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



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

Report 1: In March 2015, Saudi Arabia established a coalition of nations (hereinafter referred to as the Saudi-led coalition or the coalition) to engage in military operations in Yemen against the Ansar Allah/Houthi movement and loyalists of the previous president of Yemen, the late Ali Abdullah Saleh  During 2014, the United States joined Saudi Arabia in demanding that Houthi forces reverse their campaign to occupy the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, but the rapid onset of hostilities in March 2015 forced the Obama Administration to react quickly  At the start of the Saudi-led intervention on March 25, 2015, the Administration announced that the United States would provide "logistical and intelligence support" to the coalition's operations without taking "direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort " Soon thereafter, a joint U S -Saudi planning cell was established to coordinate military and intelligence support for the campaign  At the United Nations Security Council, the United States supported the passage of Resolution 2216 (April 2015), which, among other things, required member states to impose an arms embargo against the Houthi-Saleh forces and demanded that the Houthis withdraw from all areas seized during the current conflict  Since the March 2015 Saudi-led coalition intervention in Yemen, Congress has taken an active role in debating and overseeing U S  policy in the Arabian Peninsula  Members have considered legislative proposals seeking to reduce Yemeni civilian casualties resulting from the coalition's operations; improve deteriorating humanitarian conditions; end restrictions on the flow of goods and humanitarian aid; combat Iranian support for the Houthis; preserve maritime security in the Bab al Mandab Strait; and/or support continued Saudi-led coalition and U S  efforts to counter Al Qaeda and Islamic State forces in Yemen  Beyond Yemen, many Members have appeared to view the conflict through the prism of a broader regional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the U S  effort to limit Iran's malign regional influence  Others lawmakers have viewed the Yemen conflict as indicative of what they perceive as problems in the U S -Saudi relationship, a concern that deepened after the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government personnel in October 2018  Congress has considered but has not enacted proposals to curtail or condition U S  defense sales to Saudi Arabia  Responding to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen also appears to be reinvigorating some Members' interest in strengthening the role of Congress in foreign policy vis-à-vis the executive branch  Debate in Congress over Yemen has featured bipartisan statements of interest in asserting the prerogatives of the legislative branch to limit executive branch power, specifically using war powers legislation and the appropriations and authorization processes to curb U S  military involvement in support of coalition operations  Congressional scrutiny of U S  policy in Yemen also has led to legislative changes to global authorities, such as the Department of Defense's authority to enter into and use acquisition and cross servicing agreements with partner militaries  Congressional interest in the Yemen conflict has evolved and grown gradually and was not widespread at the outset of the coalition's March 2015 intervention in Yemen  In early to mid-2015, congressional interest in U S  foreign policy in the Middle East centered on the Iran nuclear deal and Operation Inherent Resolve against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria  Several months after the March 2015 intervention, the Saudi-led coalition had not achieved a conclusive victory and what modest gains had been made on the ground were offset by mounting international criticism of growing civilian casualties from coalition air strikes  In Congress, several lawmakers began to express concern about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Yemen  In late September 2015, Representative Ted W  Lieu wrote a letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff advocating for a halt to U S  support for the Saudi-led coalition until it instituted safeguards to prevent civilian casualties  In October 2015, 10 Members of Congress wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to "work with our Saudi partners to limit civilian casualties to the fullest extent possible " In October 2015, Senator Markey stated that "I fear that our failure to strongly advocate diplomacy in Yemen over the past two years, coupled with our failure to urge restraint in the face of the crisis last spring, may put the viability of this critical [U S -Saudi] partnership at risk " By the fall of 2015, as the Obama Administration tried to balance its concern for adhering to the laws of armed conflict with its support for Gulf partners, lawmakers began to express their concern over U S  involvement in the coalition's intervention by scrutinizing U S  arms sales to Saudi Arabia  When the Administration informally notified Congress of a proposed sale of precision guided munitions (PGMs) to Saudi Arabia, some Senators sought to delay its formal notification  After the formal notification in November 2015, Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) leaders jointly requested that the Administration notify Congress 30 days prior to associated shipments, marking the first use of this prior notification request authority  At that time, no related joint resolutions of disapproval on proposed sales of PGMs to the kingdom were introduced, but the delay and additional notification request demonstrated congressional concern  By the one-year anniversary of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, a more defined opposition to U S  support for the coalition had begun to coalesce amid repeated international documentation of human rights abuses and errant coalition airstrikes  In April 2016, legislation was introduced that sought to place conditions on future proposed sale notifications, previously approved sales, or transfers of PGMs to Saudi Arabia  Proposed amendments to FY2017 defense legislation would have added some similar conditions on the use of funds to implement sales of PGMs or prohibited the transfer of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia  The PGM amendment was not considered, but the cluster munitions amendment was narrowly defeated in a June 2016 House floor vote  In the spring and summer of 2016, the United Nations held multiple rounds of peace talks in Kuwait aimed at brokering an end to the conflict  From April 2016 to August 2016, the Saudi-led coalition had largely spared Yemen's capital Sanaa from aerial strikes as part of its commitment to the cessation of hostilities  When U N -mediated peace talks collapsed in August 2016, the Saudi-led coalition resumed bombing and the war intensified  During the summer of 2016, the Obama Administration reduced some U S  support for Saudi Arabia's air campaign in Yemen by withdrawing U S  personnel assigned to a joint U S -Saudi planning cell  Nevertheless, overall U S -Saudi cooperation continued and, in August 2016, the Obama Administration notified Congress of a proposed sale of M1A2S tanks to Saudi Arabia  In response, some lawmakers wrote to request that President Obama withdraw the proposal, citing concerns about Yemen  In September 2016, joint resolutions of disapproval of the proposed tank sale were introduced in the Senate ( S J Res  39 ) and House ( H J Res  98 )  On September 21, 2016, the Senate voted to table a motion to discharge the SFRC from further consideration of S J Res  39 (71-27, Record Vote 145)  During debate over the motion, many Senators argued in favor of continued U S  support for Saudi Arabia, with Senator Lindsey Graham remarking "To those who want to vote today to suspend this aid to Saudi Arabia, people in Iran will cheer you on " In the wake of an October 2016 Saudi airstrike on a funeral hall in Sanaa that killed 140 people, the Obama Administration initiated a review of U S  security assistance to Saudi Arabia  Based on that review, it put a hold on a planned sale of precision guided munitions (PGMs) to Saudi Arabia and limited intelligence sharing, but maintained counterterrorism cooperation and refueling for coalition aircraft  In the final months of the Obama Administration, U S  Armed Forces briefly exchanged fire with forces party to the conflict  In October 2016, Houthi-Saleh forces launched anti-ship missiles at U S  Navy vessels on patrol off the coast of Yemen  The attacks against the U S  ships marked the first time U S  Armed Forces had come under direct fire in the war  The Obama Administration responded to the attacks against U S  naval vessels by directing the Armed Forces to fire cruise missiles against Houthi-Saleh radar installations  The Obama Administration described the U S  strikes as self-defense and indicated that it did not want to deepen its direct involvement in the conflict  In August and November 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry made several attempts to broker a peace initiative in Oman, but his efforts were rejected by the parties themselves  By the end of 114 th Congress, the war in Yemen was becoming a more significant foreign policy issue for lawmakers  While a growing number of Members were becoming critical of the U S  role in supporting the Saudi-led coalition amid a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Yemen, more lawmakers still viewed the conflict through a regional lens rather than as a localized affair  Amid significant congressional opposition to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), some Members viewed Iran's support for the Houthi movement and the broader conflict in Yemen as an example of Iran's malign regional activities not directly addressed by the JCPOA  As the Houthis targeted Gulf state infrastructure on land and vessels at sea, their behavior was touted as evidence of Iran's growing capabilities to threaten U S  and Gulf security  Just as some Members considered the Yemen conflict primarily a proxy war between the Iran-backed Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition, others viewed it as a test of long-standing U S  commitments to supporting Saudi Arabian security  Supporters of the relationship, while acknowledging that Saudi Arabia's conduct of the war was