You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
In November 2011, we reported that over the previous decade, the FBI and GSA conducted a number of studies to assess the Hoover Building and its other headquarters facilities’ strategic and mission needs. Through these studies, they determined the condition of the FBI’s current assets and identified gaps between current and needed capabilities, as well as studied a range of alternatives to meet the FBI’s requirements. According to these assessments, the FBI’s headquarters facilities did not fully support the FBI’s long-term security, space, and building condition requirements. Since our report, the assessment of the Hoover Building has not materially changed. For example: Security: Since September 11, 2001, the FBI mission and workforce have expanded, and the FBI has outgrown the Hoover Building. As a result, the FBI also operates in annexes, including some located in the National Capital Region. During our 2011 review, FBI security officials told us that they have some security concerns—to varying degrees— about the Hoover Building and some of the headquarters annexes. In our report, we noted that the dispersion of staff in annexes created security challenges, particularly for at least nine annexes that were located in multitenant buildings, where some space was leased by the FBI and other space was leased by nonfederal tenants. While this arrangement did not automatically put FBI operations at risk, it heightened security concerns. In addition, in January 2017, we found that the FBI occupies space leased from foreign owners in at least six different locations, including one in Washington, D.C. Further, federal officials who assess foreign investments told us at that time that leasing space in foreign-owned buildings could present security risks, such as espionage and unauthorized cyber and physical access. Space: In 2011, we reported that FBI and GSA studies showed that much of the Hoover building’s approximately 2.4 million gross square feet of space is unusable, and the remaining usable space is not designed to meet the needs of today’s FBI. Moreover, the Hoover Building’s original design is inefficient, according to GSA assessments, making it difficult to reconfigure space to promote staff collaboration. For example, in its fiscal year 2017 prospectus for the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation project, GSA noted that the Hoover Building was designed at a time when FBI operated differently, and it cannot be redeveloped to provide the necessary space to consolidate the FBI Headquarters components or to meet the agency’s current and projected operational requirements. As a result, the FBI reported facing several operational and logistical challenges. We similarly noted in our prior work in 2011 that space constraints at the Hoover Building and the resulting dispersion of staff sometimes prevented the FBI from physically locating certain types of analysts and specialists together, which in turn hampered collaboration and the performance of some classified work. Building condition: In our 2011 report, we noted that the condition of the Hoover Building was deteriorating, and GSA assessments had identified significant recapitalization needs. At that time, we found that GSA had decided to limit investments in the Hoover Building to those necessary to protect health and safety and keep building systems functioning while GSA assessed the FBI’s facility needs. We found that this decision increased the potential for building system failures and disruption to the FBI’s operations. Given that the FBI would likely remain in the building for at least several more years, we recommended that GSA evaluate its strategy to minimize major repair and recapitalization investments and take action to address any facility condition issues that could put FBI operations at risk and lead to further deterioration of the building. In 2014, in response to our recommendation, GSA evaluated its strategy for the Hoover Building and determined it needed to complete some repairs to ensure safety and maintain tenancy in the building. For example, in 2014, GSA funded contracts to waterproof portions of the building’s mezzanine level to prevent water intrusion into the building and repair the concrete facade, small sections of which had cracked and fallen from the building. In July 2017, GSA and FBI officials stated that they cancelled the procurement for the new FBI headquarters consolidation project, noting that the there was a lack of funding necessary to complete the procurement. GSA added that the cancellation of the procurement did not lessen the need for a new FBI headquarters, and that GSA and the FBI would continue to work together to address the space requirements of the FBI. In July 2014, we reported that the swap exchange approach can help GSA address the challenges of disposing of unneeded property and modernizing or replacing federal buildings. GSA officials told us that swap exchanges can help GSA facilitate construction projects given a growing need to modernize and replace federal properties, shrinking federal budgets, and challenges obtaining funding. Specifically, GSA officials noted that swap exchanges allow GSA to immediately apply the value of a federal property to be used in the exchange to construction needs, rather than attempting to obtain funds through the appropriations process. In our 2014 report, GSA officials stated that the exchanges can be attractive because the agency can get construction projects accomplished without having to request full upfront funding for them from Congress. In addition, because swap exchanges require developers or other property recipients to complete the agreed-upon GSA construction projects prior to the transfer of the title to the current property GSA is exchanging, federal agencies can