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



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



Report 2: Election administration attracted significant attention in 2000, when issues with the vote count delayed the results of the presidential race  Administrative issues have also been reported in subsequent election cycles  For example, issues with voter registration were reported in multiple states in 2016 and 2018  Some responses to such reports focus on the rules of elections  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P L  107-252 ; 116 Stat  1666), for example, requires states to establish a uniform standard of what counts as a vote for each voting system they use (52 U S C  §21081(a)(6)), and bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to change how voter registration is handled  Other responses focus on the systems that apply election rules  In the United States, that typically means state and local systems  The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized  Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system  Understanding how those state and local systems work may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons  First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes  Most federal action on election administration is carried out by state and local election systems  Interactions between the workings of those systems and federal actions can help determine how effective the federal actions are at achieving their objectives  Second, Congress can require or encourage changes to the way state and local election systems work  Congress has a number of tools for influencing election administration policy  The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the workings of the state and local systems that administer federal elections  This report is intended to help Congress understand how state and local election systems work and how their workings might relate to federal activity on election administration  It starts by describing the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections  It then uses examples from past federal action on election administration to illustrate some of the ways the duties and structures of state and local election systems interact with federal activity  It closes by introducing some considerations that may be relevant to Members interested in election administration  This report focuses on the administration of federal elections in the states by executive and legislative branches of state and local government  Much of the discussion applies to nonfederal as well as federal elections, but the report is intended explicitly to address only federal elections  The report also does not cover the federal role in administering federal elections, election administration in the U S  territories, the role of law enforcement and the courts in election administration, or issues of constitutional or legal interpretation  The typical federal election process has three main parts: voter registration, vote casting, and vote counting  This report focuses on those three parts of the process rather than on other aspects of campaigns and elections, such as campaign finance and redistricting  Finally, the way federal elections are administered varies between and within states  A full accounting of the variations is beyond the scope of this report  Instead, the report describes general patterns and illustrates them with examples  Examples appear in text boxes like the box below, which describes the role the text boxes play in the report in more detail  Election administration involves making decisions about the rules of elections, such as whether voters should be able to register online, whether they should be required to show photo identification at the polls, and whether election results should be audited  It also involves conducting elections in accordance with those decisions and paying for the activities and resources required to conduct them  These three election administration duties can be described as policymaking, implementation, and funding  This section describes some common patterns in the distribution of these duties at the state and local levels  In the U S  system, states generally play the primary decisionmaking role in election administration  State legislatures, with input from their governors, can make state laws about the administration of elections and make or initiate election administration amendments to their state constitutions  State laws and constitutions can also delegate or defer responsibility for decisions about the administration of elections to other state or local officials and to voters  The U S  Constitution also provides for a federal role with respect to decisionmaking about elections, and Congress has exercised such powers in a number of instances  For more information about federal laws governing the state and local conduct of federal elections, see the Appendix   Box 1 uses examples from voter registration to illustrate a number of these approaches to policymaking  It starts with a discussion of a registration policy enacted by the federal government and then describes an adjustment to the policy made, respectively, by a state legislature on the recommendation of a state executive branch official, by state executive branch officials, and by voters  State and local officials may be granted decisionmaking authority explicitly by a variety of constitutional provisions, laws, charters, ordinances, and regulations at multiple levels of government  They may also be left discretion over policy details that are not specified in legislative or regulatory text  For example, states may set out general guidelines for voting technology and ballot design but leave decisions about exactly which machines to buy or how to lay out ballots to local officials  Voters have a say in election administration measures that are referred to the ballot by their state legislatures  Some states also offer citizen initiatives or popular referendums, which voters can use to propose their own state election administration statutes or state constitutional amendments or to repeal or affirm election administration laws adopted by their state legislatures  Table 1 lists the citizen initiative and popular referendum options available to voters in states that offer such mechanisms, as presented by the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California in January 2019  Box 2 uses examples from the November 2018 election to illustrate how states and voters have used ballot measures to make election administration policy  It describes a statewide proposal to enact automatic voter registration in Nevada that was initiated by citizens, and a statewide proposal to enact a voter ID requirement in North Carolina that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature  Early U S  elections were conducted almost entirely locally  Some states have departed from that tradition  For example, in Alaska, the state conducts elections above the borough level, and, in Delaware, all elections are conducted by the state  Congress has also shifted some responsibility for conducting elections to the state level  For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA; P L  99-410 ; 100 Stat  924) requires states to designate a single state office to provide absent uniformed services and overseas voters with information about voter registration and absentee voting (52 U S C  §20302(b))  The NVRA requires states to designate a chief state election official to coordinate state responsibilities under the act (52 U S C  §20509), and HAVA requires chief state election officials to implement statewide voter registration lists and oversee development of plans for use of federal election administration funding (52 U S C  §21083(a)(1)(A); 52 U S C  §21005(a))  However, the day-to-day implementation of election administration policy is still mostly handled by localities  For example, localities typically add eligible voters to the voter rolls; design and print ballots; recruit and train poll workers; select and prepare polling places; store and transport voting equipment; and count, canvass, and report election results  The level of locality primarily responsible for conducting elections is typically the county, but there are some exceptions  The New England states, which have a strong tradition of township government, tend to assign primary responsibility to municipalities  Some states also split implementation duties between counties and municipalities  Responsibility for implementing election administration policy may also be divided between offices or agencies at the same level of local government  For example, according to one scholarly source, as of 2015, localities in about one-third of states split responsibility for conducting elections between two or more offices or agencies  Table 2 lists the states identified by those scholars  Election administration involves both intermittent and ongoing costs  Intermittent costs include irregular expenses like the costs of acquiring voting equipment  Ongoing costs include expenses that are linked to and recur with each individual election, such as the costs of printing ballots, paying poll workers, and transporting voting equipment to polling places, as well as expenses that are incurred whether or not there is an election, such as the costs of training election officials, maintaining voter registration lists, and providing IT support for online voter registration systems  The federal government does not supply ongoing funding to states and localities to conduct elections  To date, Congress has authorized significant federal funding for state and local election administration in one bill: HAVA  HAVA authorized $3 65 billion for three main types of formula-based payments to states as well as additional funding for a number of smaller grant and payment programs (52 U S C  §§20901-20906; 52 U S C  §§21001-21072)  Congress appropriated most of the $3 65 billion for the three types of formula-based payments between FY2003 and FY2010 and appropriated an additional $380 million in March 2018  That means states and localities are responsible for most of the costs of conducting federal elections  Localities typically assume primary responsibility for those costs, with states contributing to varying degrees  All states have supplied or committed to supplying matching funds as required to receive federal HAVA funds (52 U S C  §21003(b)(5)(a))  All states but North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, have also contributed to establishing and maintaining the statewide voter registration lists required by HAVA (52 U S C  §21083(a))  State contributions to other costs vary  Many states used HAVA funding to help replace or update voting technology, and some have put additional money from state coffers toward those expenses  Table 3 lists state contributions to the costs of acquiring voting equipment, as reported by the U