at times problematic, argued that to curtail U S  arms sales or other defense support to the kingdom would weaken a vital partner that was under threat from a hostile nonstate actor on its southern border  Others lawmakers charged that continued U S  support for the coalition was not improving coalition behavior but damaging the U S  reputation for upholding commitments to international law and human rights  Legislation seeking to limit U S  arms sales to Saudi Arabia was not enacted in the 114 th Congress, but marked the beginning of the broader congressional debate that has continued  As the Trump Administration prepared to assume office, human rights organizations and aid groups were pressing Congress to become more attuned to the growing humanitarian crisis in Yemen  Though the Obama Administration had taken some steps, particularly in late 2016, to limit U S -coalition cooperation and restrict deliveries of PGMs to Saudi Arabia, nongovernmental groups deemed such action as insufficient  According to Human Rights Watch, "Whatever conditionality the Obama administration thought it had created—in holding up the transfer of precision munitions near the tail end of Obama's term and suspending cluster munition transfers earlier—ultimately did not have meaningful impact in reining in the continued Saudi-led coalition attacks on civilians " From the beginning of his Administration, President Donald Trump has signaled strong support for the Saudi-led coalition's operations in Yemen as a bulwark against Iranian regional interference  He initiated a review of U S  policy toward Yemen, including President Obama's October 2016 restrictions on U S  arms sales and intelligence sharing to the coalition  On March 19, 2017, just prior to his visit to Saudi Arabia, President Trump notified Congress that he was proceeding with three proposed direct commercial sales of precision guided munitions technology deferred by the Obama Administration, subject to congressional review  In May 2017, the Administration officially notified Congress of its intention to proceed with proposed sales of precision guided munitions technologies that the Obama Administration had deferred, while announcing plans to increase training for Saudi Arabia's air force on both targeting and the Law of Armed Conflict  Congress debated another resolution of disapproval ( S J Res  42 ) of these proposed PGM sales in June 2017 (see below)  After completing the policy review in July 2017, President Trump directed his Administration "to focus on ending the war and avoiding a regional conflict, mitigating the humanitarian crisis, and defending Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity and commerce in the Red Sea " As President Trump entered office, the dynamics of the conflict in Yemen were changing, and the coalition launched a new offensive along Yemen's 280-mile western coastal plain ultimately aimed at taking the strategic Houthi-held port city of Hudaydah  In early 2017, the coalition's gradual advance toward Hudaydah, coupled with an ongoing deterioration in humanitarian conditions, sparked some Members of Congress to implore the Administration to improve aid access and negotiate a cease-fire  In March 2017, several House Members wrote a letter to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging him to "use all U S  diplomatic tools to help open the Yemeni port of Hodeida [Hudaydah] to international humanitarian aid organizations " A month later, another group of House Members wrote to President Trump stating that Congress should approve any new U S  support to the coalition amid its offensive against Hudaydah  On June 13, 2017, the Senate debated another resolution ( S J Res  42 ) to disapprove of three direct commercial sales of PGMs to Saudi Arabia  During Senate floor consideration over the motion to discharge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S J Res  42 , Members once again weighed various issues, such as the U S -Saudi bilateral relationship, countering Iran, and limiting U S  involvement in the war in Yemen  Some lawmakers suggested that U S  arms sales and military support to the coalition had enabled alleged violations of international humanitarian law, while others argued that U S  support to the coalition improved its effectiveness and helps minimize civilian casualties  For example, during floor debate, Senator Graham argued that "If we are worried about collateral damage in Yemen, I understand the concern  Precision weapons would help that cause, not hurt it " Senator Murphy retorted, saying "What we are asking for is to hold off on selling these precision-guided munitions until we get some clear promise—some clear assurance—from the Saudis that they are going to use these munitions only for military purposes and that they are going to start taking steps—real steps, tangible steps—to address the humanitarian crisis " On June 13, 2017, the Senate voted to reject the motion to discharge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration (47-53, Record Vote 143), and a companion resolution was not taken up in the House ( H J Res  102 )  Representative Ro Khanna introduced a concurrent resolution ( H Con Res  81 ) pursuant to the War Powers Resolution ( P L  93-148 ) in a bid to end U S  support for the coalition's military intervention  After consultation between House leaders and supporters of the resolution on a compromise approach, the House agreed to delay expedited consideration of the resolution until after the November 2016 election and then adopted a nonbinding alternative ( H Res  599 , 366-30, 1 Present, Roll no  623)  In his first year in office, while President Trump sought to improve relations with Saudi Arabia, counter Iran, and increase U S  counterterrorism activity in Yemen, his Administration also at times took strong positions on the need for members of the coalition to improve humanitarian access, pursue a settlement to the conflict, and take measures to prevent civilian casualties  After a Houthi-fired missile with alleged Iranian origins landed deep inside Saudi Arabia in November 2017, the coalition instituted a full blockade of all of Yemen's ports, including the main port of Hudaydah, exacerbating the country's humanitarian crisis  The White House issued four press statements on the conflict between November 8 and December 8, including a statement on December 6 in which President Trump called on Saudi Arabia to "completely allow food, fuel, water, and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it  This must be done for humanitarian reasons immediately " On December 20, 2017, the Saudi-led coalition announced that it would end its blockade of Hudaydah port for a 30-day period and permit the delivery of four U S -funded cranes to Yemen to increase the port's capability to off-load commercial and humanitarian goods  The next day, the White House issued a statement welcoming "Saudi Arabia's announcement of these humanitarian actions in the face of this major conflict " As the Saudi-led coalition intervention entered its fourth year, some in the Senate also proposed use of the War Powers Resolution as a tool for ending U S  support for the coalition's military intervention  On February 28, 2018, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced S J Res  54 , a joint resolution to "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress (except for those U S  forces engaged in counterterrorism operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces) " Efforts in the Senate followed a late 2017 attempt in the House (see Table 1 below), in which a concurrent resolution directing the President to remove U S  forces from Yemen was tabled in favor of a House-passed nonbinding resolution  Throughout 2018, between Congress and the Trump Administration and within Congress itself, there was disagreement as to whether U S  forces assisting the Saudi-led coalition have been introduced into active or imminent hostilities for purposes of the War Powers Resolution  Some Members claimed that by providing support to the Saudi-led coalition, U S  forces have been introduced into a "situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated" based on the criteria of the War Powers Resolution  The Trump Administration disagreed  In February 2018, the Acting Department of Defense General Counsel wrote to Senate leaders describing the extent of current U S  support , and reported that "the United States provides the KSA-led coalition defense articles and services, including air-to-air refueling; certain intelligence support; and military advice, including advice regarding compliance with the law of armed conflict and best practices for reducing the risk of civilian casualties " On March 20, 2018, the Senate considered S J Res  54 on the floor  During debate, arguments centered on a number of issues, ranging from concern over exacerbating Yemen's humanitarian crisis to reasserting the role of Congress in authorizing the use of armed force abroad  After then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Bob Corker promised to propose new legislation and hold hearings scrutinizing U S  policy in Yemen, a majority of Senators voted to table a motion to discharge the Foreign Relations committee from further consideration of S J Res  54   Senator Robert Menendez made remarks expressing conditional support for Senator Corker's approach, a view shared by some other Senators who voted to table the motion  The Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Yemen a month later  In parallel testimony before Congress, U S  defense officials stated that while the United States refueled Saudi aircraft and provided advice on targeting techniques, CENTCOM did not track coalition aircraft after they were refueled and did not provide advice on specific targets  Then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Robert S  Karem testified that "It's correct that we do not monitor and track all of the Saudi aircraft aloft over Yemen " During the same hearing, U S  officials acknowledged that pressure from Congress has altered how the Administration deals with the coalition over the Yemen conflict  Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Satterfield told Senator Todd Young and the SFRC the following: Senator, your efforts, the efforts of your colleagues in this body and on this Committee have been exceedingly helpful in allowing the Administration to send a message from whole of government regarding the very specific concerns we have over any limitations, restrictions, constraints