continue to occupy the property during the construction process for the new project, eliminating the need for agencies to lease or acquire other space to occupy during the construction process. GSA has limited experience in successfully completing swap exchange transactions and has cancelled several recently proposed swap exchanges. More specifically, in 2016 we reported that GSA had only completed transactions using the swap exchange authority for two small (under $10-million each) swap exchanges completed in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2001 and in San Antonio, Texas, in 2012. Furthermore, GSA has faced a number of obstacles in its use of this authority. For example, for our 2014 report, we reviewed five projects identified since August 2012 in which GSA solicited market interest in exchanging almost 8-million square feet in federal property for construction services or newly constructed assets. However, GSA chose not to pursue swap-exchanges in all five of these projects, including the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation project. For example, GSA officials told us that there was little or no market interest in potential swap exchanges in Baltimore, Maryland, and Miami, Florida, and that GSA chose to pursue different approaches. Respondents to the solicitations for these two GSA swap exchanges noted that GSA did not provide important details, including the amount of investment needed in the federal properties and GSA’s specific construction needs. In addition, from 2012 to 2015, GSA pursued a larger swap exchange potentially involving up to 5 federal properties located in the Federal Triangle South area of Washington, D.C., to finance construction at GSA headquarters and other federal properties. In 2013, GSA decided to focus on exchanging two buildings, the GSA Regional Office Building and the Cotton Annex, based on input from potential investors. On February 18, 2016, GSA decided to end its pursuit of the exchange, saying in a memorandum supporting this decision that private investor valuations for the two buildings fell short of the government’s estimated values. After the discontinuation of the Federal Triangle swap exchange project, we reported in 2016 that GSA officials noted they planned to improve the swap exchange process, including the property appraisal process, outreach to stakeholders to identify potential project risks for future projects, and to the extent possible, mitigate such risks. However, we also reported that several factors may continue to limit the applicability of the agency’s approach. Specifically, the viability of swap exchanges may be affected by specific market factors, such as the availability of alternative properties. In addition, the specific valuation approach used by appraisers or potential investors may reduce the viability of the swap exchange. For example, in reviewing the proposed Federal Triangle project, we found in 2016 that the proposals from two of the investment firms valued the two federal buildings involved in the proposed swap substantially less than GSA’s appraised property value. In addition, swap exchanges can require developers to spend large sums on GSA’s construction needs before receiving title to the federal property used in the exchanges. We found in 2014 that GSA’s solicitations have not always specified these construction needs in sufficient detail. Consequently, developers may be unable to provide meaningful input, and GSA could miss swap exchange opportunities. In 2014, we recommended that GSA develop criteria for determining when to solicit market interest in a swap exchange. GSA agreed with the recommendation and has since updated its guidance to include these criteria. In January 2017, GSA agreed to a swap exchange for the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. After a competitive process, GSA selected the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as its exchange partner for the existing Department of Transportation (DOT) facility. Per the agreement, MIT will construct a new DOT facility on a portion of a 14 acre site to which DOT has title and, in exchange, will receive title to the remaining portion of the site that will not be used by DOT, which is located near its main campus. GSA indicated that, once completed, the project will provide $750 million in value to the federal government in the form of the design and construction services and value-equalization funds from MIT. Our prior work has identified a number of alternative approaches to funding real property projects. In March 2014, we reported that upfront funding is the best way to ensure recognition of commitments made in budgeting decisions and to maintain fiscal controls. However, obtaining upfront funding for large acquisitions such as the Hoover Building replacement can be challenging. Congress has provided some agencies with specific authorities to use alternative funding mechanisms for the acquisition, renovation, or disposal of federal real property without full, upfront funding. Table 1 outlines selected funding mechanisms, and considerations for each mechanism we identified in our 2014 report. Some of these alternative mechanisms allow selected agencies to meet their real property needs by leveraging other authorized resources, such as retained fees or land swaps with a private sector partner. Funding mechanisms leverage both monetary resources, such as retained fees, and non-monetary resources, such as property exchanged in a land swap or space offered in an enhanced use lease. In some cases, the funding mechanism may function as a public-private partnership intended to further an agency’s mission by working with a partner to leverage resources. Some of these mechanisms allow the private sector to provide the project’s capital—at their cost of borrowing. The U.S. federal government’s cost