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



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



Report 2: 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:  The program has begun phase three, including approving 19 percent of Boeing’s phase three reports  Program Requirements  While the program manager told us that all of the requirements contribute to the safety of the commercial systems, safety officials are required to approve a subset of these requirements  Examples of requirements approved by safety officials include the ability to leave the spacecraft in an emergency or to abort a launch  When a contractor is ready for NASA to verify that it has met a requirement, the contractor submits data for NASA to review through a verification closure notice  We define “safety-specific notices” as those requiring safety officials’ approval  As shown in table 2, as of March 2018, the program had approved 2 percent of Boeing’s safety-specific notices and 0 percent of SpaceX’s safety-specific notices  Testing  The program also requires testing to verify and validate the crew transportation system  Agency officials emphasized the importance of testing to safety, stating that testing reduces uncertainty about a system’s performance and can uncover unknown problems  As noted above, both contractors will be conducting an uncrewed and a crewed flight test prior to being certified  While a certain level of risk needs to be accepted to conduct human spaceflight, these flight tests help to mitigate this risk by validating the integrated performance of the hardware and software  Agency and program officials stated that the contractors’ flight tests are critical evidence to support certification of a safe and reliable system  As evidenced by the data above, the program still has a significant amount of work ahead with respect to approving certification packages and closing hazard reports and verification closure notices  We have previously found that the program’s workload was an emerging schedule risk, and the contractors have continued to express concern about program officials’ ability to process and approve certification paperwork in a timely manner  Workload has also been a concern for two of NASA’s independent review organizations  For example, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel noted in its January 2018 annual report that the sheer volume of work that remains for the program in terms of closing hazard reports and verification closure notices is significant  In addition, the program’s safety and mission assurance office identified the upcoming bow wave of work in a shrinking time period as a top risk to achieving certification  One mechanism the program put in place to assess the overall safety of each spacecraft—loss of crew—has been a focus of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, Members of Congress, our prior work, and the program itself  Loss of crew captures the probability of death or permanent disability to one or more crew members  It has received a lot of attention, in part, because it has been a top risk for the program since 2015  Specifically, the program has been concerned that neither contractor would be able to meet the contract requirement of a 1 in 270 probability of incurring loss of crew  We identified two key concerns with how NASA is using the loss of crew metric: (1) inconsistent approaches to assess the loss of crew metric and (2) no identified plan to share lessons learned about using the loss of crew metric as a safety threshold  A loss of crew value is generated through a probabilistic safety analysis, which models scenarios that could result in the loss of crew using various inputs  According to the program’s analysis, the probability of on-orbit debris damaging the vehicle has the greatest effect on a loss of crew value  This probability is informed by an orbital debris (debris) model, which was updated in 2014, after the loss of crew requirement was established  The updated debris model makes it harder to meet a loss of crew value, in part, because the modeling environment where the contractors’ systems will operate has changed  For example, the updated model includes a larger span of orbit, greater range of debris sizes, and the addition of material density classifications, which were not included in the former model  Further, the probabilistic safety analysis may include operational mitigations, such as on-orbit inspections that would include using cameras on the ISS to visually survey the spacecraft for damage, which, according to officials, makes it easier to meet a loss of crew value  NASA describes the probabilistic safety analysis as a powerful tool that should be used as part of the overall risk management process to ensure the risk associated with development and operation of a system is understood, evaluated, managed, and mitigated  However, we found differences in the approaches that officials plan to use to assess loss of crew as well as in the loss of crew value being measured that could limit the usefulness of this tool  Agency Certification  The agency certification review for each contractor will include an assessment of whether its crew transportation system meets a loss of crew threshold of 1 in 150 for missions to the ISS, which is based on a May 2011 safety memo from the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance  A loss of crew value with a higher denominator, such as 1 in 270, is harder to meet than with a lower denominator, such as 1 in 150  According to the Chief of the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, he will assess the 1 in 150 threshold using a probabilistic safety analysis that includes the updated debris model and operational mitigations, such as the on- orbit inspections cited above  Program Office  According to program officials, they will assess whether either contractor meets a 1 in 270 loss of crew value based on a probabilistic safety analysis using the former debris model (not the updated model) and not including operational mitigations  Contracting Officer  According to the contracting officer, each contractor’s loss of crew requirement is 1 in 270 without including operational mitigations  The contracting officer stated that SpaceX’s contract requirement uses the updated debris model in the probabilistic safety analysis, whereas Boeing’s contract requirement uses the former debris model in the probabilistic safety analysis  Program’s Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer  According to the program’s chief safety and mission assurance officer, he will conduct a probabilistic safety analysis using the updated debris model and will not include operational mitigations to assess whether each contractor meets a 1 in 200 loss of crew value  This loss of crew value stems from a program update that occurred after the initial contracts were signed  These different approaches are summarized in table 3 below  Agency policy requires human spaceflight programs to set a safety threshold, which NASA did for the Commercial Crew Program when it identified the 1 in 150 loss of crew threshold in the May 2011 safety memo  Subsequently, the program set more rigorous loss of crew values in contract and program documents  NASA also updated the debris model, which we previously noted makes it more difficult to meet a loss of crew value  As a result, NASA does not have a consistent approach for how to incorporate key inputs to the probabilistic safety analysis, including changes to the debris model  Instead, the risk tolerance that NASA is accepting with loss of crew varies based upon which entity is presenting the results of its probabilistic safety analysis  For example, it is possible that the program’s assessment will determine that neither contractor will meet the 1 in 270 contract requirement, but that the agency’s assessment will determine that the contractors meet the 1 in 150 agency certification value because that analysis will include operational mitigations  Or the program’s assessment could determine that Boeing meets the 1 in 270 contractual loss of crew requirement, but the agency’s assessment may determine that Boeing does not meet the 1 in 150 agency certification value because that analysis will use the updated debris model  Federal internal controls state that agency management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances  Specifically, management should define risk tolerances in specific and measurable terms, so they are clearly stated and can be measured  In this case, because there will be multiple analyses conducted using different inputs, NASA risks not clearly capturing or documenting, in a coherent manner, its overall risk tolerance with respect to loss of crew before a final decision must be made on whether to certify either crew transportation system  Moreover, capturing the challenges and lessons learned from using the loss of crew metric is critical, particularly because agency officials told us that this is the first time this metric has been used as a safety threshold  Also, there are different viewpoints about the utility of the metric as a safety threshold across the agency  The program manager repeatedly told us that loss of crew is best used as a design tool  For example, program officials told us that both contractors incorporated additional orbital debris shielding into their designs to mitigate the orbital debris risk and improve their loss of crew values  In addition, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel reported in 2018 that loss of crew should not be viewed as an absolute measure of actual risk during operations  However, the May 2011 agency safety memo states that a breach of the loss of crew threshold would initiate a termination review of the Commercial Crew Program, which is a more strict application of the loss of crew metric  Both program and safety officials told us that, after the agency certification is complete and lessons learned are available to be compiled, sharing those lessons learned across NASA would be a good idea given the complexities associated with assessing the loss of crew metric  As of April 2018, however, agency officials said they did not have a plan for loss of crew knowledge-sharing  We have previously found that lessons learned provide a powerful method of sharing good ideas for improving work processes, facility or equipment design and operation, quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness  Further, according to NASA’s Knowledge Policy on Program and Projects, which is managed through the Office of the Chief Engineer, a principle of each center and mission directorate’s knowledge strategy is that knowledge is the cornerstone of NASA’s ability to achieve mission success  The policy acknowledges that NASA faces continuous challenges in using what it knows effectively  These challenges include, but are not limited to, enabling the identification and flow of knowledge across organizational boundaries; preserving knowledge at risk of being lost; and providing means for individuals, teams, and the organization to learn from experiences  If NASA does not capture lessons learned from the Commercial Crew Program on using the loss of crew requirement to set a program’s safety threshold and whether it met the agency’s intended goal, future programs will not be able to benefit from the knowledge gained from this multibillion dollar investment  NASA’s governance model prescribes a management structure that employs checks and balances among key organizations to ensure that decisions have the benefit of different points of view and are not made in isolation  As part of this structure, NASA established the technical authority process as a system of checks and balances to provide independent oversight of programs and projects in support of safety and mission success through the selection of specific individuals with delegated levels of authority  The technical authority process has been used in other parts of the government for acquisitions, including the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security  The Commercial Crew Program is organizationally connected to three technical authorities within NASA: the Office of the Chief Engineer technical authority, the Office of Chief Health and Medical technical authority, and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (safety) technical authority  The safety technical authority is responsible for ensuring from an independent standpoint that the program’s products and processes satisfy NASA’s safety, reliability, and mission assurance policies  The NASA safety technical authority has delegated authority through the Kennedy Space Center Director to the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer for the Commercial Crew Program  We have previously reviewed how NASA has organized its technical authorities for its Exploration Systems Development organization—an organization that oversees the development of the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule, and associated ground systems that have the goal of extending human presence beyond low-Earth orbit  In October 2017, we found that the Exploration Systems Development organization had established an organizational structure in which the technical authorities for engineering and safety and mission assurance were dual hatted simultaneously in programmatic positions  We found that having the same individual simultaneously fill both a technical authority role and a program role created an environment of competing interests, where the technical authority’s ability to impartially and objectively assess the programs while at the same time acting on behalf of the Exploration Systems Development organization in programmatic capacities may be subject to impairments  We found that this was in contrast to a recommendation from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report—the result of an in-depth assessment of the technical and organizational causes of the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia accident—for NASA to establish a technical authority to serve independently of the Space Shuttle program, so that employees would not feel hampered to bring forward safety concerns or disagreements with programmatic decisions  The board’s findings that led to this recommendation included a broken safety culture in which it was difficult for minority and dissenting opinions to percolate up through the hierarchy; dual center and programmatic roles vested in one person that had confused lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability and made the oversight process susceptible to conflicts of interest; and oversight personnel in positions within the program, increasing the risk that these staffs’ perspectives would be hindered by too much familiarity with the programs they were overseeing  In October 2017, we recommended that the division no longer dual hat two individuals who had both programmatic and technical authority responsibilities  As of April 2018, NASA had taken steps to separate the engineering technical authority position from the programmatic position, and NASA’s Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance said he planned to separate the safety position but had not yet completed that action  The Commercial Crew Program employs a similar structure to the Exploration Systems Development organization in that the safety technical authority is dual hatted simultaneously in a programmatic position as the Commercial Crew Program’s Safety and Mission Assurance