on the ability of both humanitarian and commercial goods specifically to include fuel to have unrestricted and expeditious entry into Yemen  And that messaging which comes from us, the Executive Branch, also comes from this body is extremely important  After the promised hearing, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also proposed new legislation to place conditions on U S  assistance to the coalition  In May, the committee reported S J Res  58 to the Senate; it would have prohibited the obligation or expenditure of U S  funds for in-flight refueling operations of Saudi and Saudi-led coalition aircraft that were not conducting select types of operations if certain certifications cannot be made and maintained  The Senate Armed Services Committee incorporated the provisions of the SFRC-reported text of S J Res  58 as Section 1266 of the version of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that it reported to the Senate on June 5, 2018 ( S  2987 )  The provision was modified further and passed by both the House and Senate as Section 1290 of the conference version of the FY2019 NDAA ( H R  5515 )  It was signed into law as P L  115-232 in mid-August, giving the Administration until mid-September 2018 to make certain certifications  In a statement accompanying the President's signing of P L  115-232 into law, President Trump objected to provisions such as Section 1290, stating the Administration's view that such provisions "encompass only actions for which such advance certification or notification is feasible and consistent" with "[his] exclusive constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and as the sole representative of the Nation in foreign affairs " As Congress continued to question the role of the United States in supporting coalition operations in Yemen, the pace and scale of fighting on the ground increased dramatically by the summer of 2018  On June 12, 2018, the Saudi-led coalition launched "Operation Golden Victory," aimed at retaking the Red Sea port city of Hudaydah  As coalition forces engaged Houthi militants in and around Hudaydah, humanitarian organizations warned that if port operation ceased, famine could become widespread throughout northern Yemen  On June 12, nine Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Pompeo and then-Secretary of Defense Mattis saying, "We are concerned that pending military operations by the UAE and its Yemeni partners will exacerbate the humanitarian crisis by interrupting delivery of humanitarian aid and damaging critical infrastructure  We are also deeply concerned that these operations jeopardize prospects for a near-term political resolution to the conflict " Several weeks later, Senator Robert Menendez, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, placed a hold on a potential U S  sale of precision guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates  In a June 28 letter to Secretary of State Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mattis, Senator Menendez said, I am not confident that these weapons sales will be utilized strategically as effective leverage to push back on Iran's actions in Yemen, assist our partners in their own self-defense, or drive the parties toward a political settlement that saves lives and mitigates humanitarian suffering…  Even worse, I am concerned that our policies are enabling perpetuation of a conflict that has resulted in the world's worst humanitarian crisis  On August 9, the coalition conducted an airstrike that hit a bus in a market near Dahyan, Yemen, in the northern Sa'ada governorate adjacent to the Saudi border  The strike reportedly killed 51 people, 40 of whom were children  The coalition claims that its airstrike was a "legitimate military operation" and conducted in response to a Houthi missile attack on the Saudi city of Jizan a day earlier that killed a Yemeni national in the kingdom  The U S  State Department called on the Saudi-led coalition to conduct a "thorough and transparent investigation into the incident " Several Members of Congress wrote to the Administration seeking additional information regarding U S  operations in the wake of the August 2018 coalition strike at Dahyan  Several Senators also submitted an amendment to the FY2019 Defense Department appropriations act ( H R  6157 ) that would have prohibited the use of funds made available by the act to support the Saudi-led coalition operations in Yemen until the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing to Congress that the coalition air campaign "does not violate the principles of distinction and proportionality within the rules for the protection of civilians " The provision did not apply to support for ongoing counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Yemen  On September 12, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a certification that would allow the use of FY2019 defense funds to support in-flight refueling of coalition aircraft to continue, per the terms of Section 1290 (see discussion above) of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P L  115-232 )  Some Members of Congress criticized the Administration's actions, asserting that the coalition has not met the act's specified benchmarks for avoiding civilian casualties in Yemen  On September 26, several House Members introduced H Con Res  138 , which sought to direct the President to remove U S  Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen, except for Armed Forces engaged in operations authorized under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, within 30 days unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use has been enacted into law  In response to a similar initiative in the Senate, the Administration submitted a detailed argument expressing its view that U S  forces supporting Saudi-led coalition operations are not engaged in hostilities in Yemen  By late 2018, the prospect of widespread famine in Yemen coupled with international reprobation over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi pressured the Administration and the coalition to accelerate moves toward peace talks  On October 30, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for all parties to reach a cease-fire and resume negotiations  On November 9, Secretary Mattis further announced that effective immediately, the coalition would use its own military capabilities—rather than U S  capabilities—to conduct in-flight refueling in support of its operations in Yemen  Though fighting continued along several fronts, on December 13, 2018, Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General for Yemen Martin Griffiths brokered a cease-fire centered on the besieged Red Sea port city of Hudaydah (Yemen's largest port)  As part of the U N -brokered deal (known as the Stockholm Agreement), the coalition and the Houthis agreed to redeploy their forces outside Hudaydah city and port  The United Nations agreed to chair a Redeployment Coordination Committee (RCC) to monitor the cease-fire and redeployment  The international community praised the Stockholm Agreement as a first step toward broader de-escalation and a possible road map to a comprehensive peace settlement  Also on December 13, 2018, the Senate amended and passed S J Res  54 (56-41), which, among other things, directed the President to remove U S  forces from hostilities in Yemen, except U S  forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda or associated forces  In the House, lawmakers twice narrowly approved rules resolutions containing provisions that made similar resolutions directing the President to remove U S  forces from hostilities in Yemen ineligible for expedited consideration ( H Res  1142 and H Res  1176 )  On December 13, the Senate also passed S J Res  69 , which, among other things, expresses the sense of the Senate that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi and that there is no statutory authorization for United States involvement in hostilities in the Yemen civil war  The 115th Congress frequently debated the extent and terms of the United States' involvement in the ongoing conflict in Yemen  Lawmakers questioned the extent to which successive Administrations have adhered to existing law related to providing security assistance, including sales or transfers of defense goods and defense services, while upholding international human rights standards (e g , 22 U S C  §2754 or 22 U S C  §2304)  They also enacted new legislation that would condition or prohibit the use of U S  funds for some activities related to Yemen and extend legislative oversight over the executive branch's policy toward the war in Yemen  While the House and its Rules Committee voted to make resolutions with respect to war powers and Yemen ineligible for expedited consideration, the Senate passage of S J Res  54 at the conclusion of the 115 th Congress demonstrated growth in congressional opposition to U S  involvement in the Saudi-led coalition intervention in Yemen relative to previous years  Over time, the balance of votes shifted in favor of measures that could be described as critical or restrictive of U S  support for Saudi-led coalition operations with regard to arms sales, oversight measures, and war powers measures  Nevertheless, after nearly four years of conflict, it remains difficult to identify the locus of congressional consensus about Yemen  Many in the House and Senate state that they seek to preserve cooperative U S -Saudi relations in broad terms and express concern about Iranian activities in Yemen, while also expressing support for expanded humanitarian access and efforts to bring the conflict to a close  Some lawmakers express opposition to the intervention and U S  involvement on moral grounds, citing errant coalition airstrikes and the prospect of a looming famine  Others argue the conflict's continuation creates opportunities for Iran and Sunni Islamist extremist groups to expand their influence and operations in Yemen  Still others may have come to oppose continued U S  support for the intervention based on factors not directly related to Yemen itself, including the opaque mechanisms used by the executive branch to support the coalition and/or anger with the Saudi government over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi  It remains to be seen whether recent congressional consideration of Yemen legislation is a harbinger of broader efforts by Members of Congress to reassert congressional prerogatives toward U S  foreign policy writ large  Measures to enhance oversight over U S  support to the Saudi-led coalition and U S  strategy toward Yemen have received broad bipartisan support, while proponents of other recently considered arms sales and war powers measures have used mechanisms to ensure privileged consideration of their proposals  The 116 th Congress may continue to debate U S  support for the Saudi-led coalition and Saudi Arabia's conduct of the war in Yemen  It is uncertain whether lawmakers may also broaden the scope of their oversight activities beyond the current conflict to more fully address the root causes of Yemen's chronic instability  Even if the United States is no longer an active supporter of coalition military efforts, Yemen itself has been devastated by years of war and remains the world's worst humanitarian crisis  Experts expect Yemen to require sustained international attention and financial assistance in order to help local actors reach and sustain a political settlement  This suggests that Congress may grapple with questions about the conduct of U S  diplomacy, the provision of U S  security support, and the investment of U S  assistance and defense funds for years to come 