Report 2:  To be certified as a HUBZone small business, at least 35% of the small business's employees must generally reside in a HUBZone  In FY2017, the federal government awarded $7 53 billion to HUBZone-certified small businesses  $1 90 billion was awarded with a HUBZone preference ($1 49 billion through a HUBZone set-aside, $65 3 million through a HUBZone sole source award, and $346 9 million through a HUBZone price-evaluation preference); $1 53 billion was awarded to HUBZone-certified small businesses in open competition with other firms; and $4 10 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e g , set-asides and sole source awards for small businesses generally and for 8(a), women-owned, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses)  This program allows agencies to set aside contracts for SDVOSBs  Also, federal agencies may award sole source contracts to SDVOSBs so long as the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price, and the anticipated total value of the contract, including any options, is below $4 million ($6 5 million for manufacturing contracts)  For purposes of this program, veterans and service-related disabilities are defined as they are under the statutes governing veterans affairs  In FY2017, the federal government awarded $18 2 billion to SDVOSBs  $6 8 billion was awarded through a SDVOSB set-aside award; $4 3 billion was awarded to a SDVOSB in open competition with other firms; and $7 1 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e g , set-asides and sole source awards for small businesses generally and for HUBZone firms, 8(a) firms, and WOSBs)  Under this program, contracts may be set aside for economically disadvantaged WOSBs in industries in which women are underrepresented and substantially underrepresented  Federal agencies may award sole source contracts to WOSBs so long as the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price, and the anticipated total value of the contract, including any options, is below $4 million ($6 5 million for manufacturing contracts)  In FY2017, the federal government awarded $21 3 billion to WOSBs  $648 9 million was awarded with a WOSB preference ($580 5 million through a WOSB set-aside and $68 4 million through a WOSB sole source award); $7 0 billion was awarded to a WOSB in open competition with other firms; and $13 7 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e g , set-asides and sole source awards for small businesses generally and for HUBZone firms, 8(a) firms, and SDVOSBs)  Federal contracting officers are required to provide the SBA's PCR (or, if a PCR is not assigned, the SBA Area Office serving the procuring activity area) a "reasonable period of time" to review any solicitation requiring submission of a small business subcontracting plan and to submit advisory findings before the solicitation is issued  The PCR's advisory comments regarding the small business subcontracting plan's acceptability must be submitted, in writing, to the appropriate contracting officer within five working days after the plan's receipt  As mentioned previously, the SBA's commercial market representatives help prime contractors find small businesses to perform subcontracts; counsel contractors on their responsibility to maximize subcontracting opportunities for small businesses; and conduct periodic reviews, often in concert with a SBA PCR, of contractors awarded contracts that require an acceptable small business subcontracting plan  Federal agencies may also set aside contracts or make sole source awards to small businesses not participating in any other program under certain conditions  The Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program originally began in 1980 as a minority/women's business enterprise program "established by regulation under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination statutes that apply to DOT financial assistance programs " Congress has reauthorized the DBE program several times since its inception; most recently in P L  114-94 , the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-Act)  The FAST-Act provides, that, except to the extent the Secretary of Transportation determines otherwise, not less than 10% of the amounts made available for any program under Titles I (federal-aid highways), II (innovative project finance), III (public transportation) and VI (innovation) of the act and 23 U S  Code 403 (highway safety research and development), shall be expended with DBEs  DOT also has a separate DBE program for airport concessions  A DBE is a for-profit small business owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Eligibility for the DBE program differs somewhat from the 8(a) program  For example, under the DBE program, women are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Also, to be regarded as economically disadvantaged, an individual must have a personal net worth (excluding ownership interest in the firm and equity in his or her primary personal residence) that does not exceed $1 32 million  The DBE must also meet SBA size criteria and have average annual gross receipts not exceeding $23 98 million  Size limits for the airport concessions DBE program are higher  The DBE program's eight objectives are to 1  ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts in the department's highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs; 2  create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts; 3  ensure that the department's DBE program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; 4  ensure that only firms that fully meet the program's eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; 5  help remove DBE-participation barriers in DOT-assisted contracts; 6  promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally-assisted contracts and procurement activities conducted by recipients; 7  assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program; and 8  provide appropriate flexibility to recipients of federal financial assistance in establishing and providing opportunities for DBEs  Other federal programs promote subcontracting with small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs)  SDBs include 8(a) participants and other small businesses that are at least 51% unconditionally owned and controlled by socially or economically disadvantaged individuals or groups  Individuals owning and controlling non-8(a) SDBs may have net worth of up to $750,000 (excluding ownership interests in the SDB firm and equity in their primary personal residence)  Otherwise, however, SDBs must generally satisfy the same eligibility requirements as 8(a) firms, although they do not apply to the SBA to be designated SDBs in the same way that 8(a) firms do  Federal agencies must negotiate "subcontracting plans" with the apparently successful bidder or offeror on eligible prime contracts prior to awarding the contract  Subcontracting plans set goals for the percentage of subcontract dollars to be awarded to SDBs, among others, and describe efforts that will be made to ensure that SDBs "have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts " Federal agencies may also consider the extent of subcontracting with SDBs in determining to whom to award a contract or give contractors "monetary incentives" to subcontract with SDBs  As of February 11, 2019, the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search database included 2,538 SBA-certified SDBs and 100,595 self-certified SDBs  The SBA's 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance program provides "a wide variety of management and technical assistance to eligible individuals or concerns to meet their specific needs, including: (a) counseling and training in the areas of financing, management, accounting, bookkeeping, marketing, and operation of small business concerns; and (b) the identification and development of new business opportunities " Eligible individuals and businesses include "8(a) certified firms, SDBs, businesses operating in areas of high unemployment, or low income or firms owned by low income individuals " In FY2017, the 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance program assisted 4,100 small businesses  The SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee program aims to increase small businesses' access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private-sector contracts, by guaranteeing bid, performance, and payment bonds for small businesses that cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels  The program guarantees individual contracts of up to $6 5 million and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  The SBA's guarantee ranges from not to exceed 80% to not to exceed 90% of the surety's loss if a default occurs  In FY2017, the SBA guaranteed 10,397 bid and final surety bonds with a total contract value of more than $6 3 billion  A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (someone who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner  The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the terms and conditions of a contract  If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed  The surety bond reduces the risk associated with contracting  Surety bonds are meant to encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and may be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract's terms and conditions  Surety bonds are important to small businesses interested in competing for federal contracts because the federal government requires prime contractors—prior to the award of a federal contract exceeding $150,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any building or public work of the United States—to furnish a performance bond issued by a surety satisfactory to the contracting officer in an