Manager  According to the program’s safety technical authority, in his programmatic role for the program, he helps set priorities for safety issues, including how staff will be utilized to meet those priorities  In the technical authority role, he provides independent oversight in support of safety and mission success  In his dual-hatted role, this official will be responsible for endorsing the program’s certification recommendations in two different capacities: as the technical authority and as a program authority  As a result, this structure relies on the same individual to completely separate two roles—one to manage the Commercial Crew Program’s safety issues within programmatic cost and schedule constraints, and the other to assess the same issues in an independent oversight role  While the Commercial Crew Program may have an additional level of separation between the safety technical authority and the program’s involvement in the design of commercial systems due to its shared assurance model with the commercial providers, the Commercial Crew Program still maintains a structure where one individual simultaneously serves in both technical authority and programmatic roles  Figure 5 describes some of the conflicting roles and responsibilities of this official in his two different positions  During our review, officials cited several factors in support of a dual- hatted approach: The safety technical authority retains independence because his technical authority reporting path and performance reviews are not under the purview of the Commercial Crew Program chain of command  Due to the Commercial Crew Program’s shared assurance model with commercial providers, the program is operating in a quality assurance role that provides an additional level of separation between the safety technical authority and the program’s involvement in the design of commercial systems  For safety decisions involving cost and schedule where the individual who is dual hatted with both technical authority and programmatic responsibilities may feel conflicted, he stated that he would discuss these matters with his management to validate the logic behind his decision  There are cost and knowledge efficiencies gained from one individual serving in both programmatic and safety technical authority capacities  NASA’s Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance stated that he has great confidence in the individual currently serving in the dual hatted role for the Commercial Crew Program, but acknowledged there is inherent conflict even with the program’s shared assurance model  In December 2017, he stated that, based on our previous work and current discussions, he intends to decouple the programmatic and technical authority responsibilities for the Commercial Crew Program but had not done so as of April 2018  Federal internal control standards state that an agency should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, which includes segregation of key duties and responsibilities to reduce the risk of error, misuse, or fraud  By overlapping technical authority and programmatic responsibilities, NASA will continue to run the risk of creating an environment of competing interests for the Commercial Crew Program’s safety technical authority  NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is a multibillion dollar effort to facilitate the commercial development of a crew transportation system that can end the United States’ reliance on Russia to maintain an uninterrupted presence on the ISS  Boeing and SpaceX continue to make progress developing a capability to fly to the ISS, but both have continued to experience delays  Program analysis indicates risks of further delays in each contractor’s current schedule, but NASA has not provided that information to Congress in its routine briefings  Without this information, Congress does not know the full extent of potential delays to inform decision making  Additional delays could also disrupt U S  access to the ISS  While NASA is working on potential solutions, there is no contingency plan in place to address this potential gap  Without a viable contingency plan, NASA puts at risk achievement of the U S  goal and objective for the ISS  NASA must balance safety with acceptable risk for human spaceflight  As part of the certification process for each contractor’s spacecraft, NASA has developed one key safety metric, loss of crew  However, the complicated nature of this metric is further muddled by the inconsistent approaches being used across NASA about what inputs to be considered  As a result, there is no clear articulation of what level of risk NASA will accept with respect to this program  In addition, NASA does not have plans to capture lessons learned from how the Commercial Crew Program has used this metric to assess safety and is missing an opportunity to capture this knowledge for future human spaceflight programs  Finally, a space program’s management and oversight approach is an integral part of ensuring that human spaceflight is as safe and successful as possible  Independence of the program management and oversight functions is key to achieving the balance between safety and success  The Commercial Crew Program’s approach, however, burdens the safety technical authority with both programmatic and independent technical authority responsibilities  As a result, NASA has limited assurance that independence can be maintained as part of its institutional process to ensure safety and success  We are making the following five recommendations to NASA: The NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations should direct the Commercial Crew Program to include the results of its schedule risk analysis in its mandatory quarterly reports to Congress  (Recommendation 1) The NASA Administrator should develop and maintain a contingency plan for ensuring a presence on the ISS until a Commercial Crew Program contractor is certified  (Recommendation 2) The NASA Administrator should direct the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, the Commercial Crew Program Manager, and the Commercial Crew Program Contracting Officer to collectively determine and document before the agency certification review how the agency will determine its risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew  (Recommendation 3) After completing the agency certification review, NASA’s Chief Engineer and Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, with support from the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Commercial Crew Program Manager, should document lessons learned related to loss of crew as a safety threshold for future crewed spaceflight missions, given the complexity of the metric  (Recommendation 4) The NASA Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance should restructure the technical authority within the Commercial Crew Program to ensure that the technical authority for the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance is no longer dual hatted with programmatic and independent technical authority responsibilities  (Recommendation 5) We provided a draft of this report to NASA for review and comment  NASA provided written comments that are reprinted in appendix II  In its response, NASA concurred with three of our recommendations, did not concur with one, and partially concurred with another  NASA concurred with our recommendation to develop and maintain a contingency plan to ensure a U S  presence on the ISS and expects to take action to close this recommendation by the end of December 2018  NASA concurred with our recommendation to document lessons learned related to the loss of crew requirement and expects to take action to close this recommendation by the end of May 2019  NASA concurred with our recommendation to restructure the safety technical authority so that it is no longer dual hatted with programmatic and independent technical authority responsibilities  NASA expects to take action to close this recommendation by the end of August 2018  NASA did not concur with our recommendation that the Commercial Crew Program should include the results of its schedule risk analysis in its quarterly reports to Congress  NASA stated that it uses the contractors’ schedules as a baseline to provide qualitative statements in the NASA summary that accompanies each contractor’s quarterly reports to Congress  NASA believes that this approach is appropriate and is in accordance with the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015  NASA also stated that it will be working to ensure that the contractors’ schedules and the program’s internal assessments sync up as the program gets closer to launch  As a result, NASA explained that there will not be a requirement for a detailed NASA assessment, because the contractors’ schedule will either match NASA’s analysis or NASA will discuss its position as it has done in previous reports to Congress  We continue to believe the recommendation is valid because the program’s schedule risk analysis would provide Congress with valuable insight into potential delays, which are likely  Both contractors have repeatedly stated that their schedules are aggressive and that the dates are ambitious  As a result, we found that the contractors frequently delay dates for key events  For example, Boeing has delayed its certification milestone by 17 months and SpaceX by 22 months since the original schedules were established  The program’s recent schedule risk analysis indicates that more delays to certification are likely, but that information is not presented to Congress in NASA’s quarterly reports  Without this information, Congress does not know the full extent of potential delays to inform decision making  NASA partially concurred with our recommendation that the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, the Commercial Crew Program Manager, and the Commercial Crew Program Contracting Officer should collectively determine and document how the agency will determine its risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew before the agency certification review  In its response, NASA stated that it documented the agency’s risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew for the program in its May 2011 safety memo  Further, NASA stated that it documented the requirement to limit risks to the loss of crew in a certification requirements document  NASA stated that ultimately the Commercial Crew Program is accountable for ensuring that the contractors’ systems meet the loss of crew value in this certification requirements document, which is a loss of crew value of 1 in 270  If a contractor’s system cannot meet that loss of crew value, or any other requirement, the program will request a waiver as part of the human rating certification process to ensure transparency  NASA acknowledged in its response that the existence of multiple documents defining residual risk requirements and an agency threshold for loss of crew can be confusing  NASA’s response, however, does not address our finding that it does not have a consistent approach for how to incorporate key inputs, including which debris model should be used or whether to include operational mitigations  NASA stated that it had taken action to address this recommendation; however, NASA did not outline any steps it took to resolve the concern that the risk tolerance for the loss of crew requirement depends on which entity is presenting the results of its analysis  We continue to believe that, before the agency certification review, the key parties must collectively determine how the agency will determine its risk tolerance with respect to loss of crew  We believe this approach will reduce confusion and increase transparency  We are sending copies of this report to NASA Administrator and interested congressional committees  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)512-4841 or chaplainc@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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  The objectives of our review were to assess (1) the extent to which the contractors have made progress towards meeting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) certification requirements and NASA’s plans to help ensure continued access to the International Space Station (ISS); and (2) how NASA’s certification process addresses safety of the contractors’ crew transportation systems  To assess the contractors’ progress towards certification, we obtained and reviewed program and contractor documents, including monthly and quarterly updates from April 2017 through May 2018  We interviewed program and contractor officials to discuss the contractors’ recent progress, including upcoming events and any expected delays, and to understand technical risks, potential consequences, and planned mitigation activities  To identify total delays to date, we compared original contract schedules to Boeing and SpaceX’s calendar year 2018 first quarter proposed schedules, which are the most recent  Based on our review of program and contractor documents, we defined the contractors’ key events as: the uncrewed and crewed flight tests, the design certification reviews for each of those flights, and the certification milestone  We selected the two flight tests for each contractor as key events because they are intended to test key system capabilities, including the ability to launch, dock with the ISS, and return safely to Earth  We selected the design certification reviews because they verify the contractors’ crew transportation systems’ capability to safely approach, dock, mate, and depart from the ISS, among other requirements  We selected the certification milestone because it determines whether the crew transportation system meets the Commercial Crew Program’s requirements  To determine the extent to which contractors have delayed these key events over time, we analyzed the contractors’ schedule data from the 13 quarterly progress reports to date, from first quarter 2015 through first quarter calendar year 2018  We also obtained the results of the program’s April 2018 schedule risk analysis  We presented the schedule analysis range from the end of the month of the earliest possible completion date to the end of the month of the latest possible completion date  We reviewed the program’s Congressional requirements to report on cost, schedule, and technical status  Finally, to assess the potential effects of any certification delays on NASA’s access to ISS, we reviewed NASA’s contracts with Boeing and the Russian Federal Space Agency for transportation on the Soyuz vehicle  We interviewed officials from the ISS program and NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to determine if the agency had developed contingency plans to mitigate the effects of any certification delays on its access to the ISS  To assess how NASA’s certification process addresses safety of the contractors’ crew transportation systems, we reviewed agency safety policies, program plans, and contract documents to identify what safety assessments were required of the program, which safety factors would be considered in certification reviews, and when certification approval would be granted  We also interviewed program officials and the contractors about their safety policies and procedures as well as about the certification process  We identified the loss of crew requirements for the program and the contractors, and interviewed program and agency officials to determine how loss of crew would be assessed and considered throughout