Report 2:  Railroad workers found to be totally and permanently disabled from all work may be eligible for Tier I benefits at any age if the worker has at least 10 years of railroad service  Totally disabled workers may also receive Tier II benefits at the age of 62 if they have 10 or more years of service  Occupational disability annuities are also payable to workers found to be permanently disabled from their regular railroad occupations, if the worker is at least 60 years old with 10 years of service (or any age with 20 years of service), and with a current connection to the railroad industry  A five-month waiting period after the onset of disability is required before any disability annuity can be payable  Disability annuities are not payable if a worker is currently employed in a covered railroad job  Disability benefits are suspended if a beneficiary earns more than a certain amount after deducting certain disability-related work expenses  The Tier I portion of disability benefits may be reduced for the receipt of workers compensation or government disability benefits  In any month that a worker collects a railroad retirement or disability annuity, his or her spouse may also be eligible for a spousal annuity equal to or greater than the benefit he or she would have received if the worker's railroad work had been covered by Social Security  A spouse is eligible for a spousal annuity when he or she reaches the same minimum age required for the worker (i e , either at the age of 60 or 62, depending on years of the worker's service)  At any age, a spouse may be eligible for a spousal annuity if he or she cares for the worker's unmarried child under the age of 18 (or a child of any age that was disabled before the age of 22)  An individual must have been married to the railroad worker for at least one year before he or she applies for the spousal annuities, with certain exceptions  A qualifying spouse receives 50% of the worker's Tier I benefit before any reductions (or, if higher, a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings)  Spouses may also receive 45% of the worker's Tier II benefit before any reductions  Divorced spouses of retired or disabled railroad workers may also be eligible for spousal annuities  A divorced spouse may receive 50% of the worker's Tier I benefit before reductions, but no Tier II benefits  To qualify, the former spouse must have been married to the worker for at least 10 years and must not currently be married (remarriages if any must have terminated); both the worker and former spouse must be at least 62 years old  For spouses, as for railroad workers, Social Security benefits are subtracted from Tier I annuities  The Tier I portion of a spouse annuity may also be reduced for receipt of any pension from government employment not covered by Social Security based on the spouse's own earnings  Spouses are subject to reductions based on the primary worker's earnings as well as on their own earnings  For example, for early retirement, spouses are subject to different benefit reductions from workers  Finally, spouse annuities are reduced by the amount of any railroad benefits earned based on their own work  After the worker's death, surviving spouses, former spouses, children, and other dependents may be eligible to receive survivor annuities, which are paid in addition to any private life insurance offered by railroad employers  To be insured for survivor annuities, the worker must have had a current connection with the railroad industry at the time of death  Railroad survivor annuities are generally higher than comparable Social Security benefits because railroad workers' families may be entitled to Tier II annuities as well as Tier I annuities (as noted above, Tier I annuities are equivalent to Social Security benefits)  In cases where no monthly survivor annuities are paid, a lump-sum payment may be made to certain survivors  The widows and widowers of railroad workers may be eligible to receive survivor annuities  At FRA, a surviving spouse may be eligible for 100% of the worker's Tier I annuity (or his or her own Social Security or railroad retirement Tier I benefit, if higher)  The widow(er) may also receive up to 100% of the worker's Tier II annuity  As early as the age of 60 (or age 50, if disabled), widows and widowers may receive reduced survivor annuities  A qualifying widow(er) must have been married to the deceased railroad worker for at least nine months, with certain exceptions  At any age, a widow(er) caring for a deceased worker's child under the age of 18 may receive a survivor annuity equal to 75% of the worker's Tier I annuity, as well as up to 100% of the worker's Tier II annuity  Widow(er)s who are the natural or adoptive parent of the deceased worker's child do not have to meet the length of marriage requirement  Survivor annuities may also be payable to a surviving divorced spouse or remarried widow(er)  To qualify for benefits, a surviving divorced spouse has to be married to the employee for at least 10 years and is unmarried or remarried after age 60 (age 50 for disabled surviving divorced spouse)  A surviving divorced spouse who is unmarried can qualify for benefits at any age if caring for the employee's child who is under age 16 or disabled  Benefits are limited to the amounts Social Security would pay (Tier I only) and therefore are less than the amount of the survivor annuity otherwise payable  Railroad workers' children may also receive survivor annuities  To qualify, a child must be unmarried and under the age of 18 (or 19 if still in high school)  Disabled adult children may qualify if their disability began before the age of 22  Eligible children receive 75% of the worker's Tier I annuity and 15% of the worker's Tier II annuity  In addition, if a worker's parent was dependent on the worker for at least half of the parent's support, he or she may receive 82 5% of the worker's Tier I annuity and 35% of the worker's Tier II annuity after reaching age 60  Survivor annuities are not payable to a current railroad employee, and survivor annuities are reduced by any railroad retirement benefit the survivor has earned through his or her own railroad work  Survivors receive the same reductions as retired workers for Social Security benefit receipt; they also have reductions from government pension receipts that are not covered by Social Security  A family maximum applies to survivor benefits, usually applicable when three or more survivors receive benefits on a worker's record (not counting divorced spouses)  In summary, Table 1 provides data on railroad retirement, survivor, and disability annuities as of June 2018  Railroad workers may qualify for daily unemployment and sickness benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA)  These monetary benefits are paid in addition to any paid leave or private insurance an employee may have  For sickness benefits, a worker must be unable to work because of illness or injury  Sickness benefits are distinct from disability benefits because they are intended to cover a finite, temporary period of time  Workers may not earn any money while receiving unemployment or sickness benefits  Figure 3 displays the monthly number of beneficiaries with unemployment and sickness benefits from January 2002 to July 2018, respectively  Although the number of sickness beneficiaries stayed relatively stable over time, the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries increased significantly during and after the most recent economic recession from 2007 to 2009  Railroad unemployment and sickness benefits are financed solely by railroad employers' payroll taxes, based on the taxable earnings of their employees  Employers' tax rates depend on the past rates of unemployment and employees' sickness claims  For calendar year 2018, the employer tax rate ranges from 2 2% to 12 0% on the first $1,560 of each employee's monthly earnings  The payroll tax proceeds not needed immediately for unemployment and sickness insurance benefits or operating expenses are deposited in the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account maintained by the Treasury  This account, together with similar unemployment insurance accounts for each state, forms a Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund whose deposits are invested in U S  government securities, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account receives interest based on these deposits  During FY2017, payroll tax contributions from railroad employers totaled $126 4 million and interest income was about $4 million  The RUIA provides for employers to pay a surcharge if the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account falls below an indexed threshold amount  The surcharge is added to the employer's tax rate  However, the total tax rate plus the surcharge cannot exceed the maximum rate of 12 0%, unless the surcharge is 3 5%, in which case the maximum tax rate is increased to 12 5%  From 2004 through 2010, the surcharge was 1 5%  The surcharge in 2011 was 2 5% and 1 5% in 2012 with no surcharges in 2013 or 2014  The surcharge in 2018 was 1 5%, the same as the level in the past three years  Eligibility for railroad unemployment and sickness benefits is based on recent railroad service and earnings  The annual benefit year begins on July 1  Eligibility is based on work in the