amount that the officer considers adequate to protect the government  Small business mentor-protégé programs typically seek to pair new businesses with more experienced businesses in mutually beneficial relationships  Protégés may receive financial, technical, or management assistance from mentors in obtaining and performing federal contracts or subcontracts, or serving as suppliers under such contracts or subcontracts  Mentors may receive credit toward subcontracting goals, reimbursement of certain expenses, or other incentives  The federal government currently has several mentor-protégé programs to assist small businesses in various ways  The 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program is a government-wide program designed to assist small businesses "owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" participating in the SBA's Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program (commonly known as the 8(a) program) in obtaining and performing federal contracts  For that purpose, mentors may (1) form joint ventures with protégés that are eligible to perform federal contracts set aside for small businesses; (2) make certain equity investments in protégé firms; (3) lend or subcontract to protégé firms; and (4) provide technical or management assistance to their protégés  The SBA's A ll S mall B usiness Mentor-Protégé Program is a government-wide mentor-protégé program for all small business concerns, consistent with the SBA's mentor-protégé program for participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development program  The Department of Defense (DOD) Mentor-Protégé Program , in contrast, is agency-specific  It assists various types of small businesses and other entities in obtaining and performing DOD subcontracts and serving as suppliers on DOD contracts  Mentors may (1) make advance or progress payments to their protégés that DOD reimburses; (2) award subcontracts to their protégés on a noncompetitive basis when they would not otherwise be able to do so; (3) lend money to or make investments in protégé firms; and (4) provide or arrange for other assistance  Other agencies also have agency-specific mentor-protégé programs to assist various types of small businesses or other entities in obtaining and performing subcontracts under agency prime contracts  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, has a mentor-protégé program wherein mentors may provide protégés with rent-free use of facilities or equipment, temporary personnel for training, property, loans, or other assistance  Because these programs are not based in statute, unlike the SBA and DOD programs, they generally rely upon preexisting authorities (e g , authorizing use of evaluation factors) or publicity to incentivize mentor participation  Currently, more than 1,200 mentor-protégé agreements are in place, even though there are issues with the accuracy and thoroughness of some federal agency records  Since 1978, federal agency heads have been required to establish federal procurement goals, in consultation with the SBA, "that realistically reflect the potential of small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" to participate in federal procurement  Each agency is required, at the conclusion of each fiscal year, to report its progress in meeting the goals to the SBA  In 1988, Congress authorized the President annually to establish government-wide minimum participation goals for procurement contracts awarded to small businesses and small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Congress required the government-wide minimum participation goal for small businesses to be "not less than 20% of the total value of all prime contract awards for each fiscal year" and "not less than 5% of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year" for small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals  Each federal agency was also directed to "have an annual goal that presents, for that agency, the maximum practicable opportunity for small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to participate in the performance of contracts let by such agency " The SBA was also required to report to the President annually on the attainment of the goals and to include the information in an annual report to Congress  The SBA negotiates the goals with each federal agency and establishes a small business eligible baseline for evaluating the agency's performance  The agency head is required to "make consistent efforts to annually expand participation by small business concerns from each industry category " If the SBA and the agency cannot agree on the goals, the agency may submit the case to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) for resolution  The small business eligible baseline excludes certain contracts that the SBA has determined do not realistically reflect the potential for small business participation in federal procurement (such as those awarded to mandatory and directed sources), contracts funded predominately from agency-generated sources (i e , non-appropriated funds), contracts not covered by the FAR, acquisitions on behalf of foreign governments, and contracts not reported in the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation, or FPDS-NG (such as government procurement card purchases and contracts valued less than $10,000)  These exclusions typically account for 18% to 20% of all federal prime contracts each year  The SBA then evaluates the agencies' performance against their negotiated goals annually, using FPDS-NG data, managed by the U S  General Services Administration (GSA), to generate the small business eligible baseline  This information is compiled into the official Small Business Goaling Report, which the SBA releases annually  Each agency that fails to achieve any proposed prime or subcontract goal is required to submit a justification to the SBA on why it failed to achieve a proposed or negotiated goal with a proposed plan of corrective action  Agencies can take credit in every category that is applicable to the recipient of the contract  For example, "when counting goaling achievements, a contract awarded to a service-disabled Veteran-Owned Woman-Owned Small Business would be counted toward the Small Business (SB) goal, the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) goal and the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) goal  However, these category counts are not summed to triple the total count  The Sum of Parts Does Not Equal the Whole (italics in original) " Over the years, federal government-wide procurement goals have been established for small businesses generally ( P L  100-656 , the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, and P L  105-135 , the HUBZone Act of 1997—Title VI of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997); small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals ( P L  100-656 ); women ( P L  103-355 , the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994); small businesses located within a HUBZone ( P L  105-135 ); and small businesses owned and controlled by a service-disabled veteran ( P L  106-50 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999)  The current federal small business procurement goals are at least 23 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards to small businesses for each fiscal year; 5 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to small disadvantaged businesses (including participants in the SBA's 8(a) Program) for each fiscal year; 5 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to women-owned small businesses; 3 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to HUBZone small businesses; and 3 0% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards and subcontract awards to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses  There are no punitive consequences for not meeting these goals  However, the SBA's Small Business Goaling Report is distributed widely, receives media attention, and serves to heighten public awareness of the issue of small business contracting  For example, agency performance as reported in the SBA's Small Business Goaling Report is often cited by Members during their questioning of federal agency witnesses during congressional hearings  As shown in Table 1 , the FY2017 Small Business Goaling Report , using FPDS-NG data, indicates that federal agencies met the federal procurement goal for small businesses generally, small disadvantaged businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in FY2017  Table 1 also provides, for comparative purposes, the percentage of total reported federal contracts (without exclusions) awarded to those small businesses in FY2017  Before awarding a federal contract, the contracting officer must affirmatively determine that the business is responsible to perform the contract  If the contracting officer determines that an apparent successful small business offeror lacks certain elements of responsibility (e g , is unable to fulfill the requirements of a specific government procurement because it lacks capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, tenacity, or limitations on subcontracting), the officer is required to refer the matter in writing to the SBA for review and a possible Certificate of Competency (COC), even if the next acceptable offer is also from a small business  The COC certifies in writing that the small business meets all required elements of responsibility for the purpose of receiving and performing a specific government contract  The "COC program empowers the SBA to certify to contracting officers as to all elements of responsibility of any small business concern to receive and perform a specific government contract  The COC program does not extend to questions concerning regulatory requirements imposed and enforced by other federal agencies " As mentioned previously, the SBA's commercial market representatives conduct periodic compliance reviews of contractors awarded contracts that require an acceptable small business subcontracting plan  In addition, once the contract is completed, federal agencies are required to pay the contractor on a timely basis and pay interest penalties for late payments  Under specified circumstances, federal agencies may also pay contractors before the contract's payment's due date  The periodic compliance review