the certification process  To gain a broader understanding of the relative importance of loss of crew, we reviewed NASA safety policies, prior GAO reports, and annual reports from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel  To determine how the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) was updated and to assess differences between the former and updated models, we reviewed NASA documentation about the ORDEM 2000 and ORDEM 3 0 models and obtained information about the models from NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office  To assess the program’s progress in closing requirements, including those requirements specifically related to safety, we reviewed program data for each contractor on contract requirements and closure status  We limited this analysis to requirements included in the CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document because these requirements are verified by the Commercial Crew Program, whereas requirements contained within SSP 50808 ISS to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Interface Requirements Document are managed by the ISS Transportation and Integration Office  We classified requirements as “safety-specific” when the program’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance was listed as a verification closure notice signatory (i e , approver)  We then analyzed the program’s data to determine how many verification closure notices had been approved for all requirements and for the subset of safety-specific requirements  We reviewed program and agency documentation, such as organizational charts, program plans, and safety policies as well as interviewed program and agency officials, to determine the role of the safety and mission assurance technical authority in the program  We also reviewed the 2003 Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s Report’s findings and recommendations related to culture and organizational management of human spaceflight programs  We reviewed annual briefings and reports and met with representatives from two organizations that provide NASA with independent assessments of the program, the program’s standing review board and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, to gain their perspectives on the contractor’s progress and how NASA addresses safety in its certification process  We also met with representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board and three experts with background on safety in human spaceflight in order to increase our contextual understanding of the role of safety in human spaceflight missions  We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to July 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  Cristina T  Chaplain, (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Molly Traci, Assistant Director; Kazue Chinen; Lorraine Ettaro; Lisa Fisher; Laura Greifner; Kurt Gurka; Miranda Riemer; Juli Steinhouse; Roxanna T  Sun; Hai Tran; Kristin Van Wychen; and Alyssa Weir made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: Wildlife trafficking—the poaching and illegal trade of plants, fish, and wildlife—is a multibillion-dollar, global criminal activity that imperils thousands of species. FWS and NOAA enforce laws prohibiting wildlife trafficking that authorize the agencies to pay financial rewards for information about such illegal activities. GAO was asked to review FWS's and NOAA's use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking. This report examines (1) laws that authorize FWS and NOAA to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking and the extent to which the agencies paid such rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, (2) the agencies' reward policies, (3) information available to the public on rewards, and (4) the extent to which the agencies reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards. GAO reviewed laws, examined FWS and NOAA policies and public communications on rewards, analyzed agency reward data for fiscal years 2007 through 2017 and assessed their reliability, interviewed FWS and NOAA officials, and compared agency policies and public communications on rewards to federal internal control standards. Multiple laws—such as the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act—authorize the Departments of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking. FWS and NOAA reported paying few rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017. Specifically, the agencies collectively reported paying 27 rewards, totaling $205,500. Agency officials said that the information was complete to the best of their knowledge but could not sufficiently assure that this information represented all of their reward payments. FWS and NOAA have reward policies that outline the general process for preparing reward proposals, but FWS's policy does not specify factors for its agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts. Some FWS agents GAO interviewed said that in developing proposals, they did not know whether their proposed reward amounts were enough, too little, or too much. By augmenting its policy to specify factors for agents to consider, FWS can better ensure that its agents have the necessary quality information to prepare proposed reward amounts, consistent with federal internal control standards. FWS and NOAA communicate little information to the public on rewards. For example, most agency websites did not indicate that providing information on wildlife trafficking could qualify for a reward. This is inconsistent with federal standards that call for management to communicate quality information so that external parties can help achieve agency objectives. FWS and NOAA officials said they have not communicated general reward information because of workload concerns, but they said it may be reasonable to provide more information in some instances. By developing plans to communicate more reward information to the public, the agencies can improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking that they otherwise might not receive. FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards. The agencies have not done so because using rewards has generally not been a priority. FWS and NOAA officials agreed that such a review would be worthwhile but provided no plans for doing so. By reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards, FWS and NOAA can identify opportunities to improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that FWS and NOAA track reward information, FWS augment its reward policy to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts, FWS and NOAA develop plans to communicate more reward information to the public, and FWS and NOAA review the effectiveness of their reward use. Both agencies concurred with these recommendations.

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



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

Report 1: As reported by the United Nations, the International Criminal Police Organization, and other organizations, wildlife trafficking networks span the globe  These organizations have attempted to measure the value of illegally traded wildlife, but available estimates are subject to uncertainty  In 2016, for example, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that various sources estimated the global scale of illegal wildlife trade to be from $7 billion to $23 billion annually  UNEP also estimated that the scale of wildlife crime has increased in recent years in part based on a rise in environmental crime  U S  trade in wildlife and related products includes a variety of species, such as live reptiles, birds, and mammals, as well as elephant ivory, according to law enforcement reports and government and nongovernmental officials  FWS and NOAA data on wildlife products seized at U S  ports provide examples of the diversity of illegally traded plants, fish, and wildlife imported into or exported from the United States  For example, from 2007 to 2016, the top 10 plant, fish, and wildlife shipments seized nationally by FWS were coral, crocodiles, conchs, deer, pythons, sea turtles, mollusks, ginseng, clams, and seahorses  During that time, FWS reported that more than one-third of the wildlife shipments it seized were confiscated while being imported from or exported to Mexico (14 percent), China (13 percent), or Canada (9 percent)  FWS and NOAA law enforcement offices are responsible for enforcing certain laws and treaties prohibiting wildlife trafficking  FWS Office of Law Enforcement  This office enforces certain U S  laws and regulations as well as treaties prohibiting the trafficking of terrestrial wildlife, freshwater species, and birds  Among other things, the office aims to prevent the unlawful import, export, and interstate commerce of foreign fish and wildlife, as well as to protect U S  plants, fish, and wildlife from unlawful exploitation  As of fiscal year 2016, the office had a budget of $74 7 million and employed 205 special agents to investigate wildlife crime, including international and domestic wildlife trafficking rings  Most of these special agents report to one of eight regional offices, which receive national oversight, support, training, and policy guidance from the FWS Office of Law Enforcement headquarters  The office’s headquarters houses a special investigative unit focused on conducting complex, large- scale criminal investigations of wildlife traffickers  In addition, the FWS Office of Law Enforcement has deployed special agents to serve as international attachés at seven U S  embassies  These attachés provide countertrafficking expertise to embassy staff, work with host government officials to build law enforcement capacity, and contribute directly to casework or criminal investigations of wildlife traffickers  According to FWS data, the FWS Office of Law Enforcement opened more than 7,000 investigations on wildlife trafficking and other illegal activities in fiscal year 2016, including nearly 5,000 cases involving Endangered Species Act violations and nearly 1,500 cases involving Lacey Act violations  FWS Office of Law Enforcement investigations have disrupted wildlife trafficking operations  For example, Operation Crash—an ongoing rhino horn and elephant ivory-trafficking investigation launched in 2011—has led to over 30 convictions and more than $2 million in fines  NOAA Office of Law Enforcement  This office enforces certain U S  laws and regulations as well as treaties prohibiting the trafficking of marine wildlife, including fish, as well as anadromous fish  Among other things, the office aims to prevent the illegal, unregulated, and unreported harvesting and trade of fish as well as the trafficking of protected marine wildlife  As of fiscal year 2016, the office had a budget of $68 6 million and employed 77 special agents to investigate wildlife crimes within its jurisdiction  These agents report to one of five regional offices, and those offices receive national oversight, support, and policy guidance from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement headquarters  According to NOAA data, the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement initiated more than 5,000 investigations in fiscal year 2016  About half of those investigations involved violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, and some of the 5,000 investigations involved violations of the Endangered Species Act or the Lacey Act  NOAA Office of Law Enforcement investigations have disrupted wildlife trafficking operations  For example, in fiscal year 2016, a NOAA Office of Law Enforcement investigation led to the conviction of a company and five individuals for illegally trafficking whale bone carvings, walrus ivory carvings, black coral carvings, and other products derived from protected species into the United States  The FWS and NOAA law enforcement offices collaborate with other government agencies and organizations to combat wildlife trafficking  Both agencies work with other federal, state, and tribal law enforcement officers as well as their international counterparts as needed during wildlife trafficking investigations  For example, FWS and NOAA work with U S  Customs and Border Protection, U S  Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U S  Department of Agriculture to maintain import and export controls and interdict smuggled wildlife and related products at U S  ports of entry  In addition, FWS and NOAA collaborate with Department of Justice prosecutors on criminal cases that result from agency investigations  Both agencies also collaborate with nongovernmental organizations to combat wildlife trafficking  For example, FWS and NOAA officials said that nongovernmental organizations have, in some cases, offered financial rewards (in addition to rewards offered by FWS and NOAA) for information on a wildlife crime  In addition, some nongovernmental organizations proactively provide information to FWS and NOAA on wildlife trafficking activities in the United States or foreign countries that violate U S  laws  For example, in 2017, a nongovernmental organization created a website to collect tips on wildlife crime and to connect the sources of those tips with relevant U S  authorities for potential financial rewards  FWS may pay financial rewards from moneys in two accounts  Law Enforcement Reward Account  FWS may pay rewards under the Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act from moneys in the agency’s Law Enforcement Reward Account  The moneys in this account come from fines, penalties, and proceeds from forfeited property for violations of these three laws  According to FWS officials, these moneys are available until expended  These moneys can be used to (1) pay financial rewards to those who provide information that leads to an arrest, criminal conviction, civil penalty assessment, or forfeiture of property for any violation of the Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act, or the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act or (2) provide temporary care for plants, fish, or wildlife that are the subject of a civil or criminal proceeding under the Endangered Species Act, Lacey Act, or the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act  As of the beginning of fiscal year 2017, the balance of the Law Enforcement Reward Account was about $7 million  Law Enforcement Special Funds Account  FWS may also pay rewards from moneys in its law enforcement office’s Special Funds Account  The moneys in this account come from an annual line item appropriation and are available until expended  Since fiscal year 1988, this appropriation has provided FWS up to $400,000 each year to pay for information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of laws FWS administers, as well as miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement activity that the Secretary of the Interior authorized or approved  NOAA generally pays rewards from moneys available in the Fisheries Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund  The moneys in this account come from fines, penalties, and proceeds from forfeited property for violations of marine resource laws that NOAA enforces, including the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Lacey Act  According to NOAA officials, moneys are available until expended and can be used to pay certain enforcement- related expenses, including travel expenses, equipment purchases, and the payment of financial rewards  As of the beginning of fiscal year 2017, the