id stringlengths 10 39 | pid stringlengths 12 41 | input stringlengths 14.8k 141k | output stringlengths 229 4.99k | document_start_index int64 95 96 | document_end_index int64 14.8k 141k | query_start_index int64 14.8k 141k | query_end_index int64 14.8k 141k | truncation_seperator stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
crs_R45461 | crs_R45461_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
What is the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC)?
The IDFC is authorized by statute to be a "wholly owned Government corporation ... under the foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State" in the executive branch. Its purpose is to "mobilize and facilitate the participation of private sector capital and skills in the economic development" of developing and transition countries, in order to complement U.S. development assistance objectives and foreign policy interests (§1412). In other words, the IDFC's mission is to promote private investment in support of both U.S. global development goals and U.S. economic interests. Not yet operational, the IDFC represents a potentially major overhaul of U.S. development finance efforts.
The IDFC's enabling legislation is the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act), which was enacted on October 5, 2018, as Division F of a law to reauthorize the (unrelated) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ( H.R. 302 / P.L. 115-254 ). Under the BUILD Act, the IDFC is to consolidate and expand the U.S. government's existing development finance functions—currently conducted primarily by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). By statute, the IDFC is a successor agency to OPIC, which is to terminate when the IDFC is operational.
What existing agency functions are consolidated?
The BUILD Act consolidates functions currently carried out primarily by OPIC and certain elements of USAID (see Appendix ).
The act established the new IDFC to be a successor entity to OPIC, taking over all of its functions and authorities and adding new ones. The IDFC's authorities would expand beyond OPIC's existing authorities to make loans and guarantees and issue insurance or reinsurance. They would also include the authority to take minority equity positions in investments, subject to limitations. In addition, unlike OPIC, the IDFC would be able to issue loans in local currency.
The extent to which USAID functions will be transferred to the new IDFC is less clear. The act specifies that the Development Credit Authority (DCA), the existing legacy credit portfolio under the Urban and Environment Credit Program, and any other direct loan programs and non-DCA guarantee programs shall be transferred to the IDFC. It also provides the authority for, but does not require, the transfer of USAID's Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise, the existing USAID-managed enterprise funds (it gives the IDFC authority to establish new funds), and the sovereign loan guarantee portfolio. The disposition of these functions is to be detailed in the reorganization plan that the Administration must submit to Congress within 120 days of enactment. The reorganization plan is expected to be submitted by early February 2019.
In addition, the IDFC would have the authority to conduct feasibility studies on proposed investment projects (with cost sharing) and provide technical assistance.
What is development finance?
"Development finance" is a term commonly used to describe government-backed financing to support private sector capital investments in developing and emerging economies. It can be viewed on a continuum of public and private support, situated between pure government support through grants and concessional loans and pure commercial financing at market-rate terms.
Development finance generally is targeted toward promoting economic development by supporting foreign direct investment (FDI) in underserved types of projects, regions, and countries; undercapitalized sectors; and countries with viable project environments but low credit ratings. Such support is aimed to increase private sector activity and public-private partnerships that would not happen otherwise in the absence of development finance support because of the actual or perceived risk associated with the activity. Tools of development finance may include equity (raising capital through the sale of ownership shares), direct loans, loan guarantees, political risk insurance, and technical assistance.
Development financing is particularly important for infrastructure funding, where annual global investment in transportation, power, water, and telecommunications systems falls, by one account, almost $800 million short of the estimated $3.3 trillion required to keep pace with projected economic growth. The largest infrastructure investment gaps are in the road and electricity sectors in developing and emerging economies.
What are development finance institutions (DFIs)?
DFIs are specialized entities that supply development finance, generally aiming to be catalytic agents in promoting private sector investment in developing countries. In the United States, OPIC has been the primary DFI since the 1970s. In FY2017, OPIC reported authorizing $3.8 billion in new commitments for 112 projects, and its exposure reached a record high of $23.2 billion (see Figure 1 ). OPIC estimated that it helped mobilize $6.8 billion in capital and supported 13,000 new jobs in host countries that year. Sub-Saharan Africa represents the largest share of OPIC's portfolio by region. OPIC has committed $2.4 billion in financing and political risk insurance for Power Africa−a major public-private partnership coordinated by USAID−to date, including committing $12.4 million for a loan to support construction of a hydropower plant in Uganda in FY2017. Among other focus areas, OPIC currently has $5 billion invested in the Indo-Pacific in projects to expand access to energy, education, and financial services, as well as to support local farmers. On July 30, 2018, OPIC, the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC, Japan's counterpart to OPIC), and the Australian government announced a trilateral partnership to mobilize investments in infrastructure projects in the Indo-Pacific region to support development, connectivity, and economic growth in the region.