of borrowing is lower than the private sector’s. When the private sector provides the project capital, the federal government later repays these higher private sector borrowing costs (e.g., in the form of lease payments). In some cases, factors such as lower labor costs or fewer requirements could potentially help balance the higher cost of borrowing, making partner financing less expensive. Our 2014 report also identifies budgetary options—within the bounds of the current unified budget—to meet real property needs while helping Congress and agencies make more prudent long-term decisions. In 2014, we reported that projects with alternative funding mechanisms present multiple forms of risk that are shared between the agency and any partner or stakeholder. Further, we noted project decisions should reflect both the likely risk and the organization’s tolerance for risk. Incorporating risk assessment and management practices into decisions can help organizations recognize and prepare to manage explicit risks (e.g. financial and physical) and implicit risks (e.g. reputational). For example, clearly defined lease terms may help agencies manage risks of costs for unexpected building repairs. Further considerations we noted in our 2014 report include the availability of an appropriate partner—and that partners should bring complementary resources, skills, and financial capacities to the relationship—and management of the relationship with that partner. While different funding mechanisms have been used as an alternative to obtaining upfront funding for federal real property projects, changes to the budgetary structure itself—within the bounds of the unified budget that encompasses the full scope of federal programs and transactions—may also help agencies meet their real property needs. Such alternatives may include changing existing or introducing new account structures to fund real property projects. Our previous work identified options for changes within the current discretionary budget structure and options on the mandatory side of the budget. Alternative budgetary structures may change budgetary incentives for agencies and therefore help Congress and agencies make more prudent long-term fiscal decisions. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony are Mike Armes (Assistant Director), Colin Ashwood, Matt Cook, Joseph Cruz, Keith Cunningham, Alexandra Edwards, Carol Henn, Susan Irving, Hannah Laufe, Diana Maurer, John Mortin, Monique Nasrallah, Matt Voit, Michelle Weathers, and Elizabeth Wood. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

 

 Report 2:
T he unemployment insurance (UI) system has two primary objectives: (1) to provide temporary, partial wage replacement for involuntarily unemployed workers and (2) to stabilize the economy during recessions. In support of these goals, several UI programs provide benefits for eligible unemployed workers. In general, when eligible workers lose their jobs, the joint federal-state Unemployment Compensation (UC) program may provide up to 26 weeks of income support through regular UC benefit payments. UC benefits may be extended for up to 13 weeks or 20 weeks by the Extended Benefit (EB) program if certain economic situations exist within the state. As of the date of this publication, although both the UC and EB programs are authorized, no state is in an active EB period. For an overview of EB, see the Appendix . The Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) authorizes the joint federal-state UC program to provide unemployment benefits. Most states provide up to a maximum of 26 weeks of UC benefits. Former federal workers may be eligible for unemployment benefits through the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program. Former U.S. military servicemembers may be eligible for unemployment benefits through the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) program. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 ( P.L. 102-164 ) provides that ex-servicemembers be treated the same as other unemployed workers with respect to benefit levels, the waiting period for benefits, and benefit duration. Although federal laws and regulations provide broad guidelines on UC benefit coverage, eligibility, and determination, the specifics regarding UC benefits are determined by each state. This results in essentially 53 different programs. Generally, UC eligibility is based on attaining qualified wages and employment in covered work over a 12-month period (called a base period) prior to unemployment. All states require a worker to have earned a certain amount of wages or to have worked for a certain period of time (or both) within the base period to be eligible to receive any UC benefits. The methods states use to determine eligibility vary greatly. Most state benefit formulas replace approximately half of a claimant's average weekly wage up to a weekly maximum. Additionally, each state's UC law requires individuals to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and recipients must be able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work. These eligibility requirements help ensure that UC benefits are directed toward workers with significant labor market experience and who are unemployed because of economic conditions. The UC program is financed by federal taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and by state payroll taxes under each state's State Unemployment Tax Act (SUTA). The 0.6% effective net FUTA tax paid by employers on the first $7,000 of each employee's earnings (equaling no more than $42 per worker per year) funds federal and state administrative costs, loans to insolvent state UC accounts, the federal share (50%) of EB payments, and state employment services. SUTA taxes on employers are limited by federal law to funding regular UC benefits and the state share (50%) of EB