Fisheries Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund had a balance of about $18 million  Academic literature on the use of financial rewards to combat illegal activities and stakeholders we interviewed identified several advantages and disadvantages of using financial rewards to obtain information on wildlife trafficking  Potential advantages of using financial rewards include the following: Providing incentives  The potential for a financial reward can motivate people with information to come forward when they otherwise might not do so  Increasing public awareness  Financial rewards may bring greater public attention to the problem of wildlife trafficking, including federal efforts to combat wildlife trafficking  Saving resources  Using financial rewards may save agency resources by enabling agents to get information sooner and at a lower cost than they could have through their own efforts  Potential disadvantages of using financial rewards include the following: Eliciting false or unproductive leads  Financial rewards may generate false or unproductive leads  Affecting witness credibility  Financial rewards may lead to a source’s credibility being challenged at trial by defense attorneys since sources receive compensation for the information they provide  Consuming resources  The potential for a financial reward may create a flood of tips that take agency time and resources to follow up on or corroborate  Outside of wildlife trafficking, multiple federal agencies and federal courts are authorized to pay financial rewards for information on illegal activities under certain circumstances  For example, U S  Customs and Border Protection—which controls, regulates, and facilitates the import and export of goods through U S  ports of entry—is authorized, under certain circumstances, to pay rewards for original information about violations of any laws that it enforces  The Department of State may also pay rewards under certain circumstances, including for information leading to the disruption of financial mechanisms of a transnational criminal group  Similarly, the U S  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may pay rewards for information about violations of federal securities laws and the underpayment of taxes, respectively, if certain conditions are met  Federal judges may award money to persons who give information leading to convictions for violating treaties, laws, and regulations that prohibit certain pollution from ships, including oil and garbage discharges  FWS and NOAA officials identified multiple laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act, that authorize the payment of financial rewards to people who provide information on wildlife trafficking  FWS and NOAA reported paying few financial rewards under these laws from fiscal years 2007 through 2017  However, agency officials could not provide sufficient assurance that the reward information they provided to us represented all of their reward payments for this period  FWS and NOAA officials identified over 10 laws prohibiting wildlife trafficking—including the Endangered Species Act, Lacey Act, and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act—that specifically authorize the payment of financial rewards in certain circumstances to people who provide information on violations of the law (see app  II for a complete list of the laws)  These laws provide discretion to the agencies to choose whether to pay rewards but have varying requirements for who is eligible to receive a reward and the payment amounts  For example, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act caps rewards at $2,500 for information that leads to a conviction  In contrast, the Endangered Species Act does not cap reward amounts and authorizes rewards for information that leads to a conviction as well as to an arrest, civil penalty, or forfeiture of property  Table 1 identifies the laws that FWS and NOAA officials indicated they have used to pay financial rewards for information on wildlife trafficking from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, along with information on these laws’ requirements for payment of rewards  FWS and NOAA reported paying few financial rewards for information on wildlife trafficking from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, but agency officials could not provide sufficient assurance that this information was complete  Officials from both agencies said that their agencies have not prioritized the use of rewards, and they believed that the reward information they identified—such as the number, dollar amount, and year that rewards were paid—appropriately captured the few reward payments they made during this time frame  Based on the agencies’ reviews of their records, FWS reported paying 25 rewards for a total of $184,500 from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, and NOAA reported paying 2 rewards for a total of $21,000 during that same period (see table 2)  See appendix III for additional details on the cases where financial rewards were paid  FWS reported paying rewards in trafficking cases involving a variety of wildlife species, such as eagles, bears, reptiles, and mollusks, across the 11-year period  FWS officials said they generally paid rewards to thank sources who proactively provided information  For example, based on our review of a reward case, FWS paid a reward in 2010 because the source provided information that was crucial in uncovering an attempt to illegally traffic leopards into the United States from South Africa  FWS would not have known about this illegal activity if the source had not come forward with the information  In several cases we reviewed, FWS officials said that the sources did not know about the possibility of receiving a reward when they contacted the agency with information  The two rewards NOAA reported paying from fiscal years 2007 through 2017 involved the illegal trafficking of sea scallops and a green sea turtle  NOAA officials said that in both cases they paid a reward to thank the source who proactively provided information to law enforcement agents  For example, the agent who investigated the sea scallop case reported requesting the reward because the information the source proactively provided was timely, credible, and led to the criminal conviction of several individuals  FWS and NOAA officials could not provide sufficient assurance that the reward information they reported to us represented all of the rewards their agencies had paid from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, but they said the information was complete to the best of their knowledge  Specifically, FWS and NOAA officials said they track all their expenditures, including reward payments, in their financial databases  However, they are not able to readily identify reward payments because their financial systems do not include a unique identifier for such payments and their reward information is located in multiple databases and formats  As a result, FWS and NOAA officials said they identified the rewards they reported to us by manually reviewing their financial and law enforcement records  In particular, FWS officials said they reviewed their paper records to identify instances when the agency paid rewards and then retrieved additional information from their financial and law enforcement databases, such as final payment amounts  NOAA officials said they identified instances when the agency paid rewards by using a combination of paper and electronic records located at NOAA’s headquarters office  NOAA officials also contacted their regions to obtain additional information located at the regional offices to confirm information about the rewards NOAA had paid  Seventeen stakeholders we interviewed who had experience investigating wildlife trafficking or expertise in using financial rewards as a law enforcement tool said that it would be useful for FWS and NOAA to maintain comprehensive information on the rewards they paid  For example, two stakeholders said that maintaining comprehensive information and making that information available to law enforcement agents could motivate agents to make greater use of rewards as a law enforcement tool  Two other stakeholders said that maintaining information on and monitoring reward use would allow the agencies to make ongoing adjustments, such as adjusting payment amounts, to make the most effective use of rewards in combating wildlife trafficking  Federal internal control standards say that management should clearly document internal control and all transactions and other significant events in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination  Control activities can be implemented in either an automated or a manual manner, but automated control activities tend to be more reliable because they are less susceptible to human error and are typically more efficient  FWS and NOAA officials agreed that maintaining reward information so that complete information is easily retrievable may be beneficial  FWS officials said having clearly documented and readily available reward information could improve how they manage rewards and enable them to monitor and examine their use of rewards more holistically  The officials said they may analyze options for creating a single repository for reward information but did not commit to doing so  They said that creating a single repository for reward information may involve some drawbacks, such as duplicating some data entry in separate databases  Similarly, NOAA officials said having clearly documented and readily available reward information would provide agency management with easier and more consistent access to that information  As a result, they said that they are exploring modifications to their financial and law enforcement databases to better identify and track rewards  For example, NOAA officials said they may be able to create a unique identifier to flag payments that are for rewards in their financial system to enable them to identify payment amounts more easily  NOAA officials did not provide a time frame for completing modifications to their financial system  By tracking reward information so that it is clearly documented and readily available for examination, FWS and NOAA can better ensure that they have complete information on the rewards they have paid to help manage their use of rewards as a law enforcement tool  FWS and NOAA have policies to guide their law enforcement agents on the process for preparing and submitting a request to pay a financial reward  Specifically, both agencies’ policies call for agents to include a description of the case, the nature of the information that the source provided, a justification for providing a reward, and an explanation of how a proposed reward amount was developed  These policies also outline the general review and approval process, how payments are to be made upon approval of a request, and eligibility criteria to receive a reward  For example, FWS and NOAA policies prohibit paying rewards to foreign government officials as well as paying rewards to any person whose receipt of a reward would create a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety  NOAA’s policy explicitly states that the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement is to use statutorily authorized rewards as a tool to obtain information from the public on resource violations and that rewards can help promote compliance with marine resource laws  NOAA’s policy suggests that agents consider advertising reward offers to assist investigations, encourages press releases, and describes the process agents should follow to do so  Moreover, NOAA’s policy specifies factors that agents might include in their reward requests to support the proposed reward, such as (1) the benefit to the marine resources that was furthered by the information provided; (2) the risk, if any, the individual took in collecting and providing the information; (3) the probability that the investigation would have been successfully concluded without the information provided; and (4) the relationship between any fines or other collections and the information provided  FWS’s policy specifies that rewards may be provided in situations in which an individual furnishes essential information leading to an arrest, conviction, civil penalty, or forfeiture of property  However, it does not discuss the usefulness of financial rewards as a law enforcement tool or the types of circumstances when rewards should be used or advertised to the public  Further, FWS’s policy does not communicate necessary quality information internally that agents may need when deciding to request the payment of rewards  In particular, it does not specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts  Instead, the policy leaves it to the discretion of field and regional agents to develop proposed reward amounts within any limitations specified in law  Some FWS agents we interviewed said that they developed proposed reward amounts on a case-by-case basis and did not know whether their proposed amounts were enough, too little, or too much  In addition, some agents said that because FWS’s policy does not specify factors for agents to consider, the reward approval process is subjective and unclear and this has made it challenging for the agents to develop proposed reward amounts  For example, one agent we interviewed said he submitted a request to his supervisor to pay a $10,000 reward to a source who provided information on a major wildlife trafficker  But, for reasons unknown to the agent, his supervisor reduced the amount to $1,000  FWS headquarters officials said field agents submit reward requests to headquarters for approval, and these officials were not aware of instances of proposed reward amounts being changed or denied during the review process  Seven of the 20 stakeholders we interviewed suggested that FWS augment its reward policy to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts  For example, helpful factors to consider when developing a proposed reward amount may include (1) the number of hours the source dedicated to the case, (2) the risk the source took in providing the information, (3) the significance of the information provided by the source, and (4) the amount of fines or other penalties collected as a result of the information  Two stakeholders expressed concern that some of FWS’s reward payments were insufficient, especially when comparing the amount of time and effort or the risk a source faced in providing the information  A couple of stakeholders also said that without a policy that specifies factors for agents to consider, reward amounts may be subjective and could vary depending on which agent develops the reward proposal  Another stakeholder said that it was important to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts so that the agency has a reasonable and defensible basis for the reward amounts it pays across cases  According to federal standards for internal control, management should internally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve an agency’s objectives  For example, management communicates quality information down and across reporting lines to enable personnel to make key decisions  FWS officials said they believe that their reward policy is sound, indicating they believe that law enforcement agents have the information they need to develop proposals for reward amounts in cases where rewards are warranted  However, they also agreed that it may be helpful to review their policy but did not