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



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



Report 2: Election administration attracted significant attention in 2000, when issues with the vote count delayed the results of the presidential race  Administrative issues have also been reported in subsequent election cycles  For example, issues with voter registration were reported in multiple states in 2016 and 2018  Some responses to such reports focus on the rules of elections  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P L  107-252 ; 116 Stat  1666), for example, requires states to establish a uniform standard of what counts as a vote for each voting system they use (52 U S C  §21081(a)(6)), and bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to change how voter registration is handled  Other responses focus on the systems that apply election rules  In the United States, that typically means state and local systems  The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized  Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system  Understanding how those state and local systems work may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons  First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes  Most federal action on election administration is carried out by state and local election systems  Interactions between the workings of those systems and federal actions can help determine how effective the federal actions are at achieving their objectives  Second, Congress can require or encourage changes to the way state and local election systems work  Congress has a number of tools for influencing election administration policy  The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the workings of the state and local systems that administer federal elections  This report is intended to help Congress understand how state and local election systems work and how their workings might relate to federal activity on election administration  It starts by describing the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections  It then uses examples from past federal action on election administration to illustrate some of the ways the duties and structures of state and local election systems interact with federal activity  It closes by introducing some considerations that may be relevant to Members interested in election administration  This report focuses on the administration of federal elections in the states by executive and legislative branches of state and local government  Much of the discussion applies to nonfederal as well as federal elections, but the report is intended explicitly to address only federal elections  The report also does not cover the federal role in administering federal elections, election administration in the U S  territories, the role of law enforcement and the courts in election administration, or issues of constitutional or legal interpretation  The typical federal election process has three main parts: voter registration, vote casting, and vote counting  This report focuses on those three parts of the process rather than on other aspects of campaigns and elections, such as campaign finance and redistricting  Finally, the way federal elections are administered varies between and within states  A full accounting of the variations is beyond the scope of this report  Instead, the report describes general patterns and illustrates them with examples  Examples appear in text boxes like the box below, which describes the role the text boxes play in the report in more detail  Election administration involves making decisions about the rules of elections, such as whether voters should be able to register online, whether they should be required to show photo identification at the polls, and whether election results should be audited  It also involves conducting elections in accordance with those decisions and paying for the activities and resources required to conduct them  These three election administration duties can be described as policymaking, implementation, and funding  This section describes some common patterns in the distribution of these duties at the state and local levels  In the U S  system, states generally play the primary decisionmaking role in election administration  State legislatures, with input from their governors, can make state laws about the administration of elections and make or initiate election administration amendments to their state constitutions  State laws and constitutions can also delegate or defer responsibility for decisions about the administration of elections to other state or local officials and to voters  The U S  Constitution also provides for a federal role with respect to decisionmaking about elections, and Congress has exercised such powers in a number of instances  For more information about federal laws governing the state and local conduct of federal elections, see the Appendix   Box 1 uses examples from voter registration to illustrate a number of these approaches to policymaking  It starts with a discussion of a registration policy enacted by the federal government and then describes an adjustment to the policy made, respectively, by a state legislature on the recommendation of a state executive branch official, by state executive branch officials, and by voters  State and local officials may be granted decisionmaking authority explicitly by a variety of constitutional provisions, laws, charters, ordinances, and regulations at multiple levels of government  They may also be left discretion over policy details that are not specified in legislative or regulatory text  For example, states may set out general guidelines for voting technology and ballot design but leave decisions about exactly which machines to buy or how to lay out ballots to local officials  Voters have a say in election administration measures that are referred to the ballot by their state legislatures  Some states also offer citizen initiatives or popular referendums, which voters can use to propose their own state election administration statutes or state constitutional amendments or to repeal or affirm election administration laws adopted by their state legislatures  Table 1 lists the citizen initiative and popular referendum options available to voters in states that offer such mechanisms, as presented by the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California in January 2019  Box 2 uses examples from the November 2018 election to illustrate how states and voters have used ballot measures to make election administration policy  It describes a statewide proposal to enact automatic voter registration in Nevada that was initiated by citizens, and a statewide proposal to enact a voter ID requirement in North Carolina that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature  Early U S  elections were conducted almost entirely locally  Some states have departed from that tradition  For example, in Alaska, the state conducts elections above the borough level, and, in Delaware, all elections are conducted by the state  Congress has also shifted some responsibility for conducting elections to the state level  For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA; P L  99-410 ; 100 Stat  924) requires states to designate a single state office to provide absent uniformed services and overseas voters with information about voter registration and absentee voting (52 U S C  §20302(b))  The NVRA requires states to designate a chief state election official to coordinate state responsibilities under the act (52 U S C  §20509), and HAVA requires chief state election officials to implement statewide voter registration lists and oversee development of plans for use of federal election administration funding (52 U S C  §21083(a)(1)(A); 52 U S C  §21005(a))  However, the day-to-day implementation of election administration policy is still mostly handled by localities  For example, localities typically add eligible voters to the voter rolls; design and print ballots; recruit and train poll workers; select and prepare polling places; store and transport voting equipment; and count, canvass, and report election results  The level of locality primarily responsible for conducting elections is typically the county, but there are some exceptions  The New England states, which have a strong tradition of township government, tend to assign primary responsibility to municipalities  