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



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

Report 1: According to Education, 50 3 million students were enrolled in more than 98,000 public elementary and secondary schools nationwide in the 2014- 2015 school year  These individual public schools are overseen by approximately 16,000 local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) which are, in turn, overseen and supported by state educational agencies  School districts can range in size from one school (for example, in rural areas) to hundreds of schools in large urban and suburban areas  For example, the 100 largest districts in the United States together have approximately 16,000 schools and enroll about 11 million students  In addition, charter schools are public schools created to achieve a number of goals, such as encouraging innovation in public education  Oversight of charter schools can vary, with some states establishing charter schools as their own school district and other states allowing charter schools to be either a distinct school district in themselves or part of a larger district  Charter schools are often responsible for their own facilities; these may be located in non-traditional school buildings, and may lease part or all of their space  Typically, state educational agencies are responsible for administering state and federal education laws, disbursing state and federal funds, and providing guidance to school districts and schools across the state  State educational agencies frequently provide funds for capital improvements to school facilities, which school districts may use to address issues related to lead in school drinking water, among other things  Different state agencies, including agencies for education, health, and environmental protection, may provide school districts with guidance on testing and remediation of lead in school drinking water  Within a school district, responsibility for water management may be held by individuals in different positions, such as facilities managers or environmental specialists  Lead is a neurotoxin that can accumulate in the body over time with long- lasting effects, particularly for children  According to the CDC, lead in drinking water can cause health effects if it enters the bloodstream and causes an elevated blood lead level  Lead in a child’s body can slow down growth and development, damage hearing and speech, and lead to learning disabilities  For adults, lead can have detrimental effects on cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive systems and can prompt memory loss  In pregnant women, lead stored in bones (due to lead exposure prior to and during pregnancy) can be released as maternal calcium used to form the bones of the fetus, reduce fetal growth, and increase risk of miscarriage and stillbirth  The presence of lead in the bloodstream can disappear relatively quickly, but bones can retain the toxin for decades  Lead in bones may be released into the blood, re-exposing organ systems long after the original exposure  The concentration of lead, total amount consumed, and duration of exposure influence the severity of health effects  The health consequences of lead exposure can differ from person to person and are affected by the cumulative dose of lead and the vulnerability of the individual person regardless of whether the lead exposure is from food, water, soil, dust, or air  Although there are medical therapies to remove lead from the body, they cannot undo the damage it has already caused  For these reasons, EPA, CDC, and others recommend the prevention of lead exposure to the extent possible, recognizing that lead is widespread in the environment  The SDWA authorizes EPA to set standards for drinking water contaminants in public water systems  For a given contaminant the act requires EPA to first establish a maximum contaminant level goal, which is the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety  EPA must then set an enforceable maximum contaminant level as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as is feasible, or require water systems to use a treatment technique to prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible  Feasible means the level is achievable using the best available technology or treatment technique  In 1991 EPA issued the LCR, which it revised in 2000 and 2007, establishing regulations for water systems covered by the SDWA  Lead concentration in water is typically measured in micrograms of lead per liter of water (also referred to as “parts per billion” or ppb)  The rule established a maximum contaminant level goal of zero, because EPA concluded that there was no established safe level of lead exposure  EPA decided not to establish an enforceable maximum contaminant level, concluding that any level reasonably close to the goal would result in widespread noncompliance, and therefore was not feasible  Instead, the rule established an “action level” of 15 micrograms of lead per liter (15 ppb) in a one liter sample of tap water, a level that EPA believed was generally representative of what could be feasibly achieved at the tap  The action level is a screening tool for determining when certain follow-up actions are needed, which may include corrosion control treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement  Sample results that exceed the lead action level do not by themselves constitute violations of the rule  If the lead action level is exceeded in more than 10 percent of tap water samples collected during any monitoring period (that is, if the 90th percentile level is greater than the action level), a water system must take actions to reduce exposure  Several amendments to the SDWA are relevant to testing for lead in school drinking water  In 1988, the SDWA was amended by the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA), which banned the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks containing more than 8 percent lead; the statute defined a drinking water cooler as containing 8 percent lead or less as “lead-free ” The LCCA also required states to establish testing and remediation programs for schools  However, in 1996 a federal circuit court held that this requirement was unconstitutional  In 2011, Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which amended the SDWA by lowering the maximum allowable lead content in “lead-free” plumbing materials such as pipes  This provision became effective on January 4, 2014  In 2016, Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act which, among other things, amended the SDWA, to establish a grant program for states to assist school districts in voluntary testing for lead contamination in drinking water at schools  As a condition of receiving funds, school districts are required to test for lead using standards that are at least as stringent as those in federal guidance for schools  In March 2018, Congress appropriated $20 million to EPA for this grant program  Lead can enter drinking water when service lines or plumbing fixtures that contain lead corrode, especially where the water has high acidity or low mineral content  According to EPA, lead typically enters school drinking water as a result of interaction with lead-containing plumbing materials and fixtures within the building  Although lead pipes and lead solder were not commonly used after 1986, water fountains and other fixtures were allowed to have up to 8 percent lead until 2014, as previously mentioned  Consequently, both older and newer school buildings can have lead in drinking water  Some water in a school building is not for consumption, such as water from a janitorial sink or garden hose, so lead in these water sources presents less risk to students  (See fig  1 ) The best way to know if a school’s water is contaminated with lead is to test the water after it has gone through a school’s pipes, faucets, and other fixtures  To facilitate testing efforts, EPA suggests that schools implement programs for reducing lead in drinking water and developed the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools: Revised Technical Guidance (3Ts guidance) in 2006, which provides information on: (1) training school officials about the potential causes and health effects of lead in drinking water; (2) testing drinking water in schools to identify potential problems and take corrective actions as necessary; and (3) telling students, parents, staff, and the larger community about monitoring programs, potential risks, the results of testing, and remediation actions  The purpose of the 3Ts guidance is to help schools minimize students’ and staffs’ exposure to lead in drinking water  The guidance provides recommendations and suggestions for how to address lead in school drinking water, but does not establish requirements for schools to follow  According to the guidance, if school districts follow the procedures described in guidance, they will be assured their facilities do not have elevated levels of lead in their drinking water  The guidance recommends taking 250 milliliter samples of water from every drinking water source in a school building and having the samples analyzed by an accredited laboratory  Based on the test results of the samples, the guidance recommends remedial action if the samples are found to have an elevated concentration of lead, which is identified by using an action level  While school districts may have discretion to set their own action level, the 3Ts guidance strongly recommends taking remedial action if a school district finds lead at or above 20 ppb in a 250 milliliter sample of water  School districts can take a variety of actions including replacing pipes, replacing fixtures, running water through the system before consumption (known as flushing), or providing bottled water  However, since the amount of lead in school drinking water may change over time for a variety of reasons—for example, the natural aging of plumbing materials or a disturbance nearby, such as construction—the results obtained by one test are not necessarily indicative of results which may be obtained in the future  With no federal law requiring testing for lead in school drinking water, federal agencies play a limited role: Education’s mission includes fostering educational excellence and promoting student achievement, and the agency disseminates guidance to states and school districts about lead in school drinking water, but does not administer any related grants  EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water provides voluntary guidance to schools on how to test for and remediate lead in school drinking water, as part of EPA’s mission to inform the public about environmental risks  In addition, EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection is responsible for working with EPA’s 10 regional offices via their healthy schools coordinators, who communicate with schools and help to disseminate the 3Ts guidance  CDC administers the School Health Policies and Practices Study, a periodic survey to monitor national health objectives that pertain to schools and school districts  The 2016 data, the most recent available, provide information on the number of school districts that periodically test for lead in their drinking water  Under the 2005 memorandum signed by these three agencies to encourage lead testing and remediation in schools, Education’s role includes working with EPA and other groups to encourage testing, and disseminating materials to schools  EPA agreed to update guidance for schools, and provide tools to facilitate testing for lead in school drinking water  CDC’s role includes identifying public health organizations to work with and facilitating dissemination of materials to state health organizations  Lead in School Drinking Water Survey Results at a Glance An estimated 43 percent of school districts tested for lead in school drinking water, but 41 percent did not, and 16 percent did not know  o Some districts tested drinking water in all sources of consumable water in all of their schools, while other school districts tested only some sources  o Among the reasons for not testing, school districts said they either did not identify a need to test or were not required to do so  Of those that tested, an estimated 37 percent of school districts found elevated lead levels—levels of lead above the district’s threshold for taking remedial action—in school drinking water  o School districts varied in terms of the threshold they used, with some using 15 ppb or 20 ppb and others using a lower threshold  School districts varied in whether they tested for lead in school drinking water and whether they discovered elevated levels of lead  For example, an estimated 88 percent of the largest 100 school districts tested compared with 42 percent of other school districts  All school districts that found elevated lead reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate the lead, including replacing water fountains or providing bottled water  Nationwide, school districts vary in terms of whether they have tested for lead in school drinking water, with many not testing  According to our survey of school districts, an estimated 43 percent tested for lead in school drinking water in at least one school in the last 12 months, while 41 percent had not tested  An estimated 35 million students were enrolled in districts that tested as compared with 12 million students in districts that did not test  An estimated 16 percent of school districts, enrolling about 6 million students, reported that they did not know whether they had tested or not  (See fig  2 ) Of school districts that tested for lead in school drinking water, some tested all consumable water sources in all of their schools, while others may have only tested some sources in all schools or all sources in some schools  Among the reasons provided by survey respondents for not testing in all schools, some said the age of the building was the primary consideration  For example, an official in one school district we visited told us they began testing in buildings constructed before 1989, but after receiving results that some water sources had elevated lead levels, the district decided to test all of their school buildings  Other reasons reported for testing some, but not all, schools included testing schools only when a complaint about discolored water was received or testing only new schools or schools that were renovated  In addition, school districts varied in whether they sampled from every consumable water source, or just some of the sources, in their schools  For example, one district official told us they took one sample from each type of water fountain in each school, assuming that, if a sampled fountain was found to have an elevated level of lead, then all of the other fountains of that type would also have elevated lead levels  However, EPA’s 3Ts guidance recommends that every water source that is regularly used for drinking or cooking be sampled  Further, stakeholders and environmental and educational officials we interviewed said that results from one water fountain, faucet, or any other consumable water source cannot be used to predict whether lead will be found in other sources  In our survey, the median amount spent by school districts to test for lead in school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially, depending on the number of schools in which tests were conducted (see table 1)  School districts may have paid for services such as collecting water samples, analyzing and reporting results, and consultants  For example, an official in a small, rural school district—with three schools housed in one building—told us his district spent $180 to test all eight fixtures  In contrast, officials in a large, urban school district told us they spent about $2 1 million to test over 11,000 fixtures in over 500 schools  Some school districts, especially larger ones, incurred costs to hire consultants to advise them and help design a plan to take samples, among other things  EPA’s 3Ts guidance recommends determining how to communicate information about lead testing programs with parents, governing officials, and other stakeholders before testing  Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water in our survey, an estimated 76 percent informed their local school board and 59 percent informed parents about their plans to test; similar percentages provided information about the testing results  We identified a range of approaches to communicating testing efforts in the 17 school districts we interviewed  Some school districts reported issuing press releases, putting letters in multiple languages in students’ backpacks, sending emails to parents, holding public meetings, and releasing information through social media  Before testing, one district created a website with a list of dates when it planned to test the drinking water in every one of its schools  In contrast, other school districts communicated with parents and the press only upon request  Officials in one district we visited said they did not post lead testing results on their website, because they wanted to avoid causing undue concern, adding that “more information isn’t necessarily better, especially when tests showed just trace amounts of lead ” School districts generally have discretion to determine how frequently they test for lead in school drinking water except when prescribed in state law, and most school districts responding to our survey had no specific schedule for recurring testing  Specifically, an estimated: 27 percent of school districts plan to test “as needed,” 25 percent have no schedule to conduct recurring tests, and 15 percent do not know  The remaining school districts reported a range of frequencies for conducting additional tests or said they were developing a schedule to conduct tests on a recurring basis  School district officials and stakeholders we interviewed told us that it is important to test for lead in drinking water on a recurring basis, because lead can leach into school drinking water at any time  In our survey, we asked school districts reporting that they had not tested for lead in school drinking water in the last 12 months (41 percent of districts) to provide us with one or more reasons why they had not tested  Of these school districts, an estimated 53 percent reported that they did not identify a need to test and 53 percent reported they were not required to test (see fig  3)  Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water, an estimated 37 percent of districts found elevated levels of lead in school drinking water, while 57 percent of districts did not find lead (see fig  4)  Of those that found lead in drinking water, most found lead above their selected action level in some of their schools, while some districts found lead above their action level in all of their schools  For example, officials in one large school district told us they tested over 10,000 sources of water, including drinking fountains and food preparation fixtures, and found that over 3,600 water sources had lead at or above the district’s action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb)  The findings resulted in extensive remediation efforts, officials said  Further, district officials reported different action levels they used to determine when to take steps such as replacing a water fountain or installing a filter  School districts generally may select their own action level, resulting in different action levels between districts  Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water, an estimated 44 percent set an action level between 15 ppb and 19 ppb  The action levels chosen by the rest of the school districts ranged from a low of 1 ppb whereby action would be taken if any lead at all was detected to a high 20 ppb where action would be taken if lead was found at or above 20 ppb  (See appendix II for the estimated percentage of school districts that set other action levels ) Though fewer than half of school districts reported testing for lead in school drinking water, our analysis of school districts’ survey responses shows that these estimates varied depending on the size and population density of the district as well as its geographic location  For example, among the largest 100 school districts, an estimated 88 percent reported they had tested for lead in school drinking water in at least one school in the last 12 months compared with 42 percent of all other districts nationwide  An estimated 59 percent of the largest 100 school districts that tested discovered elevated levels of lead compared to 36 percent of all other districts that tested (see table 2)  In addition, an estimated 86 percent of school districts in the Northeast region of the United States tested for lead in school drinking water, compared to less than half of school districts in other geographic regions  Similarly, about half of school districts in the Northeast and about 8 percent in the South found elevated levels of lead, compared to their selected action level  (See fig  5 ) In our survey, every school district that reported finding lead in school drinking water above their selected action level reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate the lead  For example, an estimated 71 percent said they replaced water fountains, 63 percent took water fountains out of service without replacing them, and 62 percent flushed the school’s water system (see fig  6)  School districts officials we interviewed told us they took a range of remedial actions generally consistent with those reported to us in our survey  For example, an official in one district told us that 129 of the 608 fixtures tested above the district’s action level of “any detectable level ” He said they installed filters on all of the 106 sink faucets with elevated lead and replaced all of the 23 drinking fountains with elevated lead  The district official explained that they re-tested fixtures after the filters and new fountains were installed, and did not detect any lead in their drinking water  Officials in another school district told us that approximately 3,600 of their fixtures were found to have lead above their action level of 15 ppb  They told us the district turned off the water at the affected fixtures as an interim measure and provided bottled water