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



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



Report 2: Concerned that the federal government was more focused on program activities and processes than the results to be achieved, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)  GPRA sought to focus federal agencies on performance by requiring agencies to develop long-term and annual goals, and measure and report on progress towards those goals annually  Based on our analyses of the act’s implementation, we concluded in March 2004 that GPRA’s requirements had laid a solid foundation for results-oriented management  At that time, we found that performance planning and measurement had slowly yet increasingly become a part of agencies’ cultures  For example, managers reported having significantly more performance measures in 2003 than in 1997, when GPRA took effect government-wide  However, the benefit of collecting performance information is fully realized only when that information is actually used by managers to make decisions aimed at improving results  Although our 2003 survey found greater reported availability of performance information than in 1997, it also showed managers’ use of that information for various management activities generally had remained unchanged  Based on those results, and in response to a request from Congress, in September 2005, we developed a framework intended to help agencies better incorporate performance information into their decision making  As shown in figure 1, we identified five leading practices that can promote the use of performance information for policy and program decisions; and four ways agency managers can use performance information to make program decisions aimed at improving results  Our September 2005 report also highlighted examples of how agencies had used performance information to improve results  For example, we described how the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used performance information to identify, develop, and share effective strategies that increased national safety belt usage—which can decrease injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents— from 11 percent in 1985 to 80 percent in 2004  Subsequently, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) was enacted, which significantly expanded and enhanced the statutory framework for federal performance management  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that agencies were not consistently using performance information to improve their management and results  The report cited the results of our 2007 survey of federal managers  That survey continued to show little change in managers’ use of performance information  The report further stated that provisions in GPRAMA are intended to address those findings and increase the use of performance information to improve performance and results  For example, GPRAMA requires certain agencies to designate a subset of their respective goals as their highest priorities—known as agency priority goals—and to measure and assess progress toward those goals at least quarterly through data-driven reviews  Our recent work and surveys suggest that data-driven reviews are having their intended effect  For example, in July 2015, we found that agencies reported that their reviews had positive effects on progress toward agency goals and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations, among other things  In addition, for those managers who were familiar with their agencies’ data-driven reviews, our 2013 and 2017 surveys showed that the more managers viewed their programs as being subject to a review, the more likely they were to report their agencies’ reviews were driving results and conducted in line with our leading practices  Recognizing the important role these reviews were playing in improving data-driven decision making, our management agenda for the presidential and congressional transition in 2017 included a key action to expand the use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals to other agency goals  More broadly, our recent surveys of federal managers have continued to show that reported government-wide uses of performance information generally have not changed or in some cases have declined  As we found in September 2017, and as illustrated in figure 2, the 2017 update to our index suggests that government-wide use of performance information did not improve between 2013 and 2017  In addition, it is statistically significantly lower relative to our 2007 survey, when we created the index  Moreover, in looking at the government-wide results on the 11 individual survey questions that comprise the index, we found few statistically significant changes in 2017 when compared to (1) our 2013 survey or (2) the year each question was first introduced  For example, in comparing 2013 and 2017 results, two questions had results that were statistically significantly different: The percentage of managers who reported that employees who report to them pay attention to their agency’s use of performance information was statistically significantly higher (from 40 to 46 percent)  The percentage of managers who reported using performance information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes was statistically significantly lower (from 54 to 47 percent)  As we stated in our September 2017 report, the decline on the latter question was of particular concern as agencies were developing plans to improve their efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, as called for by an April 2017 memorandum from OMB  In early 2017, the administration announced several efforts intended to improve government performance  OMB issued several memorandums detailing the administration’s plans to improve government performance by reorganizing the government, reducing the federal workforce, and reducing federal agency burden  As part of the reorganization efforts, OMB and agencies were to develop government-wide and agency reform plans, respectively, designed to leverage various GPRAMA provisions  For instance, the April 2017 memorandum mentioned above stated that OMB intends to monitor implementation of the reforms using, among other things, agency priority goals  While many agency-specific organizational improvements were included in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget, released in February 2018, OMB published additional government-wide and agency reform proposals in June 2018  The President’s Management Agenda (PMA), released in March 2018, outlines a long-term vision for modernizing federal operations and improving the ability of agencies to achieve outcomes  To address the issues outlined in the PMA, the administration established a number of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals  CAP goals, required by GPRAMA, are to address issues in a limited number of policy areas requiring action across multiple agencies, or management improvements that are needed across the government  The PMA highlights several root causes for the challenges the federal government faces  Among them is that agencies do not consistently apply data-driven decision-making practices  The PMA states that smarter use of data and evidence is needed to orient decisions and accountability around service and results  To that end, in March 2018, the administration established the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP goal to improve the use of data in decision making to increase the federal government’s effectiveness  Over the past 25 years, various organizations, roles, and responsibilities have been created by executive action or in law to provide leadership in federal performance management  At individual agencies and across the federal government, these organizations and officials have key responsibilities for improving performance, as outlined below  OMB: At least every four years, OMB is to coordinate with other agencies to develop CAP goals—such as the one described earlier on leveraging data as an asset—to improve the performance and management of the federal government  OMB is also required to coordinate with agencies to develop annual federal government performance plans to define, among other things, the level of performance to be achieved toward the CAP goals  Following GPRAMA’s enactment, OMB issued guidance for initial implementation, as required by the act, and continues to provide updated guidance in its annual Circular No  A-11, additional memorandums, and other means  Chief Operating Officer (COO): The deputy agency head, or equivalent, is designated as the COO, with overall responsibility for improving agency management and performance through, among other things, the use of performance information  President’s Management Council (PMC): The PMC is comprised of OMB’s Deputy Director for Management and the COOs of major departments and agencies, among other individuals  Its responsibilities include improving overall executive branch management and implementing the PMA  Performance Improvement Officer (PIO): Agency heads designate a senior executive as the PIO, who reports directly to the COO  The PIO is responsible for assisting the head of the agency and COO to ensure that agency goals are achieved through, among other things, the use of performance information  Performance Improvement Council (PIC): The PIC is charged with assisting OMB to improve the performance of the federal government  It is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB and includes PIOs from each of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, as well as other PIOs and individuals designated by the chair  Among its responsibilities, the PIC is to work to resolve government-wide or cross-cutting performance issues, and facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements  Previously, the General Service Administration’s (GSA) Office of Executive Councils provided analytical, management, and administrative support for the PIC, the PMC, and other government-wide management councils  In January 2018, the office was abolished and its functions, staff, and authorities, along with those of the Unified Shared Services Management Office, were reallocated to GSA’s newly created Shared Solutions and Performance Improvement Office  As at the government-wide level—where, as described earlier, the use of performance information did not change from 2013 to 2017—managers’ reported use of performance information at most agencies also did not improve since 2013 (illustrated in figure 3)  At the agency level, 3 of the 24 agencies had statistically significant changes in their index scores—1 increase (National Science Foundation) and 2 decreases (Social Security Administration and the Office of Personnel Management)  Also, in 2017, 6 agencies had results that were statistically significantly different—4 higher and 2 lower—than the government-wide average (see sidebar)  Throughout the report, we highlight two different types of statistically significant results—changes from our last survey in 2013 and differences from the 2017 government-wide average  The former indicates when an agency’s reported use of performance information or leading practices has measurably improved or declined  The latter indicates when it is statistically significantly higher or lower than the rest of government  These results suggest agencies have taken actions that led to improvements in their use of performance information  For example, when a result is a statistically significant increase since 2013, as with the National Science Foundation index score in 2017, this suggests that the agency has adopted practices that led to a measurable increase in the use of performance information by managers  When a result is statistically significantly higher than the government-wide average, like GSA’s 2017 index score, this suggests that the agency’s use of performance information is among the highest results when compared to the rest of government  These agencies could also have insights into practices that led to relatively high levels of performance information use  Finally, when a result is a statistically significant decrease since 2013, as with the Social Security Administration’s index score in 2017, or statistically significantly lower than the government-wide average, like the Department of Homeland Security’s 2017 index score, this suggests the agencies face challenges that are hampering their ability to use performance information  Appendix III provides each agency’s index scores from 2007, 2013, and 2017 to show changes between survey years  When we disaggregated the index and analyzed responses from the 11 questions that comprise the index—which could help pinpoint particular actions that improved the use of performance information—we similarly found relatively few changes in agencies’ recent results  Specifically, we identified 16 instances where agency responses on individual questions were statistically significantly different from 2013 to 2017—10 increases and 6 decreases  This represents about 6 percent of the total possible responses to the 11 survey questions from each of the agencies  In addition, we found 12 instances where an agency’s result on a question was statistically significantly higher (11) or lower (1) than the government-wide average in 2017  For example, the percentage of Social Security Administration (SSA) managers reporting that their peers use performance information to share effective approaches was statistically significantly higher than the government-wide average  Although SSA’s index score had a statistically significant decline in 2017 compared to 2013, the agency’s index score remains relatively high, as it has in prior years  The scope of our work has not allowed us to determine definitively what factors caused the decline in SSA’s index score and whether the decline is likely to continue, although its result on this particular question may indicate a continued strength  Each agency’s results on the 11 questions that comprise the index are presented in appendix I  The agencies’ respective statistically significant results are identified in figure 4  While some agencies had statistically significant improvements on individual questions, and could point to actions that led to improvements in their use of performance information, these improvements should be considered in relation to the range of agency results and the government- wide average  In figure 4, there are five agencies with statistically significant increases on responses to individual questions, where those results were not statistically significantly higher than the government-wide average (see arrows without plus signs for the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Justice; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation)  While these represent improvements, they should be considered in relation to the range of agency results and the government-wide average (provided in detail in the agency summaries in appendix I)  For example, in 2017, the percentage of managers at the Department of Agriculture who reported that upper management use performance information to inform decisions about program changes was statistically significantly higher than in 2013  However, the department’s 2017 result (37 percent) was relatively lower when compared to the maximum agency result on that question (60 percent)  Appendix I presents the results on the index and the 11 questions that comprise it for each of the 24 agencies  When we compared government-wide and agency-level results on selected survey questions that reflect practices that promote the use of performance information, we found that results between 2013 and 2017 generally remained unchanged  As described earlier, there are 10 survey questions that both reflect the five leading practices identified in our past work and had statistically significant associations with higher index scores  As shown in figure 5, government-wide results on 2 of the 10 questions were statistically significantly different, both increases, from 2013 to 2017  Despite these two increases, the overall results suggest these practices are not widely followed government-wide  On most of the 10 questions, only about half (or fewer) of the managers reported their agencies were following them to a “great” or “very great” extent  When we analyzed agency-level responses to these 10 questions, we also found relatively few changes in recent results  Specifically, our analysis found 20 instances—16 increases and 4 decreases—where agencies’ responses on individual questions were statistically significantly different from 2013 to 2017  This represents about 8 percent of the total possible responses to the 10 survey questions from each of the agencies  In addition, we found 10 instances where an agency’s result on a question was statistically significantly higher (8) or lower (2) than the government-wide average in 2017  Each agency’s results on these 10 questions are presented in appendix I, and the statistically significant results are identified in figure 6  Those agencies with results on individual questions that are either statistically significantly higher than 2013, higher than the 2017 government-wide average, or both may have taken actions in line with our leading practices for promoting the use of performance information  For example, the National Science Foundation had both types of statistically significant results on a question about having sufficient information on the validity of their performance data  Here, the agency’s result increased 27 percentage points from 2013 to 2017  While the scope of our review does not allow us to definitively determine the reasons for the National Science Foundation’s higher results, they suggest the agency has taken recent actions that greatly improved the availability and accessibility of information on the validity of performance data  In both 2013 and 2017, our analyses found this particular question to be the strongest predictor of higher performance information use when we tested for associations between the questions that reflect leading practices and our index  Our 2017 survey results show that managers who reported their programs were subject to data-driven reviews also were more likely to report using performance information in decision making to a greater extent (see figure 7)  For the 35 percent of managers who reported being familiar with data-driven reviews, those who reported their programs had been subject to data-driven reviews to a “great” or “very great” extent had index scores that were statistically significantly higher than those whose programs were subject to these reviews to a lesser extent  Similarly, we found that being subject to data-driven reviews to a greater extent was also related to greater reporting of agencies following practices that can promote the use of performance information  As figure 8 shows, managers who reported their programs were subject to these reviews to a “great” or “very great” extent more frequently reported that their agencies followed the five leading practices that promote the use of performance information, as measured by the 10 related survey questions associated with higher scores on the index  For example, of the estimated 48 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to data-driven reviews to a “great” or “very great” extent, 72 percent also reported that managers at their level (peers) effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a “great” or “very great” extent  Conversely, for the 24 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to data-driven reviews to a “small” or “no” extent, only 30 percent reported that managers at their level do this to a “great” or “very great” extent  Our past work has found that the Executive Branch has taken steps to improve the use of performance information in decision making by senior leaders at federal agencies  However, our survey results indicate those steps have not led to similar improvements in use by managers at lower levels  Through its guidance to implement GPRAMA, OMB developed a framework for performance management in the federal government that involves agencies setting goals and priorities, measuring performance, and regularly reviewing and reporting on progress  This includes expectations for how agency senior leaders should use performance information to assess progress towards achieving agency priority goals through data-driven reviews, and strategic objectives through strategic reviews  For example, GPRAMA requires, and OMB’s guidance reinforces, that data-driven reviews should involve the agency head, Chief Operating Officer, Performance Improvement Officer, and other senior officials responsible for leading efforts to achieve each goal  OMB’s guidance also identifies ways in which agency leaders should use the results of those reviews to inform various decision-making activities, such as revising strategies, formulating budgets, and managing risks  Our past work also found that agencies made progress in implementing these reviews and using performance information  In July 2015, we found that agencies generally were conducting their data-driven reviews in line with GPRAMA requirements and our related leading practices, including that agency leaders used the reviews to drive performance improvement  In addition, in September 2017, we reported on selected agencies’ experiences in implementing strategic reviews and found that the reviews helped direct leadership attention to progress on strategic objectives  Despite those findings, our survey results continue to show that the reported use of performance information by federal managers has generally not improved, and actually declined at some agencies  This could be because of the two different groups of agency officials covered by our work  GPRAMA’s requirements, and the federal performance management framework established by OMB’s guidance, apply at the agency-wide level and generally involve senior leaders  Our past work reviewing implementation of the act therefore focused on improvements in the use of performance information by senior leaders at the agency- wide level  In contrast, our surveys covered random samples of mid- and upper-level managers within those agencies, including at lower organizational levels such as component agencies  Their responses indicate that the use of performance information more broadly within agencies—at lower organizational levels—generally has not improved over time  The exception to this was managers whose programs were subject to the data-driven reviews required by GPRAMA  As described above, those managers were more likely to report greater use of performance information in their agencies  This reinforces the value of the processes and practices put in place by GPRAMA  Our survey results suggest that limited actions have been taken to diffuse processes and practices related to the use of performance information to lower levels within federal agencies, where mid-level and senior managers make decisions about managing programs and operations  Although OMB staff agreed that diffusing processes and practices to lower levels could lead to improved use of performance information, they told us they have not directed agencies to do so for a few reasons  First, OMB staff expressed concerns about potentially imposing a “one-size-fits- all” approach on agencies  They stated that agencies are best positioned to improve their managers’ use of performance information, given their individual and unique missions and cultures, and the environments in which they operate  We agree that it makes sense for agencies to be able to tailor their approaches for those reasons  OMB’s existing guidance provides an overarching framework that recognizes the need for flexibility and for agencies to tailor their approaches  Moreover, given the long- standing and cross-cutting nature of this challenge, a government-wide approach also would provide a consistent focus on improving the use of performance information more extensively within agencies  OMB staff also told us that they believed it would go beyond their mandate to direct agencies to extend GPRAMA requirements to lower levels  GPRAMA requires OMB to provide guidance to agencies to implement its requirements, which only apply at the agency-wide level  As noted earlier, however, GPRAMA also requires OMB to develop cross- agency priority (CAP) goals to improve the performance and management of the federal government  The President’s Management Agenda established a CAP goal to leverage data as a strategic asset, in part, to improve the use of data for decision making and accountability throughout the federal government  This new CAP goal presents an opportunity for OMB and agencies to identify actions to expand the use of performance information in decision making throughout agencies  As of June 2018, the action plan for implementing the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP goal is limited  According to the President’s Management Agenda and initial CAP goal action plan, the goal primarily focuses on developing and implementing a long-term, enterprise-wide federal data strategy to better govern and leverage the federal government’s data  It is through this strategy that, among other things, the administration intends to improve the use of data for decision making and accountability  However, the strategy is under development and not expected to be released until January 2019, with a related plan to implement it expected in April 2019  The existing action plan, released in March 2018 and updated in June 2018, does not yet include specific steps needed to improve the use of data—including performance information—more extensively within agencies  According to the action plan for the goal, potential actions currently under consideration focus on establishing agency “learning agendas” that prioritize the development and use of data and other