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



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



Report 2: The issue of executive discretion has been at the center of constitutional debates in liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century  How to balance a commitment to the rule of law with the exigencies of modern political and economic crises has engaged legislators and scholars in the United States and around the world  The United States Constitution is silent on questions of emergency power  As such, over the past two centuries, Congress and the President have answered those questions in varied and often ad hoc ways  In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the answer was often for the President to act without congressional approval in a time of crisis, knowingly risking impeachment and personal civil liability  Congress claimed primacy over emergency action and would decide subsequently to either ratify the President's actions or indemnify the President for any civil liability  By the twentieth century, a new pattern had begun to emerge  Instead of retroactively judging an executive's extraordinary actions in a time of emergency, Congress created statutory bases permitting the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers  The expanding delegation of emergency powers to the executive and the increase of governing via emergency power by the executive has been a common trajectory among twentieth-century liberal democracies  As innovation has quickened the pace of social change and global crises, some legislatures have felt compelled to delegate to the executive, who traditional political theorists assumed could operate with greater "dispatch" than deliberate, future-oriented legislatures  Whether such actions subvert the rule of law or are a standard feature of healthy modern constitutional orders has been a subject of extensive debate  The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one such example of a twentieth-century delegation of emergency authority  One of 123 emergency statutes under the umbrella of the National Emergencies Act (NEA), IEEPA grants the President extensive power to regulate a variety of economic transactions during a state of emergency  Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977 to rein in the expansive emergency economic powers that it had been delegated to the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)  Nevertheless, some scholars argue that judicial and legislative actions subsequent to IEEPA's enactment have made it, like TWEA, a source of expansive and unchecked executive authority in the economic realm  Others, however, argue that Presidents often use IEEPA to implement the will of Congress either as directed by law or as encouraged by congressional activity  Until recently, there has been little congressional discussion of modifying either IEEPA or its umbrella statute, the NEA  Recent presidential actions, however, have drawn attention to presidential emergency powers under the NEA of which IEEPA is the most frequently used  Should Congress consider changing IEEPA, there are two issues that Congress may wish to address  The first pertains to how Congress has delegated its authority under IEEPA and its umbrella statute, the NEA  The second pertains to choices made in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018  The First World War (1914-1918) saw an unprecedented degree of economic mobilization  The executive departments of European governments began to regulate their economies with or without the support of their legislatures  The United States, in contrast, was in a privileged position relative to its allies in Europe  Separated by an ocean from Germany and Austria-Hungary, the United States was never under substantial threat of invasion  Rather than relying on the inherent powers of the presidency, or acting unconstitutionally and waiting for congressional ratification, President Wilson sought explicit pre-authorization for expansive new powers to meet the global crisis  Between 1916 and the end of 1917, Congress passed 22 statutes empowering the President to take control of private property for public use during the war  These statutes gave the President broad authority to control railroads, shipyards, cars, telegraph and telephone systems, water systems, and many other sectors of the American economy  TWEA was one of those 22 statutes  It granted to the executive an extraordinary degree of control over international trade, investment, migration, and communications between the United States and its enemies  TWEA defined "enemy" broadly and included "any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals [including corporations], of any nationality, resident within the territory     of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside of the United States and doing business within such a territory     " The first four sections of the act granted the President extensive powers to limit trading or communication with, or transporting enemies (or their allies) of the United States  These sections also empowered the President to censor foreign communications and place extensive restrictions on enemy insurance or reinsurance companies  It was Section 5(b) of TWEA, however, that would form one of the central bases of presidential emergency economic power in the twentieth century  Section 5(b), as originally enacted, states: That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States), and transfers of evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any such transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed  The statute gave the President exceptional control over private international economic transactions in times of war  While Congress terminated many of the war powers in 1921, TWEA was specifically exempted because the U S  Government had yet to dispose of a large amount of alien property in its custody  The Great Depression, a massive global economic downturn that began in 1929, presented a challenge to liberal democracies in Europe and the Americas  To deal with the complexities presented by the crisis, nearly all such democracies began delegating discretionary authority to their executives to a degree that had only previously been done in times of war  The U S  Congress responded, in part, by dramatically expanding the scope of TWEA, delegating to the President the power to declare states of emergency in peacetime and assume expansive domestic economic powers  Such a delegation was made possible by analogizing economic crises to war  In public speeches about the crisis, President Franklin D  Roosevelt asserted that the Depression was to be "attacked," "fought against," "mobilized for," and "combatted" by "great arm[ies] of people " The economic mobilization of the First World War had blurred the lines between the executive's military and economic powers  As the Depression was likened to "armed strife" and declared to be "an emergency more serious than war" by a Justice of the Supreme Court, it became routine to use emergency economic legislation enacted in wartime as the basis for extraordinary economic authority in peacetime  As the Depression entered its third year, the newly-elected President Roosevelt sought from Congress "broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe " In his first act as President, Roosevelt proclaimed a bank holiday, suspending all transactions at all banking institutions located in the United States and its territories for four days  In his proclamation, Roosevelt claimed to have authority to declare the holiday under Section 5(b) of TWEA  However, because the United States was not in a state of war and the suspended transactions were primarily domestic, the President's authority to issue such an order was dubious  Despite the tenuous legality, Congress ratified Roosevelt's actions by passing the Emergency Banking Relief Act three days after his proclamation  The act amended Section 5(b) of TWEA to read: During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President , the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit     This amendment gave the President the authority to declare that a national emergency existed and assume extensive controls over the national economy previously only available in times of war  By 1934, Roosevelt had used these extensive new powers to regulate "Every transaction in foreign exchange, transfer of credit between any banking institution within the United States and any banking institution outside of the United States " With America's entry into the Second World War in 1941, Congress again amended TWEA to grant the President extensive powers over the disposition of private property, adding the so-called "vesting" power, which authorized the permanent seizure of property  Now in its most expansive form, TWEA authorized the President to declare a national emergency and, in so doing, to regulate foreign exchange, domestic banking, possession of precious metals, and property in which any foreign country or foreign national had an interest  The Second World War ended in 1945  Following the conflict, the allied powers constructed institutions and signed agreements designed to keep the peace and to liberalize world trade  However, the United States did not immediately resume a peacetime posture with respect to emergency powers  Instead, the onset of the Cold War rationalized the continued use of TWEA and other emergency powers outside the context of a declared war  Over the next several decades, Presidents declared four national emergencies under Section 5(b) of TWEA and assumed expansive authority over economic transactions in the postwar period  During the Cold War, economic sanctions became an increasingly popular foreign policy and national security tool, and TWEA was a prominent source of presidential authority to use the tool  In 1950, President Harry S  Truman declared a national emergency, citing TWEA, to impose economic sanctions on North Korea and China  Subsequent Presidents referenced that national emergency as authority for imposing sanctions on Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia  Truman likewise used Section 5(b) of TWEA to maintain regulations on foreign exchange, transfers of credit, and the export of coin and currency that had been in place since the early 1930s  Presidents Richard M  Nixon and Gerald R  Ford invoked TWEA to continue export controls established under the Export Administration Act when the act expired  TWEA was also a prominent instrument of postwar presidential monetary policy  Presidents Dwight D  Eisenhower and John F  Kennedy used TWEA and the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933 to maintain and modify regulations controlling the hoarding and export of gold  In 1968, President Lyndon B  Johnson explicitly used Truman's 1950 declaration of emergency under Section 5(b) of TWEA to limit direct foreign investment by U S  companies in an effort to strengthen the balance of payments position of the United States after the devaluation of the pound sterling by the United Kingdom  In 1971, after President Nixon ended the convertibility of the U S  dollar to gold, effectively ending the postwar monetary order, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to declare a state of emergency and place a 10% ad valorem supplemental duty on all dutiable goods entering the United States  The reliance by the executive on the powers granted by Section 5(b) of TWEA meant that postwar sanctions regimes and significant parts of U S  international monetary policy relied on continued states of emergency for their operation  By the mid-1970s, in the wake of U S  military involvement in Vietnam, revelations of domestic spying, assassinations of foreign political leaders, the Watergate break-in, and other related abuses of power, Congress increasingly focused on checking the executive branch  The Senate formed a bipartisan special committee chaired by Senators Frank Church and Charles Mathias to reevaluate the expansive delegations of emergency authority to the President  The special committee issued a report surveying the President's emergency powers in which it asserted that the United States had technically "been in a state of national emergency since March 9, 1933" and that there were four distinct declarations of national emergency in effect  The report also noted that the United States had "on the books at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways " In the course of its investigations, Senator Mathias, committee co-chair, noted, "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency government " Senator Church, the other co-chair, said the central question before the committee was "whether it [was] possible for a democratic government such as ours to exist under its present Constitution and system of three separate branches equal in power under a continued state of emergency " Among the more controversial statutes highlighted by the committee was TWEA  In 1977, during the House markup of a bill revising TWEA, Representative Jonathan Bingham, Chairperson of the House International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Policy, described TWEA as conferring "on the President what could have been dictatorial powers that he could have used without any restraint by Congress " According to the Department of Justice, TWEA granted the President four major groups of powers in a time of war or other national emergency: (a) Regulatory powers with respect to foreign exchange, banking transfers, coin, bullion, currency, and securities; (b) Regulatory powers with respect to "any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest"; (c) The power to vest "any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof"; and (d) The powers to hold, use, administer, liquidate, sell, or otherwise deal with "such interest or property" in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States  The House report on the reform legislation called TWEA "essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review " The criticisms of TWEA centered on the following: (a) It required no consultation or reports to Congress with regard to the use of powers or the declaration of a national emergency  (b) It set no time limits on a state of emergency, no mechanism for congressional review, and no way for Congress to terminate it  (c) It stated no limits on the scope of TWEA's economic powers and the circumstances under which such authority could be used  (d) The actions taken under the authority of TWEA were rarely related to the circumstances in which the national emergency was declared  In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, Professor Harold G  Maier summed up the development and the main criticisms of TWEA: Section 5(b)'s effect is no longer confined to "emergency situations" in the sense of existing imminent danger  The continuing retroactive approval, either explicit or implicit, by Congress of broad executive interpretations of the scope of powers which it confers has converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President…" Congress's reforms to emergency powers under TWEA came in two acts  First, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976  The NEA provided for the termination of all existing emergencies in 1978, except those making use of Section 5(b) of TWEA, and placed new restrictions on the manner of declaring and the duration of new states of emergency, including: Requiring the President to immediately transmit to Congress of the declaration of national emergency  Requiring a biannual review whereby "each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a concurrent [now joint, see below] resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated " Authorizing Congress to terminate the national emergency through a privileged concurrent [now joint] resolution  Second, Congress tackled the thornier question of TWEA  Because the authorities granted by TWEA were heavily entwined with postwar international monetary policy and the use of sanctions in U S  foreign policy, unwinding it was a difficult undertaking  The exclusion of Section 5(b) reflected congressional interest in preserving existing regulations regarding foreign assets, foreign funds, and exports of strategic goods  Similarly, establishing a means to continue existing uses of TWEA reflected congressional interest in "improving future use rather than remedying past abuses " The subcommittee charged with reforming TWEA spent more than a year preparing reports, including the first complete legislative history of TWEA, a tome that ran nearly 700 pages  In the resulting legislation, Congress did three things  First, Congress amended TWEA so that it was, as originally intended, only applicable "during a time of war " Second, Congress expanded the Export Administration Act to include powers that previously were authorized by reference to Section 5(b) of TWEA  Finally, Congress wrote the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to confer "upon the President a new set of authorities for use in time of national emergency which are both more limited in scope than those of section 5(b) and subject to procedural limitations, including those of the [NEA] " The Report of the House Committee on International Relations summed up the nature of an "emergency" in their "new approach" to international emergency economic powers: [G]iven the breadth of the authorities, and their availability at the President's discretion upon a declaration of a national emergency, their exercise should be subject to various substantive restrictions  The main one stems from a recognition that emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems  A national emergency should be declared and emergency authorities employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose  The emergency should be terminated in a timely manner when the factual state of emergency is over and not continued in effect for use in other circumstances  A state of national emergency should not be a normal state of affairs  IEEPA, as currently amended, empowers the president to: (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit: (i) any transactions in foreign exchange, (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or national thereof, (iii) the importing or exporting of currencies or securities; and (B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States  (C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes  These powers may be exercised "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat " Presidents may invoke IEEPA under the procedures set forth in the NEA  When declaring a national emergency, the NEA requires that the President "immediately" transmit the proclamation declaring the emergency to Congress and publish it in the Federal Register   The President must also specify the provisions of law that he or she intends to use  In addition to the requirements of the NEA, IEEPA provides several further restrictions  Preliminarily, IEEPA requires that the President consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before exercising any of the authorities granted under IEEPA  Once the President declares a national emergency invoking IEEPA, he or she must immediately transmit a report to Congress specifying: (1) the circumstances which necessitate such exercise of authority; (2) why the President believes those circumstances constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; (3) the authorities to be exercised and the actions to be taken in the exercise of those authorities to deal with those circumstances; (4) why