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



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



Report 2: Strong relations between the United States and Israel have led to bilateral cooperation in many areas  Matters of particular significance include the following: Israel's own capabilities for addressing threats, and its cooperation with the United States  Shared U S -Israel concerns about Iran, within the context of the U S  exit from the 2015 international nuclear agreement, and growing tension involving Iran and Hezbollah at Israel's northern border with Syria and Lebanon  Israeli-Palestinian issues, including those involving Jerusalem, Hamas and the Gaza Strip, funding for Palestinians, and a possible Trump Administration peace plan  Israeli domestic political issues, including probable corruption-related indictments against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and closely contested elections that are scheduled for April 9, 2019  For background information and analysis on these and other topics, including aid, arms sales, and missile defense cooperation, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U S  Relations , by Jim Zanotti; and CRS Report RL33222, U S  Foreign Aid to Israel , by Jeremy M  Sharp  Israel relies on a number of strengths to manage potential threats to its security and existence  These strengths include robust military and homeland security capabilities, as well as close cooperation with the United States  Israel maintains conventional military superiority relative to its neighbors and the Palestinians  Shifts in regional order and evolving asymmetric threats during this decade have led Israel to update its efforts to project military strength, deter attack, and defend its population and borders  Israel appears to have reduced some unconventional threats via missile defense systems, reported cyber defense and warfare capabilities, and other heightened security measures  Israel has a robust homeland security system featuring sophisticated early warning practices and thorough border and airport security controls; most of the country's buildings have reinforced rooms or shelters engineered to withstand explosions  Israel also has proposed and partially constructed a national border fence network of steel barricades (accompanied at various points by watch towers, patrol roads, intelligence centers, and military brigades) designed to minimize militant infiltration, illegal immigration, and smuggling from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip  Additionally, Israeli authorities have built a separation barrier in and around parts of the West Bank  Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains a policy of "nuclear opacity" or amimut   A 2017 report estimated that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal of around 80-85 warheads  The United States has countenanced Israel's nuclear ambiguity since 1969, when Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and U S  President Richard Nixon reportedly reached an accord whereby both sides agreed never to acknowledge Israel's nuclear arsenal in public  Israel might have nuclear weapons deployable via aircraft, submarine, and ground-based missiles  No other Middle Eastern country is generally thought to possess nuclear weapons  Israeli officials closely consult with U S  counterparts in an effort to influence U S  decisionmaking on key regional issues, and U S  law requires the executive branch to take certain actions to preserve Israel's "qualitative military edge," or QME  Additionally, a 10-year bilateral military aid memorandum of understanding (MOU)—signed in 2016—commits the United States to provide Israel $3 3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and to spend $500 million annually on joint missile defense programs from FY2019 to FY2028, subject to congressional appropriations  Israel's leaders and supporters routinely make the case that Israel's security and the broader stability of the region remain critically important for U S  interests  They also argue that Israel is a valuable U S  ally  The United States and Israel do not have a mutual defense treaty or agreement that provides formal U S  security guarantees  Iran remains of primary concern to Israeli officials largely because of (1) Iran's antipathy toward Israel, (2) Iran's broad regional influence, and (3) the probability that some constraints on Iran's nuclear program could loosen in the future  In recent years, Israel and Arab Gulf states have discreetly cultivated closer relations with one another in efforts to counter Iran  Prime Minister Netanyahu has sought to influence U S  decisions on the international agreement on Iran's nuclear program (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA)  He argued against the JCPOA when it was negotiated in 2015—including in a speech to a joint session of Congress—and welcomed President Trump's May 2018 withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA and accompanying reimposition of U S  sanctions on Iran's core economic sectors  A few days before President Trump's May announcement, Netanyahu presented information that Israeli intelligence operatives apparently seized in early 2018 from an Iranian archive  He used the information to question Iran's credibility and highlight its potential to parlay existing know-how into nuclear-weapons breakthroughs after the JCPOA expires  In his September 2018 speech before the U N  General Assembly, Netanyahu claimed that Iran maintains a secret "atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and materiel " An unnamed U S  intelligence official was quoted as saying in response, "so far as anyone knows, there is nothing in [the facility Netanyahu identified] that would allow Iran to break out of the JCPOA any faster than it otherwise could " After Netanyahu publicly exposed the Iranian nuclear archive, some former Israeli officials speculated about what action Israel might consider taking against Iranian nuclear facilities if Iran abrogates the JCPOA and expands nuclear activities currently restricted under the agreement  However, Netanyahu had said in an interview that he was not seeking a military confrontation with Iran  Israel and Iran have engaged in hostile action over Iran's presence in Syria  In the early years of the Syria conflict, Israel primarily employed air strikes to prevent Iranian weapons shipments destined for the Iran-backed group Hezbollah in Lebanon  Later, as the Syrian government regained control of large portions of the country with Iranian backing, Israeli leaders began pledging to prevent Iran from constructing and operating bases or advanced weapons manufacturing facilities in Syria  Since 2018, Israeli and Iranian forces have repeatedly targeted one another in and over Syrian- and Israeli-controlled areas  In January 2019, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel had targeted Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria "hundreds of times " Limited Israeli strikes to enforce "redlines" against Iran-backed forces could expand into wider conflict, particularly if there is a miscalculation by one or both sides  U S  involvement in Syria could be one factor in Israeli calculations on this issue  The U S  base at Al Tanf in southern Syria has reportedly "served as a bulwark against Iran's efforts to create a land route for weapons from Iran to Lebanon " Israeli officials favor continued U S  involvement in Syria, while also preparing for the possibility that they may need to take greater direct responsibility for countering Iran there  Russia's advanced air defense systems in Syria could make it more difficult for Israel to operate there  Since 2015, Russia has operated an S-400 system at Russia's Khmeimim air base in Lattakia, a city on Syria's Mediterranean coast  To date, however, Russia does not appear to have acted militarily to thwart Israeli air strikes against Iranian or Syrian targets, and Israel and Russia maintain communications aimed at deconflicting their operations  In addition to the S-400 that it owns and operates, Russia delivered an S-300 air defense system for Syria's military to Khmeimim airbase in October 2018  The delivery followed Syria's downing of a Russian military surveillance plane in September 2018 under disputed circumstances, shortly after an Israeli operation in the vicinity  According to an Israeli satellite imagery analysis company, three launchers appeared to be operational as of February 2019  It is unclear to what extent Russia has transferred the S-300 to Syrian military control, and how this might affect future Israeli military action in Syria  An Israeli journalist wrote that "Israel has the knowledge, experience and equipment to evade the S-300, but the fact that additional batteries, manned by Russian personnel, are on the ground, will necessitate greater care [when carrying out future operations against Iran-aligned targets in Syria] " Since the September 2018 incident, Israeli air strikes appear to have decreased somewhat  On March 25, 2019, President Trump signed a proclamation stating that the United States recognizes the Golan Heights (hereinafter, the Golan) to be part of the State of Israel  The proclamation stated that "any possible future peace agreement in the region must account for Israel's need to protect itself from Syria and other regional threats" —presumably including threats from Iran and the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah  Israel gained control of the Golan from Syria during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and effectively annexed it unilaterally by applying Israeli law to the region in 1981 (see Figure 2 )  President Trump's proclamation changed long-standing U S  policy on the Golan  Since 1967, successive U S
Report 2:  the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies  National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden     The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts     The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start  The conference report stated that the partnerships should focus on programs that fit into the security needs within DARPA  The conference report also stated that OTs are appropriate for those cases where the "regulations applicable to the allocation of patent and data rights under the procurement statutes may not be appropriate to partnership arrangements in certain cases " National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 ( P L  102-484 ) Cost Sharing Section 4221 established 10 U S C  2511, which required DOD to establish cooperative arrangements with industry, educational institutions, federal labs, and other entities, to pursue research, development, and application of dual-use technologies  The section authorized DOD to use grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or OTs to create these partnerships, and that the Federal government should not contribute more than 50% of the costs related to projects under this authority  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1994 ( P L  103-160 ) Expanded Authority Section 827 established 10 U S C  2358, which gave the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments the authority to conduct basic, advanced, and applied research through the use of contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, and OTs  Previously, OTs were only authorized for advanced research  Prototype Authorities Section 845 granted DARPA the authority to use OTs for prototype projects directly related to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired by DOD  Section 845 required that "to the maximum extent practicable," prototypes be competitively awarded  This authority was set to terminate after three years  Section 845 remained as a note to 10 U S C  2371 until separately codified as 10 U S C  2371b in the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 )  Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 ( P L  103-355 ) Section 1301 redesignated the language in 10 U S C  2358 (granting the authority to use OTs) to 10 U S C  2371  Reporting Requirements Section 1301 also required DOD to submit an annual report to the armed services committees, to include a general description of the other transactions, including the technologies involved in the research, the potential military and, if any, commercial utility of such technologies, the reasons for not using a contract or grant to provide support for such research, and the amount of payments, if any, received during the fiscal year pursuant to a clause in the other transactions and to what accounts such payments were credited  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 ( P L  104-201 ) Section 203 required that a senior DOD official be designated in OSD, and that the officials' sole responsibility be developing policy related to, and ensuring implementation of, DOD's dual-use technology program  This section authorized DOD to use OTs (as well as contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) for dual-use projects only if the project "is entered into through the use of competitive procedures " Section 743 granted DOD the authority to use OTs to conduct research on Gulf War Syndrome, to determine its relationship to possible exposures of members of the Armed Forces to chemical warfare agents and hazardous materials, and the use of inoculations and new drugs  Expanded Prototype Authorities Section 804 amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA by extending to the military departments and officials designated by the Secretary of Defense, the authority to use OTs for certain prototype projects  This authority, originally granted solely to DARPA and set to expire after three years, was given a new termination date of September 30, 1999  Reporting Requirements Section 267 modified elements of the annual report to the armed services committees  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 ( P L  105-85 ) Section 832 amended 10 U S C  2371 by clarifying that certain information submitted to DOD (i e  a proposal, business plan, technical information) be protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U S C  552 for a period of five years  Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for FY1999 ( P L  105-261 ) Section 241 extended the sunset day for the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 1999, to September 30, 2001  Section 817 amended Section 2371 of Title 10, United States Code, clarifying that information submitted by outside parties in cooperative agreements