can take place on-site, at the contracting agency, or virtual  Materials that may be reviewed include the contractor's contract files, correspondence that is directly or indirectly related to the contract, IT systems, subcontracting methods, and procedures  Contractors are selected randomly for audit  The SBA may enter into agreements with other federal agencies to conduct these assessments  The compliance report includes compliant and non-compliant items found during the assessment of the contractor's subcontracting activities and a rating indicating the contractor's level of compliance or non-compliance, ranging from unsatisfactory to outstanding  If any deficiencies are found, the contractor is required to submit, within 30 days of the compliance review rating letter date, a corrective action plan (CAP)  The CAP is submitted to the SBA Area Office via email, or any method designated by the SBA  The commercial market representative conducts a follow-up compliance report within six months to a year of the date the SBA acknowledges receipt of the contractor's CAP to ensure that corrective actions have been taken to eliminate the deficiencies  The SBA keeps the federal agency that awarded the contract informed of the contractor's adherence to correcting the deficiencies  If the contractor refuses to provide or address all deficiencies in the CAP, a delinquent CAP letter is sent advising the contractor that it has 15 days from the letter's date to comply with federal regulations  If an acceptable CAP is not received in the allotted time frame the case is escalated to the SBA's subcontracting program manager who informs the SBA's Office of Government Contracting director and works with the SBA's Office of General Counsel and the federal agency that awarded the contract for resolution or to begin accessing liquidated damages  Once a contract is awarded, federal agencies are generally required to pay interest to prime contractors on any invoice payments the agency fails to make by the date(s) specified in the contract, or within 30 days of receipt of a proper invoice for the amount due if no date is specified in the contract  Similar requirements exist for prime contractors in paying subcontractors on construction contracts  These requirements are especially important for small businesses in the construction industry  Specifically, every construction contract awarded by a federal agency must contain clauses obligating the prime contractor to (1) pay the subcontractor for "satisfactory performance" under the subcontract within seven days of receiving payment from the agency and (2) pay interest on any amounts that are not paid within the proper time frame  The contract must also obligate the prime contractor to include similar payment and interest penalty terms in its subcontracts, as well as require its subcontractors to impose these terms on their subcontractors  This latter provision ensures that the payment and interest penalty requirements flow down to all tiers of construction subcontractors  In addition, required subcontracting plans must incorporate terms obligating the prime contractor to notify the agency awarding the contract in writing if a subcontractor is paid a reduced price for goods supplied or services completed under the contract, or if payment is made to the subcontractor more than 90 days past due  The prime contractor must include the reason for the reduction in payment or failure to pay a subcontractor within 90 days  If the contracting officer for a covered contract (a contract that requires an acceptable subcontracting plan) determines that a prime contractor has a history of unjustified, untimely payments to contractors, the contracting officer shall record the contractor's identity, describe the circumstances under which the contractor may be determined to have a history of unjustified, untimely payments to subcontractors, and include the contractor's identity in, and make publicly available through, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, or any successor  This information is used by federal agencies to "evaluate the business ethics and quality of prospective contractors competing for Federal contracts and to protect taxpayers from doing business with contractors that are not responsible sources " Federal agencies are permitted to make an accelerated payment up to seven days before the required payment date in a federal contract, or earlier if the agency deems it necessary on a case-by-case basis if, after receiving a proper invoice, it is in the best interest of the government, and any of the following is true: the invoice in under $2,500; the payment is to a small business; or the payment is related to an emergency, disaster, or military deployment  In addition, the Secretary of Defense is required, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to establish an accelerated payment date for its small business prime contractors, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice for the amount due if a specific payment date is not established by contract  The Secretary of Defense is also required to establish, to the fullest extent permitted by law, an accelerated payment date for its prime contractors that subcontract with small businesses, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice for the amount due if a specific payment date is not established by contract and the prime contractor agrees to make payments to the subcontractor "in accordance with the accelerated payment date, to the maximum extent practicable, without any further consideration from or fees charged to the subcontractor " The small business contracting programs described in this report generally have strong bipartisan support  However, that does not mean that these programs face no opposition or that issues have not been raised concerning the impact or operations of specific programs  For example, small business advocates seek policies that reduce or eliminate exclusions that narrow the reach of small business contracting preferences, want the SBA to use the total value of all prime contract awards in the Small Business Goaling Report, and want the SBA to use a more discerning methodology for awarding performance grades to federal agencies in meeting its small business contracting goals  Critics have questioned some of these programs' effectiveness, in terms of both promoting small business opportunities to win federal contracts and a more diversified, robust economy  Many observers judge the relative success or failure of federal efforts to enhance small business contracting opportunities by whether the federal government and individual federal agencies meet the procurement goals in the annual Small Business Goaling Report  In recent years, the federal government has generally succeeded in meeting the government-wide goals of awarding 23% of the total value of all small business eligible prime contract awards to small businesses generally, 5% to SDBs, and 3% to SDVOSBs  However, it has had difficulty meeting the goals of 5% to WOSBs and 3% to HUBZone small businesses  The Small Business Goaling Report is the most convenient measure available to compare federal small business contracting performance over time, but it has limitations  For example, the report does not include all federal contracts, because some are not deemed to be small business eligible and others are not recorded in the FPDS-NG  In addition, the report does not evaluate the effect these contracts have on small businesses, industry competitiveness, or the overall economy  As one group of researchers has argued, the entire goal-setting process … is geared to measuring the dollars and contracts awarded to small business, and pays little attention to the effect that access to government contracts has on small business starts, growth, and wealth generation  Results of the program are also hard to isolate, difficult to measure, and generally not judged against the next best or other alternative policies [emphasis in original]  Comprehensive studies examining the effect of small business contracting preferences on small business startups, growth, wealth generation, and industry competitiveness may prove useful for congressional oversight  In the meantime, although the Small Business Goaling Report has its limitations, it can help policymakers identify programs most in need of examination  For example, the SBA has announced that it is focusing additional efforts on promoting the HUBZone program to federal contracting officials, primarily due to the continuing difficulties federal agencies have had in meeting the 3% goal for HUBZone small businesses 

ground_truth: The Purple Heart is one of the oldest and most recognized American military medals, awarded to servicemembers who were killed or wounded by enemy action. The conflicts 2001 to the present have greatly increased the number of Purple Hearts awarded to servicemembers. Events over the past few years have spurred debate on the eligibility criteria for the Purple Heart. Shootings on U.S. soil and medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have prompted changes to the eligibility requirements for the Purple Heart. Some critics believe that these changes may lessen the value of the medal and the sacrifices of past recipients on the battlefield. In the past, efforts to modify the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements were contentious, and veterans groups were vocal concerning eligibility changes. While medal requirements are often left to the military and executive branch to decide, Congress is involved in Purple Heart eligibility, utilizing its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 14). The Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291) included language that expands eligibility for the Purple Heart. Previous debates have raised several questions about the Purple Heart. In some respects, how an event is defined can determine eligibility: Is a servicemember the victim of a crime or a terrorist attack? Conversely, arguing that killed or wounded servicemembers "should" be eligible for the Purple Heart can redefine an event: Is the servicemember an advisor to a foreign military or a combatant? Are PTSD and other mental health conditions adequate injuries to warrant the Purple Heart? These are questions that Congress might consider if it chooses to act on this issue.

