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



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



Report 2: The rise of e-commerce has contributed to a fundamental change in the market for counterfeit goods, according to our analysis of documents from CBP, ICE, and international organizations and our interviews with CBP and ICE officials  U S  agencies and international organizations have observed a shift in the sale of counterfeit goods from “underground” or secondary markets, such as flea markets or sidewalk vendors, to primary markets, including e-commerce websites, corporate and government supply chains, and traditional retail stores  Whereas secondary markets are often characterized by consumers who are knowingly purchasing counterfeits, primary markets involve counterfeiters who try to deceive consumers into purchasing goods they believe are authentic  This shift has been accompanied by changes in the ways in which counterfeit goods are sold  In the past, consumers could often rely on indicators such as the location of sale or the goods’ appearance or price to identify counterfeit goods in the marketplace  However, counterfeiters have now adopted new ways to deceive consumers  For example, as consumers increasingly purchase goods online, counterfeiters may exploit third-party online marketplaces to gain an appearance of legitimacy and access to consumers  When selling online, counterfeiters may post pictures of authentic goods on the websites where they are selling counterfeits and may post pseudonymous reviews of their products or businesses in order to appear legitimate  Additionally, by setting the price of a counterfeit at, or close to, the retail price of a genuine good, counterfeiters may deceive consumers, who will pay the higher price because they believe the goods are real or who believe that they are getting a slight bargain on genuine goods  According to CBP seizure data and CBP officials, the volume, variety, and methods of shipment of counterfeit goods seized by CBP and ICE have changed in recent years  CBP reports indicate that the number of IPR seizures increased by 38 percent in fiscal years 2012 through 2016  According to CBP data, approximately 88 percent of IPR seizures made during this period were shipped from China and Hong Kong  The variety of products being counterfeited has also increased, according to CBP officials  CBP and ICE officials noted that, while many consumers may think of luxury handbags or watches as the most commonly counterfeited goods, counterfeiting occurs in nearly every industry and across a broad range of products  In addition, according to CBP data we reviewed and officials we spoke to, the methods of importing counterfeit goods into the United States have changed in recent years  Specifically, express carriers and international mail have become the predominant form of transportation for IPR-infringing goods entering the United States, constituting approximately 90 percent of all IPR seizures in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, according to CBP data  In an attempt to illustrate the risk that consumers may unknowingly encounter counterfeit products online, we purchased a nongeneralizable sample of four types of consumer products—shoes, travel mugs, cosmetics, and phone chargers—from third-party sellers on five popular e-commerce websites  According to CBP data we reviewed and officials we spoke to, CBP often seizes IPR-infringing counterfeits of these types of products  As table 1 shows, the rights holders for the four selected products we purchased determined that 20 of the 47 items were counterfeit  We did not identify any clear reasons for the variation among the counterfeit and authentic items that we purchased based on the products that they represented, the e-commerce websites where we bought the items, or the third-party sellers from whom we bought them  For three of the four product types, at least one item we purchased was determined to be counterfeit, with results varying considerably by product  Representatives of the rights holders also could not provide a specific explanation for the variation among authentic and counterfeit goods that we received  They noted that the results of covert test purchases can fluctuate depending on enforcement activities and the variety of goods and sellers on a particular website on a given day  Rights-holder testing also showed that we purchased at least one counterfeit item and one authentic item from each of the five e-commerce websites  In addition, our analysis of the customer ratings of third-party sellers from whom we bought the items did not provide any clear indications that could warn consumers that a product marketed online may be counterfeit  For example, we received both counterfeit and authentic items from third- party sellers with ratings that were less than 70 percent positive as well as sellers with ratings that were up to 100 percent positive  Rights holders were able to determine that items we purchased were not authentic on the basis of inferior quality, incorrect markings or construction, and incorrect labeling  Some counterfeit items we purchased were easily identifiable as likely counterfeit once we received them  For example, one item contained misspellings of “Austin, TX” and “Made in China ” Other items could be more difficult for a typical consumer to identify as counterfeit  For example, the rights holder for a cosmetic product we purchased identified one counterfeit item on the basis of discrepancies in the color, composition, and design of the authentic and counterfeit items’ packaging  Counterfeit goods may also lack key elements of certification markings and other identifiers  For example, on a counterfeit phone charger we purchased, the UL certification mark did not include all components of the authentic mark  Figure 1 shows examples of these counterfeit items  The risks associated with the types of counterfeit goods we purchased can extend beyond the infringement of a company’s IPR  For example, a UL investigation of counterfeit iPhone adapters found a 99 percent failure rate in 400 counterfeit adapters tested for safety, fire, and shock hazards and