to students and staff  Though they had not yet finalized their plans at the time of our interview, they said they were planning to replace the fixtures and replace old pipes with new pipes  District officials said they plan to pay for their remediation efforts using local capital improvement funds from a recently-approved bond initiative  Similar to the cost of testing, the median amount spent by school districts to remediate lead in school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially, depending on the number of schools in which a district took action to remediate lead (see table 3)  The median expenditure for school districts taking action in one to four schools was $4,000 compared to a median expenditure for school districts taking action in 51 or more schools of $278,000  EPA regional officials provided examples of eight states that have requirements for schools to test for lead in drinking water as of September 2017: California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia  State requirements differ in terms of which schools are included, testing protocols, communicating results, and funding  (See fig  7 ) (For a list of testing components for the eight states, see appendix IV ) According to stakeholders we interviewed, most state legislation on testing for lead in school drinking water has been introduced in the past 2 years  Of the eight states, three states have completed one round of required testing, while other states are in the early stages of implementation or have not yet begun, according to state officials  School districts in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York completed a round of testing for lead in school drinking water by December 2017  Testing in the District of Columbia was in progress as of April 2018  Minnesota requires school districts to develop a plan to test by July 2018 and California requires that water systems sample all covered public schools in their service area by July 2019  According to state officials, schools in Maryland must test by July 2020  In Virginia, no timeline for testing is indicated in the requirement  In addition, requirements in these eight states vary in terms of covered schools and frequency of testing  For example, in Maryland, all schools, including charter and private schools, are required to test their water for lead by July 2020 and must re-test every 3 years  After regulations were approved in July 2016, New Jersey required testing within a year in all traditional public schools, charter schools, and certain private schools, and re-testing every 6 years, according to state officials  Illinois’ requirement is for public and private elementary schools constructed before 2000 to test their drinking water for lead, and does not mandate re- testing  Seven of the eight states include at least some charter schools in their testing requirements (New York does not)  State testing requirements also differ in terms of action level, sample sizes, and number of samples, according to state documents  States can choose their own lead threshold or action level for remediation, and the eight states have chosen levels ranging from any detectable level in Illinois to 20 ppb in Maryland  Six of the eight states have chosen to use 250 milliliter samples of water, while California is using a one liter sample size, and Virginia delegates to school districts to choose their action level and sample size  Some states specify that all drinking water sources in a building must be tested, such as in New York and New Jersey, or allow a smaller number of samples to be tested, such as in California, which recommends that water systems take between one and five samples per school  To implement its testing requirement, the District of Columbia has installed filters in all school drinking water sources, and plans to test the filtered water from each fixture for elevated lead annually  The responsibility for the costs of testing and remediation also differ by state  According to state officials, in Minnesota, the costs of testing may be eligible for reimbursement from the state, and in the District of Columbia, the Department of General Services is responsible for the cost  California requires that public water systems cover the cost of testing for all public schools in their jurisdiction  In all other states we looked at, schools or school districts are at least partially responsible for the costs of testing  Additionally, most schools or school districts are responsible for the costs of remediation, although Minnesota, New York, and the District of Columbia will provide funds to help with the costs of remediation as well  Seven of the eight state requirements have a provision for communicating the results of lead sampling and testing in schools  For example, Minnesota requires all test results be made public and New York requires that results be communicated to students’ families  Maryland and New Jersey require that results above the action level be reported to the responsible state agency, such as the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education, and that sample results that find elevated levels of lead be communicated to students’ families  Illinois requires that all results be made available to families and that individual letters to families also be sent if lead levels over 5 ppb are found  In contrast, Virginia does not include a provision to communicate testing results in its testing requirement for schools  According to stakeholders and state officials we interviewed, states have several other common issues to consider in implementing a state testing and remediation program  First, states need to ensure that their efforts, which can be significant given the thousands of schools that operate in each state, can be completed with limited resources and by a legislated deadline  Second, coordination between relevant state agencies, which will vary by state, may be challenging  Because of the nature of testing for lead in school drinking water, multiple government agencies may be involved, necessitating a balance of responsibilities and information- sharing between these state agencies  Finally, state officials told us that imposing requirements without providing funding to implement them may be a challenge for schools in complying with testing and remediation requirements  Apart from the states with requirements to test for lead in school drinking water discussed in this report, at least 13 additional states had also provided funding or in-kind support to school districts to assist with voluntary lead testing and remediation, according to EPA regional offices  Those states are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington  In Massachusetts, for example, officials told us the state used $2 8 million from the state Clean Water Trust to fund a voluntary program for sampling and testing for all participating public schools in 2016 and 2017  Massachusetts contracted with a state university to assist schools with testing for lead in drinking water  When the program completed its first round of testing in February 2017, 818 schools throughout the state had participated, and the state has begun a second round of sampling with remaining funds from the Clean Water Trust  In Oregon, officials told us the state legislature provided funding for matching grants of up to $8 million to larger school districts for facilities improvements, and made $5 million of emergency funds available to reimburse school districts for laboratory fees associated with drinking water testing as part of the state’s efforts to address student safety  States can also provide technical assistance to support school districts in their efforts to test for and remediate lead in drinking water  The five states we visited provided a range of technical assistance to school districts  For example, to implement the voluntary assistance program in Massachusetts, the contracted university told us they hired 15 additional staff and assisted schools in designing sampling plans, taking samples, and sending them for testing  University officials told us they oversaw the sampling of all drinking water sources in each participating school and sent the sample to state certified laboratories for analysis  State officials encouraged schools to shut off all fixtures in which water tested at or above the action level of 15 ppb and provided guidance on actions to take, such as removing and replacing fixtures, using signage to indicate fixtures not to be used for drinking water, and implementing a flushing program  The state developed an online reporting tool so that all test results could be publicly posted  State officials also supported schools in communicating lead testing results to parents and the community  Other states we visited provided technical assistance to school districts through webinars, guidance documents, in-person presentations, and responding to inquiries  In Oregon, the state Department of Education and the state Health Authority collaborated in 2016 to provide guidance to schools on addressing lead in drinking water  The Governor issued a directive requesting all school districts test for lead in their buildings and the Health Authority requested that districts send them the results  In Texas, officials at the Commission for Environmental Quality have made presentations to schools on water sampling protocols and provided templates for school districts to communicate results  Officials told us that an increased number of school districts have contacted them in the past year seeking guidance, and, in response, they directed districts to EPA’s 3Ts guidance and a list of accredited laboratories  In Illinois, state officials partnered with the state chapter of the American Water Works Association to provide a guidance document for drinking water sampling and testing to assist schools in complying with new testing requirements  In Georgia, officials at the Department of Natural Resources told us they promote the 3Ts guidance on their website and have offered themselves as a resource on school testing at presentations with local water associations  EPA provides several voluntary resources, such as guidance, training, and technical assistance, to states and school districts regarding testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, but some school districts we surveyed and officials we interviewed said more information would be helpful  The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 (LCCA) required EPA to publish a guidance document and testing protocol to assist schools in their testing and remediation efforts  EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water issued its 3Ts guidance which provides information on training school officials, testing drinking water in schools, and telling the school and broader community about these efforts  Of the school districts that reported in our survey using the 3Ts guidance to inform their lead testing efforts, an estimated 68 percent found the guidance extremely or very helpful for conducting tests  The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water also developed an additional online resource—known as the 3Ts guidance toolkit—to further assist states and school districts with their lead in drinking water prevention programs by providing fact sheets and brochures for community members, among other things  Some states have used the 3Ts guidance as a resource for their state programs, according to EPA officials  For example, a New York regulation directs schools to use the 3Ts guidance as a technical reference when implementing their state- required lead testing and remediation programs  The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water provides training to support states and school districts with their lead testing and remediation programs  In June 2017, EPA started a quarterly webinar series to highlight school district efforts to test for lead  These webinars include presentations from school officials and key partners that conducted lead testing and remediation  For example, on June 21, 2017, officials from Denver Public Schools and Denver Water presented on their efforts to test for lead in the public school system  EPA’s approach to providing guidance and technical assistance to states and school districts is determined by each of the 10 EPA regional offices  Some EPA regional offices provide the 3Ts guidance to school districts upon request and others conduct outreach to share the guidance, typically through their healthy schools coordinator when discussing other topics, such as indoor air quality and managing chemicals  EPA regional offices also provide technical assistance by request, typically through phone consultations with school districts that have questions regarding the 3Ts guidance, according to EPA headquarters officials  Officials also indicated that the agency has received more requests for technical assistance from schools over the past few years regarding lead in drinking water  Officials in EPA Regions 1 in Boston and 2 in New York City told us they provided technical assistance to school districts by conducting lead testing and analysis in school facilities and Region 9 in San Francisco provided technical assistance by reviewing school district testing protocols  For example, EPA Region 2 officials said between 2002 and 2016 they worked with one to two school districts per year to assist with their lead testing efforts  As part of this effort, the regional office provided funding for sampling and analysis  Officials said they prioritized school districts based on population size and whether the community had elevated blood lead levels  Other EPA regional office approaches included identifying resources and guidance for relevant state agencies and facilitating information sharing by connecting districts that have tested for lead with districts that are interested in doing so  However, most EPA regional offices do not provide technical assistance in the form of testing, analysis, or remediation to school districts, and some do little or no outreach to communicate the importance of testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water  According to federal standards for internal control, management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  Each EPA regional office’s approach to providing resources to states and school districts varies based on differing regional priorities and available resources, according to EPA headquarters officials  Additionally, officials said that this decentralized model of providing support and technical assistance related to lead testing and remediation in schools is appropriate because of the number of schools across the United States  However, based on our survey we found school district familiarity with the 3Ts guidance varied by geographic area (see fig  8)  An estimated 54 percent of school districts in the Northeast reported familiarity with the 3Ts guidance, compared with 17 percent of districts in the South  Furthermore, the Northeast was the only geographic area with more school districts reporting that they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance than not  This awareness corresponds with the efforts made by the state of Massachusetts and EPA’s regional offices in the Northeast to distribute the 3Ts guidance and conduct lead testing and remediation in school districts  By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to schools to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices included in the 3Ts guidance, EPA regional offices that have not focused on this issue could leverage the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support  EPA’s 3Ts guidance emphasizes the importance of taking action to remediate elevated lead in school drinking water, but the agency’s guidance on a recommended action level for states and school districts is not current and contains elements that could be misleading  Although the guidance recommends that school districts prioritize taking action if lead levels from water fountains and other outlets used for consumption exceed 20 ppb (based on a 250 milliliter water sample), EPA officials told us when the guidance was originally developed in response to the 1988 LCCA requirement, the agency did not have information available to recommend an action level specifically designed for schools  Furthermore, EPA officials told us that the action level in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard  However, there are statements in the guidance that appear to suggest otherwise  For example, the guidance states that EPA strongly recommends that all water outlets in all schools that provide water for drinking or cooking meet a “standard” of 20 ppb lead or less and that school officials who follow the steps included in the document, including using a 20 ppb action level, will be “assured” that school facilities do not have elevated lead in the drinking water  The use of the terms “standard” and “assured” are potentially misleading and could suggest that the 20 ppb action level is protective of health  Further, state and school district officials may be familiar with the 15 ppb action level (based on a 1 liter water sample) for public water systems aimed at identifying system-wide problems under the LCR, which may also create confusion around the 20 ppb action level included in the 3Ts guidance  According to our survey, an estimated 67 percent of school districts reported using an action level less than the 20 ppb recommended in the 3Ts guidance  We found that nearly half of school districts used action levels between 15 ppb and 19 ppb  Although these action levels— the 20 ppb from the 3Ts guidance and the 15 ppb from the LCR—are intended for different purposes, the difference creates confusion for some state and school district officials  Also, according to our survey, an estimated 56 percent of school districts reported they would find it helpful to have clearer guidance on what level of lead to use as the action level for deciding to take steps to remediate lead in drinking water  In addition, officials we interviewed in four of the five states we visited said there is a need for clearer guidance on the action level  EPA officials agreed that the difference between the two action levels creates confusion for states and school districts  In addition to wanting clearer guidance on choosing lead action levels, about half of the school districts we surveyed said they would also like additional information to help inform their lead testing and remediation programs  Specifically, school districts reported that they want information on a recommended schedule for lead testing, how to remediate elevated lead levels, and information associated with testing and remediation costs (see fig  9)  For example, an estimated 54 percent of school districts responded that they would like additional information on a testing schedule, as did officials in 10 of the 17 school districts and one of the five states we interviewed  EPA’s 3Ts guidance does not include information to help school districts determine a schedule for retesting their schools  Officials in one school district told us they need information for determining retesting schedules for lead in their school drinking water, and that—without guidance—they chose to retest every 5 years, acknowledging that this decision was made without a clear rationale  Further, an estimated 62 percent of school districts reported wanting additional information on remedial actions to take to address elevated lead  For example, officials from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection told us that they would like additional guidance on evaluating remedial actions to address elevated lead in the fixtures or the plumbing system  Officials with EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water hold quarterly meetings with regional officials to obtain input on potential improvements to the 3Ts guidance, but have not made any revisions  EPA has not substantially updated the 3Ts guidance since October 2006 and does not have firm plans or time frames for providing additional information, including on the action level and other key topics such as a recommended schedule for testing  EPA officials said that they may update the 3Ts guidance before the LCR is updated, but did not provide a specific time frame for doing so  EPA has efforts underway to reconsider the action level for the LCR, which may include a change in the action level from one that is based on technical feasibility, to one that also considers lead exposure in vulnerable populations such as infants and young children, which EPA refers to as a health-based benchmark  EPA anticipates issuing comprehensive revisions to the LCR by February 2020  While the 3Ts guidance is not contingent on the LCR, EPA officials told us they would consider updates to the 3Ts guidance, including the 20 ppb action level, as they consider revisions to the LCR  By updating the 3Ts guidance to include an action level for school districts that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures, EPA could have greater assurance that school districts are able to limit children’s exposure to lead  EPA has emphasized the importance of addressing elevated lead levels in school drinking water through its 3Ts guidance, but has not communicated necessary information about action levels and other key topics consistent with the external communication standard under federal standards for internal control  According to EPA, CDC, and others, eliminating sources of lead before exposure can occur is considered the best strategy to protect children from potential adverse health outcomes  EPA officials also told us that clear guidance is important because testing for lead in drinking water requires technical expertise  But without providing interim or updated guidance to help school districts choose an action level for lead remediation EPA will continue to provide schools with confusing information regarding whether to remediate, which may not adequately limit potential lead exposure to students and staff  Furthermore, without important information on key topics, such as a recommended schedule for lead testing, how to remediate elevated lead levels, and information associated with testing and remediation costs school districts are at risk of making