evidence for decision-making; building agency capacity to use data and other evidence; and improving the timeliness of performance information and other data, and making that information available to decision makers and the public  Although developing learning agendas and building capacity could help improve the use of performance information in agencies, improving availability of data may be less effective  For example, as our past survey results have shown, increasing the availability of performance information has not resulted in corresponding increases in its use in decision making  We recognize that the CAP goal was created in March 2018  Nonetheless, it is important that OMB and its fellow goal leaders develop the action plan and related federal data strategy consistent with all key requirements to better ensure successful implementation  The action plan does not yet include complete information related to the following GPRAMA requirements: performance goals that define the level of performance to be achieved each year for the CAP goal; the various federal agencies, organizations, programs, and other activities that contribute to the CAP goal; performance measures to assess overall progress towards the goal as well as the progress of each agency, program, and other activity contributing to the goal; and clearly defined quarterly targets  Consistent with GPRAMA, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government identifies information that agencies are required to include in their plans to help ensure they achieve their goals  The standards state that objectives—such as improving the use of data in decision making— should be clearly defined to enable the identification of risks  Objectives are to be defined in specific terms so they can be understood at all levels of the entity—in this case, government-wide as well as within individual agencies  This involves defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  Ensuring that future updates to the new CAP goal’s action plan includes all required elements is particularly important, as our previous work has found that some past CAP goal teams did not meet all planning and reporting requirements  For example, in May 2016 we found that most of the CAP goal teams we reviewed had not established targets for all performance measures they were tracking  This limited the transparency of their efforts and the ability to track progress toward established goals  We recommended that OMB, working with the Performance Information Council (PIC), report on actions that CAP goal teams are taking, or plan to take, to develop such targets and performance measures  OMB staff generally agreed and, in July 2017, told us they were working, where possible, to assist the development of measures for CAP goals  However, the recommendation has not been addressed and OMB staff said the next opportunity to address it would be when the administration established new CAP goals (which took place in March 2018)  Following the initial release of the new CAP goals, CAP goal teams are to more fully develop the related action plans through quarterly updates  Given the ongoing importance of meeting these planning and reporting requirements, we will continue to monitor the status of actions to address this recommendation as implementation of the new CAP goals proceeds  While the PIC, which is chaired by OMB, has contributed to efforts to enhance the use of performance information, our survey results identify additional opportunities to further those efforts  The PIC’s past efforts have included hosting various working groups and learning events for agency officials to provide performance management guidance, and developing resources with relevant practices  For example, the PIC created a working group focused on agency performance reviews, which was used to share recommendations for how agencies can implement reviews, along with a guide with practices for effectively implementing strategic reviews  In January 2018, staff supporting the PIC joined with staff from another GSA office to create a new group called Fed2Fed Solutions  This group consults with agencies and provides tailored support, such as data analysis and performance management training for agency officials, to help them address specific challenges related to organizational transformation, data-driven decision making, and other management improvement efforts  Our survey results identify useful information related to potential promising practices and challenges that OMB and the PIC could use to inform efforts to enhance the use of performance information more extensively within agencies (e g , at lower levels)  As was previously described, the PIC has responsibilities to (1) facilitate the exchange among agencies of proven practices, and (2) work to resolve government- wide or cross-cutting performance issues, such as challenges  Our analyses of 2017 survey results identified instances where agencies may have found effective ways to enhance the use of performance information by agency leaders and managers in decision making, as well as instances where agencies (and their managers) face challenges in doing so  Specifically, based on analyses of our survey responses, we identified 14 agencies that may have insights into specific practices that led to recent improvements in managers’ use of performance information, or ways that they maintain relatively high levels of use by their managers when compared to the rest of the government  Figure 9 summarizes the agencies identified earlier in the report that had statistically significant increases, or results higher than the government-wide average, on our index or individual survey questions  As the figure shows, several agencies had statistically significant results across all three sets of analyses and therefore may have greater insights to offer: the General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation  In addition, our analyses identified nine agencies where results suggest managers face challenges that have hampered their ability to use performance information  Figure 10 summarizes the agencies identified earlier in the report that had statistically significant decreases, or results lower than the government-wide average, on our index or individual survey questions  As the figure shows, the Office of Personnel Management had statistically significant decreases in all three sets of analyses  Four agencies—the Departments of the Treasury and Veterans Affairs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security Administration—were common to both of the figures above  That is, they had results that indicate they may have insights on some aspects of using performance information and face challenges in other aspects  As was mentioned earlier, to provide proper context, these results should be considered in relation to the range of agency results and the government- wide average (provided in detail in the agency summaries in appendix I)  Given the prioritization of other activities, such as the recent creation of the Fed2Fed Solutions program, the PIC has not yet undertaken a systematic approach that could improve the use of performance information by managers at lower levels within agencies  Such an approach would involve identifying and sharing practices that have led to improved use, as well as identifying common or cross-cutting challenges that have hampered such use  The results of our analyses could help the PIC do so, and in a more targeted manner  By identifying and sharing proven practices, the PIC could further ensure that agency leaders and managers are aware of effective or proven ways they can use performance information to inform their decisions across the spectrum of activities they manage within their agencies  Those proven practices also may help agency leaders and managers resolve any identified challenges  Furthermore, in September 2017, we found that, for the estimated 35 percent of managers who reported familiarity with data-driven reviews, the more they viewed their programs being subject to a review, the more likely they were to report the reviews were driving results and were conducted in line with our leading practices for using performance information  Despite the reported benefits of and results achieved through data-driven reviews, they were not necessarily widespread  As noted above, GPRAMA requires agencies to conduct such reviews for agency priority goals, which represent a small subset of goals, and they are required at the departmental level  These reasons may explain why most managers reported they were not familiar with the reviews  As a result, we recommended that OMB should work with the PIC to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews  OMB staff agreed with our recommendation but have yet to address it  In June 2018, OMB updated its annual guidance to agencies to explicitly encourage them to expand data-driven reviews to include other goals, priorities, and management areas as applicable to improve organizational performance  However, as of June 2018, OMB and the PIC have yet to take any steps to identify and share practices for expanding the use of these reviews in line with our recommendation  Given the additional analyses we conducted for this report—which show that being subject to data-driven reviews is related to greater reported use of performance information and leading practices that promote such use—we continue to believe these further actions would help agencies implement these reviews more extensively  We reiterate the importance of the September 2017 recommendation and will continue to monitor OMB’s progress to address it  For more than 20 years, our work has highlighted weaknesses in the use of performance information in federal decision making  While the Executive Branch has taken some actions in recent years, such as establishing a framework for performance management across the federal government, our survey results underscore that more needs to be done to improve the use of performance information more extensively within agencies and government-wide  The President’s Management Agenda and its related CAP goal to leverage data as a strategic asset present an opportunity to do so, as it aims to improve data-driven decision making  As OMB and its fellow goal leaders more fully develop the action plan for achieving this goal, providing additional details for its plans to improve data-driven decision making would help provide assurance that it can be achieved  As part of those initiatives, our survey results could provide a useful guide for targeting efforts  Officials at each agency could use these results to identify areas for additional analysis and potential actions that could help improve the use of performance information across the agency and at lower levels  Similarly, OMB and the PIC could use the results to identify broader issues in need of government-wide attention  It will also be important, however, for OMB and the PIC to go beyond this analysis and work with agencies to identify and share proven practices for increasing the use of performance information at lower levels within agencies, as well as challenges that may be hampering agencies’ ability to do so  We are making the following two recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should direct the leaders of the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP Goal to ensure future updates to the action plan, and the resulting federal data strategy, provide additional details on improving the use of data, including performance information, more extensively within federal agencies  The action plan should identify performance goals; contributing agencies, organizations, programs, and other activities; those responsible for leading implementation within these contributors; planned actions; time frames; and means to assess progress  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB, in coordination with the PIC, should prioritize efforts to identify and share among agencies proven practices for increasing, and challenges that hamper, the use of performance information in decision making more extensively within agencies  At a minimum, this effort should involve the agencies that our survey suggests may offer such insights  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  We also provided a draft of the report to the heads of each of the 24 federal agencies covered by our survey  OMB had no comments, and informed us that it would assess our recommendations and consider how best to respond  We are sending copies of this report to congressional requesters, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the heads of each of the 24 agencies, and other interested parties  This report will also 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) 512-6806 or mcneilt@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of our report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV  (USDA) (Goverment-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Commerce) (Goverment-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Goverment-wide) (DOD) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Education) (Goverment-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (Energy) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (HHS) (Goverment-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DHS) (Goverment-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (HUD) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Interior) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DOJ) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DOL) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (State) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DOT) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Treasury) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (VA) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Goverment-wide) (USAID) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (EPA) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (GSA) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (NASA) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (NSF) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (NRC) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (OPM) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (SBA) (Government-wide) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (SSA) 10  The individual I report to 11  Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” This report responds to a request that we analyze agency-level results from our 2017 survey of federal managers at the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended, to determine the extent agencies are using performance information  This report assesses the extent to which: 1  the reported use of performance information and related leading practices at 24 agencies has changed compared to our prior survey in 2013; 2  being subject to data-driven reviews related to managers’ reported use of performance information and leading practices; and 3  the Executive Branch has taken actions to enhance agencies’ use of performance information in various decision-making activities  From November 2016 through March 2017, we administered our online survey to a stratified random sample of 4,395 individuals from a population of 153,779 mid- and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors at the 24 CFO Act agencies  The management levels covered general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15, and career Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent  We obtained the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration database as of September 30, 2015—the most recent fiscal year data available at the time  The sample was stratified by agency and whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the SES  To help determine the reliability and accuracy of the database elements used to draw our sample of federal managers for the 2017 survey, we checked the data for reasonableness and the presence of any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness and reviewed our past analyses of the reliability of this database  We concluded in our September 2017 report that the data used to draw our sample were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of the survey  For the 2017 survey, we received usable questionnaires from about 67 percent of the eligible sample  The weighted response rate at each agency generally ranged from 57 percent to 82 percent, except the Department of Justice, which had a weighted response rate of 36 percent  The overall survey results are generalizable to the population of managers government-wide and at each individual agency  To assess the potential bias from agencies with lower response rates, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis using information from the survey and sampling frame as available  The analysis confirmed discrepancies in the tendency to respond to the survey related to agency and SES status  The analysis also revealed some differences in response propensity by age and GS level; however, the direction and magnitude of the differences on these factors were not consistent across agencies or strata  Our data may be subject to bias from unmeasured sources for which we cannot control  Results, and in particular estimates from agencies with low response rates such as the Department of Justice, should be interpreted with caution  However, the survey’s results are comparable to five previous surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013  To address the first objective, we used data from our 2017 survey to update agency scores on our use of performance information index  This index, which was last updated using data from our 2013 survey, averages managers’ responses on 11 questions related to the use of performance information for various management activities and decision making  Using 2017 survey data, we conducted statistical analyses to ensure these 11 questions were still positively correlated  That analysis confirmed that no negative correlations existed and therefore no changes to the index were needed  Figure 11 shows the questions that comprise the index  After calculating agency index scores for 2017, we compared them to previous results from 2007 and 2013, and to the government-wide average for 2017, to identify any statistically significant differences  We focus on statistically significant results because these indicate that observed relationships between variables and differences between groups are likely to be valid, after accounting for the effects of sampling and other sources of survey error  For each of the 11 questions that comprise the index, we identified individual agency results, excluding missing and no basis to judge responses, and determined when they were statistically significantly different from (1) the agency’s results on the same question in 2013, or (2) the government-wide average results on the question in 2017  In this report, we analyzed and summarized the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers  Due to the limited scope of the engagement, we did not conduct additional audit work to determine what may have caused statistically significant changes between our 2017 and past survey results  To further address this objective we completed several statistical analyses that allowed us to assess the association between the index and 22 survey questions that we determined relate to leading practices we previously found promote the use of performance information  See figure 12 for the 22 specific questions related to these five practices that we included in the analysis  When we individually tested these 22 survey questions (bivariate regression), we found that each was statistically significantly and positively related to the index in 2017  This means that each question, when tested in isolation from other factors, was associated with higher scores on the index  However, when all 22 questions were tested together (multivariate regression), we found that 5 questions continued to be positively and significantly associated with the index in 2017, after controlling for other factors  To conduct this multivariate analysis, we began with a base model that treated differences in managers’ views of agency performance management use as a function of the agency where they worked  We found, however, that a model based on agency alone had little predictive power (R-squared of 0 04)  We next examined whether managers’ responses to these questions reflecting practices that promote the use of performance information related to their perceptions of agency use of performance information, independent of agency  The results of this analysis are presented in table 1 below  Each coefficient reflects the increase in our index associated with a one-unit increase in the value of a particular survey question  Our final multivariate regression model had an R-squared of 0 67, suggesting that the variables in this model explain approximately 67 percent of the variation in the use index  We also tested this model controlling for whether a respondent was a member of the SES and found similar results  As shown above in table 1, five questions related to three of the leading practices that promote agencies’ use of performance information were statistically significant in 2017  These results suggest that, when controlling for other factors, certain specific efforts to increase agency use of performance information—such as providing information on the validity of performance data—may have a higher return and lead to higher index scores  With respect to aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures, we found that each increase in terms of the extent to which individuals felt that managers aligned performance measures with agencywide goals and objectives was associated with a 0 08 increase in their score on the use index  In terms of improving the usefulness of performance information, we found that having information on the validity of performance data for decision making was the strongest predictor in our model (0 18)  As measured here, taking steps to ensure the performance information is useful and appropriate was associated with almost as large a change in a managers’ index score (0 16)  In terms of developing agency capacity to use performance information, we found that having sufficient analytical tools to collect, analyze, and use performance information (0 07), and providing or paying for training that would help link their programs to achievement of agency strategic goals (0 10), were also statistically significantly related to a manager’s reported use of performance information  When we combined these results with what we previously found through a similar analysis of 2013 survey results in September 2014, we identified 10 questions that have had a statistically significant association with higher index scores  This reinforces the importance of the five leading practices to promote the use of performance information  For each of these questions, which are outlined in figure 13 below, we determined when agency results were statistically significantly different from 2013 results or the 2017 government-wide average  For the second objective, we examined, based on the extent they responded their programs had been subject to agency data-driven reviews, differences in managers’ use index scores and responses on questions related to practices that promote the use of performance information  We grouped managers based on the extent they reported their programs had been subject to these reviews, from “no extent” through “very great extent ” We then calculated the average index scores for the managers in each of those five categories  We also examined differences in how managers responded to the 10 questions reflecting practices that can promote the use of performance information based on the extent they reported their programs had been subject to data-driven reviews  We grouped managers into three categories based on the extent they reported their programs had been subject to these reviews (no-small extent, moderate extent, great-very great extent)  We then compared how these groups responded to the ten questions  For the third objective, we reviewed our past work that assessed Executive Branch activities to enhance the use of performance information; various resources (i e , guidance, guides, and playbooks) developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) that could support agencies’ use of performance information; and the President’s Management Agenda, and related materials with information on cross-agency efforts to improve the use of data in federal decision making  Lastly, for the third objective we also interviewed OMB and PIC staff about any actions they have taken, or planned to take, to further support the use of performance information across the federal government  We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to September 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  In addition to the above contact, Benjamin T  Licht (Assistant Director) and Adam Miles (Analyst-in-Charge) supervised this review and the development of the resulting report  Arpita Chattopadhyay, Caitlin Cusati, Meredith Moles, Dae Park, Amanda Prichard, Steven Putansu, Alan Rozzi, Shane Spencer, and Khristi Wilkins also made key contributions  Robert Robinson developed the graphics for this report  Alexandra Edwards, Jeff DeMarco, Mark Kehoe, Ulyana Panchishin, and Daniel Webb verified the information presented in this report  Results of the Periodic Surveys on Organizational Performance and Management Issues Managing for Results: Further Progress Made in Implementing the GPRA Modernization Act, but Additional Actions Needed to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-17-775  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Supplemental Material for GAO-17-775: 2017 Survey of Federal Managers on Organizational Performance and Management Issues  GAO-17-776SP  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Program Evaluation: Annual Agency-wide Plans Could Enhance Leadership Support for Program Evaluations  GAO-17-743  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions  GAO-14-747  Washington, D C : September 26, 2014  Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Managing for Results: 2013 Federal Managers Survey on Organizational Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-13-518  GAO-13-519SP  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making  GAO-13-570  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results  GAO-08-1026T  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T  GAO-08-1036SP  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results  GAO-04-38  Washington, D C : March 10, 2004  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies  GAO-01-592  Washington, D C : May 25, 2001  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills GAO-01-127  Washington, D C : October 20, 2000  The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven  GAO/GGD-97-109  Washington, D C : June 2, 1997 