found that 12 of the adapters tested posed a risk of lethal electrocution to the user  Similarly, according to a rights holder representative, counterfeits of common consumer goods, such as Yeti travel mugs, may contain higher-than-approved concentrations of dangerous chemicals such as lead, posing health risks to consumers  According to ICE, seized counterfeit cosmetics have been found to contain hazardous substances, including cyanide, arsenic, mercury, lead, urine, and rat droppings  Representatives of rights holders and e-commerce websites whom we interviewed reported taking independent action to try to protect IPR within their areas of responsibility  For example, both rights holders and e- commerce websites maintain IPR protection teams that work with one another and with law enforcement to address infringement issues  E- commerce websites may also take a variety of steps to block and remove counterfeit items listed by third-party sellers  These efforts rely on data collected through a variety of means, including consumer reporting of counterfeits, rights-holder notifications of IPR infringement, and corporate efforts to vet potential third-party sellers, according to private sector representatives  Our January 2018 report includes information on steps that consumer protection organizations and government agencies recommend consumers take to limit the risk of purchasing counterfeits online  These steps include, for example, buying only from authorized retailers online, avoiding prices that look “too good to be true,” and reporting counterfeit purchases  We identified a number of key challenges that the changes in the market for counterfeit goods can pose to CBP and ICE as well as to the private sector
Report 2:  Examples of schedule D positions include those involving science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) occupations and positions in the Presidential Management Fellows Program  Schedule D positions generally require an applicant to satisfy basic qualification standards established by OPM for the relevant occupation and grade level  Like employees in the competitive service, excepted service employees are generally paid in accordance with the General Schedule  In addition, excepted service employees maintain the same notice and appeal rights for adverse personnel actions  Some employees in the excepted service, however, must satisfy different durational requirements before these rights become available  So-called "preference eligibles" in an executive agency, the Postal Service, or the Postal Rate Commission must complete one year of current continuous service to avail themselves of the relevant notice and appeal rights  The term "preference eligible" refers to specified military veterans and some of their family members, such as an unmarried widow, and the wife or husband of a service-connected disabled veteran  Employees in the excepted service who are not preference eligibles and (1) are not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service, or (2) have completed two years of current or continuous service in the same or similar position, have the same notice and appeal rights as qualifying employees in the competitive service  The SES is a cadre of high-level government administrators who manage major programs and projects within most federal agencies  While they are considered federal employees within the civil service system, the SES is governed by a regulatory structure separate from the competitive and excepted services  As defined in statute, SES positions are generally managerial or supervisory positions that are classified above the GS-15 grade (or certain equivalent positions) and need not be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate  In these leadership roles, SES members may serve as intermediaries between top-level political appointees of an agency who seek to carry out the objectives of a particular President and career civil servants with institutional experience relating to relevant issues  According to a 2018 report, there are currently more than 7,000 permanent SES positions  There are two types of SES positions: (1) career reserved and (2) general  Career reserved positions must be filled with career appointees to shield certain SES roles from political influence  Generally, agency heads are to determine whether a particular SES position warrants a career reserved designation, to "ensure impartiality, or the public's confidence in the impartiality, of the Government " OPM regulations reflect the types of SES roles in which this designation is appropriate, including those involving adjudication and appeals, auditing, and law enforcement duties  General positions may be filled by career appointees, as well as other noncareer and limited term (i e , political) appointees  There are four types of SES appointments: career, noncareer, limited term, and limited emergency appointees  The SES mainly consists of "career appointees" chosen through a merit-based competitive hiring process  As part of this process, each agency must maintain a recruitment program for career appointees, as well as at least one executive board that reviews qualifications and makes recommendations regarding SES candidates  An OPM-convened Qualification Review Board (QRB) must certify the executive and managerial qualifications of a selected candidate before a career appointment may be made to an SES position  Unlike career appointees, noncareer appointees are not subject to the competitive selection process, but agency heads must determine that these appointees meet the qualifications of the SES position  While noncareer appointees are not QRB-certified, OPM must approve these appointees  Limited term and limited emergency appointees make up a small subset of the SES, and their terms are non-renewable  These appointments are used when a position is needed for a specified period (such as to manage a special project), or a position is established to meet a "bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need " Limited term and limited emergency appointments are also subject to OPM approval  To restrict the politicization of the SES, Title 5 of the U S  Code (Title 