114 HCON 161 IH: Expressing the sense of Congress that those who served in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, should be presumed to have been exposed to the toxin Agent Orange and should be eligible for all related Federal benefits that come with such presumption under the Agent Orange Act of 1991.
U.S. House of Representatives
2016-09-22
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV114th CONGRESS2d SessionH. CON. RES. 161IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSeptember 22, 2016Ms. Stefanik (for herself, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Walz, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Takano, and Miss Rice of New York) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' AffairsCONCURRENT RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of Congress that those who served in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas
			 of the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962,
			 and ending on May 7, 1975, should be presumed to have been exposed to the
			 toxin Agent Orange and should be eligible for all related Federal benefits
			 that come with such presumption under the Agent Orange Act of 1991.

 Whereas section 1116(f) of title 38, United States Code, states that For the purposes of establishing service connection for a disability or death resulting from exposure to a herbicide agent, including a presumption of service-connection under this section, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent containing dioxin or 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and may be presumed to have been exposed during such service to any other chemical compound in an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.;
 Whereas the international definition and United States-recognized borders of the Republic of Vietnam includes the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of that Republic;
 Whereas multiple scientific and medical sources, including studies done by the Government of Australia, have shown evidence of exposure to herbicide agents such as Agent Orange by those serving in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam;
 Whereas veterans who served in the Armed Forces in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, were exposed to this toxin through their ships’ distillation processes, air and water currents, and the use of exposed water from inland sources, such as water from near heavily sprayed Monkey Mountain, delivered by exposed water barges;
 Whereas such veterans experience a significantly higher percentage of medical conditions associated with Agent Orange exposure compared to those in the regular populace;
 Whereas when passing the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–4), Congress did not differentiate between those who served on the inland waterways and on land versus those who served in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of that Republic;
 Whereas the purpose behind providing presumptive coverage for medical conditions associated with exposure to Agent Orange is because proving such exposure decades after its occurrence is not scientifically or medically possible; and
 Whereas thousands of veterans who served in the Armed Forces in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, die at increasing rates every year: Now, therefore, be it

 That Congress— (1)recognizes the intent of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–4) included the presumption that those veterans who served in the Armed Forces in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, were exposed to the Agent Orange dioxin;
 (2)intends for those veterans who served in the Armed Forces during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, in the bays, harbors, territorial seas, inland waterways, on the ground in the Republic of Vietnam, and other areas exposed to Agent Orange, and having been diagnosed with connected medical conditions to be equally recognized for such exposure through equitable benefits and coverage; and
 (3)calls on the Department of Veterans Affairs to acknowledge this intent of Congress, rescind the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21–1, Part IV, Subpart II, Chapter 1, Section H, Topic 28.h, and reissue guidance extending presumptive coverage for exposure to Agent Orange to veterans described in paragraph (1).


116 HR 785 IH: Planning for American Energy Act of 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-01-24
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I116th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 785IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJanuary 24, 2019Mr. Tipton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural ResourcesA BILLTo amend the Mineral Leasing Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to develop and publish an
			 all-of-the-above quadrennial Federal onshore energy production strategy to
			 meet domestic energy needs, and for other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Planning for American Energy Act of 2019. 2.Onshore domestic energy production strategic plan (a)In generalThe Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by redesignating section 44 as section 45, and by inserting after section 43 the following:

					44.Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy
 (a)Requirement To publish Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production StrategyThe Secretary shall develop and publish once every 4 years a Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy.
 (b)Consultations requiredIn developing the Strategy, the Secretary shall consult with— (1)the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration with regard to—
 (A)the projected energy demands of the United States for the next 30-year period; (B)the methodology used to arrive at such projection; and
 (C)actions to be taken during the next 4-year period with the goal of meeting such demands; (2)the Secretary of Agriculture with regard to lands administered by such Secretary; and
 (3)the Secretary of Energy with regard to energy transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure.
 (c)State, federally recognized Indian Tribes, local government, and public inputIn developing the Strategy, the Secretary shall solicit the input of— (1)the State, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or local government where each energy project included in the Strategy is proposed to be located; and
 (2)the public. (d)Contents of Strategy (1)In generalThe Strategy shall direct onshore Federal land energy development and department resource allocation in order to promote the energy security and national security of the United States in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
 (2)Projected domestic demand for energy resourcesThe Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, shall include in the Strategy an estimate, based upon commercial and scientific data, of the projected domestic demand for energy resources over the 30-year period beginning on the date of the publication of such Strategy. The estimate shall be disaggregated by the energy resource types listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (3) and expressed in British thermal units or megawatts, as appropriate.
 (3)Domestic strategic production objectiveThe Secretary shall include in the Strategy a domestic strategic production objective based on the estimate in paragraph (2) for the development of the following energy resource types on Federal onshore lands:
 (A)Oil and natural gas. (B)Coal.
 (C)Strategic and critical energy minerals. (D)Electricity, in megawatts, from each of wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy.
 (E)Energy from unconventional energy production, such as oil shale. (F)Helium.
 (G)Oil, natural gas, coal, and other renewable sources from the Tribal lands of any federally recognized Indian Tribe that elects to participate in facilitating energy production on its lands.
 (H)Other energy production technology sources or advancements in energy, as determined by the Secretary.
 (4)ConsiderationsIn the Strategy, the Secretary shall consider— (A)how Federal lands will contribute to ensuring national energy security, with a goal for increasing energy independence and production during the next 4-year period;
 (B)the ability of existing energy transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure to efficiently utilize energy production from Federal lands; and
 (C)the proportion of total energy production derived from Federal land compared to non-Federal land for each of the energy resources listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (3).
 (e)Tribal objectivesIt is the sense of Congress that federally recognized Indian Tribes may elect to set their own production objectives as part of the Strategy. The Secretary shall work in cooperation with any federally recognized Indian Tribe that elects to participate in achieving its own strategic energy objectives.
 (f)Report requiredThe Secretary shall submit a report annually to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate that—
 (1)examines the progress made toward meeting the domestic strategic production objective set forth in the Strategy;
 (2)identifies projections for production and capacity installations and any problems with leasing, permitting, siting, or production that may prevent meeting the domestic strategic production objective set forth in the Strategy; and
 (3)provides suggestions to address any shortfalls in meeting the domestic strategic production objective set forth in the Strategy.
 (g)Congressional reviewAt least 60 days before publishing a proposed Strategy under this section, the Secretary shall submit such Strategy to the President and to Congress, together with any comments received from States, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and local governments. Such submission shall state why any specific recommendation of a State, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or local government was not accepted.
 (h)DefinitionsIn this section: (1)Multiple useThe term multiple use has the same meaning given such term in section 103 of the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
 (2)SecretaryThe term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior, unless the context requires otherwise. (3)StrategyThe term Strategy means the Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy required to be developed and published under subsection (a).
 (4)Strategic and critical energy mineralsThe term strategic and critical energy minerals means minerals that are necessary for the production of energy and the building and maintaining of the energy infrastructure of the United States, including minerals necessary—
 (A)for pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production;
 (B)to support domestic manufacturing, including materials used in energy generation, production, and transportation; and
 (C)to ensure the national security of the United States. (5)Sustained yieldThe term sustained yield has the same meaning given such term in section 103 of the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)..
 (b)First Quadrennial StrategyNot later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress the first Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy under the amendment made by subsection (a).


114 S1853 IS: Block Arms to Iran Act of 2015
U.S. Senate
2015-07-23
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		II
		114th CONGRESS1st Session
		S. 1853
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			July 23, 2015
			Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

		A BILL
		To limit the availability of funding for contributions to the United Nations if the arms embargo on
			 Iran
			 pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1747 and 1929 is
			 lifted.

		1.Short title
 This Act may be cited as the Block Arms to Iran Act of 2015.
 2.Limitation on funding for United Nations if arms embargo on Iran is liftedOf the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of State for Contributions to International Organizations and available for contributions to the United Nations, 20 percent may not be obligated or expended for such purpose if the arms embargo on Iran pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) and paragraph 8 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) is lifted, reduced, or otherwise eased, notwithstanding paragraph 13 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) and paragraph 37 of United Nations Security Council 1929 (2010).