commit to doing so  By augmenting its policy to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts, FWS can better ensure that its agents have the necessary quality information to prepare defensible reward proposals  Based on our review of the agencies’ websites and other communications, we found that FWS and NOAA communicate little information to the public on financial rewards for reporting information on wildlife trafficking, such as the potential availability of rewards and eligibility criteria  Specifically, some FWS and NOAA law enforcement websites provided information to the public on ways to report violations of the laws that the agencies are responsible for enforcing, such as via tip lines  Some of the websites also provided examples of the types of information the public can report, such as photos or other documentation of illegal activities  However, most of the agencies’ websites did not indicate that providing information on illegal activities could result in a reward  In contrast, the FWS Alaska regional office’s website provided information on the potential availability of rewards and ways the public may submit information for a potential reward  For example, this website provided phone numbers and an e-mail address for the public to use when submitting information  Figure 1 shows the information available on FWS’s and NOAA’s national and regional websites relevant to reporting violations of the laws the agencies enforce in general and on receiving rewards in particular  In addition, FWS and NOAA headquarters officials said their field agents have used other means to communicate the potential availability of rewards in specific cases when the agents had no other information that could help solve those cases  For example, a FWS field official said that the agency advertised a reward offer for information on a case of bald eagle killings by distributing reward posters and posting news releases in the vicinity where the killings occurred  Similarly, NOAA officials said they have advertised reward offers through various means, including circulating reward posters in specific geographic areas after an illegal activity has occurred  Figure 2 shows a reward poster that NOAA distributed in Guam in 2017 advertising a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of sea turtle poachers  Instead of having a plan for communicating general information to the public on rewards, FWS and NOAA grant discretion to their regional offices and law enforcement agents to determine the type and level of communication to provide, according to FWS and NOAA policies  FWS officials explained that because they typically use financial rewards to thank individuals who come forward on their own accord—rather than using rewards to incentivize individuals with information to come forward—they have not seen the need to communicate more information to the public on the potential availability of rewards  NOAA officials said they have targeted their communications on rewards by publicizing reward offers for specific cases where they do not have leads  They added that they want to receive quality information and already receive a substantial amount of information from sources who reach out to them proactively, so NOAA has not seen the need to communicate more information to the public on the potential availability of rewards  Sixteen of the 20 stakeholders we interviewed said that it would be useful for FWS and NOAA to advertise the potential availability of financial rewards  Several stakeholders said that if the public does not know about the possibility for rewards, then some people with information may not be incentivized to come forward  Two stakeholders added that agencies should carefully consider how and which reward information to communicate to the public so that people who are most likely to have information on illegal wildlife trafficking learn about the potential for rewards  For example, one stakeholder suggested advertising rewards at ports where international shipments are offloaded or placing advertisements at wildlife trafficking nodes, such as entrances to African wildlife refuges  This stakeholder suggested advertising rewards along with wildlife trafficking awareness-raising posters that nongovernment organizations place in some airports  In addition, 14 stakeholders suggested that it would be useful for FWS and NOAA to provide information to the public on the process for submitting information to potentially receive rewards  Several other stakeholders said that it is important for the public to understand whether they may be eligible for a reward, how to submit information, and whether or to what extent their confidentiality will be protected  Another stakeholder provided examples of how other agencies provide information about their reward programs on their websites  SEC and IRS, for instance, use their websites to communicate information to the public on the process for reporting illegal activity for financial rewards  This information includes the types of information to report, confidentiality rules, eligibility criteria, and the process for submitting information to obtain a reward  In addition, the Department of State posts instructions on its websites on how to submit information on an illegal activity and potentially receive a reward  Federal internal control standards say that management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve an agency’s objectives  For example, using appropriate methods to communicate, management communicates quality information so that external parties, such as the public, can help the agency achieve its objectives  This could include communicating information to the public on the types of information and eligibility requirements for potentially receiving rewards for reporting information on wildlife trafficking  FWS officials said that making more reward information available could lead to a significant increase in the amount of information the agency receives, which, in turn, could strain FWS’s resources in following up on that information  However, FWS officials also agreed that it was reasonable to consider making more reward information available to relevant members of the public, particularly in targeted circumstances, but did not commit to doing so  Similarly, NOAA officials said they had some concerns about the additional resources it might take to investigate potentially unreliable or false tips that may result if they make reward information broadly available to the public, but they agreed that it would be reasonable for the agency to consider doing so  NOAA officials also said they may consider making more reward information publicly available at the conclusion of our audit but provided no plans for doing so  By determining the types of additional information to communicate to the public on rewards—such as providing information on the agency’s website on the potential availability of rewards—and then developing and implementing plans to do so, FWS and NOAA can improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking activities that they otherwise might not receive  FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of financial rewards or considered whether any changes might improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking  FWS officials said their agency has not reviewed or considered changes to its use of rewards because the agency has not prioritized the use of rewards  NOAA officials said their agency has not focused on using rewards or identified the need to review its use of this tool, particularly in light of other, higher mission priorities  Nine of the 20 stakeholders we interviewed said that FWS and NOAA should review the effectiveness of their use of rewards and consider potential improvements  Several stakeholders said that it would be useful for FWS and NOAA to compare their respective approaches to those of federal agencies that use rewards in contexts outside of wildlife trafficking to identify best practices or lessons learned that might be applicable in the context of combating wildlife trafficking  For example, one stakeholder said that SEC has an effective whistleblower program and may have lessons learned that are relevant for FWS and NOAA to consider  Another stakeholder we interviewed separately indicated that in 2010, before SEC had a whistleblower program that publicized rewards and provided detailed instructions on how members of the public could report information on illegal activities, SEC received few tips  Once SEC implemented a whistleblower program that publicized rewards and provided detailed instructions on its public website, the agency’s use of the program grew substantially, according to the stakeholder  Other stakeholders said it would be useful for the agencies to consider potential improvements to their use of rewards, such as making a standing reward offer for information on wildlife trafficking targeted at high-priority endangered species or particular criminal networks  Two of these stakeholders said such an offer might improve FWS’s and NOAA’s use of rewards by generating more tips than reward offers focused on individual cases  At the same time, they said such an offer would likely filter out some of the false or unproductive tips that the agencies might receive if they made an untargeted standing reward offer  Federal internal control standards state that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks by, for example, conducting reviews at the functional or activity level by comparing actual performance to planned or expected results and analyzing significant differences  Further, under the standards, management should periodically review policies, procedures, and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving an agency’s objectives or addressing related risks  FWS and NOAA officials agreed that reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards would be worthwhile  Specifically, FWS officials said that it would be useful to compare their approach to those of other federal agencies that use rewards in investigating crimes that involve interstate and foreign smuggling of goods  Similarly, NOAA officials said that reviewing the agency’s use of financial rewards would be worthwhile but cautioned that such a review would need to be balanced against the agency’s constrained resources and many mission requirements  FWS and NOAA officials said they may consider conducting such a review at the conclusion of our audit but provided no plans for doing so  By reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards, FWS and NOAA can identify opportunities to improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking  Wildlife trafficking is a large and growing transnational criminal activity, with global environmental, security, and economic consequences  The federal government has emphasized strengthening law enforcement efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and using financial rewards to obtain information on illegal activities is one tool that some federal agencies have used  However, to date, FWS and NOAA have not prioritized the use of rewards and were unable to provide sufficient assurance that the 27 rewards they paid during fiscal years 2007 through 2017 represented all of the rewards they provided during that period  By tracking reward information so that it is clearly documented and readily available for examination, FWS and NOAA can better ensure that they have complete information on the rewards they have paid to help manage their use of rewards as a law enforcement tool  Additionally, FWS and NOAA have policies outlining the processes their law enforcement agents are to use in making reward payments, and NOAA’s policy specifies factors for its agents to consider in developing proposed reward amounts, such as the risk the individual took in collecting the information  FWS’s policy does not specify such factors that could inform agents in achieving the agency’s objectives, which is not consistent with federal internal control standards  By augmenting its policy to specify factors for its agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts, FWS can better ensure that its agents have the necessary quality information to prepare defensible reward proposals  Both agencies have also advertised the potential for rewards in specific cases when agents had no other information, but FWS and NOAA have otherwise communicated little information to the public on the potential availability of rewards  If the public does not know about the possibility of rewards, then some people with information may not be incentivized to come forward  By determining the types of additional information to communicate to the public on rewards—such as providing information on the agency’s website about the potential availability of rewards—and then developing and implementing plans to do so, FWS and NOAA can improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking activities that they otherwise might not receive  Finally, FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of financial rewards or considered whether any changes might improve the usefulness of rewards as a law enforcement tool  By undertaking such reviews, the agencies can identify opportunities to improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking  We are making a total of seven recommendations, including four to FWS and three to NOAA  Specifically: The Assistant Director of the FWS Office of Law Enforcement should track financial reward information so that it is clearly documented and readily available for examination  (Recommendation 1) The Director of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement should track financial reward information so that it is clearly documented and readily available for examination  (Recommendation 2) The Assistant Director of the FWS Office of Law Enforcement should augment FWS’s financial reward policy to specify factors law enforcement agents are to consider when developing proposed reward amounts  (Recommendation 3) The Assistant Director of the FWS Office of Law Enforcement should determine the types of additional information to communicate to the public on financial rewards and then develop and implement a plan for communicating that information  (Recommendation 4) The Director of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement should determine the types of additional information to communicate to the public on financial rewards and then develop and implement a plan for communicating that information  (Recommendation 5) The Assistant Director of the FWS Office of Law Enforcement should review the effectiveness of the agency’s use of financial rewards and implement any changes that the agency determines would improve the usefulness of financial rewards as a law enforcement tool  (Recommendation 6) The Director of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement should review the effectiveness of the agency’s use of financial rewards and implement any changes that the agency determines would improve the usefulness of financial rewards as a law enforcement tool  (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Departments of Commerce and the Interior  The departments transmitted written comments, which are reproduced in appendixes IV and V of this report  The Department of Commerce concurred with the three recommendations directed to NOAA and stated that NOAA is developing procedures to ensure that its rewards are closely tracked, clearly documented, and better