for basic, applied, and advanced research is protected from disclosure under Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 ( P L  105-262 ) While the enacted FY1999 defense appropriations bill ( P L  105-262 ) did not include legislative language addressing OTs, H Rept  105-591 , which accompanied the House-reported version of H R  4103 , included language expressing the House Appropriations Committee's "serious reservations" regarding the Air Force's then-proposed use of an OT agreement—instead of a contract— to develop the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program  The committee noted that "under [OTs] traditional safeguards which protect the government's interest in large acquisition programs are largely absent," and required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (now the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment) and the DOD Inspector General to certify to the congressional defense committees that the use of an OT was appropriate for the EELV program, and that "adequate safeguards exist[ed] to protect the government's interest and monitor program performance " National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 ( P L  106-65 ) Section 801 required that for prototypes using OT authorities, DOD ensure that GAO, under its audit authority, have access to records relating to other transaction prototype agreements exceeding $5 million  Section 801 allowed for a waiver to GAO access and exempted entities that over the last year have not entered into an agreement with DOD that provided for audit access by a government entity  According to the Senate report: Senior DOD officials have sought legislation to extend other transaction authority to production contracts  Under current authority, there is some debate about whether GAO has audit access to other transactions  As the size, costs, and complexity of programs being funded using other transactions increases, the committee wants to ensure that the GAO has audit access in relation to the higher levels of spending and added risks  Reporting Requirements The Senate report also addressed reporting requirements and congressional intent to review the use of OTs  The report stated the following: The committee is assessing the utility of other transaction prototype authority  The statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of this authority to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1999  In addition, both the Department of Defense Inspector General and the General Accounting Office are reviewing the use of other transaction prototype authority and will report to Congress in the coming year  The committee is interested in the extent that new commercial firms are entering the DOD marketplace through the use of other transaction authority, as well as the degree of cost sharing between the government and non-federal government parties  The committee is also interested in any lessons learned from the broad exemptions to federal law provided by other transaction authority  For example, other transactions are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act, Truth in Negotiations Act, Contract Disputes Act, Antikickback Act of 1986, Procurement Integrity Act, Service Contract Act, Buy American Act, and chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code  Questions have been raised about whether the government's interest is adequately protected in the absence of the applicability of these statutes  Conversely, advocates of the view that the government should take advantage of the flexibility of other transactions have championed proposals to extend other transaction authority to production  The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a new report that updates information in the March 1999 report on the use of other transaction prototype authority to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 ( P L  106-398 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 803 limited the use of OTs for prototype projects to only those circumstances when at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project, one-third of the total cost of the project is paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the federal government, or the senior procurement executive determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify use of an OT  Nontraditional defense contractor was defined as an entity that for a period of one year has not entered into or performed "any contract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards" or "any other contract in excess of $500,000 to carry out prototype projects or to perform basic, applied, or advanced research projects for a Federal agency, that is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation '' Section 803 also extended the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 2001, to September 30, 2004  According to the Senate report, the intent of using OTs for prototypes is to attract companies that typically do not do business with the Department of Defense and encourage cost sharing and experimentation in potentially more efficient ways of doing business with traditional defense contractors  Other transaction authority is an important acquisition tool that can facilitate the incorporation of commercial technology into military weapon systems  In an environment where, in many areas, commercial technology is now more advanced than defense technology, it is imperative that the Department continue to have the flexibility to use innovative contractual instruments that provide access to this technology  There are, however, improvements that can be made in managing and overseeing these contractual arrangements  Section 804 clarified the extent of GAO's access to records in instances where the party in question has only done business with the government in the preceding year through an OT or cooperative agreement  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 ( P L  107-107 ) Expanded Authority—Follow-on Production Section 822 of the FY2002 NDAA granted DOD the authority to award a follow-on production contract for prototype projects when at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by non-federal government sources  Under this authority, such a follow-on contract could be awarded without competition if the prototype project was successfully completed, the number of units in the production contract does not exceed the number of units specified in the underlying prototype agreement, and the price for each unit does not exceed the price specified in the underlying transaction  Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 ( P L  107-117 ) Establishment of Army Venture Capital Initiative (AVCI) Section 8150 designated $25 million of the FY2002 funds made available for Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) to be made available to the Secretary of the Army for the purpose of funding a venture capital investment corporation established pursuant to 10 U S C  2371  A 2014 RAND report stated that OT authorities were used only to form the AVCI, and were not used to acquire products or services: "While OT authorities were used to form [AVCI] itself, any volume of the Army's purchase of products and services from [AVCI] companies is conducted under the FAR " National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 ( P L  108-136 ) Expanded Authority Section 847 of the FY2004 NDAA extended the authority to use an OT for developing prototypes to improve weapons or weapon systems currently in use by the Armed Forces  Previously, such authority was restricted to prototypes "directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed" by DOD  Section 847 also established a pilot program for transitioning prototypes to follow-on contracts for production for nontraditional defense contractors  Under the pilot program, such a follow-on contract could be treated as a commercial item or an item developed with both federal and private sector funds (for purposes of negotiating intellectual property rights)  The pilot program was restricted to contracts with nontraditional defense contractors, where the value of the contract does not exceed $50 million (approximately $70 million in FY2018 dollars), and that are firm-fixed price or fixed price with economic adjustment  The pilot program was set to sunset September 30, 2008  Section 1441 authorized any agency that engages in basic, applied, or advanced research and development projects that facilitated defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack to exercise the same general authority given to DOD as found in 10 U S C  2371 (including for prototype projects)  Reporting Requirements Section 1031 sunset the annual reporting requirement for OT after the report covering FY2006 was submitted  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ( P L  109-163 ) Restricted Authority and Notification Requirements Section 212 of the FY2006 NDAA directed the Army to procure the Future Combat System using contract procedures set forth in part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in lieu of an OT  Section 823 extended ethics requirements to OT prototype authority and required the congressional defense committees be notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised  Certification Requirements Section 823 also amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA, requiring a written determination by a senior procurement executive for other transaction prototype projects estimated between $20 million and $100 million, and for a written determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics for prototype projects that exceed $100 million  According to the Senate report: Section 845 was intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department procurement contract  For this reason, the statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) states: The conferees continue to believe that the section 845 authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies  The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process  …  The committee does not believe that the $20 9 billion agreement entered between the Army and the Lead Systems Integrator for the FCS program is consistent with the language and intent of section 845 authority  Section 845 authority is intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department of Defense seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department contract  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 ( H R  5631 ) Reporting Requirement The FY2007 defense appropriations bill ( P L  109-289 ) did not include language addressing OTs  The conference report ( H Rept  109-676 ) included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the continued use of OTA contracts by the Missile Defense Agency," as such contracts "lack the customary safeguards found under FAR-based contracts for organizational conflict of interest, truth in negotiations and submission of cost and pricing data " The conferees "strongly encourage[d]" the Missile Defense Agency to convert "large development and procurement contracts using OTA to FAR-based contracts," and directed the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the use of OTs, to include the number, value, and justification for the use of such agreements  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 ( P L  110-181 ) Section 823 extended the authority for prototype projects for five more years, from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2013  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 ( P L  110-417 ) Section 822 required DOD to issue guidance on rights in technical data under non-FAR agreements, including OTs  Section 822 also required that appropriate provisions relating to rights in technical data be included in non-FAR agreements, consistent with policy guidance  This requirements is in statute at 10 U S C  2320 note  Section 824 expanded the scope of the pilot program for transition to follow-on contracts for certain prototype projects to include research projects carried out under 10 U S C  2371  Authority to use the pilot program, set to expire September 30, 2008, was extended to September 30, 2010  Section 874 required OT data be included in the Federal Procurement Data System  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 ( P L  111-383 ) Section 866 changed the definition of nontraditional defense contractor, conforming the definition to that found in 10 U S C  2302(9)  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 ( P L  112-239 ) Section 863 extended the authority for using OTs for prototype projects from September 30, 2013, to September 30, 2018  Carl Levin and Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) Expanded Authority Section 812 expanded the authority to use OT for prototypes, to include those "directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces " Prior to the FY2015 NDAA, OTs could only be used for prototypes relating to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be developed, or for the improvement of weapons or weapon systems currently in use  Reporting Requirements Section 1071 repealed the reporting requirement language found in 10 U S C  2371, relating to OTs for research projects  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 ( P L  114-92 ) Until the FY2016 NDAA, the prototyping and follow-on production authority established in Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA (as amended) was found in 10 U S C  2371 note  Section 815 of the FY2016 NDAA simultaneously repealed Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA and put the repealed language into the newly created 10 U S C  2371b  The FY2016 NDAA also modified 2371b by making the authority permanent  Expanded Authority and Small Business The authorities in Section 2371b were expanded to allow their use when "all significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal government are small businesses or nontraditional contractors" and when the agency determines that using an OT would expand the defense supply base in a manner that could not be accomplished through a contract  Section 815 eased the restriction on follow-on production contracts or transactions  Section 815 amended the definition of a nontraditional defense contractor found in 10 U S C  2302 to be an entity that is not currently performing, and for one year prior to an OT has not performed on any contract or subcontract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards pursuant to Section 1502 of Title 41, U S C  Section 