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



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

Report 1: Requirements for military awards and decorations can change over time  New events and changes in military, political, or social conditions can generate debate over who is eligible for various military awards  These changes tend to be controversial, especially with veterans groups  Congress has considered several pieces of legislation that would change who would be eligible to receive the Purple Heart, and under what conditions  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly increased the number of servicemembers receiving the Purple Heart award as well as the potential conditions under which they receive the award  Increasingly acknowledged conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as accidents and other events while deployed, bring up new questions as to when a servicemember deserves a Purple Heart  The July 17, 2015, shooting of servicemembers at a Marine recruiting office and a naval reserve center in Chattanooga, TN, again prompted questions about applying the Purple Heart to terrorist attacks versus criminal acts  Veterans groups often voice their views when Congress or the President proposes making changes to expand eligibility for the Purple Heart  These groups argue, for example, that a servicemember who acquires PTSD may not always deserve the same recognition as a servicemember killed or wounded in direct combat, while others contend that these medical conditions can debilitate servicemembers just as much as physical injuries and can have lasting effects on servicemembers' lives  Determining which actions and events make a servicemember qualified for receiving a Purple Heart, and whether expanding eligibility does a disservice to those who have already earned the award, are contentious elements of this debate  Although Congress has traditionally left many military award requirements to the executive branch, the Constitution does allow Congress to act in this area, and events have prompted changes regarding eligibility for the Purple Heart  On December 19, 2014, Congress passed The Carl Levin and Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015  Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 expanded eligibility by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart  As a result, servicemembers wounded and killed in the 2009 shootings in Little Rock, AR, and at Fort Hood, TX, were awarded Purple Hearts in 2015  Congressional offices often receive questions about Purple Heart eligibility from constituents, especially when eligibility rules change  The number of these questions is likely to increase as servicemembers return from conflicts around the world and if eligibility requirements are again changed  This report will examine the history of the Purple Heart and changes in eligibility over time as well as current issues facing Congress  In 1782, George Washington created the Badge of Military Merit to reward "any singularly meritorious action" displayed by a soldier, noncommissioned officer, or officer in the Continental Army  This award was intended to encourage gallantry and fidelity among soldiers, and would later become known as the Purple Heart  The Badge of Military Merit was designed as a purple heart of cloth edged with a narrow lace  Records are incomplete and researchers debate how many soldiers received this award  According to Military Order of the Purple Heart, three soldiers from Connecticut were the first to receive the Badge of Military Merit during the American Revolutionary War  All three were noncommissioned officers and the only recipients who received the award from General Washington  The soldiers were Sergeant William Brown, 5 th Connecticut Regiment of the Connecticut Line on May 3, 1783; Sergeant Elijah Churchill, 2 nd Continental Light Dragoons on May 3, 1783; and Sergeant Daniel Bissell, 2 nd Connecticut Regiment of the Connecticut Line, on June 10, 1783  However, the Badge of Military Merit fell into disuse shortly after its conception  The Badge of Military Merit was not seriously considered again until General Douglas MacArthur (then Army Chief of Staff) revived the award on February 22, 1932, the 200 th anniversary of George Washington's birth  This award, renamed the "Purple Heart," was redesigned to its modern appearance: a purple heart-shaped medal with bronze border and George Washington's coat of arms between two green spray leaves  See Figure 1   General MacArthur also redefined the eligibility requirements to those who received Meritorious Service Citation certificates from World War I or those authorized to wear wound chevrons by Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22, Military Awards   It was at this point that the Purple Heart became focused on soldiers killed and wounded in combat, rather than "any singularly meritorious act " In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt extended the Purple Heart award, which to this point was exclusively an Army award, to Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard members serving in World War II  In 1952, President Truman retroactively awarded Purple Hearts to personnel in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard that qualified after April 5, 1917, thus including World War I veterans of all services  From 1962 until 1998, eligibility for the Purple Hearts was changed on several occasions  President Kennedy authorized Purple Hearts to all servicemembers, and civilians serving with the Armed Forces, who were engaged in armed conflict against an opposing military or hostile foreign force  This expansion was written to permit U S  servicemembers, and the civilians that accompanied them, who were killed or wounded in Vietnam to receive the Purple Heart, as many of those servicemembers were officially considered advisors to the Republic of Vietnam, rather than combatants  Purple Heart eligibility was expanded again by President Reagan to include military personnel and government civilians killed or wounded in international terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or those serving in peacekeeping operations outside of the United States  This expansion was in response to increased terrorist attacks against U S  servicemembers abroad, namely the Marine Corps Barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983  The NDAA for Fiscal Year 1996 expanded eligibility to prisoners of war injured or wounded in captivity prior to 1962, a group of servicemembers previously not covered for Purple Heart eligibility by President Kennedy's executive order  In 1997, President Clinton signed the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1998, which limited future awards of the Purple Heart to military personnel  It has since remained a military-only award  The Department of Defense does not maintain a record of the number of Purple Heart recipients  However, some military historians estimated more than 1 million Purple Hearts have been awarded mostly to soldiers since 1932  Likewise, the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor estimates 1 8 million Purple Hearts have been awarded since the medal was established by the Army in 1932  During the 115 th Congress (2017-2018), H R  7097 was introduced as the "Find our Hearts Act " It would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to require the establishment of a searchable database containing the names and citations of members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart  H R  7097 was referred to the House Armed Services Committee but saw no further action  See Table 1 for current Purple Heart legislation  Currently, the Purple Heart is authorized for any member of the U S  Armed Forces who has been wounded or died from wounds sustained under one of the following conditions: (1) In accordance with E O  11016, subject to the provisions of Sections 1129, 1129a, and 1131 of Title 10, U S C , and P L  104-106 , the Secretary of a Military Department, will, in the name of the President of the United States, award the PH, with suitable ribbons and appurtenances, to any Service member under the jurisdiction of that Department who, after April 5, 1917, has been wounded, killed, or who has died or may hereafter die of wounds received under any of the following circumstances: (a) In action against an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which U S  Armed Forces are or have been engaged  (b) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Military Services are or have been engaged  (c) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party  (d) As a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces  (e) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force  (f) After March 28, 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack for purposes of award of the PH by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned if members from more than one Military Department are wounded in the attack  The Secretary of the Military Department concerned shall notify the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness USD(P&R) prior to awarding the PH for an international terrorist attack that occurs in the United States or its territories  (g) After March 28, 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force  (h) On or after December 7, 1941, pursuant to Section 1129 of Title 10, U S C , a service member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of action by friendly weapon fire while directly engaged in combat, other than as a result of an act of an enemy of the United States, unless (in the case of a wound) the wound is the result of willful misconduct of the member  (i) Before April 25, 1962, pursuant to Section 521 of P L  104-106 which held as a prisoner of war (POW), or while being taken captive in the same manner as a former POW who is wounded on or after that date while held as a POW  A person will be considered to be a former POW if the person is eligible for the POW Medal under Section 1128 of Title 10, U S C  (j) On or after December 7, 1941, to a Service member who is killed or dies while in captivity as a prisoner of war (POW) under circumstances establishing eligibility for the POW medal pursuant to section 1128 of Title 10, U S C , and Volume 2 of DoD Manual 1348 33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards , unless compelling evidence is presented that shows that the member's death was not the result of enemy action  (k) After September 11, 2001, pursuant to section 1129a of Title 10, U S C , to a Service member on active duty who is killed or wounded in an attack by a foreign terrorist organizations in circumstances where the death or wound is the result of an attack targeted on the member due to such member's status as a member of the armed forces  An attack by an individual or entity shall be considered to be a foreign terrorist attack if the individual or entity was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack and the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization  An award is not authorized if the death or wound was the result of the willful misconduct of the Service member  To assist in making a PH determination pursuant to section 1129a of Title 10, U S C , the Military Department Secretary concerned may request an intelligence assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agencies' Defense Combating Terrorism Center (DCTC)  The DCTC assessment of potential foreign terrorist attacks by an individual or entity