5) limits the number of noncareer and limited term appointees who may serve in SES positions  The SES pay structure is also distinct from the rest of the civil service  Title 5 specifies that the pay rate of each senior executive is based on the executive's individual performance or contribution to agency performance (or both), as measured under a "rigorous" performance appraisal system  Each federal agency must maintain at least one of these appraisal systems, subject to OPM standards, review, and approval  Performance appraisals of SES members may consider factors such as improvements in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work or service, cost efficiency, and performance timeliness  In response to earlier concerns that SES appraisal systems were flawed because most executives received the highest rating, Title 5 tasks OPM, in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget, with the establishment and maintenance of a government-wide performance appraisal system certification process, in an effort to ensure that an agency's appraisal systems for SES employees make "meaningful distinctions based on relative performance " Title 5 also sets out different pay rates for the SES, with a minimum rate of basic pay equal to 120 percent of the rate for GS-15, step 1, and a maximum rate of basic pay equal to the rate for Level III of the Executive Schedule  But SES members' annual aggregate pay (that includes additional compensation such as bonuses, awards, and other payments in addition to basic pay) is capped at the rate for Level I of the Executive Schedule  If a senior executive's total compensation exceeds the aggregate limitation, the executive receives the overage in the following calendar year  To encourage federal agencies to establish and maintain an OPM-certified performance appraisal system, Title 5 allows for a higher range of SES pay for agencies that have these certified systems  Title 5 also articulates conditions and procedures for removing, suspending, or taking other adverse actions against a member of the SES  Career SES appointees who have successfully completed a one-year probationary period may be removed or subject to adverse action only for specified reasons  For example, an SES career appointee may be removed from the civil service or suspended for more than 14 days only for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function  SES members must receive advance written notice about the action and opportunity to provide an answer or receive hearing, subject to exception  The senior executive may also appeal the employment action to the MSPB  A career appointee receiving a single unsatisfactory performance rating may be reassigned or transferred within the SES or removed from the SES  A career SES member who receives two unsatisfactory ratings in any period of five consecutive years, or twice in any period of three consecutive years receives less than fully successful ratings, must be removed from the SES  Affected SES career appointees must receive advance written notice of these actions  While these appointees may not appeal these actions to the MSPB, they may request an informal hearing before the Board  SES career appointees are also generally entitled to be placed in a civil service position at GS-15 or above (or an equivalent position)  In comparison, noncareer, limited term, and limited emergency appointees are generally not subject to the same removal protections and may be removed from the SES at any time  The procedures for removal of noncareer and limited term appointees are largely not addressed in federal statute, and the terms and procedures for their removal are mainly at the discretion of the agency head  In response to concerns about performance and accountability of SES members employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Congress recently created special removal requirements that apply to these positions  In 2017, Congress passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, which amended an existing provision concerning removal procedures for these covered senior executives  Under the 2017 Act, the VA Secretary has discretion to suspend, demote, remove, or take other actions against SES career appointees or other high-level executives if the Secretary determines that the individual's misconduct or performance warrants such action  To address SES job performance issues more expeditiously, SES employees at the VA Department are entitled to abbreviated notice and appeals rights, as compared to the removal procedures in place in other federal agencies 

ground_truth: Although congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions of policy are kept separate from questions of funding, House rules provide for exceptions in certain circumstances. One such circumstance allows for the inclusion of legislative language in general appropriations bills or amendments thereto for "germane provisions that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill." This exception appears in clause 2(b) of House Rule XXI and is known as the Holman rule, after Representative William Holman of Indiana, who first proposed the exception in 1876. Since the period immediately after its initial adoption, the House has interpreted the Holman rule through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application. Under current precedents, for a legislative provision or amendment to be in order, the legislative language in question must be both germane to other provisions in the measure and must produce a clear reduction of appropriations in that bill. In addition, the House adopted a separate order during the 115th Congress that provided for retrenchments of expenditures by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill to be construed as applying to: any provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by— (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill; (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States. This separate order was not readopted for the 116th Congress. This report provides a history of this provision in House rules and an analysis of precedents that are illustrative of its possible application.