payments. Federal law requires that the state tax be on at least the first $7,000 of each employee's earnings and that the maximum state tax rate be at least 5.4%. Federal law also requires each employer's state tax rate to be based on the amount of UC paid to former employees (known as "experience rating"). Within these broad requirements, each state has great flexibility in determining its SUTA structure. Generally, the more UC benefits paid out to its former employees, the higher the tax rate of the employer, up to a maximum established by state law. Funds from FUTA and SUTA are deposited in the appropriate accounts within the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF). The sequester order required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ) and implemented on March 1, 2013 (after being delayed by P.L. 112-240 ), affected some but not all types of UI expenditures. Regular UC, UCX, and UCFE payments are not subject to the sequester reductions. EB and most forms of administrative funding are subject to the sequester reductions. The FY2019 sequestration order requires a 6.2% reduction in all nonexempt nondefense mandatory expenditures, but no sequestration reductions are applicable to discretionary programs, projects, and activities. As a result, EB expenditures are required to be reduced 6.2% (only on the federal share of EB benefits) for weeks of unemployment during FY2019. As of January 22, 2019, EB has not been activated in any state during FY2019. The lapse in federal appropriations that occurred from December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019, caused a partial government shutdown. As a result, during this lapse in appropriations, agencies without funding furloughed federal employees, and many federal employees excepted from furlough were working without pay. Furloughed federal employees may be eligible for UCFE benefits. States are required to operate the UCFE program under the same terms and conditions that apply to regular state UC. Therefore, UCFE eligibility is determined under the laws of the state in which an individual's official duty station in federal civilian service is located. Federal employees who are in furlough status on account of a government shutdown are generally treated by state law as laid off with an expectation of recall. Depending on state laws and regulations, the state may have an option to not require federal employees to search for work given an expected recall. However, according to guidance from U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), excepted federal employees who are performing services (but working without pay) would generally be ineligible for UCFE benefits based on states' definitions of "unemployment." Private-sector workers who are furloughed or laid off due to the partial government shutdown because they were employed by government contractors or other businesses may be eligible for regular UC benefits. UC eligibility for these workers would be based on the requirements set out under the state laws in the state where they had worked. In this climate, there has been congressional interest in assisting furloughed and excepted federal employees through the UI system. For example, as described below in the section on " Unemployment Compensation for Excepted Federal Employees During a Government Shutdown ," there are proposals to provide new authority to pay UCFE benefits to excepted federal workers who are working without pay. The most recent lapse in federal appropriations began December 22, 2018, and ended on January 25, 2019, with the enactment of H.J.Res. 28 . Because retroactive pay for furloughed and excepted federal employees was authorized under S. 24 , the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (enacted January 16, 2019), UCFE payments made to federal employee claimants during this lapse in appropriations may be deemed an overpayment, subject to state UC laws regarding overpayment recovery. According to guidance from the Office of Personnel Management on this issue The state UI agency will determine whether or not an overpayment exists and, generally, the recovery of the UCFE overpayment is a matter for state action under its law; however, some state UI laws require the employer to recover such overpayment by collecting the overpayment amount from the employee. The Federal and state agencies will need to coordinate to determine the required action in accordance with the individual state UI law. Federal agencies are encouraged to develop lists or spreadsheets that can be provided to the state(s) containing the employees' names, social security numbers, and the amounts and periods of time covered by the retroactive payment. If a recession is deep enough and if state unemployment tax (SUTA) revenue is inadequate for long periods of time, states may have insufficient funds to pay for UC benefits. Federal law, which requires states to pay these benefits, provides a loan mechanism within the UTF framework that an insolvent state may use to meet its UC benefit payment obligations. States must pay back these loans. If the loans are not paid back quickly (depending on the timing of the beginning of the loan period), states may face interest charges, and states' employers may face increased net FUTA rates until the loans are repaid. The U.S. Virgin Islands is the only jurisdiction with an outstanding loan. As of January 18, 2019, it had an outstanding loan of $68.4 million from the federal accounts within the UTF. At the end of 2017, fewer than half of states (24) had accrued enough funds in their accounts to meet or exceed the minimally solvent standard of an average high cost multiple (AHCM) of 1.0 in order to be prepared for a recession. Beginning in FY2015, DOL funded state efforts "addressing individual reemployment needs of UI claimants, and working to prevent and detect UI