Report 2:  See appendix III for a sample RVAR template  We analyzed 81 RVARs developed by the 10 FEMA regions from July 2012 through December 2016 and found that regions did not consistently obtain and document information on all elements related to each of the six regulatory factors in their RVARs  As shown in table 6, all 81 RVARs had at least some elements documented but not all for each of the IA regulatory factors  For example, for the IA concentration of damages regulatory factor, the six elements to be addressed include the number of homes destroyed, damaged or affected, damage concentration, and damage to critical facilities  While 44 of the 81 RVARs documented all of the six elements, 37 documented some but not all of the elements  Similarly, for the trauma regulatory factor, the four elements to be addressed include injuries, death, power outages, and disruption of community functions  While 30 of the 81 RVARs documented all of the four elements, 51 documented some but not all of the elements  For the insurance coverage factor, while five RVARs documented all of the elements, 73 RVARs documented some but not all of the elements  Elements under this factor include home ownership, insurance, and flood insurance, when applicable  None of the six regulatory factors were fully documented across all RVARs  See appendix IV for detailed information on the extent to which all of the elements of the six regulatory factors were documented in the RVARs from July 2012 through December 2016  FEMA headquarters officials acknowledged that information related to all the elements for each of the IA regulatory factors were missing from the RVARs  They stated that they had not collected all information on all factors because one factor may have more weight than another based on the specific incident that has occurred  However, they also indicated that they do not fully know and have not evaluated all of the reasons why a region may have omitted information on an element of a factor  FEMA headquarters officials agreed that having complete information on all elements of the regulatory factors in the RVARs would assist in their recommendation process  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government suggest that agencies should establish and operate monitoring activities to ensure that internal controls—such as the documentation of all of the elements of the IA regulatory factors FEMA regions considered—are effective, and to take corrective actions as appropriate  Because it is unclear why regions are not completely documenting all elements related to the current six regulatory factors, such an evaluation could help FEMA identify whether any corrective steps are needed  Doing so could help FEMA ensure it is achieving its stated goals in providing consistency in the evaluation process and in the types of factors it considers  Officials we interviewed in 9 of the 10 FEMA regions and state emergency management offices in all 11 states reported the positive relationship they maintain with each other as a strength in the IA declaration process  For example, both FEMA regional officials and state emergency management officials stated that they have a good working relationship and are in regular communication via telephone or in-person meetings with each other  Also, state emergency management officials we spoke to stated that whenever they are in need of assistance, they know they can reach out to FEMA regional officials for assistance  However, FEMA regional and state emergency management officials we spoke to also reported various challenges with the process  These include the subjective nature of the IA regulatory factors given the lack of eligibility thresholds, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, and difficulty gathering information on IA regulatory factors  Subjective nature of the IA factors and lack of eligibility thresholds  Officials from 9 of 10 FEMA regions stated the subjective nature of the IA program is a challenge; and officials in 6 of the 10 regions also said they found the lack of eligibility thresholds a challenge  An official in one region stated that unlike FEMA’s Public Assistance program, which has minimum thresholds for eligibility, it is unclear when states should apply for IA funds  Under the Public Assistance program, for example, for states or tribes to qualify for assistance, they must demonstrate that they have sustained a minimum of $1 million in damages and the impact of damages must amount to $1 00 per capita in the state  An official in another region explained that although the subjectivity of the IA factors provides flexibility in determining the type of IA program needed, having some quantifiable criteria could help officials explain to states why their requests were denied or approved  Similarly, officials we interviewed in 7 of the 11 states said they found the subjective nature of the factors with no threshold to be a challenge  A state emergency management official in one state said this subjectivity makes it difficult to determine whether or not the state should make an IA request  A state emergency management official in another state reported that the subjectivity can cause the IA declaration process to be inconsistent, and it is not always clear how or why certain declarations were approved and others were not  Further, a state emergency management official in an additional state also pointed to the subjective nature of the factors with no threshold as a reason for not being able to provide a more detailed rationale behind a declaration denial  To illustrate this, table 7 shows how four states requested IA declarations related to the same tornado in 2012 and varied in what they reported across the six IA factors, such as the levels of damages incurred, special populations among their residents, and insurance coverage  Two of these four states—Kentucky and Indiana—received IA declarations and the other two—Ohio and Illinois—were denied  Lack of transparency  Another challenge reported by FEMA regional and state emergency management officials was the lack of transparency in how FEMA evaluates and provides a recommendation to the President on whether a declaration is warranted  For example, officials we interviewed in 4 of 10 regions indicated the lack of transparency as a challenge  A FEMA official in one region stated that the region would like more transparency regarding what FEMA headquarters recommends to the President and whether the President’s decision aligns with FEMA’s recommendation  State emergency management officials we interviewed in 10 of 11 states also reported that lack of transparency with the IA process is a challenge  For example, an emergency management official in one state said it is not clear how or if FEMA considers all of the factors  Also, an emergency management official in another state reported that it was unclear to him why his state’s declaration request was denied while the requests of other states with similar incidents were declared  Difficulty gathering information on IA regulatory factors  Officials in 4 of 10 FEMA regions reported difficulty gathering information, such as income or insurance coverage, as a challenge  An official in one region stated that it is difficult to obtain information related to IA factors from states  For example, the official said that calculating the concentration of damages is difficult absent technical guidance from FEMA headquarters, as the current guidance only accounts for the number of structure damage but not the impact of damage  Further, officials in two FEMA regions stated that states lack a dedicated IA official, making it difficult for state officials, who play multiple roles, to provide the necessary information related to the IA factors in their IA declaration request  Additionally, a state emergency management official in one state also reported that lack of staff resources in her state makes it difficult to verify all the local damage assessments prior to making a declaration request  Pursuant to the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, in November 2015, FEMA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise the six current IA regulatory factors to the following proposed factors: state fiscal capacity and resource availability; uninsured home and personal property losses; disaster-impacted population profile; impact to community infrastructure; casualties; and disaster-related unemployment  According to FEMA headquarters officials, the revisions aim to provide more objective criteria, clarify the threshold for eligibility, and speed the declaration  The officials said the proposed rule also seeks to provide additional clarity and guidance for all the established factors  Table 8 shows FEMA’s description of current and proposed IA factors  FEMA received public comments from 14 states in the Federal Register during the comment period for the proposed rule and proposed guidance  The 14 states expressed concern about the proposed factor for state fiscal capacity and resource availability, including the reliability and relevance of data sources such as total taxable resources  These states expressed concern that the data collection necessary to meet the new requirements would fall upon them, adding to the cost burden of completing an IA disaster declaration request  They also explained that the use of total taxable resources and other similar data is not an effective way to assess a state’s current ability to provide resources following a disaster  Also, these states indicated that the data points such as total taxable resources and per capita personal income that would be used to evaluate state fiscal capacity are outdated and inaccurate and would be an inefficient way to evaluate a state’s true fiscal capacity to respond to a disaster  Regarding the other five proposed factors, several states in their comments raised questions about ambiguities in interpreting the factors or the feasibility and cost of gathering related data  For example, in regards to the factor on disaster impacted population, five states expressed concern that the data required for the disaster-impacted population factor would be a cost burden to the state or that the data would be inappropriate for evaluation  Additionally, two states said unemployment related to a disaster incident for the disaster-related unemployment factor would be hard to quantify in the first 30 days following a disaster  They stated that this was especially an issue given that states work to submit an IA disaster declaration request as soon as possible following a disaster  According to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website, the projected date for finalization of the proposed rule is September 2018; however, as of April 2018, FEMA officials stated that they were not certain whether that timeframe would be met  Until the proposed rule is finalized, we will not know the extent to which the various challenges FEMA regions and state officials raised in our interviews and in comments on the proposed rule will be addressed  FEMA has obligated over $8 6 billion nationwide in IA from calendar years 2008 through 2016, highlighting the importance of FEMA’s evaluation of states’ and tribes’ IA declaration requests  FEMA’s regional offices evaluate the request and make a regional recommendation through the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation, which documents information on all relevant IA regulatory factors  FEMA has developed the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation to ensure regions consistently obtain and document the information needed by FEMA to make a disaster declaration recommendation to the President based on the IA regulatory factors  However, FEMA’s regional offices do not consistently obtain and document information on all elements of the current IA regulatory factors  Because it is unclear why regions are not always documenting all of the elements related to these factors, evaluating the reasons why could help FEMA identify if any corrective steps are needed  Doing so could also help FEMA ensure it is meeting its stated goals in providing consistency in the evaluation process and in the types of factors it considers  We recommend that the Administrator of FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendations for each element of the current IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary  We provided a draft of this report to DHS for its review and comment  DHS provided written comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in full in appendix V  DHS concurred with the recommendation and described planned actions to address it  In addition, DHS provided written technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate  DHS concurred with our recommendation that FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendations for each element of the IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary  DHS stated that a FEMA working group consisting of headquarters stakeholders will draft survey questions for FEMA region officials to identify the common reasons why an element of an IA regulatory factor may not be addressed within a RVAR  According to DHS, the working group will also analyze, assess, and present the findings of the survey responses to FEMA senior leadership, and if needed, FEMA will develop and send a memorandum to the regions with additional guidance regarding the appropriate preparation of RVARs  DHS stated that the estimated completion date is in the fall of 2018  These actions, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of our recommendation  We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FEMA Administrator, and the appropriate congressional committees  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI  Table 9 provides the total number of Individual Assistance declaration requests made, declared, and denied, by region, state, and tribe for disaster declarations requested from calendar years 2008 through 2016  Table 10 provides Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Individual Assistance (IA) actual obligations for declarations made from calendar years 2008 through 2016 by state and type of disaster  As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) declaration process, FEMA’s regional offices are to evaluate states’ or tribes’ declaration requests, including the IA declaration request, and make a recommendation called the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation (RVAR) and submit the RVAR to FEMA headquarters  In June 2012, FEMA headquarters issued a template for FEMA regional offices to use in developing the RVAR as identified in figure 3  Tables 11 through 16 provide information on each element of the 6 Individual Assistance (IA) regulatory factors documented in the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation (RVAR) from July 2012 through December 2016 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency region  In addition to the contact named above, Aditi Archer (Assistant Director), Su Jin Yon (Analyst-In-Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Jun S  (Joyce) Kang, Christopher Keisling, Heidi Nielson, Hadley Nobles, Anne Rhodes-Kline, and Jerome (Jerry) Sandau made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is authorized in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Established as a grant program in 1972, it now capitalizes state loan programs through the clean water state revolving loan fund (CWSRF) program. Since FY1972, appropriations have totaled $98 billion. In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, P.L. 104-182) to authorize a similar state loan program for drinking water to help systems finance projects needed to comply with drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Since FY1997, appropriations for the drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program have totaled $23 billion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers both SRF programs, which annually distribute funds to the states for implementation. Funding amounts are specified in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account of EPA annual appropriations acts. The combined appropriations for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure assistance have represented 25%-32% of total funds appropriated to EPA in recent years. Prior to CWA amendments in 1987 (P.L. 100-4), Congress provided wastewater grant funding directly to municipalities. The federal share of project costs was generally 55%; state and local governments were responsible for the remaining 45%. The 1987 amendments replaced this grant program with the SRF program. Local communities are now often responsible for 100% of project costs, rather than 45%, as they are required to repay loans to states. The greater financial burden of the act's loan program on some cities has caused some to seek continued grant funding. Although the CWSRF and DWSRF have largely functioned as loan programs, both allow the implementing state agency to provide "additional subsidization" under certain conditions. Since its amendments in 1996, the SDWA has authorized states to use up to 30% of their DWSRF capitalization grants to provide additional assistance, such as forgiveness of loan principal or negative interest rate loans, to help disadvantaged communities. America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270) increased this proportion to 35% while conditionally requiring states to use at least 6% of their capitalization grants for these purposes. Congress amended the CWA in 2014, adding similar provisions to the CWSRF program. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted SRF grants to provide additional subsidization. Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2019 (P.L. 116-6), on February 15, 2019. The act provided $1.694 billion for the CWSRF and $1.163 billion for the DWSRF program, nearly identical to the FY2018 appropriations. The FY0219 act provided $68 million for the WIFIA program, a $5 million increase from the FY2018 appropriation. Compared to the FY2019 appropriation levels, the Trump Administration's FY2020 budget request proposes to decrease the appropriations for the CWSRF, DWSRF, and WIFIA programs by 34%, 26%, and 63%, respectively.

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



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

Report 1: The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction and related eligible activities  Congress established this program in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P L  92-500) (although prior versions of the act had authorized less ambitious grants assistance since 1956)  Title II of P L  92-500 authorized grants to states for wastewater treatment plant construction under a program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  Federal funds were provided through annual appropriations under a state-by-state allocation formula contained in the act itself  States used their allotments to make grants to cities to build or upgrade wastewater treatment plants, supporting the overall objectives of the act: restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters  The federal share of project costs, originally 75% under P L  92-500, was reduced to 55% in 1981  By the mid-1980s, there was considerable policy debate between Congress and the Administration over the future of the act's construction grants program and, in particular, the appropriate federal role in funding municipal water infrastructure projects  Through FY1984, Congress had appropriated nearly $41 billion under this program, representing the largest nonmilitary public works programs since the Interstate Highway System  The grants program was a target of budget cuts in the Reagan Administration, which sought to redirect budgetary priorities in part to sort out the appropriate roles of federal, state, and local governments in a number of domestic policy areas, including water pollution control  The Administration's rationale included several points: The original intent of the program to address the backlog of sewage treatment needs had been virtually eliminated by the mid-1980s  Most remaining projects (such as small, rural systems) were believed to pose little environmental threat and were not appropriate federal responsibilities  State and local governments, in the Administration's view, were fully capable of running construction programs and have a clear responsibility to construct treatment capacity to meet environmental objectives that were primarily established by states  Thus, the Reagan Administration sought a phaseout of the act's construction grants program by 1990  Many states and localities supported the idea of phasing out the grants program, since many were critical of what they viewed as burdensome rules and regulations that accompanied the federal grant money  However, they sought a longer transition and ample flexibility to set up long-term financing to promote state and local self-sufficiency  Congress's response to this debate was contained in 1987 amendments to the act ( P L  100-4 , the Water Quality Act of 1987)  It authorized $18 billion over nine years for sewage treatment plant construction, through a combination of the Title II grants program and a new State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds program—hereinafter the clean water state revolving fund (CWSRF) program  Under the new program, in CWA Title VI, federal grants would be provided as seed money for state-administered loans to build sewage treatment plants and, eventually, other water quality projects  Cities, in turn, would repay loans to the state, enabling a phaseout of federal involvement while the state built up a source of capital for future investments  Under the amendments, the CWSRF program was phased in beginning in FY1989 (in FY1989 and FY1990, appropriations were split equally between Title II and Title VI grants) and entirely replaced the previous Title II program in FY1991  The intention was that states would have flexibility to set priorities and administer funding, while federal aid would end after FY1994  The CWSRF authorizations for appropriations provided in the 1987 amendments expired in FY1994, but pressure to extend federal funding has continued, in part because, although Congress has appropriated $98 billion in CWA Title II and Title VI wastewater infrastructure assistance since 1972, funding needs remain high: According to the most recent formal estimate by EPA and states (prepared in 2016), an additional $271 billion nationwide is needed over the next 20 years for all types of projects eligible for funding under the act  Congress has continued to appropriate funds, and continued to assist states and localities in meeting wastewater infrastructure needs and complying with CWA requirements  In 1996, Congress established a parallel program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to help communities finance projects needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations  Funding support for drinking water occurred for several reasons  First, until the 1980s, the number of drinking water regulations was fairly small, and public water systems often did not need to make large investments in treatment technologies to meet those regulations  Second, good quality drinking water traditionally has been available to many communities at relatively low cost  By comparison, essentially all communities have had to construct or upgrade sewage treatment facilities to meet the requirements of the CWA  Over time, drinking water circumstances changed, as communities grew, and commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential land-uses became more concentrated, thus resulting in more contaminants reaching drinking water sources  Moreover, as the number of federal drinking water standards has increased, many communities have found that their water may not be as good as once thought and that additional treatment technologies are required to meet the new standards and protect public health  Between 1986 and 1996, for example, the number of regulated drinking water contaminants grew from 23 to 83, and EPA and the states expressed concern that many of the nation's 52,000 small community water systems were likely to lack the financial capacity to meet the rising costs of SDWA compliance  According to the most recent EPA-state survey (issued in 2018), future funding needs for projects to treat and deliver public drinking water supplies in the United States are $473 billion over the next 20 years  Congress responded to these concerns by enacting the 1996 SDWA Amendments ( P L  104-182 ), which authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help systems finance projects