communicated  In written comments from NOAA, NOAA stated the report fairly and thoroughly reviews NOAA’s use of financial rewards  NOAA outlined the steps it plans to take in response to our recommendations, including developing a procedure to track financial reward information, reviewing information currently disseminated to the public and evaluating whether additional information may be useful, and reviewing the agency’s reward policy to determine whether changes are needed to enhance reward effectiveness  In its written comments, the Department of the Interior concurred with the four recommendations directed to FWS  Interior stated that it appreciated our review of the challenges faced by FWS’s Office of Law Enforcement in combating wildlife trafficking and identifying areas where FWS and NOAA can improve the use of financial rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking  Interior also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and of Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI  The objectives of our review were to (1) identify laws that authorize the U S  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to pay financial rewards for information on wildlife trafficking and the extent to which these agencies paid such rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, (2) evaluate FWS’s and NOAA’s policies on financial rewards, (3) evaluate the information available to the public on financial rewards, and (4) determine the extent to which FWS and NOAA reviewed the effectiveness of their use of financial rewards in combating wildlife trafficking  To address these objectives, we reviewed academic literature on the use of financial rewards to combat illegal activities and United Nations Environment Programme reports on the scope and scale of wildlife trafficking  We also interviewed officials from federal agencies that play a role in combating wildlife trafficking or manage programs that pay financial rewards for information on illegal activities  Specifically, we interviewed officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, the Interior, Justice, and State, as well as officials from the Internal Revenue Service, the U S  Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U S  Agency for International Development  In addition, we reviewed documentation that the Department of the Treasury provided on its role in paying financial rewards  We did not compare FWS’s and NOAA’s use of financial rewards in combating wildlife trafficking to federal agencies’ use of financial rewards in other contexts because the different contexts are not directly comparable  However, we reviewed information on other federal agencies’ use of financial rewards as examples of how financial rewards are used in contexts outside of wildlife trafficking  In addition, we interviewed representatives of six nongovernmental organizations that we selected based on those organizations’ knowledge or experience in combating wildlife trafficking  Specifically, we interviewed representatives from the Elephant Action League, the Environmental Investigation Agency, the National Association of Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs, the National Whistleblower Center, TRAFFIC, and the World Wildlife Fund  To identify laws that authorize FWS and NOAA to pay financial rewards for information on wildlife trafficking, we asked FWS and NOAA attorneys to compile a list of laws that each of their agencies implements or enforces that prohibit wildlife trafficking and authorize the agency to pay rewards for providing information about trafficking  We then compared that list to the results of our search of the United States Code for such laws  We also reviewed FWS and NOAA documentation for accounts where the fines, penalties, and proceeds from forfeited property that are used to pay rewards are deposited as well as the accounts where appropriations available to pay rewards were deposited  To identify the extent to which FWS and NOAA have paid financial rewards for information on wildlife trafficking, we analyzed FWS and NOAA data on financial rewards the agencies reported paying from fiscal years 2007 through 2017  The data included information on, among other things, the fiscal years in which rewards were paid, laws under which rewards were paid, types of wildlife involved in those cases, the amounts of civil penalties or criminal fines imposed in those cases, the numbers of arrests and convictions as a result of those cases, and whether reward recipients were individuals or groups and U S  or foreign citizens  To assess the reliability of the data FWS and NOAA provided on financial rewards, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and compared the data to case records the agencies provided  Specifically, FWS and NOAA officials said they track all expenditures, including reward payments, in their financial databases, but they are not able to readily identify reward payments because their financial systems do not include a unique identifier for such payments and their reward information is located in multiple databases and formats  As a result, FWS and NOAA officials said they identified the rewards that they reported to us by manually reviewing their financial and law enforcement records, and officials said the information was complete to the best of their knowledge  Based on these steps, we found the data that the agencies provided to us to be sufficiently reliable for reporting information on the rewards the agencies reported paying  However, as we discuss in the report, FWS and NOAA officials could not provide sufficient assurance that the data included all the financial rewards that they had paid from fiscal years 2007 through 2017  To obtain additional detail about cases where financial rewards were paid, we reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 10 wildlife trafficking cases  We selected these cases based on the agency that investigated the case (to include both FWS and NOAA cases), the amount of the reward paid in the case (to reflect both low and high amounts), the year in which the reward was paid (to include rewards paid more recently), and the type of wildlife trafficked in the case (to include both fish and wildlife cases—there were no plant trafficking cases to select)  While the findings from our review cannot be generalized to cases we did not select and review, they illustrate how FWS and NOAA have used financial rewards in wildlife trafficking cases  To evaluate FWS and NOAA policies on financial rewards, we reviewed relevant FWS and NOAA policies and compared them to each other; interviewed FWS and NOAA officials about those policies; and compared the information in the policies with federal internal control standards on information and communication  To evaluate information available to the public on rewards, we reviewed relevant FWS and NOAA publications and examples of communications to the public on the availability of rewards in specific cases and interviewed FWS and NOAA officials  We also reviewed information available on FWS’s and NOAA’s national and regional websites as of December 2017 and January 2018, respectively, relevant to reporting violations of the laws that the agencies enforce in general and on receiving rewards in particular  We compared the agencies’ public communications on rewards with federal internal control standards on information and communication  To evaluate the extent to which FWS and NOAA reviewed the effectiveness of their use of financial rewards in combating wildlife trafficking, we interviewed FWS and NOAA officials and requested any reviews the agencies had conducted regarding their use of financial rewards to compare with federal internal control standards on control activities  FWS and NOAA did not have any such reviews to provide  In addition, for all four objectives, we interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 20 stakeholders who had experience investigating wildlife trafficking or expertise in the use of financial rewards as a law enforcement tool  To select stakeholders to interview, we first identified a list of stakeholders by reviewing (1) FWS and NOAA data on law enforcement agents with at least 5 years of experience who had investigated wildlife trafficking cases and used financial rewards, (2) Department of Justice data on federal prosecutors who had prosecuted wildlife trafficking cases since fiscal year 2014, (3) literature search results identifying academics with expertise in the use of financial rewards as a law enforcement tool and federal programs that use financial rewards to combat illegal activities in contexts outside of wildlife trafficking, (4) the biographies of members of the federal Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking, and (5) recommendations from stakeholders we interviewed  From this list, we then used a multistep process to select the 20 stakeholders to interview  To ensure coverage and a range of perspectives, we selected stakeholders from the following groups: FWS and NOAA law enforcement agents, including field and federal prosecutors responsible for prosecuting wildlife trafficking cases; federal officials responsible for programs that use financial rewards to combat illegal activities in contexts outside of wildlife trafficking; academics with expertise in the use of financial rewards as a law members of the federal Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking; and representatives of nongovernmental organizations that investigate wildlife trafficking  We conducted semistructured interviews with the 20 selected stakeholders using a standard set of questions  We asked questions about stakeholder views on the usefulness of financial rewards in combating wildlife trafficking; the strength and weaknesses of the statutory provisions that authorize federal agencies to pay financial rewards for information on wildlife trafficking; FWS’s and NOAA’s use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking; and how, if at all, the two agencies could improve their use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking  We analyzed the stakeholders’ responses to our questions, grouping the responses into overall themes  We summarized the results of our analysis and then shared the summary with relevant FWS and NOAA officials to obtain their views  Views from these stakeholders cannot be generalized to those whom we did not select and interview  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to April 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 Department of the Interior’s U S  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implement or enforce multiple laws that specifically authorize the payment, under specified circumstances, of financial rewards to persons for information about violations of laws that prohibit wildlife trafficking  The laws that FWS officials identified are listed and summarized in table 3, and the laws that NOAA officials identified are listed and summarized in table 4  In addition, as noted above, the reward provisions in the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended and the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act as amended authorize the payment of rewards for information about violations of multiple laws  Specifically, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended authorizes the payment of rewards for information about violations of the act as well as any other marine resource law that the Secretary of Commerce enforces  Further, the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act as amended authorizes the payment of rewards for information about violations of any law administered by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service relating to plants, fish, or wildlife  NOAA officials identified 14 such laws that prohibit wildlife trafficking (see table 5)  If a violation of the laws listed in table 5 occurs, NOAA officials said they could use the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act reward provision to pay a reward for information on the violation  None of the laws listed in table 5 specifically authorize the payment of financial rewards  Table 6 provides information on U S  Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cases where these agencies reported paying rewards for information on wildlife trafficking from fiscal years 2007 through 2017  In addition to the contact named above, Alyssa M  Hundrup (Assistant Director), David Marroni (Analyst-in-Charge), Cindy Gilbert, Keesha Luebke, Jeanette Soares, Sheryl Stein, Sara Sullivan, and Judith Williams made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  The program has begun phase three, including approving 19 percent of Boeing’s phase three reports  Program Requirements  While the program manager told us that all of the requirements contribute to the safety of the commercial systems, safety officials are required to approve a subset of these requirements  Examples of requirements approved by safety officials include the ability to leave the spacecraft in an emergency or to abort a launch  When a contractor is ready for NASA to verify that it has met a requirement, the contractor submits data for NASA to review through a verification closure notice  We define “safety-specific notices” as those requiring safety officials’ approval  As shown in table 2, as of March 2018, the program had approved 2 percent of Boeing’s safety-specific notices and 0 percent of SpaceX’s safety-specific notices  Testing  The program also requires testing to verify and validate the crew transportation system  Agency officials emphasized the importance of testing to safety, stating that testing reduces uncertainty about a system’s performance and can uncover unknown problems  As noted above, both contractors will be conducting an uncrewed and a crewed flight test prior to being certified  While a certain level of risk needs to be accepted to conduct human spaceflight, these flight tests help to mitigate this risk by validating the integrated performance of the hardware and software  Agency and program officials stated that the contractors’ flight tests are critical evidence to support certification of a safe and reliable system  As evidenced by the data above, the program still has a significant amount of work ahead with respect to approving certification packages and closing hazard reports and verification closure notices  We have previously found that the program’s workload was an emerging schedule risk, and the contractors have continued to express concern about program officials’ ability to process and approve certification paperwork in a timely manner  Workload has also been a concern for two of NASA’s independent review organizations  For example, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel noted in its January 2018 annual report that the sheer volume of work that remains for the program in terms of closing hazard reports and verification closure notices is significant  In addition, the program’s safety and mission assurance office identified the upcoming bow wave of work in a shrinking time period as a top risk to achieving certification  One mechanism the program put in place to assess the overall safety of each spacecraft—loss of crew—has been a focus of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, Members of Congress, our prior work, and the program itself  Loss of crew captures the probability of death or permanent disability to one or more crew members  It has received a lot of attention, in