overpayments" through the voluntary Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program. RESEA provides funding to states to conduct in-person interviews with selected UI claimants to (1) assure that claimants are complying with the eligibility rules, (2) determine if reemployment services are needed for the claimant to secure future employment, (3) refer the individual to reemployment services as necessary, and (4) provide labor market information that addresses the claimant's specific needs. Section 30206 of P.L. 115-123 codified the authority for DOL to administer a RESEA program. It also set out various requirements for states to use certain types of evidence-based interventions for UI claimants under RESEA and allocated discretionary funding for RESEA across three categories (base funding, outcome payments, and research and technical assistance). State RESEA programs must include reasonable notice and accommodations to participating UI beneficiaries. On April 4, 2019, DOL published a proposed methodology to allocate base RESEA funds and outcome payments. DOL requested state and public comments on this proposal by May 6, 2019. The President's budget for FY2020 proposes changes to several aspects of the UI system. It would create a new required standard for state account balances within the UTF and a new benefit entitlement for paid parental leave financed through state unemployment taxes. The President's FY2020 budget also proposes a set of additional integrity measures, including the required use of certain databases to confirm UC eligibility and requiring Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits offset UI benefits. The President's budget proposal for FY2020 would require states to maintain a minimum level of solvency in their UTF account balances to be at least half (0.5) of the state's AHCM. The proposal would alter the rules for calculating the net FUTA rate, requiring a higher net FUTA rate on a state's employers if that state maintained an AHCM of less than 0.5 on January 1 of two or more consecutive years. The additional FUTA revenue would be deposited into the state UTF account and would be terminated once the state met the 0.5 AHCM criteria. The President's budget proposal for FY2020 would require states to establish a paid parental leave benefit by 2020, using the UC program as its base for an administrative framework. States would be required to provide six weeks of benefits to a worker on leave or otherwise absent from work for the birth or adoption of the worker's child. States would have discretion to determine the parameters of eligibility and financing for this new paid parental leave benefit. The President's 2020 budget would require states to use three specific data sources to confirm an individual's eligibility for UC benefits: the State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES, administered by Information Technology Support Center [ITSC] and DOL); the National Directory for New Hires (NDNH, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services); and the Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS, administered by the Social Security Administration). The proposal would create several additional integrity measures, including giving the Secretary of Labor the authority to implement new corrective action measures in response to poor state administrative performance within the program; allowing states to retain a percentage of UC overpayments for program integrity use; requiring states to deposit all UC penalty and interest payments into a special state fund, with these funds required to be used for improving state UI administration as well as providing reemployment services for UI claimants; and offsetting SSDI benefits to account for concurrent receipt of UI benefits. Section 2105 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-96 ; February 22, 2012) amended federal law to allow states to conduct two types of drug testing. First, it expanded the long-standing state option to disqualify UC applicants who were discharged from employment with their most recent employer (as defined under state law) for unlawful drug use by allowing states to drug test these applicants to determine UC benefit eligibility or disqualification. Second, it allowed states to drug test UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, to be determined under new regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. As required by  P.L. 112-96 , on August 1, 2016, DOL promulgated  20 C.F.R. Part 620 ,  a new rule to implement the provisions of the law relating to the drug testing of UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing. Amid concerns voiced by stakeholders about the 2016 DOL rule, Congress repealed this UC drug testing rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) via H.J.Res. 42 / P.L. 115-17 . On November 5, 2018, DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reissue the rule identifying occupations that regularly conduct drug testing for purposes of Section 2105 of  P.L. 112-96 . The CRA prohibits an agency from reissuing the rule in "substantially the same form" or issuing a "new rule that is substantially the same" as the disapproved rule, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule." Notably, this is the first time an agency has proposed to reissue a rule after the original version was disapproved under the CRA. According to the 2018 NPRM, DOL has addressed the reissue requirements of the CRA by proposing a substantially different and more flexible approach to the statutory requirements than the 2016 Rule, enabling states to enact legislation to require drug testing for a far larger group of UC applicants than the previous rule permitted. This flexibility is intended to respect the diversity of states' economies and the different roles played by employment drug testing in those