the President believes such actions are necessary to deal with those circumstances; and (5) any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to those countries  The President subsequently is to report on the actions taken under the IEEPA at least once in every succeeding six-month interval that the authorities are exercised  As per the NEA, the emergency may be terminated by the President, by a privileged joint resolution of Congress, or automatically if the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary  Congress has amended IEEPA eight times ( Table 1 )  Five of the eight amendments have altered civil and criminal penalties for violations of orders issued under the statute  Other amendments excluded certain informational materials and expanded IEEPA's scope following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001  Congress also amended the NEA in response to a ruling by the Supreme Court to require a joint rather than a concurrent resolution to terminate a national emergency  As originally enacted, IEEPA protected the rights of U S  persons to participate in the exchange of "any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value" with a foreign person otherwise subject to sanctions  Amendments in 1988 and 1994 updated this list of protected rights to include the exchange of published information in a variety of formats  The act currently protects the exchange of "information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds," provided such exchange is not otherwise controlled for national security or foreign policy reasons related to weapons proliferation or international terrorism  Unlike the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), IEEPA did not allow the President to vest assets as originally acted  In 2001, at the request of George W  Bush Administration, Congress amended IEEPA as part of the USA PATRIOT Act to return to the President the authority to vest frozen assets, but only under certain circumstances:     the President may     when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that [the President] determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes  Speaking about the efforts of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to identify and disrupt the flow of terrorist finances, Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress: At present the President's powers are limited to freezing assets and blocking transactions with terrorist organizations  We need the capacity for more than a freeze  We must be able to seize  Doing business with terrorist organization must be a losing proposition  Terrorist financiers must pay a price for their support of terrorism, which kills innocent Americans  Consistent with the President's [issuance of E O  13224 ] and his statements [of September 24, 2001], our proposal gives law enforcement the ability to seize the terrorists' assets  Further, criminal liability is imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial transactions, money-laundering involving the proceeds of terrorist acts  The House Judiciary Committee report explaining the amendments described its purpose as follows: Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U S C  § 1702) grants to the President the power to exercise certain authorities relating to commerce with foreign nations upon his determination that there exists an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States  Under this authority, the President may, among other things, freeze certain foreign assets within the jurisdiction of the United States  A separate law, the Trading With the Enemy Act, authorizes the President to take title to enemy assets when Congress has declared war  Section 159 of this bill amends section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to provide the President with authority similar to what he currently has under the Trading With the Enemy Act in circumstances where there has been an armed attack on the United States, or where Congress has enacted a law authorizing the President to use armed force against a foreign country, foreign organization, or foreign national  The proceeds of any foreign assets to which the President takes title under this authority must be placed in a segregated account can only be used in accordance with a statute authorizing the expenditure of such proceeds  Section 159 also makes a number of clarifying and technical changes to section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, most of which will not change the way that provision currently is implemented  The government has apparently never employed the vesting power to seize Al Qaeda assets within the United States  Instead, the government has sought to confiscate them through forfeiture procedures  The first, and to date, apparently only, use of this power under IEEPA occurred on March 20, 2003  On that date, in Executive Order 13290, President George W  Bush ordered the blocked "property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities" to be vested "in the Department of the Treasury     [to] be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq " However, the President's order excluded from confiscation Iraq's diplomatic and consular property, as well as assets that had, prior to March 20, 2003, been ordered attached in satisfaction of judgments against Iraq rendered pursuant to the terrorist suit provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and § 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (which reportedly totaled about $300 million)   A subsequent executive order blocked the property of former Iraqi officials and their families, vesting title of such blocked funds in the Department of the Treasury for transfer to the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to be "used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, for the cost of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefitting of the Iraqi people " The DFI was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which required member states to freeze all assets of the former Iraqi government and of Saddam Hussein, senior officials of his regime and their family members, and transfer such assets to the DFI, which was then administered by the United States  Most of the vested assets were used by the Coalition Provision Authority (CPA) for reconstruction projects and ministry operations  The USA PATRIOT Act made three other amendments to Section 203 of IEEPA  After the power to investigate, it added the power to block assets during the pendency of an investigation  It clarified that the type of interest in property subject to IEEPA is an "interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States " It also added subsection (c), which provides: In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera  This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review  As described in the House Judiciary Committee report, these provisions were meant to clarify and codify existing practices  Like TWEA prior to its amendment in 1977, the President and Congress together have often turned to IEEPA to impose economic sanctions in furtherance of U S  foreign policy and national security objectives  While initially enacted to rein in presidential emergency authority, presidential emergency use of IEEPA has expanded in scale, scope, and frequency since the statute's enactment  The House report on IEEPA stated, "emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems " National emergencies invoking IEEPA, however, have increased in frequency and length since its enactment  Since 1977, Presidents have invoked IEEPA in 54 declarations of national emergency  On average, these emergencies last nearly a decade  Most emergencies have been geographically specific, targeting a specific country or government  However, since 1990, Presidents have declared non-geographically-specific emergencies in response to issues like weapons proliferation, global terrorism, and malicious cyber-enabled activities  The erosion of geographic limitations has been accompanied by an expansion in the nature of the targets of sanctions issued under IEEPA authority  Originally, IEEPA was used to target foreign governments; however, Presidents have increasingly targeted groups and individuals  While Presidents usually make use of IEEPA as an emergency power, Congress has also directed the use of IEEPA or expressed its approval of presidential emergency use in several statutes  IEEPA is the most frequently cited emergency authority when the President invokes NEA authorities to declare a national emergency  ( Figure 1 )  Rather than referencing the same set of emergencies, as had been the case with TWEA, IEEPA has required the President to declare a national emergency for each independent use  As a result, the number of national emergencies declared under the terms of the NEA has proliferated over the past four decades  Presidents declared only four national emergencies under the auspices of TWEA in the four decades prior to IEEPA's enactment  In contrast, Presidents have invoked IEEPA in 54 of the 61 declarations of national emergency issued under the National Emergen cies Act  As of March 1, 2019, there were 32 ongoing national emergencies; all but three involved IEEPA  Each year since 1990, Presidents have issued roughly 4 5 executive orders citing IEEPA and declared 1 5 new national emergencies citing IEEPA  ( Figure 2 )  On average, emergencies invoking IEEPA last nearly a decade  The longest emergency was also the first  President Jimmy Carter, in response to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, declared the first national emergency under the provisions of the National Emergencies Act and invoked IEEPA  Six successive Presidents have renewed that emergency annually for nearly forty years  As of March 1, 2019, that emergency is still in effect, largely to provide a legal basis for resolving matters of ownership of the Shah's disputed assets  That initial emergency aside, the length of emergencies invoking IEEPA has increased each decade  The average length of an emergency invoking IEEPA declared in the 1980s was four years  That average extended to 10 years for emergencies declared in the 1990s and 11 years for emergencies declared in the 2000s ( Figure 3 )  As such, the number of ongoing national emergencies has grown nearly continuously since the enactment of IEEPA and the NEA ( Figure 4 )  Between January 1, 1979, and January 1, 2019, there were on average 14 ongoing national emergencies each year, 13 of which invoked IEEPA  In most cases, the declared emergencies citing IEEPA have been geographically specific ( Figure 5 )  For example, in the first use of IEEPA, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order that both declared a national emergency with respect to the "situation in Iran" and "blocked all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran [   ] " Five months later, President Carter issued a second order dramatically expanding the scope of the first EO and effectively blocked the transfer of all goods, money, or credit destined for Iran by anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the United States  A further order expanded the coverage to block imports to the United States from Iran  Together, these orders touched upon virtually all economic contacts between any place or legal person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the territory and government of Iran  Many of the executive orders invoking IEEPA have followed this pattern of limiting the scope to a specific territory, government, or its nationals  Executive Order 12513, for example, prohibited "imports into the United States of goods and services of Nicaraguan origin" and "exports from the United States of goods to or destined for Nicaragua " The order likewise prohibited Nicaraguan air carriers and vessels of Nicaraguan registry from entering U S  ports  Executive Order 12532 prohibited various transactions with the "Government of South Africa or to entities owned or controlled by that Government " While the majority (38) of national emergencies invoking IEEPA have been geographically specific, ten have lacked explicit geographic limitations  President George H W  Bush declared the first geographically nonspecific emergency in response to the threat posed by the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons  Similarly, President George W  Bush declared a national emergency in response to the threat posed by "persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism " President Barack Obama declared emergencies to respond to the threats of "transnational criminal organizations" and "persons engaging in malicious cyber-enabled activities " Without explicit geographic limitations, these orders have included provisions that are global in scope  These geographically nonspecific emergencies have increased in frequency over the past 40 years—three of the ten have been declared since 2015  In addition to the erosion of geographic limitations, the stated motivations for declaring national emergencies have expanded in scope as well  Initially, stated rationales for declarations of national emergency citing IEEPA were short and often referenced either a specific geography or the specific actions of a government  Presidents found that circumstances like "the situation in Iran," or the "policies and actions of the Government of Nicaragua," constituted "unusual and extraordinary threat[s] to the national security and foreign policy of the United States" and would therefore declare a national emergency  The stated rationales have, however, expanded over time in both the length and subject matter  Presidents have increasingly declared national emergencies, in part, to respond to human and civil rights abuses, slavery, denial of religious freedom, political repression, public corruption, and the undermining of democratic processes  While the first reference to human rights violations as a rationale for a declaration of national emergency came in 1985, most of such references have come in the past twenty years  Table A-2   Presidents have also expanded the nature of the targets of IEEPA sanctions  Originally, the targets of sanctions issued under IEEPA were foreign governments  The first use of IEEPA targeted "Iranian Government Property " Use of IEEPA quickly expanded to target geographically defined regions  Nevertheless, Presidents have also increasingly targeted groups, such as political parties or terrorist organizations, and individuals, such as supporters of terrorism or suspected narcotics traffickers  The first instances of orders directed at groups or persons were limited to foreign groups or persons  For example, in Executive Order 12978, President Bill Clinton targeted specific "foreign persons" and "persons determined [   ] to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of" such foreign persons  An excerpt is included below: Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U S C  1702(b)) and in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, I hereby order blocked all property and interests in property that are or hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (a) the foreign persons listed in the Annex to this order; (b)  foreign persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (i) to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (ii) materially to assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to this order; and (c) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to this order  However, in 2001, President George W  Bush issued Executive Order 13219 to target "persons who threaten international stabilization efforts in the Western Balkans " While the order was similar to that of Executive Order 12978, it removed the qualifier "foreign " As such, persons in the United States, including U S  citizens, could be targets of the order  The following is an excerpt of the order: Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U S C  1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (title IX, P L  106-387 ), and in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may hereafter be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all property and interests in property of: (i)  the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and (ii)  persons designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, because they are found: (A) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of violence    Several subsequent invocations of IEEPA have similarly not been limited to foreign targets  In sum, presidential emergency use of IEEPA was directed at foreign states initially, with targets that were delimited by geography or nationality  Since the 1990s, however, Presidents have expanded the scope of their declarations to include individual persons, regardless of nationality or geographic location, who are engaged in specific activities  While IEEPA is often categorized as an emergency statute, Congress has used IEEPA outside of the context of national emergencies  When Congress legislates sanctions, it often authorizes or directs the President to use IEEPA authorities to impose those sanctions  In the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018, the most recent example, Congress directed the President to exercise "all powers granted to the President [by IEEPA] to the extent necessary to block and prohibit [certain transactions] " Penalties for violations by a person of a measure imposed by the President under the Act would be, likewise, determined by reference to IEEPA  The trend has been long-term  Congress first directed the President to make use of IEEPA authorities in 1986 as part of an effort to assist Haiti in the recovery of assets illegally diverted by its former government  That statute provided: The President shall exercise the authorities granted by section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [50 USC 1702] to assist the Government of Haiti in its efforts to recover, through legal proceedings, assets which the Government of Haiti alleges were stolen by former president-for-life Jean Claude Duvalier and other individuals associated with the Duvalier regime  This subsection shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of section 202 of that Act  [50 USC 1701] In directing the President to use IEEPA, Congress waived the requirement that he declare a national emergency (and none was declared)  Subsequent legislation has followed this general pattern, with slight variations in language and specificity  The following is an example of current legislative language that has appeared in several recent statutes: (a) IN GENERAL —The President shall impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect to—     (b) SANCTIONS DESCRIBED — (1) IN GENERAL —The sanctions described in this subsection are the following: (A) ASSET BLOCKING —The exercise of all powers granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U S C  1701 et seq ) to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of a person determined by the President to be subject to subsection (a) if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person      (2) PENALTIES —A person that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of paragraph (1)(A) or any regulation, license, or order issued to carry out paragraph (1)(A) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U S C  1705) to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) of that section  Congress has also expressed, retroactively, its approval of unilateral presidential invocations of IEEPA in the context of a national emergency  In