Some states also split implementation duties between counties and municipalities  Responsibility for implementing election administration policy may also be divided between offices or agencies at the same level of local government  For example, according to one scholarly source, as of 2015, localities in about one-third of states split responsibility for conducting elections between two or more offices or agencies  Table 2 lists the states identified by those scholars  Election administration involves both intermittent and ongoing costs  Intermittent costs include irregular expenses like the costs of acquiring voting equipment  Ongoing costs include expenses that are linked to and recur with each individual election, such as the costs of printing ballots, paying poll workers, and transporting voting equipment to polling places, as well as expenses that are incurred whether or not there is an election, such as the costs of training election officials, maintaining voter registration lists, and providing IT support for online voter registration systems  The federal government does not supply ongoing funding to states and localities to conduct elections  To date, Congress has authorized significant federal funding for state and local election administration in one bill: HAVA  HAVA authorized $3 65 billion for three main types of formula-based payments to states as well as additional funding for a number of smaller grant and payment programs (52 U S C  §§20901-20906; 52 U S C  §§21001-21072)  Congress appropriated most of the $3 65 billion for the three types of formula-based payments between FY2003 and FY2010 and appropriated an additional $380 million in March 2018  That means states and localities are responsible for most of the costs of conducting federal elections  Localities typically assume primary responsibility for those costs, with states contributing to varying degrees  All states have supplied or committed to supplying matching funds as required to receive federal HAVA funds (52 U S C  §21003(b)(5)(a))  All states but North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, have also contributed to establishing and maintaining the statewide voter registration lists required by HAVA (52 U S C  §21083(a))  State contributions to other costs vary  Many states used HAVA funding to help replace or update voting technology, and some have put additional money from state coffers toward those expenses  Table 3 lists state contributions to the costs of acquiring voting equipment, as reported by the U
Report 2:  According to an Air Force analysis, doing so would achieve savings of over $67 million as it replaces or retires devices  As of July 2018, the Air Force had not fully implemented this guidance  Efforts by the military services to demonstrate that they have achieved print device reduction goals have been limited because they have not monitored the actions they have taken to reduce the number of print devices  Military service officials we interviewed said they were unaware of any efforts by the DOD CIO to ensure that device reductions occurred and that DOD components achieved their planned savings, such as providing information to the CIO on the status of their efforts to implement the guidance in the memorandum or data on reductions in the number of devices  Standards for internal control state that management should implement control activities through policies that use quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives, monitor the internal control system, and evaluate the results of the system  Efforts to implement the memorandum to achieve print device reduction goals have also been limited because responsibility for implementation was not clearly assigned  According to a DOD CIO official, the responsibility for the memorandum is not clearly assigned to a member of the CIO staff  This official also stated that because of the consolidation of information technology services in the Pentagon and the national capital region, the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Joint Service Provider assumed responsibility for implementing the memorandum  According to Joint Service Provider officials, however, they were only responsible for implementing the memorandum for the customers they serve in the Pentagon and the national capital region, and not for other DOD components outside those areas, such as military services  Standards for internal control state that management should ensure that key roles in operating the internal control system are clearly assigned  In the absence of these controls, such as reporting procedures to monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices and establishing clear responsibility for implementing the CIO memorandum, DOD has been unable to ensure that it is achieving any estimated savings, which could represent tens of millions of dollars annually  DLA Document Services may be able to realize additional savings from further consolidating facilities beyond those already identified, but it does not currently plan to do so, and it does not have the complete data it would need to make those determinations  As a part of its transformation plan, DLA Document Services identified 38 of its 112 facilities in the continental United States that it would retain  DLA Document Services officials stated that they considered a number of factors in determining whether to consolidate or retain facilities, including the number of staff and customers and the facilities’ workloads, but that they generally consolidated or retained facilities based on whether the facility provided “mission specialty” services  These mission specialties are services that DLA Document Services officials believe cannot be easily outsourced, such as printing and reproduction of classified and sensitive documents and on-demand printing and distribution of certain technical materials  However, our analysis of DLA Document Services data found that some facilities retained for certain mission specialties were responsible for a relatively small share of business for those specialties in fiscal year 2016 (the last full year for which data were provided), which suggests that further consolidations are possible  For example, for each of the four mission specialties for which DLA Document Services provided us with revenue data, the bottom quartile (25 percent) of the facilities retained for each specialty were responsible for less than 5 percent of the total revenue for that specialty, as shown in figure 6  We also found some cases in which DLA Document Services retained facilities that reported less revenue for a given specialty than facilities that it did not retain  According to officials, DLA Document Services took a number of factors into consideration in deciding on consolidations, including the complexity of the work at a facility and whether nearby sites could fulfill the orders  According to these officials, this allowed them to consolidate some facilities even if those facilities had greater revenue from a given mission specialty than other facilities  DOD Instruction 5330 03 requires DLA Document Services to provide effective and efficient document services support to DOD components  Our key practices for efficiency initiatives also note the importance of targeting both short-term and long-term efficiency initiatives  DLA Document Services officials stated that they would consider additional consolidations of facilities, but they have not conducted any analysis or planning to gain further efficiencies and do not currently have plans to do so  These officials stated they are committed to implementing the current transformation plan as announced  Officials also stated that they want to have a better sense of the results from the current transformation, including how workloads may change among facilities as consolidations occur, before considering additional consolidations  DLA Document Services’ current transformation plan includes the possible consolidation of facilities outside the continental United States following the implementation of its current plan (which only addressed facilities inside the continental United States); it does not have any plans for further consolidations within the continental United States  We also found that DLA Document Services did not have revenue data on all of its mission specialties to inform any future decisions on facility consolidations  Standards for internal control state that entities’ management