will assess whether the individual or entity was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack, and if the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization  The assessment shall include supporting citations and rationale  (2) A wound for which the award is made must have been of such severity that it required treatment, not just examination, by a military medical officer  (a) Treatment must be noted in the Servicemember's medical record  (b) Award may be made of wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer provided a medical officer issues a statement in the Service member's medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that the wounds would have required treatment from a medical officer if one had one been available to treat the wounds  (3) After May 17, 1998, pursuant to Section 1131 of Title 10, U S C , the PH may only be awarded to a person who is a Service member at the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise qualifying that person for award of the PH  Before this date, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned was authorized to award the PH to U S  civilian nationals who were serving under competent authority in any capacity with the armed forces of that department  For deceased servicemembers, the Purple Heart may be given to the representatives of the deceased as the individual Service Secretary considers appropriate  Servicemembers can be awarded multiple Purple Hearts for separate incidents  The servicemember receives the Purple Heart medal for the first award  Subsequent awards are indicated with oak leaf clusters or 5/16 inch service stars, depending on the rules of the recipient's service  Purple Hearts may not be awarded to foreign military personnel  Although the decision to award medals and other military decorations traditionally rests with the executive branch, Congress has been expanding its role in this area in recent decades, exercising its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces " Previously, Congress took the lead and adjusted Purple Heart eligibility in both the NDAA for FY1996 and the NDAA for FY1998  See Appendix A   In response to some mass shootings in recent years, Congress passed a provision in the NDAA for FY2015 that expanded the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements  On June 1, 2009, a man who was allegedly angry over the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire on two U S  Army soldiers near a recruiting station in Little Rock, AR, killing one and wounding the other  On November 5, 2009, an Army major opened fire at Ft  Hood, TX, killing 13 and wounding 29, many of them servicemembers  Both men were charged with murder and other crimes  Federal and local law enforcement authorities initially considered these acts to be crimes, and the Defense Department reports the Fort Hood shooting as "workplace violence," not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force, which made them ineligible for the Purple Heart  However, some believed these acts should be viewed as acts of war or domestic terrorism because they involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U S  actions in Iraq and Afghanistan  Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart  The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack "was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack" and "the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization " Still, some are opposed to awarding the Purple Heart for terrorist acts that were initially deemed "workplace violence" by the Department of Defense (DOD) or a criminal act, and not earned on a battlefield  This act arguably sets a precedent for the future and could make Purple Heart eligibility more subjective, allowing public sentiment to determine what events are worthy of a Purple Heart  On April 10, 2015, then-Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, 3 rd Corps and Fort Hood commanding general, presented Purple Hearts to the families of the 10 servicemembers killed and to the 26 servicemembers wounded during the attack  Defense of Freedom Medals were also awarded to DOD civilians killed and wounded during the attack  In a memorandum, Secretary McHugh directed the Army to "expedite certain other benefits for which soldiers receiving the Purple Heart are traditionally eligible " In addition to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting, the two victims of the June 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, received Purple Hearts on July 1, 2015  Army Private William Andrew "Andy" Long was killed and Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded in that attack by Abdulhakim Muhammad, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole  Encouraged by the expanded eligibility provision in the NDAA for FY2015, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress to award Purple Hearts to other military victims of domestic terrorism  Section 583 of the House-passed version of H R  1735 , the NDAA for FY2016, would have awarded the Purple Heart to servicemembers who were victims of the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma bombing  Supporters for awarding the Purple Heart to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing refer to the FY2015 NDAA as precedent  However, critics contend that the bombing was an act of domestic terrorism and does not meet the current eligibility requirements of the assailant being inspired by or motivated by an international terrorist organization  The final version of the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 ) did not include this provision  On July 16, 2015, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot at a Marine Corps recruiting center and Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN  This incident again raised congressional interest regarding the eligibility for the Purple Heart for servicemembers killed and wounded during an attack inspired by or motivated by international terrorist organizations  Four marines were killed and one was injured during the rampage, and the lone sailor later died from his injuries  The FBI investigation later concluded that Abdulazeez was "motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda," but that it was difficult to determine which terrorist group may have inspired him  On December 16, 2015, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Purple Heart would be awarded to five servicemembers killed and one wounded in the July 2015 shootings at two naval centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee  Secretary Mabus stated that "following an extensive investigation, the FBI and NCIS have determined that this attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, the final criteria required for the awarding of the Purple Heart to this Sailor and these Marines " On January 14, 2016, then-Navy Vice Admiral Robin Braun presented the Purple Heart to the family of Logistics Specialist 2 nd Class Randall Smith at the Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga  Brigadier General Terry V  Williams presented the Purple Heart on January 26, 2016, to Sergeant DeMonte R  Cheeley, who survived the attack, at a ceremony in Chattanooga  On April 20, 2016, Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, then-head of Marine Corps Forces Reserve, presented Purple Hearts to the families of Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan, Staff Sergeant David Wyatt, Sergeant Carson Holmquist, and Lance Corporal Squire "Skip" Wells in a ceremony at the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga  U S  Airman 1 st Class Spencer Stone was onboard a train from Amsterdam to Paris with two friends, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, when they subdued a heavily armed gunman who attempted to fire an AK-47 at the passengers  Stone was stabbed in the face and neck by the gunman as the trio restrained him before he could discharge his weapon  The vacationing Americans were hailed as heroes and awarded the French Legion of Honor on August 24, 2015  On September 14, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced that Stone would receive the Purple Heart along with the Airman's Medal, the Air Force's highest noncombat award  At the Pentagon on September 17, 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter presented Stone the Purple Heart and Airman's Medal  During the ceremony, Carter presented the Soldier's Medal to Oregon National Guard Specialist Alek Skarlatos, and civilian Anthony Sadler received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor  On June 12, 2016, a security guard, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida  Army Reserve Captain Antonio Davon Brown was one of the 49 people killed and may be eligible for the Purple Heart depending on the outcome of the FBI investigation  According to the FBI, Mateen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group after his attack in a call to 911  At this time, it is unclear if the Army will make a decision regarding Captain Brown's eligibility for the Purple Heart  On September 28, 2016, H R  6234 was introduced to amend Title 18, U S C , to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces  This legislation would have made selling the medal punishable by fines and up to six months in prison  H R  6234 would have placed the Purple Heart into a new protected category, keeping it away from not just con artists but also memorabilia collectors  The measure was named for Private Corrado Piccoli, a World War II infantryman killed in action in 1944, whose Purple Heart was found for sale at an antique store in 2009  This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations but saw no further action in the 114 th Congress  This legislation was reintroduced in the 115 th Congress on January 13, 2017, as H R  544 , the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act of 2017, and a related bill, S  765 , was passed by the Senate on August 3, 2017  Both bills were referred to committee in the House but saw no further action  On January 15, 2019, S  122 , Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act, was introduced in the 116 th Congress  The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee  The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2019, H R  5515 , included a provision (Section 629) that would extend certain morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Hearts recipients, and their caregivers  This bill became P L  115-232 on August 13, 2018  Section 621 of the enacted bill adopted House Section 629, which extends eligibility of certain MWR and commissary privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Heart recipients, and their caregivers starting in 2020  For additional information see section, "Defense Commissary System," in CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues   For bill summaries of Purple Heart legislation in the 116 th Congress as introduced, see Table 1   The large number of veterans with invisible wounds returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has the Department of Defense (DOD) reevaluating Purple Heart eligibility for traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and mental conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)  DOD considers some TBIs eligible for the Purple Heart, as many of those injuries can be diagnosed using brain scans and other objective medical tests  However, there is continued debate on the inclusion of mental conditions, such