needed to comply with SDWA regulations and to protect public health  This program, fashioned after the CWSRF program, authorizes EPA to make grants to states to capitalize DWSRFs which states then use to make loans to public water systems  Appropriations for the program were authorized at $599 million for FY1994 and $1 billion annually for FY1995 through FY2003  Capitalization grants for DWSRF programs were provided for the first time in FY1997  Although the authorizations for appropriations expired in FY2003, Congress continued to provide funding for the program in annual appropriations, totaling $23 billion through FY2019  America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P L  115-270 ), enacted on October 23, 2018, reauthorized appropriations for the DWSRF at $1 17 billion in FY2019, $1 30 billion in FY2020, and $1 95 billion in FY2021  The first section of this report includes a table that summarizes the history of appropriations for both wastewater and drinking water infrastructure programs  The next section discusses several historical developments in water infrastructure funding  The last section contains a detailed chronology of congressional activity regarding wastewater and drinking water infrastructure funding for each fiscal year since the 1987 CWA amendments  Table 1 summarizes funding for the wastewater and drinking infrastructure programs since enactment of the 1987 CWA amendments ( P L  100-4 )  Funding for these EPA programs is contained in the appropriations act providing funds for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies  Within the portion of the bill that funds EPA, wastewater treatment assistance was first specified in an account called Construction Grants, which was subsequently renamed State Revolving Funds/Construction Grants, and then renamed Water Infrastructure  Since FY1996, this account has been titled State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)  The STAG account now includes all water infrastructure funds and management grants provided to assist states in implementing air quality, water quality, and other media-specific environmental programs  The FY1996 appropriation was the first to include both water infrastructure and other state environmental grants; the latter previously were included in EPA's general program management account  Amounts shown in Table 1 include funds for CWA Title II grants, CWSRF grants, drinking water SRF grants, special project grants (discussed below), and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program  Congress first provided appropriations to cover the subsidy costs of this program in FY2017, as discussed in the detailed chronology section below  Table 1 does not include funds for consolidated state environmental management grants  These grants include funding for a wide range of environmental programs, which have changed over time  In recent years, the categorical grants have included funding for water, air, and waste programs  The categorical grant programs most closely related to water infrastructure issues include grants for states' nonpoint source management programs (CWA Section 319) and states' pollution control programs (CWA Section 106)  Funding levels for the environmental management state grants are discussed below in the appropriations chronology section  As an additional comparison, Figure 1 illustrates the total EPA water infrastructure appropriations (for clean water and drinking water assistance combined) between FY1986 and FY2019 in both nominal dollars (i e , not adjusted for inflation) and constant (2018) dollars (i e , adjusted for inflation)  This section discusses several historical developments of note regarding appropriations for EPA's water infrastructure programs  The practice of earmarking a portion of the construction grants/SRF account for specific wastewater treatment and other water quality projects began with the FY1989 appropriations  The practice increased to the point of representing a significant portion of appropriated funds (31% of the total water infrastructure appropriation in FY1994, for example, but less in subsequent years: 2 5% in FY2009 and 5% in FY2010)  The number of projects receiving these earmarked funds also increased: from 4 in FY1989 to 319 in FY2010  Beginning in FY2000, the larger total number of earmarked projects resulted in more communities receiving such grants, but at the same time receiving smaller amounts of funds  Thus, while a few communities received individual earmarked awards of $1 million or more, the average size of earmarked grants shrank: $18 1 million in FY1995, $4 9 million in FY1999, $1 08 million in FY2006, and $586,000 in FY2010  (Conference reports on the individual appropriations bills, noted in the later discussion in this report, provide some detail on projects funded in this manner ) The effective result of earmarking was to reduce the amount of funds provided to states to capitalize their SRF programs  Between FY1989 and FY2010, approximately 10% of the total water infrastructure appropriations ($7 4 billion) went to earmarked project grants  Interest groups representing state water quality program managers and administrators of infrastructure financing programs criticized the practice of earmarked appropriations  They contended that earmarking undermined the intended purpose of the state funds—promoting water quality improvements nationwide  Many state officials preferred funds to be allocated more equitably, not based on what they viewed largely as political considerations, and they preferred for state environmental and financing officials to retain responsibility to set actual spending priorities  Further, they argued that the special projects funding would diminish the level of seed funding to SRFs, delaying the time when SRFs would be financially self-sufficient  The practice of earmarking was criticized because designated projects were arguably receiving more favorable treatment than other communities' projects: They were generally eligible for 55% federal grants (and were not required to repay 100% of the funded project cost, as is the case with a loan through an SRF), and the practice circumvented the standard process of states determining the priority by which projects will receive funding  It also meant that the projects were generally not reviewed by the CWA authorizing committees  This was especially true after FY1992, when special purpose grant funding was designated for types of projects not authorized in the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act  Members of Congress intervened for a specific community for a number of reasons  In some cases, the communities may have been unsuccessful in seeking state approval to fund the project under an SRF loan or other program  For some, the cost of a project financed through a state loan was deemed unacceptably high, because repaying the loan would result in increased user fees that ratepayers felt would have been unduly burdensome  In the early years of this congressional practice, special purpose grant funding originated in the House version of the EPA appropriations bill, while the Senate, for the most part, resisted earmarking by rejecting or reducing amounts and projects included in House-passed legislation  Therefore, special purpose grant funding on several occasions was an issue during the House-Senate conference on the appropriations bill  Beginning in FY1999, however, both the House and Senate proposed earmarked projects in their respective versions of the EPA appropriations bill, with the final total number of projects and dollar amounts determined by conferees  The Clean Water Act Title II grants program effectively ended when authorizations for it expired after FY1990  One result of earmarking special purpose grants in appropriations bills was to continue grants as a method of funding wastewater treatment construction long after FY1990  This practice led Congress to provide EPA grants for drinking water system projects, which had not previously been available  However, as discussed in the next section, general opposition to congressional earmarking stopped the practice after FY2011  The federal percentage share and local match required on special purpose grants varied depending on the project and the year of funding  For example, in the early projects (FY1989), the 1987 CWA amendments specified the federal cost shares, which ranged from 75% to 85%  In FY1992 and FY1993, the appropriations acts specified that funds were provided "as grants under title II," resulting in a requirement for local communities to provide a 45% share of project costs  After FY1993, the appropriations acts themselves were the authority for the special purpose projects grants  In the FY1995 appropriation bill, which also directed allocation of funds appropriated in FY1994 to several needy cities, Congress addressed the issue of federal and local cost shares in report language accompanying the bill, but not in the appropriation act itself  The conferees are in agreement that the agency should work with the grant recipients on appropriate cost-share arrangements  It is the conferees' expectation that the agency will apply the 45% local cost share requirement under Title II of the Clean Water Act in most cases  In the FY1996 appropriations, both the act and accompanying reports were silent on federal/local cost share and applicability of Title II requirements  Because of that, EPA officials planned to require only a 5% local match for most of the special purpose grants in that bill, which is the standard matching requirement for other EPA noninfrastructure grants  Under the agency's rules, the local match could include in-kind services, as well as funding toward the project  In the FY1997 appropriations, Congress included report language as it had in FY1995 concerning federal and local cost share requirements  The conferees are in agreement that the Agency should work with the grant recipients on appropriate cost-share agreements and to that end the conferees direct the Agency to develop a standard cost-share consistent with fiscal year 1995  The FY1998 and FY1999 appropriations included neither bill nor report language on this point  However, language in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' reports on the FY1998 and FY1999 bills directed EPA to work with grant recipients on appropriate cost-share arrangements  For FY2000, Congress included explicit report language concerning the local match  The conferees agree that the $331,650,000 provided to communities or other entities for construction of water and wastewater treatment facilities and for groundwater protection infrastructure shall be accompanied by a cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent of a project's cost is to be the responsibility of the community or entity consistent with long-standing guidelines for the Agency  These guidelines also offer flexibility in the application of the cost-share requirement for those few circumstances when meeting the 45 percent requirement is not possible  Similar report language concerning local cost-share requirements accompanied the conference reports on the appropriations bills from FY2001 through FY2005  Beginning with FY2004, Congress specified in the appropriations legislation that the local share of project costs shall be not less than 45%  Similarly, beginning with the FY2003 appropriations legislation, Congress also specified that, except for those limited instances in which an applicant meets the criteria for a waiver of the cost-share requirement, the earmarked grant shall provide no more than 55% of an individual project's cost, regardless of the amount appropriated  The practice of earmarking special project water infrastructure grants continued to change  First, in FY2007, Congress applied a one-year moratorium on earmarks in all appropriations bills  For the next three years, special project grants were allowed in appropriations bills—including EPA's—but again in FY2011, no special project funding was provided for congressional projects  Following the 2010 midterm election and during subsequent months while FY2011 appropriations were under consideration (discussed below), the general issue of congressional earmarks of specific projects had become highly controversial because of the overall growing number of them, concern over the influence of special interests on spending decisions, and lack of congressional oversight  In response, President Obama said he would veto any legislation containing earmarks, the House extended the ban on earmarks under the Republican Conferences rules, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee announced a moratorium on earmarks for FY2011 and FY2012  Thus, the FY2011 full-year appropriations measure contained no congressionally directed special project funds for water infrastructure projects in the EPA STAG account  However, it did include funds requested by the President: $10 million for Alaska Native Villages and $10 million for U S -Mexico border projects  The FY2012 full-year appropriations measure also contained no special project funding in the EPA STAG account  The FY2012 bill did include funds for Alaska Native and Rural Villages ($10 million) and for U S -Mexico border projects ($5 million)  The moratorium on congressional earmarks has continued  The FY2013 full-year appropriations measure ( P L  113-6 ) contained no special project funding in the STAG account  As with other recent bills, however, it did include funds for Alaska Native and Rural Villages ($9 5 million) and for U S -Mexico border projects ($4 7 million)  Similarly, the moratorium on earmarks continued in FY2014 and FY2015; P L  113-76 contained no special project funding in the STAG account for FY2014, but did include funds for Alaska Native and Rural Villages ($10 million) and for U S -Mexico border projects ($5 million)  The FY2015 funding bill, P L  113-235 , was the same as FY2014  The FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 appropriations acts ( P L  114-113 , P L  115-31 , and P L  115-141 , respectively) included $20 million for Alaska Native and Rural Villages and $10 million for U S -Mexico border projects  The FY2019 appropriations act provided $25 million for Alaska Native and Rural Villages and $15 million for U S -Mexico border projects  President Trump's FY2020 budget request proposes to eliminate funding for the U S -Mexico border program and decrease funding for the Alaska Native and Rural Villages to $3 million  Although the CWSRF and DWSRF have largely functioned as loan programs, both allow the implementing state agency to provide "additional subsidization" under certain conditions  Since its amendments in 1996, the SDWA has authorized states to use up to 30% of their DWSRF capitalization grants to provide additional assistance, such as forgiveness of loan principal or negative interest rate loans, to help disadvantaged communities (as determined by the state)  In 2018, AWIA increased that percentage to 35% and conditionally required states to provide at least 6% of their annual grants as additional subsidization  Congress amended the CWA in 2014, adding similar provisions to the CWSRF program  In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted funds to provide additional subsidization  This trend began with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P L  111-5 ), which required states to use at least 50% of their funds to "provide additional subsidization to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans or grants or any combination of these " Subsequent appropriation acts have included similar conditions, with varying percentages of subsidization  The FY2016, FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019 appropriations acts included an identical condition, requiring 10% of the CWSRF grants and 20% of the DWSRF grants to be used "to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these) " The 1987 CWA amendments authorized federal grants to assist states in implementing programs to manage water pollution from nonpoint sources such as farm and urban areas, construction, forestry, and mining sites  Because of competing demands for funding, it was difficult for Congress to fund this grant program and other water quality initiatives in the 1987 act  Appropriators did fund Section 319 grants in EPA's general program management account (abatement, control, and compliance) in FY1990, FY1991, and FY1992 but well below authorized levels  In the FY1993 act, appropriators moved funding into the SRF/construction grants account, thereby providing a degree of protection from competing priorities  In FY1996, Congress included all state grants for management of environmental programs in a single consolidated grants appropriation  In doing so, Congress endorsed a Clinton Administration proposal for a more flexible approach to state grants, a key element of EPA's efforts to improve the federal-state partnership in environmental programs  In more recent years, Congress has provided specific funding amounts for certain programs within the categorical grants appropriation  This section summarizes, in chronological order, congressional activity to fund items in the STAG account since the 1987 CWA amendments  The authorization period covered by P L  100-4 was FY1986-FY1994  By the time the amendments were enacted, FY1986 was over, as was a portion of FY1987  Thus, appropriations for those two years only indirectly reflected the policy and program changes for later years that were contained in P L  100-4   For FY1986, Congress appropriated a total of $1 8 billion, consisting of $600 million approved in December 1985 (while Congress was beginning to debate reauthorization legislation that eventually was enacted as P L  100-4 in January 1987) and $1 2 billion more in July 1986  For FY1987, while debate on CWA reauthorization continued, President Reagan requested $2 0 billion, consistent with his legislative proposal to terminate the grants program by FY1990  In October 1986, Congress appropriated $2 4 billion ( P L  99-500 / P L  99-591 )  However, only $1 2 billion of that amount was released immediately, pending enactment of a reauthorization bill, which was then in conference  Following enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, remaining FY1987 funds were released as part of a supplemental appropriations bill ( P L  100-71 )  Conferees on that measure agreed, however, to shift $39 million of the remaining unreleased grant funds to other priority water quality activities authorized in P L  100-4   The final total of construction grant monies was $2 361 billion  For FY1988 the President again requested $2 0 billion  In December 1987, Congress approved legislation providing FY1988 appropriations ( P L  100-202 , the omnibus continuing resolution to fund EPA and other federal agencies)  In it, Congress appropriated $2 304 billion for construction grants  Final action on the EPA budget and other funding bills had been delayed by budget-cutting talks between Congress and the White House  Reduced construction grants funding was one of many spending cuts required to implement a congressional-White House "summit agreement" on the budget  The final construction grants appropriation was less than funding levels that had been included in separate versions of a bill passed by the House and Senate before the budget summit, $2 4 billion  For FY1989, President Reagan requested $1 5 billion, or 35% below FY1988 appropriations and 37 5% less than the authorized level of $2 4 billion for FY1989  In separate versions of an EPA appropriations bill, the House and Senate voted to provide $1 95 billion and $2 1 billion respectively  The final figure, in P L  100-404 , was $1 95 billion, which included $68 million for special projects in four states  Thus, the actual amount provided for grants was $1 882 billion  That total was divided equally between the previous Title II grants program and new Title VI SRF program, as provided in the authorizing language of P L  100-4   The FY1989 legislation was the first to include earmarking of funds for specified projects or grants in EPA's construction grants account, an action that continued in subsequent years, as discussed above  All of the projects funded in the 1989 legislation were ones that had been authorized in provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA, P L  100-4 )  The designated projects were in Boston (authorized in Section 513 of the WQA, to fund the Boston Harbor wastewater treatment project), San Diego/Tijuana (Section 510, to fund an international sewage treatment project needed because of the flow of raw sewage from Tijuana, Mexico, across the border), Des Moines, IA (Section 515, for sewage treatment plant construction), and Oakwood Beach/Redhook, NY (Section 512 of the WQA, to relocate natural gas distribution facilities that were near wastewater treatment works in New York City)  For FY1990, President Reagan's budget requested $1 2 billion in wastewater treatment assistance, or 50% less than the authorized level and 38 5% less than the FY1989 enacted amount of $1 95 billion  Further, the Reagan budget proposed that the $1 2 billion consist of $800 million in Title VI monies and $400 million in Title II grants, contrary to provisions of the CWA directing that appropriations be equally divided between the two grant programs, as in FY1989  President Bush's revised FY1990 budget, presented in March 1989, made no changes from the Reagan budget in this area  In acting on this request, Congress agreed to provide $2 05 billion, including $46 million for three special projects (Boston, San Diego/Tijuana, and Des Moines), leaving a total of $1 002 billion each for Titles II and VI ( P L  101-144 )  Title II funds were reduced by $6 8 million, however, due to funds earmarked for a specific project in South Carolina  Although these amounts were appropriated, all funds in the bill were reduced by 1 55% (or, a $31 8 million reduction from the construction grants account) to provide funds for the federal government's antidrug program  Final FY1990 appropriations were altered again by passage of the FY1990 Budget Reconciliation measure and implementation of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), which established procedures to reduce budget deficits annually, resulting in a zero deficit by 1993  For each fiscal year that the deficit was estimated to exceed maximum targets established in law, an automatic spending reduction procedure was triggered to eliminate deficits in excess of the targets through "sequestration," or permanent cancellation of budgetary resources  Thus, to meet budget reduction mandates and, in particular, deficit reduction targets under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), additional funding cuts were included in P L  101-239 , the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, affecting construction grants funding and all other accounts not exempted from Gramm-Rudman procedures  P L  101-239 provided that the "sequestration" procedures under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act would be allowed to apply for a portion of FY1990 (for 130 days, or 35 6% of the year), providing an additional automatic spending reduction in EPA and other agencies' programs subject to the act  As a result of these reductions, funding for wastewater treatment aid in FY1990 totaled $1 98 billion, or $30 million more than in FY1989  The total included $53 million for special projects in San Diego, Boston, Des Moines, and Honea Path/Ware Shoals, SC, $960 million for Title II grants, and $967 million for Title VI grants  The combined reductions amounted to 3 4% less than the amount agreed to by conferees on P L  101-144 (i e , $2 05 billion), before subtracting funds for antidrug programs and accounting for effects of the Gramm-Rudman partial-year sequester  For FY1991, President Bush requested $1 6 billion in funding for wastewater treatment assistance  This total included $15 4 million for the San Diego project authorized in Section 510 of the Water Quality Act of 1987, to fund construction of an international sewage treatment project  The remainder, $1 584 billion, would be only for capitalization grants under Title VI of the act, as the 1987 legislation provides for no new Title II grants after FY1990  In acting on EPA's appropriations for FY1991 ( P L  101-507 ), Congress agreed to provide $2 1 billion in wastewater treatment assistance  Beginning in FY1991, all appropriated funds are utilized for capitalization grants under Title VI of the act (as provided in the Water Quality Act of 1987); funding for the traditional Title II grants program was no longer available  The enacted level included several earmarkings: $15 7 million for San Diego (Section 510 of the WQA), $20 million for Boston Harbor (Section 513 of the WQA), and $16 5 million for a new Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Program under Section 104(b)(3) of the act  The President's budget had requested $16 5 million to support state permitting, enforcement, and water quality management activities, especially to offset the reductions in aid to states due to elimination of state management setasides from the previous Title II construction grants program  Congress agreed to the level requested, but provided it as a portion of the wastewater treatment appropriation, rather than as part of EPA's general program management appropriation, as in the President's request  As a result of these earmarkings, $2 048 billion was provided for Title VI grants  For FY1992, President Bush requested $1 9 billion in wastewater treatment funds, or $100 million more than authorized under the Water Quality Act of 1987 for Title VI grants in FY1992  However, out of the $1 9 billion total, the President's request sought $1 5 billion for Title VI SRF grants and $400 million as grants under the expired Title II construction grants program for the following