should use quality information to achieve the entities’ objectives  However, DLA Document Services could not provide revenue data on three specific mission specialties—sensitive, classified, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information—for which it retained 30 of its facilities, including some that it retained exclusively for those specialties  According to DLA Document Services officials, they did not collect revenue data for these mission specialties because the facilities responsible for processing this type of information were generally retained, regardless of the revenue they produced, due to the sensitive nature of this work  As noted above, our analysis of available mission specialty data found that some facilities that DLA retained for certain mission specialties did a relatively small share of business for those specialties, indicating that there may be opportunities for additional facility consolidations  DLA Document Services officials told us that they had consulted with managers at the facilities about the amount of sensitive and classified they conducted  Because of these consultations, DLA Document Services is closing some facilities that handled sensitive and classified information  However, DLA Document Services does not routinely collect these data as it does for other mission specialties  By collecting and analyzing more complete revenue data on its mission specialties and using those data to evaluate opportunities for further consolidations, DLA Document Services would be better positioned to determine if opportunities exist to achieve additional cost savings  DOD reports some financial information regarding its document services, but this information does not accurately capture the scope of its document services mission  We reviewed the O&M obligations for printing and reproduction in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that were reported to Congress by the military services  The total obligations ranged from about $534 million to about $736 million annually for the 5-year period (see fig  7)  Our analysis found that DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction are inaccurate in two ways  First, the budget materials include obligations that are primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  DOD and military service financial management officials prepare budget justification materials for their O&M funding requests on an annual basis  DOD and the services report printing and reproduction costs in the Summary of Price and Program Changes budget exhibit (the “OP-32”)  It contains information by line item, detailing, among other items, printing and reproduction and related operations performed by the military services, DLA, or GPO  It also contains elements of expenses for purchases related to document services that are provided by DLA  The OP-32 exhibits are provided to Congress with the budget justification materials accompanying the President’s annual budget request  Officials from AMRG told us that, in accordance with Army guidance, printing and reproduction obligations are coupled with other obligations, including the purchase of advertising space and radio and television time for recruiting activities  Data provided by these officials show that in fiscal year 2016, AMRG’s obligations for printing and reproduction accounted for only about $2 million, or 2 percent, of the Army’s total fiscal year 2016 obligations included in the printing and reproduction line of the OP-32  Obligations for the publication of notices, advertising, and radio and television time accounted for about $78 million, or 63 percent, of the obligations reported for printing and reproduction  According to officials, the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also follow their respective guidance on reporting printing and reproduction obligations together with these other obligations  Second, the budget justification information does not represent the full scope of the military services’ document services mission  Specifically, we found that the military services’ annual budget requests do not provide distinct information on two areas of their document services mission— print device procurement and electronic content management  Data we reviewed indicate that the military services obligate a considerable amount of resources in these areas  For example, according to DLA Document Services, sales to DOD and the military services for its print device services are comparable to sales for its printing and reproduction services  According to DLA data, in fiscal year 2017, it received in revenue about $108 million for print device and about $105 million for printing and reproduction services  Officials from the military services told us that obligations for these activities are included within the budget requests for various IT procurement categories  For example, Army Budget Office officials noted that the budget request for IT procurement and office supplies would include estimates associated with the purchase and sustainment of devices, but those line items would include other, non-printing obligations as well  According to these officials, the Army has made efforts to standardize the procurement of information technology, including collecting better data on spending for these types of devices  They told us that these efforts will result in shifts in how those obligations are reported in budget justification materials  The accuracy and completeness of DOD’s financial information about its document services can affect the allocation of budgetary resources, and inaccurate or incomplete information can hamper initiatives to gain further efficiencies  The Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards states that its managerial cost accounting concepts and standards are aimed at agencies providing reliable and timely information on the full costs of their federal programs that congressional and executive decision makers can use in making decisions about allocating federal resources and program managers can use in making decisions to improve operating economy and efficiency  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation lays out the structure of the budget exhibits that the military services develop during the department’s budget process  According to a DOD Comptroller official, DOD has historically reported its budget requests following the format prescribed by the Financial Management Regulation, and it follows this format in its reporting of printing and reproduction costs that are coupled with non-printing costs  Although the department has followed this format, the House Armed Services Committee has expressed concern about the military services’ printing budgets, noting that they were excessive and that portions of the budgets should be realigned to address unfunded readiness priorities  Further, as we discussed earlier in this report, DOD has outlined specific steps it intends to take to achieve a recommended goal of 34 percent reduction in spending on its printing and related activities  Without quality information on the scope of its document services mission, DOD will lack the information it needs to assess whether it is achieving this goal  To assess its progress toward achieving this goal, it will be critical for decision makers to have accurate financial information  According to a DOD Comptroller official, the Financial Management Regulation provides flexibility in how obligations are categorized and reported internally and to Congress, but DOD has not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  Unless DOD evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting, DOD and Congress will not have the full visibility over these costs that they need to make informed decisions  DOD is taking important steps to address congressional concerns about its spending on document service activities  Most notably, DOD is implementing its plan to transform its DLA Document Services mission and has taken certain steps to reduce the number and cost of print devices  These efforts have begun to produce results, but DOD can do more to build on these gains  By better managing fragmentation in printing and reproduction services, DOD could ensure that DLA Document Services is providing the best value in obtaining document services  DOD could further reduce overlap in print device procurement by assessing the various approaches employed by DLA and the military services to