part, because it has been a top risk for the program since 2015  Specifically, the program has been concerned that neither contractor would be able to meet the contract requirement of a 1 in 270 probability of incurring loss of crew  We identified two key concerns with how NASA is using the loss of crew metric: (1) inconsistent approaches to assess the loss of crew metric and (2) no identified plan to share lessons learned about using the loss of crew metric as a safety threshold  A loss of crew value is generated through a probabilistic safety analysis, which models scenarios that could result in the loss of crew using various inputs  According to the program’s analysis, the probability of on-orbit debris damaging the vehicle has the greatest effect on a loss of crew value  This probability is informed by an orbital debris (debris) model, which was updated in 2014, after the loss of crew requirement was established  The updated debris model makes it harder to meet a loss of crew value, in part, because the modeling environment where the contractors’ systems will operate has changed  For example, the updated model includes a larger span of orbit, greater range of debris sizes, and the addition of material density classifications, which were not included in the former model  Further, the probabilistic safety analysis may include operational mitigations, such as on-orbit inspections that would include using cameras on the ISS to visually survey the spacecraft for damage, which, according to officials, makes it easier to meet a loss of crew value  NASA describes the probabilistic safety analysis as a powerful tool that should be used as part of the overall risk management process to ensure the risk associated with development and operation of a system is understood, evaluated, managed, and mitigated  However, we found differences in the approaches that officials plan to use to assess loss of crew as well as in the loss of crew value being measured that could limit the usefulness of this tool  Agency Certification  The agency certification review for each contractor will include an assessment of whether its crew transportation system meets a loss of crew threshold of 1 in 150 for missions to the ISS, which is based on a May 2011 safety memo from the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance  A loss of crew value with a higher denominator, such as 1 in 270, is harder to meet than with a lower denominator, such as 1 in 150  According to the Chief of the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, he will assess the 1 in 150 threshold using a probabilistic safety analysis that includes the updated debris model and operational mitigations, such as the on- orbit inspections cited above  Program Office  According to program officials, they will assess whether either contractor meets a 1 in 270 loss of crew value based on a probabilistic safety analysis using the former debris model (not the updated model) and not including operational mitigations  Contracting Officer  According to the contracting officer, each contractor’s loss of crew requirement is 1 in 270 without including operational mitigations  The contracting officer stated that SpaceX’s contract requirement uses the updated debris model in the probabilistic safety analysis, whereas Boeing’s contract requirement uses the former debris model in the probabilistic safety analysis  Program’s Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer  According to the program’s chief safety and mission assurance officer, he will conduct a probabilistic safety analysis using the updated debris model and will not include operational mitigations to assess whether each contractor meets a 1 in 200 loss of crew value  This loss of crew value stems from a program update that occurred after the initial contracts were signed  These different approaches are summarized in table 3 below  Agency policy requires human spaceflight programs to set a safety threshold, which NASA did for the Commercial Crew Program when it identified the 1 in 150 loss of crew threshold in the May 2011 safety memo  Subsequently, the program set more rigorous loss of crew values in contract and program documents  NASA also updated the debris model, which we previously noted makes it more difficult to meet a loss of crew value  As a result, NASA does not have a consistent approach for how to incorporate key inputs to the probabilistic safety analysis, including changes to the debris model  Instead, the risk tolerance that NASA is accepting with loss of crew varies based upon which entity is presenting the results of its probabilistic safety analysis  For example, it is possible that the program’s assessment will determine that neither contractor will meet the 1 in 270 contract requirement, but that the agency’s assessment will determine that the contractors meet the 1 in 150 agency certification value because that analysis will include operational mitigations  Or the program’s assessment could determine that Boeing meets the 1 in 270 contractual loss of crew requirement, but the agency’s assessment may determine that Boeing does not meet the 1 in 150 agency certification value because that analysis will use the updated debris model  Federal internal controls state that agency management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances  Specifically, management should define risk tolerances in specific and measurable terms, so they are clearly stated and can be measured  In this case, because there will be multiple analyses conducted using different inputs, NASA risks not clearly capturing or documenting, in a coherent manner, its overall risk tolerance with respect to loss of crew before a final decision must be made on whether to certify either crew transportation system  Moreover, capturing the challenges and lessons learned from using the loss of crew metric is critical, particularly because agency officials told us that this is the first time this metric has been used as a safety threshold  Also, there are different viewpoints about the utility of the metric as a safety threshold across the agency  The program manager repeatedly told us that loss of crew is best used as a design tool  For example, program officials told us that both contractors incorporated additional orbital debris shielding into their designs to mitigate the orbital debris risk and improve their loss of crew values  In addition, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel reported in 2018 that loss of crew should not be viewed as an absolute measure of actual risk during operations  However, the May 2011 agency safety memo states that a breach of the loss of crew threshold would initiate a termination review of the Commercial Crew Program, which is a more strict application of the loss of crew metric  Both program and safety officials told us that, after the agency certification is complete and lessons learned are available to be compiled, sharing those lessons learned across NASA would be a good idea given the complexities associated with assessing the loss of crew metric  As of April 2018, however, agency officials said they did not have a plan for loss of crew knowledge-sharing  We have previously found that lessons learned provide a powerful method of sharing good ideas for improving work processes, facility or equipment design and operation, quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness  Further, according to NASA’s Knowledge Policy on Program and Projects, which is managed through the Office of the Chief Engineer, a principle of each center and mission directorate’s knowledge strategy is that knowledge is the cornerstone of NASA’s ability to achieve mission success  The policy acknowledges that NASA faces continuous challenges in using what it knows effectively  These challenges include, but are not limited to, enabling the identification and flow of knowledge across organizational boundaries; preserving knowledge at risk of being lost; and providing means for individuals, teams, and the organization to learn from experiences  If NASA does not capture lessons learned from the Commercial Crew Program on using the loss of crew requirement to set a program’s safety threshold and whether it met the agency’s intended goal, future programs will not be able to benefit from the knowledge gained from this multibillion dollar investment  NASA’s governance model prescribes a management structure that employs checks and balances among key organizations to ensure that decisions have the benefit of different points of view and are not made in isolation  As part of this structure, NASA established the technical authority process as a system of checks and balances to provide independent oversight of programs and projects in support of safety and mission success through the selection of specific individuals with delegated levels of authority  The technical authority process has been used in other parts of the government for acquisitions, including the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security  The Commercial Crew Program is organizationally connected to three technical authorities within NASA: the Office of the Chief Engineer technical authority, the Office of Chief Health and Medical technical authority, and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (safety) technical authority  The safety technical authority is responsible for ensuring from an independent standpoint that the program’s products and processes satisfy NASA’s safety, reliability, and mission assurance policies  The NASA safety technical authority has delegated authority through the Kennedy Space Center Director to the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer for the Commercial Crew Program  We have previously reviewed how NASA has organized its technical authorities for its Exploration Systems Development organization—an organization that oversees the development of the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule, and associated ground systems that have the goal of extending human presence beyond low-Earth orbit  In October 2017, we found that the Exploration Systems Development organization had established an organizational structure in which the technical authorities for engineering and safety and mission assurance were dual hatted simultaneously in programmatic positions  We found that having the same individual simultaneously fill both a technical authority role and a program role created an environment of competing interests, where the technical authority’s ability to impartially and objectively assess the programs while at the same time acting on behalf of the Exploration Systems Development organization in programmatic capacities may be subject to impairments  We found that this was in contrast to a recommendation from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report—the result of an in-depth assessment of the technical and organizational causes of the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia accident—for NASA to establish a technical authority to serve independently of the Space Shuttle program, so that employees would not feel hampered to bring forward safety concerns or disagreements with programmatic decisions  The board’s findings that led to this recommendation included a broken safety culture in which it was difficult for minority and dissenting opinions to percolate up through the hierarchy; dual center and programmatic roles vested in one person that had confused lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability and made the oversight process susceptible to conflicts of interest; and oversight personnel in positions within the program, increasing the risk that these staffs’ perspectives would be hindered by too much familiarity with the programs they were overseeing  In October 2017, we recommended that the division no longer dual hat two individuals who had both programmatic and technical authority responsibilities  As of April 2018, NASA had taken steps to separate the engineering technical authority position from the programmatic position, and NASA’s Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance said he planned to separate the safety position but had not yet completed that action  The Commercial Crew Program employs a similar structure to the Exploration Systems Development organization in that the safety technical authority is dual hatted simultaneously in a programmatic position as the Commercial Crew Program’s Safety and Mission Assurance Manager  According to the program’s safety technical authority, in his programmatic role for the program, he helps set priorities for safety issues, including how staff will be utilized to meet those priorities  In the technical authority role, he provides independent oversight in support of safety and mission success  In his dual-hatted role, this official will be responsible for endorsing the program’s certification recommendations in two different capacities: as the technical authority and as a program authority  As a result, this structure relies on the same individual to completely separate two roles—one to manage the Commercial Crew Program’s safety issues within programmatic cost and schedule constraints, and the other to assess the same issues in an independent oversight role  While the Commercial Crew Program may have an additional level of separation between the safety technical authority and the program’s involvement in the design of commercial systems due to its shared assurance model with the commercial providers, the Commercial Crew Program still maintains a structure where one individual simultaneously serves in both technical authority and programmatic roles  Figure 5 describes some of the conflicting roles and responsibilities of this official in his two different positions  During our review, officials cited several factors in support of a dual- hatted approach: The safety technical authority retains independence because his technical authority reporting path and performance reviews are not under the purview of the Commercial Crew Program chain of command  Due to the Commercial Crew Program’s shared assurance model with commercial providers, the program is operating in a quality assurance role that provides an additional level of separation between the safety technical authority and the program’s involvement in the design of commercial systems  For safety decisions involving cost and schedule where the individual who is dual hatted with both technical authority and programmatic responsibilities may feel conflicted, he stated that he would discuss these matters with his management to validate the logic behind his decision  There are cost and knowledge efficiencies gained from one individual serving in both programmatic and safety technical authority capacities  NASA’s Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance stated that he has great confidence in the individual currently serving in the dual hatted role for the Commercial Crew Program, but acknowledged there is inherent conflict even with the program’s shared assurance model  In December 2017, he stated that, based on our previous work and current discussions, he intends to decouple the programmatic and technical authority responsibilities for the Commercial Crew Program but had not done so as of April 2018  Federal internal control standards state that an agency should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, which includes segregation of key duties and responsibilities to reduce the risk of error, misuse, or fraud  By overlapping