the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, for example, Congress declared, "It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State should continue to implement Executive Order No  13382 " Presidents, however, have also used IEEPA to preempt or modify parallel congressional activity  On September 9, 1985, President Reagan, finding "that the policies and actions of the Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy and economy of the United States," declared a national emergency and limited transactions with South Africa  The President declared the emergency despite the fact that legislation limiting transactions with South Africa was quickly making its way through Congress  In remarks about the declaration, President Reagan stated that he had been opposed to the bill contemplated by Congress because unspecified provisions "would have harmed the very people [the U S  was] trying to help " Nevertheless, members of the press at the time (and at least one scholar since) noted that the limitations imposed by the Executive Order and the provisions in legislation then winding its way through Congress were "substantially similar " In general, IEEPA has served as an integral part of the postwar international sanctions regime  The President, either through a declaration of emergency or via statutory direction, has used IEEPA to limit economic transactions in support of administrative and congressional national security and foreign policy goals  Much of the action taken pursuant to IEEPA has involved blocking transactions and freezing assets  Once the President declares that a national emergency exists, he may use the authority in Section 203 of IEEPA (Grants of Authorities; 50 U S C  § 1702) to investigate, regulate, or prohibit foreign exchange transactions, transfers of credit, transfers of securities, payments, and may take specified actions relating to property in which a foreign country or person has interest—freezing assets, blocking property and interests in property, prohibiting U S  persons from entering into transactions related to frozen assets and blocked property, and in some instances denying entry into the United States  Pursuant to Section 203, Presidents have prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as engaging in malicious cyber-enabled activities, including "interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions" [Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, as amended; 50 U S C  § 1701 note  See also Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018; 83 F R  46843 ]; prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as illicit narcotics traffickers including foreign drug kingpins; prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as engaging in human rights abuses or significant corruption; prohibited transactions related to illicit trade in rough diamonds; prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as Transnational Criminal Organizations; prohibited transactions with "those who disrupt the Middle East peace process;" prohibited transactions related to overflights with certain nations; instituted and maintained maritime restrictions; prohibited transactions related to weapons of mass destruction, in coordination with export controls authorized by the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act of 1979, and in furtherance of efforts to deter the weapons programs of specific countries (i e , Iran, North Korea); prohibited transactions those designated as "persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism;" maintained the dual-use export control system at times when its then-underlying authority, the Export Administration Act authority had lapsed; blocked property of and transactions with those designated as engaged in cyber activities that compromise critical infrastructures including election processes or the private sector's trade secrets; blocked property of and prohibited transactions with those designated as responsible for serious human rights abuse or engaged in corruption; blocked certain property of and transactions with foreign nationals of specific countries those designated as engaged in activities that constitute an extraordinary threat  No President has used IEEPA to place tariffs on imported products from a specific country or on products imported to the United States in general  However, IEEPA's similarity to TWEA, coupled with its relatively frequent use to ban imports and exports, suggests that such an action could happen  In addition, no President has used IEEPA to enact a policy that was primarily domestic in effect  Some scholars argue, however, that the interconnectedness of the global economy means it would probably be permissible to use IEEPA to take an action that was primarily domestic in effect  The ultimate disposition of assets frozen under IEEPA may serve as an important part of the leverage economic sanctions provide to influence the behavior of foreign actors  The President and Congress have each at times determined the fate of blocked assets to further foreign policy goals  Presidents have used frozen assets as a bargaining tool during foreign policy crises and to bring a resolution to such crises, at times by unfreezing the assets, returning them to the sanctioned entity or channeling them to a follow-on government  The following are some examples of how Presidents have made use of blocked assets to resolve foreign policy issues  President Carter invoked authority under IEEPA to impose trade sanctions against Iran, freezing Iranian assets in the United States, in response to the hostage crisis in 1979  On January 19, 1981, the United States and Iran entered into a series of executive agreements brokered by Algeria under which the hostages were freed, a portion of the blocked assets ($5 1 billion) was used to repay outstanding U S  bank loans to Iran, another part ($2 8 billion) was returned directly to Iran, another $1 billion was transferred into a security account in the Hague to pay other U S  claims against Iran as arbitrated by the Iran-U S  Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), and an additional $2 billion remained blocked pending further agreement with Iran or decision of the Tribunal  The United States also undertook to freeze the assets of the former Shah's estate along with those of the Shah's close relatives pending litigation in U S  courts to ascertain Iran's right to their return  Iran's litigation was unsuccessful, and none of the contested assets were returned to Iran  Presidents have also been able to channel frozen assets to opposition governments in cases where the United States continued to recognize a previous government that had been removed by coup d'état or otherwise replaced as the legitimate government of a country  For example, after Panamanian President Eric Arturo Delvalle tried to dismiss de facto military ruler General Manuel Noriega from his post as head of the Panamanian Defense Forces, which resulted in Delvalle's own dismissal by the Panamanian Legislative Assembly, President Reagan recognized Delvalle as the legitimate head of government and instituted economic sanctions against the Noriega regime  The Department of State advised U S  banks not to disburse funds to the Noriega regime, and Delvalle was able to obtain court orders permitting him access to the funds  President Reagan issued Executive Order 12635, which blocked all property and interests in payments of the government of Panama, and the Department of the Treasury issued regulations requiring companies who owed money to Panama to pay those funds into an escrow account established at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which also held payments owed by the United States for the operation of the Panama Canal Commission  Some of the funds in the escrow account were used to pay the operating expenses of the Delvalle government  After the U S  invasion of Panama, President George H W  Bush lifted economic sanctions and used some of the frozen funds to repay debts owed by Panama to foreign creditors, with remaining funds returned to the successor government  In a similar more recent case, the Trump Administration's recognition of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's interim president permitted Guaidó access to Venezuelan government assets held at the United States Federal Reserve and other insured United States financial institutions  President Barrack Obama initially froze Venezuelan government assets in 2015, pursuant to IEEPA and the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014  After official recognition of Guaidó, the Trump Administration imposed new sanctions under IEEPA to freeze the assets of the main Venezuelan state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa), which could both significantly reduce funds available to the regime of Nicolas Maduro and channel them to Guaidó  There is also precedent for using frozen foreign assets for purposes authorized by the U N  Security Council  After the first war with Iraq, President George H W  Bush ordered the transfer of frozen Iraqi assets derived from the sale of Iraqi petroleum held by U S  banks to be transferred to a holding account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to fulfill "the rights and obligations of the United States under U N  Security Council Resolution No  778 " The President cited a section of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA), as well as IEEPA, as authority to take the action  The transferred funds were used to provide humanitarian relief and to finance the United Nations Compensation Commission, which was established to adjudicate claims against Iraq arising from the invasion  Other Iraqi assets remained frozen and accumulated interest until they were vested in 2003 (see below)  In some cases, the United States has ended sanctions and returned frozen assets to successor governments  In the case of the former Yugoslavia, for example, in 2003, $237 6 million in frozen funds belonging to the Central Bank of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were transferred to the central banks of the successor states  In the case of Afghanistan, $217 million in frozen funds belonging to the Taliban were released to the Afghan Interim Authority in January 2002  The executive branch has traditionally resisted congressional efforts to vest foreign assets to pay U S  claimants without first obtaining a settlement agreement with the country in question  Congress has overcome such resistance in the case of foreign governments that have been designated as "State Supporters of Terrorism " U S  nationals who are victims of state-supported terrorism involving designated states have been able to sue those countries for damages under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) since 1996  To facilitate the payment of judgments under the exception, Congress passed Section 117 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, which further amended the FSIA by allowing attachment and execution against state property with respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or regulated under Section 5(b) TWEA, Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act (authorizing the trade embargo against Cuba), or Sections 202 and 203 of IEEPA, or any orders, licenses or other authority issued under these statutes  Because of the Clinton Administration's continuing objections, however, Section 117 also gave the President authority to "waive the requirements of this section in the interest of national security," an authority President Clinton promptly exercised in signing the statute into law  The Section 117 waiver authority protecting blocked foreign government assets from attachment to satisfy terrorism judgments has continued in effect ever since, prompting Congress to take other actions to make frozen assets available to judgment holders  Congress enacted §2002 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA) to mandate the payment from frozen Cuban assets of compensatory damages awarded against Cuba under the FSIA terrorism exception on or prior to July 20, 2000  The Department of the Treasury subsequently vested $96 7 million in funds generated from long-distance telephone services between the United States and Cuba in order to compensate claimants in Alejandre v  Republic of Cuba , the lawsuit based on the1996 downing of two unarmed U S  civilian airplanes by the Cuban air force  Another payment of more than $7 million was made using vested Cuban assets to a Florida woman who had won a lawsuit against Cuba based on her marriage to a Cuban spy  As unpaid judgments against designated state sponsors of terrorism continued to mount, Congress enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA)  Section 201 of TRIA overrode long-standing objections by the executive branch to make the frozen assets of terrorist states available to satisfy judgments for compensatory damages against such states (and organizations and persons) as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection (b), in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable  Subsection (b) of Section 201 provided waiver authority "in the national security interest," but only with respect to frozen foreign government "property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations " When Congress amended the FSIA in 2008 to revamp the terrorism exception, it provided that judgments entered under the new exception could be satisfied out of the property of a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that the property in question is regulated by the United States government pursuant to TWEA or IEEPA  Congress has also directed that the proceeds from certain sanctions violations be paid into a fund for providing compensation to the former hostages of Iran and terrorist state judgment creditors  To fund the program, Congress designated that certain real property and bank accounts owned by Iran and forfeited to the United States could go into the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, along with the sum of $1,025,000,000, representing the amount paid to the United States pursuant to the June 27, 2014, plea agreement and settlement between the United States and BNP Paribas for sanctions violations  The fund is replenished through criminal penalties and forfeitures for violations of IEEPA or TWEA-based regulations, or any related civil or criminal conspiracy, scheme, or other federal offense related to doing business or acting on behalf of a state sponsor of terrorism  Half of all civil penalties and forfeitures relating to the same offenses are also deposited into the fund  A number of lawsuits seeking to overturn actions taken pursuant to IEEPA have made their way through the judicial system, including challenges to the breadth of congressionally delegated authority and assertions of violations of constitutional rights  As demonstrated below, most of these challenges have failed  The few challenges that succeeded did not seriously undermine the overarching statutory scheme for sanctions  The breadth of presidential power under IEEPA is illustrated by the Supreme Court's 1981 opinion in Dames & Moore v  Regan   In Dames & Moore , petitioners had challenged President Carter's executive order establishing regulations to further compliance with the terms of the Algiers Accords, which the President had entered into to end the hostage crisis with Iran  Under these agreements, the United States was obligated (1) to terminate all legal proceedings in U S  courts involving claims of U S  nationals against Iran, (2) to nullify all attachments and judgments, and (3) to resolve outstanding claims exclusively through binding arbitration in the Iran-U S  Claims Tribunal (IUSCT)  The President, through executive orders, revoked all licenses that permitted the exercise of "any right, power, or privilege" with regard to Iranian funds, nullified all non-Iranian interests in assets acquired after a previous blocking order, and required banks holding Iranian assets to transfer them to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held or transferred as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury  Dames and Moore had sued Iran for breach of contract to recover compensation for work performed  The district court had entered summary judgment in favor of Dames and Moore and issued an order attaching certain Iranian assets for satisfaction of any judgment that might result, but stayed the case pending appeal  The executive orders and regulations implementing the Algiers Accords resulted in the nullification of this prejudgment attachment and the dismissal of the case against Iran, directing that it be filed at the IUSCT  In response, Dames and Moore sued the government  The plaintiffs claimed that the President and the Secretary of the Treasury exceeded their statutory and constitutional powers to the extent they adversely affected Dames and Moore's judgment against Iran, the execution of that judgment, the prejudgment attachments, and the plaintiff's ability to continue to litigate against the Iranian banks  The government defended its actions, relying largely on IEEPA, which provided explicit support for most of the measures taken—nullification of the prejudgment attachment and transfer of the property to Iran—but could not be read to authorize actions affecting the suspension of claims in U S  courts  Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority: Although we have declined to conclude that the IEEPA…directly authorizes the President's suspension of claims for the reasons noted, we cannot ignore the general tenor of Congress' legislation in this area in trying to determine whether the President is acting alone or at least with the acceptance of Congress  As we have noted, Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it necessary to take or every possible situation in which he might act  Such failure of Congress specifically to delegate authority does not, "especially       in the areas of foreign policy and national security," imply "congressional disapproval" of action taken by the Executive  On the contrary, the enactment of legislation closely related to the question of the President's authority in a particular case which evinces legislative intent to accord the President broad discretion may be considered to "invite" "measures on independent presidential responsibility " At least this is so where there is no contrary indication of legislative intent and when, as here, there is a history of congressional acquiescence in conduct of the sort engaged in by the President  The Court remarked that Congress's implicit approval of the long-standing presidential practice of settling international claims by executive agreement was critical to its holding that the challenged actions were not in conflict with acts of Congress  For support, the Court cited to Justice Frankfurter's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co  v  Sawyer stating that "a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on 'Executive Power' vested in the President by § 1 of Art  II " Consequently, it may be argued that Congress's exclusion of certain express powers in IEEPA do not necessarily preclude the President from exercising them, at least where a court finds sufficient precedent exists  Lower courts have examined IEEPA under a number of other constitutional doctrines  Courts have reviewed whether Congress violated the non-delegation principle of separation of powers by delegating too much power to the President to legislate, in particular by creating new crimes  These challenges have generally failed  As the U S  Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained while evaluating IEEPA, delegations of congressional authority are constitutional so long as Congress provides through a legislative act an "intelligible principle" governing the exercise of the delegated authority  Even if the standards are higher for delegations of authority to define criminal offenses, the court held, IEEPA provides sufficient guidance  The court stated: The IEEPA "meaningfully constrains the [President's] discretion," by requiring that "[t]he authorities granted to the President     may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared " And the authorities delegated are defined and limited  The Second Circuit found it significant that "IEEPA relates to foreign affairs—an area in which the President has greater discretion," bolstering its view that IEEPA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine  The U S  Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether Section 207(b) of IEEPA is an unconstitutional legislative veto  That provision states: The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U S C  § 1622] and if the Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to be exercised under this section  In U S  v  Romero-Fernandez , two defendants convicted of violating the terms of an executive order issued under IEEPA argued on appeal that IEEPA was unconstitutional, in part, because of the above provision  The Eleventh Circuit accepted that the provision was an unconstitutional legislative veto (as conceded by the government) based on INS v  Chadha , in which the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot void the exercise of power by the executive branch through concurrent resolution, but can act only through bicameral passage followed by presentment of the law to the President  The Eleventh Circuit nevertheless upheld the defendants' convictions for violations of IEEPA regulations, holding that the legislative veto provision was severable from the rest of the statute  Courts have also addressed whether certain actions taken pursuant to IEEPA have effected an uncompensated taking of property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment  The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prohibits "private property [from being] taken for public use, without just compensation " The Fifth Amendment's prohibitions apply as well to regulatory takings, in which the government does not physically take property but instead imposes restrictions on the right of enjoyment that decreases the value of the property or right therein  The Supreme Court has held that the nullification of prejudgment attachments pursuant to regulations issued under IEEPA was not an uncompensated taking, suggesting that the reason for this position was the contingent nature of the licenses that had authorized the attachments  The Court also suggested that the broader purpose of the statute supported the view that there was no uncompensated taking: This Court has previously recognized that the congressional purpose in authorizing blocking orders is "to put control of foreign assets in the hands of the President    " Such orders permit the President to maintain the foreign assets at his disposal for use in negotiating the resolution of a declared national emergency  The frozen assets serve as a "bargaining chip" to be used by the President when dealing with a hostile country  Accordingly, it is difficult to accept petitioner's argument because the practical effect of it is to allow individual claimants throughout the country to minimize or wholly eliminate this "bargaining chip" through attachments, garnishments, or similar encumbrances on property  Neither the purpose the statute was enacted to serve nor its plain language supports such a result  Similarly, a lower court held that the extinguishment of contractual rights due to sanctions enacted pursuant to IEEPA does not amount to a regulatory taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment  Even though the plaintiff suffered "obvious economic loss" due to the sanctions regulations, that factor alone was not enough to sustain plaintiff's claim of a compensable taking  The court quoted long-standing Supreme Court precedent to support its finding: A new tariff, an embargo, a draft, or a war may inevitably bring upon individuals great losses; may, indeed, render valuable property almost valueless  They may destroy the worth of contracts  But whoever supposed that, because of this, a tariff could not be changed, or a non-intercourse act, or an embargo be enacted, or a war be declared?      [W]as it ever imagined this was taking private property without compensation or without due process of law? Accordingly, it seems unlikely that entities whose business interests are harmed by the imposition of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA will be entitled to compensation from the government for their losses  Persons whose assets have been directly blocked by the U S  Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to IEEPA have likewise found little success challenging the loss of the use of their assets as uncompensated takings  Many courts have recognized that a temporary blocking of assets does not constitute a taking because it is a temporary action that does not vest title in the United States  This conclusion is apparently so even if the blocking of assets necessitates the closing altogether of a business enterprise  In some circumstances, however, a court may analyze at least the initial blocking of assets under a Fourth Amendment standard for seizure  One court found a blocking to be unreasonable under a Fourth Amendment standard where there was no reason that OFAC could not have first obtained a judicial warrant  Some persons whose assets have been blocked have asserted that their right to due process has been violated  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law  Where one company protested that the blocking of its assets without a pre-deprivation hearing violated its right to due process, a district court found that a temporary deprivation of property does not necessarily give rise to a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard  A second district court stated that the exigencies of national security and foreign policy considerations that are implicated in IEEPA cases have meant that OFAC historically has not provided pre-deprivation notice in sanctions programs  A third district court stated that OFAC's failure to provide a charitable foundation with notice or a hearing prior to its designation as a terrorist organization and blocking of its assets did not violate its right to procedural due process, because the OFAC designation and blocking order serve the important governmental interest of combating terrorism by curtailing the flow of terrorist financing  That same court also held that prompt action by the government was necessary to protect against the transfer of assets subject to the blocking order  In Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v  U S  Department of Treasury , the U S  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether OFAC's use of classified information without any disclosure of its content in its decision to freeze the assets of a charitable organization, and its failure to provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, violated the organization's right to procedural due process  The court applied the balancing test set forth by the Supreme Court in its landmark administrative law case Mathews v  Eldridge to resolve these questions  Under the Eldridge test, to determine if an individual has received constitutional due process, courts must weigh: (1) [the person's or entity's] private property interest, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, as well as the value of additional safeguards, and (3) the Government's interest in maintaining its procedures, including the burdens of additional procedural requirements " While weighing the interests and risks at issue in Al Haramain , the Ninth Circuit found the organization's property interest to be significant: By design, a designation by OFAC completely shutters all domestic operations of an entity  All assets are frozen  No person or organization may conduct any business whatsoever with the entity, other than a very narrow category of actions such as legal defense  Civil penalties attach even for unwitting violations  Criminal penalties, including up to 20 years' imprisonment, attach for willful violations  For domestic organizations such as AHIF–Oregon, a designation means that it conducts no business at all  The designation is indefinite  Although an entity can seek administrative reconsideration and limited judicial relief, those remedies take considerable time, as evidenced by OFAC's long administrative delay in this case and the ordinary delays inherent in our judicial system  In sum, designation is not a mere inconvenience or burden on certain property interests; designation indefinitely renders a domestic organization financially defunct  Nevertheless, the court found "the government's interest in national security [could not] be understated " In evaluating the government's interest in maintaining its procedures, the Ninth Circuit explained that the Constitution requires that the government "take reasonable measures to ensure basic fairness to the private party and that the government follow procedures reasonably designed to protect against erroneous deprivation of the private party's interests " While the Ninth Circuit had previously held that the use of undisclosed information in a case involving the exclusion of certain longtime resident aliens should be considered presumptively unconstitutional, the court found that the presumption had been overcome in this case  The Ninth Circuit noted that all federal courts that have considered the argument that OFAC may not use undisclosed classified information in making its determinations have rejected it  Although the court found that OFAC's failure to provide even an unclassified summary of the information at issue was a violation of the organization's due process rights, the court deemed the error harmless because it would not likely have affected the outcome of the case  In the same case, the Ninth Circuit also considered the organization's argument that it had been denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard  Specifically, the organization asserted that OFAC had refused to disclose its reasons for investigating and designating the organization, leaving it unable to respond adequately to OFAC's unknown suspicions  Because OFAC had provided the organization with only one document to support its designation over the four-year period between the freezing of its assets and the redesignation of the organization as a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT), the court agreed that the organization had been deprived of due process rights  However, the court found that this error too was harmless  Some courts have considered whether asset blocking or penalties imposed pursuant to regulations promulgated under IEEPA have violated the subjects' First Amendment rights to free association, free speech, or religion  Challenges on these grounds have typically failed  Courts have held that there is no First Amendment right to support terrorists  The U S  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit distinguished advocacy from financial support and held that the blocking of assets affected only the ability to provide financial support, but did not implicate the organization's freedom of association  Similarly, a district court interpreted relevant case law to hold that government actions prohibiting charitable contributions are subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, a higher standard that applies to political contributions  With respect to a free speech challenge brought by a charitable organization whose assets were temporarily blocked during the pendency of an investigation, a district court explained that "when 'speech' and 'nonspeech' elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important government interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms " Accordingly, the district court applied the following test to determine whether the designations and blocking actions were lawful  Citing the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v  O'Brien , the court stated that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if: it is within the constitutional power of the government; it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest  The court found the government's actions to fall within the bounds of this test: First, the President clearly had the power to issue the Executive Order  Second, the Executive Order promotes an important and substantial government interest—that of preventing terrorist attacks  Third, the government's action is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; it prohibits the provision of financial and other support to terrorists  Fourth, the incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are no greater than necessary  However, with respect to an organization that was not itself designated as an SDGT but wished to conduct coordinated advocacy with another organization that was so designated, one appellate court found that an OFAC regulation barring such coordinated advocacy based on its content was subject to strict scrutiny  Accordingly, the court rejected the government's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Holder v  Humanitarian Law Project to find that the regulation impermissibly implicated the organization's right to free speech  Accordingly, there may be some circumstances where the First Amendment protects speech coordinated with (but not on behalf of) an organization designated as an SDGT  Until the recent enactment of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, export of dual use goods and services was regulated pursuant to the authority of the Export Administration Act (EAA), which was subject to periodic expiry and reauthorization  President Reagan was the first President to use IEEPA as a vehicle for continuing the enforcement of the EAA's export controls  After Congress did not extend the expired EAA, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12444 in 1983, finding that "unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial goods, technology, and technical data and the existence of certain boycott practices of foreign nations constitute, in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security " Although the EAA had been reauthorized for short periods since its initial expiration in 1983, every subsequent President utilized the authorities granted under IEEPA to maintain the existing system of export controls during periods of lapse  Figure 1   In the latest iteration, President George W  Bush issued Executive Order 13222 in 2001, finding the existence of a national emergency with respect to the expiration of the EAA and directing—pursuant to the authorities allocated under IEEPA—that "the provisions for administration of the [EAA] shall be carried out under this order so as to continue in full force and effect…the export control system heretofore maintained " Presidents Obama and Trump annually extended the 2001 executive order  Courts have generally treated this arrangement as authorized by Congress, although certain provisions of the EAA in effect under IEEPA have led to challenges  The determining factor appears to be whether IEEPA itself provides the President the authority to carry out the challenged action  In one case, the U S  Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a conviction for an attempt to violate the regulations even though the EAA had expired and did not expressly criminalize such attempts  The circuit court rejected the defendants' argument that the President had exceeded his delegated authority under the EEA by "enlarging" the crimes punishable under the regulations  Nevertheless, a district court held that the conspiracy provisions of the EAA regulations were rendered inoperative by the lapse of the EAA and "could not be repromulgated by executive order under the general powers that IEEPA vests in the President " The district court found that, even if Congress intended to preserve the operation of the EAA through IEEPA, that intent was limited by the scope of the statutes' substantive coverage at the time of IEEPA's enactment, when no conspiracy provision existed in either statute  The U S  Court of Appeals for the D C  Circuit upheld the application of the EAA as a statute permitting the government to withhold information under exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which exempts from disclosure information exempted from disclosure by statute, even though the EAA had expired  Referring to legislative history it interpreted as congressional approval of the use of IEEPA to continue the EAA provisions during periods of lapse, the court stated: Although the legislative history does not refer to the EAA's confidentiality provision, it does evince Congress's intent to authorize the President to preserve the operation of the export regulations promulgated under the EAA  Moreover, it is significant for purposes of determining legislative intent that Congress acted with the knowledge that the EAA's export regulations had long provided for confidentiality and that the President's ongoing practice of extending the EAA by executive order had always included these confidentiality protections  The D C  Circuit distinguished this holding in a later case involving appellate jurisdiction over a decision by the Department of Commerce to apply sanctions for a company's violation of the EAA regulations  Pursuant to the regulations and under the direction of the Commerce Department, the company sought judicial review directly in the D C  Circuit  The D C  Circuit, however, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction: This court would have jurisdiction pursuant to the President's order only if the President has the authority to confer jurisdiction—an authority that, if it exists, must derive from either the Executive's inherent power under the Constitution or a permissible delegation of power from Congress  The former is unavailing, as the Constitution vests the power to confer jurisdiction in Congress alone  Whether the executive order can provide the basis of our jurisdiction, then, turns on whether the President can confer jurisdiction on this court under the auspices of IEEPA…  We conclude that the President lacks that power  Nothing in the text of IEEPA delegates to the President the authority to grant jurisdiction to any federal court  Consequently, the appeal of the agency decision was determined to belong in the district court according to the default rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  Congress may wish to address a number of issues with respect to IEEPA; two are addressed here  The first pertains to how Congress has delegated its authority under IEEPA and its umbrella statute, the NEA  The second pertains to choices made in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018  Although the stated aim of the drafters of the NEA and IEEPA was to restrain the use of emergency powers, the use of such powers has expanded by several measures  Presidents declare national emergencies and renew them for years or even decades  The limitation of IEEPA to transactions involving some foreign interest was intended to limit IEEPA's domestic application  However, globalization has eroded that limit, as few