determine what constitutes the most cost-effective approach for the department  DOD has set goals intended to reduce the number of print devices and realize tens of millions of dollars in savings each year, but it has not demonstrated that it has achieved these savings, because of limitations in internal controls  Additional efforts aimed at collecting and analyzing information to examine areas for further consolidation of DLA Document Services’ mission specialty locations might provide DOD with additional cost savings  DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction activities include information on non-printing activities that make up a much larger portion of its reported spending than printing does  In addition, these O&M budget materials omit information that would capture the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, such as device procurement and electronic content management, which are included with information technology budget materials  By providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make informed decisions  We are making a total of six recommendations to DOD  The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DLA Document Services’ single manager role for printing and reproduction provides the best value to the government—as determined by quality, price, and delivery time and in light of DLA Document Services’ transformation plan—and whether any additional efficiencies are possible, and use the results of that assessment to inform the revision of DOD Instruction 5330 03  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DOD’s current approach to obtaining print devices represents the best value to the government or whether other approaches, such as further consolidations under DLA Document Services as a proposed single manager for print device procurement, would be more cost effective  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO implements controls, such as reporting procedures, to routinely monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices, consistent with department-wide goals for reducing the number of print devices that are included in the CIO’s 2012 memorandum  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO assigns responsibility for implementing the CIO’s 2012 memorandum on optimizing the use of employee information technology devices  (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, DLA, in coordination with the Director, DLA Document Services and following implementation of the current transformation plan, gathers data on workload revenue at retained facilities and all mission specialties and evaluate whether additional opportunities for consolidation exist based on those data  (Recommendation 5) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non-printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  This information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  (Recommendation 6) We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In its written comments, DOD concurred with five recommendations and identified specific actions and time frames for addressing them, and it partially concurred with the remaining recommendation  DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, where appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluate options to report more accurate funding information and take steps to improve the accuracy of budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non- printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  Our recommendation noted that this information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  DOD stated that the budget materials it submits to Congress are in compliance with OMB Circular A-11’s definitions of printing and reproduction and equipment  It further noted that Working Capital Fund exhibits provided with each annual budget include a breakout, by service, of the appropriated and Working Capital Fund activities and a detailed accounting of unit cost and pricing for all sub- activities of DLA Document Services  As we noted in our report, a DOD Comptroller official told us that the Financial Management Regulation provides DOD with flexibility in categorizing and reporting obligations internally and to Congress  However, we found that, based on this flexibility, DOD’s O&M budget materials reported obligations for printing and reproduction that were primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  This budget information did not represent the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, since it omitted obligations for print device procurement and electronic content management  We also reported that DOD had not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  DOD’s comments did not include plans to address this recommendation  We continue to believe that by providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make more informed decisions  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  Our objectives were to evaluate (1) the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in achieving efficiencies in its document services and opportunities, if any, for further efficiencies, and (2) the extent to which DOD reports accurate financial information about its document services to key stakeholders  For our first objective, we reviewed DOD documents and interviewed DOD officials in order to understand how each military service obtains document services and identify department-wide and military service efficiency initiatives for these services  We also reviewed the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) and the military services’ document services activities and compared them with a DOD statutory periodic review; DOD Instructions and other guidance; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance; internal control standards; and best practices for consolidation initiatives, efficiency initiatives, and strategic sourcing to identify any potentially unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation and any opportunities for greater efficiencies  For specific efficiency initiatives identified by DOD officials or in DOD documents, we interviewed DOD officials regarding their progress in implementing and meeting the goals of these initiatives  To evaluate DLA Document Services’ transformation plan, we interviewed DLA Document Services officials, reviewed DLA Document Services documents regarding the plan, and assessed that plan based on leading practices for consolidation and efficiency initiatives  To assess the plan against these practices, one analyst reviewed the testimony and documents provided and compared it to our key questions to consider when evaluating proposals to consolidate physical infrastructure and management functions  A second analyst reviewed and concurred with the first analyst’s assessments  In any cases where there was a disagreement, the analysts discussed any discrepancies  If they were not resolved, a third analyst reviewed the assessments  To assess the extent to which there may be additional opportunities for facility consolidations, we obtained DLA Document Services data on revenue reported by each facility, which DOD Document Services officials told us they used in determining which facilities to consolidate as a part of their transformation plan  We analyzed the share of mission specialty revenue reported by facilities that (1) were retained by DLA Document Services for a given mission specialty, (2) were retained but not for a given specialty, and (3) were not retained  We further divided those facilities retained for a given specialty into quartiles to better understand the concentration of revenue in those facilities  To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed DLA Documents Services officials regarding how the data were gathered, analyzed, reported, and used  We found that these data were reliable for the purpose of analyzing the shares of mission specialty revenue represented by each facility or group of facilities  To compare the cost of print devices offered by DLA Document Services, the Army, and the Air Force, we gathered and analyzed data on the monthly cost of multifunction devices with comparable specifications  We compared costs for similar devices based on device specifications including print speeds, monthly volumes, and paper capacities  Because Army and Air Force costs are estimated and there might be other differences in device specifications, approaches