technical authority and programmatic responsibilities, NASA will continue to run the risk of creating an environment of competing interests for the Commercial Crew Program’s safety technical authority  NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is a multibillion dollar effort to facilitate the commercial development of a crew transportation system that can end the United States’ reliance on Russia to maintain an uninterrupted presence on the ISS  Boeing and SpaceX continue to make progress developing a capability to fly to the ISS, but both have continued to experience delays  Program analysis indicates risks of further delays in each contractor’s current schedule, but NASA has not provided that information to Congress in its routine briefings  Without this information, Congress does not know the full extent of potential delays to inform decision making  Additional delays could also disrupt U S  access to the ISS  While NASA is working on potential solutions, there is no contingency plan in place to address this potential gap  Without a viable contingency plan, NASA puts at risk achievement of the U S  goal and objective for the ISS  NASA must balance safety with acceptable risk for human spaceflight  As part of the certification process for each contractor’s spacecraft, NASA has developed one key safety metric, loss of crew  However, the complicated nature of this metric is further muddled by the inconsistent approaches being used across NASA about what inputs to be considered  As a result, there is no clear articulation of what level of risk NASA will accept with respect to this program  In addition, NASA does not have plans to capture lessons learned from how the Commercial Crew Program has used this metric to assess safety and is missing an opportunity to capture this knowledge for future human spaceflight programs  Finally, a space program’s management and oversight approach is an integral part of ensuring that human spaceflight is as safe and successful as possible  Independence of the program management and oversight functions is key to achieving the balance between safety and success  The Commercial Crew Program’s approach, however, burdens the safety technical authority with both programmatic and independent technical authority responsibilities  As a result, NASA has limited assurance that independence can be maintained as part of its institutional process to ensure safety and success  We are making the following five recommendations to NASA: The NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations should direct the Commercial Crew Program to include the results of its schedule risk analysis in its mandatory quarterly reports to Congress  (Recommendation 1) The NASA Administrator should develop and maintain a contingency plan for ensuring a presence on the ISS until a Commercial Crew Program contractor is certified  (Recommendation 2) The NASA Administrator should direct the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, the Commercial Crew Program Manager, and the Commercial Crew Program Contracting Officer to collectively determine and document before the agency certification review how the agency will determine its risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew  (Recommendation 3) After completing the agency certification review, NASA’s Chief Engineer and Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, with support from the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Commercial Crew Program Manager, should document lessons learned related to loss of crew as a safety threshold for future crewed spaceflight missions, given the complexity of the metric  (Recommendation 4) The NASA Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance should restructure the technical authority within the Commercial Crew Program to ensure that the technical authority for the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance is no longer dual hatted with programmatic and independent technical authority responsibilities  (Recommendation 5) We provided a draft of this report to NASA for review and comment  NASA provided written comments that are reprinted in appendix II  In its response, NASA concurred with three of our recommendations, did not concur with one, and partially concurred with another  NASA concurred with our recommendation to develop and maintain a contingency plan to ensure a U S  presence on the ISS and expects to take action to close this recommendation by the end of December 2018  NASA concurred with our recommendation to document lessons learned related to the loss of crew requirement and expects to take action to close this recommendation by the end of May 2019  NASA concurred with our recommendation to restructure the safety technical authority so that it is no longer dual hatted with programmatic and independent technical authority responsibilities  NASA expects to take action to close this recommendation by the end of August 2018  NASA did not concur with our recommendation that the Commercial Crew Program should include the results of its schedule risk analysis in its quarterly reports to Congress  NASA stated that it uses the contractors’ schedules as a baseline to provide qualitative statements in the NASA summary that accompanies each contractor’s quarterly reports to Congress  NASA believes that this approach is appropriate and is in accordance with the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015  NASA also stated that it will be working to ensure that the contractors’ schedules and the program’s internal assessments sync up as the program gets closer to launch  As a result, NASA explained that there will not be a requirement for a detailed NASA assessment, because the contractors’ schedule will either match NASA’s analysis or NASA will discuss its position as it has done in previous reports to Congress  We continue to believe the recommendation is valid because the program’s schedule risk analysis would provide Congress with valuable insight into potential delays, which are likely  Both contractors have repeatedly stated that their schedules are aggressive and that the dates are ambitious  As a result, we found that the contractors frequently delay dates for key events  For example, Boeing has delayed its certification milestone by 17 months and SpaceX by 22 months since the original schedules were established  The program’s recent schedule risk analysis indicates that more delays to certification are likely, but that information is not presented to Congress in NASA’s quarterly reports  Without this information, Congress does not know the full extent of potential delays to inform decision making  NASA partially concurred with our recommendation that the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, the Commercial Crew Program Manager, and the Commercial Crew Program Contracting Officer should collectively determine and document how the agency will determine its risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew before the agency certification review  In its response, NASA stated that it documented the agency’s risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew for the program in its May 2011 safety memo  Further, NASA stated that it documented the requirement to limit risks to the loss of crew in a certification requirements document  NASA stated that ultimately the Commercial Crew Program is accountable for ensuring that the contractors’ systems meet the loss of crew value in this certification requirements document, which is a loss of crew value of 1 in 270  If a contractor’s system cannot meet that loss of crew value, or any other requirement, the program will request a waiver as part of the human rating certification process to ensure transparency  NASA acknowledged in its response that the existence of multiple documents defining residual risk requirements and an agency threshold for loss of crew can be confusing  NASA’s response, however, does not address our finding that it does not have a consistent approach for how to incorporate key inputs, including which debris model should be used or whether to include operational mitigations  NASA stated that it had taken action to address this recommendation; however, NASA did not outline any steps it took to resolve the concern that the risk tolerance for the loss of crew requirement depends on which entity is presenting the results of its analysis  We continue to believe that, before the agency certification review, the key parties must collectively determine how the agency will determine its risk tolerance with respect to loss of crew  We believe this approach will reduce confusion and increase transparency  We are sending copies of this report to NASA Administrator and interested congressional committees  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)512-4841 or chaplainc@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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  The objectives of our review were to assess (1) the extent to which the contractors have made progress towards meeting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) certification requirements and NASA’s plans to help ensure continued access to the International Space Station (ISS); and (2) how NASA’s certification process addresses safety of the contractors’ crew transportation systems  To assess the contractors’ progress towards certification, we obtained and reviewed program and contractor documents, including monthly and quarterly updates from April 2017 through May 2018  We interviewed program and contractor officials to discuss the contractors’ recent progress, including upcoming events and any expected delays, and to understand technical risks, potential consequences, and planned mitigation activities  To identify total delays to date, we compared original contract schedules to Boeing and SpaceX’s calendar year 2018 first quarter proposed schedules, which are the most recent  Based on our review of program and contractor documents, we defined the contractors’ key events as: the uncrewed and crewed flight tests, the design certification reviews for each of those flights, and the certification milestone  We selected the two flight tests for each contractor as key events because they are intended to test key system capabilities, including the ability to launch, dock with the ISS, and return safely to Earth  We selected the design certification reviews because they verify the contractors’ crew transportation systems’ capability to safely approach, dock, mate, and depart from the ISS, among other requirements  We selected the certification milestone because it determines whether the crew transportation system meets the Commercial Crew Program’s requirements  To determine the extent to which contractors have delayed these key events over time, we analyzed the contractors’ schedule data from the 13 quarterly progress reports to date, from first quarter 2015 through first quarter calendar year 2018  We also obtained the results of the program’s April 2018 schedule risk analysis  We presented the schedule analysis range from the end of the month of the earliest possible completion date to the end of the month of the latest possible completion date  We reviewed the program’s Congressional requirements to report on cost, schedule, and technical status  Finally, to assess the potential effects of any certification delays on NASA’s access to ISS, we reviewed NASA’s contracts with Boeing and the Russian Federal Space Agency for transportation on the Soyuz vehicle  We interviewed officials from the ISS program and NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to determine if the agency had developed contingency plans to mitigate the effects of any certification delays on its access to the ISS  To assess how NASA’s certification process addresses safety of the contractors’ crew transportation systems, we reviewed agency safety policies, program plans, and contract documents to identify what safety assessments were required of the program, which safety factors would be considered in certification reviews, and when certification approval would be granted  We also interviewed program officials and the contractors about their safety policies and procedures as well as about the certification process  We identified the loss of crew requirements for the program and the contractors, and interviewed program and agency officials to determine how loss of crew would be assessed and considered throughout the certification process  To gain a broader understanding of the relative importance of loss of crew, we reviewed NASA safety policies, prior GAO reports, and annual reports from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel  To determine how the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) was updated and to assess differences between the former and updated models, we reviewed NASA documentation about the ORDEM 2000 and ORDEM 3 0 models and obtained information about the models from NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office  To assess the program’s progress in closing requirements, including those requirements specifically related to safety, we reviewed program data for each contractor on contract requirements and closure status  We limited this analysis to requirements included in the CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document because these requirements are verified by the Commercial Crew Program, whereas requirements contained within SSP 50808 ISS to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Interface Requirements Document are managed by the ISS Transportation and Integration Office  We classified requirements as “safety-specific” when the program’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance was listed as a verification closure notice signatory (i e , approver)  We then analyzed the program’s data to determine how many verification closure notices had been approved for all requirements and for the subset of safety-specific requirements  We reviewed program and agency documentation, such as organizational charts, program plans, and safety policies as well as interviewed program and agency officials, to determine the role of the safety and mission assurance technical authority in the program  We also reviewed the 2003 Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s Report’s findings and recommendations related to culture and organizational management of human spaceflight programs  We reviewed annual briefings and reports and met with representatives from two organizations that provide NASA with independent assessments of the program, the program’s standing review board and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, to gain their perspectives on the contractor’s progress and how NASA addresses safety in its certification process  We also met with representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board and three experts with background on safety in human spaceflight in order to increase our contextual understanding of the role of safety in human spaceflight missions  We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to July 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  Cristina T  Chaplain, (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Molly Traci, Assistant Director; Kazue Chinen; Lorraine Ettaro; Lisa Fisher; Laura Greifner; Kurt Gurka; Miranda Riemer; Juli Steinhouse; Roxanna T  Sun; Hai Tran; Kristin Van Wychen; and Alyssa Weir made significant 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.