coastal cities: Boston, San Diego, New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle  Two of the five designated projects had been authorized in the 1987 CWA amendments; the other three did not have explicit statutory authorization  Also, $16 5 million was requested for Water Quality Cooperative Agreement grants to the states  In acting on the request in November 1991, Congress provided total wastewater funds of $2 4 billion ( P L  102-139 )  The total was allocated as follows: $1,948 5 million for SRF capitalization grants, $16 5 million for Section 104(b)(3) grants, $49 million for the special project in San Diego-Tijuana (Section 510 of the Water Quality Act), $46 million to the Rouge River (MI) National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, and $340 million as construction grants under title II of the Clean Water Act for several other special projects—the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Baltimore), Maryland, the Boston Harbor project, New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego (a wastewater reclamation project), and Seattle  This appropriation bill was the first to include special purpose grant funding for several projects not specifically authorized in the Clean Water Act or amendments to that law  For FY1993, President Bush requested $2 484 billion for state revolving funds/construction grants (now called the water infrastructure account)  The requested total included $340 million to be targeted for 55% construction grants to six communities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, and Baltimore  In addition, the President requested that $130 million be directed toward a Mexican Border Initiative, consisting of $65 million for construction of the international treatment plant at San Diego (to address the Tijuana sewage problem), $15 million for projects at Nogales, AZ, and New River, CA, and $50 million as 50% grants for colonias in Texas  The President also requested $16 5 million for Section 104(b)(3) grants  Along with these special project and grant amounts, the request sought $2 014 billion for SRF assistance  Final action on FY1993 funding occurred on September 25, 1992 ( P L  102-389 )  It provided an appropriation of $2 55 billion, but $622 5 million of this amount was reserved for special projects and other grants  The bill provided $50 million in CWA Section 319 grants and $16 5 million in Section 104(b)(3) grants out of the SRF amount  It included $556 million for the following special purpose grants: the international treatment plant at San Diego (Tijuana—Section 510 of the WQA, with bill language capping funding for that project at $239 4 million), plus projects in Boston; New York; Los Angeles; San Diego; Seattle; Rouge River, MI; Baltimore; Ocean County, NJ; Atlanta; and for colonias in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico  The final SRF grant amount under the bill was $1 928 billion  Early in 1993, President Clinton requested that Congress approve "economic stimulus and investment" spending, in the form of supplemental FY1993 appropriations  Both his original proposal and a subsequent modified proposal included additional SRF grant funds, but neither of the bills enacted by Congress in response to these requests ( P L  103-24 , P L  103-50 ) provided additional SRF funds  For FY1994, the Clinton Administration requested $2 047 billion for water infrastructure  The funds in this request were $1 198 billion to capitalize State Revolving Funds, $150 million for Mexican border project grants, and $100 million for a single hardship community (Boston)  The request also included $599 million to capitalize new state drinking water revolving funds  The final version of the FY1994 legislation ( P L  103-124 ) provided $2 477 billion for water infrastructure/state revolving funds  Of this total amount, $599 million was to be reserved for drinking water SRFs, if authorization legislation were enacted; $80 million was for Section 319 grants; $22 million was for Section 104(b)(3) grants; and $58 million was for Tijuana/San Diego—Section 510 of the WQA  This resulted in an appropriation of $1 718 billion for clean water SRFs  In addition, the final bill provided that $500 million be used to support water infrastructure financing in economically distressed/hardship communities  Under the bill, these funds were not available for spending until May 31, 1994, and were set aside until projects were authorized in the CWA for this purpose  Thus, the bill as enacted provided $1 218 billion immediately for clean water SRFs, with the expectation that $500 million more would be available for financing hardship community projects after May 31, 1994  For FY1995, President Clinton requested $2 65 billion for water infrastructure consisting of $1 6 billion for CWA SRFs, $100 million for Section 319 nonpoint source management grants to states, $52 5 million for a grant to San Diego for a wastewater project pursuant to Section 510 of the WQA, $47 5 million for other Mexican border projects, $50 million to the state of Texas for colonias projects, and $100 million for grants under Title II for needy cities (intended for Boston)  The request included $700 million for drinking water SRFs, pending enactment of authorizing legislation  The President's budget also requested $21 5 million for Section 104(b)(3) grants/cooperative agreements  Final agreement on FY1995 funding was contained in P L  103-327 , enacted in September 1994, which provided a total of $2 962 billion for water infrastructure financing  Of the total, $22 5 million was for grants under Section 104(b), $100 million for Section 319 grants, $70 million for Public Water System Supervision program grants (grants to states under the Safe Drinking Water Act to support state implementation of delegated drinking water programs), $52 5 million for the Section 510 project in San Diego, and $700 million for drinking water SRFs (contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation)  The remaining $2 017 billion was for CWA projects  Of this amount, $1 235 billion was for clean water SRF grants to states under Title VI of the CWA  The remaining $781 8 million (39% of this amount, 26% of the total appropriation) was designated for 45 specific, named projects in 22 states  The earmarked amounts ranged in size from $200,000 for Southern Fulton County, PA, to $100 million for the city of Boston  Finally, the conferees included bill language concerning release of the $500 million in FY1994 needy cities money (because the authorizing committees of Congress had not acted on legislation to authorize specific projects, as had been intended in P L  103-124 ) as follows: $150 million to Boston, $50 million for colonias in Texas, $10 million for colonias in New Mexico, $70 million for a New York City wastewater reclamation facility, $85 million for the Rouge River project, $50 million for the city of Los Angeles, $50 million for the county of Los Angeles, and $35 million for Seattle, WA  In February 1995, President Clinton submitted the Administration's budget request for FY1996  It requested $2 365 billion for water infrastructure funding consisting of $1 6 billion for clean water state revolving funds, $500 million for drinking water state revolving funds, $150 million to support Mexico border projects under the U S -Mexican Border Environmental Initiative and NAFTA, and $100 million for special need/economically distressed communities (not specified in the request, but presumed to be intended for Boston), plus $15 million for water infrastructure needs in Alaska Native Villages  In February 1995, congressional appropriations committees began considering legislation to rescind previously appropriated FY1995 funds, as part of overall efforts by the 104 th Congress to shape the budget and federal spending  These efforts resulted in passage in July 1995 of P L  104-19 , which rescinded $16 5 billion in total funds from a number of departments, agencies, and programs  In the water infrastructure area, it rescinded $1,077,200,000 from prior year appropriations including the $3 2 million for a project in New Jersey (it had mistakenly been funded twice in P L  103-327 ) and $1,074,000,000 in other water infrastructure appropriations  Although not contained in bill language, it was understood that the larger rescinded amount consisted solely of drinking water SRF funds (leaving $1 235 billion for FY1995 clean water SRF funds, $778 6 million for earmarked wastewater projects—both amounts as originally appropriated—and $225 million in FY1994-FY1995 drinking water SRF funds that had not yet been authorized)  It took until April 1996 for Congress and the Administration to reach agreement on FY1996 appropriations for EPA as part of omnibus legislation ( P L  104-134 ) that consolidated five appropriations bills not yet enacted due to disagreements over funding levels and policy  Agreement came as the fiscal year was more than one-half over  Before that, however, congressional conferees reached agreement in November 1995 on FY1996 legislation for EPA ( H R  2099 , H Rept  104-353 )  Conferees agreed to provide $2 323 billion for a new account titled State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), consisting of infrastructure assistance and state environmental management grants for 16 categorical programs that had previously been funded in a separate appropriations account  The total included $1 125 billion for clean water SRF grants, $275 million in new appropriations for drinking water SRF grants, and $265 million for special purpose project grants  Report language provided that the drinking water SRF money also included $225 million from FY1995 appropriations rescinded in P L  104-19   The drinking water SRF money would be available upon enactment of SDWA reauthorization legislation that would authorize a drinking water SRF program; otherwise, it would revert to clean water SRF grants if the SDWA were not reauthorized by June 30, 1996  This made the total potentially available for drinking water SRF grants $500 million  The November 1995 agreement on H R  2099 included $658 million for consolidated state environmental grants  In doing so, Congress endorsed an Administration proposal for a more flexible approach to state grants, a key element of EPA's efforts to improve the federal-state partnership in environmental programs  In lieu of traditional grants provided separately to support state air, water, hazardous waste, and other programs, consolidated grants are intended to reduce administrative burdens and improve environmental performance by allowing states and tribes to target funds to meet their specific needs and integrate their environmental programs, as appropriate  Congress's support was described in accompanying report language  The conferees agree that Performance Partnership Grants are an important step to reducing the burden and increasing the flexibility that state and tribal governments need to manage and implement their environmental protection programs  This is an opportunity to use limited resources in the most effective manner, yet at the same time, produce the results-oriented environmental performance necessary to address the most pressing concerns while still achieving a clean environment  Including state environmental grants in the same account with water infrastructure assistance reflected Congress's support for enhancing the ability of states and localities to implement environmental programs flexibly and support for EPA's ability to provide block grants to states and Indian tribes  The H R  2099 conference agreement also included legislative riders intended to limit or prohibit EPA from spending money to implement several environmental programs  The Administration opposed the riders  The House and Senate approved this bill in December, but President Clinton vetoed it, because of objections to spending and policy aspects of the legislation  With no full-year funding in place from October 1995 to April 1996, EPA and the programs it administers (along with agencies and departments covered by four other appropriations bills not yet enacted) were subject to a series of short-term continuing resolutions, some lasting only a day, some lasting several weeks  In March 1996, the House and Senate began consideration of an omnibus appropriations bill to fund EPA and other agencies for the remainder of FY1996, finally reaching agreement in April on a bill ( H R  3019 ) enacted as P L  104-134   Congress agreed to provide $2 813 billion for a new account titled STAG, consisting of state grants and infrastructure assistance, as in H R  2099 , the vetoed measure  The total was divided as follows: $1 3485 billion for clean water SRF grants (including $50 million for impoverished communities), $500 million in new appropriations for drinking water SRF grants, $150 million for Mexico-border project grants and Texas colonias , as requested, $15 million for Alaska Native Villages, as requested, $141 5 million for 17 special purpose project grants, and $658 million for consolidated state environmental grants, which states could use to administer a range of delegated environmental programs  Report language provided that the drinking water SRF money also included $225 million from FY1995 appropriations that remained available after the rescissions in P L  104-19 , for a total of $725 million  The drinking water SRF money was contingent upon enactment of legislation authorizing an SRF program under the Safe Drinking Water Act by August 1, 1996; otherwise, it would revert to clean water SRF grants  The final agreement ( P L  104-134 ) included several of the legislative riders from previous versions of the legislation, including riders related to drinking water and clean air, but dropped others strongly opposed by the Administration  Funds within the STAG account were redistributed after Congress passed Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in August 1996  Enactment of the amendments ( P L  104-182 ) occurred on August 6—after the August 1 deadline in P L  104-134 that would have made $725 million available for drinking water SRF grants in FY1996  Thus, the previously appropriated $725 million reverted to clean water SRF grants, making the FY1996 total for those grants $2 0735 billion  While debate over the FY1996 appropriations was continuing, in March 1996, President Clinton submitted the details of a FY1997 budget  For water infrastructure and state and tribal assistance, the request totaled $2 852 billion consisting of $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants (the request included language that would authorize states the discretion to use this SRF money either for clean water or drinking water projects), $165 million for U S -Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects, $113 million for needy cities projects, $550 million for drinking water infrastructure SRF funding, contingent upon enactment of authorizing legislation, and $674 million for state performance partnership consolidated management grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  In response to the Administration's request, in June 1996 the House approved legislation ( H R  3666 ) providing FY1997 funding for EPA  In the STAG account, the House approved $2 768 billion, $84 million less than requested but on the whole endorsing the budget request  The total provided the following: $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, as requested; $165 million, as requested, for U S -Mexico Border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects; $450 million for drinking water SRF funding, contingent upon authorization; $674 million for state performance partnership consolidated management grants; and $129 million for seven special purpose grants  In July, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H R  3666   The committee approved $2 815 billion for this account, consisting of $1 426 billion for clean water SRF grants; $550 million for drinking water SRF grants, contingent upon authorization; $165 million, as requested, for U S -Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects; and $674 million for consolidated state grants  The committee rejected the provision of the House-passed bill providing $129 million for special purpose grants, including funds for Boston and New Orleans requested by the Administration, saying in report language that earmarking is provided at the expense of state revolving funds and does not represent an equitable distribution of grant funds ( S Rept  104-318 )  During debate on H R  3666 in September, the Senate adopted an amendment to reduce the FY1997 appropriation for clean water SRF grants by $725 million in order to fund the new drinking water SRF program  This action was intended to restore funds to the drinking water program which had been lost when Safe Drinking Water Act amendments were not enacted by August 1, 1996  Thus, the Senate-passed bill provided $701 million for clean water SRF grants and $1 275 billion for drinking water SRF grants for FY1997  Other amounts in the account were unchanged  The conference report on H R  3666 ( H Rept  104-812 ) was approved by the House and Senate on September 24, 1996  President Clinton signed the bill September 26 ( P L  104-204 )  It reflected compromise of the House- and Senate-passed bills, providing the following amounts within the STAG account ($2 875 billion total): $625 million for clean water SRF grants, $1 275 billion for drinking water SRF grants, $165 million, as requested, for U S -Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects, $136 million for 18 specific wastewater, water, and groundwater project grants (the 7 specified in House-passed H R  3666 , plus 11 more; the bill provided funds for each of the needy cities projects requested by the Administration, but in lesser amounts), and $674 million for consolidated state grants, which could support implementation of a range of environmental programs  The allocation of clean water and drinking water SRF grants was consistent with the Senate's action to restore funds to the drinking water program after enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in early August  Subsequently, Congress passed a FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill to cover agencies and departments for which full-year funding had not been enacted by October 1, 1996 ( P L  104-208 )  It included additional funding for several EPA programs, as well as $35 million (on top of $40 million provided in P L  104-204 ) for the Boston Harbor cleanup project  President Clinton presented the Administration's budget request for FY1998 in February 1997  For water infrastructure and state and tribal assistance, the request totaled $2 793 billion, consisting of $1 075 billion for clean water SRF grants, $725 million for drinking water SRF grants, $715 million for consolidated state environmental grants, and $278 million for special project grants  House and Senate committees began activities on FY1998 funding bills somewhat late in 1997, due to prolonged negotiations between Congress and the President over a five-year budget plan to achieve a balanced budget by 2002  After appropriators took up the FY1998 funding bills in June, the House passed EPA's appropriation in H R  2158 ( H Rept  105-175 ) on July 15  In the STAG account, the House approved $3 019 billion, consisting of $1 25 billion for clean water SRF grants ($600 million more than FY1997 levels and $175 million more than requested by the President), $750 million for drinking water SRF grants ($425 million less than FY1997 levels, but $25 million more than the request), $750 million for state environmental assistance grants, and $269 million for special projects  The latter included funds for the special projects requested by the Administration but at reduced levels ($149 million total for these projects), plus $120 million in special project grants for 21 other communities  The Senate passed a separate version of an FY1998 appropriations bill on July 22, 1997 ( S  1034 , S Rept  105-53 )  It provided $3 047 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $725 million for drinking water SRF grants, $725 million for state environmental assistance grants, and $247 million for special project grants  The Senate bill provided the amounts requested by the Administration for U S -Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects (but no special funds for others requested by the President), plus $82 million for 18 special project grants for other communities identified in report language  Conferees reached agreement on FY1998 funding in early October 1997 ( H R  2158 , H Rept  105-297 )  The final version passed the House on October 8 and passed the Senate on October 9  President Clinton signed the bill October 27 ( P L  105-65 )  As enacted, it provided $3 213 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $725 million for drinking water SRF grants, $745 million for consolidated state environmental assistance grants (which could address a range of environmental programs), and $393 million for 42 special purpose project and special community need grants for construction of wastewater, water treatment and drinking water facilities, and groundwater protection infrastructure  It included the following amounts for grants requested by the Administration: $75 million for U S -Mexico border projects, $50 million for Texas colonias , $50 million for Boston Harbor wastewater needs, $10 million for New Orleans, $3 million for Bristol County, MA, and $15 million for Alaska Native Village projects  The final bill also provided funds for all of the special purpose projects included in the separate House and Senate versions of the legislation, plus three projects not included in either earlier version  Bill language was included in P L  105-65 to allow states to cross-collateralize clean water and drinking water SRF funds, that is, to use the combined assets of amounts appropriated to State Revolving Funds as common security for both SRFs, which conferees said is intended to ensure maximum opportunity for states to leverage these funds  Senate committee report language also said that the conference report on the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments had stated that bond pooling and similar arrangements were not precluded under that legislation  The appropriations bill language was intended to ensure that EPA does not take an unduly narrow interpretation of this point which would restrict the states' use of SRF funds  On November 1, 1997, President Clinton used his authority under the Line Item Veto Act ( P L  104-130 ) to cancel six items of discretionary budget authority provided in P L  105-65   The President's authority under this act took effect in the 105 th Congress; thus, this was the first EPA appropriations bill affected by it  The cancelled items included funding for one of the special purpose grants in the bill, $500,000 for new water and sewer lines in an industrial park in McConnellsburg, PA  Reasons for the cancellation, according to the President, were that the project had not been requested by the Administration; it would primarily benefit a private entity and is outside the scope of EPA's usual mission; it is a low priority use of environmental funds; and it would provide funding outside the normal process of allocating funds according to state environmental priorities  However, in June 1998, the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional, and in July the Office of Management and Budget announced that funding would be released for 40-plus cancellations made in 1997 under that act (including those cancelled in P L  105-65 ) that Congress had not previously overturned  (For additional information, see CRS Report RL33635, Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals: History and Current Status , by Virginia A  McMurtry ) President Clinton's budget request for FY1999, presented to Congress in February 1998, requested $2 9 billion for the STAG account, representing 37% of the $7 9 billion total requested for EPA programs  The total included $1 075 billion for clean water SRF grants, $775 million for drinking water SRF grants, $115 million for water infrastructure projects along the U S -Mexico border projects and in Alaska Native Villages, $78 million for needy cities projects, and $875 million for consolidated state environmental grants (which could address a range of environmental programs)  Legislative action on the budget request occurred in mid-1998  Both houses of Congress increased amounts for water infrastructure financing, finding the Administration's request for clean water and drinking water SRF grants, as well as special project funding, not adequate  First, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of an EPA spending bill in June 1998 ( S  2168 , S Rept  105-216 )  This bill, passed by the Senate July 17, provided $3 2 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1 4 billion for clean water SRF grants, $800 million for drinking water SRF grants, $105 million for U S -Mexico and Alaska Native Village projects, $100 million for 39 other special needs infrastructure grants, and $850 million for state performance partnership/categorical grants  As in FY1998, the committee included bill language allowing states to cross-collateralize their clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, making the language explicit for FY1999 and thereafter  Second, the House passed its version of EPA's funding bill ( H R  4194 , H Rept  105-610 ) on July 29  This bill provided $3 2 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1 25 billion for clean water SRF grants, $775 million for drinking water SRF grants, $70 million for U S -Mexico and Alaska Native Village projects, $253 5 million for 49 other special needs infrastructure grants (including nine projects also funded in the Senate bill), and $885 million for state