prior year, or the base year  To qualify in the benefit year beginning July 1, 2018, railroad workers must have base year earnings of $3,862 50 in calendar year 2017, counting no more than $1,545 per month  New railroad workers must also have at least five months of covered railroad work in the base year  To receive unemployment benefits, a worker must be ready, willing, and able to work  The maximum daily unemployment and sickness benefit payable in the benefit year that began July 1, 2018, is $77, and the maximum benefit for a biweekly claim is $770  However, due to sequestration pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P L  112-25 , as amended), the maximum daily benefit of $77 is reduced by 6 2% to $72 23 and the maximum biweekly benefit is reduced by 6 2% to $722 26 through September 30, 2019  Railroad workers receive these benefits only to the extent that they are higher than other benefits they receive under the RRA, the Social Security Act, or certain other public programs, including workers compensation  Unemployment and sickness beneficiaries may receive normal benefits for up to 26 weeks in a benefit year or until the benefits they receive equal their creditable earnings in the base year if sooner  Employees with at least 10 years of covered railroad service may qualify for extended benefits for 13 weeks after they have exhausted normal benefits  Table 2 displays the number and average weekly amount of RUIA benefits paid in June 2018  Workers who apply for unemployment benefits are automatically enrolled in a free job placement service operated by railroad employers and the RRB  

ground_truth: This product provides an overview of the role Congress has played in shaping U.S. policy toward the conflict in Yemen. Summary tables provide information on legislative proposals considered in the 115th and 116th Congresses. Various legislative proposals have reflected a range of congressional perspectives and priorities, including with regard to the authorization of the activities of the U.S. Armed Forces related to the conflict; the extent of U.S. logistical, material, advisory, and intelligence support for the coalition led by Saudi Arabia; the approval, disapproval, or conditioning of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia; the appropriation of funds for U.S. operations in support of the Saudi-led coalition; the conduct of the Saudi-led coalition's air campaign and its adherence to international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict; the demand for greater humanitarian access to Yemen; the call for a wider government assessment of U.S. policy toward Yemen and U.S. support to parties to the conflict; the nature and extent of U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism and border security cooperation; and the role of Iran in supplying missile technology and other weapons to the forces of the Houthi movement. The 116th Congress may continue to debate U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition and Saudi Arabia's conduct of the war in Yemen, where fighting has continued since March 2015. The war has exacerbated a humanitarian crisis in Yemen that began in 2011; presently, the World Food Program reports that 20 million Yemenis face hunger in the absence of sustained food assistance. The difficulty of accessing certain areas of Yemen has made it hard for governments and aid agencies to count the war's casualties. Data collected by the U.S. and European-funded Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) suggest that 60,000 Yemenis have been killed since January 2016. The Trump Administration has opposed various congressional proposals, including initiatives to reject or condition proposed U.S. arms sales or to require an end to U.S. military support to Saudi-led coalition operations in Yemen. Many in Congress have condemned the October 2018 murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government personnel, and in general, the incident appears to have exacerbated existing congressional concerns about Saudi leaders and the pace, scope, and direction of change in the kingdom's policies. This product includes legislative proposals considered during the 115th and 116th Congresses. It does not include references to Yemen in Iran sanctions legislation, which are covered in CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions. For additional information on the war in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, please see the following CRS products. CRS Report R43960, Yemen: Civil War and Regional Intervention. CRS Report RL33533, Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations. CRS Insight IN10729, Yemen: Cholera Outbreak.

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



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



Report 2: The DRC is a vast, mineral-rich nation with an estimated population of about 83 million people and an area that is roughly one-quarter the size of the United States, according to the United Nations  Figure 1 shows the DRC’s provinces and adjoining countries  Since gaining its independence from Belgium in 1960, the DRC has undergone political upheaval and armed conflict  From 1998 to 2003, the DRC and eight other African countries were involved in what has become known as “Africa’s World War,” which resulted in a death toll of an estimated 5 million people in the DRC, according to the U S  Department of State (State)  The eastern DRC has continued to be plagued by violence, often perpetrated against civilians by illegal armed groups and some members of the Congolese national military  Notably, in 2012, an illegal armed group occupied the city of Goma and other cities in the eastern DRC and clashed with the Congolese national army  During this time, the United Nations reported numerous cases of sexual violence against civilians, including women and children, which were perpetrated by armed groups and some members of the Congolese national military  In 2017, the United Nations reported that serious violations of human rights remain widespread in the DRC, including continued acts of sexual violence by government security forces as well as nonstate armed groups  Various industries, particularly manufacturing industries, use the four conflict minerals specifically named in the Dodd-Frank Act—tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold—in a wide variety of products  For example, tin is used to solder metal pieces and is also found in food packaging, steel coatings on automobile parts, and some plastics  Tungsten is used in automobile manufacturing, drill bits and cutting tools, and other industrial manufacturing tools and is the primary component of filaments in incandescent light bulbs  Most tantalum is used to manufacture capacitors that enable energy storage in electronic products such as cell phones and computers or to produce alloy additives used in turbines in jet engines  Gold is held as bullion by central bank reserves and used in making jewelry and also in the electronics industry, for example, to manufacture cell phones and laptops  In August 2012, SEC adopted its conflict minerals disclosure rule in response to Section 1502(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act  The act required that SEC promulgate disclosure and reporting regulations regarding the use of conflict minerals originating from the DRC and covered countries  In the summary section of the adopting release for the rule, SEC noted that to accomplish the goal of helping to end the human rights abuses in the DRC caused by the conflict, Congress chose to use the Dodd-Frank Act’s disclosure requirements to bring greater public awareness of the sources of companies’ conflict minerals and to promote the exercise of due diligence on conflict mineral supply chains  The SEC disclosure rule addresses the four conflict minerals named in the Dodd-Frank Act from the DRC and covered countries  The rule outlines a process for companies to follow, as applicable, to comply with the rule (see app  II)  The process broadly requires a company to 1  determine whether it manufactures, or contracts to be manufactured, products with “necessary” conflict minerals; 2  conduct a reasonable country-of-origin inquiry (RCOI) concerning the origin of those conflict minerals; and 3  exercise due diligence, if appropriate, to determine the source and chain of custody of those conflict minerals, adhering to a nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework, if such a framework is available for these necessary conflict minerals  If companies choose to disclose that their products are “DRC conflict free,” the SEC disclosure rule requires companies to obtain an independent private-sector audit (IPSA)  Our review of companies’ conflict minerals disclosures filed with the SEC in 2017 found that, in general, they were similar to disclosures filed in the prior 2 years  In 2017, a similar number of companies filed conflict minerals disclosures as in 2015 and 2016  Based on our review of a generalizable sample, we found that almost all companies that filed conflict minerals disclosures in 2017 reported performing inquiries about their conflict minerals’ country of origin, similar to the results we previously reported for 2016 and 2015  In their 2017 disclosure reports, many companies described actions they took to improve data collection processes, and most companies indicated challenges in determining the country of origin  Our review of company filings found that almost all companies required to conduct due diligence, as a result of their country- of-origin inquires, reported performing it  SEC issued revised guidance in April 2017, indicating that the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance would not recommend enforcement action if companies did not report on specified due diligence disclosure requirements  In 2017, 1,165 companies filed conflict minerals disclosures—almost as many companies as filed in 2016 and 2015 (1,230 and 1,281 respectively)  Our analysis of a generalizable sample of filings found that an estimated 90 percent of the companies that filed in 2017 were domestic and an estimated 10 percent were foreign companies, similar to the domestic-to-foreign ratio we found in 2016 and 2015  While not all companies reported the minerals used, of those that disclosed this information, an estimated 69 percent reported using tin, 54 percent reported using tantalum, 59 percent reported using tungsten, and 63 percent reported using gold, figures that are similar to