transactions today do not involve some foreign interest  Many of the other criticisms of TWEA that IEEPA was supposed to address—consultation, time limits, congressional review, scope of power, and logical relationship to the emergency declared—are criticisms that scholars levy against IEEPA today  In general, three common criticisms are levied by scholars with respect to the structure of the NEA and IEEPA that may be of interest to Congress  First, the NEA and IEEPA do not define the phrases "national emergency" and "unusual and extraordinary threat" and Presidents have interpreted these terms broadly  Second, the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA has become less constrained in a highly globalized era  Third, owing to rulings by the Supreme Court and amendments to the NEA, Congress would likely have to have a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority to terminate a national emergency  Despite these criticisms, Congress has not acted to terminate or otherwise express displeasure with an emergency declaration invoking IEEPA  This absence of any explicit statement of disapproval, coupled with explicit statements of approval in some instances, may indicate congressional approval of presidential use of IEEPA thus far  Arguably, then, IEEPA could be seen as an effective tool for carrying out the will of Congress  Neither the NEA nor IEEPA define what constitutes a "national emergency " IEEPA conditions its invocation in a declaration on its necessity for dealing with an "unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States " In the markup of IEEPA in the House, Fred Bergsten, then-Assistant Secretary for International Affairs in the Department of the Treasury, praised the requirement that a national emergency for the purposes of IEEPA be "based on an unusual and extraordinary threat" because such language "emphasizes that such powers should be available only in true emergencies " Because "unusual" and "extraordinary" are also undefined, the usual and ordinary invocation of the statute seems to conflict with those statutory conditions  If Congress wanted to refine the meaning of "national emergency" or "unusual and extraordinary threat," it could do so through statute  Additionally, Congress could consider requiring some sort of factual finding by a court prior to, or shortly after, the exercise of any authority, such as under the First Militia Act of 1792 or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act  However, Congress may consider that the ambiguity in the existing statute provides the executive with the flexibility necessary to address national emergencies with the requisite dispatch  While IEEPA nominally applies only to foreign transactions, the breadth of the phrase, "any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof" has left a great deal of room for executive discretion  The interconnectedness of the modern global economy has left few major transactions in which a foreign interest is not involved  As a result, at least one scholar has concluded, "the exemption of purely domestic transactions from the President's transaction controls seems to be a limitation without substance " Presidents have used IEEPA since the 1980s to control exports by maintaining the dual-use export control system, enshrined in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in times when its underlying authorization, the Export Administration Act (EAA), periodically expired  During those times when Congress did not reauthorize the EAA, Presidents have declared emergencies to maintain the dual-use export control system  The current emergency has been ongoing since 2001  While Presidents have used IEEPA to implement trade restrictions against adversaries, it has not been used as a general way to impose tariffs  However, as noted above, President Nixon used TWEA to impose a 10% ad valorem tariff on goods entering the United States to avoid a balance of payments crisis after he ended the convertibility of the U S  dollar to gold  Although the use of TWEA in this instance was criticized at the time, it does not appear that the subsequent reforms resulting in the enactment of IEEPA would prevent the President from imposing tariffs or other restrictions on trade  However, the availability of diverse other authorities for addressing trade, including for national security purposes, makes the use of IEEPA for this purpose unlikely  The scope of powers over individual targets is also extensive  Under IEEPA, the President has the power to prohibit all financial transactions with individuals designated by Executive Order  Such power allows the President to block all the assets of a U S  citizen or permanent resident  Such uses of IEEPA may reflect the will of Congress or they may represent a grant of authority that may have gone beyond what Congress originally intended  The heart of the curtailment of presidential power by the NEA and IEEPA was the provision that Congress could terminate a state of emergency declared pursuant to the NEA with a concurrent resolution  When the "legislative veto" was struck down by the Supreme Court (see above), it left Congress with a steeper climb—presumably requiring passage of a veto-proof joint resolution—to terminate a national emergency declared under the NEA  Two such resolutions have ever been introduced and neither declarations of emergency involved IEEPA  The lack of congressional action here could be the result of the necessity of obtaining a veto-proof majority or it could be that the use of IEEPA has so far reflected the will of Congress  If Congress wanted to assert more authority over the use of IEEPA, it could amend the NEA or IEEPA to include a "sunset provision," terminating any national emergency after a certain number of days  At least one scholar has recommended such an amendment  Alternatively, Congress could amend IEEPA to provide for a review mechanism that would give Congress an active role  In the Senate during the 115 th Congress, for example, Senator Mike Lee introduced the Global Trade Accountability Act of 2017 required the President to report to Congress on any proposed trade action (including the use of IEEPA), including a description of the proposal together with a list of items to be affected, an economic impact study of the proposal including potential retaliation  Congress, using expedited procedures, would need to approve the President's action through a joint resolution within a 60-day period  The legislation would have provided for a temporary one-time unilateral trade action for a 90-day period  Similarly, in the 116 th Congress, Senator Lee introduced S  764 , a bill to provide for congressional approval of national emergency declarations, and for other purposes, which would amend the NEA to require an act of Congress within 30 days to allow a national emergency to continue  Another approach would establish a means for Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval if IEEPA authorities are invoked  An example of this approach is the Trade Authority Protection Act (H R  5760)  After the submission of similar reporting requirement to S  177 (above), Congress could, under Congressional Review Act (CRA)-style procedures, pass a joint resolution of disapproval  Congress does have the authority to pass a joint resolution under IEEPA, as noted above, but the use of CRA procedures would allow for certain expedited consideration  Alternatively, Congress could use any of these mechanisms to amend the current disapproval resolution process in IEEPA or the NEA itself  In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations in 1977, Professor Harold G  Maier summed up the main criticisms of TWEA: Section 5(b)'s effect is no longer confined to "emergency situations" in the sense of existing imminent danger  The continuing retroactive approval, either explicit or implicit, by Congress of broad executive interpretations of the scope of powers which it confers has converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President…" Like TWEA before it, IEEPA sits at the center of the modern U S  sanction regime  Like TWEA before it, Congress has often approved explicitly of the President's use of IEEPA  In several circumstances, Congress has directed the President to impose a variety of sanctions under IEEPA and waived the requirement of an emergency declaration  Even when Congress has not given explicit approval, no Member of Congress has ever introduced a resolution to terminate a national emergency citing IEEPA  The NEA requires that both houses of Congress meet every six months to consider a vote on a joint resolution on terminating an emergency  Neither house has ever met to do so  In response to concerns over the scale and scope of the emergency economic powers granted by IEEPA, supporters of the status quo would argue that Congress has implicitly and explicitly expressed approval of the statute and its use  In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA)  The legislation repealed the expired Export Administration Act of 1979, the regulations of which had been continued by reference to IEEPA since 2001  The ECRA became the new statutory authority for Export Administration Regulations  Nevertheless, several export controls addressed in the Export Administration Act of 1979 were not updated in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018; instead, Congress chose to require the President to continue to use IEEPA to continue to implement the three sections of the Export Administration Act of 1979 that were not repealed  Going forward, Congress may wish to revisit these provisions, which all relate to deterring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction  Appendix A  NEA and IEEPA Use
Report 2:  We also estimated that, given the additional time needed to do compliance inspections, the CFATS program would likely be implemented in 8 to 10 years  We did not make any recommendations for DHS to improve its procedures for reviewing facilities’ security plans because DHS officials reported that they were exploring ways to expedite the process, such as reprioritizing resources and streamlining inspection requirements  In July 2015, we reported that DHS had made substantial progress in addressing the backlog—estimating that it could take between 9 and 12 months for DHS to review and approve security plans for the approximately 900 remaining facilities  DHS officials attributed the increased approval rate to efficiencies in DHS’s review process, updated guidance, and a new case management system  Subsequently, DHS reported in its December 2016 semi-annual report to Congress that it had eliminated its approval backlog  Finally, we found in our 2017review that DHS also took action to implement an Expedited Approval Program (EAP)  The CFATS Act of 2014 required that DHS create the EAP as another option that tier 3 and tier 4 chemical facilities may use to develop and submit security plans to DHS  Under the program, facilities may develop a security plan based on specific standards published by DHS (as opposed to the more flexible performance standards using the standard, non-expedited process)  DHS issued guidance intended to help facilities prepare and submit their EAP security plans to DHS, which includes an example that identifies prescriptive security measures that facilities are to have in place  According to committee report language, the EAP was expected to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller chemical companies, which may lack the compliance infrastructure and the resources of large chemical facilities, and help DHS to process security plans more quickly  If a tier 3 or 4 facility chooses to use the expedited option, DHS is to review the plan to determine if it is facially deficient, pursuant to the reporting requirements of the CFATS Act of 2014  If DHS approves the EAP site security plan, it is to subsequently conduct a compliance inspection  In 2017, we found that DHS had implemented the EAP and had reported to Congress on the program, as required by the CFATS Act of 2014  In addition, as of June 2018 according to DHS officials, only 18 of the 3,152 facilities eligible to use the EAP opted to use it  DHS officials we interviewed attributed the low participation to several possible factors including: DHS had implemented the expedited program after most eligible facilities already submitted standard (non-expedited) security plans to DHS; facilities may consider the expedited program’s security measures to be too strict and prescriptive, not providing facilities the flexibility of the standard process; and the lack of an authorization inspection may discourage some facilities from using the expedited program because this inspection provides useful information about a facility’s security  We also found in 2017 that recent changes made to the CFATS program could affect the future use of the expedited program  As discussed previously, DHS has revised its methodology for determining the level of each facility’s security risk, which could affect a facility’s eligibility to participate in the EAP  DHS continues to apply the revised methodology to facilities regulated under the CFATS program and but it is too early to assess the impact on participation in the EAP  In our July 2015 report, we found that DHS began conducting compliance inspections in September 2013, and by April 2015, had conducted inspections of 83 of the 1,727 facilities that had approved security plans  Our analysis showed that nearly half of the facilities were not fully compliant with their approved site security plans and that DHS had not used its authority to issue penalties because DHS officials found it more productive to work with facilities to bring them in compliance  We also found that DHS did not have documented processes and procedures for managing the compliance of facilities that had not implemented planned measures by the deadlines outlined in the plans  We recommended that DHS document processes and procedures for managing compliance to provide more reasonable assurance that facilities implement planned measures and address security gaps  DHS agreed and has taken steps toward implementing this recommendation  DHS updated its CFATS Enforcement Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and has made progress on the new CFATS Inspections SOP  Once completed these two documents collectively are expected to formally document the processes and procedures currently being used to track noncompliant facilities and ensure they implement planned measures as outlined in their approved site security plans, according to ISCD officials  DHS officials stated they expect to finalize these procedures by the end of fiscal year 2018  We are examining compliance inspections as part of our ongoing work and will report on the results of our work in our report later this summer  In April 2013, we reported that DHS took various actions to work with facility owners and operators, including increasing the number of visits to facilities to discuss enhancing security plans, but that some trade associations had mixed views on the effectiveness of DHS’s outreach  We found that DHS solicited informal feedback from facility owners and operators in its efforts to communicate and work with them, but did not have an approach for obtaining systematic feedback on its outreach activities  We recommended that DHS take action to solicit and document feedback on facility outreach consistent with DHS efforts to develop a strategic communication plan  DHS agreed and implemented this recommendation by developing a questionnaire to solicit feedback on outreach with industry stakeholders and began using the questionnaire in October 2016  Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  Other individuals making key contributions to this work include John Mortin, Assistant Director; and Brandon Jones, Analyst-in-Charge; Michael Lennington, Ben Emmel, and Hugh Paquette  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 

ground_truth: BOP is the largest employer within DOJ and is responsible for the care and custody of an inmate population of about 186,000. BOP has faced challenges retaining staff at correctional facilities, although it has used retention incentives, along with other human capital flexibilities. GAO was asked to review BOP's use of retention incentives. This report addresses: (1) how BOP used its authority to pay retention incentives; (2) internal controls BOP has in place for the use of retention incentives; and (3) the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives. GAO obtained employee-level retention incentive expenditure data from DOJ's Justice Management Division for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. GAO also reviewed agency documentation, such as policy statements and 40 randomly selected retention incentive application packet case files from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. GAO also interviewed officials from BOP's Central Office and four correctional facilities that use retention incentives, selected to reflect variation in the number and types of employees receiving retention incentives, BOP regions, and BOP institution security levels. From fiscal years 2012 to 2016, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) total retention incentive expenditures generally increased from $10.7 to $14.0 million and the number of employees receiving retention incentives increased from 2,024 to 2,460. During those five years, BOP spent more than 97 percent of its total retention incentive expenditures on employees at four BOP institutions in California and for medical professionals nationwide. Further, total retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals increased by an average of 21 percent per year (see figure). According to BOP officials, BOP uses retention incentives, for example, to supplement BOP's medical professionals' salaries which are generally lower than private sector salaries. BOP has a variety of internal controls in place throughout the retention incentive process that help ensure retention incentive applications and approvals meet requirements. For example, each application goes through multiple levels of review to verify its accuracy and completeness. BOP takes steps to determine workforce needs and how to fill those needs, but has not strategically planned for and evaluated its use of retention incentives. According to BOP, planning for human capital needs is conducted at institutions during quarterly meetings, but discussions about these incentives respond to short-term staffing situations rather than proactively addressing future staffing needs. Including human capital goals and strategies in BOP's human capital plan would create a roadmap so the agency could move from being reactive to its current workforce needs to being strategic in trying to achieve its long-term workforce goals. Additionally BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of its use of retention incentives in retaining staff. As a result, BOP does not know whether retention incentives have contributed to employees' retention in relation to other incentives used by BOP. Consistent with key principles for strategic human capital planning, planning for and evaluating the use of retention incentives could help BOP better determine if these incentives are an efficient and effective means by which to retain staff. GAO recommends that BOP (1) include human capital goals and how retention incentives will be used to achieve these goals in its human capital plan; and (2) evaluate the use of retention incentives. BOP concurred with GAO's recommendations.