misinformed decisions regarding their lead testing and remediation efforts  Education has not played a significant role in supporting state and school districts efforts to test for and remediate lead in school drinking water, and there has been limited collaboration between Education and EPA, according to officials  In 2005, Education, EPA, CDC, and other entities involved with drinking water signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities (the memorandum) to encourage and support schools’ efforts to test for lead in drinking water and to support actions to reduce children’s exposure to lead  According to the memorandum, Education’s role is to identify the appropriate school organizations with which to work and facilitate dissemination of materials and tools to schools in collaboration with EPA  In addition, EPA’s role is to update relevant guidance documents for school districts—resulting in the production of the 3Ts guidance in 2006—raising awareness, and collaborating with other federal agencies and associations, among other things  Education officials told us that the agency does not have any ongoing efforts related to implementing the memorandum  However, Education and EPA officials were not aware of the memorandum being terminated by either agency and told us the memorandum remains in effect  Although Education does not have any ongoing efforts related to implementing the memorandum, the agency’s websites, including the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center (REMS TA Center) website, and the Green Strides portal, provide links to EPA guidance and webinars on lead testing and remediation  The REMS TA Center website, which is largely focused on emergency management planning, includes a link to EPA’s 3Ts guidance and other resources on lead exposure and children, but does not provide information regarding the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water  Education’s Green Strides portal includes a link to a number of EPA’s webinars on lead in school drinking water, but does not include all of the quarterly webinars started in June 2017 to highlight school district efforts to test for lead  An Education official told us that these EPA webinars are identified by Education without coordinating with EPA officials  Further, when searching on Education’s website for lead in school drinking water, the 3Ts guidance does not show up  Education officials acknowledged that information regarding lead testing and remediation is difficult to find on Education’s website and they could take steps to make federal guidance on lead in school drinking water more accessible  The federal government has developed guidelines to help federal agencies improve their experience with customers through websites  One such resource is Guidelines for Improving Digital Services developed by the federal Digital Services Advisory Group  It states that federal agencies should take steps to make guidance easy to find and accessible  Making guidance easy to find and accessible such as by clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance on Education’s websites could help raise school district awareness of the guidance, which is currently low in most areas of the country  Many school districts are not familiar with EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation  Specifically, an estimated 60 percent of school districts reported in our survey that they were not familiar with the EPA’s 3Ts guidance  Most school district officials from our site visits told us they did not have contact with EPA prior to or during their lead testing and some said they would not have thought to go to EPA for guidance  Likewise, EPA officials reported they had received feedback from school district officials indicating that they do not know where to go for information about testing for and remediating lead in drinking water  Rather, school district officials may look to their state educational agency or Education for guidance on lead testing and remediation, as they might do when looking for guidance on other topics  Education and EPA do not regularly collaborate to support state and school districts’ efforts related to lead in school drinking water, according to EPA and Education officials  Education officials said the agency does not have a role in ensuring safe drinking water in schools, and that the mitigation of environmental health concerns in school facilities is a state and local function  Therefore, the agency does not collaborate with EPA to disseminate the 3Ts guidance beyond posting links to related guidance on their websites and newsletters  EPA officials told us they do not know which office they should collaborate with at Education  EPA regional officials also said they do not collaborate with Education to disseminate the guidance to states and school districts  However, in the 2005 memorandum, EPA and Education agreed to work together to encourage school districts to test drinking water for lead; disseminate results to parents, students, staff, and other interested stakeholders; and take appropriate actions to correct elevated lead levels  There are many school districts that have not tested for lead in school drinking water, and some conducted testing without the assistance of federal guidance—although the large majority (68 percent) of school districts who use the guidance reported finding it helpful  Officials in 11 of 17 school districts we interviewed that had conducted lead testing told us they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance and 9 of those districts said they found it helpful for designing their lead testing programs  Increased encouragement and dissemination of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water by Education and EPA could help school districts test for and remediate lead in drinking water using good practices and reduce the potential risk of exposure for students and staff  Children are particularly at risk of experiencing the adverse effects of lead exposure from a variety of sources, including drinking water  While there is no federal law requiring lead testing for drinking water in most schools, some states and school districts have decided to test for lead in the drinking water to help protect students  However, there are a number of school districts that have not tested for lead and some that do not know if they have tested for lead in their drinking water, according to our nationwide survey  Even in states and school districts that have opted to test, officials may choose different action levels to identify elevated lead and may choose different testing protocols that do not test all fixtures in all schools  EPA has developed helpful guidance—3Ts—and webinars for states and school districts to support efforts to test and remediate lead in school drinking water  However, some EPA regional offices have not communicated the importance of testing for and remediating lead to states and school districts  By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to school districts to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices, including the 3Ts guidance, regional offices that have not focused on this issue could build on the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance and other forms of support  State and school district officials can use EPA’s 3Ts guidance to help ensure that their drinking water testing and remediation efforts are in line with good practices and said that it has been helpful for establishing their programs  However, statements in the guidance—which has not been updated in over a decade—that suggest the action level described will ensure that school facilities do not have elevated lead in their drinking water are misleading  In addition, state and school district officials told us that additional guidance—including information on a recommended schedule for retesting as well as on costs associated with testing and remediation—could help school districts make more informed decisions regarding their testing and remediation efforts  Without providing interim or updated guidance, EPA is providing schools with confusing and out of date information, which can increase the risk of school districts making uninformed decisions  EPA officials said they would consider updates to the 3Ts action level while the revisions to the LCR are being completed  However, the longer school districts are without the additional information they need to conduct their efforts in line with good practices and continue to rely on confusing and misleading information, the more challenges they will face in trying to limit children’s exposure to lead  After EPA revises the LCR, the agency would have greater assurance that school districts are limiting children’s exposure to lead by considering whether to develop, as part of its guidance, a health-based level for schools that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures  Finally, although Education provides information to states and school districts on lead testing and remediation through the agency’s websites, that information is difficult to find  Further, Education’s website does not include all of EPA’s quarterly webinars to highlight school district efforts to test for lead  By making guidance accessible, Education could improve school district awareness of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water  In addition, EPA and Education should improve their collaboration to encourage and support lead testing and remediation efforts by states and school districts  EPA has the expertise to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to states and school districts, while Education, based on its mission to promote student achievement, should collaborate with EPA to disseminate guidance and raise awareness of lead in drinking water as an issue that could impact student success  Although over one-third of districts that tested found elevated levels of lead, many districts have still not been tested  Unless EPA and Education encourage additional school districts to test for lead, many students and school staff may be at risk of lead exposure  We are making a total of seven recommendations, including five to EPA and two to Education: The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should promote further efforts to communicate the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water to address what has been a varied approach by regional offices  For example, the Assistant Administrator could direct those offices with limited involvement to build on the recent efforts of several regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support  (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide interim or updated guidance to help schools choose an action level for lead remediation and more clearly explain that the action level currently described in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard  (Recommendation 2) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should, following the agency’s revisions to the LCR, consider whether to develop a health-based level, to include in its guidance for school districts, that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures and is consistent with the LCR  (Recommendation 3) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide information to states and school districts concerning schedules for testing school drinking water for lead, actions to take if lead is found in the drinking water, and costs of testing and remediation  (Recommendation 4) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should improve the usability of Education’s websites to ensure that the states and school districts can more easily find and access federal guidance to address lead in school drinking water, by taking actions such as clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance  (Recommendation 5) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water and the Director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection should collaborate with Education to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water  This effort could include further dissemination of EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so  (Recommendation 6) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should collaborate with EPA to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water  This effort could include disseminating EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so  (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to EPA, Education, and CDC for review and comment  EPA and Education provided written comments that are reproduced in appendixes VII and VIII respectively  EPA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  CDC did not provide comments  We also provided relevant excerpts to selected states and incorporated their technical comments as appropriate  In its written comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them  For example, EPA said its Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is holding regular meetings with regional offices and other EPA offices to obtain input on improving the 3Ts guidance  Potential revisions include updates to implementation practices, the sampling protocol, and the action level, including clarifying descriptions of different action levels and standards  Also, EPA said that while it has not yet determined the role of a health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water in the revised LCR, it sees value in providing states, drinking water systems, and the public with a greater understanding of the potential health implications for vulnerable populations of specific levels of lead in drinking water  EPA said it would continue to reach out to states and schools to provide information, technical assistance, and training and will continue to make the 3Ts guidance available  EPA also said it would work with Education to ensure that school districts and other stakeholders are aware of additional resources EPA is developing  In its written comments, Education stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them  In response to our recommendation to improve Education’s websites, Education said it would identify and include an information portal dedicated to enhancing the usability of federal resources related to testing for and addressing lead in school drinking water  Also, Education said it is interested in increasing coordination across all levels of government and it shares the view expressed in our report that improved federal coordination, including with EPA, will better enhance collaboration to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water  Education said it would develop a plan for disseminating relevant resources to its key stakeholder groups and explore how best to coordinate with states to disseminate EPA’s guidance on lead testing and remediation to school districts  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 interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 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 have any questions about this report, please contact us at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao gov or (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@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 IX  In this report, we examined three objectives: (1) the extent to which school districts are testing for, finding, and remediating lead in school drinking water; (2) the extent to which states require or support testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water by school districts; and (3) the extent to which federal agencies are supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead  To address these objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of school districts, interviews with selected state and school district officials, a review of applicable requirements in selected states, a review of relevant federal laws and regulations, and interviews with federal agency officials and representatives of stakeholder organizations  We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through July 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  To examine the extent to which school districts are testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water, we designed and administered a generalizable survey of a stratified random sample of U S  local educational agencies (LEA), which we refer to as school districts throughout the report  The survey included questions about school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water, such as the number of schools in which tests were conducted, the costs of testing, and whether parents or others were notified about the testing efforts  We also asked questions about remediation efforts, such as whether lead was discovered in school drinking water, the specific remediation efforts that were implemented, and whether parents or others were notified about the remediation efforts  Further, we asked about officials’ familiarity with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidance entitled 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools, (3Ts guidance) whether the guidance was used, and the extent to which it was helpful in conducting tests, remediating lead, and communicating with parents and others  We directed the survey to school district superintendents or other cognizant officials, such as facilities directors  See appendix II which includes the survey questions and estimates  We defined our target population to be all school districts in the 50 U S  states and the District of Columbia that are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Bureau of Indian Education  We used the LEA Universe database from Department of Education’s (Education) Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2014-2015 school year to our sampling frame  For the purpose of our survey, our sample was limited to school districts that: were located in the District of Columbia or the 50 states; had a LEA type code of 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; had one or more schools and one or more students; and were not closed according to the 2014-2015 School Year  The resulting sample frame included 16,452 school districts and we selected a stratified random sample of 549 school districts  We stratified the sampling frame into 13 mutually exclusive strata based on urban classification and poverty classification  We further stratified the school districts classified as being in a city by charter status  We selected the largest 100 school districts with certainty  We determined the minimum sample size needed to achieve precision levels of plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer, at the 95 percent confidence level  We then increased the sample size within each stratum for an expected response rate of 70 percent  We defined the three urban classifications based on the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) urban-centric locale code  To build a general measure of the poverty level for each school district we used the proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) as indicated in the CCD data and classified these into the following three groups: High-poverty – More than 75 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; Mid-poverty – Between 25 1 and 75 0 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; and Low-poverty – 25 percent or fewer students in the school district were eligible for FRPL  We assessed the reliability of the CCD data by reviewing existing documentation about the data and performing electronic testing on required data elements and determined they were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our report  We administered the survey from July to October 2017 (the survey asked school districts to report information based on the 12 months prior to their completing the survey ) To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we sent reminder emails to nonrespondents and contacted nonrespondents over the telephone  We identified that four of the 549 sampled school districts were closed and one was a “cyber-school” with no building, so these were removed from the sample  Of the remaining 544 eligible sampled school districts, we received valid responses from 373, resulting in an unweighted response rate of 68 percent  We conducted an analysis of our survey results to identify potential sources of nonresponse bias using a multivariate logistic regression model  We examined the response propensity of the sampled school districts by several demographic characteristics  These characteristics included poverty, urbanicity, and charter status  We did not find any other population characteristics significantly affected survey response propensity except those used in stratification (charter schools and the largest 100 school districts)  Based on the response bias analysis and the 68 percent response rate across stratum, we determined that estimates based on adjusted weights reflecting the response rate are generalizable to the population of eligible school districts and are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report  We took steps to minimize non-sampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments and using a web-based administration system  As we began to develop the survey, we met with officials from seven school districts to explore the feasibility of responding to the survey questions  We then pretested the draft instrument from April to June 2017 with officials in eight school districts—including one charter school district—in cities and suburbs in different states  In the pretests, we asked about the clarity of the questions and the flow and layout of the survey  The EPA also reviewed and provided us comments on a draft version of the survey  Based on feedback from the pretests and EPA’s review, we made revisions to the survey instrument  To further minimize non-sampling errors, we used a web-based survey, which allowed respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic instrument  Using this method automatically created a record for each respondent and eliminated the errors associated with a manual data entry process  We express the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 10 percentage points)  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population  To analyze