environmental management grants (a 20% increase above FY1998 amounts for these state grants)  Conferees resolved differences between the two versions in October 1998 ( H R  4194 , H Rept  105-769 )  The conference agreement provided $3 4 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $775 million for drinking water SRF grants, $80 million for U S -Mexico and Alaska Native and Rural Village projects, $301 8 million for 80 other special needs project grants, and $880 million for state and tribal environmental program grants (which could address a range of environmental programs)  The House and Senate approved the agreement on October 7 and 8, respectively, and President Clinton signed the bill into law on October 21 ( P L  105-276 )  Additional funding was provided in the Omnibus Consolidated and Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY1999 ( P L  105-277 )  This bill, which provided full-year funding for agencies and departments covered by seven separate appropriations measures, directed $20 million more in special needs grants for the Boston Harbor wastewater infrastructure project, on top of $30 million that was included in P L  105-276   For FY2000, beginning on October 1, 1999, the Administration requested $2 638 billion for water infrastructure assistance and state environmental grants  The total, $370 million less than the FY1999 appropriation for this account, consisted of $800 million for clean water SRF grants, $825 million for drinking water SRF grants, $128 million for Mexican border and special project grants, and $885 million for consolidated state environmental grants (which could address a range of environmental programs)  The request included one SRF policy issue  The Administration asked the appropriators to grant states the permission to set aside up to 20% of FY2000 clean water SRF monies in the form of grants for local communities to implement nonpoint source pollution and estuary management projects  Under the Clean Water Act, SRFs may only be used to provide loans  Some have argued that some types of water pollution projects which are eligible for SRF funding may not be suitable for loans, as they may not generate revenues which can be used to repay the loan to a state  This new authority, the Administration said, would allow states greater flexibility to address nonpoint pollution problems  Critics of the proposal said that making grants from an SRF would reduce the long-term integrity of a state's fund, since grants would not be repaid  Some Members of Congress and stakeholder groups were particularly critical of the budget request for clean water SRF grants, $550 million (40%) less than the FY1999 level  Critics said the request was insufficient to meet the needs of states and localities for clean water infrastructure  In response, EPA acknowledged that several years prior the Clinton Administration had made a commitment to states that the clean water SRF would revolve at $2 billion annually in the year 2005  Because of loan repayments and other factors, EPA said, the overall fund will be revolve at $2 billion per year in the year 2002, even with the 20% grant setaside included in the FY2000 request  According to EPA, the $550 million decrease from 1999 would have only a limited impact on SRFs and would still allow the agency to meet its long-term capitalization goal of providing an average amount of $2 billion in annual assistance  The House and Senate passed their respective versions of an EPA appropriations bill ( H R  2684 ) in September 1999  The conference committee report resolving differences between the two versions ( H Rept  106-379 ) was passed by the House on October 14 and the Senate on October 15 and was signed by the President on October 20 ( P L  106-74 )  The final bill provided $7 6 billion overall for EPA programs, including $3 47 billion for the STAG account  Within that account, the bill included $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $820 million for drinking water SRF grants, $885 million for categorical state grants (which generally support state and tribal implementation and could address a range of environmental programs), $80 million for U S -Mexico border and Alaska Rural and Native Village projects, and $331 6 million for 141 other special needs water and wastewater grants specified in report language  The final bill did not approve the Administration's request to allow states to use up to 20% of clean water SRF monies as grants for nonpoint pollution and estuary management projects  Subsequent to enactment of the EPA funding bill, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 with funding for five other agencies ( P L  106-113 ), which included provisions requiring a government-wide cut of 0 38% in discretionary appropriations  The bill gave the President some flexibility in applying this across-the-board reduction  Details of the reduction were announced at the time of the release of the FY2001 budget  EPA's distribution of the rescission resulted in a total reduction of $16 3 million for 139 of the special needs water and wastewater projects identified in P L  106-74   These projects were reduced 4 9% below enacted levels  The agency did not reduce funds for the two projects that had been included in the President's FY2000 budget request (Bristol County, MA, and New Orleans, LA) or for the United States-Mexico border and the Alaska Rural and Native Villages programs  EPA also reduced funds for the clean water SRF (enacted at $1 35 billion) by 0 3%, for a final funding level of $1 345 billion  The appropriation level was not reduced for the drinking water SRF or consolidated state grants  The President's budget for FY2001 requested a total of $2 9 billion for water infrastructure assistance and state environmental grants  For the second year in a row, President Clinton requested $800 million for the clean water SRF program, a $545 million reduction from the FY2000 level  The request included $825 million for the drinking water SRF program, $100 million for U S -Mexico border project grants, $15 million for Alaska Native Villages projects, two needy cities grants totaling $13 million (Bristol County, MA, and New Orleans, LA), plus $1 069 billion for consolidated state environmental grants (which could address a range of environmental programs)  The budget included a policy request similar to one in the FY2000 budget, which Congress rejected  The FY2001 budget sought flexibility for states to set aside up to 19% of clean water SRF monies in the form of grants for local communities to implement nonpoint source pollution and estuary management projects  The House approved its version of EPA's funding bill ( H R  4635 , H Rept  106-674 ) on June 21, 2000  For the STAG account, H R  4635 provided $3 2 billion ($273 million more than requested, but $288 million below the FY2000 level)  The total in the STAG account consisted of $1 2 billion for clean water SRF grants, $825 million for drinking water SRF grants, $1 068 billion (the budget request) for categorical state grants, and $85 million for U S -Mexico border and Alaska Rural and Native Villages projects  Beyond these, however, the House-passed bill included no funds for other special needs grants  The Senate approved its version of the funding bill ( S Rept  106-410 ) on October 12, 2000  For the STAG account, the Senate-passed bill provided $3 3 billion, consisting of $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $820 million for drinking water SRF grants, $955 million for categorical state grants, $85 million for U S -Mexico border and Alaska Rural and Native Village projects, and $110 million for special needs water and wastewater grants  In October, the House and Senate approved EPA's funding bill for FY2001 ( H Rept  106-988 ), providing $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants (the same level enacted for FY2000) and $825 million for drinking water SRF grants  The enacted bill included $110 million in grants for water infrastructure projects in Alaska Rural and Native Villages and U S -Mexico border projects and an additional $336 million for 237 other specified project grants throughout the country  The bill also provided $1,008 million for state categorical program grants ($60 million less in total than requested), which states could use to address a range of environmental programs  Total funding for the STAG account was $3 6 billion  Congress disapproved the Administration's policy request concerning use of clean water SRF monies for nonpoint source project grants  President Clinton signed the bill October 27, 2000 ( P L  106-377 )  Subsequently, in December, Congress provided $21 million more for five more special project water infrastructure grants (in addition to the $336 million in P L  106-377 ) as a provision of H R  4577 , the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P L  106-554 )  Also in that legislation, Congress enacted the Wet Weather Water Quality Act, authorizing a two-year, $1 5 billion grants program to reduce wet weather flows from municipal sewer systems  The provision was included in Section 112, Division B, of P L  106-554   In April 2001, the Bush Administration presented its budget request for FY2002  The Administration requested a total of $2 1 billion for clean water infrastructure funds, consisting of $823 million for drinking water SRF grants, $850 million for clean water SRF grants (compared with $1 35 billion appropriated for FY2001), and $450 million for the new program of municipal sewer overflow grants under legislation enacted in December, the Wet Weather Water Quality Act  However, that act provided that sewer overflow grants are only available in years when at least $1 35 billion in clean water SRF grants is appropriated  Subsequently, Administration officials said they would request that Congress modify the provision linking new grant funds to at least $1 35 billion in clean water SRF grants  The Bush budget requested no funds for special earmarked grants, except for $75 million to fund projects along the U S -Mexico border and $35 million for projects in Alaska Native Villages (both are the same amounts provided in FY2001)  In response, some Members of Congress and outside groups criticized the budget request, saying that it did not provide enough support for water infrastructure programs  The President's budget also requested $1 06 billion for state categorical program grants, which generally support state and tribal administration of a range of environmental programs  The House passed its version of FY2002 funding for EPA on July 30 ( H R  2620 , H Rept  107-159 )  The House-passed bill provided a total of $2 4 billion for water infrastructure funds, consisting of $1 2 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $200 million for special project grants (individual projects were unspecified in the report accompanying H R  2620 ), $75 million for U S -Mexico border projects, and $30 million for Alaska Rural and Native Villages  The House bill provided no separate funds for the new wet weather overflow grant program, which the Administration had requested  Including $1 08 billion for state categorical program grants, total STAG account funding in the bill was $3 44 billion, about $150 million higher than the President's request  The Senate passed its version of this appropriations bill on August 2 ( S  1216 , S Rept  107-43 )  Like the House, the Senate rejected separate funding for wet weather overflow grants, and the Senate increased clean water SRF grant funding to the FY2001 level  The Senate-passed total for the STAG account was $3 49 billion, including $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $140 million for special needs infrastructure grants specified in accompanying report language, $75 million for U S -Mexico border projects, $30 million for Alaska Rural and Native Villages, and $1 03 billion for state categorical program grants  Resolution of this and other appropriations bills in fall 2001 was complicated by congressional attention to general economic conditions and responses to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon  Nevertheless, the House and Senate gave final approval to legislation providing EPA's FY2002 funding ( H R  2620 , H Rept  107-272 ) on November 8, and President Bush signed the bill on November 26 ( P L  107-73 )  The final bill did not include separate funds for the new sewer overflow grant program requested by the Administration, which both the House and Senate had rejected, but it did include $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $344 million for 337 earmarked water infrastructure project grants specified in report language, and the requested $75 million for U S -Mexico border projects and $30 million for Alaska Rural and Native Villages  The bill included total STAG funding of $3 7 billion  President Bush presented the Administration's FY2003 budget request in February 2002, asking Congress to appropriate $2 185 billion for EPA's water infrastructure programs (compared with $2 659 billion appropriated for FY2002)  The FY2003 request sought $1 212 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $123 million for a limited number of special projects (especially in Alaska Native Villages and in communities on the U S -Mexico border)  The Administration proposed to eliminate funds for unrequested infrastructure project spending that Congress had earmarked in the FY2002 law, which totaled $344 million  Also, the Administration requested no funds for the municipal sewer overflow grants program enacted in 2000  Some Members of Congress criticized the request level for clean water SRF capitalization grants, which was $138 million below the FY2002 enacted amount  In August 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an FY2003 funding bill for EPA that would provide $1 45 billion for clean water SRF grants, $100 million more than the FY2002 level ( S  2797 , S Rept  107-222 )  In addition, the Senate committee bill included $875 million for drinking water SRF grants, $140 million for special needs infrastructure grants specified in report language, $45 million for Alaska Rural and Native Village project grants, $75 million for U S -Mexico border projects, and $1 134 billion for state categorical program grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  The House Appropriations Committee approved its version of an FY2003 funding bill with $1 3 billion for the clean water SRF program ( H R  5605 , H Rept  107-740 ) in October  This bill also included $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $227 6 million for special needs infrastructure grants enumerated in report language, $35 million for Alaska Rural and Native Village project grants, $75 million for U S -Mexico border projects, and $1 173 billion for state categorical program grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  Neither appropriations committee included funds for the sewer overflow grant program authorized in 2000 (the Administration did not request FY2003 funds for these grants)  Due to complex budgetary disputes during the year, final action did not occur before the 107 th Congress adjourned in November 2002, and it extended into 2003, more than five months after the start of the fiscal year  Congress and the President reached agreement on funding levels for EPA and other nondefense agencies in an omnibus appropriations act ( P L  108-7 ; H J Res  2 , H Rept  108-10 ), which the President signed on February 20  The EPA portion of the enacted bill included $1 34 billion for clean water SRF grants, $844 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $413 million more for 489 special water infrastructure project grants to individual cities specified in conference report language, plus projects in Alaska Native Villages and communities on the U S -Mexico border  It also provided a total of $1 14 billion for categorical state grants, which generally support states and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs  On February 3, 2003, before completion of the FY2003 appropriations, President Bush submitted his budget request for FY2004  It requested a total of $1 798 billion for water infrastructure funds, consisting of $850 million for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $98 million for priority projects (especially in Alaska Native Villages and in communities on the U S -Mexico border)  As in previous years, the Administration requested no funds for congressionally earmarked project grants for individual communities  Some Members of Congress and interest groups criticized the request for clean water SRF grants ($490 million below the FY2003 enacted level), but Administration officials responded by saying that the request reflected a commitment to fund this program at the $850 million level through FY2011  Funding at that level and over that long-term period, plus repayments of previous SRF loans made by states, would be expected to increase the revolving levels of the overall program from $2 0 billion to $2 8 billion per year, the Administration said  The President's budget also requested $1 2 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  On July 25, the House approved H R  2861 ( H Rept  108-235 ), providing FY2004 appropriations for EPA  As passed, the bill included $1 2 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $203 million for earmarked water infrastructure project grants, and $75 million in grants for high-priority projects in Alaska Native Villages and along the U S -Mexico border  Senate action on its version of a funding bill for EPA ( S Rept  108-143 ) occurred on November 18  The Senate-passed bill provided $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $130 million for targeted infrastructure project grants, plus $95 million in grants for projects in Alaska Native Villages and along the U S -Mexico border  As with the previous year's appropriations, Congress did not enact legislation providing FY2004 funds for EPA before the beginning of the new fiscal year; thus EPA programs were covered by a series of continuing resolutions (CRs)  The last of these CRs ( P L  108-135 ) extended FY2003 funding levels through January 31, 2004  On December 8, 2003, the House passed legislation providing full-year funding for EPA and other agencies that lacked enacted appropriations ( H R  2673 )  The conference report on this bill ( H Rept  108-401 ) provided $1 34 billion for clean water SRF grants, $845 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $425 million in grants for 520 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and U S -Mexico border projects  The Senate approved the conference report on January 22, 2004, and President Bush signed the legislation January 23 ( P L  108-199 )  The FY2005 EPA appropriation for water infrastructure funds was the lowest total for these programs since FY1997 (the first year in which Congress provided both clean water and drinking water SRF capitalization grants, as well as earmarked project grants)  The decline was due primarily to a reduction in funding for the clean water SRF program from an average of $1 35 billion since FY1998 to $1 09 billion  President Bush's FY2005 budget, presented February 2, 2004, requested a total of $3 0 billion for water infrastructure assistance and state environmental program grants  It included $850 million for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $94 million for priority projects (primarily in Alaska Native Villages and along the U S -Mexico border), and $1 25 billion for categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  As in recent budgets, the Administration requested no funds for congressionally earmarked project grants  Anticipating that critics likely would focus on the clean water SRF request ($492 million below the FY2004 level), in its budget documents the Administration said that the request included funding for the clean water SRF at $850 million annually through 2011, which, together with loan repayments, state matches, and other funding sources, would result in a long-term average revolving level of $3 4 billion  Likewise, the budget anticipated funding the drinking water SRF program at the same $850 million annually through 2011, resulting in a long-term average revolving level of $1 2 billion  House and Senate Appropriations committees began review of the EPA budget request in March  On September 9, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee reported FY2005 funding for EPA in a bill that included the Administration's requested level of $850 million for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and earmarked grants for priority water infrastructure projects totaling $393 4 million ( H R  5041 , H Rept  108-674 )  On September 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of this bill ( S  2825 , S Rept  108-353 ), which included $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $217 million for earmarked project grants  Final action on the FY2005 appropriation did not occur before the start of the fiscal year  On November 20, the House and Senate passed H R  4818 ( H Rept  108-792 ), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, an omnibus appropriations bill comprising nine appropriations measures, including funding for EPA  The bill provided total funding for EPA of $8 1 billion, a decrease from the $8 4 billion approved in FY2004, but $340 million more than was requested by the President in February  One of the most controversial items in the final bill was a $251 million decrease for clean water SRF grants from the FY2004 level, although the $1 09 billion total was $241 million more than in the President's budget  The final measure also included $843 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $401 7 million for 669 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and U S -Mexico border projects; and $1 14 billion for categorical state grants, which generally support state and tribal administration of a range of environmental programs  The $2 34 billion total for water infrastructure programs and projects was $542 million more than was requested by the President, but $276 million less than Congress appropriated for FY2004  President Bush signed the legislation December 8, 2004 ( P L  108-447 )  The FY2006 appropriation for water infrastructure funds marked the second consecutive year in which Congress appropriated less funding for these programs, providing lower levels both for clean water SRF capitalization grants and for earmarked project grants than in FY2005  President Bush presented the FY2006 budget request in February 2005  Overall for EPA, it sought 5 6% less than Congress had appropriated for FY2005  The Administration's deepest cuts affecting EPA were proposed for the STAG account  The budget requested $730 million for clean water SRF grants (33% below FY2005 appropriated funding and 45 6% below the FY2004 level), $850 million for drinking water SRF grants (a slight increase from the FY2005 level), $69 million for priority projects (primarily in Alaska Native Villages and along the U S -Mexico border), and $1 2 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  As in previous years, the Administration requested no funds for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure projects  Advocates for the SRF programs (especially state and local government officials) contended that cuts to the clean water program would impair their ability to carry out needed municipal wastewater treatment plant improvement projects  Administration officials responded that the proposed SRF reductions for FY2006 were because Congress had boosted funds above the FY2005 request level  These officials said that the Administration planned to invest $6 8 billion in the clean water SRF program between FY2004 and FY2011, after which federal funding was expected to end, and the state SRFs were expected to have an annual revolving level of $3 4 billion  If Congress appropriated more than requested in any given year (as occurred in FY2005), they said, that target would be met sooner, leading to reduced requests for the SRF in subsequent years until a planned phaseout in FY2011  On May 19, 2005, the House passed H R  2361 , providing FY2006 funding for EPA  As passed, it provided $850 million for clean water SRF grants ($120 million more than the President's request), $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $269 million for earmarked water infrastructure grants  During debate, the House rejected two amendments to increase clean water SRF funding  On June 29, the Senate passed its version of H R  2361 , providing $1 1 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $290 million for earmarked project grants  The House bill required that $100 million of the SRF funding come from balances from expired contracts, grants, and interagency agreements from various EPA appropriation accounts  The Senate bill, in contrast, called for a $58 million rescission of unobligated amounts associated with grants, contracts, and interagency agreements in various accounts, but did not specify that such monies go to SRF funding  Conferees resolved differences between the bills ( H Rept  109-188 ), and the House and Senate approved the measure in July; the President signed it into law on August 2 ( P L  109-54 )  As enacted, the bill provided $900 million for clean water SRF grants; $850 million for drinking water SRF grants; $285 million for 259 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and along the U S -Mexico border; and $1 13 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  The final bill required an $80 million rescission from expired grants, contracts, and interagency agreements in various EPA accounts (not just the STAG account) not obligated by September 1, 2006  It did not direct the rescinded funds to be applied to the clean water SRF, as proposed by the House  The $2 03 billion total in the bill for EPA water infrastructure