to obtaining devices, and which associated services were included, this analysis does not allow us to conclude which sources provide the greatest value  However, it illustrates differences in the cost of print devices across sources  For DLA Document Services, we used DLA Document Services’ standard monthly pricing for 2018 for various categories of multifunction devices  For the Army, Army officials were unable to provide data on the cost of multifunction devices purchased by Army customers  Instead, they provided us with documentation of vendor responses to requests for quotes from the Army’s mandatory source for print devices from April 2017 through January 2018  We reviewed those documents and assigned each device to a DLA Document Services category, based on the device’s specifications as identified in the documentation  We then estimated the monthly cost for each device  For leased devices, we used the monthly cost of the lease  For purchased devices, we used the total cost of the device divided by an estimated service life for the device  We estimated this service life using some indication available in the documentation, such as the length of time a maintenance agreement or extended warranty was provided for the device  Army officials provided 183 quotes for devices  Of those, we were able to include 24 in our analysis  We excluded the other 159 because either we could not determine the cost for individual devices in a quote, there was not enough information on a device’s specifications, there was no DLA Document Services equivalent for the device, or we were unable to estimate a service life based on the information provided  Because the information included all vendor quotes provided and not just those that were selected by a customer, the costs may not represent the actual costs of devices to the customer  For the Air Force, we used an estimated average monthly cost based the standard pricing included in the Air Force’s 2018 catalog for print devices  We reviewed the catalog and assigned each multifunction device offered to a DLA Document Services category, based on the devices’ specifications  The Air Force’s catalog contained 32 devices; we were able to determine the equivalent DLA Document Services category for 13 of those devices  All devices in the Air Force’s catalog are available for purchase and include a 4-year maintenance agreement; therefore, we estimated the average monthly cost as the purchase price divided by 48  To evaluate the extent to which DOD reports accurate and complete financial information to key stakeholders to manage its document services, we analyzed DOD’s operation and maintenance (O&M) budget justification materials for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and Defense Logistics Agency data on its document services mission  We focused our review on O&M obligations reported by DLA and the military services, which accounted for an average of about 92 percent of DOD’s total document service costs reported by DLA Document Services in fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials, including officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), DLA Document Services, and the military services to determine how they reported costs for document services  We assessed the information we collected against federal accounting standards on how information should be recorded and communicated to management and others  To determine the reliability of the O&M budget justification data provided to us by DOD, we obtained information on how the data were collected, managed, and used through interviews with relevant officials  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to represent the military services’ total O&M obligations for document services for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials and, where appropriate, obtained documentation, from the following organizations: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Document Services Defense Information Systems Agency – Joint Service Provider Army Chief Information Officer Army Publishing Directorate Army Marketing Research Group Army 7th Signal Command Headquarters Air Force – Chief Information Officer Department of the Navy – Chief Information Officer Headquarters Marine Corps Command, Control, Communications, Headquarters Marine Corps Publishing and Logistics Headquarters Marine Corps Budget and Execution Marine Corps Combat Camera Marine Corps Reprographic Equipment Management Program We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to October 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 contact named above, Matthew Ullengren (Assistant Director), Adam Hatton (Analyst in Charge), Adam Brooks, Joanne Landesman, Amie Lesser, Daniel Ramsey, Carter Stevens, and Walter Vance made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay. In the past, Congress periodically enacted specific legislation to alter its pay; the last time this occurred affected pay in 1991. More recently, pay has been determined pursuant to laws establishing formulas for automatic adjustments. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established the current automatic annual adjustment formula, which is based on changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The adjustment is automatic unless denied statutorily, although the percentage may not exceed the percentage base pay increase for General Schedule (GS) employees. Member pay has since been frozen in two ways: (1) directly, through legislation that freezes salaries for Members but not for other federal employees, and (2) indirectly, through broader pay freeze legislation that covers Members and other specified categories of federal employees. Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary was increased 2.8%, to $174,000. A provision in P.L. 111-8 prohibited any pay adjustment for 2010. Under the pay adjustment formula, Members were originally scheduled to receive an adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised downward automatically to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment. Members next were scheduled to receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165. Additionally, P.L. 111-322 prevented any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay was also frozen during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Member pay could have been adjusted by 1.3% in 2012. The ECI formula established a maximum potential pay adjustment in January 2013 of 1.1%. P.L. 112-175 extended the freeze on GS pay rates for the duration of this continuing resolution, which also extended the Member freeze since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in GS base pay. Subsequently, Member pay for 2013 was further frozen in P.L. 112-240. The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was denied by P.L. 113-46. The maximum potential January 2015 Member pay adjustment was 1.6%, or $2,800. President Obama proposed a 1.0% increase in the base pay of GS employees, which would automatically have limited any Member pay adjustment to 1.0%. P.L. 113-235 contained a provision prohibiting any Member pay adjustment. The maximum potential January 2016 pay adjustment of 1.7%, or $3,000, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member pay for 2016 was frozen by P.L. 114-113. The maximum potential January 2017 pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member pay for 2017 was frozen by P.L. 114-254. The maximum potential January 2018 pay adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was automatically limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen by P.L. 115-141. The maximum potential January 2019 pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was automatically limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen at the 2009 level by P.L. 115-244. The maximum potential January 2020 pay adjustment is 2.6%, or $4,500. If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the 2 U.S.C. §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained unchanged, the 2019 salary would be $210,900. When adjusted for inflation, Member salaries have decreased 15% since the last pay adjustment in 2009. Both the automatic annual adjustments and funding for Members' salaries are provided pursuant to other laws (2 U.S.C. §4501)—not the annual appropriations bills—and a provision prohibiting a scheduled adjustment could be included in any bill, or introduced as a separate bill.