differences in the percentages of school districts that reported they tested for lead in school drinking water and those that discovered lead, we compared weighted survey estimates generated for school districts in different levels of the following subgroups: Poverty: low poverty, mid poverty, and high poverty; Racial composition: majority-minority and majority white; Region: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West; Population density: urban, suburban, and rural/town; Urban charter school: in urban areas, charter district and non-charter Largest 100: largest 100 districts (based on student enrollment) and all other districts  For each subgroup, we produced percentage estimates and standard errors for each level and used these results to confirm the significance of the differences between weighted survey estimates  To examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we conducted site visits in five states—Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas—from February to October 2017  We selected these states because they varied in the extent to which they required testing of school drinking water for lead and they are located in geographic areas covered by different EPA regional offices  Within these states, we selected 17 school districts that had tested for lead in school drinking water and to achieve variation in the size and population density (urban, suburban, and rural) of the district as well as including one charter school district  Site visits generally consisted of interviews with officials in state agencies and school districts and officials in the local EPA regional office: State interviews: We interviewed officials in state environment, education, and health agencies, depending on whether they had information related to school district testing for lead in school drinking water in their state  The topics we discussed were the agencies’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, any related state requirements, policies, and guidance, communication and public notification about testing and remediation efforts and, as appropriate, coordination among multiple state agencies  We also discussed similar topics related to lead-based paint  In Massachusetts, we interviewed representatives with the University of Massachusetts, because of their role in implementing the state’s program to support school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water  School Districts: Within the five site visit states, we interviewed officials in 14 school districts in person and in three school districts by phone (because we were not able to meet with them in person)  We also selected one charter school that functions as its own school district which had conducted tests for lead in school drinking water  Similar to our school district survey, the interview topics we discussed with district officials included testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, use of guidance (such as the 3Ts guidance) and efforts to communicate or coordinate with any federal, state, or local agencies, including any other school districts  Within 13 of the school districts, we visited at least one school in which the district had tested for lead in drinking water and, as needed, took remedial action in order to gain an in-depth understanding of their testing and remediation efforts  EPA Regional Offices: We interviewed officials in all 10 EPA Regional offices  We met in-person with officials in the regional offices 1, 4, 5, and 6 and conducted phone interviews with officials in regional offices 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10  We generally discussed EPA officials’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for lead in school drinking water and paint and efforts in states and school districts in their region  Information we gathered from these interviews, while not generalizable, represents the conditions present in the states and school districts at the time of our interviews and may be illustrative of efforts in other states and school districts  As part of our effort to examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we reviewed related state requirements  To determine whether states had related requirements, we asked all EPA regional offices if states in their region had requirements related to testing for lead in school drinking water  EPA provided examples of eight states (California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia that had such requirements  We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policy documents for these states  We then confirmed the details of the related requirements with the appropriate state officials via structured questionnaires  Also, we used available documentation to corroborate and verify the testing requirements of the states that EPA identified  GAO did not conduct an independent search of state laws  To examine the extent to which federal agencies have collaborated in supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead, we reviewed relevant federal laws, including the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, and the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988; regulations, such as the Lead and Copper Rule; and guidance, such as the 3Ts guidance  We also reviewed documentation including the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities signed in 2005 by EPA, Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Federal Partners in School Health Charter; EPA training webinar information; and other relevant guidance including the 3Ts guidance tool kit  We interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Children’s Health Protection and officials in all 10 of EPA regional offices regarding their approach to providing support to states and school district on lead testing and remediation  We interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students and officials from the CDC  During these interviews, we interviewed officials about the Memorandum of Understanding and about the Federal Partners in School Health initiative, both of which represent collaborative efforts that address lead in school drinking water, among other topics  We evaluated federal efforts to collaborate and support lead testing and remediation in schools against federal standards for internal control, which call for agencies to communicate quality information to external parties, among other things  We also evaluated federal efforts against the Memorandum of Understanding, in which EPA, Education, and CDC agreed to encourage testing drinking water for lead and communicate with key stakeholders, among other things  To inform all of our research objectives, we interviewed representatives with the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Center for Healthy Housing, National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, the DC Public Charter School Board, and the 21st Century School Fund  We also attended a workshop entitled “Eliminating Lead Risks in Schools and Child Care Facilities” in December 2017  The questions we asked in our survey of local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) are shown below  Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions  In this appendix, we include all survey questions and aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information on responses provided to the open-ended questions  Estimates noted with superscript “a” are based on 20 or fewer responses and were not included in our findings  For a more detailed discussion of our survey methodology, see appendix I  1  Do any schools in your local educational agency (LEA) obtain drinking water from a public water system such as a city or municipal water plant? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 20) Don’t know (Skip to 20) Section B: Testing for Lead in School Drinking Water 2  Is there a requirement that the drinking water in your LEA’s schools be tested for lead? (Please answer “Yes” regardless of whether that requirement comes from your state, municipality, local educational agency or any other governmental entity ) (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3  Regardless of whether your LEA is required to test for lead in school drinking water, have tests been conducted for lead in the drinking water in at least one of your schools in the past 12 months? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If yes to 3: 3A  What is the number of schools in which tests were conducted in the past 12 months? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3B  About how many samples were taken from sources of drinking water such as water fountains and sinks in each school? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3C  Did any of the following develop the sampling plan, draw the samples of water, and analyze the samples? (Check all that apply ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 3D  What size samples were taken? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3D: What sample size was used? 3E: To the best of your knowledge, did the personnel drawing or analyzing samples follow a testing protocol that offers guidance on developing the sampling plan, drawing samples of water, or analyzing samples? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 3F) Don’t know (Skip to 3F) If ‘yes’ to 3E: a  To the best of your knowledge, were any of the following entities involved in developing the protocol? (Check one per row ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Contractor / water testing company EPA or another federal government agency A local government agency (aside from your LEA) If ‘other’ to 3Eh: What other entities were involved in developing the protocol? 3F  If tests were conducted in some schools in your LEA in the past 12 months—but were not conducted in every school—how was it determined which schools would be tested? (Check one per row ) Not applicable: tests were conducted in every school (Skip to 3G) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3Fe: In what other ways did your LEA use to determine which schools would be tested? 3G  How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on testing for lead in school drinking water in the past 12 months? (Please answer this question for lead testing only; the survey asks about expenditures to address concerns identified through testing later  Also, please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead testing in your estimate ) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3H  Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding for the testing in the past 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3H: What other sources of funding did your LEA use? 3I  In the past 12 months, did your LEA notify the following groups that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e g , media) If ‘other’ to 3I: What other groups did your LEA notify that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? 3J  In the past 12 months, did your LEA report the testing results to the following groups after completing the tests? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e g , media) If ‘other’ to 3J: To what other groups did your LEA report the testing results? 3K  If ‘no’ to 3: Were any of the following a reason your LEA did not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3K: For what other reasons did your LEA not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? 4  Does your LEA have a schedule for recurring tests to determine the amount of lead in the drinking water in your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Section C: Remediation of Lead in School Drinking Water 5  Has your LEA discovered any level of lead in the drinking water of any of your schools (as a result of testing) in the last 12 months? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5A  What lead concentration (measured in “parts per billion” or “ppb”) did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5A: What lead concentration did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? 5B  In the last 12 months, how many schools had at least one test result–including as few as one sample in one school–greater than the lead level your LEA used to initiate action? (Please answer regardless of whether these results were discovered in the first of multiple rounds of testing ) 5C To address lead discovered in school drinking water, has your LEA taken any of the following actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5D  If ‘no’ to every item in 5C: What are the reasons why your LEA has not taken actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 5E  If ‘yes’ to any item in 5C: How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on taking actions in the past 12 months? (Please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead remediation in your estimate ) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 5F  Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding to take actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5F: What other sources of funding did your LEA use to take actions in the past 12 months? 5G  Did your LEA notify the following groups about its actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e g , media) If ‘other’ to 5G: What other groups has your LEA notified about its remedial actions in the past 12 months? 6  Does your LEA have a schedule to flush the water system as a result of concerns about lead in drinking water in at least one of your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 7  Does your LEA have plans to take actions to eliminate or reduce lead in school drinking water (for example, replace drinking water fountains, replace pipes) in at least one of your schools? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘according to a schedule’ to 7: how would you describe the schedule that your LEA has developed? Section D: Guidance Regarding Lead Testing and Remediation 8  Prior to receiving this survey, were you familiar with guidance issued by the U S  Environmental Protection Agency entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools”? (Please answer “Yes” if you had read or used the”3Ts” prior to receiving this survey ) (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8: did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) follow or refer to “3Ts” during your efforts to test for or remediate lead in school drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for conducting tests for lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for remediating lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for communicating with parents and other stakeholders about lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What else, if anything, would make 3Ts more helpful? 9  Did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) use any other guidance (for example, best practices, manuals, protocols, webinars) in your LEA’s efforts to test for lead in your schools’ drinking water, take remedial actions, or for notification purposes? (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What other guidance was used? 10  Would your LEA find any of the following helpful? (Check one per row)  95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Clearer guidance on a level of lead in school drinking water at which we should take action Additional guidance on determining a schedule for 41 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) regularly testing for lead in school drinking water Additional guidance on actions to take if lead is found in school drinking water Information on the costs of testing for lead in school drinking water Information on the costs of remediating lead in school drinking water 18 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other guidance or information’ to 10: What other guidance or information would be helpful? Section E: Inspecting Schools for Lead Based Paint Section F: Remediation of Lead Based Paint in Schools Section G: Other Questions 16  How many schools are owned or operated by your LEA? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 17  How many schools in your LEA were built before 1986? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building ) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 18  How many schools in your LEA were built before 1978? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building ) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 19  Is there anything else you would like to share with us regarding lead testing, inspection, or remediation efforts in your school or LEA (drinking water or paint)? 20  What is the name, title, e-mail address, and telephone number of the person responsible for completing this survey? Section H: Completion 21  Please check one of the options below  Clicking on “Completed” indicates that your answers are official and final  Your answers will not be used unless you have done this  (Check one ) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) Charter schools comprise a small but growing group of public schools  In contrast to most traditional public schools, many charter schools are responsible for financing their own buildings and other facilities  As a result, charters schools vary in terms of whether they own their own building or pay rent, and whether they operate in buildings originally designed as a school or in buildings which have been redesigned for educational purposes  Sometimes charter schools may also share space in their building with others, such as non-profit organizations  In addition to differences in facility access and finance, charter school governance also varies  In some states, charter schools function as their own school district, while in other states, charter schools have the option to choose between being a distinct school district or part of a larger school district  To determine the extent to which charter school districts were testing for lead in school drinking water and finding and remediating lead, our survey included charter school districts in two ways: our sampling design included three strata specifically for charter school districts in urban areas; in addition, charter school districts were retained in the sampling population, such that they could be randomly selected in our other strata  While we generally received too few responses from charter school districts to report their data separately, we are able to estimate that about 36 percent of charter school districts tested for lead in school drinking water  To learn more about experiences of charter schools, we visited one charter school district and interviewed representatives of the DC Public Charter School Board (DC PCSB)  The charter school district we visited consisted of one charter school in a building it leased  The school had 10 sources of consumable water, all of which were tested in 2016 and were found to have lead below the district’s selected action level of 15 parts per billion  Before testing, district officials met with the building owner who agreed to cover the cost of any remediation  Officials with the DC PCSB told us that it paid to have tests conducted in every charter school in the District of Columbia  According to DC PCSB officials, between March and June 2016, 95 charter schools were tested, and lead above their action level of 15 parts per billion was discovered in 20 schools  Officials estimated their testing costs to be about $100,000, which was subsequently reimbursed by the District of Columbia’s Office of State Superintendent of Education  They also said that charter schools were responsible for taking steps to remediate the lead and recommended schools flush their water systems and use filters  Communication of results Not specified 5 ppb in a 250 ml sample (from filtered fixture) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on its website for the public on lead in drinking water  EPA’s website includes, among other documents, a December 2005 brochure for the public and school districts entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools” (see fig 10)  In addition to the individuals named above, Diane Raynes (Assistant Director), Scott Spicer (Assistant Director), Jason Palmer (Analyst-in- Charge), Amanda K  Goolden, Rich Johnson, Grant Mallie, Jean McSween, Dae Park, James Rebbe, Sarah M  Sheehan, and Alexandra Squitieri made significant contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, David Blanding, Mimi Nguyen, Tahra Nichols, Dan C  Royer, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Kim Yamane  Lead Paint in Housing: HUD Should Strengthen Grant Processes, Compliance Monitoring, and Performance Assessment  GAO-18-394  Washington, D C : June 19, 2018  Drinking Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA’s Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule  GAO-17-424  Washington, D C : September 1, 2017  Environmental Health: EPA Has Made Substantial Progress but Could Improve Processes for Considering Children’s Health  GAO-13-254  Washington, D C : August 12, 2013  Lead in Tap Water: CDC Public Health Communications Need Improvement  GAO-11-279  Washington, D C : March 14, 2011  Environmental Health: High-level Strategy and Leadership Needed to Continue Progress toward Protecting Children from Environmental Threats  GAO-10-205  Washington, D C : January 28, 2010  Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination  GAO-06-148  Washington, D C : January 4, 2006 