programs and projects was $386 million more than was requested by the President, but $301 million less than Congress appropriated for FY2005  Further, the funding amounts specified in P L  109-54 were reduced slightly  First, a provision of P L  109-54 , Section 439, mandated an across-the-board rescission of 0 476% for any discretionary appropriation in that bill  Second, in December 2005 Congress enacted P L  109-148 , the FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and Section 3801 of that bill mandated a 1% across-the-board rescission for discretionary accounts in any FY2006 appropriation act (except for discretionary authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs)  As a result of these two rescissions, the final levels for the STAG account were $887 million for clean water SRF grants; $838 million for drinking water SRF grants; $281 million for 259 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and along the U S -Mexico border; and $1 11 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  FY2006 EPA water infrastructure programs and projects thus total $2 0 billion  On October 28, President Bush requested that Congress rescind $2 3 billion from 55 "lower-priority federal programs and excess funds," including $166 million from clean water SRF monies  In the end, Congress did not endorse the specific request to reduce clean water SRF appropriations  The two rescissions resulting from P L  109-54 and P L  109-148 totaled a $13 2 million reduction from the $900 million specified in the EPA appropriations act  President Bush presented the Administration's FY2007 budget request in February 2006, asking Congress to appropriate $1 570 billion for EPA's water infrastructure programs  The FY2007 request sought $687 6 million for clean water SRF grants, $841 5 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $40 6 million for special projects in Alaska Native Villages, Puerto Rico, and along the U S -Mexico border  When the 109 th Congress adjourned in December 2006, it had not completed action on appropriations legislation to fund EPA (or on nine other appropriations bills covering the majority of domestic discretionary agencies and departments) for the fiscal year that began October 1, 2006, thus carrying over this legislative activity into the 110 th Congress  In December 2006, Congress enacted a continuing resolution, P L  109-383 (the third such continuing resolution since the start of the fiscal year on October 1), providing funds for EPA and the other affected agencies and departments until February 15, 2007  The President's FY2007 budget request for clean water SRF capitalization grants was 22% less than the FY2006 appropriation for these grants and 37% below the FY2005 funding level  The request for drinking water SRF grants was essentially the same as in recent years ($4 million more than FY2006, $1 7 million less than FY2005)  As in recent budgets, the Administration proposed no funding for congressionally designated water infrastructure grants, but, as noted above, it did seek a total of $40 6 million for Administration priority projects  Advocates of the clean water SRF program (especially state and local government officials) again contended, as they have for several recent years, that the cuts would impair their ability to carry out needed municipal wastewater treatment plant improvement projects  Administration officials responded that cuts for the clean water SRF in FY2007 were necessary because Congress boosted funds above the requested level in FY2005 and FY2006  On May 18, 2006, the House passed H R  5386 ( H Rept  109-465 ), providing the requested level of $687 6 million for clean water SRF grants and $841 5 million for drinking water SRF grants  The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the same funding levels for these grant programs when it reported H R  5386 on June 29 ( S Rept  109-275 ), but the Senate did not act on this measure before the 109 th Congress adjourned in December  Before adjournment, Congress enacted a continuing resolution (CR), P L  109-383 (the third such CR since the start of the fiscal year on October 1), providing funds for EPA and the other affected agencies and departments until February 15, 2007  Funding levels provided under this CR followed a "lowest level" concept for individual programs; that is, programs were funded at the lowest level under either House-passed FY2007 appropriations, Senate-passed appropriations, or the FY2006 funding  For clean water SRF grants, the resulting appropriation through mid-February was $687 6 million, as in House-passed H R  5386   For drinking water SRF grants, the appropriation level through mid-February was $837 5 million, the FY2006-enacted level  The CR included funds for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure project grants totaling $200 million, as in House-passed H R  5386   Returning to these issues in 2007, in mid-February, Congress passed H J Res  20 , a continuing appropriations resolution that provides funding for EPA and the other affected agencies through the end of FY2007  As passed, this full-year resolution held most programs and activities at their FY2006 appropriated levels  However, clean water SRF capitalization grants were one of the few programs that received a funding increase under the resolution: these grants received $1 08 billion ($197 million more than in FY2006, and $396 million more than the President requested for FY2007)  The resolution further prohibited project grants for congressional earmarks, but not for special project grants requested in the President's budget  The action to ban earmarks in FY2007 occurred when leaders in the 110 th Congress sought to finish up appropriations actions that were unresolved at the end of the 109 th Congress, and at the same time the newly elected Congress moved to adopt rules and procedures to reform the congressional earmarking process for the future  (Water infrastructure project earmarks totaled $281 million in EPA's FY2006 appropriation ) President Bush signed H J Res  20 on February 15, 2007 ( P L  110-5 )  The final FY2007 amounts provided in P L  110-5 were $1 084 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $837 5 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $83 75 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border project grants requested by the Administration, and $1 11 billion for categorical state grants, which could be used to administer a range of environmental programs  President Obama presented his FY2008 budget request to Congress on February 5, 2007, before finalization of the FY2007 appropriations  The budget sought $687 6 million for clean water SRF grants, the same amount requested for FY2007; $842 2 million for drinking water SRF grants; $25 5 million for special project grants for Alaska Native Villages and the U S -Mexico border region; and $1 065 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  In June 2007, the House passed H R  2643 , providing FY2008 appropriations for EPA  This bill included $1 125 billion for clean water SRF grants, $842 2 million for drinking water SRF grants, plus $175 5 million for 143 congressionally designated water infrastructure project grants  The Senate Appropriations Committee approved companion legislation ( S  1696 ) that similarly included higher funding levels for several water quality programs  The Senate committee's bill provided less funding for clean water SRF grants than the House bill ($887 million), the same amount for drinking water SRF grants, and slightly more for congressionally designated water infrastructure project grants ($180 million)  The Senate did not take up S  1696   By October 1, the start of FY2008, Congress had not enacted any appropriations bills for FY2008, and Congress enacted several short-term continuing appropriations resolutions to temporarily fund EPA and other government agencies until final agreement, which occurred in December 2007  Full-year funding for EPA's water infrastructure programs was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (Division F, Title II), signed by the President December 26, 2007 ( P L  110-161 )  The final FY2008 amounts provided in this legislation were $689 1 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($1 5 million more than requested by the Administration), $829 0 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($13 2 million less than requested), $177 2 million for 282 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and U S -Mexico border projects ($151 7 million more than requested), and $1 078 billion for categorical state grants ($13 3 million more than requested), which could address a range of environmental programs  President Obama presented his FY2009 budget request to Congress on February 6, 2008  The budget sought $555 million for clean water SRF grants, $134 million less than Congress appropriated for FY2008; $842 2 million for drinking water SRF grants, $13 million more than was appropriated for FY2008; $25 5 million for special project grants for Alaska Native Villages and the U S -Mexico border region, $18 8 million less than was appropriated for FY2008; and $1 057 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  As in past years, the budget requested no funds for other earmarked grants  In June 2008, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill with FY2009 funding for EPA, but no further action occurred before the start of the fiscal year  At the end of September 2008, Congress and the President agreed to legislation providing partial-year funding for EPA and most other agencies and departments  This bill, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Resolution Act, 2009 ( P L  110-329 ), provided funding through March 6, 2009, at FY2008 funding levels  A second short-term continuing resolution was enacted on March 6 ( P L  111-6 ), while Congress was finishing consideration of a full-year omnibus FY2009 appropriations bill that the President signed on March 11 ( P L  111-8 )  The omnibus bill provided $689 million in regular appropriations for clean water SRF grants, $829 million for drinking water SRF grants—both at the same levels as were appropriated in FY2008—and $1 094 billion for categorical state grants, which support administration of a range of environmental programs  The omnibus appropriations act also includes $183 5 million for earmarked water infrastructure grants  In February 2009, Congress responded to the nation's economic crisis by enacting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P L  111-5 ), legislation providing FY2009 supplemental appropriations to a number of government programs  Part of the philosophy underlying the legislation was the concept of using federal investments to make accelerated investments in the nation's public infrastructure in order to create jobs while also meeting infrastructure needs  To that end, the legislation included $4 0 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants (for total FY2009 funds of $4 689 billion) and $2 0 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (for total FY2009 funds of $2 829 billion)  The supplemental SRF funds were available for obligation through FY2010, but under the legislation, states were to give preference when awarding funds to activities that can start and finish quickly, with a goal that at least 50% of the funds go to activities that can be initiated within 120 days of enactment  States were to give priority to wastewater projects that could proceed to construction within 12 months of enactment, and funds for projects that were not under contract or under construction by February 12, 2010, would be reallocated by EPA to other states  Further, the legislation required states to reserve at least 20% of the SRF capitalization grant funds for a Green Project Reserve, that is, projects intended to achieve improved energy or water efficiency  It also specified that all assistance agreements made in whole or in part with funds appropriated under the ARRA must comply with prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act  President Obama presented his Administration's FY2010 budget request on May 7, 2009  For EPA as a whole, the budget sought $10 5 billion, a 38% increase above levels enacted in EPA's regular FY2009 appropriations ( P L  111-8 )  The bulk of the increase in the President's budget was for water infrastructure assistance, which would receive 157% above FY2009 levels (excluding ARRA supplemental funds)  The request included $2 4 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $1 5 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects; and $1 111 billion for state categorical grants (1 5% above FY2009 levels), which generally support state administration of environmental programs  Congress provided FY2010 appropriations for EPA in P L  111-88 , passed by the House and Senate in October 2009 and signed into law on October 30  In this measure, Congress provided the following: $2 1 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $1 387 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $186 7 million for 319 congressionally earmarked special project grants, including assistance for Alaska Native Villages and U S -Mexico border projects; and $1 116 billion for state categorical environmental grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  The FY2010 appropriations act included some restrictions that Congress also had specified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, discussed above, namely a requirement that 20% of SRF capitalization grant assistance be used for "green" infrastructure and also that Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage rules shall apply to construction of wastewater or drinking water projects carried out in whole or in part with assistance from the SRF  President Obama presented the FY2011 budget request in February 2010  For EPA as a whole, the budget sought $10 02 billion in discretionary budget authority, a 3% decrease from levels enacted for EPA in FY2010  The largest component of the reduced request, compared with FY2010, was $200 million less for grants to capitalize clean water and drinking water SRF programs  In explaining the request, EPA budget documents noted that even with a slight reduction, the budget "continues robust funding for the SRFs " As in past years, the President requested no funds for congressionally designated water infrastructure projects  The request included $2 0 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $1 287 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects; and $1 277 billion for state categorical grant programs (14% higher than the FY2010 enacted amount), which could address a range of environmental programs  Congress took only limited action on FY2011 funding for EPA before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2010: a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill in July, but no further action followed  At the end of September, the House and Senate passed a continuing resolution to extend FY2010 funding levels for EPA and other federal agencies and departments until December 3, 2010, because no FY2011 appropriations bills had been enacted by October 1  President Obama signed the continuing resolution (CR) on September 30 ( P L  111-242 )  This bill was followed by six more short-term CRs before Congress came to final resolution of FY2011 spending on April 14, 2011, enacting a bill to provide funding for EPA and all other federal agencies and departments through September 30 ( P L  112-10 )  The final bill reduced overall funding for EPA 15% below the FY2010 level  The enacted bill included $1 522 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $963 1 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $19 96 million for Alaska Native Village and U S  Mexico-border projects; and $1 254 billion for state categorical grant programs, which generally support implementation of a range of environmental programs  Policymakers began to consider the budget for FY2012 before finalizing the funding levels for FY2011  The President submitted the Administration's FY2012 budget request on February 14, 2011  It sought $9 billion total for EPA, a decrease of $1 3 billion from the FY2010 enacted level, but 3% higher than the FY2011 enacted level  The President's request included $1 55 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $990 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border assistance, and $1 2 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  For several days in July 2011, the House debated H R  2584 , providing FY2012 appropriations for EPA, but did not take final action on the bill before the August recess  As reported, the bill provided $7 3 billion for EPA, 17% less than FY2011 funds and 19% less than the President's FY2012 request  It reduced funds for the clean water SRF capitalization grants to $689 million and $829 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (the same levels provided in FY2008), while including no funds for congressionally designated special projects (i e , earmarks)  The reported bill also provided $1 002 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  There was no action on this bill in the Senate  Final congressional action on FY2012 appropriations for EPA and most other federal agencies and departments did not occur until the end of December 2011, enacted in an omnibus appropriations act, P L  112-74   The enacted bill included $1 466 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants (3 7% below FY2011); $917 9 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (4 7% below FY2011); $14 976 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects; and $1 089 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  President Obama presented the Administration's FY2013 budget request in February 2012  It sought $8 34 billion overall for EPA, or 4 7% below the level enacted for FY2012  The request included $1 175 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border assistance, and $1 2 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  The total amount requested for SRF capitalization grants is 15% below the FY2012 enacted level, reflecting a 20% reduction for the clean water program and a 7 4% reduction for the drinking water program  The House Appropriations Committee approved legislation providing FY2013 funds for EPA in July 2012 ( H R  6091 )  As reported, the bill provided $689 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants (the same level provided in FY2008), $829 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $994 million for state categorical grants, and no funds for Alaska Native Village or U S -Mexico border projects  The House did not take up H R  6091 , nor did the Senate act on an EPA appropriations bill (although the Senate Appropriations Committee released a draft bill in September 2012)  Prior to the start of FY2013 on October 1, 2012, Congress passed and the President signed a continuing resolution bill providing funding for government agencies and departments through March 27, 2013 ( P L  112-175 )  This measure funded the government generally at FY2012 levels plus a 0 6% increase  Final action on FY2013 appropriations occurred in the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P L  113-6 )  Funding enacted in this bill included $1 452 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $908 7 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border assistance; and $1 1 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs  However, these amounts were reduced under the March 1, 2013, sequester order of the President, which reduced affected accounts by 5 0%, and by an across-the-board rescission of 0 2% necessary to avoid exceeding the FY2013 discretionary spending limits in law  After these reductions, available FY2013 funding was approximately $1 38 billion for the clean water SRF capitalization grants, $860 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $14 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border assistance, and $1 0 billion for state categorical grants  President Obama presented the Administration's FY2014 budget in April 2013  It sought $8 15 billion overall for EPA, including $1 095 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $817 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects, and $1 136 billion for state categorical grants  The total amount requested for SRF capitalization grants was 19% below the FY2013 enacted level  In mid-2013, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies drafted a bill (unnumbered) that would have reduced overall funding for EPA by 34% from the FY2013 enacted level, including an 83% reduction for clean water SRF capitalization grants (the bill would have provided $250 million) and a 65% reduction for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($350 million was included in the bill)  According to subcommittee documents, the reduction was appropriate because, despite recent federal support, little progress has been made to reduce the known water infrastructure gap  The full committee did not complete markup of this bill  The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies drafted an alternative bill that would have maintained funding for the clean water SRF program at $1 45 billion and funding for the drinking water SRF program at $907 million  There was no further action on this bill  Congress did not reach final agreement on FY2014 appropriations before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, but did agree to a short-term continuing appropriations measure ( P L  113-46 ), which provided funding through January 15, 2014  Final action on appropriations for EPA and all other federal agencies and departments occurred as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( H R  3547 , P L  113-76 ), signed by the President on January 17, 2014  This bill provides $1 45 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants (5% more than FY2013 funds and 32% higher than the President's FY2014 budget request) and $907 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (5% more than FY2013 funds and 11% higher than the President's FY2014 budget request)  The bill also provides $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border assistance, and $1 0 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs  President Obama presented the Administration's FY2015 budget on March 4, 2014  It sought $7 89 billion overall for EPA, including $1 018 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $757 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects, and $1 13 billion for state categorical grants  The total amount requested for SRF capitalization grants was 25% below the FY2014 enacted level  Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, enacted in December 2014 ( P L  113-235 )  The legislation provided the same water infrastructure funding levels as in FY2014: $1 45 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants and $907 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants  As with the FY2014 appropriations, the bill provided $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border assistance and $1 0 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs  The Administration's FY2016 budget requested $8 6 billion overall for EPA  The request included $1 116 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $1 186 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (31% higher than the FY2016 appropriation), $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects, and $1 162 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs  Although the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported bills to provide FY2016 appropriations for EPA, final appropriations action for EPA and other agencies occurred as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, signed by the President December 18, 2015 ( P L  114-113 )  The bill provided $1 394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($55 million less than FY2015, but $278 million above the President's request), $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($44 million below the FY2015 level, and $323 million less than the President's request), and $30 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border water infrastructure projects  It also provided $1 06 billion for state categorical grants  President Obama presented the Administration's FY2017 budget in February 2016, requesting $8 3 billion in total for EPA ($127 million above the FY2016 enacted budget)  The request for EPA included $979 5 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($424 million less than the FY2016 enacted level), $1 02 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($157 million above the FY2016 amount), $22 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects, and $1 158 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of environmental programs  During congressional hearings on the EPA request, many Members criticized the requested 30% decrease in funds for clean water SRF capitalization grants  This criticism was reflected to some degree in appropriations bills the Appropriations Committees subsequently approved that include EPA funding  In July 2016, the House passed H R  5538 , FY2017 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act; it included $1 0 billion for clean water SRF grants, $1 07 billion for drinking water SRF grants, and $1 06 billion for state categorical grants  The Senate Appropriations Committee reported a companion bill, S  3068 , in June  It included $1 35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $1 02 billion for drinking water SRF grants, and $1 09 billion for state categorical grants  The Senate did not take up this bill  Congress did not reach final agreement on an EPA funding bill before the start of FY2017  However, on September 28, the House and Senate