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



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

Report 1: Justice Management Division (JMD) JMD provides the Federal Bureau of Prisons senior management with guidance as it relates to Department of Justice (DOJ) policy for all matters pertaining to organization, management, and administration, including the use of human capital flexibilities such as retention incentives  BOP is responsible for incarcerating all federal offenders sentenced to prison  To carry out its mission, BOP, under the oversight of DOJ’s JMD, manages the human resource operations of its institutions, including the use of retention incentives  BOP administers, monitors, and oversees retention incentives through its Central Office, regional offices, and institutions  Central Office  The Central Office serves as BOP’s headquarters and provides oversight of BOP operations and program areas  Within the Central Office is BOP’s Human Resource Management Division (HRMD) which is responsible for developing, implementing and administering human resource policies and programs, including the use of retention incentives that meet OPM and DOJ requirements  In addition, the Central Office’s Program Review Division (PRD) is responsible for assessing BOP programs, including human resources, to ensure that they are managed and operated effectively  Regional offices  BOP has six regional offices that cover the Mid- Atlantic, North Central, Northeast, South Central, Southeast, and Western regions of the United States  These offices, each led by a regional director, oversee the operations of the 122 federal institutions within their respective geographic regions of the country  According to BOP officials, regional office staff also provide local level oversight of institutions’ human capital programs, such as retention incentives, among other things  Institutions  BOP institutions are managed by a warden and other officials, including an executive assistant and associate warden who generally provide overall direction and, in part, administer the institution’s human capital policies, including policies on retention incentives  Correctional services staff represent the largest segment of each institution’s workforce and are responsible for the correctional treatment, custody, and supervision of inmates  Non-correctional services staff include, among others, those employees assigned to non-correctional services management, facility operations, and the health services unit  Workers in health services and psychology services are responsible for providing inmates with medical, dental, and mental health services and include, for example, dentists, pharmacists, physicians, nurses, psychologists, and drug treatment specialists  The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 first authorized OPM to allow federal agencies to give incentives, including retention incentives, to employees  The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 provided federal agencies increased flexibilities regarding these incentives  For example, individual retention incentives that were capped at 25 percent of an employee’s basic pay rate could be increased up to 50 percent in cases of critical agency need with OPM’s approval  Generally, under OPM regulations, an agency is authorized to pay a retention incentive to employees  This happens when the agency determines that the unusually high or unique qualifications of the employee or a special need of the agency for the employee’s services makes it essential to retain the employee and that the employee would be likely to leave federal service in the absence of an incentive  In addition, OPM requires agencies to develop plans for using retention incentives outlining, in part, the required documentation for justifying the retention incentive and any criteria for determining the amount of incentive and the length of the service period  Generally, agencies must require that employees sign a written service agreement that outlines the terms of the service such as the employee’s agreement to remain a certain length of time with the agency  Additionally, according to OPM regulations, to qualify for a retention incentive, each employee must have a performance rating of at least “fully successful” or an agency’s equivalent performance rating  BOP funds the majority of its retention incentives through its Salaries and Expenses appropriation account which represented almost 93 percent of BOP’s budget in FY 2016  According to BOP officials, BOP’s Central Office allocates funding from the Salaries and Expenses account to the regional offices  These regional offices then determine how to allocate their budget among various salary and expense activities, including retention incentives  HRMD delegates retention incentive determinations to each institution  In accordance with OPM requirements and BOP’s October 2016 Program Statement on Compensation, the wardens make retention incentive requests based on documented evidence that the employee possesses unusually high or unique qualifications or meets a special need of the agency and has a performance rating of at least “successful or its equivalent ” These incentives are calculated as a percentage of the employee’s basic pay and are disbursed in installments to the employee each pay period  In addition to retention incentives, BOP has authority to provide other compensation-based human capital flexibilities to employees, in certain circumstances  The following summarizes some of the compensation- based human capital flexibilities that BOP uses in addition to retention incentives, to retain and recruit staff: Recruitment and relocation incentives  BOP pays recruitment incentives to new hires and relocation incentives to current employees who elect to move to a different geographic area, when a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive  Student loan repayments  Using this authority, BOP may repay federally-insured student loans to attract job candidates or retain current employees  Special salary rates  With OPM approval, BOP may establish higher rates of pay for an occupation or group of occupations nationwide or in a local area when it finds the government’s recruitment or retention efforts are, or would likely become, significantly handicapped without those higher rates  Physicians and dental comparability allowances  Comparability allowances may be paid to certain eligible physicians or dental professionals who enter into service agreements  These allowances are paid only to categories of physicians and dentists for which the agency is experiencing recruitment and retention problems and are fixed at the minimum amounts necessary to deal with such problems  BOP retention incentive expenditures generally increased from $10 7 million in fiscal year 2012 to $14 0 million in fiscal year 2016  Additionally, as illustrated in table 1, the number of employees who received retention incentives increased each year from 2,024 employees in fiscal year 2012 to 2,460 employees in fiscal year 2016  In general, BOP employees who received retention incentives received the incentive for more than one year  For example, from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, a total of 3,382 BOP employees received retention incentive payments  Of those, 82 percent (2,766 of 3,382) received retention incentive payments for at least 2 years and 39 percent received retention incentives all 5 years, as shown in figure 1  From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, BOP spent more than 97 percent of its total retention incentive expenditures on employees at four California institutions and for medical professionals nationwide  BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures for the four California institutions and medical professionals nationwide in fiscal year 2016 are provided in figure 2  Four California Institutions  The California institutions—United States Penitentiary (USP) Atwater, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Herlong, FCI Mendota, and Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) Victorville—constituted the largest portion of BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures, and the level of their expenditures remained relatively steady from fiscal year 2012 through 2016  BOP provides group retention incentives for staff at the General Schedule (GS) grades level 12 and below and those in the Federal Wage System at three institutions—USP Atwater, FCI Herlong, and FCC Victorville  BOP also provides individual retention incentives to its employees at GS grades level 12 and below and in the Federal Wage System at FCI Mendota  As shown in figure 3, our analysis of BOP data found that from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, these four California institutions had the largest percentage of retention incentive expenditures across institutions as well as the largest percentage of employees who received retention incentives  Additionally, the four California institutions’ retention incentive expenditures remained relatively steady—around $8 1 to $8 2 million during the 5-year period—even though the overall number of employees who received the incentives generally increased  BOP officials told us that these California institutions’ retention incentive expenditures remained relatively steady in spite of an overall increase in the number of employees receiving incentives, in part, because in fiscal year 2013 BOP reduced the retention incentive rate—the percentage of an employee’s basic pay that determines the employee’s retention incentive— by 3 percent at the four California institutions  BOP officials reported using retention incentives primarily at these four institutions to supplement correctional officers’ salaries and compensate for the gap between BOP’s and other institutions’ salaries  Specifically, officials told us that these four California institutions were consistently understaffed as a result of their lower salaries in comparison to salaries offered at California state and local prisons and at other BOP institutions in California metropolitan areas  The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary for correctional officers in California in 2016 was $70,020  For the same year, the annual average salary for BOP correctional officers at these four institutions was $50,859  To bring these four California institutions’ salaries in line with those offered by state, local, and other BOP institutions in California metropolitan areas, BOP officials told us that they first use recruitment incentives to attract and hire staff and then provide retention incentives to employees with a performance rating of at least “successful ” Medical Professionals  From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, BOP retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals increased by an average of approximately 21 percent per year  Our analysis showed that most recently—for fiscal years 2015 and 2016—BOP retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals accounted for the largest portion of BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures across the various occupation groups and was primarily responsible for the overall increase in BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016  For example, in fiscal year 2016, BOP spent approximately 42 percent of total retention incentives expenditures for medical professionals ($5 8 million), 27 percent on correctional officers ($3 8 million), and the remaining 31 percent on employees in other occupations  In total, BOP retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals increased from approximately $2 7 million in fiscal year 2012 to $5 8 million in fiscal year 2016, as shown in figure 4  The increase accounted for 92 percent of BOP’s total increase in retention incentive expenditures during the five-year period  In comparison, BOP’s retention incentive expenditures for correctional officers and all other occupations remained relatively steady from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, increasing by an average of approximately 1 percent per year  According to our analysis, the increase in retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals during the five years is partially explained by the increase in the number of institutions providing retention incentives to medical professionals  Specifically, from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the number of institutions providing retention incentives to medical professionals increased from 53 institutions with 341 employees in medical occupations receiving retention incentives to 84 institutions providing retention incentives to a total of 646 employees in medical occupations  According to BOP officials, BOP primarily uses retention incentives for medical professionals in an effort to retain these employees by supplementing BOP salaries which are generally lower than salaries offered to medical professionals in the private sector  Officials told us that BOP has designated medical professional positions as hard-to-fill and, therefore, BOP retaining these professionals in a correctional setting requires the use of a variety of incentives, including retention incentives, in order to increase pay  BOP has a number of internal controls in place to ensure that retention incentive applications meet BOP and other requirements  BOP officials told us that these controls are part of a multilayered application and review process that begins at the institution and culminates at BOP’s Central Office  Our review of a random sample of 40 application packet case files for retention incentives awarded from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016 found that they all generally incorporated the internal controls described by officials  The key controls in this process include: Application review at the institution and regional levels  According to BOP officials, the retention incentive application process begins with an institution’s human resources office, whose staff complete a retention incentive application on behalf of an employee  The institution’s human resources office verifies that the information in the application justifies a retention incentive and that funds are available to pay the incentive  Although it is not required, BOP officials said that they use a retention incentive application checklist to help institutions ensure that retention incentive applications are complete  The institution’s human resources office then submits the completed application packet, which includes supporting documentation, to the warden for review  Next, the application packet is forwarded to the respective BOP regional director who also reviews it for accuracy and completeness  The regional director then adds an approval statement and forwards the packet to the Central Office for final review and approval  Of the 40 randomly selected application packet case files that we reviewed, 36 included a retention incentive checklist used by the institutions and all contained information to justify the retention incentive as well as a statement of the regional director’s approval  Central Office’s final application approval  BOP policy requires that all retention incentive applications undergo two levels of review in BOP’s Central Office: first by the Human Resource Management Division’s (HRMD) Staffing and Employee Relations Section (SERS) and next by HRMD’s Personnel Director, for final review and approval  According to BOP officials, during the review process there is ongoing communication between the various entities to ensure that applications are complete and accurate; for example, if SERS finds an error in the application or requests additional information, SERS returns the application to the regional or institutional level for correction and re-review  All of the 40 BOP application packet case files that we reviewed included approvals by HRMD’s Personnel Director or an authorized official, as required by BOP policy  Annual review and re-certification to continue retention incentives  According to BOP policy, on an annual basis, institutions’ human resources offices are required to review employees’ retention incentives to determine whether the incentive is still warranted  Payment of a retention incentive may be recertified and continued as long as the conditions giving rise to the original determination to pay the incentive still exist and funds are available  For each retention incentive, an institution’s human resources office must determine whether to continue, adjust, or terminate the incentive within one year of the initial or most recent approval  If the human resources office decides to continue the retention incentive, the institution’s warden must again submit a retention incentive application  Applications to continue the retention incentive proceed through the same review and approval process as initial applications  Of the 40 application files that we reviewed, 29 were continuations and 8 were initial requests for a retention incentive  According to BOP officials, after the initial approval of a retention incentive, an institution’s human resources office has primary responsibility for the monitoring of retention incentive payments  According to officials, institutions use a variety of internal controls to monitor the expiration, continuation, or termination of retention incentives, for example: Monitoring