economies. Comments on the proposed 2018 rule were required to be submitted by January 4, 2019. On January 16, 2019, Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced S. 165 , the Federal Unemployment Compensation Equity Act of 2019. This proposal would amend UCFE law and create a new permanent UCFE eligibility category for excepted federal employees who are unpaid but required to work during a government shutdown due to a lapse in appropriations. During any shutdown beginning on or after December 22, 2018, all excepted federal workers would be deemed eligible for UCFE benefits. Additionally, these employees would not be subject to a one-week waiting period (otherwise often required under state laws) before UCFE benefits were to be paid. On January 23, 2019, Representative Debbie Dingell introduced H.R. 725 , the Pay Federal Workers Act. This proposal would also provide UCFE benefits in a similar manner to S. 165 , including permanently amending 5 U.S.C. Chapter 85 to provide federal authority for these benefits. On January 23, 2019, Representative Anthony Brown introduced H.R. 720 . This proposal would deem excepted federal employees during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE during FY2019. The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019. On February 8, 2019, Representative Katie Hill introduced H.R. 1117 , the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2019. This proposal would deem excepted federal employees and unpaid military servicemembers during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE or UCX during FY2019. The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019. On January 15, 2019, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Danny Davis introduced S. 136 and H.R. 556 , the Economic Ladders to End Volatility and Advance Training and Employment Act of 2019 (the ELEVATE Act) . Among other provisions, this proposal would establish new self-employment and relocation assistance benefits for unemployed workers to be administered by the Social Security Administration, in consultation with DOL. The self-employment assistance benefits would provide weekly income replacement (half of prior earnings up to the maximum weekly benefit amount in the state) for up to of 26 weeks to individuals. They would be available to individuals who are (1) eligible for any type of UI benefit; or ineligible for any type of UI benefit, but became involuntarily unemployed over the previous 12 weeks; or were previously self-employed, but lost a hiring contract, and (2) have a viable business plan approved by their state department of labor, workforce board, or the Small Business Administration. Additionally, Section 3 of S. 136 and H.R. 556 would provide up to $2,000 (or more, depending on family size) to fund to up to 90% of certain relocation expenses for eligible individuals and their families. In order to be eligible for this relocation assistance, an individual must be a (1) dislocated worker, (2) long-term unemployed individual, or (3) underemployed individual and also have filed a claim for relocation assistance and obtained suitable work with an expectation of obtaining such work in a new geographic region. On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H.R. 1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H.R. 1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits. The House passed H.R. 1585 on April 4, 2019. On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H.R. 1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act. This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits). The House passed H.R. 1759 on April 9, 2019. The Extended Benefit (EB) program was established by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (EUCA; P.L. 91-373) (26 U.S.C. §3304, note). EUCA may extend receipt of unemployment benefits (extended benefits) at the state level if certain economic conditions exist within the state. As of the date of this publication, EB is not active in any state. Extended Benefit Triggers The EB program is triggered when a state's insured unemployment rate (IUR) or total unemployment rate (TUR) reaches certain levels. All states must pay up to 13 weeks of EB if the IUR for the previous 13 weeks is at least 5% and is 120% of the average of the rates for the same 13-week period in each of the two previous years. States may choose to enact two other optional thresholds. (States may choose one, two, or none.) If the state has chosen one or more of the EB trigger options, it would provide the following: Option 1—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's IUR is at least 6%, regardless of previous years' averages. Option 2—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 6.5% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years; up to an additional 20 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 8% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years. EB benefits are not "grandfathered" (phased out) when a state triggers "off" the program. When a state triggers "off" of an EB period, all EB benefit payments in the state cease immediately regardless of individual entitlement. The EB benefit amount is equal to the eligible individual's weekly regular UC benefits. Under permanent law, FUTA finances half (50%) of the EB payments and 100% of EB administrative costs. States fund the other half (50%) of EB benefit costs through their SUTA. On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H.R. 1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H.R. 1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits. The House passed H.R. 1585 on April 4, 2019. On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H.R. 1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act. This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits). The House passed H.R. 1759 on April 9, 2019.