the percentages reported in 2016  Our analysis of a generalizable sample of 2017 filings found that, as in 2016 and 2015, almost all companies that filed conflict minerals disclosures indicated that they performed country-of-origin inquiries  Specifically, an estimated 100 percent of the companies reported that they performed such an inquiry, similar to the percentages that we estimated reported doing so in 2016 and 2015  As a result of the inquiries they conducted, an estimated 53 percent of companies reported in 2017 whether the conflict minerals in their products came from covered countries—similar to the estimate of 49 percent in 2016 and in 2015 but significantly higher than the estimate of 30 percent in 2014 (see fig  2)  In the filings we reviewed, many companies indicated they had taken actions to improve their data collection processes, such as gathering missing information about their supply chains and working with suppliers to encourage conflict-free sourcing  In interviews, representatives of selected companies that filed conflict minerals disclosures in 2017 and other industry participants noted that (1) awareness among suppliers about the use of conflict minerals had continued to increase and (2) the process for collecting data on supply chains had become more routine and standardized  However, as in prior years, our review of filings found that most companies reported challenges in determining the country of origin of conflict minerals, in part due to lack of access to suppliers and complex supply chains involving many suppliers and processing facilities  Our review of company filings found that almost all companies that were required, as a result of their country-of-origin inquires, to conduct due diligence on the source and chain of custody of the conflict minerals in their products reported doing so  In 2017, an estimated 96 percent reported conducting due diligence, compared with 96 and 97 percent in 2016 and 2015 respectively  An estimated 87 percent of companies in 2017 reported using a due diligence framework prescribed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidance for conducting due diligence on the source and chain of custody of the conflict minerals in their products  That result is comparable to an estimated 92 percent that we reported in 2016 and an estimated 95 percent that we reported in 2015  The remaining 13 percent of the companies that reported conducting due diligence in 2017 did not specify a framework for their due diligence activities  After conducting due diligence, an estimated 37 percent of the companies reported in 2017 that they were able to determine that their conflict minerals came from covered countries or from scrap or recycled sources, compared with an estimated 39 and 23 percent in 2016 and 2015, respectively  An estimated 47 percent of the companies in 2017 reported that they could not definitively confirm the source of the conflict minerals in their products, compared with an estimated 55 and 67 percent in 2016 and 2015, respectively  However, as in previous years, almost all of the companies that reported conducting due diligence in 2017 reported that they could not determine whether the conflict minerals financed or benefited armed groups  Four companies in our sample reported determining that the minerals in their products did not finance or benefit armed groups in covered countries, and declared some products “DRC- conflict free ” Three of these companies included the required independent private-sector audit (IPSA) report, and one company did not include an IPSA report  Overall, a total of 16 companies filed an IPSA report in 2017, compared with 19 in 2016  In April 2017, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued revised guidance indicating that it would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if companies did not report on specified due diligence disclosure requirements  The SEC disclosure rule requires companies, if applicable, to report on their due diligence in a conflict minerals report (see app  II for additional detail on the disclosure requirements)  SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance staff told us that they received inquiries from a small number of companies about the filing process for 2017  In response to these inquiries, these staff noted that they advised companies that the companies had the flexibility to determine whether or not to report on their due diligence and to report their country-of-origin inquiry findings in either the Form SD or in a conflict minerals report  However, the Division of Corporation Finance staff also told us that, regardless of the division’s revised guidance, the SEC could still initiate enforcement action if companies do not report on their due diligence, as required by the SEC disclosure rule  In our sample, three companies cited the updated guidance and other statements issued by the SEC in their filings as a rationale for not reporting on due diligence activities  In interviews, representatives of some companies and other industry participants told us that even though the revised guidance and other statements made by the SEC raised some uncertainty about the filing process, generally, companies plan to continue to report similar conflict minerals disclosure information  We identified two new population-based surveys since our last report related to sexual violence in Burundi and Uganda published in 2018; the most recent information for eastern DRC and Rwanda is from 2016  We also identified some new case-file data on sexual violence in the DRC; however, as we reported previously, case-file data on sexual violence are not suitable for estimating an overall rate of sexual violence  We identified two new population-based surveys related to sexual violence that were conducted in Uganda and Burundi in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and whose results were published in 2018  The Uganda Demographic and Health Survey was conducted from June to December 2016 by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics with technical assistance from ICF International  The survey estimated that 12 7 percent of women nationwide, ages 15-49, reported they had experienced sexual violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey, while 21 9 percent reported they had experienced sexual violence at some point in their lifetime  In addition, 4 percent of men nationwide, ages 15-49, reported they had experienced sexual violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey, while 8 3 percent reported they had experienced sexual violence at some point in their lifetime  The Burundi Demographic and Health Survey was conducted from October of 2016 to March of 2017 by the Burundi Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies with technical assistance from ICF International  The survey estimated that 12 7 percent of women nationwide, ages 15- 49, reported they had experienced sexual violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey, while 23 1 percent reported they had experienced sexual violence at some point in their lifetime  In addition, 1 9 percent of men nationwide, ages 15-49, reported they had experienced sexual violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey, while 6 1 percent reported they had experienced sexual violence at some point in their lifetime  The most recent information on the rate of sexual violence for eastern DRC and Rwanda is from 2016 and is discussed in our previous reports  Figure 3 shows the publication dates for the population-based surveys with data on rates of sexual violence in the eastern DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi that have been published since 2007  State and United Nations entities have provided additional case-file information about instances of sexual violence in the DRC and adjoining countries  State’s annual country reports on human rights practices provided the following case-file data pertaining to sexual violence in the DRC and Burundi: DRC  In 2017, the UN documented 267 adult victims and 171 child victims, including two boys, of sexual violence in conflict  This violence was perpetrated by illegal armed groups as well as state security forces and civilians and was concentrated in North Kivu Province and in the Kasai region, according to State  Burundi  One government organization—Humara Center— responsible for investigating cases of sexual violence and rape received 197 cases of sexual and gender-based violence through early December 2017, according to State  Observers stated many women were reluctant to report rape, in part due to fear of reprisal, according to State  In addition, UN entities reported the following case-file data about sexual violence in the DRC: DRC  In 2017, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC verified 195 cases of conflict-related sexual violence, with illegal armed groups responsible for 80 percent of the cases and DRC security forces responsible for the remaining 20 percent  United Nations officials we interviewed raised concerns about a resurgence of sexual violence in certain regions in the DRC due to a variety of factors, including political instability arising from the government’s postponement of the presidential election originally scheduled to take place in November 2016  We provided a draft of this report to the SEC, State, and the U S  Agency for International Development for comment  SEC provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  State and USAID did not provide comments  We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees and to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the U S  Agency for International Development  The report is also 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) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@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  In this report, we provide information about (1) companies’ disclosures filed with the U S  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2017 compared with disclosures filed in the prior 2 years and (2) the rate of sexual violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighboring countries published in 2017 and early 2018  To examine the fourth annual company disclosures filed with the SEC in 2017 in response to the SEC disclosure rule, we downloaded the specialized disclosure reports (Form SD) and conflict minerals reports (CMR) from SEC’s publically available Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) database in September 2017  We