		I
		111th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 3981
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			November 2, 2009
			Mr. Holden introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on the
			 Judiciary

		A BILL
		To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
		  Streets Act of 1968 to eliminate the matching requirement for certain
		  bulletproof armor vest purchases under the matching grant program for
		  bulletproof armor vests.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Wayne ‘Cotton’ Morgan Bulletproof Vest
			 Act of 2009.
		2.Amendment to matching
			 grant program for bulletproof armor vests to eliminate matching requirement for
			 certain armor vest purchasesSection 2501 of the Omnibus Crime Control
			 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll) is amended in subsection (f) by
			 adding at the end the following new paragraph:

				(4)No matching
				requirement for certain armor vest purchases
					(A)In
				generalParagraph (1) does not apply to a grant to a jurisdiction
				to the extent the grant is for the purchase of armor vests—
						(i)for officers who, as of the date of the
				jurisdiction’s application for such grant, work in high security risk areas, as
				specified by the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance; or
						(ii)for correctional
				officers who, as of the date of the jurisdiction’s application for such grant,
				transport prisoners.
						(B)High security
				risk areaFor purposes of
				specifying a high security risk area, with respect to a facility, under
				subparagraph (A), the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance shall take
				into account the following:
						(i)The security level
				of the inmates located in the area, and the mission of the facility.
						(ii)The structural
				layout of the facility.
						(iii)The extent to
				which a large number of inmates may gather in the area at any given
				time.
						.


115 HR 941 IH: 12 Carrier Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2017-02-07
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 941IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 7, 2017Mr. Conaway introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed ServicesA BILLTo increase the number of operational aircraft carriers of the Navy, and for other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the 12 Carrier Act. 2.Sense of Congress (a)FindingsCongress finds the following:
 (1)The aircraft carrier can fulfill the Navy’s core missions of forward presence, sea control, ensuring safe sea lanes, and power projection as well as providing flexibility and versatility to execute a wide range of additional missions.
 (2)Forward airpower is integral to the security and joint forces operations of the United States. Carriers play a central role in delivering forward airpower from sovereign territory of the United States in both permissive and nonpermissive environments.
 (3)Aircraft carriers provide our Nation the ability to rapidly and decisively respond to national threats, as well as conducting worldwide, on-station diplomacy and providing deterrence against threats to the United States allies, partners, and friends.
 (4)Since the end of the cold war, aircraft carrier deployments have increased while the aircraft carrier force structure has declined.
 (5)Considering the increased array of complex threats across the globe, the Navy aircraft carrier is operating at maximum capacity, increasing deployment lengths and decreasing maintenance periods in order to meet operational requirements.
 (6)To meet global peacetime and wartime requirements, the Navy has indicated a requirement to maintain two aircraft carriers deployed overseas and have three additional aircraft carrier capable of deploying within 90 days. However, the Navy has indicated that the existing aircraft carrier force structure cannot support these military requirements.
 (7)Despite the requirement to maintain an aircraft carrier strike group in both the United States Central Command and United States Pacific Command, the Navy has been unable to generate sufficient capacity to support our combatant commanders and has developed significant carrier gaps in these critical areas.
 (8)Because of continuing use of a diminished aircraft carrier force structure, extensive maintenance availabilities result which typically exceed program costs and increase time in shipyards. These expansive maintenance availabilities exacerbate existing carrier gaps.
 (9)Because of maintenance overhaul extensions, the Navy is truncating basic aircraft carrier training to expedite the deployment of available aircraft carriers. Limiting aircraft carrier training decreases operational capabilities and increases sailor risk.
 (10)Despite the objections of the Navy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics directed the Navy on August 7, 2015, to perform shock trials on the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78). The Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Operations, Plans and Strategy indicated that this action could delay the introduction of the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78) to the fleet by up to two years, exacerbating existing carrier gaps.
 (11)The Navy has adopted a two-phase acquisition strategy for the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CVN–79), an action that will delay the introduction of this aircraft carrier by up to two years, exacerbating existing carrier gaps.
 (12)Developing an alternative design to the Ford-class aircraft carrier is not cost beneficial. A smaller design is projected to incur significant design and engineering cost while significantly reducing magazine size, carrier air wing size, sortie rate, and on-station effectiveness among other vital factors when compared to the Ford-class. Furthermore, a new design will delay the introduction of future aircraft carriers, exacerbating existing carrier gaps and threatening the national security of the United States.
 (13)The 2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment states A minimum of 12 aircraft carriers are required to meet the increased warfighting response requirements of the Defense Planning Guidance Defeat/Deny force sizing direction.
 (b)Sense of CongressIt is the sense of Congress that— (1)the United States should expedite delivery of 12 aircraft carriers;
 (2)an aircraft carrier should be authorized every three years; (3)shock trials should be conducted on the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CVN–79), as initially proposed by the Navy;
 (4)construction for the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) should be accomplished in a single phase; (5)the United States should continue the Ford-class design for CVN–81; and
 (6)bulk procurement initiatives for CVN–80 and CVN–81 should be pursued. 3.Shock trials for CVN–78Section 128(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 751) is amended by striking prior to the first deployment of such ship.
		4.Increase in number of operational aircraft carriers of the Navy
 (a)IncreaseSection 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 11 operational aircraft carriers and inserting 12 operational aircraft carriers. (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on September 30, 2023.


		IV
		111th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. RES. 585
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			June 25, 2009
			Ms. Lee of California
			 (for herself, Mrs. Christensen,
			 Ms. Norton,
			 Ms. Baldwin,
			 Ms. Roybal-Allard,
			 Mr. Honda, and
			 Ms. Waters) submitted the following
			 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
			 Commerce

		RESOLUTION
		Supporting the goals and ideals of National
		  HIV Testing Day, and for other purposes.

		Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
			 (CDC) estimates that at the end of 2006 1,106,400 people were living with the
			 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the United States;
		Whereas the CDC estimates that a total of 583,298 people
			 died of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the United States from the
			 beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic through 2007;
		Whereas the CDC estimates that there were 56,300 new cases
			 of HIV infection in the United States during 2006;
		Whereas current estimates by the CDC utilize a new
			 methodology that results in more accurate estimates of new HIV
			 infections;
		Whereas previous estimates by the CDC of HIV infection
			 rates undercounted the rate of infection by 40 percent;
		Whereas the CDC estimates that at the end of 2006,
			 African-Americans represented 46 percent of all people living with HIV in the
			 United States, Whites represented 35 percent, Hispanics represented 18 percent,
			 Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders represented 1 percent, and American
			 Indians and Alaska Natives represented less than 1 percent;
		Whereas the CDC estimates that at the end of 2006, men
			 accounted for 75 percent of all people living with HIV in the United States,
			 and women represented 25 percent;
		Whereas the CDC has determined that in the United States
			 the leading transmission category of HIV infection is male-to-male sexual
			 contact, followed by heterosexual contact and injection drug use;
		Whereas men who have sex with men (MSM) have represented
			 an increasing share of new HIV infections over the past decade, with 57 percent
			 of all new infections in 2006 occurring among MSM;
		Whereas young MSM of color, in particular, bear a
			 disproportionate burden of the HIV/AIDS epidemic;
		Whereas the CDC estimates that in 2006, of the people in
			 the United States living with HIV, approximately 232,700 (or 21 percent) were
			 unaware that they were infected;
		Whereas surveys indicate that many Americans want more
			 information about HIV, including information about the different types of tests
			 available, testing costs, test result confidentiality, and testing
			 locations;
		Whereas African-Americans and Hispanics are much more
			 likely than Whites to say they need more information about HIV testing;
		Whereas studies have found that Asian-Americans and
			 Pacific Islanders are less likely to report having sought HIV testing than
			 other ethnic groups, are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of the
			 disease, and are less likely, if diagnosed, to use HIV/AIDS services;
		Whereas people at high risk of acquiring HIV are often at
			 high risk of acquiring other sexually transmitted diseases as well;
		Whereas in 2008, the CDC estimated that 1 in 4 young women
			 between the ages of 14 and 19 in the United States and nearly 1 in 2
			 African-American young women in the United States were infected with at least 1
			 of the 4 most common sexually transmitted diseases;
		Whereas the CDC reports that when HIV-infected people know
			 their status, they are more likely to practice behaviors that reduce the risk
			 of HIV transmission to other people;
		Whereas the CDC estimates that in 2006, of the people
			 diagnosed as HIV-positive, 38 percent were later diagnosed with AIDS within 1
			 year of their HIV test;
		Whereas the CDC reports that early knowledge of HIV status
			 is important for connecting HIV-positive people with medical care and services
			 that can reduce mortality and prevent the onset of AIDS;
		Whereas anxiety, misconception, and stigma have been
			 traditionally associated with HIV/AIDS and HIV testing;
		Whereas the most commonly used HIV tests currently require
			 a 2-week waiting period for a diagnosis, and such a waiting period contributes
			 to the anxiety surrounding HIV testing that discourages people from receiving
			 their diagnosis;
		Whereas the CDC estimated that in 2004, of the people who
			 took an HIV test at sites funded by the CDC, 22 percent did not return for
			 their test results;
		Whereas rapid test kits approved by the Food and Drug
			 Administration have made HIV testing easier, more accessible, and less
			 invasive, and can deliver results within a single day;
		Whereas prevention counseling is an essential part of HIV
			 testing and, when conducted according to established CDC guidelines, has been
			 shown to be effective at producing individual behavioral change;
		Whereas the CDC’s Advancing HIV Prevention
			 Initiative: New Strategies for a Changing Epidemic, announced in April
			 2003, emphasizes the importance of HIV testing;
		Whereas in September 2006, the CDC released Revised
			 Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in
			 Health-Care Settings, which advises all health care providers in the
			 public and private sectors to provide routine HIV screening of adults,
			 adolescents, and pregnant women in health care settings in the United States,
			 and recommends reducing barriers to HIV testing;
		Whereas in March 2007, the CDC, in partnership with
			 leaders in the African-American community, launched a Heightened
			 National Response to the HIV/AIDS Crisis among African Americans to
			 mobilize a coordinated response to HIV/AIDS in the African-American community
			 and, as part of this effort, announced a new initiative to increase HIV testing
			 in jurisdictions with the highest AIDS case rates among
			 African-Americans;
		Whereas, on April 7, 2009, the CDC launched a new
			 communication campaign, Act Against AIDS, to facilitate
			 awareness, public education, health literacy, health care provider marketing,
			 and highly targeted behavior change communication objectives in the fight
			 against HIV/AIDS;
		Whereas the initial phase of the Act Against
			 AIDS campaign, entitled 9½ Minutes, is an effort to
			 combat complacency about the HIV crisis in the United States and raise
			 awareness of the continued severity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the fact that
			 every 9½ minutes, on average, someone in the United States is infected with
			 HIV;
		Whereas despite these efforts, the CDC has noted that
			 new strategies are warranted to increase HIV testing, particularly among
			 persons who are disproportionately affected by HIV infection;
		Whereas the National Association of People with AIDS
			 (NAPWA), founded in 1983, is the oldest coalition of people living with
			 HIV/AIDS, and advocates on behalf of all people living with HIV/AIDS;
		Whereas National HIV Testing Day is an annual campaign
			 that was introduced in 1995 by NAPWA to encourage individuals to seek out and
			 receive voluntary HIV counseling and testing;
		Whereas the theme of National HIV Testing Day 2009 is
			 Take the test, take control;
		Whereas as part of its overall public health mission, the
			 CDC annually supports the National HIV Prevention Conference and National HIV
			 Testing Day; and
		Whereas June 27 of each year is now recognized as National
			 HIV Testing Day: Now, therefore, be it

		That the House of Representatives—
			(1)supports the goals
			 and ideals of National HIV Testing Day;
			(2)encourages State
			 and local governments, including their public health agencies, to recognize
			 such day, to publicize its importance among their communities, and to encourage
			 individuals to undergo counseling and testing for HIV and other sexually
			 transmitted diseases;
			(3)encourages the use
			 of rapid test kits approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a fast and
			 efficient method of HIV testing;
			(4)encourages
			 national, State, and local media organizations to carry messages in support of
			 National HIV Testing Day;
			(5)commends the
			 President for emphasizing the importance of addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic
			 among all Americans; and
			(6)supports the
			 development of a National AIDS Strategy with clear goals and objectives to
			 reduce new HIV infections, especially among minority communities and men who
			 have sex with men.


115 HR 576 IH: Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2017-01-13
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 576IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJanuary 13, 2017Mr. Tiberi (for himself, Mr. Delaney, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Polis, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mrs. Walorski, and Mr. Paulsen) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
			 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedA BILLTo encourage and support partnerships between the public and private sectors to improve our
			 Nation’s social programs, and for other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act. 2.Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for ResultsSection 403 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603) is amended by adding at the end the following:

				(c)Social impact demonstration projects
 (1)PurposesThe purposes of this subsection are the following: (A)To improve the lives of families and individuals in need in the United States by funding social programs that achieve real results.
 (B)To redirect funds away from programs that, based on objective data, are ineffective, and into programs that achieve demonstrable, measurable results.
 (C)To ensure Federal funds are used effectively on social services to produce positive outcomes for both service recipients and taxpayers.
 (D)To establish the use of social impact partnerships to address some of our Nation’s most pressing problems.
 (E)To facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships that bundle philanthropic or other private resources with existing public spending to scale up effective social interventions already being implemented by private organizations, nonprofits, charitable organizations, and State and local governments across the country.
 (F)To bring pay-for-performance to the social sector, allowing the United States to improve the impact and effectiveness of vital social services programs while redirecting inefficient or duplicative spending.
 (G)To incorporate outcomes measurement and randomized controlled trials or other rigorous methodologies for assessing program impact.
						(2)Social impact partnership application
 (A)NoticeNot later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, shall publish in the Federal Register a request for proposals from States or local governments for social impact partnership projects in accordance with this paragraph.
 (B)Required outcomes for social impact partnership projectTo qualify as a social impact partnership project under this subsection, a project must produce one or more measurable, clearly defined outcomes that result in social benefit and Federal, State, or local savings through any of the following:
 (i)Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United States who are unemployed for more than 6 consecutive months.
 (ii)Increasing employment and earnings of individuals who have attained 16 years of age but not 25 years of age.
 (iii)Increasing employment among individuals receiving Federal disability benefits. (iv)Reducing the dependence of low-income families on Federal means-tested benefits.
 (v)Improving rates of high school graduation. (vi)Reducing teen and unplanned pregnancies.
 (vii)Improving birth outcomes and early childhood health and development among low-income families and individuals.
 (viii)Reducing rates of asthma, diabetes, or other preventable diseases among low-income families and individuals to reduce the utilization of emergency and other high-cost care.
 (ix)Increasing the proportion of children living in two-parent families. (x)Reducing incidences and adverse consequences of child abuse and neglect.
 (xi)Reducing the number of youth in foster care by increasing adoptions, permanent guardianship arrangements, reunifications, or placements with a fit and willing relative, or by avoiding placing children in foster care by ensuring they can be cared for safely in their own homes.
 (xii)Reducing the number of children and youth in foster care residing in group homes, child care institutions, agency-operated foster homes, or other non-family foster homes, unless it is determined that it is in the interest of the child’s long-term health, safety, or psychological well-being to not be placed in a family foster home.
 (xiii)Reducing the number of children returning to foster care. (xiv)Reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders, individuals released from prison, or other high-risk populations.
 (xv)Reducing the rate of homelessness among our most vulnerable populations. (xvi)Improving the health and well-being of those with mental, emotional, and behavioral health needs.
 (xvii)Improving the educational outcomes of special-needs or low-income children. (xviii)Improving the employment and well-being of returning United States military members.
 (xix)Increasing the financial stability of low-income families. (xx)Increasing the independence and employability of individuals who are physically or mentally disabled.
 (xxi)Other measurable outcomes defined by the State or local government that result in positive social outcomes and Federal savings.
 (C)Application requiredThe notice described in subparagraph (A) shall require a State or local government to submit an application for the social impact partnership project that addresses the following:
 (i)The outcome goals of the project. (ii)A description of each intervention in the project and anticipated outcomes of the intervention.
 (iii)Rigorous evidence demonstrating that the intervention can be expected to produce the desired outcomes.
 (iv)The target population that will be served by the project. (v)The expected social benefits to participants who receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
 (vi)Projected Federal, State, and local government costs and other costs to conduct the project. (vii)Projected Federal, State, and local government savings and other savings, including an estimate of the savings to the Federal Government, on a program-by-program basis and in the aggregate, if the project is implemented and the outcomes are achieved as a result of the intervention.
 (viii)If savings resulting from the successful completion of the project are estimated to accrue to the State or local government, the likelihood of the State or local government to realize those savings.
 (ix)A plan for delivering the intervention through a social impact partnership model. (x)A description of the expertise of each service provider that will administer the intervention, including a summary of the experience of the service provider in delivering the proposed intervention or a similar intervention, or demonstrating that the service provider has the expertise necessary to deliver the proposed intervention.
 (xi)An explanation of the experience of the State or local government, the intermediary, or the service provider in raising private and philanthropic capital to fund social service investments.
 (xii)The detailed roles and responsibilities of each entity involved in the project, including any State or local government entity, intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator, investor, or other stakeholder.
 (xiii)A summary of the experience of the service provider in delivering the proposed intervention or a similar intervention, or a summary demonstrating the service provider has the expertise necessary to deliver the proposed intervention.
 (xiv)A summary of the unmet need in the area where the intervention will be delivered or among the target population who will receive the intervention.
 (xv)The proposed payment terms, the methodology used to calculate outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance thresholds.
 (xvi)The project budget. (xvii)The project timeline.
 (xviii)The criteria used to determine the eligibility of an individual for the project, including how selected populations will be identified, how they will be referred to the project, and how they will be enrolled in the project.
 (xix)The evaluation design. (xx)The metrics that will be used in the evaluation to determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of the intervention and how the metrics will be measured.
 (xxi)An explanation of how the metrics used in the evaluation to determine whether the outcomes achieved as a result of the intervention are independent, objective indicators of impact and are not subject to manipulation by the service provider, intermediary, or investor.
 (xxii)A summary explaining the independence of the evaluator from the other entities involved in the project and the evaluator’s experience in conducting rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where available, well-implemented randomized controlled trials on the intervention or similar interventions.
 (xxiii)The capacity of the service provider to deliver the intervention to the number of participants the State or local government proposes to serve in the project.
 (xxiv)A description of whether and how the State or local government and service providers plan to sustain the intervention, if it is timely and appropriate to do so, to ensure that successful interventions continue to operate after the period of the social impact partnership.
 (D)Project intermediary information requiredThe application described in subparagraph (C) shall also contain the following information about any intermediary for the social impact partnership project (whether an intermediary is a service provider or other entity):
 (i)Experience and capacity for providing or facilitating the provision of the type of intervention proposed.
 (ii)The mission and goals. (iii)Information on whether the intermediary is already working with service providers that provide this intervention or an explanation of the capacity of the intermediary to begin working with service providers to provide the intervention.
 (iv)Experience working in a collaborative environment across government and nongovernmental entities. (v)Previous experience collaborating with public or private entities to implement evidence-based programs.
 (vi)Ability to raise or provide funding to cover operating costs (if applicable to the project). (vii)Capacity and infrastructure to track outcomes and measure results, including—
 (I)capacity to track and analyze program performance and assess program impact; and (II)experience with performance-based awards or performance-based contracting and achieving project milestones and targets.
 (viii)Role in delivering the intervention. (ix)How the intermediary would monitor program success, including a description of the interim benchmarks and outcome measures.
 (E)Feasibility studies funded through other sourcesThe notice described in subparagraph (A) shall permit a State or local government to submit an application for social impact partnership funding that contains information from a feasibility study developed for purposes other than applying for funding under this subsection.
						(3)Awarding social impact partnership agreements
 (A)Timeline in awarding agreementNot later than 6 months after receiving an application in accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, shall determine whether to enter into an agreement for a social impact partnership project with a State or local government.
 (B)Considerations in awarding agreementIn determining whether to enter into an agreement for a social impact partnership project (the application for which was submitted under paragraph (2)) the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships (established by paragraph (6)) and the head of any Federal agency administering a similar intervention or serving a population similar to that served by the project, shall consider each of the following:
 (i)The recommendations made by the Commission on Social Impact Partnerships. (ii)The value to the Federal Government of the outcomes expected to be achieved if the outcomes specified in the agreement are achieved as a result of the intervention.
 (iii)The likelihood, based on evidence provided in the application and other evidence, that the State or local government in collaboration with the intermediary and the service providers will achieve the outcomes.
 (iv)The savings to the Federal Government if the outcomes specified in the agreement are achieved as a result of the intervention.
 (v)The savings to the State and local governments if the outcomes specified in the agreement are achieved as a result of the intervention.
 (vi)The expected quality of the evaluation that would be conducted with respect to the agreement. (vii)The capacity and commitment of the State or local government to sustain the intervention, if appropriate and timely and if the intervention is successful, beyond the period of the social impact partnership.
							(C)Agreement authority
 (i)Agreement requirementsIn accordance with this paragraph, the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships and the head of any Federal agency administering a similar intervention or serving a population similar to that served by the project, may enter into an agreement for a social impact partnership project with a State or local government if the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, determines that each of the following requirements are met:
 (I)The State or local government agrees to achieve one or more outcomes as a result of the intervention, as specified in the agreement and validated by independent evaluation, in order to receive payment.
 (II)The Federal payment to the State or local government for each specified outcome achieved as a result of the intervention is less than or equal to the value of the outcome to the Federal Government over a period not to exceed 10 years, as determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the State or local government.
 (III)The duration of the project does not exceed 10 years. (IV)The State or local government has demonstrated, through the application submitted under paragraph (2), that, based on prior rigorous experimental evaluations or rigorous quasi-experimental studies, the intervention can be expected to achieve each outcome specified in the agreement.
 (V)The State, local government, intermediary, or service provider has experience raising private or philanthropic capital to fund social service investments (if applicable to the project).
 (VI)The State or local government has shown that each service provider has experience delivering the intervention, a similar intervention, or has otherwise demonstrated the expertise necessary to deliver the intervention.
 (ii)PaymentThe Secretary shall pay the State or local government only if the independent evaluator described in paragraph (5) determines that the social impact partnership project has met the requirements specified in the agreement and achieved an outcome as a result of the intervention, as specified in the agreement and validated by independent evaluation.
 (D)Notice of agreement awardNot later than 30 days after entering into an agreement under this paragraph, the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that includes, with regard to the agreement, the following:
 (i)The outcome goals of the social impact partnership project. (ii)A description of each intervention in the project.
 (iii)The target population that will be served by the project. (iv)The expected social benefits to participants who receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
 (v)The detailed roles, responsibilities, and purposes of each Federal, State, or local government entity, intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator, investor, or other stakeholder.
 (vi)The payment terms, the methodology used to calculate outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance thresholds.
 (vii)The project budget. (viii)The project timeline.
 (ix)The project eligibility criteria. (x)The evaluation design.