as PTSD, as part of the appropriate criteria for the Purple Heart  Congress, as well as various executive agencies and departments, is funding and conducting studies regarding PTSD  The National Alliance on Mental Illness, a national grassroots advocacy group representing families and people affected by mental illness, is advocating that the Purple Heart be awarded for psychological wounds including PTSD to eliminate stigma and encourage servicemembers to seek care  At this time, DOD does not consider servicemembers with PTSD eligible for the Purple Heart  Army Regulation 600-8-22 allows "concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions" but specifically disqualifies post-traumatic stress disorders  Army guidance emphasizes "the degree to which the enemy caused the injury" when determining eligibility and places PTSD in a column of noneligible injuries  The Marine Corps defines PTSD as a "severe combat stress injury" and says that combat stress injuries are "not directly caused by the enemy's intentional use of an outside force or agent," and thus do not qualify  Servicemembers are divided on this issue  Some servicemembers believe that mental injuries such as PTSD should be eligible for the Purple Heart, while others believe that it would dishonor those who have received Purple Hearts for physical injuries  Proponents argue that some veterans are less likely to seek help for their mental-health injuries because of the stigma associated with PTSD, and that stigma could be lessened by recognizing their injuries as real  Opponents, including some veterans from the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Veterans of Foreign Wars, are resistant to accepting PTSD as grounds for eligibility  A representative of The Military Order of the Purple Heart stated, "We believe strongly in and support the criteria that the wound or death should be sustained in combat at the hands of the enemies of the United States " In addition, the national spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joseph E  Davis, said, "Medals aren't awarded for illness or disease, but for 'achievement and valor '" Appendix A  Timeline of Purple Heart Eligibility August 7, 1782: George Washington creates the Badge of Military Merit  Awarded to several Continental soldiers but it quickly falls from use  February 22, 1932: Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur revives the Badge of Military Merit as an Army award, renamed "the Purple Heart," and retroactively awarded to wounded WWI veterans  December 3, 1942: Executive Order 9277—President Franklin Roosevelt expands Purple Heart eligibility to include U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard  Retroactively awards Purple Hearts to December 6, 1941  November 12, 1952: Executive Order 10409—President Truman retroactively awards Purple Hearts to U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard veterans after April 5, 1917  April 25, 1962: Executive Order 11016—President Kennedy extends eligibility to civilians serving with military forces  February 23, 1984: Executive Order 12464—President Reagan awards Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or on peacekeeping missions outside the United States  February 10, 1996: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Section 521, P L  104-106 ) includes "prisoners of war wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) " November 18, 1997: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Section 571, P L  105-85 ) limits future Purple Heart awards to members of the Armed Forces  October 17, 2006: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Section 556, P L  109-364 ) includes prisoners of war captured after December 7, 1941  April 30, 2008: Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007 ( P L  110-207 ) revises the congressional charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to authorize associate membership for the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple Heart medal  December 19, 2014: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Section 571, P L  113-291 ) expands eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization, and awards Purple Heart medals to servicemembers wounded or killed during the 2009 shootings at Ft  Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas  Appendix B  Staffer Instructions for Medal Requests Members of Congress are able to directly request that a Service Secretary consider awarding military decorations to individuals or groups  Upon receiving a request from a Member's office, the Service Secretary concerned will review the proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration)  Based on that review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration and other necessary determinations  The Secretary shall submit a notice to the requesting Member, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee with one of the following results: (1) The award or presentation of the decoration does not warrant approval on the merits  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  (2) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval and a waiver by law of time restrictions prescribed by law is recommended  (3) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits and has been approved as an exception to policy  (4) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits, but a waiver of the time restrictions prescribed in law is not recommended  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  Source: Compiled from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 ( P L  104-106 , §526), February 10, 1996 


Report 2: S  Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2018  Table 4 provides information from the same report about states' contributions to the costs of maintaining and operating voting equipment  As GAO uses the terms in the survey, operation costs "include things such as poll worker labor to set up equipment, postage for mailing absentee or vote-by-mail ballots, paper and printing supplies for paper ballots or voter-verified paper trails, and electricity to operate equipment during elections " Maintenance costs "include things such as labor to conduct maintenance between elections of any equipment hardware and software as well as any required parts " Some states cover or contribute to the costs of training local election officials, and some share election-specific costs, such as printing ballots and transporting voting equipment  Box 3 uses five examples of cost-sharing arrangements for election-specific costs of federal elections to illustrate the range of approaches states have taken to such arrangements  The structures of the state and local systems that conduct federal elections vary both between and within states  Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the election system; relationship between local election officials and the state; and population size and density of the jurisdiction served by the system  This section describes these structural variations  The state and local election systems that conduct federal elections may be led by an individual, such as the state secretary of state or a town or county clerk; a group, such as a state elections commission or a county board of elections; or a combination of individuals or groups, such as a state secretary of state and state board of elections, or a city clerk and city registrar of voters  Election system leadership may be chosen by voters or appointed by an authority such as the governor or state legislature  The selection method—and the leaders themselves—may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan  Federal law requires states to designate a chief election official to carry out certain tasks  Table 5 lists the titles of chief state election officials, as reported to CRS by the EAC, and the methods of selecting them, as listed by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) and the National Association of State Legislatures (NCSL)  The leadership types and selection methods of local election systems may vary within a state  Box 4 uses examples from Florida and Wisconsin to illustrate such variations  It describes the different causes of variation in the two states and a recent change in Florida to a more uniform selection process  The leadership structures of both state and local systems can also change over time  Box 5 uses the two states from Box 4 to illustrate the types of changes states might make, how they might make them, and how frequently they might make them  It describes one change that was approved by voters as a ballot measure and a number of others that were enacted legislatively  Another way in which the structures of election systems can vary is in the relationship between local election officials and the state  Some local election officials operate largely independently, whereas others rely on state officials or resources for some, most, or all basic functions  For example, as noted in " Funding ," states may provide some or all of the training for local election officials  As described in more detail in " Jurisdiction Size and Density ," local election officials who serve smaller or more rural jurisdictions may also depend on their states to provide specialized expertise, such as legal or technical know-how  States also have varying types and degrees of influence over local election officials  Choices about other structural features, such as the method used to select the leadership of local election systems, can shape this aspect of the state-local relationship  For example, in some states, state officials appoint and can remove local election officials  State officials in other states may have other options for influencing local officials  For example, state officials may have the power to initiate legal action against local officials, to provide or withhold funding for local election administration, or to certify and decertify voting systems  However, they tend to have less control over how local officials perform their election administration duties than state officials with appointment and removal authority  As described in more detail in " Compliance with Federal Requirements ," this dynamic may be especially pronounced for local officials who are popularly elected  Such officials are accountable primarily to voters rather than to the state  Other structural variations between election systems derive from differences in the population size and density of the jurisdictions they serve  Some election jurisdictions reported serving fewer than 100 eligible registered voters in the 2016 election, for example, whereas Los Angeles County reported serving 6 8 million  The eligible registered voters in that county alone reportedly outnumbered the eligible registrants in each of 40 other states  Election jurisdictions also differ in population density  For example, Los Angeles County is an urban center, and many small jurisdictions are rural  Jurisdictions with different population sizes and densities have different election administration advantages and face different administrative challenges  For example, voter registration list maintenance is typically more straightforward in small jurisdictions because their lists are shorter and election officials are more likely to know registrants personally  Meanwhile, large jurisdictions tend to have larger tax bases and more resources  Those differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in the internal structures of the election systems that serve them  One