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



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

Report 1: Article I, Section 6, of the U S  Constitution, states that the compensation of Members of Congress shall be "ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States " Additionally, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution states, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened " This amendment was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments, 10 of which were ratified and became the Bill of Rights  It was not ratified until May 7, 1992  Since FY1983, Member salaries have been funded in a permanent appropriations account  The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009  Since then, the compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico has been $174,000  The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House ($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate ($193,400)  This report provides historical tables on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789; details on enacted legislation with language prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustment since the most recent adjustment; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as compared with actual adjustments in Member pay; and Member pay in constant and current dollars since 1992  Additional CRS products also address pay and benefits for Members of Congress: For information on actions taken each year since the establishment of the Ethics Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2018 , by Ida A  Brudnick  Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are elected  Following their service, former Members of Congress may be eligible for retirement benefits, which are discussed in CRS Report RL30631, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress , by Katelin P  Isaacs  For information on health insurance options available to Members, see CRS Report R43194, Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated Congressional Staff: In Brief , by Ada S  Cornell  For an overview of compensation, benefits, allowances, and selected limitations, see CRS Report RL30064, Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief , by Ida A  Brudnick  There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay  Specific legislation was enacted to adjust Member pay prior to 1968  It has been used periodically since, most recently affecting pay for 1991  The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant to recommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salary commission  In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P L  90-206)  Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases made under this procedure; on three occasions it did not  Effective with passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 ( P L  101-194 ), the commission ceased to exist  Its authority was assumed by the Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation  Although the first commission under the 1989 act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet  The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annual adjustments  Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, was tied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federal employees  This procedure was established in 1975 ( P L  94-82 )  Such increases were recommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or modification  Congress accepted 5 such increases for itself—in 1975, 1979 (partial), 1984, 1985, and 1987—and declined 10 (1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989)  The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment is determined for Members and other senior officials  This procedure employs a formula based on changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI)  The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless 1  Congress statutorily prohibits the adjustment; 2  Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or 3  The annual base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduled adjustment for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate  Under this revised method, annual adjustments were accepted 13 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) and denied 16 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019)  Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay adjustment for Members  Nor do they contain language authorizing an increase  The use of appropriations bills as vehicles for provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments for Members developed by custom  A provision prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill  The maximum potential January 2020 Member pay adjustment of 2 6%, or $4,500, was known when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2017 to December 2018 on January 31, 2019  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the General Schedule (GS) base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The maximum potential January 2019 Member pay adjustment of 2 3%, or $4,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2016 to December 2017 on January 31, 2018  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The 2019 GS base pay adjustment was 1 4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400  The House-passed ( H R  5894 ) and Senate-reported versions ( S  3071 ) of the FY2019 legislative branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment  The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision  Division B of P L  115-244 , enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze provision  The maximum potential January 2018 member pay adjustment of 1 8%, or $3,100, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2015 to December 2016 on January 31, 2017  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The 2018 GS base pay adjustment was 1 4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400  The House-passed ( H R  3162 ) and Senate-reported versions ( S  1648 ) of the FY2018 legislative branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment  The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision  Neither bill was enacted prior to the start of FY2018, and legislative branch activities were initially funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (CRs) ( P L  115-56 , through December 8, 2017; P L  115-90 , through December 22, 2017; P L  115-96 , through January 19, 2018; P L  115-120 , through February 8, 2018; P L  115-123 , through March 23, 2018)  P L  115-56 contained a provision, extended in the subsequent CRs, continuing "section 175 of P L  114-223 , as amended by division A of P L  114-254  " This provision prohibited a Member pay adjustment in FY2017  Section 7 of the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P L  115-141 ) prohibited the adjustment for the remainder of the year  The maximum potential January 2017 Member pay adjustment of 1 6%, or $2,800, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2014 to December 2015 on January 30, 2016  Both the House-passed ( H R  5325 ) and Senate-reported ( S  2955 ) versions of the FY2017 legislative branch appropriations bill—which would provide approximately $4 4 billion in funding for the activities of the House of Representatives, Senate, and legislative branch support agencies —contained a provision that would prohibit this adjustment  The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision  No further action was taken on H R  5325 or S  2955 , but the pay prohibition language was included in the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P L  114-254 )  Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1 0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base salaries for GS employees  The maximum potential January 2016 Member pay adjustment of 1 7%, or $3,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2013 to December 2014 on January 30, 2015  The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2016 legislative branch appropriations bill ( H R  2250 ) both contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment  The pay adjustment prohibition was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P L  114-113 )  Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1 0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base salaries for GS employees  The maximum potential January 2015 pay adjustment of 1 6%, or $2,800, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2012 to December 2013 on January 31, 2014  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The FY2015 legislative