expiration dates  BOP officials stated that institutions’ human resources offices monitor retention incentives in order to identify incentives that are approaching their expiration date and need to be terminated or renewed  For example, according to BOP officials from USP Atwater, FCC Butner and FCI Phoenix, staff from their institutions’ human resources offices may generate a retention incentive activity report and cross reference this report with their locally generated tracking sheets  This process helps identify retention incentives approaching their expiration dates so that the human resources offices can submit a request for continuation before the incentive expires  Using automated reminders to prompt file review  BOP officials stated that institutions use automated reminders to alert human resources staff to check the records of retention incentive recipients for human resources-related events such as promotions or relocations that could affect the continuation of a retention incentive  Following a checklist of steps for relocation processes  BOP officials told us that in April 2016 they instituted a checklist that outlines steps that an institution’s human resources staff must take when employees relocate to a different institution  Based on our review of this checklist, one step on the sheet prompts human resources staff to review the employee’s retention incentive  According to BOP policy, when an employee receiving a retention incentive transfers to another location, the human resources office where the employee was receiving the retention incentive is responsible for submitting a request to terminate the incentive  The termination must be effective the last day of the pay period that the employee occupies the position  Submitting forgiveness waivers  BOP officials told us that institutions submit forgiveness waivers if a request to continue a retention incentive is not submitted and approved prior to the retention incentive expiring  BOP officials said that a forgiveness waiver is considered an acknowledgement of an administrative error and is a late submission of a retention incentive renewal that was still warranted  The waiver is not a request to forgive an overpayment since the employee was still considered to be eligible for the retention incentive  Of the 40 retention incentive applications that we reviewed, 5 applications included forgiveness waivers to excuse the tardiness of the filing and request continuations of the retention incentive  According to BOP officials, BOP conducts periodic audits and reviews of its human capital activities and related internal controls, to ensure that retention incentives are being used appropriately  The following offices conduct various audits and reviews involving BOP’s retention incentives: BOP’s Program Review Division (PRD) audits regional and institutional human resources functions  PRD audits BOP’s regional and institutional human resources offices to ensure that they are in compliance with BOP policies and procedures  According to BOP officials, as part of the audit process, PRD audits retention incentives to ensure that they have the proper approvals and are justified  PRD audits each institution’s human resources office at least every three years  During these audits, PRD generates retention incentive activity reports (the same reports that institutions run when monitoring for expiration dates), to check the accuracy of retention incentive programs under review  Following each audit, PRD issues a final report with findings to the institution and to the staff operating the program area under audit  Institutions respond to the report with corrective actions that the institution will take to address the findings  When the institution has resolved all corrective actions from the audit, the audit is closed  Additionally, each quarter, PRD provides HRMD with a report that summarizes its quarterly audit findings  According to BOP officials, HRMD uses these reports to identify any agency-wide trends that need to be addressed  Our review of BOP data showed that between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, PRD conducted nearly 200 audits  For example, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, PRD audited five institutions’ and regional offices’ human resource management functions  During these audits, PRD identified nine deficiencies, one of which pertained to retention incentives  Specifically, it found that one audited institution did not terminate an employee’s retention incentive after the employee had relocated to another institution  To correct the deficiency, the institution cancelled the retention incentive which discontinued future disbursements  According to BOP officials, a bill was generated to recoup the overpayment from the employee  BOP institutions conduct annual operation reviews of internal functions, such as human resources  BOP officials told us that each institution conducts annual operational reviews of various internal functions, such as human resources  According to BOP’s Program Review Guidelines for Human Resource Servicing Offices, during these reviews, institutions are required to review supporting documentation for staff currently receiving an incentive to determine if the incentives are still warranted  If the initial request for the retention incentive was made over the preceding 12 months, institutions are also required to ensure that it was approved  According to BOP officials, the results of these reviews are reported to PRD through the Central Office  DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD) audits BOP’s human resources programs  According to BOP officials, JMD conducts audits of component-level human resources programs to determine whether BOP’s systems are compliant with DOJ policy and aligned with DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Plan  JMD’s most recent audit of BOP’s human resources programs that included a review of BOP’s retention incentives occurred in September 2010 at BOP’s Human Resource Service Center in Grand Prairie, Texas  JMD found that in some cases BOP granted retention incentives prior to the signing of service agreements  JMD also found that BOP lacked documentation to authorize a group retention incentive for employees at its Victorville, California institution  BOP’s written response to the findings stated that JMD incorrectly applied the service agreement requirement, as service agreements were not warranted in the specific case that it identified  Additionally, BOP stated that the documents JMD identified as missing from the case files in question were kept in separate files and not required to be part of the retention incentive application  JMD agreed with BOP’s responses and in January 2013, JMD closed out the audit’s findings noting that these responses satisfied all required corrective actions  While BOP takes a number of steps to determine current workforce needs and how to fill those needs, BOP does not strategically plan for how retention incentives can be used to meet long-term human capital goals  BOP officials stated that planning for human capital needs is conducted at institutions during quarterly workforce utilization meetings or manpower salary meetings  During these meetings, executive staff at the institution discuss the current state of the institution’s workforce  According to the BOP officials, while considering attrition, hiring, and turnover rates, the executive staff decide strategies they will employ to attract and retain employees for their current needs  While officials we spoke with at four institutions have discussed retention incentives at their workforce utilization meetings, details about the content of these discussions ranged  According to these officials and our review of meeting minutes from the four institutions, discussions about retention incentives respond to each institution’s short-term staffing situation rather than address future staffing needs based on an overall strategic human capital plan  For example: USP Atwater officials told us that they review the current turnover rate, budget, projected vacancies, and use of retention incentives at annual budget development meetings  Meeting minutes reflected the following on retention incentives: “retention … still necessary to retain staff and hard-to-fill positions ” FCC Butner is a medical facility that offers retention incentives to all medical officers (all types of doctors) and nurses (practitioners, registered, etc ) at the institution  According to Butner officials, during workforce utilization meetings, Butner officials discuss recruitment and staffing trends for the institution and plans for how to address any staffing challenges  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  FCC Pollock executive staff discuss current institutional salary expenditures and projections and the status of vacant positions at workforce utilization meetings  While meeting minutes we reviewed indicated discussions about projected expenditures for incentive awards, the minutes did not differentiate between retention incentive awards, and other incentive awards such as recruitment or relocation incentive awards  FCI Phoenix officials stated that in their workforce utilization meetings, executive staff discuss salary projections and vacancy statuses  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  BOP decisions about retention incentives are currently not tied to any strategic human capital plan for how to use human capital flexibilities— such as retention incentives—to address their ongoing challenge of retaining staff in hard-to-fill positions  According to officials, retention incentives are awarded on an as-needed basis, determined by an institution’s warden, if funds are available  According to key principles for effective strategic human capital planning, such planning is an important component of an agency’s effort to develop long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff needed for an agency to achieve its goals  Specifically, senior leaders should be involved in developing, communicating, and implementing strategic human capital plans  Within an agency’s strategic human capital plan, the human capital policies, practices, and programs—for example, an agency’s retention incentive program—should clearly link to the human capital and program goals of the organization  By not having a strategic human capital plan that clearly establishes strategies that will be used to achieve specific human capital goals, BOP cannot ensure that its institutions are strategically managing their workforces in a manner that meets the agency’s human capital needs  In August 2017, BOP officials told us that they began drafting a strategic human capital operating plan that will include strategic objectives, action plans, performance objectives and measures, and evaluation/reporting requirements  Officials stated that the plan will also include planning regarding the use of human capital flexibilities, such as retention incentives  BOP officials told us that they anticipate that the strategic human capital operating plan will be a supplement to their workforce utilization meetings and that an agency-wide plan will provide a set of strategies for all institutions to consider  However, BOP could not provide documentation of the project beginning or whether it would include a strategic approach specific to retention incentives  Including retention incentives in BOP’s strategic human capital operating plan would create a roadmap for the agency and the institutions to use to move from being reactive in their current workforce needs—for example, awarding retention incentives on an ad hoc basis when funds are available—to being strategic in how retention incentives are used and to ensure that these and other flexibilities help the agency achieve its long-term workforce goals  From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, BOP spent more than $59 million on retention incentives but has not established any measures to evaluate their effectiveness  According to officials, BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of its use of retention incentives because BOP officials consider a retention incentive successful if an employee does not leave the agency  However, BOP also uses other human capital flexibilities along with retention incentives to help retain staff  For example, BOP uses physician and dental comparability allowances—additional pay to a physician or dentist who enters into an agreement for a specified period of service—to help retain these medical personnel  According to officials, it would otherwise be difficult to compete with private sector salaries without the use of all available incentives  However, BOP has not studied whether or how retention incentives have contributed to employees’ retention in relation to other incentives such as physician and dental comparability allowances  According to our work on strategic human capital management and OPM’s guidance, it is crucial for organizations to evaluate the success of their human capital strategies, such as the use of retention incentives  In measuring the performance of these strategies and their contribution to key programmatic results, agencies can make adjustments, if necessary  For example, agencies can use evaluation results to make targeted investments in certain human capital strategies—such as the use of retention incentives—creating a cycle of strategic workforce management, where evaluation informs planning, planning dictates strategies, and strategies are evaluated for effectiveness  While BOP uses retention incentives to address critical skills gaps—such as with medical professionals—evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help BOP determine whether and how retention incentives, as well as other human capital flexibilities, contribute to an employee’s continued employment at BOP or if adjustments to BOP retention strategies must be made for improved results  BOP officials agreed that evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help them be more strategic about their human capital needs and spending on incentives  By including and implementing such an evaluation in its upcoming strategic human capital operating plan, BOP could better determine if it is making maximum use of its funds to retain the necessary qualified personnel or if changes must be made to most effectively retain its staff  As the largest employer within DOJ with some staff working in remote locations and undesirable conditions, BOP relies on a number of available flexibilities, including retention incentives, to help retain its employees  However, BOP currently lacks a strategic approach for using and evaluating retention incentives to address human capital goals  Given BOP’s ongoing staffing challenges, for example, retaining staff in hard-to- fill medical positions, developing a plan that includes a thoughtful blueprint for using retention incentives could help BOP better anticipate and address staffing needs  Moreover, evaluating its use of retention incentives could help BOP determine whether these incentives are effective or whether adjustments are needed to better retain its employees  By using evaluation results to inform planning, and planning to inform how retention incentives are used, BOP would be better positioned to achieve its long-term human capital goals and address its critical staffing needs  We are making two recommendations to BOP: 1  The Director of BOP should include in the forthcoming strategic human capital operating plan, 1) human capital goals and 2) strategies on how human capital flexibilities—including retention incentives—will be used to meet these goals  (Recommendation 1) 2  The Director of BOP should evaluate the effectiveness of BOP’s use of retention incentives to help determine whether the incentives have helped BOP achieve its human capital goals or if adjustments in retention incentives are needed  (Recommendation 2) We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ  In an email received November 15, 2017, the DOJ liaison stated that DOJ concurred with our recommendations  The Department did not provide official written comments to include in our report, but did provide written technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your office, 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 of this report to the Attorney General and the Director of BOP  In addition, the report is 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 me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@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 III  This report examines (1) how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives; (2) what internal controls are in place for the use of retention incentives; and (3) the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives  To determine how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives, we reviewed BOP’s July 2012 report on its use of recruitment, relocation, and retention (3R) incentives  We then obtained underlying retention incentive expenditure data from DOJ’s Justice Management Division because it serves as the focal point for performance and financial information for all Department of Justice components and employees, including BOP  In particular, we obtained employee-level retention incentive payroll data for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We selected