downloaded 1,165 filings identified as Form SDs and the CMRs included in EDGAR  To review the completeness and accuracy of the EDGAR database, we reviewed relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable SEC officials, and reviewed prior GAO reports on internal controls related to SEC’s financial systems  We determined that the EDGAR database was sufficiently reliable for identifying the universe of SD filings  We reviewed the conflict minerals section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and the requirements of the SEC disclosure rule to develop a data collection instrument (DCI) that guided our analysis of Form SDs and CMRs that contain the information disclosed by the filing companies  Our DCI was not a compliance review of the Form SDs and CMRs  The questions were written in both yes-no and multiple-choice formats  An analyst reviewed the Form SDs and CMRs and recorded responses to the DCI for all of the companies in the sample  A second analyst also reviewed the Form SDs and CMRs and verified the responses recorded by the first analyst  Analysts met to discuss and resolve any discrepancies  We randomly sampled 100 Form SDs from a population of 1,165 to create estimates generalizable to the population of all companies that filed  All estimates based on our sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less at the 95-percent confidence level  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn  Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95-percent confidence interval  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  We also attended an industry conference on conflict minerals and spoke with company representatives to provide additional perspective  To address our second objective, we identified and assessed any information on sexual violence in the eastern DRC and the three adjoining countries—Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi—that had been published or otherwise had become available in 2017 and early 2018  We discussed the collection of sexual violence–related data in the DRC and adjoining countries, including population-based survey data and case-file data, during interviews with U S  Department of State and U S  Agency for International Development officials and with representatives of nongovernmental organizations and researchers whom we interviewed for our prior review of sexual violence rates in the eastern DRC and adjoining countries  We also interviewed officials from the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General in New York on Sexual Violence in Conflict  In addition, we conducted Internet searches to identify new academic articles containing any additional information on sexual violence published in 2017 and early 2018  We conducted this performance audit from September 2017 to June 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  The U S  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conflict minerals disclosure rule requires certain companies to file a specialized disclosure report, known as the Form SD, if the company manufactures, or contracts to have manufactured, a product or products containing conflict minerals that are necessary to the functionality or the production of those products  The rule also requires each company, as applicable, to provide a description of the measures the company took to exercise due diligence in determining the source and chain of custody of the conflict minerals, the facilities used to process them, their country of origin, and the efforts made to determine the mine or location of origin with the greatest possible specificity  Form SD provides general instructions for filing conflict minerals disclosures and specifies the information that companies must provide  Companies were required to file under the rule for the first time by June 2, 2014, and annually thereafter on May 31  Figure 4 shows the SEC’s flowchart summarizing the conflict minerals disclosure rule  In addition to the individual named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant Director), Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel (Analyst-in-Charge), Diana Blumenfeld, Andrew Kurtzman, Justin Fisher, Grace Lui, David Dayton, Christopher Keblitis, and Michael McAtee made key contributions to this report  Conflict Minerals: Information on Artisanal Mined Gold and Efforts to Encourage Responsible Sourcing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo  GAO-17-733  Washington, D C : August 23, 2017  SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: 2017 Review of Company Disclosures in Response to the U S  Securities and Exchange Commission Rule  GAO-17-517R  Washington, D C : April 26, 2017  Conflict Minerals: Insights from Company Disclosures and Agency Actions  GAO-17-544T  Washington, D C : April 5, 2017  SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Companies Face Continuing Challenges in Determining Whether Their Conflict Minerals Benefit Armed Groups  GAO-16-805  Washington, D C : August 25, 2016  SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Insights from Companies’ Initial Disclosures and State and USAID Actions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Region  GAO-16-200T  Washington, D C : November 17, 2015  SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Initial Disclosures Indicate Most Companies Were Unable to Determine the Source of Their Conflict Minerals  GAO-15-561  Washington, D C : August 18, 2015  Conflict Minerals: Stakeholder Options for Responsible Sourcing Are Expanding, but More Information on Smelters Is Needed  GAO-14-575  Washington, D C : June 26, 2014  SEC Conflict Minerals Rule: Information on Responsible Sourcing and Companies Affected  GAO-13-689  Washington D C : July 18, 2013  Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule: SEC’s Actions and Stakeholder- Developed Initiatives  GAO-12-763  Washington, D C : July 16, 2012  The Democratic Republic of Congo: Information on the Rate of Sexual Violence in War-Torn Eastern DRC and Adjoining Countries  GAO-11-702  Washington, D C : July 13, 2011  The Democratic Republic of the Congo: U S  Agencies Should Take Further Actions to Contribute to the Effective Regulation and Control of the Minerals Trade in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo  GAO-10-1030  Washington, D C : September 30, 2010 
Report 2:  Railroad workers found to be totally and permanently disabled from all work may be eligible for Tier I benefits at any age if the worker has at least 10 years of railroad service  Totally disabled workers may also receive Tier II benefits at the age of 62 if they have 10 or more years of service  Occupational disability annuities are also payable to workers found to be permanently disabled from their regular railroad occupations, if the worker is at least 60 years old with 10 years of service (or any age with 20 years of service), and with a current connection to the railroad industry  A five-month waiting period after the onset of disability is required before any disability annuity can be payable  Disability annuities are not payable if a worker is currently employed in a covered railroad job  Disability benefits are suspended if a beneficiary earns more than a certain amount after deducting certain disability-related work expenses  The Tier I portion of disability benefits may be reduced for the receipt of workers compensation or government disability benefits  In any month that a worker collects a railroad retirement or disability annuity, his or her spouse may also be eligible for a spousal annuity equal to or greater than the benefit he or she would have received if the worker's railroad work had been covered by Social Security  A spouse is eligible for a spousal annuity when he or she reaches the same minimum age required for the worker (i e , either at the age of 60 or 62, depending on years of the worker's service)  At any age, a spouse may be eligible for a spousal annuity if he or she cares for the worker's unmarried child under the age of 18 (or a child of any age that was disabled before the age of 22)  An individual must have been married to the railroad worker for at least one year before he or she applies for the spousal annuities, with certain exceptions  A qualifying spouse receives 50% of the worker's Tier I benefit before any reductions (or, if higher, a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings)  Spouses may also receive 45% of the worker's Tier II benefit before any reductions  Divorced spouses of retired or disabled railroad workers may also be eligible for spousal annuities  A divorced spouse may receive 50% of the worker's Tier I benefit before reductions, but no Tier II benefits  To qualify, the former spouse must have been married to the worker for at least 10 years and must not currently be married (remarriages if any must have terminated); both the worker and former spouse must be at least 62 years old  For spouses, as for railroad workers, Social Security benefits are subtracted from Tier I annuities  The Tier I portion of a spouse annuity may also be reduced for receipt of any pension from government employment not covered by Social Security based on the spouse's own earnings  Spouses are subject to reductions based on the primary worker's earnings as well as on their own earnings  For example, for early retirement, spouses are subject to different benefit reductions from workers  Finally, spouse annuities are reduced by the amount of any railroad benefits earned based on their own work  After the worker's death, surviving spouses, former spouses, children, and other dependents may be eligible to receive survivor annuities, which are paid in addition to any private life insurance offered by railroad employers  To be insured for survivor annuities, the worker must have had a current connection with the railroad industry at the time of death  Railroad survivor annuities are generally higher than comparable Social Security benefits because railroad workers' families may be entitled to Tier II annuities as well as Tier I annuities (as noted above, Tier I annuities are equivalent to Social Security benefits)  In cases where no monthly survivor annuities are paid, a lump-sum payment may be made to certain survivors  The widows and widowers of railroad workers may be eligible to receive survivor annuities  At FRA, a surviving spouse may be eligible for 100% of the worker's Tier I annuity (or his or her own Social Security or railroad retirement Tier I benefit, if higher)  The widow(er) may