additional regional product reserves in other U S  regions identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, as recommended by DOE’s studies and the 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review  Without completing studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves for all the vulnerable U S  regions and publicly releasing the results, DOE cannot ensure that it and Congress have the information they need to make decisions about whether additional regional product reserves are needed  DOE has taken steps to take into account the effects of congressionally mandated oil sales in its plans for modernizing the SPR, though DOE’s current plans are based on information largely developed prior to the most recent congressionally mandated oil sales  According to DOE, the SPR modernization program is focused on a life extension project to modernize aging infrastructure to ensure the SPR will be able to meet its mission requirements for the next several decades  The project’s scope of work has undergone several revisions since its inception in response to changing conditions and requirements, according to the agency  DOE has estimated the total cost for the SPR’s modernization at up to $1 4 billion  DOE raised about $323 million for modernization through the sale of SPR oil in fiscal year 2017, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 provided that DOE is to draw down and sell an amount of crude oil not to exceed $350 million for modernization in fiscal year 2018  As of the end of February 2018, DOE has spent $22 million on modernization efforts and the additional funds will allow DOE to continue moving forward with the project, according to agency officials  According to DOE’s modernization plans, the first major construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2019  However, these plans are largely based on information DOE analyzed before recent congressionally mandated sales of an additional 117 million barrels of oil  Since the most recent mandated sales, DOE has taken steps to update its modernization plans and has changed its assumptions for SPR’s modernization  For example, DOE now assumes that the reserve will hold about 405 million barrels of oil and that one of the four SPR sites may close after congressionally mandated sales are completed at the end of fiscal year 2027, according to agency officials  However, DOE has not fully updated the SPR’s modernization plans based on these assumptions  According to DOE officials, in March 2018, DOE commenced a study—the SPR post-sale configuration study—to examine potential future reserve configurations  This study is to take into account the effects of congressionally mandated sales on the reserve and its modernization, and is targeted for completion in October 2018, according to agency officials  Information from the study will inform DOE’s updates to the SPR’s modernization plans, according to DOE officials  As part of its post-sale configuration study, DOE plans to examine how the agency may handle the potentially excess SPR facilities created by the mandated sales  In January 2017, the SPR had a design capacity to hold 713 5 million barrels of oil and actually held 695 million barrels  As shown in figure 4, without action by DOE to reduce the SPR’s design capacity or otherwise use SPR facilities, congressionally mandated sales will cause excess storage capacity to grow to 308 million barrels or more by the end of fiscal year 2027—meaning that about 43 percent of the SPR’s total design capacity to store oil would be unused  DOE plans to explore some options to use these potentially excess SPR assets in its ongoing post-sale configuration study  In withdrawing oil to meet congressionally mandated oil sales currently in place (290 million barrels through fiscal year 2027), DOE could close at least one SPR site based on our analysis of projected excess storage capacity  For example, if DOE were to close the smallest SPR site, Bayou Choctaw, the agency could also explore selling the connected pipeline and marine terminal, which are currently being leased to a private company  DOE could also consider leasing excess storage capacity to other countries so that they could store oil at the SPR  DOE has not entered into any such leases with other countries and has not considered such leases because, according to DOE, the SPR has historically lacked capacity to store additional oil  DOE has not proposed any of these options or explored the revenue the agency could generate by selling or leasing these assets  According to DOE officials, the agency will examine the feasibility of such options in the ongoing SPR post-sale configuration study  As DOE takes steps to plan for the SPR’s modernization, ongoing uncertainty regarding the SPR’s long-term size and configuration have complicated DOE’s efforts  According to DOE officials, this uncertainty makes it extremely difficult to effectively perform any mid-to long-range planning efforts for the SPR’s modernization project, including the execution of major maintenance projects  Congress has generally set the SPR’s size by mandating purchases or sales of oil, and has established and amended the minimum size of the SPR as it pertains to the release of oil for emergency protection  Since 2015, Congress has, across six pieces of legislation, mandated 290 million barrels in additional oil sales  However, DOE developed its modernization plans in 2016  DOE officials told us they do not know whether additional sales will be mandated over the next 10 years or whether other changes may be required to the configuration of the reserve  Any additional congressionally mandated sales or direction to pursue additional petroleum product reserves would require DOE to again revisit its modernization plans and assessments of the potential uses of any excess SPR assets  Oil market projections also have implications for the future of the SPR  Under current projections, the United States may fluctuate between being a net importer and net exporter over the next several decades  Specifically, the United States is projected to become a net exporter by the late 2020s and would then no longer have a 90-day reserve obligation, but it is projected to return to being a net importer between 2040 and 2050  These projected fluctuations could affect