Other agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), also provide development finance. The IDFC is to take on the DFI mantle for the United States under the BUILD Act.
At the bilateral level, national governments can operate DFIs. The United Kingdom was the first country to establish a DFI in 1948. Many countries have followed suit. In the United States, OPIC began operations in 1971, but the U.S. government's role in overseas investment financing predates OPIC's formal establishment.
Bilateral DFIs are typically wholly or majority government-owned. They operate either as independent institutions or as a part of larger development banks or institutions. Their organizational structures have evolved, in some cases, due to changing perceptions of how to address identified development needs in the most effective way possible. Unlike OPIC, other bilateral DFIs tend to be permanent and not subject to renewals by their countries' legislatures.
DFIs also can operate multilaterally, as parts of international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank. They can operate regionally through regional development banks as well. Examples of these banks include the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction & Development (EBRD), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
DFIs vary in their specific objectives, management structures, authorities, and activities.
How does development finance relate to foreign assistance?
Historically, official development assistance (ODA) has been a primary way that the United States and other developed countries have provided support for infrastructure projects in developing countries. However, foreign aid for infrastructure has declined over decades while the growth of direct private investment flows has outpaced ODA, making development finance an increasingly prominent way to encourage private investment in undercapitalized areas. Private investors face challenges investing in developing countries due to political risk, exchange rate risk, and weaknesses in legal, regulatory, and institutional environments, among other things. In such cases, government support, whether through equity, financing, or political risk insurance, may provide needed liquidity or assurances to catalyze private investment.
How does the IDFC aim to respond to China's growing economic influence in developing countries?
While it does not mention China by name, the BUILD Act alludes to concerns with state-directed investments, such as China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which launched in 2013. The act states that it is U.S. policy to "facilitate market-based private sector development and inclusive economic growth in less developed countries" through financing, including
to provide countries a robust alternative to state-directed investments by authoritarian governments and [U.S.] strategic competitors using best practices with respect to transparency and environmental and social safeguards, and which take into account the debt sustainability of partner countries (§1411).
Supporters view the IDFC as a central part of the U.S. response to China's growing economic influence in developing countries, exemplified by the BRI—which could provide, by some estimates, anywhere from $1 trillion to $8 trillion in Chinese investments and development financing for infrastructure projects in developing countries (see text box ). The Administration and many Members of Congress have been critical of China's financing model, which they find to lack transparency, operate under inadequate environmental and social safeguards for projects, and employ questionable lending practices that may lead to unsustainable debt burdens in some poorer countries (so-called "debt diplomacy"). Under this view, the IDFC (when operational) may help the United States compete more effectively or strategically with China. While even a strengthened OPIC may not be able to compete "dollar-for-dollar" with China's DFI activity, supporters argue that the United States "can and should do more to support international economic development with partners who have embraced the private sector-driven development model." Others, however, argued that the act could have tightened the IDFC's focus with respect to China, for instance, by requiring the IDFC to have a specific focus on countering China's investment and economic influence; from this perspective, the failure to narrow the IDFC's scope makes it likely that the new entity may support projects of limited U.S. foreign policy and strategic interest—a concern that some critics have levied against OPIC.
BUILD Act Formulation and Debate
What is the BUILD Act's legislative history?15
In February 2018, two proposed versions of the BUILD Act, H.R. 5105 in the House and S. 2463 in the Senate, were introduced to create a new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC). Both bills proposed consolidating all of OPIC's functions and certain elements of USAID—including the Development Credit Authority (DCA), Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise, and enterprise funds. A major difference between the two bills, as introduced, was that H.R. 5105 would have authorized the IDFC for seven years, while S. 2463 would have authorized it for two decades, until September 30, 2038. The House-passed version (July 17, 2018; H.Rept. 115-814 ) and Senate committee-reported version (June 27, 2018) bridged some differences, including both providing a seven-year authorization.