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



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

Report 1: Congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions of policy are kept separate from questions of funding  Broadly, the term authorization is used to describe legislation that establishes, continues, or modifies the organization or activities of a federal entity or program  By itself, such legislation does not provide funding for such purposes  Instead, the authority to obligate payments from the Treasury is left to separate appropriations measures  This distinction between appropriations and general legislation as two separate classes of measures, and their consideration in separate legislative vehicles, is a construct of congressional rules and practices  It has been developed and formalized by the House and Senate pursuant to the constitutional authority for each chamber to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings " This power permits each chamber of Congress to enforce, modify, waive, repeal, or ignore its rules as it sees fit  Because the two chambers exercise this rulemaking authority independently, they have developed differing (albeit generally similar) rules and practices  This report addresses solely developments in the House  According to Hinds' Precedents , the origin of a formal rule mandating the separation of general legislation from appropriations can be traced to 1835, when the House debated the increasing problem of delay in enacting appropriations due to the inclusion of "debatable matters of another character, new laws which created long debates in both Houses" and suggested that the Committee on Ways and Means should "strip the appropriation bills of every thing but were legitimate matters of appropriation " In the following Congress (25 th Congress, 1837-1839), language was added to House rules that stated: No appropriation shall be reported in such general appropriation bills, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by law  This rule was applied broadly on occasion to exclude legislative provisions authorizing new expenditures as well, such as a case in 1838 when it was used to exclude an amendment that included a provision for refurnishing the White House  Gradually, the rule "became construed through a long line of decisions to admit amendments increasing salaries but as excluding amendments providing for decreases " As a consequence of this, in 1876, the language was expanded (at the suggestion of Representative William Holman of Indiana) to further state: Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto, changing existing law, be in order except such as, being germane to the subject matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures  As described by one scholar, this provision effectively granted the Appropriations Committee authority to include virtually any legislative provision in an appropriations measure so long as it reduced the number and salary of federal officials, the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury, or the amounts of money covered in an appropriation bill  According to one contemporary account, a broad initial construction of the rule by the House resulted in "putting a great mass of general legislation upon the appropriation bills " The rule was retained in this form until 1880 (46 th Congress), when it was modified to define retrenchments as the reduction of "the number and salary of officers of the United States, the reduction of compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or the reduction of the amounts of money covered by the bill " That form of the rule remained a part of House rules until the 49 th Congress eliminated it in 1885  It was reinserted in the rules for the 52 nd and 53 rd Congresses (1891-1895) but was again dropped for the 54 th through 61 st Congresses (1895-1911) before being readopted in the 62 nd Congress  Although the Holman rule has remained a part of House rules since that time, its language was amended at the start of the 98 th Congress (1983-1984)  At that time, it was restructured to narrow the exception to the general prohibition against legislation to allow only retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill  In addition, the House rules for the 98 th Congress changed when retrenchment amendments could be offered  Amendments that only alter the items or amounts in an appropriation bill are generally in order when the measure is read for amendment and must be offered as the relevant paragraph or section of the bill is read  The new version of the rule provided, however, that germane amendments to retrench expenditures (as well as limitation amendments) would be in order only after the reading of a general appropriation bill and if a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report (essentially ending consideration of the bill) were rejected  Further stylistic changes were made when the House recodified its rules in the 106 th Congress (1999-2000) to make explicit that retrenchment amendments are in order if the motion to rise and report is not offered—as well as if the motion is rejected  It also clarified that the effect of a point of order against legislation in an appropriations bill (and, by extension, the application of the Holman rule exception) is surgical so that it lies against an offending provision in the text and not against consideration of the entire bill  The Holman rule currently states the following: A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or possession of information not required by existing law for the