 (xi)The metrics that will be used in the evaluation to determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of each intervention and how these metrics will be measured.
 (xii)The estimate of the savings to the Federal, State, and local government, on a program-by-program basis and in the aggregate, if the agreement is entered into and implemented and the outcomes are achieved as a result of each intervention.
 (E)Authority to transfer administration of agreementThe Secretary may transfer to the head of another Federal agency the authority to administer (including making payments under) an agreement entered into under subparagraph (C), and any funds necessary to do so.
 (F)Requirement on funding used to benefit childrenNot less than 50 percent of all Federal payments made to carry out agreements under this paragraph shall be used for initiatives that directly benefit children.
						(4)Feasibility study funding
 (A)Requests for funding for feasibility studiesThe Secretary shall reserve a portion of the amount reserved to carry out this subsection to assist States or local governments in developing feasibility studies to apply for social impact partnership funding under paragraph (2). To be eligible to receive funding to assist with completing a feasibility study, a State or local government shall submit an application for feasibility study funding addressing the following:
 (i)A description of the outcome goals of the social impact partnership project. (ii)A description of the intervention, including anticipated program design, target population, an estimate regarding the number of individuals to be served, and setting for the intervention.
 (iii)Evidence to support the likelihood that the intervention will produce the desired outcomes. (iv)A description of the potential metrics to be used.
 (v)The expected social benefits to participants who receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
 (vi)Estimated costs to conduct the project. (vii)Estimates of Federal, State, and local government savings and other savings if the project is implemented and the outcomes are achieved as a result of each intervention.
 (viii)An estimated timeline for implementation and completion of the project, which shall not exceed 10 years.
 (ix)With respect to a project for which the State or local government selects an intermediary to operate the project, any partnerships needed to successfully execute the project and the ability of the intermediary to foster the partnerships.
 (x)The expected resources needed to complete the feasibility study for the State or local government to apply for social impact partnership funding under paragraph (2).
 (B)Federal selection of applications for feasibility studyNot later than 6 months after receiving an application for feasibility study funding under subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships and the head of any Federal agency administering a similar intervention or serving a population similar to that served by the project, shall select State or local government feasibility study proposals for funding based on the following:
 (i)The recommendations made by the Commission on Social Impact Partnerships. (ii)The likelihood that the proposal will achieve the desired outcomes.
 (iii)The value of the outcomes expected to be achieved as a result of each intervention. (iv)The potential savings to the Federal Government if the social impact partnership project is successful.
 (v)The potential savings to the State and local governments if the project is successful. (C)Public disclosureNot later than 30 days after selecting a State or local government for feasibility study funding under this paragraph, the Secretary shall cause to be published on the website of the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships information explaining why a State or local government was granted feasibility study funding.
						(D)Funding restriction
 (i)Feasibility study restrictionThe Secretary may not provide feasibility study funding under this paragraph for more than 50 percent of the estimated total cost of the feasibility study reported in the State or local government application submitted under subparagraph (A).
 (ii)Aggregate restrictionOf the total amount reserved to carry out this subsection, the Secretary may not use more than $10,000,000 to provide feasibility study funding to States or local governments under this paragraph.
 (iii)No guarantee of fundingThe Secretary shall have the option to award no funding under this paragraph. (E)Submission of feasibility study requiredNot later than 9 months after the receipt of feasibility study funding under this paragraph, a State or local government receiving the funding shall complete the feasibility study and submit the study to the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships.
 (F)Delegation of authorityThe Secretary may transfer to the head of another Federal agency the authorities provided in this paragraph and any funds necessary to exercise the authorities.
						(5)Evaluations
 (A)Authority to enter into agreementsFor each State or local government awarded a social impact partnership project approved by the Secretary under this subsection, the head of the relevant agency, as recommended by the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships and determined by the Secretary, shall enter into an agreement with the State or local government to pay for all or part of the independent evaluation to determine whether the State or local government project has achieved a specific outcome as a result of the intervention in order for the State or local government to receive outcome payments under this subsection.
 (B)Evaluator qualificationsThe head of the relevant agency may not enter into an agreement with a State or local government unless the head determines that the evaluator is independent of the other parties to the agreement and has demonstrated substantial experience in conducting rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where available and appropriate, well-implemented randomized controlled trials on the intervention or similar interventions.
 (C)Methodologies to be usedThe evaluation used to determine whether a State or local government will receive outcome payments under this subsection shall use experimental designs using random assignment or other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies, as certified by the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences when random assignment is not feasible.
						(D)Progress report
 (i)Submission of reportThe independent evaluator shall— (I)not later than 2 years after a project has been approved by the Secretary and biannually thereafter until the project is concluded, submit to the head of the relevant agency and the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships a written report summarizing the progress that has been made in achieving each outcome specified in the agreement; and
 (II)before the scheduled time of the first outcome payment and before the scheduled time of each subsequent payment, submit to the head of the relevant agency and the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships a written report that includes the results of the evaluation conducted to determine whether an outcome payment should be made along with information on the unique factors that contributed to achieving or failing to achieve the outcome, the challenges faced in attempting to achieve the outcome, and information on the improved future delivery of this or similar interventions.
 (ii)Submission to the Secretary and CongressNot later than 30 days after receipt of the written report pursuant to clause (i)(II), the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships shall submit the report to the Secretary and each committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
							(E)Final report
 (i)Submission of reportWithin 6 months after the social impact partnership project is completed, the independent evaluator shall—
 (I)evaluate the effects of the activities undertaken pursuant to the agreement with regard to each outcome specified in the agreement; and
 (II)submit to the head of the relevant agency and the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships a written report that includes the results of the evaluation and the conclusion of the evaluator as to whether the State or local government has fulfilled each obligation of the agreement, along with information on the unique factors that contributed to the success or failure of the project, the challenges faced in attempting to achieve the outcome, and information on the improved future delivery of this or similar interventions.
 (ii)Submission to the Secretary and CongressNot later than 30 days after receipt of the written report pursuant to clause (i)(II), the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships shall submit the report to the Secretary and each committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
 (F)Limitation on cost of evaluationsOf the amount reserved under this subsection for social impact partnership projects, the Secretary may not obligate more than 15 percent to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of the projects.
 (G)Delegation of authorityThe Secretary may transfer to the head of another Federal agency the authorities provided in this paragraph and any funds necessary to exercise the authorities.
						(6)Federal interagency council on social impact partnerships
 (A)EstablishmentThere is established the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships (in this paragraph referred to as the Council) to—
 (i)coordinate with the Secretary on the efforts of social impact partnership projects funded under this subsection;
 (ii)advise and assist the Secretary in the development and implementation of the projects; (iii)advise the Secretary on specific programmatic and policy matter related to the projects;
 (iv)provide subject-matter expertise to the Secretary with regard to the projects; (v)certify to the Secretary that each State or local government that has entered into an agreement with the Secretary for a social impact partnership project under this subsection and each evaluator selected by the head of the relevant agency under paragraph (5) has access to Federal administrative data to assist the State or local government and the evaluator in evaluating the performance and outcomes of the project;
 (vi)address issues that will influence the future of social impact partnership projects in the United States;
 (vii)provide guidance to the executive branch on the future of social impact partnership projects in the United States;
 (viii)prior to approval by the Secretary, certify that each State and local government application for a social impact partnership contains rigorous, independent data and reliable, evidence-based research methodologies to support the conclusion that the project will yield savings to the State or local government or the Federal Government if the project outcomes are achieved;
 (ix)certify to the Secretary, in the case of each approved social impact partnership that is expected to yield savings to the Federal Government, that the project will yield a projected savings to the Federal Government if the project outcomes are achieved, and coordinate with the relevant Federal agency to produce an after-action accounting once the project is complete to determine the actual Federal savings realized, and the extent to which actual savings aligned with projected savings; and
 (x)provide periodic reports to the Secretary and make available reports periodically to Congress and the public on the implementation of this subsection.
 (B)Composition of councilThe Council shall have 11 members, as follows: (i)ChairThe Chair of the Council shall be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
 (ii)Other membersThe head of each of the following entities shall designate one officer or employee of the entity to be a Council member:
 (I)The Department of Labor. (II)The Department of Health and Human Services.
 (III)The Social Security Administration. (IV)The Department of Agriculture.
 (V)The Department of Justice. (VI)The Department of Housing and Urban Development.
 (VII)The Department of Education. (VIII)The Department of Veterans Affairs.
 (IX)The Department of the Treasury. (X)The Corporation for National and Community Service.
								(7)Commission on social impact partnerships
 (A)EstablishmentThere is established the Commission on Social Impact Partnerships (in this paragraph referred to as the Commission).
 (B)DutiesThe duties of the Commission shall be to— (i)assist the Secretary and the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships in reviewing applications for funding under this subsection;
 (ii)make recommendations to the Secretary and the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships regarding the funding of social impact partnership agreements and feasibility studies; and
 (iii)provide other assistance and information as requested by the Secretary or the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships.
 (C)CompositionThe Commission shall be composed of nine members, of whom— (i)one shall be appointed by the President, who will serve as the Chair of the Commission;
 (ii)one shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate; (iii)one shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate;
 (iv)one shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (v)one shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
 (vi)one shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate; (vii)one shall be appointed by the ranking member of the Committee on Finance of the Senate;
 (viii)one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; and
 (ix)one shall be appointed by the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
 (D)Qualifications of commission membersThe members of the Commission shall— (i)be experienced in finance, economics, pay for performance, or program evaluation;
 (ii)have relevant professional or personal experience in a field related to one or more of the outcomes listed in this subsection; or
 (iii)be qualified to review applications for social impact partnership projects to determine whether the proposed metrics and evaluation methodologies are appropriately rigorous and reliant upon independent data and evidence-based research.
 (E)Timing of appointmentsThe appointments of the members of the Commission shall be made not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, or, in the event of a vacancy, not later than 90 days after the date the vacancy arises. If a member of Congress fails to appoint a member by that date, the President may select a member of the President's choice on behalf of the member of Congress. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if not all appointments have been made to the Commission as of that date, the Commission may operate with no fewer than five members until all appointments have been made.
						(F)Term of appointments
 (i)In generalThe members appointed under subparagraph (C) shall serve as follows: (I)Three members shall serve for 2 years.