branch appropriations bill ( H R  4487 ), as reported by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by the House on May 1, 2014, contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment  This provision was continued in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of this bill, with no separate vote on the Member pay provision  No further action on this bill was taken, but the provision was subsequently included in Section 8 of Division Q of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which was enacted on December 16, 2014  On August 29, 2014, President Obama issued an "alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees," which called for a 1 0% increase in base salaries for General Schedule employees  Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1 0% ($1,700) salary increase  The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1 2%, or $2,100, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2011 to December 2012 on January 31, 2013  The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P L  113-46 , enacted October 17, 2013), however, prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members of Congress  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The scheduled January 2014 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under the annual adjustment formula was 1 3%  A scheduled GS annual pay increase may be altered only if the President issues an alternative plan or if a different increase, or freeze, is enacted  The President issued an alternate pay plan for civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013  This plan called for a January 2014 across-the-board pay increase of 1 0% for federal civilian employees, the same percentage as proposed in the President's FY2014 budget  Legislation was not enacted to prohibit or alter the GS adjustment, and Executive Order 13655, issued on December 23, 2013, implemented a 1 0% increase for GS employees  Had the Member pay adjustment not been prohibited by law, the GS base pay adjustment would have automatically limited a salary adjustment for Members of Congress to 1 0% ($1,700)  The maximum potential 2013 pay adjustment of 1 1%, or $1,900, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2010 to December 2011 on January 31, 2012  The adjustment takes effect automatically unless (1) denied statutorily by Congress or (2) limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The President's budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i e , base and locality) 0 5% adjustment for GS employees  President Obama later stated in a letter to congressional leadership on August 21, 2012, that the current federal pay freeze should extend until FY2013 budget negotiations are finalized  Section 114 of H J Res  117 , the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, which was introduced on September 10, 2012, extended the freeze enacted by P L  111-322 through the duration of this continuing resolution  H J Res  117 was passed by the House on September 13 and the Senate on September 22  It was signed by the President on September 28, 2012 ( P L  112-175 )  A delay in the implementation of pay adjustments for GS employees automatically delays any scheduled Member pay adjustment  On December 27, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13635, which listed the rates of pay for various categories of officers and employees that would be effective after the expiration of the freeze extended by P L  112-175   The executive order included a 0 5% increase for GS base pay, which automatically lowered the maximum potential Member pay adjustment from 1 1% to 0 5%  As in prior years, schedule 6 of the 2012 executive order listed the pay rate for Members of Congress for the upcoming year  This executive order indicated that an annual adjustment would take effect after the expiration of the freeze included in P L  112-175   As stated above, the annual adjustments take effect automatically if legislation is not enacted preventing them  The executive order, however, by establishing the GS pay adjustment at a lower rate than the scheduled Member pay adjustment, automatically lowered the Member pay adjustment rate since by law Member pay adjustments cannot be higher than GS pay adjustments  Subsequently, a provision in H R  8 , the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was enacted on January 2, 2013 ( P L  112-240 ), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for 2013  The language was included in S Amdt  3448 , a substitute amendment agreed to by unanimous consent  The bill, as amended, passed the Senate (89-8, vote #251) and the House (257-167, roll call #659) on January 1, 2013  This freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641, which was signed April 5, 2013  This represented the second time, the first being in 2006, that Member pay was statutorily frozen for only a portion of the following year at the time of the issuance of the executive order  In both instances, the executive order listed new pay rates and indicated an effective date following the expiration of the statutory freeze  Pay adjustments in both years were further frozen pursuant to subsequent laws  As stated above, projected Member pay adjustments are calculated based on changes in the ECI  The projected 2011 adjustment of 0 9% was known when the BLS released data for the ECI change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29, 2010  This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600  The 2011 pay adjustment was prohibited by the enactment of H R  5146 ( P L  111-165 ) on May 14, 2010  H R  5146 was introduced in the House on April 27 and was agreed to the same day (Roll no  226)  It was agreed to in the Senate the following day by unanimous consent  Other legislation was also introduced to prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment  Additionally, P L  111-322 , which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevents any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012  Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen during this period  If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of 1 3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula  Pay for Members of Congress remained $174,000  Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members were originally scheduled to receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2 1%  This adjustment was denied by Congress through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act  Section 103 of Division J of the act states, "Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U S C  31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect " Had this provision not been enacted, the 2 1% projected adjustment would have been automatically reduced to 1 5% to match the 2010 GS base pay adjustment  As in previous Congresses, legislation was introduced in the 116 th Congress to repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  751 and H R  1466 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution, passage of appropriations, or reaching the debt limit (for example, S  39 , S  44 , S  949 , H R  86 , H R  102 , H R  129 , H R  236 , H R  298 , H R  834 , H R  1172 , H R  1178 , H R  1466 , H R  1612 , H J Res  10 , and H J Res  51 ); and prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S  74 , S  949 , H R  26 , H R  211 , H R  845 , and H R  1612 )  Legislation was introduced in the 115 th Congress to prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H R  342 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  668 and H R  5946 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H R  429 , H R  536 , H R  646 , H R  1779 , H R  1951 , H R  2153 , H R  2665 , H R  3675 , H R  4512 , and H R  5946 , and S  14 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  1786 and H R  5539 ); and prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, H R  1789 , H R  1794 , H R  2214 , H R  4852 , H R  4870 , and S  2327 )  Legislation was introduced in the 114 th Congress to prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H R  109 and H R  302 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  179 , H R  513 , H R  688 , H R  1585 , and S  17 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including the passage of a budget resolution or existence of a deficit (for example, H Con Res  27 , S Con Res  11 , H R  92 , H R  110 , H R  174 , H R  187 , H R  3757 , H R  4814 , H R  4476 , and S  39 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  179 and H R  688 ); and prohibit or reduce pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S  2074 , H R  3562 , H