Report 2:  When the committee finally rises and reports the bill back to the House, the House proceeds to vote on the amendments the committee has adopted  It usually approves all these amendments by one voice vote, though Members can demand separate votes on any or all of them as a matter of right  After a formal and routine stage called "third reading and engrossment" (when only the title of the bill is read), there is then an opportunity for a Member, virtually always from the minority party, to offer a motion to recommit the bill to committee  If the House agrees to a "simple" or "straight" motion to recommit, which only proposes to return the bill to committee, the bill is taken from the floor and returned to committee  Although the committee technically has the power to re-report the bill, in practice, the adoption of a straight motion to recommit is often characterized as effectively "killing" the measure  "Straight" motions to recommit are rare  Alternatively, motions to recommit far more frequently include instructions that the committee report the bill back to the House "forthwith" with an amendment that is stated in the motion  If the House agrees to such a motion, which is debatable for 10 minutes, evenly divided, it then immediately votes on the amendment itself, so a motion to recommit with instructions is really a final opportunity for the minority party to amend the bill before the House votes on whether to pass it  Thus, this complicated mode of consideration, which the House uses to consider most major bills, begins in the House with a decision to resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider a particular bill  General debate and the amending process take place in Committee of the Whole, but ultimately it is the House that formally amends and then passes or rejects the bill  Clause 1(m) of Rule X authorizes the Rules Committee to report resolutions affecting the order of business  Such a resolution—called a "rule" or "special rule"—usually proposes to make a bill in order for floor consideration so that it can be debated, amended, and passed or defeated by a simple majority vote  In effect, each special rule recommends to the House that it take from the Union or House Calendar a measure that is not otherwise privileged business and bring it to the floor out of its order on that calendar  Typically, such a resolution begins by providing that, at any time after its adoption, the Speaker may declare the House resolved into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of that bill  Because the special rule is itself privileged, under clause 5(a) of Rule XIII, the House can debate and vote on it promptly  If the House accepts the Rules Committee's recommendation, it proceeds to consider the bill itself  One fundamental purpose of most special rules, therefore, is to make another bill or resolution privileged so that it may interrupt the regular order of business  Their other fundamental purpose is to set special procedural ground rules for considering that measure; these ground rules may either supplement or supplant the standing rules of the House  For example, the special rule typically sets the length of time for general debate in Committee of the Whole and specifies which Members are to control that time  In addition, the special rule normally includes provisions that expedite final House action on the bill after the amending process in Committee of the Whole has been completed  Special rules may also waive points of order that Members could otherwise make against consideration of the bill, against one of its provisions, or against an amendment to be offered to it  The most controversial provisions of special rules affect the amendments that Members can offer to the bill that the resolution makes in order  As noted above, an "open rule" permits Representatives to propose any amendment that meets the normal requirements of House rules and precedents—for example, the requirement that each amendment must be germane  A "modified open rule" permits amendments to be offered that otherwise comply with House rules but imposes a time limit on the consideration of amendments or requires them to be preprinted in the Congressional Record   At the other extreme, a "closed rule" prohibits all amendments except perhaps for committee amendments and pro forma amendments ("to strike the last word") offered only for purposes of debate  A "structured" rule, which is the most common type of rule, permits only certain specific amendments to be considered on the floor  These provisions are very important because they can prevent Representatives from offering amendments as alternatives to provisions of the bill, thereby limiting the policy choices that the House can make  Open rules have been rare in recent Congresses  However, like other committees, the Rules Committee only makes recommendations to the House  As noted above, Members debate each of its procedural resolutions in the House under the hour rule and then vote to adopt or reject it  If the House votes against ordering the previous question on a special rule, a Member could offer an amendment to it, proposing to change the conditions under which the bill itself is to be considered  Because the adoption of a special rule is often viewed as a "party loyalty" vote, however, such a development is exceedingly rare  All the same, it is important to remember that while the Rules Committee is instrumental in helping the majority party leadership formulate its order of business and in setting appropriate ground rules for considering each bill, the House retains ultimate control over what it does, when, and how  Legislation is sometimes brought before the House of Representatives for consideration by the unanimous consent of its Members  Long-standing policies announced by the Speaker regulate unanimous consent requests for this purpose  Among other things, the Speaker will recognize a Member to propound a unanimous consent request to call up an unreported bill or resolution only if that request has been cleared in advance with both party floor leaders and with the bipartisan leadership of the committee of jurisdiction  Before any bill can become law, both the House and the Senate must pass it, and the two houses must agree on each and every one of its provisions  This basic constitutional requirement means that the House must have procedures to respond when the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill  For example, the House may pass a Senate bill with House amendments, or the Senate may pass a House bill with Senate amendments and then send its amendments to the House  In either case, the two houses must resolve their differences over these amendments before the legislative process is completed  There are essentially two ways to approach this stage of the process: (1) by dealing with the amendments individually through a process of exchanging amendments between the chambers, with the bill being sent back and forth between the House and Senate, or (2) by dealing with the amendments collectively through a conference committee of Representatives and Senators who negotiate a series of compromises and concessions that are compiled in a conference report that the two houses can vote to accept  Because the process of resolving differences between the houses can be quite complicated, only some of its basic elements are summarized here  The House normally considers Senate amendments to a House bill by unanimous consent or by suspension of the rules; the House may accept the amendments (concur in them) or amend them (concur in them with House amendments)  Alternatively, the committee with jurisdiction over the bill may authorize its chair to move that the House disagree to the Senate's amendments and send them to a conference committee  When the House amends and passes a Senate bill, it may request a conference with the Senate immediately, or it may simply send its amendments to the Senate in the hope that the Senate will accept them  If the Senate refuses to do so, it may request a conference with the House instead  On the other hand, if the House and Senate can reach agreement by proposing amendments to each other's positions, the bill can be sent to the President for his signature or veto without the need to create a conference committee  This method of resolving differences is sometimes colloquially called "ping-pong," because each chamber acts in turn, shuttling the legislation back and forth as each proposes amendments to the position of the other  If the House and Senate agree to send their versions of the bill to a conference committee, the Speaker appoints the House conferees  These conferees are usually drawn from the standing committee (or committees) with jurisdiction over the bill, although the Speaker may appoint some other Representatives as well  When the House and Senate conferees meet, they are to deal only with provisions of the bill on which the two houses disagree  They should not insert new provisions or change provisions that both houses have already approved  Furthermore, as the conferees resolve each provision or amendment in disagreement, they accept the House position, the Senate position, or a compromise between them  Like almost all other House rules, the rules limiting the authority of conferees are enforced only if Members make points of order at the appropriate time  The House may also adopt a special rule, reported by the Rules Committee, waiving points of order against a conference report  To complete their work successfully, a majority of the House conferees and a majority of the Senate conferees must sign a report that recommends all the agreements they have reached  The conferees also sign a "joint explanatory statement" that describes the original House and Senate positions and the conferees' recommendations and is the functional equivalent of a legislative committee report  After Representatives have had three days to examine a conference report, it is privileged for floor consideration; it may be called up at any time that the House is not already considering something else  The report may be debated in the House under the hour rule, so the vote almost always occurs after no more than one hour of debate  No amendments to the report are in order  In practice, however, the House almost always considers conference reports under the terms of a special rule from the Rules Committee that waives all points of order against the report and its consideration  The conference report is a proposed package settlement of a number of disagreements, so the House and Senate may accept it or reject it, but they may not change it  If the two houses agree to the report by simple majority vote, all their differences have been resolved and the bill is then "enrolled," or reprinted, for formal presentation to the President  In rare instances, conferees cannot reach agreement on one or more of the amendments in conference, or they may reach an agreement that they cannot include in their conference report because their proposal exceeds the scope of the differences between the House and Senate positions (and thus violates the rules governing the content of conference reports)  In either case, the conferees may report back to the two houses with an amendment (or amendments) in disagreement  After acting on the conference report and dealing collectively with all the other amendments that were sent to conference, the House acts on each of the amendments in disagreement by considering motions such as a motion to accept the Senate's amendment or a motion to amend it with a new House amendment  The Senate takes similar action until the disagreements on these amendments are resolved or until the two houses agree to create a new conference committee only to address the remaining amendments that are still in disagreement  The bill cannot become law until the two houses resolve all the differences between their positions  Whenever Representatives vote on the floor, there is almost always first a "voice vote," in which the Members in favor of the bill, amendment, or motion vote "Aye" in unison, followed by those voting "No " Before the Speaker (or the chair of the Committee of the Whole) announces the result, any Representative can demand a "division vote," in which the Members in favor stand up to be counted, again followed by those opposed  But before the result of either a voice vote or a division vote is announced, a Member may try to require another vote in which everyone's position is recorded publicly  This recorded vote is taken by using the House's electronic voting system  In Committee of the Whole, an electronic vote is ordered when 25 Members request it  In the House, such a vote occurs when demanded by at least one-fifth of the Members present  Alternatively, any Member can demand an electronically recorded vote in the House if a quorum of the membership is not present on the floor when the voice or division vote takes place  The Constitution requires that a quorum must be present on the floor when the House is conducting business  In the House, a quorum is a majority of the Representatives; in Committee of the Whole, it is only 100 Members  However, the House has traditionally assumed that a quorum is always present unless a Member makes a point of order that it is not  The rules restrict when Members can make such points of order, and they occur most often when the House or the Committee of the Whole is voting  In the House, for example, a Representative can object to a voice or division vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make that point of order  If a quorum is not present, the Speaker automatically orders an electronically recorded vote during which Members record their presence on the floor by casting their votes  The issue is decided and a quorum is established at the same time  A voice or division vote is valid even if less than a quorum participates in the vote so long as no one makes a point of order that a quorum is not present  For this reason, Members can continue to meet in their committees or fulfill their other responsibilities off the floor when the House is doing business that does not involve publicly recorded votes  On most days, the House will meet two hours prior to scheduled legislative business for Morning Hour Debate, a period in which Members can make speeches of up to five minutes on subjects of their choosing  Later, the House will meet for legislative session  After the opening prayer on each day by the House chaplain (or perhaps by a guest chaplain), the Speaker announces approval of the Journal of the previous day's proceedings  A Member may require a recorded vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal  Following the Pledge of Allegiance, some Members may then ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute each on whatever subjects they wish, including subjects unrelated to the scheduled legislative business of the day  The ability to set the House's floor schedule is one of the primary powers and responsibilities of the majority party leaders, and in doing so they often consult with minority party leaders  Generally speaking, to the extent possible, majority party leaders and the committee chairmen arrange the legislative schedule for each week in advance  During the last floor session of the week, the majority leader normally announces the expected schedule for the coming week in a traditional "wrap-up" colloquy with a minority party leader  Changes in the schedule may be announced as they are made  On a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, the House will commonly consider multiple measures under the "suspension of the rules" procedure  Typically, recorded votes on such measures, if requested, are clustered together and taken at the end of the day  On other days of the week, the House will usually consider a major bill pursuant to a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules  Such a special rule would be debated in the House under the hour rule, at the end of which the majority manager of the special rule would "move the previous question," which, when adopted, brings the resolution to a vote  Once adopted, the House would ordinarily consider a measure in Committee of the Whole pursuant to the terms for general debate and amendment established by the special rule  Following consideration in the Committee of the Whole, the House would take the final votes on the measure after voting on the amendments recommended by the committee and on a minority motion to recommit, which would likely be made with amendatory instructions  As each item of business is completed, the Speaker anticipates which Member should be seeking recognition to call up the next bill or resolution  If another Representative requests to be recognized instead, t he Speaker may ask, "For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?" The Speaker may decline to recognize that Member if the Speaker wants the House to consider another privileged measure, motion, or report  At the end of legislative business on most days, some Members address the House for as much as an hour each on subjects of their choice  These "special order" speeches are arranged in advance and organized by the party leadership  In this way, Representatives can comment at length on current national and international issues and discuss bills that have not yet reached the House floor  The House often adjourns by early evening, although it may remain in session later when the need arises or when the end of the annual session or some other deadline approaches  The House rules for each Congress are published in a volume often called the House manual but officially entitled Constitution, Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives   A new edition of this collection is published each Congress  The precedents of the House established through 1935 have been compiled in the 11-volume set of Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives   More recent precedents are published as Deschler's or Deschler-Brown -Johnson Precedents of the U S  House of Representatives ; 18 volumes of this set now are available  Volume 1 of a fourth series of House precedents, Precedents of the United States House of Representatives , was initiated in 2017, and additional volumes are expected in the future  The House's procedures are summarized in House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House , by Charles W  Johnson, John V  Sullivan, and Thomas J  Wickham Jr , Parliamentarians of the House  The most recent version of House Practice was published in 2017  The Parliamentarian and his assistants welcome inquiries about House procedures and offer expert assistance compatible with their other responsibilities  CRS Report 98-995, The Amending Process in the House of Representatives , by Christopher M  Davis  CRS Report RL32200, Debate, Motions, and Other Actions in the Committee of the Whole , by Bill Heniff Jr  and Elizabeth Rybicki  CRS Report 97-552, The Discharge Rule in the House: Principal Features and Uses , by Richard S  Beth  CRS Report RL30787, Parliamentary Reference Sources: House of Representatives , by Richard S  Beth and Megan S  Lynch  CRS Report 98-696, Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses , by Elizabeth Rybicki  CRS Report 97-780, The Speaker of the House: House Officer, Party Leader, and Representative , by Valerie Heitshusen  CRS Report 98-314, Suspension of the Rules in the House: Principal Features , by Elizabeth Rybicki  CRS Report 98-870, Quorum Requirements in the House: Committee and Chamber , by Christopher M  Davis 

ground_truth: No federal law requires testing of drinking water for lead in schools that receive water from public water systems, although these systems are regulated by the EPA. Lead can leach into water from plumbing materials inside a school. The discovery of toxic levels of lead in water in Flint, Michigan, in 2015 has renewed awareness about the danger lead exposure poses to public health, especially for children. GAO was asked to review school practices for lead testing and remediation. This report examines the extent to which (1) school districts are testing for, finding, and remediating lead in drinking water; (2) states are supporting these efforts; and (3) federal agencies are supporting state and school district efforts. GAO administered a web-based survey to a stratified, random sample of 549 school districts, the results of which are generalizable to all school districts. GAO visited or interviewed officials with 17 school districts with experience in lead testing, spread among 5 states, selected for geographic variation. GAO also interviewed federal and state officials and reviewed relevant laws and documents. An estimated 43 percent of school districts, serving 35 million students, tested for lead in school drinking water in 2016 or 2017, according to GAO's nationwide survey of school districts. An estimated 41 percent of school districts, serving 12 million students, had not tested for lead. GAO's survey showed that, among school districts that did test, an estimated 37 percent found elevated lead (lead at levels above their selected threshold for taking remedial action.) (See figure.) All school districts that found elevated lead in drinking water reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate exposure to lead, including replacing water fountains, installing filters or new fixtures, or providing bottled water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at least 8 states have requirements that schools test for lead in drinking water as of 2017, and at least 13 additional states supported school districts' voluntary efforts with funding or in-kind support for testing and remediation. In addition, the five states GAO visited provided examples of technical assistance to support testing in schools. EPA provides guidance and other resources to states and school districts regarding testing and remediating lead in drinking water, and the Department of Education (Education) provides some of this information on its websites. School district officials that used EPA's written guidance said they generally found it helpful. Although EPA guidance emphasizes the importance of addressing elevated lead levels, GAO found that some aspects of the guidance, such as the threshold for taking remedial action, were potentially misleading and unclear, which can put school districts at risk of making uninformed decisions. In addition, many school districts reported a lack of familiarity with EPA's guidance, and their familiarity varied by region of the country. Education and EPA do not regularly collaborate to support state and school district efforts on lead in drinking water, despite agreeing to do so in a 2005 memorandum of understanding. Such collaboration could encourage testing and ensure that more school districts will have the necessary information to limit student and staff exposure to lead. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that EPA update its guidance on how schools should determine lead levels requiring action and for EPA and Education to collaborate to further disseminate guidance and encourage testing for lead. EPA and Education agreed with the recommendations.