also receive up to 100% of the worker's Tier II annuity  As early as the age of 60 (or age 50, if disabled), widows and widowers may receive reduced survivor annuities  A qualifying widow(er) must have been married to the deceased railroad worker for at least nine months, with certain exceptions  At any age, a widow(er) caring for a deceased worker's child under the age of 18 may receive a survivor annuity equal to 75% of the worker's Tier I annuity, as well as up to 100% of the worker's Tier II annuity  Widow(er)s who are the natural or adoptive parent of the deceased worker's child do not have to meet the length of marriage requirement  Survivor annuities may also be payable to a surviving divorced spouse or remarried widow(er)  To qualify for benefits, a surviving divorced spouse has to be married to the employee for at least 10 years and is unmarried or remarried after age 60 (age 50 for disabled surviving divorced spouse)  A surviving divorced spouse who is unmarried can qualify for benefits at any age if caring for the employee's child who is under age 16 or disabled  Benefits are limited to the amounts Social Security would pay (Tier I only) and therefore are less than the amount of the survivor annuity otherwise payable  Railroad workers' children may also receive survivor annuities  To qualify, a child must be unmarried and under the age of 18 (or 19 if still in high school)  Disabled adult children may qualify if their disability began before the age of 22  Eligible children receive 75% of the worker's Tier I annuity and 15% of the worker's Tier II annuity  In addition, if a worker's parent was dependent on the worker for at least half of the parent's support, he or she may receive 82 5% of the worker's Tier I annuity and 35% of the worker's Tier II annuity after reaching age 60  Survivor annuities are not payable to a current railroad employee, and survivor annuities are reduced by any railroad retirement benefit the survivor has earned through his or her own railroad work  Survivors receive the same reductions as retired workers for Social Security benefit receipt; they also have reductions from government pension receipts that are not covered by Social Security  A family maximum applies to survivor benefits, usually applicable when three or more survivors receive benefits on a worker's record (not counting divorced spouses)  In summary, Table 1 provides data on railroad retirement, survivor, and disability annuities as of June 2018  Railroad workers may qualify for daily unemployment and sickness benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA)  These monetary benefits are paid in addition to any paid leave or private insurance an employee may have  For sickness benefits, a worker must be unable to work because of illness or injury  Sickness benefits are distinct from disability benefits because they are intended to cover a finite, temporary period of time  Workers may not earn any money while receiving unemployment or sickness benefits  Figure 3 displays the monthly number of beneficiaries with unemployment and sickness benefits from January 2002 to July 2018, respectively  Although the number of sickness beneficiaries stayed relatively stable over time, the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries increased significantly during and after the most recent economic recession from 2007 to 2009  Railroad unemployment and sickness benefits are financed solely by railroad employers' payroll taxes, based on the taxable earnings of their employees  Employers' tax rates depend on the past rates of unemployment and employees' sickness claims  For calendar year 2018, the employer tax rate ranges from 2 2% to 12 0% on the first $1,560 of each employee's monthly earnings  The payroll tax proceeds not needed immediately for unemployment and sickness insurance benefits or operating expenses are deposited in the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account maintained by the Treasury  This account, together with similar unemployment insurance accounts for each state, forms a Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund whose deposits are invested in U S  government securities, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account receives interest based on these deposits  During FY2017, payroll tax contributions from railroad employers totaled $126 4 million and interest income was about $4 million  The RUIA provides for employers to pay a surcharge if the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account falls below an indexed threshold amount  The surcharge is added to the employer's tax rate  However, the total tax rate plus the surcharge cannot exceed the maximum rate of 12 0%, unless the surcharge is 3 5%, in which case the maximum tax rate is increased to 12 5%  From 2004 through 2010, the surcharge was 1 5%  The surcharge in 2011 was 2 5% and 1 5% in 2012 with no surcharges in 2013 or 2014  The surcharge in 2018 was 1 5%, the same as the level in the past three years  Eligibility for railroad unemployment and sickness benefits is based on recent railroad service and earnings  The annual benefit year begins on July 1  Eligibility is based on work in the prior year, or the base year  To qualify in the benefit year beginning July 1, 2018, railroad workers must have base year earnings of $3,862 50 in calendar year 2017, counting no more than $1,545 per month  New railroad workers must also have at least five months of covered railroad work in the base year  To receive unemployment benefits, a worker must be ready, willing, and able to work  The maximum daily unemployment and sickness benefit payable in the benefit year that began July 1, 2018, is $77, and the maximum benefit for a biweekly claim is $770  However, due to sequestration pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P L  112-25 , as amended), the maximum daily benefit of $77 is reduced by 6 2% to $72 23 and the maximum biweekly benefit is reduced by 6 2% to $722 26 through September 30, 2019  Railroad workers receive these benefits only to the extent that they are higher than other benefits they receive under the RRA, the Social Security Act, or certain other public programs, including workers compensation  Unemployment and sickness beneficiaries may receive normal benefits for up to 26 weeks in a benefit year or until the benefits they receive equal their creditable earnings in the base year if sooner  Employees with at least 10 years of covered railroad service may qualify for extended benefits for 13 weeks after they have exhausted normal benefits  Table 2 displays the number and average weekly amount of RUIA benefits paid in June 2018  Workers who apply for unemployment benefits are automatically enrolled in a free job placement service operated by railroad employers and the RRB  

ground_truth: Over the past decade, the United States and the international community have sought to improve security in the DRC. In the eastern DRC, armed groups have committed severe human rights abuses, including sexual violence, and reportedly profit from the exploitation of “conflict minerals”— in particular, tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold, according to the United Nations. Congress included a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that, among other things, required the SEC to promulgate regulations regarding the use of conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining countries. The SEC adopted these regulations in 2012. The act also included a provision for GAO to annually assess the SEC regulations' effectiveness in promoting peace and security and report on the rate of sexual violence in the DRC and adjoining countries. In this report, GAO provides information about (1) companies' conflict minerals disclosures filed with the SEC in 2017 compared with disclosures filed in the prior 2 years and (2) the rate of sexual violence in the eastern DRC and adjoining countries published in 2017 and early 2018. GAO analyzed a generalizable random sample of SEC filings and interviewed relevant officials. GAO reviewed U.S., United Nations, and international organizations' reports; interviewed DRC officials, and other stakeholders; and conducted fieldwork in New York at the United Nations headquarters. GAO is not making any recommendations. GAO's review of companies' conflict minerals disclosures filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2017 found that, in general, they were similar to disclosures filed in the prior 2 years. In 2017, 1,165 companies filed conflict minerals disclosures—about the same as in 2016 and 2015. Percentages of companies reporting country-of-origin inquiries in 2017 were also similar to the percentages from those 2 prior years. As a result of the inquiries they conducted, an estimated 53 percent of companies reported in 2017 whether the conflict minerals in their products came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries—similar to the estimated 49 percent in 2016 and 2015 but significantly higher than the estimate of 30 percent in 2014 (see figure). In their 2017 disclosure reports, many companies described actions they took to improve data collection processes, and most companies indicated some challenges in determining the country of origin. Similar to the prior 2 years, almost all companies required to conduct due diligence, as a result of their country-of-origin inquiries, reported doing so. After conducting due diligence to determine the source and chain of custody of any conflict minerals used, an estimated 37 percent of these companies reported in 2017 that they were able to determine that their conflict minerals came from covered countries or from scrap or recycled sources, compared with 39 and 23 percent in 2016 and 2015, respectively. Four companies in GAO's sample declared their products “DRC conflict-free,” and of those, three included the required Independent Private Sector Audit report (IPSA), and one did not. In 2017, 16 companies filed an IPSA; 19 did so in 2016. GAO found information on the rate of sexual violence in the 2017 Uganda and Burundi Demographic and Health Surveys. For Uganda, 22 percent of women and 9 percent of men reported they had experienced sexual violence at least once in their lifetime. For Burundi, 23 percent of women and 6 percent of men reported they had experienced sexual violence at least once in their lifetime. The most recent information on the rate of sexual violence for eastern DRC and Rwanda is from 2016 and is discussed in our previous GAO reports.