815 also required DOD to update its guidance to reflect changes in the statute  The conference report stated that Congress believed OTs are an attractive option for firms and organizations that do not usually participate in government contracting due to typical overhead burdens and the "one size fits all" rules governing defense acquisition  The report also stated that OTs could support DOD's effort to access new sources of technological innovation, specifically with Silicon Valley startup firms and small commercial firms  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018 ( P L  115-91 ) Expanded Authority Section 216 of the FY2018 NDAA authorized nonprofit research institutions to enter into OTs with DOD for prototype projects  Section 862 amended 10 U S C  2358, granting the Secretary of Defense and the military departments the authority to pursue basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects under the OT authorities granted in Sections 2371 and 2371b of Title 10  Workforce Section 802 required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices who are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements  Section 863 required training and education for personnel involved in OTs and other innovative contracting methods  Certification Requirements and Small Business Section 864 adjusted the language of the statute to state that the dollar threshold relates to the specific transaction for a prototype project and not for the value of the entire project  Section 864 defined a transaction for follow-on production to include "all individual prototype sub-projects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions " Section 864 also increased the dollar thresholds for required approvals and defined the term small business to include small businesses under Section 9 of the Small Business Act to ensure that companies participating in the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs were considered small businesses for the purposes of the cost-sharing requirements  Miscellaneous Section 867 required the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for OTs in the "execution of science and technology and prototyping programs " Section 1711 required DOD to carry out a pilot program to "assess the feasibility and advisability of increasing the manufacturing capability of the defense industrial base " Pursuant to the pilot, Section 1711 authorized DOD to use OTs to support production capabilities in small and medium-sized manufacturers  John S  McCain National Defense Authorization Act for FY2019 ( P L  115-232 ) Section 211 of the FY2019 NDAA clarified that follow-on production of a prototype or subproject within a consortium may occur if the individual prototype or subproject is complete; all projects associated with the consortium do not need to be completed before follow-on production of a specific prototype  Expanded Authority The FY2019 NDAA authorized the use of OTs to develop enhanced personal protective equipment (Section 226) and to carry out research under the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Defense Program (Section 311)  Reporting Requirements Section 244 required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives  Section 873 required DOD to submit an annual report through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-245 ) Reporting Requirements While the enacted FY2019 defense appropriations bill did not include legislative language addressing OTs, the conference report included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production " The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include the following information on each agreement: funding military service or DOD component; major command (if applicable); contracting activity; appropriation title; budget line item; minimum and maximum award value; vendor; obligations and expenditures to date; product service code; period of performance; and indication if the OT agreement included an option for follow-on production (with a description of the scope of anticipated follow-on production)  The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts " GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016  Notification Requirements The House report to accompany H R  6157 acknowledged OTs as an "important tool to provide flexibility and agility for cutting-edge research and development projects and prototypes " However, the report stated its concern "with the lack of transparency on the use of OTA authority for follow-on production procurements," and directed that no funds could be obligated or expended for a follow-on production contract or a transaction carried out under 10 U S C  2371b, until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees with a notification of the proposed contract or transaction, to include a justification of why an OT is being used for production  Appendix B  Non-DOD Federal Agencies with Agency-Wide OT or Related Authorities A number of agencies have varying other transaction or similar authorities, as reflected in Table B-1   The table below is not a comprehensive or definitive listing of every federal government entity with OT or related authorities  In some instances, offices, agencies, commissions, and other federal government entities have OT or related authorities that are only associated with certain programs or projects, such as the National Institutes of Health (which has OT authority for such specific activities such as the National Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung, and Blood Diseases and Blood Resources Program [42 U S C  §285b-3] and the Cures Acceleration Network [42 U S C  §287a])  Appendix C  Reliability of Data on Other Transactions All data have imperfections and limitations  FPDS-NG data can be used to identify broad trends and produce rough estimates, or to gather information about specific contracts  Some observers say that despite their shortcomings, FPDS-NG data are substantially more comprehensive than what is available in most other countries in the world  Understanding the limitations of government procurement data—including knowing when, how, and to what extent to rely on data—can help policymakers incorporate FPDS-NG data more effectively into their decisionmaking process  FPDS-NG OT Data Quality and Accuracy Issues Decisionmakers should be cautious when using data from FPDS-NG to develop policy or otherwise draw conclusions, especially with respect to OTs  In some cases, the data themselves may not be reliable  In other instances, a query for particular data may return differing results, depending on the parameters and timing of the analysis  In particular, all DOD data entered into FPDS-NG are subject to a 90-day delay, and updates to "data, including new actions, modifications, and corrections are made on a regular basis," which could result in changes to "data     for current and/or prior fiscal years " Inconsistencies in FPDS-NG Data Within FPDS-NG, two primary collections of obligation data exist: one associated with standard government procurement contracts or modifications to such contracts, and the other associated with prototype OT agreements or modifications to such agreements  FPDS-NG's collection of prototype OT data allows for the input of additional data elements—such as nongovernment dollars associated with cost-share prototype OT agreements—not included in FPDS-NG's collection of standard government procurement contract data  More consequentially, FPDS-NG's prototype OT data include two similar data elements that allow users to identify the fiscal year a prototype OT agreement was signed or modified  One, labeled in the database as "Fiscal Year," appears to allow users entering data into the system to manually assign a fiscal year to a transaction  FPDS-NG users entering data into the system appear to have interpreted this data element in various, conflicting ways  For example, a Department of the Air Force OT agreement was signed in February 2016 for the development of rocket propulsion system prototypes under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program  FPDS-NG records an obligation of $115 million in FY2020 for this agreement  Fiscal law bars DOD from obligating money now for future fiscal years that have not yet occurred  The second, labeled "Contract Fiscal Year," appears to be based on the date the prototype OT agreement was signed or modified  See Table C-1 for a comparison of the "Fiscal Year" and "Contract Fiscal Year" elements for selected new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017  If a user selects the Fiscal Year data element when attempting to review high-level data on recent trends in the use of prototype OT agreements within DOD—such as the total amount obligated for prototype OT agreements on an annual basis—that user will obtain a substantially different result than if he or she selects the Contract Fiscal Year data element for a similar analysis  See Table C-2 for a comparison of action obligations and nongovernment contributions using the Fiscal Year and Contract Fiscal Year data elements for new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017  DOD OT Data Analysis Methodological Issues in Congressional Reports A March 2017 report to Congress entitled "An Assessment of Cost-Sharing in Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype Projects," completed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics indicated that In FY2016, DOD obligated (Note: Two outliers in 2016 excluded) $1 billion in section 2371b awards and received $68 million in cost-share contributions after excluding two significant trend outliers  DOD cited FPDS-NG as the source for its analysis, and defined the "significant trend outliers" excluded as "two $40 million OTAs with total cost-share of $270 million," likely referring to two DARPA prototype OT agreements conducted on a cost-share basis initiated in FY2016  However, a CRS analysis of the same FPDS-NG data identified numerous inconsistencies in DOD's methodological approach  Recreation of DOD Methodology Specifically, DOD appears to have conducted its analysis using the "Fiscal Year" data element referenced in this report's discussion of FPDS-NG OT data quality and accuracy issues, which would attribute some prototype OT activities to the wrong fiscal year for the purposes of comparative trend analysis  DOD also compared two disparate transaction types: the reported "$1 billion in Section 2371b awards" includes all action obligations associated with ongoing prototype OT activities in FY2016, including transactions associated with prototype OT indefinite delivery contracts, while the "$68 million in cost-share contributions" includes only cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements  If DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on all action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with ongoing prototype OT activities, it would have found instead that the department obligated $1 4 billion for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $313 5 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector  On the other hand, if DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on only action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements, it would have found instead that the department obligated $400 million for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $272 1 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector  Appendix D  Other Transaction Authority Statutes 10 U S C  §2371  Research projects: transactions other than contracts and grants (a) ADDITIONAL FORMS OF TRANSACTIONS AUTHORIZED — The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department may enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) under the authority of this subsection in carrying out basic, applied, and advanced research projects  The authority under this subsection is in addition to the authority provided in Section 2358 of this title to use contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants in carrying out such projects  (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE — In any exercise of the authority in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall act through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or any other element of the Department of Defense that the Secretary may designate  (c) ADVANCE PAYMENTS — The authority provided under subsection (a) may be exercised without regard to Section 3324 of Title 31  (d) RECOVERY OF FUNDS — (1) A cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title and a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may include a clause that requires a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Defense or any other department or agency of the Federal Government as a condition for receiving support under the agreement or other transaction  (2) The amount of any payment received by the Federal Government pursuant to a requirement imposed under paragraph (1) may be credited, to the extent authorized by the Secretary of Defense, to the appropriate account established under subsection (f)  Amounts so credited shall be merged with other funds in the account and shall be available for the same purposes and the same period for which other funds in such account are available  (e) CONDITIONS — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that- (A) to the maximum extent practicable, no cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) and no transaction entered into under subsection (a) provides for research that duplicates research being conducted under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense; and (B) to the extent that the Secretary determines practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) do not exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the cooperative agreement or other transaction  (2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate  (f) SUPPORT ACCOUNTS — There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury separate accounts for each of the military departments and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for support of research projects and development projects provided for in cooperative agreements containing a clause under subsection (d) and research projects provided for in transactions entered into under subsection (a)  Funds in those accounts shall be available for the payment of such support  (g) EDUCATION AND TRAINING —The Secretary of Defense shall— (1) ensure that management, technical, and contracting personnel of the Department of