the desired size of the SPR in the future  This uncertainty creates risks for DOE’s modernization plans, as DOE may end up spending funds on facilities that later turn out to be unnecessary should Congress ultimately decide on a larger- or smaller-sized SPR than DOE anticipates  Having a long-term target for the size and configuration of reserves helps other IEA member countries manage their reserves  For example, as previously discussed, unlike the United States, some other IEA members have specified in dynamic terms the amount of reserves to be held, such as days of net import protection or days of consumption, rather than specifying a specific static volume amount  Under such approaches, the amount held varies over time as entities managing the reserve acquire or sell reserves in order to meet the target  Setting a long-term target for the size and configuration of the SPR—taking into account projections for oil production, consumption, and IEA obligations—could better position DOE to ensure that funds spent on the SPR’s modernization do not modernize a system that is no longer needed and that DOE is able to adequately plan for potentially excess SPR assets  In the course of our work, we also identified other options for handling potentially excess SPR assets that DOE is not planning on examining, largely because DOE does not currently have the authority to pursue them, according to agency officials  First, DOE could explore leasing storage capacity to private industry  U S  oil production has generally increased over the last decade  As a result, the private sector may want to lease excess SPR capacity, which may be cheaper than above-ground storage, according to a representative of a private company we spoke with  Fees for doing so could help defray public reserve storage costs  However, officials told us that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives DOE authority to lease underutilized storage to other countries, but not to the private sector  Second, if Congress determines that the SPR holds oil in excess of that needed domestically, DOE could explore selling contracts or tickets for the excess oil rather than selling the oil outright  Australian and New Zealand officials told us that if DOE were to sell tickets for SPR oil, tickets would help these countries meet their IEA 90- day reserve obligations  Australian officials told us they have discussed this option with DOE  Currently the United States and Australia have agreed, through an arrangement, to allow Australia to contract for petroleum stocks located in the United States and controlled by commercial entities  According to DOE officials, the arrangement would permit Australia to receive credit from the IEA for tickets it purchases from the U S  private sector  While the arrangement does not cover government-owned oil in the SPR, if it did, based on our analysis, DOE could generate up to approximately $15 million annually if Australia purchased the maximum allowable amount of oil specified in an arrangement through tickets for excess SPR oil  However, although the Energy Policy and Conservation Act allows DOE to lease underutilized storage to other countries, DOE lacks the authority to sell tickets and does not plan to seek this authority, according to DOE officials  DOE officials told us that they do not plan to examine these options  According to DOE’s real property asset management order, the agency is to identify real property assets that are no longer needed to meet the program’s mission needs and that may be candidates for reuse or disposal  Once identified, the agency is to undertake certain actions, including determining whether to dispose of these assets by sale or lease  As part of its SPR post-sale configuration study, DOE plans to determine whether it is appropriate to close SPR facilities, and the relative benefit of any closures would be informed by potential lease revenues from maintaining sites so they could be leased, according to officials  However, without examining a full range of options in the post-sale configuration study, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the SPR while saving taxpayer resources  Given changing crude oil and petroleum product market conditions and the constrained budget environment, it is important that DOE ensures the SPR is effective at meeting U S  energy security needs and IEA obligations while being managed and maintained in an efficient manner  In response to congressional direction and recommendations from GAO and DOE Inspector General, DOE conducted a long-term strategic review of the SPR in 2016 after its last comprehensive examination in 2005  In its review, DOE did not determine an optimal size for the SPR, and its analysis was limited in several ways  In particular, DOE did not fully consider recent and expected future changes in crude oil and petroleum market conditions such as the implications of projected fluctuations in U S  net imports or the role that increased levels of private reserves could play in responding to supply disruptions  DOE also did not perform a full cost-benefit analysis of holding different volumes of reserves  Without supplementing its 2016 strategic review by conducting additional analysis, and periodically conducting such analyses going forward, DOE cannot provide information to Congress to inform decisions about the appropriate amounts of crude oil and petroleum products to hold in the SPR and risks holding too much or too little in the SPR to meet the United States’ energy security needs and international obligations  Such information is needed on a timely basis, to reflect the pace of change in oil and petroleum markets and other relevant factors that affect the optimal size of the SPR  Though the SPR has primarily been used in response to domestic supply disruptions, such as hurricanes, the reserve is limited in this role because it is almost entirely composed of crude oil, and not petroleum products  In this regard, the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that DOE analyze the need for additional regional product reserves for U S  regions that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  DOE has not identified whether additional regional product reserves should be part of the SPR or completed studies of all vulnerable U S  regions, and it has no