period of the appropriation, except germane provisions that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill [emphasis added]  The Holman rule, thus, does not circumscribe Congress's lawmaking authority but rather provides a limited exception to the general prohibition in House rules against legislation in appropriation measures  For the 115 th Congress, the House included a separate order as Section 3(a) of H Res  5 , adopting the rules of the House, that provides the following: During the first session of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, any reference in clause 2 of rule XXI to a provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill shall be construed as applying to any provision or amendment (offered after the bill has been read for amendment) that retrenches expenditures by— (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill; (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States  As stated in a section-by section summary included in the Congressional Record by Representative Pete Sessions, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, the purpose of this provision is "to see if the reinstatement of the Holman rule will provide Members with additional tools to reduce spending during consideration of the regular general appropriation bill " The applicability of this separate order was extended under Section 5 of H Res  787 (115 th Congress) which provided that "Section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking 'the first session of '" This separate order was not adopted for the 116 th Congress, so the application of the rule reverts to being guided by prior precedents rather than this language  Since the period immediately after the initial adoption of the rule in the 19 th century, the House has interpreted it through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application  For example, early precedents established that while it was not always necessary that a retrenchment specify the amount of a reduction of expenditures, it must appear as a necessary result of the legislation to be in order and that it is not sufficient that such reduction would probably (or would in the opinion of the chair) result therefrom  For example, legislation that would simply confer discretionary authority to terminate employment of federal employees is not in order under the Holman exception because any resulting savings would be speculative  The reduction also may not be contingent on an event  Furthermore, the rule is not applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill  The Holman rule then is intended to apply only when an obvious reduction of funds in a general appropriations bill is achieved by the provision in question, such as the cessation of specific government activities, or through a specific reduction of total appropriations in the bill  In addition, the exception does not apply to limitations (on the grounds that such language is not legislative) or legislative language unaccompanied by a reduction of funds in the bill  Legislation that is too broad has also typically not been allowed under the Holman rule exception  The House has held, for example, that a provision that stated no part of an appropriation could be expended for a specific, designated purpose qualified as a retrenchment  However, a proposal that effectively repealed the law under which appropriations for that purpose were authorized was held not to come within the exception  In another case, the House held that even when a provision does reduce expenditures, it may not be accompanied by additional legislative provisions not directly contributing to the reduction  The separate order for the 115 th Congress effectively reinstated language that had been stricken from the rule in 1983  While the full scope of amendments might be in order as a consequence of this language, it is possible to analyze its potential impact based on past precedents and the limited experience of the 115 th Congress  The additional language opened the door to the consideration of retrenchments resulting from a reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States or the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States  There are precedents regarding provisions allowed under the older, pre-1983 form of the rule that may be illustrative for understanding what might be in order  For example, a proposal that pay for a class of employees be limited to a smaller number of employees than authorized by law was allowed, as were proposals that would reduce the number of officers  The Holman rule also allowed proposals that would consolidate or eliminate offices  On at least one occasion, the Holman rule was the basis for allowing a proposal to replace civilian employees with lower paid U S  Army enlisted personnel  In another case, the rule allowed for an amendment that capped the salaries of certain employees  In the 115 th Congress, one amendment was considered in order based on a plain reading of the text of the separate order to allow for "the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States " Although the amendment failed of passage, it would have provided that: The salary of Mark Gabriel, the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration, shall be reduced to $1  As cited above, however, neither the rule nor the separate order allows for retrenchments that would be applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill  In addition, the application of the broader exceptions in the separate order were still subject to the general requirement for germaneness  The Holman rule