Defense involved in the award or administration of transactions under this section or other innovative forms of contracting are afforded opportunities for adequate education and training; and (2) establish minimum levels and requirements for continuous and experiential learning for such personnel, including levels and requirements for acquisition certification programs  (h) REGULATIONS — The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section  (i) Protection of Certain Information From Disclosure -(1) Disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) is not required, and may not be compelled, under Section 552 of Title 5 for five years after the date on which the information is received by the Department of Defense  (2)(A) Paragraph (1) applies to information described in subparagraph (B) that is in the records of the Department of Defense if the information was submitted to the Department in a competitive or noncompetitive process having the potential for resulting in an award, to the party submitting the information, of a cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title or another transaction authorized by subsection (a)  (B) The information referred to in subparagraph (A) is the following: (i) A proposal, proposal abstract, and supporting documents  (ii) A business plan submitted on a confidential basis  (iii) Technical information submitted on a confidential basis  10 U S C  §2371b  Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects (a) AUTHORITY — (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may, under the authority of Section 2371 of this title, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces  (2) The authority of this section- (A) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $100,000,000 but not in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only upon a written determination by the senior procurement executive for the agency as designated for the purpose of Section 1702(c) of Title 41, or, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the Missile Defense Agency, the director of the agency that- (i) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (ii) the use of the authority of this section is essential to promoting the success of the prototype project; and (B) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only if- (i) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics determines in writing that- (I) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (II) the use of the authority of this section is essential to meet critical national security objectives; and (ii) the congressional defense committees are notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised  (3) The authority of a senior procurement executive or director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or Missile Defense Agency under paragraph (2)(A), and the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics under paragraph (2)(B), may not be delegated  (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY — (1) Subsections (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such Section 2371 shall not apply to projects carried out under subsection (a)  (2) To the maximum extent practicable, competitive procedures shall be used when entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection (a)  (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION — (1) Each agreement entered into by an official referred to in subsection (a) to carry out a project under that subsection that provides for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000 shall include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General, in the discretion of the Comptroller General, to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement  (2) The requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a party or entity, or a subordinate element of a party or entity, that has not entered into any other agreement that provides for audit access by a Government entity in the year prior to the date of the agreement  (3) (A) The right provided to the Comptroller General in a clause of an agreement under paragraph (1) is limited as provided in subparagraph (B) in the case of a party to the agreement, an entity that participates in the performance of the agreement, or a subordinate element of that party or entity if the only agreements or other transactions that the party, entity, or subordinate element entered into with Government entities in the year prior to the date of that agreement are cooperative agreements or transactions that were entered into under this section or Section 2371 of this title  (B) The only records of a party, other entity, or subordinate element referred to in subparagraph (A) that the Comptroller General may examine in the exercise of the right referred to in that subparagraph are records of the same type as the records that the Government has had the right to examine under the audit access clauses of the previous agreements or transactions referred to in such subparagraph that were entered into by that particular party, entity, or subordinate element  (4) The head of the contracting activity that is carrying out the agreement may waive the applicability of the requirement in paragraph (1) to the agreement if the head of the contracting activity determines that it would not be in the public interest to apply the requirement to the agreement  The waiver shall be effective with respect to the agreement only if the head of the contracting activity transmits a notification of the waiver to Congress and the Comptroller General before entering into the agreement  The notification shall include the rationale for the determination  (5) The Comptroller General may not examine records pursuant to a clause included in an agreement under paragraph (1) more than three years after the final payment is made by the United States under the agreement  (d) APPROPRIATE USE OF AUTHORITY — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no official of an agency enters into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) for a prototype project under the authority of this section unless one of the following conditions is met: (A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project  (B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U S C  638)) or nontraditional defense contractors  (C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than other than the Federal Government  (D) The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract, or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract  (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amounts counted for the purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by a party to a transaction with respect to a prototype project that is entered into under this section other than the Federal Government do not include costs that were incurred before the date on which the transaction becomes effective  (B) Costs that were incurred for a prototype project by a party after the beginning of negotiations resulting in a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) with respect to the project before the date on which the transaction becomes effective may be counted for purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by the party to the transaction if and to the extent that the official responsible for entering into the transaction determines in writing that- (i) the party incurred the costs in anticipation of entering into the transaction; and (ii) it was appropriate for the party to incur the costs before the transaction became effective in order to ensure the successful implementation of the transaction  (e) Definitions —In this section: (1) The term "nontraditional defense contractor" has the meaning given the term under Section 2302(9) of this title  (2) The term "small business" means a small business concern as defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U S C  632)  (f) FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION CONTRACTS OR TRANSACTIONS — (1) A transaction entered into under this section for a prototype project may provide for the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction to the participants in the transaction  A transaction includes all individual prototype subprojects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions  (2) A follow-on production contract or transaction provided for in a transaction under paragraph (1) may be awarded to the participants in the transaction without the use of competitive procedures, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 2304 of this title, if - (A) competitive procedures were used for the selection of parties for participation in the transaction; and (B) the participants in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the transaction  (3) Contracts and transactions entered into pursuant to this subsection may be awarded using the authority in subsection (a), under the authority of Chapter 137 of this title, or under such procedures, terms, and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may establish by regulation  (g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE PROTOTYPES AND FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION ITEMS AS GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED EQUIPMENT — An agreement entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (a) or a follow-on contract or transaction entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (f) may provide for prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to another contractor as Government-furnished equipment  (h) APPLICABILITY OF PROCUREMENT ETHICS REQUIREMENTS — An agreement entered into under the authority of this section shall be treated as a Federal agency procurement for the purposes of Chapter 21 of Title 41  10 U S C  §2373  Procurement for experimental purposes (a) AUTHORITY — The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may each buy ordnance, signal, chemical activity, transportation, energy, medical, space-flight, and aeronautical supplies, including parts and accessories, and designs thereof, that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned considers necessary for experimental or test purposes in the development of the best supplies that are needed for the national defense  (b) PROCEDURES — Purchases under this section may be made inside or outside the United States and by contract or otherwise  Chapter 137 of this title applies only when such purchases are made in quantities greater than necessary for experimentation, technical evaluation, assessment of operational utility, or safety or to provide a residual operational capability 

ground_truth: Each year, millions of Americans call 911 for help during emergencies. However, the nation's legacy 911 system relies on aging infrastructure that is not designed to accommodate modern communications technologies. As a result, states and localities are upgrading to NG911, which offers improved capabilities, such as the ability to process images, audio files, and video. While deploying NG911 is the responsibility of state and local entities, federal agencies also support implementation, led by NHTSA's National 911 Program, which facilitates collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 stakeholders. GAO was asked to review NG911 implementation nationwide. This report examines: (1) state and local progress and challenges in implementing NG911 and (2) federal actions to address challenges and planned next steps. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and federal agency reports and plans. GAO also analyzed NHTSA's survey data on state 911 implementation for calendar year 2015, the most recent year for which data were available, and interviewed federal officials, state and local officials from nine states (selected to represent different regions and various phases of NG911 implementation), and officials from industry and advocacy groups. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National 911 Program's most recent national survey on Next Generation 911 (NG911) implementation indicated that about half of states were in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015, but that state and local progress varied. Specifically, 10 states reported that all 911 authorities in their state processed calls using NG911 systems; however, 18 states reported having no state or local NG911 transition plans in place—which may indicate these states were in the early phases of planning for the transition to NG911 or had not yet begun. GAO spoke with state and local 911 officials in 9 states, which were in various phases of implementing NG911, and found that none of the 9 selected states were accepting images, audio files, or video. State and local 911 officials identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911. Such challenges are related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. For example, officials in 3 states said that the current funding they collect from telephone service subscribers may not be sufficient to support NG911's transition costs while simultaneously funding the operation of existing 911 systems. Federal agencies—including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have responsibilities to support NG911 implementation, such as through coordinating activities and administering grants, and are taking actions to assist state and local entities in addressing challenges to NG911's implementation. Such actions include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders to explore emerging NG911 issues. For example, as the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, NHTSA's National 911 Program is developing resources on NG911 topics, such as federal funding and governance structures. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to facilitate the state and local transition to NG911, the program lacks specific performance goals and measures to assess its progress. Without such goals and measures, it is not clear to what extent the program is effectively achieving its mission. In 2018, the National 911 Program plans to establish an interagency initiative tasked with creating a National NG911 Roadmap. This roadmap is intended to identify next steps for the federal government in supporting the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a list of national-level tasks as part of its roadmap initiative, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out these tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap's objectives. Collaborating with the appropriate federal agencies to determine federal roles and responsibilities to carry out the roadmap's national-level tasks could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve those tasks. Furthermore, developing an implementation plan that details how the roadmap's tasks will be achieved would place the National 911 Program in a better position to effectively lead interagency efforts to implement NG911 nationwide. GAO recommends that NHTSA's National 911 Program develop performance goals and measures and, for the National NG911 Roadmap, determine agencies' roles and responsibilities and develop an implementation plan. NHTSA agreed 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: As we have previously reported, 911 services have evolved from basic 911—which provided Americans with a universally recognized emergency number—to Enhanced 911 which also routes calls to the appropriate call center and provides information about the caller’s location and a call back number  NG911 represents the next evolution in 911 services by using IP-based technology to deliver and process 911 traffic  Under NG911, call centers will continue to receive voice calls and location information, but will also be able to accommodate emergency communications from the range of technologies in use today  In addition, NG911 systems provide call centers with enhanced capabilities to route and transfer calls and data, which could improve call centers’ abilities to handle overflow calls and increase information sharing with first responders  Generally speaking, 911 communications begin when a caller dials 911 using a landline, wireless, or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system  Once a 911 caller places an emergency call, a communications provider receives and routes the call to the appropriate call center, along with the caller’s phone number and location (i e , street address for a landline caller, approximate geographic location for a wireless caller, and the subscriber’s address for VoIP)  Calls and data may be routed to 911 call centers using legacy methods (i e , routing calls across traditional telephone networks) or NG911 methods (i e , routing calls and other data through IP-networks)  Once the call reaches a call center, trained call takers and dispatchers determine the nature of the emergency and dispatch first responders, typically using a variety of equipment and systems, including call handling systems, mapping programs, and computer aided dispatch  Figure 1 illustrates the 911 communications and dispatch process  As illustrated in figure 1, NG911 systems use IP-networks capable of carrying voice plus large amounts of data  These emergency-services networks are typically deployed at the state or regional level with multiple call centers connecting to the network  However, the existence of an IP- network alone does not constitute an NG911 system  As defined by standards developed by the emergency communications community, an NG911 system should have the capability to, among other things: provide a secure environment for emergency communications; acquire and integrate additional data for routing and answering calls; process all types of emergency calls, including multimedia messages; transfer calls with added data to other call centers or first responders  While NG911 systems must possess certain capabilities, it is important to note that states and localities may make decisions about which capabilities they intend to use to best meet their needs  In addition, states and localities have the authority to make decisions about what NG911 equipment, systems, and vendors to use; thus, the configurations of these systems vary  According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, the transition to NG911 may require a variety of technical and operational changes to current 911 systems and processes  For example, technical changes can include upgrades to networks or installing new hardware or software in 911 call centers  Operational changes can include the need for additional training or the development of new policies and procedures (e g , new procedures for processing or storing multimedia)  These technical and operational changes may also have effects on 911 funding and state and local governance structures, which we will discuss in more detail later in this report  According to an FCC advisory body that examined NG911 systems architecture in 2016, while NG911 systems are implemented in a variety of ways at the state or local level, NG911 implementation can occur gradually and in phases  According to this model, NG911 implementation occurs on a continuum that begins with legacy 911 systems and ends with a fully deployed NG911 national end-state where all individual 911 call centers nationwide would be connected  The NG911 implementation model identifies activities that take place as part of the NG911 transition, many of which occur concurrently, such as: planning (e g , conducting feasibility studies, preparing databases, establishing governance models); acquiring, testing, and implementing NG911 system elements (e g , establishing an emergency-services IP-network, location-based call routing, processing multimedia); connecting call centers within a jurisdiction (i e , jurisdictional end- state in which all call centers are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures); and connecting NG911 systems nationwide (i e , national end-state in which all call centers in the nation are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures)  In addition, because 911 services provide an essential function, the implementation of NG911 generally involves using both the legacy system and the NG911 system simultaneously for a period of time, according to the FCC advisory body, to ensure 911 services are not disrupted as new system elements are tested and implemented  Deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of 911 authorities at the state and local level  As we have previously reported, all 50 states and the District of Columbia collect—or have authorized local entities to collect—funding for 911 from telephone service subscribers, and methods within each state for collecting funds vary  FCC, as required by statute, reports to Congress annually on the states’ collection and distribution of 911 fees and charges  There are approximately 6,000 call centers nationwide that process 911 calls, often at the county or city level, and these centers can vary greatly in size and technical sophistication  The state and local governance structures that oversee 911 operations also vary by location  For example, we previously reported that some states collect fees or charges for 911 and administer a statewide 911 program  Other states authorize local entities to collect fees or charges for 911 and administer 911 programs at the local level  Still other states use a combination of these approaches  According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, historically, 911 authority has been coordinated and maintained locally with no requirement to coordinate with other jurisdictions  However, the transition to NG911 enables connection of 911 systems  Thus, as previously mentioned, the NG911 transition may require technological and operational changes, as well as changes to 911 policies and governance responsibilities for states and localities  While deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of entities at the state and local level, federal agencies—including NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS—have responsibilities to support state and local implementation, including through facilitating coordination of activities among 911 stakeholders and administering federal grants, for example: NHTSA houses the National 911 Program as part of its Office of Emergency Medical Services (Office of EMS) to provide national leadership and coordination for the NG911 transition throughout the United States, as previously mentioned  According to NHTSA, the fiscal year 2017 budget for the National 911 Program was $2 74 million  Among other activities, which we will discuss later in this report, the National 911 Program surveys states on progress implementing NG911 and reports this survey data annually  FCC issues orders and regulations for 911 service providers on topics relevant to NG911, such as 911 reliability, location accuracy, and text- to-911  FCC also sponsors advisory bodies comprised of government and industry experts that study relevant topics and provide recommendations related to NG911, such as the Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture and the Communications, Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council  While there are no federally mandated time frames for implementing NG911, the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012 requires specific actions of some federal agencies as outlined in table 1, below  In addition, according to the National 911 Program, as states and localities continue to implement NG911, and begin to explore interconnection with other states’ 911 systems, federal agencies may need to take steps to help ensure state NG911 networks are interoperable and connected  We will discuss actions taken by federal agencies to assist states and localities to implement NG911 later in this report  According to NHTSA’s most recent national survey, state and local progress implementing NG911 varies, and about half of all states reported being in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015  While a few states are well into statewide implementation, NHTSA officials told us that no state had completely implemented all NG911 functions  Additionally, as of the fall of 2017, none of the selected states we spoke with were processing multimedia—such as images or audio/video recordings—through their 911 systems due to concerns related to privacy, liability, and the ability to store and manage these types of data, among other things  The national survey data, based on responses from 45 states, measured the extent to which NG911 planning and acquisition of NG911 equipment and services were occurring, and the extent to which basic NG911 functions were operational at the state and local levels in 2015  Planning: This measure includes state and local NG911 plans for governance, funding, system components, and operations  In this context, system components refer to an emergency services IP-based network, NG911 software, system and information security, and databases, among other things, according to NHTSA’s survey  In total, 25 of 45 states reported having a state or at least one local NG911 plan in place; conversely, 18 states reported having no NG911 plan in place at either the state or local level—which may indicate they are in the early stages of planning for the NG911 transition or have not yet begun the transition to NG911  Acquisition: These measures identify states or local entities that have defined their NG911 needs and awarded contracts, and then installed and tested acquired NG911 components and services  Twenty-four states reported awarding at least one contract at the state or local level for NG911 components and services  Twenty-three states reported having installed and tested NG911 components and services at either the state or local level  NG911 services: This is a measure of 911 authorities that have some basic, functioning NG911 infrastructure in place  In total, 21 states reported having some level of basic NG911 services in place at the state or local level  Of these 21 states, 10 reported that all 911 authorities within the state were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls  Another 7 of these states reported that 25 percent or less of their state’s 911 authorities were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls  Federal officials, industry stakeholders, and state and local 911 officials we interviewed from nine states identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911, including challenges related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance  Funding: State and local officials in four of nine selected states identified insufficient funding as one of the challenges they face in implementing NG911  Additionally, FCC, NHTSA, and industry reports noted that state and local financing strategies are generally insufficient to fully implement NG911  Specifically, these reports note that the need to provide new capital for NG911 implementation while simultaneously funding legacy operational costs during the transition can strain state and local funding  Limited funding: Officials in three states told us that their current funding may not be able to support the upfront costs of infrastructure and equipment acquisitions associated with the transition to NG911  Further, officials said they will need to simultaneously fund both the new NG911 and legacy 911 systems currently in operation until the NG911 systems are fully operational  To address these challenges, a Minnesota official told us about how the state leveraged economies of scale to reduce overall costs through cost sharing between multiple call centers and of call centers consolidating operations from 114 to 104 call centers  Additionally, a Virginia official told us that to cover the upfront costs of transitioning to NG911, the state plans to borrow from the state treasury and then repay the treasury with future-year fee collections  Fee diversion: Diversion of fees intended for 911 costs to non-911 activities may affect a state’s or locality’s ability to cover NG911 transition costs and necessitate identifying alternative funding sources  The FCC’s 2016 annual report on 911 fees indicates that for calendar year 2015, all but two of the states that responded to FCC’s 911 fee survey affirmed that their state or jurisdiction collects fees from phone users to support or implement 911 services  State and local authorities also determine how these 911 fees can be used  FCC’s report also indicated that eight states and Puerto Rico reported diverting a total of more than $220 million (or approximately 8 4 percent) of 911 fees collected to non-911 purposes  Some of these diverted funds were directed to other public safety programs, and others were diverted to either non-public safety or unspecified purposes  According to one state official, had it not been for 911 fees being diverted to non-911 purposes, funding would have been sufficient to cover the NG911 transition without having to go to the state legislature for additional funding  However, officials in the other eight selected states told us that either fee diversion was