example of such a structural difference is the size and specialization of the system's staff  Larger jurisdictions, which typically have more personnel, may have much of the specialized expertise they need in-house  Smaller jurisdictions, which may have only one part-time employee dedicated to election administration, are more likely to rely on outside expertise  For example, according to law professors Steven F  Huefner, Daniel P  Tokaji, and Edward B  Foley, smaller jurisdictions in Illinois have looked to state attorneys for election law expertise and to voting equipment vendors for technical support  Another type of difference related to jurisdiction size and density is variation in the allocation of system resources  A study prepared for the U S  Election Assistance Commission in 2013 found that election officials in rural jurisdictions were more likely than their urban counterparts to use paid print advertising for voter outreach  Election officials in urban jurisdictions were more likely to use websites and social media  Small jurisdictions may also allocate a larger share of their resources to meeting state and federal requirements than larger jurisdictions because there are often fixed start-up costs to required changes, and smaller jurisdictions may be less equipped to capitalize on economies of scale  For example, political scientists Heather M  Creek and Kimberly A  Karnes report, "There is a minimum cost to the acquisition and maintenance of voting technology that applies whether the district is purchasing 5 or 500 machines " The duties and structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration laws  Perhaps as a result, Congress has specified how states and localities should distribute certain election administration duties and structure certain elements of their election systems  Changes to the duties and structures of state and local election systems have sometimes also been side effects of other federal activity on election administration  This section provides examples of ways in which the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration law  These examples include federal efforts to affect the administration of elections through (1) requirements, (2) funding, and (3) information sharing  Congress can use requirements to regulate how states and localities administer certain aspects of federal elections  How well such requirements serve their intended purposes depends in part on how closely states and localities comply with them  How closely states and localities comply with federal requirements may, in turn, be affected by the duties and structures of the state and local election systems that implement them  For example, UOCAVA assigns responsibility for complying with some of its requirements to the states (52 U S C  §20302), but the tasks required for compliance are often handled by local officials  One scholar, law professor Justin Weinstein-Tull, indicates that this means that the officials who are held liable for compliance with UOCAVA requirements may differ from the officials who take or fail to take the actions needed to comply  Box 6 provides an illustration of this phenomenon as reported by state officials in Alabama  The federal government can provide funding for state and local election administration, which may be conditional on the adoption of certain election administration policies or practices  How well such funding serves its intended purposes may depend in part on how timely it is and how well-tailored it is to its objectives  Duties and structures of state and local election systems may affect how quickly federal funding is claimed and used and how well the uses to which it is put serve federal objectives  For example, HAVA has authorized payments to states to meet its requirements (52 U S C  §21007)  It has directed those payments to be disbursed to states (52 U S C  §21001(a)) and charged chief state election officials with overseeing decisions about how to spend them (52 U S C  §21005(a))  State election officials run federal elections in some states, but those states are the exception  As noted in " Implementation " and " Funding ," most states assign election administration implementation and funding duties to local officials  That means that the officials who receive HAVA funding and are charged with overseeing decisions about how to use it often differ from the officials who conduct and pay for the activities and resources it is intended to fund  That has had at least two reported consequences  First, in some cases, it has reportedly delayed access to or use of some HAVA funds  Directing HAVA funding to states introduces opportunities for state-level delays, such as decisions by state officials to wait to claim the funds or requirements in state law to obtain approval to do so  Second, some local officials have stated the view that their states' shares of HAVA funding were not put to what they considered the areas of greatest need  Box 7 provides examples of such consequences as described by state and local officials in Nevada, Minnesota, and Virginia  Congress can require or facilitate information sharing with states and localities by federal agencies  As with funding, the effectiveness of federal information sharing may depend in part on how timely it is  How quickly federal agencies share information with the appropriate state and local officials may be affected by the distribution of election administration duties at the state and federal levels  Box 8 provides an example of such an effect reported by NASS  Past federal action has resulted in both intentional and unintentional changes to state and local election systems  Some federal laws include provisions that are specifically designed to establish certain responsibilities for election administration at the state level  For example, the NVRA requires states to designate chief state election officials to coordinate state responsibilities under the act (52 U S C  §20509), and HAVA charges chief state election officials with implementing a statewide voter registration system (52 U S C  §21083(a)(1)(A))  Federal regulation has reportedly also had the side effect of shifting the distribution of other election administration duties  For example, the agency-based registration requirements in the NVRA divide voter registration responsibilities between traditional election offices and offices that had not historically been involved in election administration, such as motor vehicle and public assistance agencies (52 U S C  §20504; 52 U S C  §20506)  According to Hale, Montjoy, and Brown, "the need to pass implementing legislation and the complexity of legal and technical requirements" in federal laws such as HAVA and the NVRA has also "led many states to grant new or additional rule-making power" to their chief state election officials  Congress has considered legislation—some of which has been enacted and some of which has not—that would change election rules or the state and local systems that implement them  The interactions between the duties and structures of state and local election systems and past federal actions suggest some considerations that may be relevant to future congressional consideration of proposals that would affect the administration of federal elections  The following questions may be of interest to Members as they consider making changes to election administration or maintaining current rules and structures: How would any proposed change interact with the duties and structures of state and local election systems? Would the duties and structures of state and local election systems make a proposed change difficult to implement? Would the design of a proposed change need to be adjusted to accommodate variations between or within states? Which of the policy tools available to Congress is best suited to achieving the purpose of a proposed change? For example, would it be more effective to advance a proposed change with a federal requirement, or incentivize it via federal funding? How might the nature of the state and local system inform a proposed change? For example, if it is a federal requirement, who is charged with compliance; who is responsible for the tasks required for compliance; and what is the relationship between the two? If it is federal funding, to whom should it be distributed, and who should be involved in making decisions about how to use it? Would a proposed change have the effect, either intentionally or unintentionally, of altering the duties or structures of state or local election systems? If so, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such changes? Are there complications with a proposed change that are not specifically related to election administration? For example, could there be federalism-related issues with intervening in the relationships between states and their political subdivisions? 

ground_truth: The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized. Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system. States and localities share responsibility for most election administration duties. Exactly how responsibilities are assigned at the state and local levels varies both between and within states, but there are some general patterns in the distribution of duties. States typically have primary responsibility for making decisions about the rules of elections (policymaking). Localities typically have primary responsibility for conducting elections in accordance with those rules (implementation). Localities, with varying contributions from states, typically also have primary responsibility for paying for the activities and resources required to conduct elections (funding). The structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections also vary between and within states. Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the system, the relationship between local election officials and the state, and the population size and density of the jurisdiction the system serves. The leadership of a state or local election system may be elected or appointed, and both the leaders and the methods used to select them may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan. State officials may have more or less direct influence over local election officials, and the extent of their influence may be affected by other structural features of the state's election systems, such as the methods used to select local officials. Finally, larger election jurisdictions have different administrative advantages and challenges than smaller ones, and more urban jurisdictions have different advantages and challenges than more rural ones. These differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in structural features of the election systems that serve them, such as how the systems allocate resources and where they find specialized expertise. Understanding the duties and structures of state and local election systems may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons. First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes. The effectiveness of federal action depends in part on how it is implemented. How it is implemented can depend, in turn, on how the state and local election systems that implement it work. Second, Congress can make or incentivize changes to the way state and local election systems work. Congress has a number of policy tools it can use to affect the administration of federal elections. The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the state and local election systems that administer federal elections.