plans to do so, according to DOE officials  Without conducting or completing studies for all the vulnerable U S  regions and releasing the results, DOE cannot ensure it and Congress have the information they need to make decisions about potential additional regional product reserves  In the face of declining net U S  imports, Congress has taken repeated steps to reduce the size of the reserve  Given that net imports are projected to continue to decline through the late 2020s and fluctuate in the future, there may be additional congressionally mandated SPR oil sales  This has created long-term uncertainty regarding the future size and configuration of the SPR  Congress could address this uncertainty by identifying a long-term target for the size of the SPR—either by volume or in terms tied to factors, such as consumption or net import protection, that affect the country’s energy security needs and IEA obligations  Setting such a long-term target could better position DOE to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of federal funds spent on the reserve  DOE has recently begun to study the potential effects of congressionally mandated sales on its modernization plans  As part of its SPR post-sale configuration study, DOE plans to determine whether it is appropriate to close SPR facilities, and the relative benefit of any closures would be informed by potential lease revenues from maintaining sites so they could be leased, according to officials  However, we identified other options for handling potentially excess SPR assets that DOE is not planning to examine in its study, inconsistent with the agency’s order on real property asset management  Although DOE does not currently have the authority to implement these options, according to officials, examining their potential use, including possible revenue enhancement, could inform Congress as it examines whether it should grant such authority  Without examining a full range of options in the post-sale configuration study for handling potentially excess SPR assets, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the SPR while saving taxpayer resources  We are making the following matter for congressional consideration: Congress may wish to consider setting a long-range target for the size and configuration of the SPR that takes into account projections for future oil production, oil consumption, the efficacy of the existing SPR to respond to domestic supply disruptions, and U S  IEA obligations  (Matter 1) We are making four recommendations to DOE: The Secretary of Energy should supplement the agency’s 2016 long-term strategic review by conducting an additional analysis that takes into account private-sector response, oil market projections, and costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Energy should take actions to ensure that the agency periodically conducts and provides to Congress a strategic review of the SPR that, among other things, takes into account changes in crude oil and petroleum product market conditions and contains additional analysis, such as the costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Energy should conduct or complete studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves for all U S  regions that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, and the Secretary should report the results to Congress  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Energy, in completing DOE’s ongoing study on the effects of congressionally mandated sales, should consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets and, if needed, request congressional authority for the disposition of these assets  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment  DOE provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix I  Of the four recommendations, DOE agreed with two, partially agreed with one, and disagreed with one  Regarding our recommendation that DOE supplement its 2016 long- term strategic review with an additional analysis that takes into account private sector response, oil market projections, and costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes, the agency partially agreed with the recommendation  DOE agreed to conduct an additional analysis to assess the purpose, goals, and objectives of the SPR, taking into account private sector response, oil market projections, and any other relevant factors, that will lead to an evaluation of possible optimal sizes of the SPR in the future  In response to taking into account the costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes, DOE stated that the agency determined the projected benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes ranging from 430 million barrels of oil to 695 million barrels of oil in its 2016 review  However, the minimum SPR size considered by DOE is greater than the projected SPR size after congressionally mandated sales have occurred  Further, the SPR size after congressionally mandated sales is projected to be far in excess of the IEA obligation to hold a minimum of 90 days of net imports  DOE must also consider the minimum size needed to meet its IEA obligations in the event of a collective action  In conducting additional analysis, DOE should consider a smaller lower bound, in line with congressionally mandated sales, for the size of the SPR, and more fully consider the size needed to meet the IEA 90-day net import and collective action obligations  Regarding our recommendation that DOE conduct periodic reviews of the SPR, the agency agreed with the recommendation  DOE stated that a 5-year time interval between reviews would strike an appropriate balance between the need to periodically conduct a strategic assessment and evaluation of the SPR and the limitations on resources to plan and conduct such a review  Regarding our recommendation that DOE conduct or complete studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves, the agency disagreed  DOE stated that it is the agency's position that government owned and operated regional petroleum product reserves are an inefficient and expensive solution to respond to regional fuel supply disruptions  DOE further stated, based on studies done in 2015 that DOE officials told us were pre-decisional and therefore could not be reported, that there are additional concerns associated with