 (II)Three members shall serve for 3 years. (III)Three members (one of which shall be Chair of the Commission appointed by the President) shall serve for 4 years.
 (ii)Assignment of termsThe Commission shall designate the term length that each member appointed under subparagraph (C) shall serve by unanimous agreement. In the event that unanimous agreement cannot be reached, term lengths shall be assigned to the members by a random process.
 (G)VacanciesSubject to subparagraph (E), in the event of a vacancy in the Commission, whether due to the resignation of a member, the expiration of a member's term, or any other reason, the vacancy shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made and shall not affect the powers of the Commission.
 (H)Appointment powerMembers of the Commission appointed under subparagraph (C) shall not be subject to confirmation by the Senate.
 (8)Limitation on use of fundsOf the amounts reserved to carry out this subsection, the Secretary may not use more than $2,000,000 in any fiscal year to support the review, approval, and oversight of social impact partnership projects, including activities conducted by—
 (A)the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships; and (B)any other agency consulted by the Secretary before approving a social impact partnership project or a feasibility study under paragraph (4).
 (9)No Federal funding for credit enhancementsNo amount reserved to carry out this subsection may be used to provide any insurance, guarantee, or other credit enhancement to a State or local government under which a Federal payment would be made to a State or local government as the result of a State or local government failing to achieve an outcome specified in a contract.
 (10)Availability of fundsAmounts reserved to carry out this subsection shall remain available until 10 years after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
 (11)WebsiteThe Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships shall establish and maintain a public website that shall display the following:
 (A)A copy of, or method of accessing, each notice published regarding a social impact partnership project pursuant to this subsection.
 (B)A copy of each feasibility study funded under this subsection. (C)For each State or local government that has entered into an agreement with the Secretary for a social impact partnership project, the website shall contain the following information:
 (i)The outcome goals of the project. (ii)A description of each intervention in the project.
 (iii)The target population that will be served by the project. (iv)The expected social benefits to participants who receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
 (v)The detailed roles, responsibilities, and purposes of each Federal, State, or local government entity, intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator, investor, or other stakeholder.
 (vi)The payment terms, methodology used to calculate outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance thresholds.
 (vii)The project budget. (viii)The project timeline.
 (ix)The project eligibility criteria. (x)The evaluation design.
 (xi)The metrics used to determine whether the proposed outcomes have been achieved and how these metrics are measured.
 (D)A copy of the progress reports and the final reports relating to each social impact partnership project.
 (E)An estimate of the savings to the Federal, State, and local government, on a program-by-program basis and in the aggregate, resulting from the successful completion of the social impact partnership project.
 (12)RegulationsThe Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, may issue regulations as necessary to carry out this subsection.
 (13)DefinitionsIn this subsection: (A)AgencyThe term agency has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
 (B)InterventionThe term intervention means a specific service delivered to achieve an impact through a social impact partnership project.
 (C)SecretaryThe term Secretary means the Secretary of the Treasury. (D)Social impact partnership projectThe term social impact partnership project means a project that finances social services using a social impact partnership model.
 (E)Social impact partnership modelThe term social impact partnership model means a method of financing social services in which— (i)Federal funds are awarded to a State or local government only if a State or local government achieves certain outcomes agreed on by the State or local government and the Secretary; and
 (ii)the State or local government coordinates with service providers, investors (if applicable to the project), and (if necessary) an intermediary to identify—
 (I)an intervention expected to produce the outcome; (II)a service provider to deliver the intervention to the target population; and
 (III)investors to fund the delivery of the intervention. (F)StateThe term State means each State of the United States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, and each federally recognized Indian tribe.
 (14)FundingOf the amounts made available to carry out subsection (b) for fiscal year 2017, the Secretary shall reserve $100,000,000 to carry out this subsection..
		3.Extension of TANF program
 (a)Family assistance grantsSection 403(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) is amended in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking 2012 and inserting 2017.
 (b)Healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grantsSection 403(a)(2)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)(D)) is amended by striking 2012 each place it appears and inserting 2017. (c)Tribal grantsSection 412(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 612(a)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by striking 2012 and inserting 2017.
 (d)Child care entitlementSection 418(a)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended by striking 2012 and inserting 2017. (e)Grants to the territoriesSection 1108(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking 2012 and inserting 2017.
			(f)Extension of the temporary assistance for needy families program and related programs through
 December 31, 2017Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of such Act (other than under section 403(b) of such Act) shall continue through December 31, 2017, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2017, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through the first quarter of fiscal year 2018 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2017.
			4.Strengthening welfare research and evaluation and development of a What Works Clearinghouse
 (a)In generalSection 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended to read as follows:  413.Evaluation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and related programs (a)Evaluation of the impacts of TANFThe Secretary shall conduct research on the effect of State programs funded under this part and any other State program funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) on employment, self-sufficiency, child well-being, unmarried births, marriage, poverty, economic mobility, and other factors as determined by the Secretary.
						(b)Evaluation of grants To improve child well-Being by promoting healthy marriage and responsible
 fatherhoodThe Secretary shall conduct research to determine the effects of the grants made under section 403(a)(2) on child well-being, marriage, family stability, economic mobility, poverty, and other factors as determined by the Secretary.
 (c)Dissemination of informationThe Secretary shall, in consultation with States receiving funds provided under this part, develop methods of disseminating information on any research, evaluation, or study conducted under this section, including facilitating the sharing of information and best practices among States and localities.
 (d)State-Initiated evaluationsA State shall be eligible to receive funding to evaluate the State program funded under this part or any other State program funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) if—
 (1)the State submits to the Secretary a description of the proposed evaluation; (2)the Secretary determines that the design and approach of the proposed evaluation is rigorous and is likely to yield information that is credible and will be useful to other States; and
 (3)unless waived by the Secretary, the State contributes to the cost of the evaluation, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to at least 25 percent of the cost of the proposed evaluation.
							(e)Census Bureau research
 (1)The Bureau of the Census shall implement or enhance household surveys of program participation, in consultation with the Secretary and the Bureau of Labor Statistics and made available to interested parties, to allow for the assessment of the outcomes of continued welfare reform on the economic and child well-being of low-income families with children, including those who received assistance or services from a State program funded under this part or any other State program funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)). The content of the surveys should include such information as may be necessary to examine the issues of unmarried childbearing, marriage, welfare dependency and compliance with work requirements, the beginning and ending of spells of assistance, work, earnings and employment stability, and the well-being of children.
 (2)To carry out the activities specified in paragraph (1), the Bureau of the Census, the Secretary, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall consider ways to improve the surveys and data derived from the surveys to—
 (A)address under reporting of the receipt of means-tested benefits and tax benefits for low-income individuals and families;
 (B)increase understanding of poverty spells and long-term poverty, including by facilitating the matching of information to better understand intergenerational poverty;
 (C)generate a better geographical understanding of poverty such as through State-based estimates and measures of neighborhood poverty;
 (D)increase understanding of the effects of means-tested benefits and tax benefits on the earnings and incomes of low-income families; and
 (E)improve how poverty and economic well-being are measured, including through the use of consumption measures, material deprivation measures, social exclusion measures, and economic and social mobility measures.
 (f)Research and evaluation conducted under this sectionResearch and evaluation conducted under this section designed to determine the effects of a program or policy (other than research conducted under subsection (e)) shall use experimental designs using random assignment or other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences when random assignment is not feasible.
						(g)Development of what works clearinghouse of proven and promising approaches To move welfare
			 recipients into work
 (1)In generalThe Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall develop a database (which shall be referred to as the What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to Move Welfare Recipients into Work) of the projects that used a proven approach or a promising approach in moving welfare recipients into work, based on independent, rigorous evaluations of the projects. The database shall include a separate listing of projects that used a developmental approach in delivering services and a further separate listing of the projects with no or negative effects. The Secretary shall add to the What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to Move Welfare Recipients into Work data about the projects that, based on an independent, well-conducted experimental evaluation of a program or project, using random assignment or other research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences, have shown they are proven, promising, developmental, or ineffective approaches.
 (2)Criteria for evidence of effectiveness of approachThe Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and organizations with experience in evaluating research on the effectiveness of various approaches in delivering services to move welfare recipients into work, shall—
 (A)establish criteria for evidence of effectiveness; and (B)ensure that the process for establishing the criteria—
 (i)is transparent; (ii)is consistent across agencies;
 (iii)provides opportunity for public comment; and (iv)takes into account efforts of Federal agencies to identify and publicize effective interventions, including efforts at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice.
 (3)DefinitionsIn this subsection: (A)ApproachThe term approach means a process, product, strategy, or practice that is—
 (i)research-based, based on the results of one or more empirical studies, and linked to program-determined outcomes; and
 (ii)evaluated using rigorous research designs. (B)Proven approachThe term proven approach means an approach that—
 (i)meets the requirements of a promising approach; and (ii)has demonstrated significant and substantively important positive outcomes at more than one site in terms of increasing work and earnings of participants, reducing poverty and dependence, improving child well-being, or strengthening families.
 (C)Promising approachThe term promising approach means an approach— (i)that meets the requirements of subparagraph (D)(i);
 (ii)that has been evaluated using well-designed and rigorous randomized controlled trials (or, if not available, rigorous quasi-experimental research designs);
 (iii)that has demonstrated significant and substantively important positive outcomes at one site in terms of increasing work and earnings of participants, reducing poverty and dependence, improving child well-being, or strengthening families; and
 (iv)under which the benefits of the positive outcomes have exceeded the costs of achieving the outcomes.
 (D)Developmental approachThe term developmental approach means an approach that— (i)is research-based, grounded in relevant empirically based knowledge, and linked to program-determined outcomes;
 (ii)is evaluated using rigorous research designs; and (iii)has yet to demonstrate a significant positive outcome in terms of increasing work and earnings of participants in a cost-effective way.
									(h)Appropriation
 (1)In generalOf the amount appropriated by section 403(a)(1) for each fiscal year, 0.33 percent shall be available for research, technical assistance, and evaluation under this section.
 (2)AllocationOf the amount made available under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make available $10,000,000 plus such additional amount as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, to carry out subsection (e)..
 (b)Conforming amendmentSection 403(a)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting , reduced by the percentage specified in section 413(h) with respect to the fiscal year, before as the amount. 5.Technical corrections to data exchange standards to improve program coordination (a)In generalSection 411(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611(d)) is amended to read as follows:

					(d)Data exchange standards for improved interoperability
 (1)DesignationThe Secretary shall, in consultation with an interagency work group established by the Office of Management and Budget and considering State government perspectives, by rule, designate data exchange standards to govern, under this part—
 (A)necessary categories of information that State agencies operating programs under State plans approved under this part are required under applicable Federal law to electronically exchange with another State agency; and
 (B)Federal reporting and data exchange required under applicable Federal law. (2)RequirementsThe data exchange standards required by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable—
 (A)incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary, searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible Markup Language;
 (B)contain interoperable standards developed and maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National Information Exchange Model;
 (C)incorporate interoperable standards developed and maintained by Federal entities with authority over contracting and financial assistance;
 (D)be consistent with and implement applicable accounting principles; (E)be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
 (F)be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary. (3)Rule of constructionNothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a change to existing data exchange standards found to be effective and efficient..
 (b)Effective dateNot later than the date that is 24 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue a proposed rule that—
 (1)identifies federally required data exchanges, include specification and timing of exchanges to be standardized, and address the factors used in determining whether and when to standardize data exchanges; and
 (2)specifies State implementation options and describes future milestones.


		III
		110th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		S. RES. 700
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			September 30
			 (legislative day, September 17), 2008
			Mr. Cardin (for himself,
			 Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Ms.
			 Stabenow, Mr. Martinez,
			 Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Dole, Mr.
			 Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein,
			 Mr. Shelby, Mr.
			 Feingold, Mr. Bunning,
			 Mr. Nelson of Florida,
			 Mr. Burr, Mrs.
			 Boxer, and Mr. Lautenberg)
			 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed
			 to