not an issue in their state or that the diversion of funds had not affected their state’s ability to implement NG911  Evolving technology and operations: Officials in eight states told us that the retirement of legacy infrastructure and the transition to IP-based systems introduces new technical and operational challenges for call centers and states, as well as for equipment and service providers  Interoperability: Officials in three selected states mentioned that connecting to neighboring networks—whether within or between states—could pose challenges  For example, officials mentioned that states and localities may have obtained different equipment, software applications, or service providers – all of which can make interconnections difficult  Officials in Maine and New Hampshire told us that differences in service providers can also be a challenge to seamlessly connecting to neighboring systems  In an instance where two states (Minnesota and North Dakota) have worked to connect their 911 systems, both states used the same service provider, which officials said allowed for fewer barriers to connection  Cyber risks: Officials in three states told us that the transition from a traditional system that only transmits voice traffic to an IP-based system that transmits voice and data traffic has significantly increased the risk of a cyber-attack  This can be a challenge because managing cyber risks is a new and evolving role for state and local 911 authorities  Approaching the transition to NG911 without managing these risks could result in disrupted or disabled call center operations and ultimately a delayed response to an emergency situation  Multimedia: Officials in three states mentioned potential implementation challenges related to accepting and processing multimedia such as audio recordings, images, and videos  More specifically, one official said they did not have procedures to manage or store these multimedia files once received  In addition, another official raised privacy and liability concerns  Call routing: One of the core services of an NG911 system is the ability to have calls routed to the appropriate call center based on a wireless caller’s physical location, instead of the location of the cellular tower that receives and transmits the call  An FCC-sponsored working group reported that there are several options for achieving this and each option has unique positive and negative aspects  One challenge officials in two states noted was that rather than a single, nationwide approach to routing these calls, state and local 911 authorities would need to work individually with the wireless carriers to determine how to best implement location-based call routing  Governance: FCC has noted that transitioning to NG911 will likely result in new roles and levels of coordination between state 911 authorities, local 911 authorities, 911 call centers, and 911 service providers  Further, relationships among authorities at the state and local level may change as states work to interconnect NG911 systems  State and local officials noted that these types of governance challenges can apply in a variety of situations, including within or between states  Evolving roles: As previously mentioned, 911 governance structures vary among states  These varying governance structures may pose different challenges  For example, some states have a centralized structure in which a single government agency is responsible for statewide 911 system’s administration and policy  Officials in two states told us that although they faced challenges transitioning to NG911, their states’ centralized 911 structure eased the transition in their states because there was uniformity in policy and technology, among other things, coming from a single statewide authority  In other states, 911 systems are primarily a local responsibility and organized with decentralized authorities and resources  In these instances, there may be specific challenges related to transitioning to an interconnected NG911 system  Such challenges may include the need for increased levels of coordination among numerous jurisdictions with potentially disparate organizational structures, levels of funding, and priorities  An official also noted that there are governance challenges related to connecting states and evolving relationships between 911 authorities and service providers  Informing decision makers: One of the challenges identified by officials in two states is differing levels of experience and understanding by state and local officials as to what NG911 priorities should be for timely implementation  To help with this understanding, the federal government is making efforts to educate state and local authorities on how to facilitate policymaker understanding as well as provide regular updates to stakeholders on recent NG911 developments  We discuss some of these efforts later in this report  While state and local entities have the primary responsibility for implementing NG911 technology and services, federal agencies are taking actions to assist state and local 911 entities to address NG911 implementation challenges  Actions taken include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders  More specifically, we identified selected activities that were taken by NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS that address some of the funding, technology, and governance challenges raised by state and local 911 stakeholders, for example: Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and NTIA, in consultation with FCC and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems  According to NHTSA officials, the cost study will present a nationwide view, rather than a state-by-state view, on the progress of NG911 implementation and its associated costs  Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services  In September 2017, NHTSA and NTIA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining implementing regulations for the grant program  NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018  Technology standards: The National 911 Program issued an annual guide in 2017 that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services  The guide provides a list of standards that have been recently updated and an analysis that identifies whether existing standards fully address NG911 processes and protocols  Cybersecurity guides: DHS issued a guide in 2016 that identified cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies  According to DHS officials, the National 911 Program provided input on this guide  In addition, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call-centers’ architecture issued a report in 2016 that provided a cybersecurity self-assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies  Governance plans: To address challenges related to the evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program issued a guide in 2016 that provided practices for states to consider when interconnecting NG911 networks, and DHS issued a guide in 2015 for emergency communications officials for establishing, assessing, and updating their governance structures  In addition, an FCC advisory body issued a report in 2016 that identified NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911  In addition to federal agency efforts to assist the state and local 911 community, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap  As part of this initiative, the National 911 Program plans to convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify tasks that need to be completed at the national level by the federal government and other public and private-sector organizations to support the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system  Additional details regarding this planned activity are described in further detail later in this report  For additional information on federal actions to address state and local NG911 challenges, see appendix II  As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 activities, the National 911 Program has taken a variety of actions to assist the state and local 911 community, in collaboration with other federal agencies  However, the program lacks goals and performance measures to assess whether these activities are achieving desired results  National 911 Program officials stated that they initiate program activities based on feedback received from the 911 community  In addition, officials said the program’s activities fall within the tasks established in the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012  However, the National 911 Program does not have a means to assess its progress toward meeting its responsibilities established in the 2012 Act  National 911 Program officials said the Office of EMS—the office within NHTSA in which the program is housed—has a strategic plan, but it is outdated and does not contain specific goals or performance measures related to 911 or NG911 implementation  Officials said the Office of EMS has held preliminary discussions to begin updating its strategic plan by January 2019 and plans to include goals and performance measures related to 911 and NG911 services  Office of EMS officials told us the Office of EMS strategic plan will be jointly developed with the National 911 Program  However the Office of EMS had not yet developed a draft strategic plan during the time of our review  Federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in order to achieve desired results  According to these standards, an entity determines its mission, establishes specific measurable objectives, and formulates plans to achieve its objectives  These standards state that management sets objectives in order to meet the entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals and requirements of applicable laws and regulations  In addition, our work on leading practices for managing for results indicated that an agency’s strategic goals should also explain what results are expected from the agency and when to expect those results  Further, these goals form a basis for an entity to identify strategies to fulfill its mission and improve its operations to support the achievement of that mission  As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, the National 911 Program faces a complex and challenging task of assisting the 911 community while the nation’s 911 systems undergo a major transformation  However, without specific goals and related performance measures, the National 911 Program is unable to assess how well its activities are achieving results in relation to its responsibilities identified in the 2012 Act  As the National 911 Program and the Office of EMS consider creating a strategic plan, ensuring that the plan includes specific goals and related measures for the National 911 Program would help officials better understand whether the program’s activities are effectively assisting states and localities in transitioning to a fully integrated national NG911 system, and help identify any programmatic changes that might be needed  As previously mentioned, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap  This initiative will convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify national-level tasks that need to be completed by federal agencies and other organizations to realize a national, interconnected NG911 system  According to the National 911 Program, a list of the national-level tasks needed to advance NG911 implementation nationwide has not been created to date  In addition, state officials we spoke with said there are certain issues related to interoperability and cybersecurity that federal agencies need to address before states can connect their respective state NG911 systems  To address these issues, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued a request for proposal (RFP) in August 2017 for managing the roadmap development process and awarded a contract in September 2017  While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out national-level tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap’s objectives  NHTSA’s NG911 roadmap RFP specifies that by identifying a list of national-level tasks that are developed and adopted by the 911 stakeholder community, the roadmap could serve as a blueprint to carry out these tasks and thereby ensure the interoperability of the nation’s NG911 system  However, the National 911 Program does not have plans for the entities participating in the development of the roadmap to be assigned roles and responsibilities for executing the roadmap’s national- level tasks  National 911 Program officials told us the National 911 Program does not plan to assign roles and responsibilities because NHTSA does not have the authority to require or assign tasks for other entities  Additionally, program officials view the simultaneous identification of tasks and assignments of responsibility for those tasks as a risk to facilitating a candid and productive discussion with entities participating in the roadmap initiative  However, officials stated it may be appropriate for agencies participating in the roadmap initiative to perform specific tasks after the roadmap is finalized  We have previously examined interagency collaborative mechanisms and identified certain key issues for federal agencies to consider when using these mechanisms to achieve results  Our prior work has found that following leading collaboration practices, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies engaged in collaboration, can enhance and sustain collaboration among agencies and provide an understanding of who will do what in support of meeting the aims of the collaborative group  As stated above, the RFP specifies that a roadmap developed by and adopted by 911 stakeholders could serve as a blueprint to carry out the roadmap’s tasks  Securing the commitment of agencies to assigned roles could help organize the collaborative group’s joint and individual efforts and thereby better facilitate decision making  As we have previously found, a lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in an interagency effort—such as the execution of the roadmap’s tasks—may limit agencies’ abilities to effectively achieve shared objectives  Given the complexity of the task and the number of agencies that could be involved, following selected leading collaboration practices for the roadmap initiative—particularly with regard to collaborating with roadmap stakeholders to clarify their roles and responsibilities (whether during the creation of the task list or afterwards)—could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve the national-level tasks  While clarifying the roles and responsibilities of roadmap stakeholders for the execution of the roadmap’s tasks is an important collaborative step, the National 911 Program has additional responsibilities as the lead entity for the initiative  However, National 911 Program officials are unable to clearly articulate how the program will proceed following the completion of the roadmap  National 911 Program officials said without knowing the contents of the roadmap, it would be premature to specify how the roadmap’s national-level tasks would be completed  Officials stated that once the roadmap is completed, possible next steps may include identification of timelines, deadlines, and a mechanism for tracking progress, among other things, but officials stated that these steps are not required in the roadmap RFP  As stated above, federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in specific terms  According to these standards, management defines what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  Without a clear plan for how the National 911 Program would take next steps to support the implementation of the roadmap’s objectives and tasks, the National 911 Program may not be prepared to take effective action once the roadmap is completed  We have previously found that having an implementation plan can assist agencies to better focus and prioritize goals and objectives, and align planned activities  Once the roadmap is completed, developing an implementation plan that details what is to be achieved and how it will be accomplished will place the National 911 Program in a better position moving forward to support the completion of the national-level tasks  The current 911 system is undergoing a historic transition  With no federal requirement that states transition to NG911 services, federal leadership is critical to addressing interoperability challenges and promoting the goal of an interconnected national system  As the lead federal entity for fostering coordination and collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program plays a critical role in coordinating NG911 implementation efforts to improve the nation’s 911 services  However, this program—in collaboration with other federal agencies— faces a complex and challenging task to help move approximately 6,000 independent 911 call centers toward an interconnected national NG911 system  In addition, given that the NG911 transition is still in its early stages and is an ongoing effort, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of various federal actions to assist states and localities in the transition  In light of these challenges, without specific goals and related measures to assess effectiveness, the National 911 Program may be hindered in determining whether it is making progress towards its stated mission  Through the roadmap initiative, the National 911 Program has taken important first steps in identifying the need for actions at the national level, in order to fully realize the desired end-state of a national, interconnected NG911 system  However, while identifying needed next steps is essential, equally important to the collaborative effort’s success is (1) defining and agreeing on the roles and responsibilities of the entities best suited to undertake these actions, and (2) developing plans for how the National 911 Program will support implementation to achieve the roadmap’s objectives  If taken, these actions could help further NG911 implementation nationwide and help the National 911 Program and federal agencies in assisting states and localities to improve these lifesaving services  We are making the following three recommendations to the Administrator of NHTSA regarding the National 911 Program: develop specific program goals and performance measures related to NG911 implementation  (Recommendation 1) in collaboration with the appropriate federal agencies, determine roles and responsibilities of federal agencies participating in the National NG911 Roadmap initiative in order to carry out the national-level tasks over which each agency has jurisdiction  (Recommendation 2) develop an implementation plan to support the completion of the National NG911 Roadmap’s national-level tasks  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, and Homeland Security and FCC for their review and comment  In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Transportation agreed with the recommendations  The Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  The Department of Commerce and FCC had no comments  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 appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Managing Director of the FCC, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Our objectives were to examine (1) progress states and localities are making to implement Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the challenges they have faced and (2) how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps  To describe state and local progress in implementing NG911 and background information on fee collection and costs, we analyzed select survey data elements from the 2016 National 911 Progress Report and the Eighth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) respectively  More specifically, we analyzed the most recent state-provided data (from calendar year 2015) related to the planning and implementation of NG911 at the state and local levels, as well as NG911 cost and 911-related revenue data  We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing relevant documents and discussing data elements with staff responsible for collecting and analyzing the data  We also conducted our own testing to check the consistency of the data  We found the data from both sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes to describe states’ progress in implementing NG911 and provide background on 911 fee collection and costs  While these data provide the best nationwide picture of NG911 implementation and fee collection, and are reliable for our purposes, there are some limitations on how the data can be used  Since we did not validate the state-reported responses, our findings based on these data are limited to what states reported  Additionally, regarding the 2016 National 911 Progress Report data, there are limitations to (1) making comparisons between states because states have different approaches to implementing NG911 and (2) ascertaining year-over-year progress because reporting is voluntary and states’ response rates can vary year to year  To describe implementation challenges that states and local authorities may be encountering, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 10 states as case studies, based upon a variety of factors, including reported progress in implementing NG911, statewide planning and coordination, reported number of annual 911 calls, whether states diverted 911 fees to other uses, and variation in geographic location  We selected these states, in part, based on their responses to the two aforementioned surveys  Based on the aforementioned criteria, we selected the following states to include as case studies: California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia  We reviewed documents and interviewed state officials from all of these states except Nevada about NG911 implementation progress, challenges, federal actions, and any additional assistance needed  We contacted 911 officials in Nevada but did not receive responses  We also interviewed local officials in four of the selected states  While not generalizable to all states, the information obtained from our case studies provides examples of broader issues faced by states and localities in managing the NG911 transition  To determine how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps, we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and documentation of federal agency actions and plans, and our prior reports  We also interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, and the U S  Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about federal actions taken and plans for next steps  To understand planning activities undertaken by NHTSA’s National 911 Program, and its planned project to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, we reviewed the National 911 Program’s internal planning documents, the program’s request for proposal to develop a national roadmap, the program’s written responses to our questions, and interviewed National 911 Program officials  In addition, we interviewed officials from national associations representing emergency-response- technology companies, wireless and wireline phone carriers, emergency- communications entities, and groups representing deaf and hard-of- hearing consumers to gain their perspectives on federal actions taken and next steps  We assessed the National 911 Program’s strategic- planning activities against leading practices for performance management found in our prior work on strategic planning and goal setting and federal internal control standards  We assessed the National 911 Program’s planned activities for the national roadmap project against federal internal control standards and selected key practices to enhance interagency collaboration identified in our prior work  We conducted our work from January 2017 to January 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  Description of challenge State and local funding may not be sufficient to support costs associated with transitioning to NG911 equipment and infrastructure  Transitioning from legacy infrastructure to Internet Protocol-based systems presents technical and operational challenges such as interoperability and cybersecurity risks  Federal actions Grant resources: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National 911 Program issued on its website a list clarifying which of the fiscal year 2016 emergency-communications grants may be used for NG911 services  Program officials said they developed this list in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems and on the nationwide progress of implementing NG911 services  Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services  NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018  Funding mechanisms: An advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report in 2016 that identified common costs and funding mechanisms for 911 officials to consider  The report also introduced a 911 funding sustainment model designed for use by 911 officials to calculate their financial needs to support a transition to NG911 implementation  Guides on technology standards and procurement practices: In 2017, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued an annual guide on emergency- communications technology standards that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services  The National 911 Program issued another guide in 2016 that provides information on procuring goods and services related to NG911 such as practices for call centers to consider when developing their request for proposals and contracts  Examining emerging technology issues: In 2017, FCC tasked a public- private advisory council to recommend how FCC can promote the NG911 transition, enhance the reliability of NG911, and mitigate the threat of 911 outages  Prior to that tasking, the FCC advisory council issued a report in 2016 that explored location-based routing issues and discussed transition considerations from legacy 911 to NG911  NG911 cybersecurity guide and technical assistance: DHS, with input from NHTSA’s National 911 Program according to DHS officials, issued a guide in 2016 that identifies cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies  In addition, DHS provides NG911 technical assistance for states seeking assistance with strategic planning and technology integration  In a separate effort, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call center architecture issued a report in 2016 that provides a cybersecurity self- assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies  Description of challenge States may face a range of challenges related to evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities that could hinder NG911 implementation  Federal actions Guides on state and legislative planning: NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued guides on state 911 planning and legislative issues to consider for NG911 and awarded a contract in September 2017 to update those guides  In 2016, the National 911 Program issued a guidebased on the experiences of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that identifies practices to consider for states interconnecting NG911 networks across state lines  Exploring NG911 governance implementation issues: In 2016, an advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report that identifies NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911  In 2013, FCC also issued a report that details recommendations to Congress for transitioning from legacy 911 to NG911 networks  Guide on emergency communications governance structures: In 2015, DHS and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators issued a guide that provides characteristics of effective governance approaches and best practices for officials to establish, assess, and update their governance structures  In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Huddleston (Assistant Director), Jean Cook (Analyst in Charge), Camilo Flores, Steven Rabinowitz, Malika Rice, Kelly L  Rubin, Michael Sweet, Hai Tran, Marika Van Laan, and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  Administrations supported the general international stance that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, with its final status subject to negotiation  In reaction to the U S  proclamation, others in the international community have insisted that the Golan's status has not changed  In Congress, Senate and House bills introduced in February 2019 ( S  567 and H R  1372 ) support Israeli sovereignty claims to the Golan, and would treat the Golan as part of Israel in any existing or future law "relating to appropriations or foreign commerce " For decades after 1967, various Israeli leaders, reportedly including Prime Minister Netanyahu as late as 2011, had entered into indirect talks with Syria aimed at returning some portion of the Golan as part of a lasting peace agreement  However, the effect of civil war on Syria and the surrounding region, including an increase in Iran's presence, may have influenced Netanyahu