this time period because it includes the most recent five complete fiscal years for which data were available and because we believe five years is sufficient time to identify trends in BOP’s retention incentive expenditures  We analyzed and aggregated the employee-level data by institution, occupation, and employee grade level  To identify trends, we compared per fiscal year expenditures across the various categories of occupations and locations across the five years  Additionally, we categorized institutions by BOP region, institutions that use group retention incentives, and institutions that use individual retention incentives  We also categorized occupations as medical professionals, correctional officers, and all other occupations and compared aggregate retention incentive expenditures for the different groups  Using information from BOP’s website and testimonial evidence from BOP officials on its health care system, for the purposes of this report, we defined medical professionals as BOP employees in occupations that provide medical, dental, and mental health care services and who do not solely provide these services in an administrative function  For the purposes of our analyses, medical professionals are dentists, dental assistants and hygienists, diagnostic radiological technologists, health aid and technicians, medical doctors (including psychiatrists), medical technologists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, physician assistants, and practical nurses and psychologists  To assess the employee-level retention incentive payroll data’s reliability, we obtained and analyzed documentation on systems’ capabilities and data control, interviewed data users and managers responsible for maintaining data, conducted checks for completeness and logical consistency, and compared the employee-level data to aggregated institution-level retention incentive expenditure data from BOP’s Financial Management Information System  We found the employee-level data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  Additionally for this objective, we reviewed documents such as the DOJ’s Financial Management Information System Sub-Object Classification Code Guide and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families to respectively identify the system codes used to track retention incentives expenditures and to identify the names for each occupational series code in the datasets  We also interviewed BOP Human Resource Management headquarters officials to obtain information on the primary purposes for BOP’s use of retention incentives and their views on identified retention incentive expenditures trends  We also interviewed U S  Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Public Health Service (PHS) officials to better understand how BOP and PHS manage costs, including retention incentive expenditures, for PHS staff assigned to BOP  BOP partners with PHS to acquire medical staff to provide medical care for BOP’s inmate population  BOP reimburses PHS for the costs of compensation and benefits—including retention incentive payments, if applicable—for PHS staff assigned to BOP  PHS has final approval authority for retention incentives paid to PHS staff assigned to BOP facilities  Furthermore, we obtained aggregated retention incentive expenditure data from PHS on the total amount of funds BOP reimbursed PHS for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  For the reliability of PHS’s data, we reviewed the system’s data fields to check that the appropriate fields were used to provide data and interviewed data users and managers to discuss how expenditures are recorded and maintained  We found the PHS data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  To identify and describe the internal controls that BOP has in place related to retention incentives, we obtained and analyzed documentation regarding BOP requirements and guidance for the use of retention incentives  We also interviewed officials from BOP’s Central Office who are responsible for the administration, management, and oversight of BOP’s human capital management systems, including retention incentives  We focused on the management and administrative controls used by BOP to review, approve, re-certify, and monitor retention incentives  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at 4 of the 122 institutions to obtain illustrative examples regarding the internal controls in place at these institutions to ensure the proper disbursement of retention incentives  We interviewed BOP officials at Federal Correctional Complex Pollock in Pollock, LA; Federal Correctional Complex Butner in Butner, NC; United States Penitentiary, Atwater in Atwater, CA and Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix, in Phoenix, AZ  These institutions were selected to ensure variation in the number and types of employees receiving retention incentives, BOP region, and security-level  Although the information we obtained from the interviews with officials at these four institutions cannot be generalized to other BOP institutions, these interviews provided important insights and perspectives about the use of retention incentives at BOP institutions  We also reviewed a non-generalizable random sample of 40 retention incentive application packet case files to determine the extent to which these files contained documentation on the internal control activities in place to monitor the application, approval, and funds disbursement processes of BOP’s retention incentive program  To identify our sample, we used employee-level expenditure data to randomly select 40 application files from the universe of BOP employees who received retention incentives from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Each application file was reviewed by two GAO analysts who each assessed the extent to which each application contained the appropriate justification, approval signatures, and other documentation such as an application checklist and whether the application was an initial or continuation application  To determine the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives, we interviewed BOP officials regarding their experiences with retention incentives, how they use retention incentives to strategically manage their workforce needs, how the agency evaluates the effectiveness of retention incentives, and how retention incentives contribute to BOP’s broader human capital goals  We then compared these efforts to our work on strategic human capital planning, specifically in terms of planning for and evaluating the use of human capital flexibilities  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at four BOP institutions mentioned above to obtain illustrative examples of how workforce planning occurs at these institutions  We also reviewed the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General Report 16-02 “Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Medical Staffing Challenges” (March 2016) and our past work to better understand the challenges that BOP faces in retaining medical professionals and other staff  Table 2 provides the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) fiscal year 2016 retention incentive expenditures by various occupations and groups of occupations, such as medical professionals, correctional officers, and other occupations  A range of occupations are reflected in the table primarily as a result of four California institutions—United States Penitentiary (USP) Atwater, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Herlong, FCI Mendota, and Federal Correctional Complex Victorville—providing retention incentives to all employees at General Schedule grades level 12 and below and those in the Federal Wage System  In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director) and Meghan Squires (Analyst-in-Charge) managed the work  Also, David Alexander, Renee Caputo, Willie Commons III, Jamarla Edwards, Robert Goldenkoff, Chelsa Gurkin, Eric Hauswirth, Janice Latimer, Lerone Reid, Rachel Stoiko, and Adam Vogt made significant contributions to this report 


Report 2:  We also estimated that, given the additional time needed to do compliance inspections, the CFATS program would likely be implemented in 8 to 10 years  We did not make any recommendations for DHS to improve its procedures for reviewing facilities’ security plans because DHS officials reported that they were exploring ways to expedite the process, such as reprioritizing resources and streamlining inspection requirements  In July 2015, we reported that DHS had made substantial progress in addressing the backlog—estimating that it could take between 9 and 12 months for DHS to review and approve security plans for the approximately 900 remaining facilities  DHS officials attributed the increased approval rate to efficiencies in DHS’s review process, updated guidance, and a new case management system  Subsequently, DHS reported in its December 2016 semi-annual report to Congress that it had eliminated its approval backlog  Finally, we found in our 2017review that DHS also took action to implement an Expedited Approval Program (EAP)  The CFATS Act of 2014 required that DHS create the EAP as another option that tier 3 and tier 4 chemical facilities may use to develop and submit security plans to DHS  Under the program, facilities may develop a security plan based on specific standards published by DHS (as opposed to the more flexible performance standards using the standard, non-expedited process)  DHS issued guidance intended to help facilities prepare and submit their EAP security plans to DHS, which includes an example that identifies prescriptive security measures that facilities are to have in place  According to committee report language, the EAP was expected to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller chemical companies, which may lack the compliance infrastructure and the resources of large chemical facilities, and help DHS to process security plans more quickly  If a tier 3 or 4 facility chooses to use the expedited option, DHS is to review the plan to determine if it is facially deficient, pursuant to the reporting requirements of the CFATS Act of 2014  If DHS approves the EAP site security plan, it is to subsequently conduct a compliance inspection  In 2017, we found that DHS had implemented the EAP and had reported to Congress on the program, as required by the CFATS Act of 2014  In addition, as of June 2018 according to DHS officials, only 18 of the 3,152 facilities eligible to use the EAP opted to use it  DHS officials we interviewed attributed the low participation to several possible factors including: DHS had implemented the expedited program after most eligible facilities already submitted standard (non-expedited) security plans to DHS; facilities may consider the expedited program’s security measures to be too strict and prescriptive, not providing facilities the flexibility of the standard process; and the lack of an authorization inspection may discourage some facilities from using the expedited program because this inspection provides useful information about a facility’s security  We also found in 2017 that recent changes made to the CFATS program could affect the future use of the expedited program  As discussed previously, DHS has revised its methodology for determining the level of each facility’s security risk, which could affect a facility’s eligibility to participate in the EAP  DHS continues to apply the revised methodology to facilities regulated under the CFATS program and but it is too early to assess the impact on participation in the EAP  In our July 2015 report, we found that DHS began conducting compliance inspections in September 2013, and by April 2015, had conducted inspections of 83 of the 1,727 facilities that had approved security plans  Our analysis showed that nearly half of the facilities were not fully compliant with their approved site security plans and that DHS had not used its authority to issue penalties because DHS officials found it more productive to work with facilities to bring them in compliance  We also found that DHS did not have documented processes and procedures for managing the compliance of facilities that had not implemented planned measures by the deadlines outlined in the plans  We recommended that DHS document processes and procedures for managing compliance to provide more reasonable assurance that facilities implement planned measures and address security gaps  DHS agreed and has taken steps toward implementing this recommendation  DHS updated its CFATS Enforcement Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and has made progress on the new CFATS Inspections SOP  Once completed these two documents collectively are expected to formally document the processes and procedures currently being used to track noncompliant facilities and ensure they implement planned measures as outlined in their approved site security plans, according to ISCD officials  DHS officials stated they expect to finalize these procedures by the end of fiscal year 2018  We are examining compliance inspections as part of our ongoing work and will report on the results of our work in our report later this summer  In April 2013, we reported that DHS took various actions to work with facility owners and operators, including increasing the number of visits to facilities to discuss enhancing security plans, but that some trade associations had mixed views on the effectiveness of DHS’s outreach  We found that DHS solicited informal feedback from facility owners and operators in its efforts to communicate and work with them, but did not have an approach for obtaining systematic feedback on its outreach activities  We recommended that DHS take action to solicit and document feedback on facility outreach consistent with DHS efforts to develop a strategic communication plan  DHS agreed and implemented this recommendation by developing a questionnaire to solicit feedback on outreach with industry stakeholders and began using the questionnaire in October 2016  Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  Other individuals making key contributions to this work include John Mortin, Assistant Director; and Brandon Jones, Analyst-in-Charge; Michael Lennington, Ben Emmel, and Hugh Paquette  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 

ground_truth: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act's enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute's oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President upon declaration of a state of emergency. Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. The Trading with the Enemy Act was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became a critically important means to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the United States. Following committee investigations that discovered that the United States had been in a state of emergency for more than 40 years, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976 and IEEPA in 1977. The pair of statutes placed new limits on presidential emergency powers. Both included reporting requirements to increase transparency and track costs, and the NEA required the President to annually assess and extend, if appropriate, the emergency. However, some experts argue that the renewal process has become pro forma. The NEA also afforded Congress the means to terminate a national emergency by adopting a concurrent resolution in each chamber. A decision by the Supreme Court, in a landmark immigration case, however, found the use of concurrent resolutions to terminate an executive action unconstitutional. Congress amended the statute to require a joint resolution, significantly increasing the difficulty of terminating an emergency. Like TWEA, IEEPA has become an important means to impose economic-based sanctions since its enactment; like TWEA, Presidents have frequently used IEEPA to restrict a variety of international transactions; and like TWEA, the subjects of the restrictions, the frequency of use, and the duration of emergencies have expanded over time. Initially, Presidents targeted foreign states or their governments. Over the years, however, presidential administrations have increasingly used IEEPA to target individuals, groups, and non-state actors such as terrorists and persons who engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities. As of March 1, 2019, Presidents had declared 54 national emergencies invoking IEEPA, 29 of which are still ongoing. Typically, national emergencies invoking IEEPA last nearly a decade, although some have lasted significantly longer--the first state of emergency declared under the NEA and IEEPA, which was declared in response to the taking of U.S. embassy staff as hostages by Iran in 1979, may soon enter its fifth decade. IEEPA grants sweeping powers to the President to control economic transactions. Despite these broad powers, Congress has never attempted to terminate a national emergency invoking IEEPA. Instead, Congress has directed the President on numerous occasions to use IEEPA authorities to impose sanctions. Congress may want to consider whether IEEPA appropriately balances the need for swift action in a time of crisis with Congress' duty to oversee executive action. Congress may also want to consider IEEPA's role in implementing its influence in U.S. foreign policy and national security decision-making.