		RESOLUTION
		Congratulating Michael Phelps and the
		  members and coaches of the United States Olympic Swimming Team for their
		  record-breaking performance at the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing,
		  China.

		Whereas, on August 10, 2008, Michael Phelps of Baltimore,
			 Maryland, set a world-record time of 4:03.84 and won the gold medal in the
			 men’s 400-meter individual medley event, and Ryan Lochte of Daytona Beach,
			 Florida, won the bronze medal in the same event;
		Whereas, on August 10, 2008, Katie Hoff of Towson,
			 Maryland, won the bronze medal in the women’s 400-meter individual medley
			 event;
		Whereas, on August 10, 2008, Natalie Coughlin of Vallejo,
			 California, Lacey Nymeyer of Tucson, Arizona, Kara Lynn Joyce of Ann Arbor,
			 Michigan, and Dara Torres of Los Angeles, California, set a record time for
			 athletes from the United States of 3:34.33 and won the silver medal in the
			 women’s 400-meter freestyle relay event;
		Whereas, on August 10, 2008, Larsen Jensen of Bakersfield,
			 California, set a record time for athletes from the United States of 3:42.78
			 and won the bronze medal in the men’s 400-meter freestyle event;
		Whereas, on August 11, 2008, Michael Phelps, Garrett
			 Weber-Gale of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Cullen Jones of Irvington, New Jersey, and
			 Jason Lezak of Irvine, California, set a world-record time of 3:08.24 and won
			 the gold medal in the men’s 400-meter freestyle relay event, with anchor Jason
			 Lezak coming from behind to edge the team from France by
			 8/100 of a second in 1 of the most dramatic finishes in
			 Olympic swimming history;
		Whereas, on August 11, 2008, Katie Hoff won the silver
			 medal in the women’s 400-meter freestyle event;
		Whereas, on August 11, 2008, Christine Magnuson of Tinley
			 Park, Illinois, won the silver medal in the women’s 100-meter butterfly
			 event;
		Whereas, on August 12, 2008, Michael Phelps set a
			 world-record time of 1:42.96 and won the gold medal in the men’s 200-meter
			 freestyle event, and Peter Vanderkaay of Rochester, Michigan, won the bronze
			 medal in the same event;
		Whereas, on August 12, 2008, Natalie Coughlin set a record
			 time for athletes from the United States of 58.96 and won the gold medal in the
			 women’s 100-meter backstroke event, and Margaret Hoelzer of Huntsville,
			 Alabama, won the bronze medal in the same event;
		Whereas, on August 12, 2008, Aaron Peirsol of Irvine,
			 California, set a world-record time of 52.54 and won the gold medal in the
			 men’s 100-meter backstroke event, and Matt Grevers of Lake Forest, Illinois,
			 won the silver medal in the same event;
		Whereas, on August 12, 2008, Rebecca Soni of Plainsboro,
			 New Jersey, won the silver medal in the women’s 100-meter breaststroke
			 event;
		Whereas, on August 13, 2008, Michael Phelps set a
			 world-record time of 1:52:03 and won the gold medal in the men’s 200-meter
			 butterfly event, edging Laszlo Cseh of Hungary by the width of a
			 fingernail;
		Whereas Michael Phelps then teamed with Ricky Berens of
			 Charlotte, North Carolina, Ryan Lochte, and Peter Vanderkaay, to set a
			 world-record time of 6:58.56 and win the gold medal in the men’s 800-meter
			 freestyle relay event, beating the team from Russia by more than 5 seconds and
			 winning the tenth and 11th gold medals of Michael Phelps’s career, more than
			 any other athlete in history;
		Whereas, on August 13, 2008, Natalie Coughlin won the
			 bronze medal in the women’s 200-meter individual medley event;
		Whereas, on August 13, 2008, Katie Hoff set a record time
			 for athletes from the United States of 1:55.78 and finished fourth in the
			 women’s 200-meter freestyle event;
		Whereas, on August 14, 2008, Allison Schmitt of Canton,
			 Michigan, Caroline Burckle of Louisville, Kentucky, Natalie Coughlin, and Katie
			 Hoff set a record time for athletes from the United States of 7:46.33 and won
			 the bronze medal in the women’s 800-meter freestyle relay event;
		Whereas, on August 14, 2008, Jason Lezak tied Cesar Cielo
			 of Brazil for the bronze medal in the men’s 100-meter freestyle event;
		Whereas, on August 15, 2008, Michael Phelps set a
			 world-record time of 1:54.23 and won the gold medal in the men’s 200-meter
			 individual medley event, and Ryan Lochte won the bronze medal in the same
			 event;
		Whereas, on August 15, 2008, Ryan Lochte set a
			 world-record time of 1:53.94 and won the gold medal in the men’s 200-meter
			 backstroke event, and Aaron Peirsol won the silver medal in the same
			 event;
		Whereas, on August 15, 2008, Rebecca Soni set a
			 world-record time of 2:20.22 and won the gold medal in the women’s 200-meter
			 breaststroke event;
		Whereas, on August 15, 2008, Natalie Coughlin tied the
			 record time for athletes from the United States of 53.39, which she herself
			 set, and won the bronze medal in the women’s 100-meter freestyle event;
		Whereas, on August 16, 2008, Michael Phelps set an
			 Olympic-record time of 50.58 and won the gold medal in the men’s 100-meter
			 butterfly event, tying 1972 Olympian Mark Spitz for the most gold medals, 7,
			 won by an individual in a single Olympic Games;
		Whereas, on August 16, 2008, Margaret Hoelzer won the
			 silver medal in the women’s 200-meter backstroke event;
		Whereas, on August 17, 2008, Brendan Hansen of Havertown,
			 Pennsylvania, Aaron Peirsol, Michael Phelps, and Jason Lezak set a world-record
			 time of 3:29.34 and won the gold medal in the men’s 400-meter medley relay
			 event;
		Whereas, on August 17, 2008, Dara Torres set a record time
			 for athletes from the United States of 24.07 and won the silver medal in the
			 women’s 50-meter freestyle event;
		Whereas Dara Torres then teamed with Natalie Coughlin,
			 Rebecca Soni, and Christine Magnuson to set a record time for athletes from the
			 United States of 3:53.30 and won the silver medal in the women’s 400-meter
			 medley relay event;
		Whereas Caroline Burckle, Larsen Jensen, and Allison
			 Schmitt each won 1 bronze medal;
		Whereas Matt Grevers, Kara Lynn Joyce, and Lacey Nymeyer
			 each won 1 silver medal;
		Whereas Ricky Berens, Brendan Hansen, Cullen Jones, and
			 Garrett Weber-Gale each won 1 gold medal;
		Whereas Margaret Hoelzer won 1 silver medal and 1 bronze
			 medal;
		Whereas Christine Magnuson won 2 silver medals;
		Whereas Peter Vanderkaay won 1 gold medal and 1 bronze
			 medal;
		Whereas Katie Hoff won 1 silver medal and 2 bronze
			 medals;
		Whereas Jason Lezak won 2 gold medals and 1 bronze
			 medal;
		Whereas Aaron Peirsol won 2 gold medals and 1 silver
			 medal;
		Whereas Rebecca Soni won 1 gold medal and 2 silver
			 medals;
		Whereas Ryan Lochte won 2 gold medals and 2 bronze
			 medals;
		Whereas Dara Torres—
			(1)is the first swimmer from the United States
			 to compete in 5 Olympic Games, representing the United States in the Summer
			 Olympic Games of 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2008;
			(2)won 5 medals at
			 the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, as the oldest member of the
			 women’s swimming team at the age of 33;
			(3)at the age of 41
			 is the oldest member of the women’s team by 15 years;
			(4)won the silver
			 medal in all 3 events in which she competed in the 2008 Summer Olympic
			 Games;
			(5)has won 12
			 Olympic medals, including 4 gold medals, 4 silver medals, and 4 bronze medals,
			 over the course of her career;
			(6)has won at least
			 1 medal in each of the 5 Olympic Games in which she has competed, making her 1
			 of only a handful of Olympians to earn medals in 5 different Olympic
			 Games;
			Whereas Natalie Coughlin won 1 gold medal, 2 silver
			 medals, and 3 bronze medals, becoming the first female athlete from the United
			 States to win 6 medals in 1 year’s Olympic Games, breaking the record of 5
			 medals she tied in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games;
		Whereas Michael Phelps has trained under the expert
			 tutelage of coach Bob Bowman for 12 years, first at the North Baltimore Aquatic
			 Club and more recently at the University of Michigan;
		Whereas, during the awards ceremony for the men’s
			 400-meter medley relay event, the Fédération Internationale de Natation, the
			 international governing body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized
			 swimming, and open water swimming, honored Michael Phelps for his historic
			 accomplishment of—
			(1)setting 7 world
			 records and 1 Olympic record;
			(2)winning 8 gold
			 medals, the most ever by an individual athlete in a single Olympic Games;
			 and
			(3)winning 14 gold
			 medals over the course of his Olympic career, another record for an individual
			 athlete at the Olympic Games;
			Whereas Michael Phelps’s Olympic performance places him in
			 the pantheon of the greatest athletes of all time; and
		Whereas the United States Olympic Swimming Team
			 collectively won 31 medals, including 12 gold medals, 9 silver medals, and 10
			 bronze medals: Now, therefore, be it

		That the Senate —
			(1)congratulates
			 Michael Phelps, Natalie Coughlin, Ryan Lochte, Dara Torres, Katie Hoff, Jason
			 Lezak, Aaron Peirsol, Rebecca Soni, and the other members of the United States
			 Olympic Swimming Team for their record-breaking performances and commends them
			 for their dedication, courage, and sportsmanship, and for the exemplary way in
			 which they represented the United States of America while competing in Beijing,
			 China;
			(2)congratulates and
			 commends for their devotion, professionalism, and tireless advocacy on behalf
			 of the team and the sport of swimming generally—
				(A)National Team
			 Head Coach Mark Schubert;
				(B)Head Men’s Coach
			 Eddie Reese;
				(C)Head Women’s
			 Coach Jack Bauerle;
				(D)Assistant Coaches
			 Bob Bowman, Gregg Troy, Frank Busch, Teri McKeever, Paul Yetter, and Sean
			 Hutchison;
				(E)Men’s and Women’s
			 Open Water Head Coaches John Dussliere and Bill Rose;
				(F)Open Water Chief
			 of Mission Paul Asmuth; and
				(G)the staff of the
			 United States Olympic Swimming Team; and
				(3)requests the
			 Secretary of the Senate to transmit enrolled copies of this resolution
			 to—
				(A)the United States
			 Olympic Swimming Team at the national headquarters of USA Swimming in Colorado
			 Springs, Colorado; and
				(B)Michael Phelps
			 and the North Baltimore Aquatic Club in Baltimore, Maryland, in honor of
			 Michael Phelps’s singular, historic, and inspirational achievement.