passed a 10-week continuing resolution that extended FY2016 funding levels, minus a 0 496% across-the-board reduction, through December 9, 2016 ( P L  114-223 )  A second continuing resolution, passed in December 2014, extended FY2016 funding levels, minus a 0 1901% across-the-board reduction, from December 10, 2016, through April 28, 2017 ( P L  114-254 )  The Obama Administration's FY2017 budget submission also included a $15 million request to allow EPA to begin making water infrastructure project loans under a program that Congress enacted in 2014, the Water Infrastructure Financing and Investment Act, or WIFIA  P L  114-254 included the first appropriation, $20 million, for EPA to do so  The FY2017 final appropriations act (discussed below) provided an additional $8 million for EPA's WIFIA program (and $2 million for EPA to administer the program)  Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017, signed by President Trump on May 5, 2017 ( P L  115-31 )  The act provided the same level of funding for water infrastructure as FY2016: $1 394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($414 million above President Obama's request), $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($158 million less than President Obama's request), and $30 million for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border water infrastructure projects  It also provided $1 07 billion for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs  The Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P L  114-254 ), included an additional $100 million in DWSRF funding to assist Flint, MI, as authorized in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act ( P L  114-322 )  The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget request proposed $8 6 billion overall for EPA  The request included $1 394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants and $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (the same amounts as the FY2017 appropriation)  The request proposed $597 million for state categorical grants, a 44% reduction compared to FY2017 levels  Much of this reduction came from the elimination of funding for nonpoint source grants (CWA Section 319) and reduction of grant funding for water pollution control (CWA Section 106)  In addition, the President's budget request proposed to eliminate funding for Alaska Native Village and U S -Mexico border projects  Similar to the previous fiscal year, Congress did not reach final agreement on an EPA funding bill before the start of FY2018  EPA and other federal departments and agencies operated under multiple continuing resolutions generally at FY2017 enacted levels (minus across-the-board rescissions)  Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, signed by President Trump on March 23, 2018 ( P L  115-141 )  EPA's STAG account (Division G, Title II) included $1 394 billion for the clean water SRF and $863 million for the drinking water SRF program (the same amounts appropriated for FY2017, less $100 million for the DWSRF provided to assist Flint, MI)  Division G, Title IV (General Provisions), Section 430, included an additional $600 million ($300 0 million each) within the STAG account for both SRF programs  P L  115-141 also provided $63 million for the WIFIA program, more than doubling the FY2017 appropriation  The act provided $20 million for Alaska Native Village projects and $10 million U S -Mexico border projects  It also provided $1 08 billion for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs  In addition, the act provided the first appropriations for three programs authorized in the WIIN Act ( P L  114-322 , Title II, the Water and Waste Act of 2016): $10 million to help public water systems serving small or disadvantaged communities meet SDWA requirements; $20 million to support lead reduction projects, including lead service line replacement; and $20 million to establish a voluntary program for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs  The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request proposed $6 15 billion overall for EPA  The request included $1 394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants and $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (the same amounts requested in FY2018)  The request included $20 million for the WIFIA program: $17 million to cover subsidy costs, which EPA estimated would allow the agency to lend approximately $2 billion (EPA Budget Justification), and $3 million for administrative costs  In addition, the request proposed $597 million for state categorical grants and $3 million for Alaska Native Village projects  The request proposed to eliminate funding for nonpoint source grants (CWA Section 319), reduce grant funding for water pollution control (CWA Section 106), and eliminate funding for U S -Mexico border water infrastructure projects  At the beginning of FY2019, EPA operated under the terms and conditions of multiple continuing resolutions (Division C of P L  115-245 ; P L  115-298 ; and P L  116-5 )  A "partial government shutdown" began on December 22, 2018, during which EPA operated under its shutdown contingency plans  Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2019 ( P L  116-6 ), signed by President Trump on February 15, 2019  FY2019 appropriations were provided in two titles of P L  116-6   Title II included $1 394 billion for the CWSRF, $864 0 million for the DWSRF, and $10 0 million for WIFIA  Title IV included an additional $600 0 million ($300 0 million each) for both SRF programs and an additional $58 0 million for WIFIA  Title IV of P L  116-6 included $65 0 million within the EPA STAG account for grants authorized in the WIIN Act ( P L  114-322 ): $25 million to help public water systems serving small or disadvantaged communities meet SDWA requirements, $15 million to support lead reduction projects (including lead service line replacement), and $25 million to establish a voluntary program for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs  In addition, the act provided $25 million for Alaska Native Village projects and $15 million U S -Mexico border projects  It also provided $1 08 billion for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs  The Trump Administration's FY2020 budget request proposed $6 07 billion overall for EPA  The request included $1 120 billion for CWSRF capitalization grants; $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $25 million for the WIFIA program: $20 million to cover subsidy costs, which EPA estimated would allow the agency to lend over $2 billion (EPA Budget Justification), and $5 million for administrative costs; $3 million for Alaska Native Village projects; $10 million for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs; $61 million for sewer overflow control grants; $154 million for water pollution control grants (CWA Section 106); and $580 million for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs  The Administration's request proposed to eliminate funding for the following: nonpoint source grants, U S -Mexico border water infrastructure projects, drinking water grants for small and disadvantage communities, and lead reduction project grants 


Report 2:  See appendix III for a sample RVAR template  We analyzed 81 RVARs developed by the 10 FEMA regions from July 2012 through December 2016 and found that regions did not consistently obtain and document information on all elements related to each of the six regulatory factors in their RVARs  As shown in table 6, all 81 RVARs had at least some elements documented but not all for each of the IA regulatory factors  For example, for the IA concentration of damages regulatory factor, the six elements to be addressed include the number of homes destroyed, damaged or affected, damage concentration, and damage to critical facilities  While 44 of the 81 RVARs documented all of the six elements, 37 documented some but not all of the elements  Similarly, for the trauma regulatory factor, the four elements to be addressed include injuries, death, power outages, and disruption of community functions  While 30 of the 81 RVARs documented all of the four elements, 51 documented some but not all of the elements  For the insurance coverage factor, while five RVARs documented all of the elements, 73 RVARs documented some but not all of the elements  Elements under this factor include home ownership, insurance, and flood insurance, when applicable  None of the six regulatory factors were fully documented across all RVARs  See appendix IV for detailed information on the extent to which all of the elements of the six regulatory factors were documented in the RVARs from July 2012 through December 2016  FEMA headquarters officials acknowledged that information related to all the elements for each of the IA regulatory factors were missing from the RVARs  They stated that they had not collected all information on all factors because one factor may have more weight than another based on the specific incident that has occurred  However, they also indicated that they do not fully know and have not evaluated all of the reasons why a region may have omitted information on an element of a factor  FEMA headquarters officials agreed that having complete information on all elements of the regulatory factors in the RVARs would assist in their recommendation process  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government suggest that agencies should establish and operate monitoring activities to ensure that internal controls—such as the documentation of all of the elements of the IA regulatory factors FEMA regions considered—are effective, and to take corrective actions as appropriate  Because it is unclear why regions are not completely documenting all elements related to the current six regulatory factors, such an evaluation could help FEMA identify whether any corrective steps are needed  Doing so could help FEMA ensure it is achieving its stated goals in providing consistency in the evaluation process and in the types of factors it considers  Officials we interviewed in 9 of the 10 FEMA regions and state emergency management offices in all 11 states reported the positive relationship they maintain with each other as a strength in the IA declaration process  For example, both FEMA regional officials and state emergency management officials stated that they have a good working relationship and are in regular communication via telephone or in-person meetings with each other  Also, state emergency management officials we spoke to stated that whenever they are in need of assistance, they know they can reach out to FEMA regional officials for assistance  However, FEMA regional and state emergency management officials we spoke to also reported various challenges with the process  These include the subjective nature of the IA regulatory factors given the lack of eligibility thresholds, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, and difficulty gathering information on IA regulatory factors  Subjective nature of the IA factors and lack of eligibility thresholds  Officials from 9 of 10 FEMA regions stated the subjective nature of the IA program is a challenge; and officials in 6 of the 10 regions also said they found the lack of eligibility thresholds a challenge  An official in one region stated that unlike FEMA’s Public Assistance program, which has minimum thresholds for eligibility, it is unclear when states should apply for IA funds  Under the Public Assistance program, for example, for states or tribes to qualify for assistance, they must demonstrate that they have sustained a minimum of $1 million in damages and the impact of damages must amount to $1 00 per capita in the state  An official in another region explained that although the subjectivity of the IA factors provides flexibility in determining the type of IA program needed, having some quantifiable criteria could help officials explain to states why their requests were denied or approved  Similarly, officials we interviewed in 7 of the 11 states said they found the subjective nature of the factors with no threshold to be a challenge  A state emergency management official in one state said this subjectivity makes it difficult to determine whether or not the state should make an IA request  A state emergency management official in another state reported that the subjectivity can cause the IA declaration process to be inconsistent, and it is not always clear how or why certain declarations were approved and others were not  Further, a state emergency management official in an additional state also pointed to the subjective nature of the factors with no threshold as a reason for not being able to provide a more detailed rationale behind a declaration denial  To illustrate this, table 7 shows how four states requested IA declarations related to the same tornado in 2012 and varied in what they reported across the six IA factors, such as the levels of damages incurred, special populations among their residents, and insurance coverage  Two of these four states—Kentucky and Indiana—received IA declarations and the other two—Ohio and Illinois—were denied  Lack of transparency  Another challenge reported by FEMA regional and state emergency management officials was the lack of transparency in how FEMA evaluates and provides a recommendation to the President on whether a declaration is warranted  For example, officials we interviewed in 4 of 10 regions indicated the lack of transparency as a challenge  A FEMA official in one region stated that the region would like more transparency regarding what FEMA headquarters recommends to the President and whether the President’s decision aligns with FEMA’s recommendation  State emergency management officials we interviewed in 10 of 11 states also reported that lack of transparency with the IA process is a challenge  For example, an emergency management official in one state said it is not clear how or if FEMA considers all of the factors  Also, an emergency management official in another state reported that it was unclear to him why his state’s declaration request was denied while the requests of other states with similar incidents were declared  Difficulty gathering information on IA regulatory factors  Officials in 4 of 10 FEMA regions reported difficulty gathering information, such as income or insurance coverage, as a challenge  An official in one region stated that it is difficult to obtain information related to IA factors from states  For example, the official said that calculating the concentration of damages is difficult absent technical guidance from FEMA headquarters, as the current guidance only accounts for the number of structure damage but not the impact of damage  Further, officials in two FEMA regions stated that states lack a dedicated IA official, making it difficult for state officials, who play multiple roles, to provide the necessary information related to the IA factors in their IA declaration request  Additionally, a state emergency management official in one state also reported that lack of staff resources in her state makes it difficult to verify all the local damage assessments prior to making a declaration request  Pursuant to the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, in November 2015, FEMA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise the six current IA regulatory factors to the following proposed factors: state fiscal capacity and resource availability; uninsured home and personal property losses; disaster-impacted population profile; impact to community infrastructure; casualties; and disaster-related unemployment  According to FEMA headquarters officials, the revisions aim to provide more objective criteria, clarify the threshold for eligibility, and speed the declaration  The officials said the proposed rule also seeks to provide additional clarity and guidance for all the established factors  Table 8 shows FEMA’s description of current and proposed IA factors  FEMA received public comments from 14 states in the Federal Register during the comment period for the proposed rule and proposed guidance  The 14 states expressed concern about the proposed factor for state fiscal capacity and resource availability, including the reliability and relevance of data sources such as total taxable resources  These states expressed concern that the data collection necessary to meet the new requirements would fall upon them, adding to the cost burden of completing an IA disaster declaration request  They also explained that the use of total taxable resources and other similar data is not an effective way to assess a state’s current ability to provide resources following a disaster  Also, these states indicated that the data points such as total taxable resources and per capita personal income that would be used to evaluate state fiscal capacity are outdated and inaccurate and would be an inefficient way to evaluate a state’s true fiscal capacity to respond to a disaster  Regarding the other five proposed factors, several states in their comments raised questions about ambiguities in interpreting the factors or the feasibility and cost of gathering related data  For example, in regards to the factor on disaster impacted population, five states expressed concern that the data required for the disaster-impacted population factor would be a cost burden to the state or that the data would be inappropriate for evaluation  Additionally, two states said unemployment related to a disaster incident for the disaster-related unemployment factor would be hard to quantify in the first 30 days following a disaster  They stated that this was especially an issue given that states work to submit an IA disaster declaration request as soon as possible following a disaster  According to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website, the projected date for finalization of the proposed rule is September 2018; however, as of April 2018, FEMA officials stated that they were not certain whether that timeframe would be met  Until the proposed rule is finalized, we will not know the extent to which the various challenges FEMA regions and state officials raised in our interviews and in comments on the proposed rule will be addressed  FEMA has obligated over $8 6 billion nationwide in IA from calendar years 2008 through 2016, highlighting the importance of FEMA’s evaluation of states’ and tribes’ IA declaration requests  FEMA’s regional offices evaluate the request and make a regional recommendation through the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation, which documents information on all relevant IA regulatory factors  FEMA has developed the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation to ensure regions consistently obtain and document the information needed by FEMA to make a disaster declaration recommendation to the President based on the IA regulatory factors  However, FEMA’s regional offices do not consistently obtain and document information on all elements of the current IA regulatory factors  Because it is unclear why regions are not always documenting all of the elements related to these factors, evaluating the reasons why could help FEMA identify if any corrective steps are needed  Doing so could also help FEMA ensure it is meeting its stated goals in providing consistency in the evaluation process and in the types of factors it considers  We recommend that the Administrator of FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendations for each element of the current IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary  We provided a draft of this report to DHS for its review and comment  DHS provided written comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in full in appendix V  DHS concurred with the recommendation and described planned actions to address it  In addition, DHS provided written technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate  DHS concurred with our recommendation that FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendations for each element of the IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary  DHS stated that a FEMA working group consisting of headquarters stakeholders will draft survey questions for FEMA region officials to identify the common reasons why an element of an IA regulatory factor may not be addressed within a RVAR  According to DHS, the working group will also analyze, assess, and present the findings of the survey responses to FEMA senior leadership, and if needed, FEMA will develop and send a memorandum to the regions with additional guidance regarding the appropriate preparation of RVARs  DHS stated that the estimated completion date is in the fall of 2018  These actions, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of our recommendation  We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FEMA Administrator, and the appropriate congressional committees  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI  Table 9 provides the total number of Individual Assistance declaration requests made, declared, and denied, by region, state, and tribe for disaster declarations requested from calendar years 2008 through 2016  Table 10 provides Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Individual Assistance (IA) actual obligations for declarations made from calendar years 2008 through 2016 by state and type of disaster  As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) declaration process, FEMA’s regional offices are to evaluate states’ or tribes’ declaration requests, including the IA declaration request, and make a recommendation called the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation (RVAR) and submit the RVAR to FEMA headquarters  In June 2012, FEMA headquarters issued a template for FEMA regional offices to use in developing the RVAR as identified in figure 3  Tables 11 through 16 provide information on each element of the 6 Individual Assistance (IA) regulatory factors documented in the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation (RVAR) from July 2012 through December 2016 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency region  In addition to the contact named above, Aditi Archer (Assistant Director), Su Jin Yon (Analyst-In-Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Jun S  (Joyce) Kang, Christopher Keisling, Heidi Nielson, Hadley Nobles, Anne Rhodes-Kline, and Jerome (Jerry) Sandau made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: To reform the federal government and make it more efficient and effective, agencies need to use data about program performance. The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized when it is used by managers to make decisions aimed at improving results. GAO was asked to review agencies' use of performance information. This report assesses, among other things, the extent to which: (1) 24 agencies' reported use of performance information and related leading practices has changed since 2013 and (2) the Executive Branch has taken actions to enhance the use of performance information. To address the first objective, GAO analyzed results from its 2017 survey of federal managers, and compared them to 2013 results. The survey covered a stratified random sample of 4,395 managers from the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies. The survey had a 67 percent response rate and results can be generalized to the population of managers government-wide and at each agency. For the second objective, GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed staff from OMB and the PIC. Agencies' reported use of performance information to make decisions, and leading practices that can promote such use, generally has not improved since GAO's last survey of federal managers in 2013. However, GAO's survey results continue to point to certain practices that could help agencies improve managers' use of performance information. For example, as shown in the table below, GAO's survey found that managers whose programs were subject to data-driven reviews (regular reviews used to assess progress on select agency goals) to a greater extent reported statistically significantly greater use of performance information to make decisions. The Executive Branch has begun taking steps to improve the use of performance information within agencies and across the government. For example, In the President's Management Agenda and government-wide reform plan, released in March and June 2018 respectively, the administration acknowledged the need to do more, and announced a goal, among other actions, to improve the use of data in federal decision making. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and others responsible for this goal have yet to fully develop action plans to hold agencies accountable for achieving it. The Performance Improvement Council (PIC), which is chaired by OMB, has undertaken efforts to improve the use of performance information by, for example, creating a working group on agency performance reviews. But it has not yet taken a systematic approach to identify and share proven practices that led to, or challenges that may be hampering, increased use of performance information by managers. GAO's survey results identified agencies that may have insights into such practices and challenges. More fully developing action plans for the new goal, and identifying and sharing proven practices and challenges, could help ensure the Executive Branch takes further steps to improve the use of performance information by managers within agencies and across the federal government. To improve the use of performance information within agencies and across the federal government, GAO recommends that OMB work with (1) fellow goal leaders to more fully develop action plans for the new goal to improve the use of data and (2) the PIC to prioritize efforts to identify and share proven practices and challenges. OMB had no comments on this report.