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



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



Report 2: Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA; P L  95-128 , 12 U S C  §§2901-2908) in response to concerns that federally insured banking institutions were not making sufficient credit available in the local areas in which they were chartered and acquiring deposits  According to some in Con gress, the granting of a public bank charter should translate into a continuing obligation for that bank to serve the credit needs of the public where it was chartered  Consequently, the CRA was enacted to "re-affirm the obligation of federally chartered or insured financial institutions to serve the convenience and needs of their service areas" and "to help meet the credit needs of the localities in which they are chartered, consistent with the prudent operation of the institution " The CRA requires federal banking regulators to conduct examinations to assess whether a bank is meeting local credit needs  The regulators issue CRA credits, or points, where banks engage in qualifying activities—such as mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) areas and entities—that occur within assessment areas (where institutions have local deposit-taking operations)  These credits are then used to issue each bank a performance rating from a four-tiered system of descriptive performance levels (Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, or Substantial Noncompliance)  The CRA requires federal banking regulators to take those ratings into account when institutions apply for charters, branches, mergers, and acquisitions, or seek to take other actions that require regulatory approval  Congress became concerned with the geographical mismatch of deposit-taking and lending activities for a variety of reasons  Deposits serve as a primary source of borrowed funds that banks may use to facilitate their lending  Hence, there was concern that banks were using deposits collected from local neighborhoods to fund out-of-state as well as various international lending activities at the expense of addressing the local area's housing, agricultural, and small business credit needs  Another motivation for congressional action was to discourage redlining practices  One type of redlining can be defined as the refusal of a bank to make credit available to all of the neighborhoods in its immediate locality, including LMI neighborhoods where the bank may have collected deposits  A second type of redlining is the practice of denying a creditworthy applicant a loan for housing located in a certain neighborhood even though the applicant may qualify for a similar loan in another neighborhood  This type of redlining pertains to circumstances in which a bank refuses to serve all of the residents in an area, perhaps due to discrimination  The CRA applies to banking institutions with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), such as national banks, savings associations, and state-chartered commercial and savings banks  The CRA does not apply to credit unions, insurance companies, securities companies, and other nonbank institutions because of the differences in their financial business models  The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve System, and the FDIC administer the CRA, which is implemented via Regulation BB  The CRA requires federal banking regulatory agencies to evaluate the extent to which regulated institutions are effectively meeting the credit needs within their designated assessment areas, including LMI neighborhoods, in a manner consistent with the federal prudential regulations for safety and soundness   The CRA's impact on lending activity has been publicly debated  Some observers are concerned that the CRA may induce banks to forgo more profitable lending opportunities in nontargeted neighborhoods by encouraging a disproportionate amount of lending in LMI communities  Furthermore, some argue that the CRA compels banks to make loans to higher-risk borrowers that are more likely to have repayment problems, which may subsequently compromise the financial stability of the banking system  For example, some researchers have attributed the increase in risky lending prior to the 2007-2009 recession to banks attempting to comply with CRA objectives  Others are concerned that enforcement of CRA objectives has not been stringent enough to compel banks to increase financial services in LMI areas  Almost all banks receive Satisfactory or better performance ratings (discussed in more detail below) on their CRA examinations, which some may consider indicative of weak enforcement  This report informs the congressional debate concerning the CRA's effectiveness in incentivizing bank lending and investment activity to LMI customers  It begins with a description of bank CRA examinations, including how a bank delineates its assessment area; the activities that may qualify for points under the three tests (i e , lending, investment, and service) that collectively make up the CRA examination; and how the composite CRA rating is calculated  Next, the report analyzes the difficulty in attributing bank lending decisions to CRA incentives  For example, the CRA does not specify the quality and quantity of CRA-qualifying activities, meaning that CRA compliance does not require adherence to lending quotas or benchmarks  Without explicit benchmarks, linking the composition of banks' loan portfolios to either too strong or too weak CRA enforcement is difficult  Banks are also unlikely to get CRA credit for all of the loans they make to LMI customers  Specifically, higher-risk loans that banking regulators explicitly discourage are unlikely to be eligible for CRA consideration  Furthermore, greater mobility of lending and deposit-taking activity across regional boundaries due to various financial market innovations has complicated the ability to geographically link various financial activities  Hence, many banks' financial activities occurring in a designated assessment area that are eligible for CRA consideration may simply be profitable, meaning they may have occurred without the CRA incentive  Finally, this report summarizes recent policy discussions regarding modernization of the CRA  As noted above, the federal banking regulators conduct regular examinations of banks to assess whether they meet local credit needs in designated assessment areas  The regulators issue CRA credits, or points, when banks engage in qualifying activities—such as mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities—that occur within assessment areas  Regulation BB provides the criteria that a bank's board of directors must use to determine the assessment area(s) in which its primary regulator will conduct its CRA examination  The assessment area typically has a geographical definition—the location of a bank's main office, branches, and deposit-taking automatic teller machines, as well as surrounding areas where the bank originates and purchases a substantial portion of loans  Assessment areas must generally include at least one metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or at least one contiguous political subdivision, such as a county, city, or town  Regulation BB also requires that assessment areas may not reflect illegal discrimination, arbitrarily exclude LMI geographies, and extend substantially beyond an MSA boundary or a state boundary (unless the assessment area is located in a multistate MSA)  Banking regulators regularly review a bank's assessment area delineations for compliance with Regulation BB requirements as part of the CRA examination  Instead of a more conventionally delineated assessment area, certain banking firms may obtain permission to devise a strategic plan for compliance with Regulation BB requirements  For example, wholesale and limited purpose banks are specialized banks with nontraditional business models  Wholesale banks provide services to larger clients, such as large corporations and other financial institutions; they generally do not provide financial services to retail clients, such as individuals and small businesses  Limited purpose banks offer a narrow product line (e g , concentration in credit card lending) rather than provide a wider range of financial products and services  These banking firms typically apply to their primary regulators to request designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank and, for CRA examination purposes, are evaluated under strategic plan options that have been tailored for their distinctive capacities, business strategies, and expertise  The option to develop a strategic plan of pre-defined CRA performance goals is available to any bank subject to the CRA  The public is allowed time (e g , 30 days) to provide input on the draft of a bank's strategic plan, after which the bank submits the plan to its primary regulator for approval (within 60 days after the application is received)  Regulation BB does not impose lending quotas or benchmarks  Instead, Regulation BB provides banks with a wide variety of options to serve the needs of their assessment areas  Qualifying CRA activities include mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities  For example, banks may receive CRA credits for such activities as investing in special purpose community development entities (CDEs), which facilitate capital investments in LMI communities (discussed below); providing support (e g , consulting, detailing an employee, processing transactions for free or at a discounted rate, and providing office facilities) to minority- and women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit unions (MWLIs), thereby enhancing their ability to serve LMI customers; serving as a joint lender for a loan originated by MWLIs; facilitating financial literacy education to LMI communities, including any support of efforts of MWLIs and CDEs to provide financial literacy education; opening or maintaining bank branches and other transactions facilities in LMI communities and designated disaster areas; providing low-cost education loans to low-income borrowers; and offering international remittance services in LMI communities  The examples listed above are not comprehensive, but they illustrate several activities banks may engage in to obtain consideration for CRA credits  The banking regulators will consider awarding CRA credits or points to a bank if its qualifying activities occur within an assigned assessment area  The points are then used to compute a bank's overall composite CRA rating  Regulators apply up to three tests, which are known as the lending , investment , and service tests, respectively, to determine whether a bank is meeting local credit need in designated assessment areas  The lending test evaluates the number, amount, and distribution across income and geographic classifications of a bank's mortgage, small business, small farm, and consumer loans  The investment test grades a bank's community development investments in the assessment area  The service test examines a bank's retail service delivery, such as the availability of branches and low-cost checking in the assessment area  The point system for bank performance under the lending, investment, and service tests is illustrated in Table 1   The lending test is generally regarded as the most important of the three tests, awarding banks the most points (CRA credits) in all rating categories  As shown in Table 1 , banks receive fewer credits for making CRA-qualified investments than for providing direct loans to individuals under the lending test  In some instances, an activity may qualify for more than one of the performance tests  Federal banking regulators evaluate financial institutions based upon their capacity, constraints, and business strategies; demographic and economic data; lending, investment, and service opportunities; and benchmark against competitors and peers  Because these factors vary across banks, the CRA examination was customized in 1995 to account for differences in bank sizes and business models  In 2005, the bank size definitions were revised to include small , intermediate small , and large banks  The bank regulators also indexed the asset size thresholds—which are adjusted annually—to inflation using the Consumer Price Index  As of January 1, 2019, a small bank is defined as having less than $1 284 billion in assets as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years; an intermediate small bank has at least $321 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years but less than $1 284 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years; and a large bank has $1 284 billion or more in assets  Small banks are typically evaluated under the lending test  Regulators review (1) loan-to-deposit ratios; (2) percentage of loans in an assessment area; (3) lending to borrowers of different incomes and in different amounts; (4) geographical distribution of loans; and (5) actions on complaints about performance  Intermediate small banks are subject to both the lending and investment tests  Large banks are subject to all three tests  As mentioned previously, direct lending to borrowers, taking place in what is referred to as primary lending markets , qualify for CRA credit under the lending test  Investments taking place in secondary lending markets , in which investors purchase loans that have already been originated (such that little or no direct interaction occurs between investors and borrowers), qualify for CRA credit under the investment test  Secondary market investors may assume the default risk associated with a loan if the entire loan is purchased  Alternatively, if a set of loans are pooled together, then numerous secondary investors may purchase financial securities in which the returns are generated by the principal and interest repayments from the underlying loan pool, thereby sharing the lending risk  Direct ownership of loans or purchases of smaller portions (debt securities) of a pool of loans, therefore, are simply alternative methods to facilitate lending  As shown in Table 1 above, a bank may receive CRA consideration under the lending test for making a loan to LMI individuals that is guaranteed by a federal agency, such as the Federal Home Administration (FHA)  If, however, a bank purchases securities backed by pools of FHA-guaranteed mortgage originations, this activity receives credit under the investment test  Thus, the bank receives less CRA credit when the financial risk is shared with other lenders than it would for making a direct loan (and holding all of the lending risk) even though it would still facilitate lending to LMI borrowers  In 2005, the activities that qualify for CRA credit were expanded to encourage banks to make public welfare investments  More specifically, qualifying activities include a public welfare investment (PWI) that promotes the public welfare by providing housing, services, or jobs that primarily benefit LMI individuals; and a community development investment (CDI), economic development investment , or project that meets the PWI requirements  Examples of CDI activities include promoting affordable housing, financing small businesses and farms, and conducting activities that revitalize LMI areas  Banks may engage in certain activities that typically would not be permitted under other banking laws as long as these activities promote the public welfare and do not expose institutions to unlimited liability  For example, banks generally are not allowed to make direct purchases of the preferred or common equity shares of other banking firms; however, banks may purchase equity shares of institutions with a primary mission of community development (discussed in more detail in the Appendix ) up to an allowable CDI limit  The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 ( P L  109-351 ) increased the amount that national banking associations and state banks (that are members of the Federal Reserve System) may invest in a single institution from 10% to 15% of a bank's unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus  CDIs that benefit a bank's designated assessment area may qualify for CRA credit  For CRA purposes, the definition of a CDI was expanded in 2005 to include "underserved and distressed" rural areas and "designated disaster areas" to aid the regional rebuilding from severe hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, tornados, and other disasters  The disaster area provision allows banks anywhere in America to receive consideration for CRA credit if they facilitate making credit available to a distressed location or geographic area outside of their own assessment areas  Thus, the 2005 revisions to the PWI and CDI definitions made more banking activities eligible for CRA credits  The banking regulators would consider awarding full CRA credits under the lending test to banks that make CDI loans directly in their assessment areas  Under the investment test, however, the banking regulators may choose to prorate the credits awarded to indirect investments  The Appendix provides examples of CDI activities that would qualify for CRA consideration under the investment test  Any awarded CRA credits could be prorated given that investing banks typically would have less control over when and where the funds are loaned  The CRA was revised in 1989 to require descriptive CRA composite performance ratings that must be disclosed to the public  The composite ratings illustrated in Table 2 are tabulated using the points assigned from the individual tests (shown in Table 1 above)  Grades of Outstanding and Satisfactory are acceptable; Satisfactory ratings in both community development and retail lending are necessary for a composite Satisfactory   Large banks must receive a sufficient amount of points from the investment and service tests to receive a composite Outstanding rating  Regulators include CRA ratings as a factor when lenders request permission to engage in certain activities, such as moving offices or buying another institution  Denying requests, particularly applications for mergers and acquisitions, is a mechanism that may be applied against banking organizations with ratings below Satisfactory   In 2005, the banking regulators also ruled that any evidence of discrimination or credit practices that violate an applicable law, rule, or regulation by any affiliate would adversely affect an agency's evaluation of a bank's CRA performance  Applicants with poor ratings may resubmit their applications after making the necessary improvements  Covered institutions must post a CRA notice in their main offices and make publicly available a record of their composite CRA performance  Given that the CRA is not a federal assistance program and that several regulators implement it separately, no single federal agency is responsible for evaluating its overall effectiveness  In 2000, Congress directed the Federal Reserve to study the CRA's effectiveness  The Federal Reserve's study reported that lending to LMI families had increased since the CRA's enactment but found it was not possible to directly attribute all of that increase to the CRA  For example, advancements in underwriting over the past several decades have enabled lenders to better predict and price borrower default risk, thus making credit available to borrowers that might have been rejected prior to such technological advances  This section examines the difficulty linking bank lending outcomes directly to the CRA, considering questions raised about the subjectivity of the CRA examination itself, whether prudential regulators use CRA to encourage banks to engage in high-risk lending, and whether the increased lending to LMI borrowers since CRA's enactment can be attributed to other profit-incentives that exist apart from the CRA  Questions have been raised as to whether the CRA examination itself is effective at measuring a bank's ability to meet local credit needs  For example, the CRA examinations have an element of subjectivity in terms of measuring both the quality and quantity of CRA compliance  In terms of quality, regulators determine the "innovativeness or flexibility" of qualified loan products; the "innovativeness or complexity" of qualified investments; or the "innovativeness" of ways banks service groups of customers previously not served  The number of points some CRA-qualifying investments receive relative to others is up to the regulator's judgment given that no formal definition of innovativeness has been established (although regulators provide a variety of examples as guidelines for banks to follow)  In terms of quantity, there is no official quota indicating when banks have done enough CRA-qualified activities to receive a particular rating  Without specific definitions of the criteria or quotas, the CRA examination may be considered subjective  Almost all banks pass their CRA examinations  Figure 1 shows the average annual composite scores of banks that received CRA examinations as well as the annual number of bank examinations by size  In general, most banks receive a composite Satisfactory or better rating regardless of the number of banks examined in a year  For all years, approximately 97% or more of banks examined received ratings of Satisfactory or Outstanding   Whether the consistently high ratings reflect the CRA's influence on bank behavior or whether the CRA examination procedures need improvement is difficult to discern  Another issue raised is whether the CRA has resulted in banks making more high-risk loans given that it encourages banks to lend to LMI individuals (perhaps under the presumption that LMI individuals are less creditworthy relative to higher-income individuals)  Since passage of the CRA, however, innovations have allowed lenders to better evaluate the creditworthiness of borrowers (e g , credit scoring, the adoption of automated underwriting), thus enhancing credit availability to both high credit quality and credit-impaired individuals  Credit-impaired borrowers can be charged higher interest rates and fees than those with better credit histories to compensate lenders for taking on greater amounts of credit or default risk  Nontraditional loan products (e g , interest-only, initially low interest rate) allow borrowers to obtain lower regular payments during the early stages of the loan, perhaps under the expectation that their financial circumstances may improve in the later stages as the loan payments adjust to reflect the true costs  The ability to charge higher prices or offer such nontraditional loan products may result in greater higher-risk lending  Because these technological developments in the financial industry occurred after enactment of the CRA, banks' willingness to enter into higher-risk lending markets arguably cannot be attributed solely to the CRA  Regulators arguably are more reluctant to award banks CRA credit for originating higher-risk loans given the scrutiny necessary to determine whether higher loan prices reflect elevated default risk levels or discriminatory or predatory lending practices  Primary bank regulators are concerned with both prudential regulation and consumer protection  It is difficult for regulators to monitor how well borrowers understood the disclosures regarding loan costs and features, or whether any discriminatory or predatory behavior occurred at the time of loan origination  Regulators use fair lending examinations to determine whether loan pricing practices have been applied fairly and consistently across applicants or if some steering to higher-priced loan