is not intended to open the door for legislative provisions that would expand the scope of the bill  As a consequence, even with the additional scope provided by the language of the separate order, it would likely not be in order to include broad legislative provisions in, or amendments to, a specific appropriation bill that would apply to the salary or number of federal employees funded through appropriations in other measures  Furthermore, House precedent establishes that simply providing for a reduction of the number and salaries of officers in a paragraph when it is complicated by other elements does not necessarily bring a proposition within the exception  The Holman rule was also cited as the basis for allowing the consideration of one additional amendment during the 115 th Congress  That amendment also failed to pass, but it would have abolished the Budget Analysis Division of the Congressional Budget Office, comprising 89 employees with annual salaries aggregating $15 million, transferring responsibility for any duties imposed by law and regulation to the Office of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office  When discussing the application of rules and precedents, it is important to note that the House Parliamentarian is the sole definitive authority on questions relating to the chamber's precedents and procedures and should be consulted if a formal opinion on any specific parliamentary question is desired 


Report 2:  First, the increasing sophistication of counterfeits can make it difficult for law enforcement officers to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit goods  Second, as the range of counterfeit goods expands, CBP has a wider variety of goods to screen, which requires CBP officials to have in-depth knowledge of a broad range of products and of how to identify counterfeits  Third, counterfeiters may break up large shipments into multiple smaller express carrier or mail packages to decrease the risk of losing significant quantities of merchandise to a single seizure  This shift toward smaller express shipments of counterfeit goods to the United States poses challenges to CBP and ICE because, according to CBP officials, seizure processing requires roughly the same amount of time and resources regardless of shipment size or value  The changing marketplace also presents challenges to the private sector, according to representatives from rights holders and e-commerce websites  For example, it is more difficult for rights holders and e- commerce websites to identify and investigate individual counterfeit cases, because e-commerce websites face a growing inventory from a larger registry of sellers  Tracking goods from known counterfeiters through various website fulfillment and delivery mechanisms is also a significant challenge for the private sector  Furthermore, the growth of e- commerce has accelerated the pace at which counterfeiters can gain access to consumers or reinvent themselves if shut down  CBP and ICE engage in a number of activities to enhance IPR enforcement; however, while ICE has assessed some of its efforts, CBP has taken limited steps to do so  CBP’s and ICE’s IPR enforcement activities broadly include detecting imports of potentially IPR-infringing goods, conducting special operations at U S  ports, engaging with international partners, and undertaking localized pilot programs or port- led initiatives  CBP and ICE have collected some performance data on activities we reviewed, and ICE has taken some steps to better understand the impact of its efforts, such as creating a process to track cases it deems significant  However, we found that CBP has conducted limited evaluation of its efforts to enhance IPR enforcement  Consequently, we concluded that CBP may lack information needed to ensure it is investing its resources in the most efficient and effective activities  We recommended in our report that CBP take steps to evaluate the effectiveness of its IPR enforcement efforts; CBP concurred with this recommendation  Our analysis showed that CBP and ICE interagency collaboration on IPR enforcement is generally consistent with the following selected key practices for effective interagency collaboration: (1) define and articulate a common outcome; (2) establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; (3) identify and address needs by leveraging resources; (4) agree on roles and responsibilities; and (5) establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries  For example, the agencies may leverage resources by collocating staff or sharing their expertise  CBP and ICE have also issued guidance and developed standard operating procedures to clarify roles and responsibilities  CBP and ICE also coordinate with the private sector in a variety of ways, such as obtaining private sector assistance to determine whether detained goods are authentic and to conduct training  Representatives of rights holders and e-commerce websites noted that information shared by law enforcement entities is critical to private sector IPR enforcement, such as pursuing civil action against a counterfeiter or removing counterfeit items from websites  In the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Congress provided CBP with explicit authority to share certain information with trademark and copyright owners before completing a seizure  CBP officials stated that they share information about identified counterfeits with e-commerce websites and rights holders to the extent possible under current regulations  However, according to private sector representatives we spoke to, restrictions