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

Answer: GSA, which manages federal real property on behalf of other federal agencies, faces challenges in funding new construction projects due to budget constraints—including obtaining upfront funding—among other reasons. One type of transaction, called a swap exchange, enables GSA to apply the value of federal property to finance construction without relying on appropriated funds. Under such an exchange, GSA transfers the title of the unneeded property to a private investor after receiving the agreed upon construction services at another location. GSA proposed a swap exchange procurement for construction of a new FBI headquarters building in exchange for the Hoover Building and appropriations to compensate for the difference in value between the Hoover Building and the new building. GSA cancelled this procurement in July 2017 due to lack of funding. This statement addresses (1) GSA's and FBI's assessments of the Hoover Building, (2) GSA efforts to implement swap exchanges, and (3) alternative approaches to funding real property projects. It is based on GAO's body of reports on real property from 2011 to 2017, and selected updates from GSA. In November 2011, GAO reported that, according to General Services Administration (GSA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assessments, the FBI's headquarters building (Hoover Building) and its accompanying facilities in Washington, D.C., did not fully support the FBI's long-term security, space, and building condition requirements. Since GAO's report, the assessments have not materially changed, for example: Security: GAO's prior work noted that the dispersion of staff in annexes creates security challenges, including where some space was leased by the FBI and other space was leased by nonfederal tenants. Earlier this year, GAO reported the FBI is leasing space in D.C. from foreign owners. Space : In 2011, GAO reported that FBI and GSA studies showed that much of the Hoover Building is unusable. GSA noted in its fiscal year 2017 project prospectus for the FBI headquarters consolidation that the Hoover Building cannot be redeveloped to meet the FBI's current needs. Building Condition: In GAO's 2011 report, GAO noted that the condition of the Hoover Building was deteriorating, and GSA assessments identified significant recapitalization needs. Since GAO's report and in response to GAO's recommendation, GSA has evaluated its approach to maintaining the building and completed some repairs to ensure safety. GSA has limited experience in successfully completing swap exchange transactions and chose not to pursue several proposed swap exchanges, most recently the planned swap exchange for the Hoover Building. GSA has developed criteria for determining when to solicit market interest in a swap exchange, in response to recommendations in GAO's 2014 report. In addition, GSA officials told GAO that they planned to improve the swap exchange process, including the property appraisal process, outreach to stakeholders to identify potential risks associated with future projects, and to the extent possible, mitigate such risks. Nevertheless, several factors may continue to limit use of swap exchanges, including market factors, such as the availability of alternative properties and an investor's approach for valuing properties. For example, in reviewing a proposed swap exchange in Washington, D.C., GAO found in a 2016 report that the proposals from two firms valued the two federal buildings involved in the proposed swap substantially less than GSA's appraised property value. In a 2014 report, GAO identified a number of alternative approaches to funding real property projects. Congress has provided some agencies with specific authorities to use alternative funding mechanisms—including the use of private sector funds or land swaps—for the acquisition, renovation, or disposal of federal real property without full, upfront funding, though GAO has previously reported that upfront funding is the best way to ensure recognition of commitments made in budgeting decisions and maintain fiscal controls. GAO has reported that projects with alternative funding mechanisms present multiple forms of risk that are shared between the agency and any partner or stakeholder. In addition, alternative budgetary structures could be established, such as changing existing or introducing new account structures to fund real property projects. GAO has made recommendations in the past to GSA on various real property issues, including to develop additional guidance for swap exchanges and to evaluate its approach to maintaining the Hoover Building. GSA agreed with these two recommendations and addressed them.