to shift focus from negotiating with Syria on a "land for peace" basis to obtaining international support for Israel's claims of sovereignty  As part of the periodic conflict in Syria between Israel and Iran , some Iranian missiles have targeted Israeli positions in the Golan  The Syrian government has denounced the U S  policy change as an illegal violation of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and insisted that Syria is determined to recover the Golan  Additionally, observers have argued that the policy change could unintentionally bolster Syrian President Bashar al Asad within Syria by rallying Syrian nationalistic sentiment in opposition to Israel's claims to the Golan and deflecting attention from Iran's activities inside Syria  Since 1974, the U N  Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has patrolled an area of the Golan Heights between the regions controlled by Israel and Syria, with about 880 troops from five countries stationed there as of January 2019  During that time, Israel's forces in the Golan have not faced serious military resistance to their continued deployment, despite some security threats and diplomatic challenges  Periodic resolutions by the U N  General Assembly have criticized Israel's occupation as hindering regional peace and Israel's settlement and de facto annexation of the Golan as illegal  Hezbollah's forces and Israel's military have sporadically clashed near the Lebanese border for decades—with the antagonism at times contained in the border area, and at times escalating into broader conflict  Speculation persists about the potential for wider conflict and its regional implications  Israeli officials have sought to draw attention to Hezbollah's buildup of mostly Iran-supplied weapons—including reported upgrades to the range, precision, and power of its projectiles—and its alleged use of Lebanese civilian areas as strongholds  Ongoing tension between Israel and Iran over Iran's presence in Syria raises questions about the potential for Hezbollah's forces in Lebanon to open another front against Israel  After the September 2018 incident leading to Russia's installation of an S-300 system in Syria (discussed above), Iran reportedly began directly transferring weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon while reducing Syria's use as a transshipment hub  One Israeli media account warned that Hezbollah's threat to Israel is increasing because of initiatives to build precision-weapons factories in Lebanon and to set up a military infrastructure in southern Syria  In late 2018 and early 2019, Israel's military undertook an effort—dubbed "Operation Northern Shield"—to seal six Hezbollah attack tunnels to prevent them from crossing into Israel  Israeli officials claim that they do not want another war, while at the same time taking measures aimed at constraining and deterring Hezbollah, including through consultation with the U N  Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)  President Trump has expressed interest in brokering a final-status Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and his Administration has supposedly prepared a proposal to facilitate negotiations, but the Administration has repeatedly postponed releasing the proposal  Many factors may account for the delays, including recent U S  actions regarding Jerusalem, tension in and around the Gaza Strip, reduced funding for the Palestinians, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and political jockeying and domestic constraints among Israelis and Palestinians  The U S  decision—announced in December 2017—to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the U S  embassy there has fed U S -Palestinian tensions  Israeli leaders generally celebrated the change, but Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas strongly objected  Many other countries opposed President Trump's actions on Jerusalem, as reflected in action at the United Nations  Claiming U S  bias favoring Israel, Palestinian leaders broke off high-level political contacts with the United States shortly after the December 2017 announcement and have made efforts to advance Palestinian national claims in international fora  However, the PA continues security coordination with Israel in the West Bank  U S -Palestinian tensions appear to have influenced Administration decisions to cut off various types of U S  funding to the Palestinians, and arguably have dimmed prospects for restarting Israeli-Palestinian talks  In a September 2018 address before the U N  General Assembly, PLO Chairman/PA President Abbas denounced Administration actions that he characterized as taking disputed Israeli-Palestinian issues—such as Jerusalem's status and Palestinian refugee claims—off the negotiating table  Funding for economic and humanitarian needs in the West Bank and Gaza could become even scarcer  In February 2019, Israel announced that it would withhold a portion of the tax revenue it collects for the PA because—pursuant to a law passed by the Knesset in 2018—Israel had determined that amount represented PLO/PA payments made on behalf of individuals allegedly involved in terrorist acts  In response, Abbas announced that the PA would completely reject monthly revenue transfers from Israel if it withheld any amount, even though the transfers comprise approximately 65% of the PA budget  For February, Israel withheld approximately $11 million from the $193 million due to the PA, with the PA rejecting the entire amount as a result  The PA is reportedly seeking temporary financial support from the private sector and local banks, and also asking the Arab League to follow through on its 2010 decision to provide $100 million per month as a "financial safety net" for the PA  At the end of January 2019, U S  bilateral aid to the Palestinians—including nonlethal security assistance that Israel generally supports—ended completely due to the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA, P L  115-253 ), which became law on October 3, 2018  Two months after the law's enactment, PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah informed Secretary of State Michael Pompeo that the PA would not accept aid that subjected it to federal court jurisdiction  Apparently, U S  aid will not resume unless Congress amends or repeals the ATCA, or the Administration channels the aid differently  Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor Jared Kushner has stated that the Administration will publicly release a peace plan sometime after Israeli national elections, which are set to occur on April 9, 2019  According to Kushner, the peace plan contains detailed proposals on the various issues that divide Israel and the PLO  Many observers express skepticism about the prospect that these proposals can serve as a basis for the serious resumption of bilateral talks, but Kushner has reportedly said that the Administration is focusing on formulating "realistic solutions," and that "privately, people are more flexible " U S  officials hope to surmount potential obstacles to the peace plan in the Israeli and Palestinian domestic arenas by obtaining political and economic support for the U S  initiative from key Arab states in the region, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Egypt  A number of Arab states share common interests in working behind the scenes with Israel to counter Iranian regional influence  While some diplomatic developments have fed speculation about warming Arab-Israeli ties, reports suggest that key Arab Gulf states remain reluctant to embrace more formal relations with Israel without a resolution of the Palestinian issue  Saudi Arabia's press agency responded to the U S  recognition of Israel's claims to sovereignty in the Golan Heights by saying that it "will have significant negative effects on the peace process in the Middle East and the security and stability of the region " In a statement with implications both for domestic and international audiences, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly said that the March 2019 change in U S  policy on the Golan proves that countries can retain territory captured in a defensive war  His statement prompted speculation over the possibility that Israeli leaders might consider annexing part of the West Bank and whether the situation in the Golan is sufficiently similar to invite comparison  Days before the April elections, Netanyahu asserted that if he were to lead the next government, he would apply Israeli law to West Bank settlements  The closely contested Israeli national elections—scheduled for April 9, 2019—and the subsequent government formation process will have significant implications for the country's leadership and future policies  Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a challenge from the centrist Blue and White party under the combined leadership of former top general Benny Gantz and former Finance Minister Yair Lapid  Some setbacks for Netanyahu during the campaign have included the attorney general's announcement of probable corruption-related indictments against Netanyahu, new media allegations of possible misconduct relating to Israel's procurement of German submarines, and questions about some individuals or groups possibly spreading rumors against Netanyahu's opponents via social media  Yet, some observers calculate that Netanyahu's Likud could possibly get fewer Knesset seats than Blue and White and still form the next coalition  For more information on the actors involved in the elections, see CRS Insight IN11068, Israel: April 2019 Elections and Probable Indictments Against Prime Minister Netanyahu , by Jim Zanotti and this report's Appendix   In July 2018, the Knesset passed a Basic Law defining Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people  Some observers have expressed concern that the law might further undermine the place of Arabs in Israeli society, while others view its effect as mainly symbolic  In March 2019, Netanyahu said that Israel is a Jewish, democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens, and "the nation-state not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people," reviving domestic debate about the 2018 law and perhaps seeking support during the election campaign from sympathetic voter groups 

ground_truth: Strong relations between the United States and Israel have led to bilateral cooperation in many areas. Matters of particular significance to U.S.-Israel relations include Israel's ability to address the threats it faces in its region. Shared U.S.-Israel concerns about Iran and its allies on the nuclear issue and in Syria and Lebanon. Israeli-Palestinian issues. Israeli domestic political issues, including elections scheduled for 2019. Israel relies on a number of strengths to manage potential threats to its security and existence. It maintains conventional military superiority relative to neighboring states and the Palestinians. It also takes measures to deter attack and defend its population and borders from evolving asymmetric threats such as rockets and missiles, cross-border tunneling, drones, and cyberattacks. Additionally, Israel has an undeclared but presumed nuclear weapons capability. Against a backdrop of strong bilateral cooperation, Israel's leaders and supporters routinely make the case that Israel's security and the broader stability of the region remain critically important for U.S. interests. A 10-year bilateral military aid memorandum of understanding (MOU)—signed in 2016—commits the United States to provide Israel $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing annually from FY2019 to FY2028, along with additional amounts from Defense Department accounts for missile defense. All of these amounts remain subject to congressional appropriations. Israeli officials seek to counter Iranian regional influence and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released new Israeli intelligence on Iran's nuclear program in April 2018, days before President Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 international agreement that constrains Iran's nuclear activities. It is unclear whether Israel might take future military action in Iran if Iranian nuclear activities resume. Since 2018, Israel has conducted a number of military operations in Syria against Iran and its allies, including Lebanese Hezbollah. Israel and Iran also appear to be competing for military advantage over each other at the Israel-Lebanon border. Amid uncertainty in the area, in March 2019 President Trump recognized Israel's claim to sovereignty over the Golan Heights, changing long-standing U.S. policy that held—in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution 497 from 1981—the Golan was occupied Syrian territory whose final status was subject to Israel-Syria negotiation. The prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process are complicated by many factors. Palestinian leaders cut off high-level political contacts with the Trump Administration after it recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017. U.S.-Palestinian tensions have since worsened amid U.S. cutoffs of funding to the Palestinians and diplomatic moves—including the May 2018 opening of the U.S. embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. Palestinian leaders interpreted these actions as prejudicing their claims to a capital in Jerusalem and to a just resolution of Palestinian refugee claims. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has welcomed these U.S. actions. The Trump Administration has suggested that it will release a proposed peace plan after Israeli elections, which are scheduled for April 9, 2019. Speculation continues about how warming ties between Israel and Arab Gulf states may affect Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, though Saudi Arabia said that the U.S. policy change on the Golan Heights would negatively affect the peace process. Bouts of tension and violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza have continued—reportedly accompanied by indirect talks between the two parties that are being brokered by Egypt and aim for a long-term cease-fire. Domestically, Israel is preparing for the April 9 elections, which are closely contested. Former top general Benny Gantz is combining with former Finance Minister Yair Lapid to challenge Netanyahu, whom the attorney general has recommended be indicted for corruption in three separate cases. The elections and subsequent government formation process will have significant implications for Israel's future leadership and policies.