government-owned and operated regional refined petroleum product reserves, including little to no storage capacity for lease in commercial terminals and high costs for government owned and operated regional product reserves  However, these same studies took these concerns into account, and concluded that a product reserve in the Southeast would provide significant net economic benefits (benefits minus costs) to the region and the United States in the event of a major hurricane  These studies also concluded that additional analyses are required to inform decisions regarding the potential benefits of a similar reserve on the West Coast  Further, the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that similar analyses be completed for other areas deemed by DOE to be vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  Therefore, we continue to believe that conducting these analyses, as recommended in the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015, will provide Congress with information needed to make decisions about regional product reserves  Regarding our recommendation that DOE consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets, DOE agreed with the recommendation  DOE stated that in its ongoing study, the agency will include an assessment of disposition options for any potential excess or underutilized SPR assets, to include the need for new legislative authority, as necessary, for the disposition of assets  DOE expects this study to be completed in October 2018  DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  In addition to the individual named above, Quindi Franco (Assistant Director), Nkenge Gibson (Analyst-in-Charge), Philip Farah, Ellen Fried, Cindy Gilbert, Greg Marchand, Celia Mendive, Patricia Moye, Camille Pease, Oliver Richard, Dan Royer, Rachel Stoiko, and Marie Suding made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  Specifically, the $456 0 million appropriation in FY2001 was more than double the amount provided for other purposes in any other year  These appropriations were used to fund more than a dozen programs in the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative  In that year, total LWCF appropriations exceeded the annual authorization level, totaling nearly $1 billion  This record level of funding was provided partly in response to President Clinton's Lands Legacy Initiative, which sought $1 4 billion for about two dozen resource-protection programs, including the LWCF  It also was provided partly in response to some congressional interest in securing increased and more certain funding for the LWCF  The highest percentage of annual funds provided for other purposes occurred in FY2006 and FY2007 (59% in both years), in response to President George W  Bush's request for funding for an array of programs  For instance, in FY2007 the Bush Administration sought funding from the LWCF for 15 programs in addition to land acquisition and state grants  For that year, the appropriation for five other purposes was $216 1 million, out of a total LWCF appropriation of $366 1 million  In some years, the appropriation for other purposes was significantly less than the Administration requested  For example, for FY2008 the Bush Administration sought $313 1 million for other purposes, or 83% of the total request of $378 7 million  The FY2008 appropriation for other purposes was $101 3 million, or 40% of the LWCF total of $255 1 million  The $2 7 billion appropriated from the LWCF from FY1998 to FY2019 for other purposes represents 27% of the $10 0 billion total appropriations from LWCF during the period  FWS and FS have received the largest shares of the appropriations for other purposes, about $1 4 billion (53%) and $1 0 billion (38%), respectively  BLM, NPS, the U S  Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have shared the remaining $0 2 billion (9%) of the appropriations for other purposes  (See Figure 1  ) Because there is no set of other purposes specified in the LWCF Act to be funded from the LWCF, presidents have sought funds for a variety of purposes  Congress has chosen which of these requests to fund from the LWCF, and whether to fund any additional programs from the LWCF not suggested by the President  Appropriations for other purposes have been provided for more than a dozen diverse natural resource-related programs, including facility maintenance of the land management agencies, ecosystem restoration, the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, the FS Forest Legacy program, FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, the FWS Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, U S  Geological Survey science and cooperative programs, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements  (See Appendix A  ) Although in earlier years several other purposes typically were funded from LWCF, since FY2008, funds have been appropriated annually only for grants under two programs: Forest Legacy and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund  (See Appendix B and Figure 2   ) The total appropriation from LWCF for these two programs (since FY1998) is $1 7 billion, or 63% of all appropriations for other purposes ($2 7 billion)  These two programs and a third grant program funded prior to FY2008 from LWCF—FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants—have received more than three-quarters ($2 1 billion, 79%) of the total appropriations for other purposes  The appropriations through FY2019 are $944 4 million for Forest Legacy (35% of the other purposes total), $753 3 million for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (28% of total), and $448 5 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (17% of total)  Grants under the Forest Legacy program are used to acquire lands or conservation easements to preserve private forests threatened by conversion to non-forest uses, such as agriculture or residences  FS provides matching grants to states through a competitive process that requires state approval and then national approval and ranking  The ranking is based on the importance of the project (potential public benefits from protection), the likelihood of the forest's conversion to non-forest uses, and the strategic relevance of the project, among other factors  The program is implemented primarily through state