on the amount and type of information about seized items shared by CBP limit the ability of rights holders and e-commerce websites to protect IPR  CBP officials noted that there are legal limitations to the amount and type of information they can share, particularly if the e-commerce website is not listed as the importer on forms submitted to CBP  Several private sector representatives stated that receiving additional information from CBP would enhance their ability to protect IPR  Representatives of one website noted that information on the exterior of seized packages, such as business identifiers on packages destined for distribution centers, would be helpful for identifying groups of counterfeit merchandise from the same seller  However, according to CBP officials, CBP cannot provide such information to e-commerce websites  Representatives of one e-commerce website noted that ICE sometimes shares information related to an investigation, but that ICE’s involvement in the enforcement process begins only after CBP has identified and seized counterfeit items  Representatives of two e-commerce websites stated that, because of the limited information shared by CBP, they may not be aware of IPR-infringing goods offered for sale on their websites, even if CBP has seized related items from the same seller  According to CBP officials, CBP is reviewing options for sharing additional information with rights holders and e-commerce websites and is assessing what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with private sector entities  CBP officials stated that they have not yet determined whether changes to the amount and types of information provided to e-commerce websites would require regulatory changes or additional legal authorities  These officials also said that they have discussed differences in CBP’s and ICE’s information sharing with ICE officials  In our report, we recommended that CBP, in consultation with ICE, assess what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with the private sector and, as appropriate, take action to enhance information sharing where possible  CBP concurred with this recommendation  Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Kimberly Gianopoulos, Director, International Affairs and Trade, at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Joyee Dasgupta, Kara Marshall, Katie Bassion, Kristen Timko, Reid Lowe, Sarah Collins, Neil Doherty, Ramon Rodriguez, Helina Wong, Julie Spetz, Kevin Loh, Wayne McElrath, Grace Lui, James Murphy, Mary Moutsos, Justin Fisher, Rachel Stoiko, and Sarah Veale  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 

ground_truth: This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's January 2018 report, entitled Intellectual Property: Agencies Can Improve Efforts to Address Risks Posed by Changing Counterfeits Market , ( GAO-18-216 ). Changes in the market for counterfeit goods entering the United States pose new challenges for consumers, the private sector, and U.S. agencies that enforce intellectual property rights (IPR). Specifically, growth in e-commerce has contributed to a shift in the sale of counterfeit goods in the United States, with consumers increasingly purchasing goods online and counterfeiters producing a wider variety of goods that may be sold on websites alongside authentic products. For example, 20 of 47 items GAO purchased from third-party sellers on popular consumer websites were counterfeit, according to testing by the products' rights holders (see table), highlighting potential risks to consumers. The changes in the market for counterfeit goods can also pose challenges to the private sector—for example, the challenge of distinguishing counterfeit from authentic goods listed for sale online—and complicate the enforcement efforts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CBP and ICE engage in a number of activities to enhance IPR enforcement; however, while ICE has assessed some of its efforts, CBP has taken limited steps to do so. CBP's and ICE's IPR enforcement activities broadly include detecting imports of potentially IPR-infringing goods, conducting special operations at U.S. ports, engaging with international partners, and undertaking localized pilot programs or port-led initiatives. CBP and ICE have collected some performance data for each of the eight activities GAO reviewed, and ICE has taken some steps to understand the impact of its efforts. However, CBP has conducted limited evaluation of its efforts to enhance IPR enforcement. Consequently, CBP may lack information needed to ensure it is investing its resources in the most efficient and effective activities. CBP and ICE generally collaborate on IPR enforcement, but according to private sector representatives, restrictions on CBP's information sharing limit private sector enforcement efforts. GAO found that CBP and ICE have undertaken efforts that align with selected key practices for interagency collaboration, such as participating in developing a national IPR enforcement strategy and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. However, sharing additional information about seized items with rights-holding companies and e-commerce websites could improve enforcement, according to private sector representatives. CBP officials said they share information to the extent allowed under current regulations, but CBP has not completed an assessment of what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with private sector entities. Without such an assessment, CBP will not know if sharing additional information requires regulatory or legal changes.