products occurred  Nevertheless, although it is not impossible for banks to receive CRA credits for making some higher-priced loans, regulators are mindful of practices such as improper consumer disclosure, steering, or discrimination that inflate loan prices  Prudential regulators are also unlikely to encourage lending practices that might result in large concentrations of high-risk loans on bank balance sheets  Hence, certain lending activities—subprime mortgages and payday lending—have been explicitly discouraged by bank regulators, as discussed in more detail below  Although no consensus definition has emerged for subprime lending, this practice may generally be described as lending to borrowers with weak credit at higher costs relative to borrowers of higher credit quality  In September 2006, the banking regulatory agencies issued guidance on subprime lending that was restrictive in tone  The guidance warned banks of the risk posed by nontraditional mortgage loans, including interest-only and payment-option adjustable-rate mortgages  The agencies expressed concern about these loans because of the lack of principal amortization and the potential for negative amortization  Consequently, a study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data reported that banks subject to the CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only 6% of the reported high-cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas  Banks, therefore, received little or no CRA credit for subprime mortgage lending  Instead, federal regulators offered CRA consideration to banks that helped mitigate the effects of distressed subprime mortgages  On April 17, 2007, federal regulators provided examples of various arrangements that financial firms could provide to LMI borrowers to help them transition into affordable mortgages and avoid foreclosure  The various workout arrangements were eligible for favorable CRA consideration  Banks are unlikely to receive CRA consideration for originating subprime mortgages going forward  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act; P L  111-203 ) requires lenders to consider consumers' ability to repay before extending them mortgage credit, and one way for lenders to comply is to originate qualified mortgages (QMs) that satisfy various underwriting and product-feature requirements  For example, QMs may not have any negative amortization features, interest-only payments, or points and fees that exceed specified caps of the total loan amount; in most cases, borrowers' debt-to-income ratios shall not exceed 43%  QM originations will give lenders legal protections if the required income verification and other proper underwriting procedures were followed  Given the legal protections afforded to QMs, some banks might show greater reluctance toward making non-QM loans  With this in mind, the federal banking regulators announced that banks choosing to make only or predominately QM loans should not expect to see an adverse effect on their CRA evaluations; however, the regulators did not indicate that CRA consideration would be given for non-QMs  Arguably, the federal banking regulators appear less inclined to use the CRA to encourage lending that could be subject to greater legal risks  Banks have demonstrated interest in providing financial services such as small dollar cash advances, which are similar to payday loans, in the form of subprime credit cards, overdraft protection services, and direct deposit advances  However, banks are discouraged from engaging in payday and similar forms of lending  Legislation, such as the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 ( P L  111-24 ), placed restrictions on subprime credit card lending  In addition, federal banking regulators expressed concern when banks began offering deposit advance products due to the similarities to payday loans  Specifically, on April 25, 2013, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve expressed concerns that the high costs and repeated extensions of credit could add to borrower default risks and issued final supervisory guidance regarding the delivery of these products  Many banks subsequently discontinued offering deposit advances  In general, these legislative and regulatory efforts explicitly discourage banks from offering high-cost consumer financial products and thus such products are unlikely to receive CRA consideration  When various financial products are deemed unsound by bank regulators and not offered by banks, a possible consequence may be that some customers migrate to nonbank institutions willing to provide these higher-cost products  Accordingly, the effectiveness of the CRA diminishes if more individuals choose to seek financial products from nonbank institutions  In general, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which banks' financial decisions are motivated by CRA incentives, profit incentives, or both  Compliance with CRA does not require banks to make unprofitable, high-risk loans that would threaten the financial health of the bank  Instead, CRA loans have profit potential; and bank regulators require all loans, including CRA loans, to be prudently underwritten  As evidenced below, it may be difficult to determine whether banks have made particular financial decisions in response to profit or CRA incentives in cases where those incentives exist simultaneously  For example, banks increased their holdings of municipal bonds in 2009  Although banks may receive CRA consideration under the investment test for purchasing state and local municipal bonds that fund public and community development projects in their designated assessment areas, banks may choose this investment for reasons unrelated to CRA  During recessions, for example, banks may reduce direct (or primary market) lending activities and increase their holdings of securities in the wake of declining demand for and supply of direct loan originations that occur during economic slowdowns and early recovery periods  In addition, a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P L  111-5 ) provided banks with a favorable tax incentive to invest in municipal bonds in the wake of the 2007-2009 recession  Hence, determining whether banks increased their municipal holdings because of a turn to securities markets for higher yields following a recession, a favorable tax incentive, or the CRA incentive is challenging  Similarly, banks increased their investments in Small Business Investment Corporations (SBICs, defined in the Appendix ) in 2010  Investments in SBICs allow banks to provide subordinate financing (rather than senior debt) to businesses  Senior lenders have first claims to the business's assets in case of failure; however, subordinate financiers provide funds in the form of mezzanine capital or equity, requiring a higher return because they are repaid after senior lenders  Banks generally are not allowed to act as subordinate financiers because they are not allowed to acquire ownership interests in private equity funds, unless such investments promote public welfare  Hence, attributing community development financing activities, such as SBIC investments, to CRA incentives may arguably be easier (relative to other financing activities) because the ability to engage in subordinate financing activities typically represents a CRA exemption from ordinary permissible banking activities  Following the 2007-2009 recession, however, U S  interest rates dropped to historically low levels for an abnormally long period of time  Because low-yielding interest rate environments squeeze profits, banks were likely to search for higher-yielding and larger-sized lending opportunities, such as investments in SBICs  Hence, it remains difficult to determine whether a particular bank's decision to increase SBIC financing activities was driven by normal profit or CRA-related incentives  Between June 2016 and June 2017, more than 1700 U S  bank branches were closed  Many branch closings occurred primarily in rural and low-income tract areas, raising concerns that banks would be able to circumvent their CRA obligation to lend and be evaluated in these areas  A traditional bank business model, however, relies primarily on having access to core deposits , a stable source of funds used to subsequently originate loans  Banks value geographic locations with greater potential to attract high core deposit volumes, which is also consistent with the CRA's requirement that assessment areas include at least one MSA or contiguous political subdivision (as previously discussed)  Furthermore, using FDIC and U S  Census Bureau data, the Federal Reserve noted that the number of branches per capita in 2017 was higher than two decades ago  Hence, determining whether branch closures reflect a bank's intentions to circumvent CRA compliance or to facilitate its ability to attract core deposits is challenging  On April 3, 2018, the U S  Department of Treasury (Treasury) released recommendations to modernize CRA in a memorandum to the federal banking regulators (OCC, FCIC, and the Fed)  Treasury highlighted four of its recommendations, summarized below  When the CRA was enacted in 1977, banks received deposits and made loans primarily through geographical branches  Assessment areas defined geographically arguably may not fully reflect the community served by a bank because of technology developments, such as the internet and mobile phone banking, prompting Treasury to call for revisiting the approach for determining banks' assessment areas  In 2016, the banking regulators issued Interagency Questions and Answers (Q&As) to provide banks guidance pertaining to CRA-eligible activities; however, Treasury noted that each regulator provides its examiners with additional guidance  Also, the Interagency Q&As illustrate past CRA-qualifying activities, but Treasury noted that no formal process currently exists to help determine whether potential (complex, innovative, or innovative) activities would qualify for CRA credit  Treasury recommends establishing clearer standards for CRA-qualifying activities and flexibility (expanding the types of loans, investments, and services that qualify for CRA credit), which may encourage banks to venture beyond activities that typically receive CRA credit  Treasury reports that each bank regulator follows a different examination schedule; the examinations are lengthy; and delays associated with the release of performance evaluations may limit the time banks can react to recommendations before their next CRA examination  Treasury recommends increasing the timeliness of the CRA examination process  Treasury recommends incorporating performance incentives that might result in more efficient lending activities  For example, CRA-qualifying loans may receive credit in the year of origination, but equity investments may receive credit each year that the investment is held  Treasury recommends consistent treatment of loans and investments, which may encourage banks to make more long-term loans (rather than sequences of short-term loans for the sake of being awarded CRA credits at each CRA examination)  On August, 28, 2018, the OCC released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments on ways to modernize the CRA framework  The ANPR solicited comments on the issues raised by Treasury among other things  The OCC's ANPR does not propose specific changes, but its content and the questions posed suggest that the OCC is exploring the possibility of adopting a quantitative metric-based approach to CRA performance evaluation, changing how assessment areas are defined, expanding CRA-qualifying activities, and reducing the complexity, ambiguity, and burden of the regulations on the bank industry  When the comment period closed on November 19, 2018, the OCC had received 1584 comments  The Federal Reserve and the FDIC did not join the OCC in releasing the ANPR  The Federal Reserve System, however, did host research symposiums around the country to gather comments pertaining to CRA reform  As reported by the Federal Reserve, some banking industry comments suggested, among other things, the need for consistency of the CRA examinations to facilitate CRA compliance  Yet some tailoring may still be necessary with respect to determining assessment areas that better reflect each bank's business models, particularly for models that use technology to deliver products and services  The regulators also heard from community and consumer groups  While expressing the need to retain focus on the historical context of the CRA, these groups highlighted the need to address issues pertaining to banking deserts in underserved communities  Community development investments (CDIs) that meet public welfare investment (PWI) requirements are those that promote the public welfare, primarily resulting in economic benefits for low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals  This appendix provides examples of CDI activities that would qualify for consideration under the CRA investment test  In many cases, covered banks are more likely to take advantage of these optional vehicles to obtain CRA credits if they perceive the underlying investment opportunities to have profit potential  Loan Participations Banks and credit unions often use participation (syndicated) loans to jointly provide credit  When a financial firm (e g , bank, credit union) originates a loan for a customer, it may decide to structure loan participation arrangements with other institutions  The loan originator often retains a larger portion of the loan and sells smaller portions to other financial institutions willing to participate  Suppose a financial firm originates a business or mortgage loan in a LMI neighborhood  A bank may receive CRA investment credit consideration by purchasing a participation, thus becoming a joint lender to the LMI borrower  An advantage of loan participations is that the default risk is divided and shared among the participating banks (as opposed to one financial firm retaining all of the risk)  CRA consideration is possible if the activity occurs within the designated assessment area  For all participating banks to receive credit, some overlap in their designated assessment areas must exist  An exception is made for participations made to benefit designated disaster areas, in which all participating banks would receive CRA consideration regardless of location  State and Local Government Bonds State and local governments issue municipal bonds, and the proceeds are used to fund public projects, community development activities, and other qualifying activities  The interest that nonbank municipal bondholders receive is exempt from federal income taxes to encourage investment in hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and community development projects that require state and local funding  Legislative actions during the 1980s eliminated the tax-exempt status of interest earned from holdings of municipal bonds for banks  Although banks no longer have a tax incentive to purchase municipal bonds, they still consider the profitability of holding these loans, as they do with all lending opportunities  Furthermore, banks receive CRA investment consideration when purchasing state and local municipal bonds that fund public and community development projects in their designated assessment areas  CRA-Targeted Secondary Market Instruments Secondary market financial products have been developed to facilitate the ability of banks to participate in lending activities eligible for CRA consideration, such as purchasing mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) or shares of real estate investment trusts (REITs)  A MBS is a pool of mortgage loans secured by residential properties; a multifamily MBS is a pool of mortgage loans secured by multifamily properties, consisting of structures designed for five or more residential units, such as apartment buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, and manufactured homes  CRA-MBSs are MBSs consisting of loans that originated in specific geographic assessment areas, thereby allowing bank purchases into these pools to be eligible for CRA consideration under the investment test  Similarly, REITs may also pool mortgages, mortgage MBSs, and real estate investments (e g , real property, apartments, office buildings, shopping malls, hotels)  Investors purchase shares in REIT pools and defer the taxes  Banks may only invest in mortgage REITs and MBS REITs  Similar to the CRA-MBSs, the REITs must consist of mortgages and MBSs that would be eligible for CRA consideration  The Community Development Trust REIT is an example of a REIT that serves as a CRA-qualified investment for banks  Community Development Financial Institutions and Equity Equivalent Investments The Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund was created by the Riegle Community Development Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (the Riegle Act; P L  103-325 )  The CDFI Fund was established to promote economic development for distressed urban and rural communities  The CDFI Fund, currently located within the U S  Department of the Treasury, is authorized to certify banks, credit unions, nonprofit loan funds, and (for-profit and nonprofit) venture capital funds as designated CDFIs  In other words, a bank may satisfy the requirements to become a CDFI, but not all CDFIs are banks  The primary focus of institutions with CDFI certification is to serve the financial needs of economically distressed people and places  The designation also makes these institutions eligible to receive financial awards and other assistance from the CDFI Fund  In contrast to non-CDFI banks, some CDFI banks have greater difficulty borrowing funds and then transforming them into loans for riskier, economically distressed consumers  The lack of loan level data for most CDFI banks causes creditors to hesitate in making low-cost, short-term loans to these institutions  Specifically, the lack of information on loan defaults and prepayment rates on CDFI banking assets is likely to result in limited ability to sell these loan originations to secondary loan markets  Consequently, the retention of higher-risk loans, combined with limited access to low-cost, short-term funding, makes CDFI banks more vulnerable to liquidity shortages  Hence, CDFIs rely primarily on funding their loans (assets) with net assets , which are proceeds analogous to the equity of a traditional bank or net worth of a credit union  CDFI net assets are often acquired in the form of awards or grants from the CDFI Fund or for-profit banks  Funding assets with net assets is less expensive for CDFIs than funding with longer-term borrowings  Banks may obtain CRA investment credit consideration by making investments to CDFIs, which provides CDFIs with net assets (equity)  Under PWI authority, banks are allowed to make equity investments in specialized financial institutions, such as CDFIs, as long as they are considered by their safety and soundness regulator to be at least adequately capitalized   Furthermore, the final Basel III notification of proposed regulation (NPR) allows for preferential capital treatment for equity investments made under PWI authority, meaning equity investments to designated CDFIs may receive more favorable capital treatment  Consequently, banks often provide funds to CDFIs through equity equivalent investments (EQ2s), which are debt instruments issued by CDFIs with a continuous rolling (indeterminate) maturity  EQ2s, from a bank's perspective, are analogous to holding convertible preferred stock with a regularly scheduled repayment  Hence, banks may view EQ2s as a potentially profitable opportunity to invest in other specialized financial institutions and receive CRA consideration, particularly when the funds are subsequently used by CDFIs to originate loans in the banks' assessment areas  Small Business Investment Companies The Small Business Administration (SBA) was established in 1953 by the Small Business Act of 1953 (P L  83-163) to support small businesses' access to capital in a variety of ways  Although issuing loan guarantees for small businesses is a significant component of its operations, the SBA also has the authority to facilitate the equity financing of small business ventures through its Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program, which was established by the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (P L  85-699)  SBICs that are licensed and regulated by the SBA may provide debt and equity financing and, although not a program requirement, educational (management consulting) resources for businesses that meet certain SBA size requirements  Banks may act as limited partners if they choose to provide funds to SBICs, which act as general partners  Banks may establish their own SBICs, jointly establish SBICs (with other banks), or provide funds to existing SBICs  SBICs subsequently use bank funding to invest in the long-term debt and equity securities of small, independent (SBA-eligible) businesses, and banks may receive CRA investment consideration if the activities benefit their assessment areas  Community banks invest in SBICs because of the profit potential as well as the opportunity to establish long-term relationships with business clients during their infancy stages  Banks that are considered by their regulators to be adequately capitalized are allowed to invest in these specialized financial institutions under PWI authority, but the investments still receive risk-based capital treatment  SBIC assets, similar to CDFIs, are illiquid given the difficulty to obtain credit ratings for SBIC investments; thus, they cannot be sold in secondary markets  Because banks risk losing the principal of their equity investments, they are required to perform the proper due diligence associated with prudent underwriting  Tax Credits The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 ( P L  99-514 ) to encourage the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing  Generally speaking, government (federal or state) issued tax credits may be bought and, in many cases, sold like any other financial asset (e g , stocks and bonds)  Owners of tax credits may reduce their tax liabilities either by the amount of the credits or by using the formulas specified on those credits, assuming the owners have participated in the specified activities that the government wants to encourage  For LIHTCs, banks may use a formula to reduce their federal tax liabilities when they provide either credit or equity contributions (grants) for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing  If a bank also owns a LIHTC, then a percentage of the equity grant may be tax deductible if the CDFI uses the funds from the grant to finance affordable rental housing  Furthermore, banks may receive consideration for CRA-qualified investment credits  After a domestic corporation or partnership receives designation as a Community Development Entity (CDE) from the CFDI Fund, it may apply for New Markets Tax Credits (NMTCs)  Encouraging capital investments in LMI communities is the primary mission of CDEs, and CDFIs and SBICs automatically qualify as CDEs  Only CDEs are eligible to compete for NMTCs, which are allocated by the CDFI Fund via a competitive process  Once awarded an allocation of NMTCs, the CDE must obtain equity investments in exchange for the credits  Then, the equity proceeds raised must either be used to provide loans or technical assistance or deployed in eligible community investment activities  Only for-profit CDEs, however, may provide NMTCs to their investors in exchange for equity investments  Investors making for-profit CDE equity investments can use the NMTCs to reduce their tax liabilities by a certain amount over a period of years  As previously discussed, a bank may receive CRA credit for making equity investments in nonprofit CDEs and for-profit subsidiaries, particularly if the investment occurs within the bank's assessment area  Furthermore, banks may be able to reduce their tax liabilities if they can obtain NMTCs from the CDEs in which their investments were made 