partners, usually state forestry agencies  State partners generally acquire, hold, and administer the easements or land purchases, although the federal government also may do so  The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund provides grants "for species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal lands, including habitat acquisition, conservation planning, habitat restoration, status surveys, captive propagation and reintroduction, research, and education " In addition to appropriations from LWCF, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund typically receives additional appropriations  In recent years, the appropriations from LWCF generally have been used for two types of land acquisition grants provided to state and territories on a matching basis  Recovery land acquisition grants have been made for acquisition of habitats in support of species recovery goals and objectives  Habitat conservation plan land acquisition grants have been made for acquisition of lands that are associated with habitat conservation plans  State and Tribal Wildlife Grants are provided to states, territories, and tribes to develop and implement programs for the benefit of fish and wildlife and their habitats, including nongame species  State and Tribal Wildlife Grants received funding from the LWCF for FY2001-FY2007; subsequently, funding has been provided from the General Fund of the U S  Treasury  Currently, the largest portion of the program is for formula grants to states and territories on a matching basis  Funds from the formula grants may be used to develop state conservation plans and to implement specific conservation projects  Smaller amounts of funding have been appropriated for competitive grants to states and territories, and to tribal governments  The competitive grant programs do not have matching requirements  Appendix A shows the total LWCF appropriations for other purposes summed from FY1998 to FY2019  Appendix B shows the other purposes that received LWCF appropriations each year, the amount of LWCF appropriations for each purpose, and the total annual appropriations for other purposes  Appendix A  Total LWCF Appropriations for Other Purposes Appendix B  Annual LWCF Appropriations for Other Purposes 

ground_truth: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578) created the LWCF in the Treasury as a funding source to implement the outdoor recreation goals set out by the act. The LWCF Act authorizes the fund to receive $900 million annually, with the monies available only if appropriated by Congress (i.e., discretionary appropriations). The fund also receives mandatory appropriations under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA). The level of annual appropriations for the LWCF has varied since the origin of the fund in FY1965. The LWCF Act outlines uses of the fund for federal and state purposes. Of the total made available through appropriations or deposits under GOMESA, not less than 40% is to be used for "federal purposes" and not less than 40% is to be used to provide "financial assistance to states." The act lists the federal purposes for which the President is to allot LWCF funds "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available." These purposes primarily relate to acquisition of lands and waters (and interests therein) by the federal government. With regard to state purposes, the act authorizes a matching grant program to states for outdoor recreation purposes. Throughout the LWCF's history, appropriations acts typically have provided funds for land acquisition and outdoor recreational grants to states. Beginning in FY1998, appropriations also have been provided each year (except FY1999) to fund other purposes related to natural resources. The extent to which the LWCF should be used for purposes other than federal land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states, and which other purposes should be funded from the LWCF, continue to be the subject of legislation and debate in Congress. In the past few decades, Presidents have sought LWCF funds for a variety of other purposes. Congress chooses which if any of these requests to fund, and has chosen programs not sought by the President for a particular year. Among other programs, appropriations have been provided for facility maintenance of the land management agencies, ecosystem restoration, the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, the Forest Legacy Program, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (under the Fish and Wildlife Service), the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, U.S. Geological Survey science and cooperative programs, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements. Since FY1998, a total of $2.7 billion has been appropriated for other purposes, of a total LWCF appropriation of $18.9 billion over the history of the fund. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service have received the largest shares of the total appropriations for other purposes, about $1.4 billion (53%) and $1.0.billion (38%), respectively, from FY1998 to FY2019. Several agencies shared the remaining $0.2 billion (9%) of the appropriations. Both the dollar amounts and the percentages of annual LWCF appropriations for other purposes have varied widely since FY1998. The dollar amounts have ranged from $0 in FY1999 to $456.0 million in FY2001. The percentage of annual funds provided for other purposes ranged from 0% in FY1999 to a high of 59% in both FY2006 and FY2007. In some years, the appropriation for other purposes was significantly less than the Administration requested. For instance, for FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration sought $313.1 million; the appropriation was $101.3 million. The appropriation for other purposes last exceeded $100.0 million in FY2010, and most recently was $93.3 million, in FY2019. Prior to FY2008, several other purposes typically were funded each year from LWCF. Since FY2008, funds have been appropriated annually only for grants under two programs: Forest Legacy and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. These two programs and a third grant program—State and Tribal Wildlife Grants—have received more than three-quarters ($2.1 billion, 79%) of the total appropriation for other purposes since FY1998.