R  2023 , and H R  1032 )  The House budget resolution for FY2016, H Con Res  27 , included a policy statement that Congress should agree to a concurrent budget resolution each year by April 15, and if not, congressional salaries should be held in escrow (Section 819)  The statement proposed that salaries would be released from the escrow account either when a chamber agrees to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the Congress, whichever is earlier  The House agreed to this resolution on March 25, 2015, and no further action was taken  The Senate agreed to its resolution on the FY2016 budget, S Con Res  11 , on March 27, 2015, without this language  The conference report for S Con Res  11 —agreed to in the House on April 30 and in the Senate on May 5, 2015—contains a "Policy Statement on 'No Budget, No Pay'" (Section 6216), which refers to actions by the House  Legislation was introduced in the 113 th Congress to prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H R  54 , H R  243 , H R  636 , S  18 , S  30 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  134 , H R  150 , H R  196 , S  65 , and H R  398 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H R  108 , H R  167 , H R  284 , H R  308 , H R  310 , H R  325 , H R  372 , H R  397 , H R  396 , H R  522 , H R  593 , H R  1884 , H R  2335 , H R  3234 , S  18 , S  30 , and S  263 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  37 , H R  150 , H R  391 , H R  396 , H R  398 , and H R  1467 ); prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, H R  3160 , H R  3215 , H R  3224 , H R  3234 , and H R  3236 ); and apply any sequester to Member pay (for example, S  436 , H R  1181 , H R  1478 , and H R  2677 )  H R  325 , which (1) included language holding congressional salaries in escrow if a concurrent resolution on the budget was not agreed to by April 15, 2013, and (2) provided for a temporary extension of the debt ceiling through May 18, 2013, was introduced on January 21, 2013  Salaries would have been held in escrow for Members in a chamber if that chamber had not agreed to a concurrent resolution by that date  Salaries would have been released from the escrow account either when that chamber agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the 113 th Congress, whichever was earlier  H R  325 was agreed to in the House on January 23, 2013, and the Senate on January 31, 2013  It was enacted on February 4, 2013 ( P L  113-3 )  Both the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution prior to that date, however, and salaries were not held in escrow  H R  807 , the Full Faith and Credit Act, was introduced in the House on February 25, 2013  The bill would have prioritized certain payments in the event the debt reaches the statutory limit  An amendment, H Amdt  61 , was offered on May 9, 2013, that would clarify that these obligations would not include compensation for Members of Congress  It was agreed to the same day  The bill passed the House on May 13, 2013  No further action was taken in the 113 th Congress  The House-passed version of H J Res  59 , the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, also contained a provision addressing actions by the Secretary of the Treasury in the event that the debt limit is reached and not raised  The provision (Section 138) would, in part, prohibit borrowing to provide pay for Members of Congress in the event that the debt reaches the statutory limit prior to December 15, 2014  The bill passed the House on September 20, 2013  It was enacted on December 26, 2013, without this section  Legislation was introduced in the 112 th Congress to repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, S  133 , S  148 , H R  187 , H R  235 , H R  246 , H R  343 , H R  431 , H R  3673 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to other action or economic indicators (for example, H R  124 , H R  172 , H R  236 , H R  994 , H R  1454 , H R  3136 , H R  3565 , H R  3774 , H R  3799 , H R  3883 , H R  4036 , H R  6438 , S  1442 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  204 , H R  270 , H R  335 , H R  1012 , H R  4399 ); otherwise alter or restrict pay for Members under certain conditions (for example, H R  6108 ); and freeze Member pay (for example, S  1931 , S  1936 , S  2065 , S  2079 , S  2210 , H R  3858 , H R  6474 , H R  6720 , H R  6721 , H R  6722 )  Legislation was also introduced in the 112 th Congress that would have affected Member pay in the event of a lapse of appropriations resulting in a government shutdown  These included H R  819 , H R  1255 , H R  1305 , H Con Res  56 , and S  388   The Senate passed S  388 on March 1, 2011  The bill would have prohibited Members of the House and Senate from receiving pay, including retroactive pay, for each day that there is a lapse in appropriations or the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because of the public debt limit  The House passed H R  1255 on April 1, 2011  The bill would have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of these situations  No further action was taken on either bill  On April 8, 2011, the Speaker of the House issued a "Dear Colleague" letter indicating that in the event of a shutdown, Members of Congress would continue to be paid pursuant to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which as stated above, states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"—although Members could elect to return any compensation to the Treasury  Additional legislation to prohibit any Member pay adjustment in 2013 was introduced but not enacted in the 112 th Congress, including the following: Section 5421(b)(1) of H R  3630 , as introduced in the House, would have prohibited any adjustment for Members of Congress prior to December 31, 2013  Section 706 of the motion to recommit also contained language freezing Member pay  On December 13, 2011, the motion to recommit failed (183-244, roll call #922), and the bill passed the House (234-193, roll call #923)  The House-passed version of the bill was titled the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 " The Senate substitute amendment, which did not address pay adjustments, passed on December 17  It was titled the "Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 " The bill was enacted on February 22, 2012 ( P L  112-96 ), without the pay freeze language  H R  3835 , introduced on January 27, 2012, also would have extended the pay freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013  This bill passed the House on February 1, 2012  H R  6726 , introduced on January 1, 2013, would have extended the pay freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013  This bill passed the House on January 2, 2013  Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress since 1789  For each salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are provided  Table 2 provides information on pay adjustments for Members since 1992, which was the first full year after the Ethics Reform Act that Representatives and Senators received the same salary  The table provides the projected percentage changes under the formula based on the Employment Cost Index and the actual percentage adjustment  The differences between the projected and actual Member pay adjustments resulted from the enactment of legislation preventing the increase (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019); limits on the percentage increase of Member pay because of the percentage increase in GS base pay (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019); and a combination of the above  In some years, the percentage adjustment for Member pay would have been lowered to match the percentage adjustment in GS base pay if Congress had not passed legislation denying the adjustment (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019)  If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the 2 U S C  §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained unchanged, the 2019 salary would be $210,900  Table 3 lists the laws which have previously delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments, the dates these laws were enacted, and the text of the provision  While many of the bills in this list are appropriations bills, a prohibition on Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill  Figure 1 , which follows, shows the salary of Members of Congress in current and constant (inflation adjusted) dollars since 1992  It shows that Member salaries, when adjusted for inflation, decreased 15% from 2009 until 2019 


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

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