Report 2:  When the committee finally rises and reports the bill back to the House, the House proceeds to vote on the amendments the committee has adopted  It usually approves all these amendments by one voice vote, though Members can demand separate votes on any or all of them as a matter of right  After a formal and routine stage called "third reading and engrossment" (when only the title of the bill is read), there is then an opportunity for a Member, virtually always from the minority party, to offer a motion to recommit the bill to committee  If the House agrees to a "simple" or "straight" motion to recommit, which only proposes to return the bill to committee, the bill is taken from the floor and returned to committee  Although the committee technically has the power to re-report the bill, in practice, the adoption of a straight motion to recommit is often characterized as effectively "killing" the measure  "Straight" motions to recommit are rare  Alternatively, motions to recommit far more frequently include instructions that the committee report the bill back to the House "forthwith" with an amendment that is stated in the motion  If the House agrees to such a motion, which is debatable for 10 minutes, evenly divided, it then immediately votes on the amendment itself, so a motion to recommit with instructions is really a final opportunity for the minority party to amend the bill before the House votes on whether to pass it  Thus, this complicated mode of consideration, which the House uses to consider most major bills, begins in the House with a decision to resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider a particular bill  General debate and the amending process take place in Committee of the Whole, but ultimately it is the House that formally amends and then passes or rejects the bill  Clause 1(m) of Rule X authorizes the Rules Committee to report resolutions affecting the order of business  Such a resolution—called a "rule" or "special rule"—usually proposes to make a bill in order for floor consideration so that it can be debated, amended, and passed or defeated by a simple majority vote  In effect, each special rule recommends to the House that it take from the Union or House Calendar a measure that is not otherwise privileged business and bring it to the floor out of its order on that calendar  Typically, such a resolution begins by providing that, at any time after its adoption, the Speaker may declare the House resolved into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of that bill  Because the special rule is itself privileged, under clause 5(a) of Rule XIII, the House can debate and vote on it promptly  If the House accepts the Rules Committee's recommendation, it proceeds to consider the bill itself  One fundamental purpose of most special rules, therefore, is to make another bill or resolution privileged so that it may interrupt the regular order of business  Their other fundamental purpose is to set special procedural ground rules for considering that measure; these ground rules may either supplement or supplant the standing rules of the House  For example, the special rule typically sets the length of time for general debate in Committee of the Whole and specifies which Members are to control that time  In addition, the special rule normally includes provisions that expedite final House action on the bill after the amending process in Committee of the Whole has been completed  Special rules may also waive points of order that Members could otherwise make against consideration of the bill, against one of its provisions, or against an amendment to be offered to it  The most controversial provisions of special rules affect the amendments that Members can offer to the bill that the resolution makes in order  As noted above, an "open rule" permits Representatives to propose any amendment that meets the normal requirements of House rules and precedents—for example, the requirement that each amendment must be germane  A "modified open rule" permits amendments to be offered that otherwise comply with House rules but imposes a time limit on the consideration of amendments or requires them to be preprinted in the Congressional Record   At the other extreme, a "closed rule" prohibits all amendments except perhaps for committee amendments and pro forma amendments ("to strike the last word") offered only for purposes of debate  A "structured" rule, which is the most common type of rule, permits only certain specific amendments to be considered on the floor  These provisions are very important because they can prevent Representatives from offering amendments as alternatives to provisions of the bill, thereby limiting the policy choices that the House can make  Open rules have been rare in recent Congresses  However, like other committees, the Rules Committee only makes recommendations to the House  As noted above, Members debate each of its procedural resolutions in the House under the hour rule and then vote to adopt or reject it  If the House votes against ordering the previous question on a special rule, a Member could offer an amendment to it, proposing to change the conditions under which the bill itself is to be considered  Because the adoption of a special rule is often viewed as a "party loyalty" vote, however, such a development is exceedingly rare  All the same, it is important to remember that while the Rules Committee is instrumental in helping the majority party leadership formulate its order of business and in setting appropriate ground rules for considering each bill, the House retains ultimate control over what it does, when, and how  Legislation is sometimes brought before the House of Representatives for consideration by the unanimous consent of its Members  Long-standing policies announced by the Speaker regulate unanimous consent requests for this purpose  Among other things, the Speaker will recognize a Member to propound a unanimous consent request to call up an unreported bill or resolution only if that request has been cleared in advance with both party floor leaders and with the bipartisan leadership of the committee of jurisdiction  Before any bill can become law, both the House and the Senate must pass it, and the two houses must agree on each and every one of its provisions  This basic constitutional requirement means that the House must have procedures to respond when the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill  For example, the House may pass a Senate bill with House amendments, or the Senate may pass a House bill with Senate amendments and then send its amendments to the House  In either case, the two houses must resolve their differences over these amendments before the legislative process is completed  There are essentially two ways to approach this stage of the process: (1) by dealing with the amendments individually through a process of exchanging amendments between the chambers, with the bill being sent back and forth between the House and Senate, or (2) by dealing with the amendments collectively through a conference committee of Representatives and Senators who negotiate a series of compromises and concessions that are compiled in a conference report that the two houses can vote to accept  Because the process of resolving differences between the houses can be quite complicated, only some of its basic elements are summarized here  The House normally considers Senate amendments to a House bill by unanimous consent or by suspension of the rules; the House may accept the amendments (concur in them) or amend them (concur in them with House amendments)  Alternatively, the committee with jurisdiction over the bill may authorize its chair to move that the House disagree to the Senate's amendments and send them to a conference committee  When the House amends and passes a Senate bill, it may request a conference with the Senate immediately, or it may simply send its amendments to the Senate in the hope that the Senate will accept them  If the Senate refuses to do so, it may request a conference with the House instead  On the other hand, if the House and Senate can reach agreement by proposing amendments to each other's positions, the bill can be sent to the President for his signature or veto without the need to create a conference committee  This method of resolving differences is sometimes colloquially called "ping-pong," because each chamber acts in turn, shuttling the legislation back and forth as each proposes amendments to the position of the other  If the House and Senate agree to send their versions of the bill to a conference committee, the Speaker appoints the House conferees  These conferees are usually drawn from the standing committee (or committees) with jurisdiction over the bill, although the Speaker may appoint some other Representatives as well  When the House and Senate conferees meet, they are to deal only with provisions of the bill on which the two houses disagree  They should not insert new provisions or change provisions that both houses have already approved  Furthermore, as the conferees resolve each provision or amendment in disagreement, they accept the House position, the Senate position, or a compromise between them  Like almost all other House rules, the rules limiting the authority of conferees are enforced only if Members make points of order at the appropriate time  The House may also adopt a special rule, reported by the Rules Committee, waiving points of order against a conference report  To complete their work successfully, a majority of the House conferees and a majority of the Senate conferees must sign a report that recommends all the agreements they have reached  The conferees also sign a "joint explanatory statement" that describes the original House and Senate positions and the conferees' recommendations and is the functional equivalent of a legislative committee report  After Representatives have had three days to examine a conference report, it is privileged for floor consideration; it may be called up at any time that the House is not already considering something else  The report may be debated in the House under the hour rule, so the vote almost always occurs after no more than one hour of debate  No amendments to the report are in order  In practice, however, the House almost always considers conference reports under the terms of a special rule from the Rules Committee that waives all points of order against the report and its consideration  The conference report is a proposed package settlement of a number of disagreements, so the House and Senate may accept it or reject it, but they may not change it  If the two houses agree to the report by simple majority vote, all their differences have been resolved and the bill is then "enrolled," or reprinted, for formal presentation to the President  In rare instances, conferees cannot reach agreement on one or more of the amendments in conference, or they may reach an agreement that they cannot include in their conference report because their proposal exceeds the scope of the differences between the House and Senate positions (and thus violates the rules governing the content of conference reports)  In either case, the conferees may report back to the two houses with an amendment (or amendments) in disagreement  After acting on the conference report and dealing collectively with all the other amendments that were sent to conference, the House acts on each of the amendments in disagreement by considering motions such as a motion to accept the Senate's amendment or a motion to amend it with a new House amendment  The Senate takes similar action until the disagreements on these amendments are resolved or until the two houses agree to create a new conference committee only to address the remaining amendments that are still in disagreement  The bill cannot become law until the two houses resolve all the differences between their positions  Whenever Representatives vote on the floor, there is almost always first a "voice vote," in which the Members in favor of the bill, amendment, or motion vote "Aye" in unison, followed by those voting "No " Before the Speaker (or the chair of the Committee of the Whole) announces the result, any Representative can demand a "division vote," in which the Members in favor stand up to be counted, again followed by those opposed  But before the result of either a voice vote or a division vote is announced, a Member may try to require another vote in which everyone's position is recorded publicly  This recorded vote is taken by using the House's electronic voting system  In Committee of the Whole, an electronic vote is ordered when 25 Members request it  In the House, such a vote occurs when demanded by at least one-fifth of the Members present  Alternatively, any Member can demand an electronically recorded vote in the House if a quorum of the membership is not present on the floor when the voice or division vote takes place  The Constitution requires that a quorum must be present on the floor when the House is conducting business  In the House, a quorum is a majority of the Representatives; in Committee of the Whole, it is only 100 Members  However, the House has traditionally assumed that a quorum is always present unless a Member makes a point of order that it is not  The rules restrict when Members can make such points of order, and they occur most often when the House or the Committee of the Whole is voting  In the House, for example, a Representative can object to a voice or division vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make that point of order  If a quorum is not present, the Speaker automatically orders an electronically recorded vote during which Members record their presence on the floor by casting their votes  The issue is decided and a quorum is established at the same time  A voice or division vote is valid even if less than a quorum participates in the vote so long as no one makes a point of order that a quorum is not present  For this reason, Members can continue to meet in their committees or fulfill their other responsibilities off the floor when the House is doing business that does not involve publicly recorded votes  On most days, the House will meet two hours prior to scheduled legislative business for Morning Hour Debate, a period in which Members can make speeches of up to five minutes on subjects of their choosing  Later, the House will meet for legislative session  After the opening prayer on each day by the House chaplain (or perhaps by a guest chaplain), the Speaker announces approval of the Journal of the previous day's proceedings  A Member may require a recorded vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal  Following the Pledge of Allegiance, some Members may then ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute each on whatever subjects they wish, including subjects unrelated to the scheduled legislative business of the day  The ability to set the House's floor schedule is one of the primary powers and responsibilities of the majority party leaders, and in doing so they often consult with minority party leaders  Generally speaking, to the extent possible, majority party leaders and the committee chairmen arrange the legislative schedule for each week in advance  During the last floor session of the week, the majority leader normally announces the expected schedule for the coming week in a traditional "wrap-up" colloquy with a minority party leader  Changes in the schedule may be announced as they are made  On a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, the House will commonly consider multiple measures under the "suspension of the rules" procedure  Typically, recorded votes on such measures, if requested, are clustered together and taken at the end of the day  On other days of the week, the House will usually consider a major bill pursuant to a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules  Such a special rule would be debated in the House under the hour rule, at the end of which the majority manager of the special rule would "move the previous question," which, when adopted, brings the resolution to a vote  Once adopted, the House would ordinarily consider a measure in Committee of the Whole pursuant to the terms for general debate and amendment established by the special rule  Following consideration in the Committee of the Whole, the House would take the final votes on the measure after voting on the amendments recommended by the committee and on a minority motion to recommit, which would likely be made with amendatory instructions  As each item of business is completed, the Speaker anticipates which Member should be seeking recognition to call up the next bill or resolution  If another Representative requests to be recognized instead, t he Speaker may ask, "For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?" The Speaker may decline to recognize that Member if the Speaker wants the House to consider another privileged measure, motion, or report  At the end of legislative business on most days, some Members address the House for as much as an hour each on subjects of their choice  These "special order" speeches are arranged in advance and organized by the party leadership  In this way, Representatives can comment at length on current national and international issues and discuss bills that have not yet reached the House floor  The House often adjourns by early evening, although it may remain in session later when the need arises or when the end of the annual session or some other deadline approaches  The House rules for each Congress are published in a volume often called the House manual but officially entitled Constitution, Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives   A new edition of this collection is published each Congress  The precedents of the House established through 1935 have been compiled in the 11-volume set of Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives   More recent precedents are published as Deschler's or Deschler-Brown -Johnson Precedents of the U S  House of Representatives ; 18 volumes of this set now are available  Volume 1 of a fourth series of House precedents, Precedents of the United States House of Representatives , was initiated in 2017, and additional volumes are expected in the future  The House's procedures are summarized in House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House , by Charles W  Johnson, John V  Sullivan, and Thomas J  Wickham Jr , Parliamentarians of the House  The most recent version of House Practice was published in 2017  The Parliamentarian and his assistants welcome inquiries about House procedures and offer expert assistance compatible with their other responsibilities  CRS Report 98-995, The Amending Process in the House of Representatives , by Christopher M  Davis  CRS Report RL32200, Debate, Motions, and Other Actions in the Committee of the Whole , by Bill Heniff Jr  and Elizabeth Rybicki  CRS Report 97-552, The Discharge Rule in the House: Principal Features and Uses , by Richard S  Beth  CRS Report RL30787, Parliamentary Reference Sources: House of Representatives , by Richard S  Beth and Megan S  Lynch  CRS Report 98-696, Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses , by Elizabeth Rybicki  CRS Report 97-780, The Speaker of the House: House Officer, Party Leader, and Representative , by Valerie Heitshusen  CRS Report 98-314, Suspension of the Rules in the House: Principal Features , by Elizabeth Rybicki  CRS Report 98-870, Quorum Requirements in the House: Committee and Chamber , by Christopher M  Davis 

ground_truth: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA; P.L. 95-128, 12 U.S.C. §§2901-2908) addresses how banking institutions meet the credit needs of the areas they serve, particularly in low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods. The federal banking regulatory agencies—the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—currently implement the CRA. The regulators issue CRA credits, or points, where banks engage in qualifying activities—such as mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities—that occur with a designated assessment area. These credits are then used to issue each bank a performance rating. The CRA requires these ratings be taken into account when banks apply for charters, branches, mergers, and acquisitions among other things. The CRA, which was enacted in 1977, was subsequently revised in 1989 to require public disclosure of bank CRA ratings to establish a four-tiered system of descriptive performance levels (i.e., Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, or Substantial Noncompliance). In 1995, the CRA examination was customized to account for differences in bank sizes and business models. In 2005, the bank size definitions were revised and indexed to the Consumer Price Index. The 2005 amendments also expanded opportunities for banks to earn CRA credit for public welfare investments (such as providing housing, services, or jobs that primarily benefit LMI individuals). Qualifying activities under the CRA have evolved to include consumer and business lending, community investments, and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities. Congressional interest in the CRA stems from various perceptions of its effectiveness. Some have argued that, by encouraging lending in LMI neighborhoods, the CRA may also encourage the issuance of higher-risk loans to borrowers likely to have repayment problems (under the presumption that low-income is correlated with lower creditworthiness), which can translate into losses for lenders. Others are concerned that the CRA is not generating sufficient incentives to increase credit availability to qualified LMI borrowers, which may impede economic recovery for some, particularly following the 2007-2009 recession. This report informs the congressional debate concerning the CRA's effectiveness in incentivizing bank lending and investment activity to LMI borrowers. After a discussion of the CRA's origins, it presents the CRA's examination process and bank activities that are eligible for consideration of CRA credits. Next, it discusses the difficulty of determining the CRA's influence on bank behavior. For example, the CRA does not specify the quality and quantity of CRA-qualifying activities, meaning that compliance with the CRA does not require adherence to lending quotas or benchmarks. In the absence of benchmarks, determining the extent to which CRA incentives have influenced LMI credit availability relative to other factors is not straightforward. Banks also face a variety of financial incentives—for example, capital requirements, the prevailing interest rate environment, changes in tax laws, and technological innovations—that influence how much (or how little) they lend to LMI borrowers. Because multiple financial profit incentives and CRA incentives tend to exist simultaneously, it is difficult to determine the extent to which CRA incentives have influenced LMI credit availability relative to other factors.