On September 26, 2018, the House adopted a resolution ( H.Res. 1082 ) to pass the BUILD Act as part of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018 (FAA Reauthorization Act; H.R. 302 ). The Senate followed with its passage of the BUILD Act as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act on October 3, 2018. On October 5, 2018, the President signed into law the FAA Reauthorization Act, with the BUILD Act in Division F.
What is the Trump Administration's development finance policy approach?
Although the President's FY2018 budget request called for eliminating OPIC's funding as part of its critical view of U.S. government agencies with international development orientations, the Administration ultimately pursued development finance reform through OPIC as an opportunity to respond to China's growing economic influence in developing countries. The Trump Administration included development finance consolidation in its FY2019 budget request and subsequent set of government-wide reorganization proposals. The Administration supported the BUILD Act bills introduced in Congress ( H.R. 5105 , S. 2320 ), viewing them as broadly consistent with its goals, while calling for some modifications. It later said that amendments to the BUILD Act fulfilled the Administration's goals, including to "align U.S. government development finance with broader foreign policy and development goals, enhancing the competitiveness and compatibility of the U.S. development finance toolkit."
What was the policy debate over the BUILD Act?
The BUILD Act follows long-standing debate among policymakers over whether or not government financing of private-sector activity is appropriate. Supporters argued that OPIC helps fill in gaps in private-sector support that arise from market failures and helps U.S. firms compete against foreign firms backed by foreign DFIs for investment opportunities—thereby advancing U.S. foreign policy, national security, and economic interests. Various civil society stakeholders have proposed consolidating the development finance functions of OPIC and other agencies into a new DFI in order to boost OPIC and make U.S. development finance efforts more competitive with those of foreign countries. Opponents held that OPIC diverts capital away from efficient uses and crowds out private alternatives, criticized OPIC for assuming risks unwanted by the private sector, and questioned the development benefits of its programs. They have called for terminating OPIC's functions or privatizing them.
While the BUILD Act garnered overall support, specific aspects of it were subject to debate. Some development advocates expressed concern that the BUILD Act's transfer of DCA and other credit program authority from USAID to the IDFC may sever the close link between these funding mechanisms and the USAID development programs into which they have been embedded, potentially making the tools less effective and less development-oriented. Others saw potential for the DCA to become a more robust financing option for USAID programs under the new IDFC, with its expanded authorities. In response to these concerns, the BUILD Act includes many provisions, discussed later in this report, to promote coordination and linkages between USAID and the IDFC, and to emphasize the development mission of the IDFC. Some in the development community also questioned whether the new DFI would have a sufficiently strong development mandate, as well as raised concerns about the transparency, environmental, and social standards of the new DFI relative to OPIC. Some critics of OPIC supported strengthening statutorily the aim of the IDFC in specifically countering China's influence in the developing countries. Other possible policy alternatives include focusing on enhancing coordination of development finance functions among agencies or supporting development goals through multilateral and regional DFIs in which the United States plays a major leadership role.
IDFC Organizational Structure and Management
While the IDFC authorized by the BUILD Act has yet to be established, and some implementation questions remain, the act detailed many aspects of how the new entity should be structured, managed, and overseen by Congress. This section discusses the BUILD Act provisions that describe how the new IDFC is expected to function once established.
What are the congressional committees of jurisdiction?
The BUILD Act defines "appropriate congressional committees" as the Senate Foreign Relations and Appropriations committees and the House Foreign Affairs and Appropriations committees (§1402(1)). It imposes a number of reporting and notification requirements on the IDFC with respect to these congressional committees. These committees have typically been the same ones in which legislation related to OPIC and USAID is introduced.
What is the IDFC's mission?
The BUILD Act establishes the IDFC for the stated purpose of mobilizing private-sector capital and skills for the economic benefit of less-developed countries, as well as countries in transition from nonmarket to market economies, in support of U.S. development assistance and other foreign policy objectives (§1412(b)). This is very similar to the mission of OPIC, as described in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
The legislation includes several provisions intended to ensure that the corporation remains focused on this development mission. The act directs the IDFC to prioritize support to countries with low-income or lower-middle-income economies, establishes a position of Chief Development Officer on the board, and requires that a performance measurement system be developed that includes, among other things, standards and methods for ensuring the development performance of the corporation's portfolio. The annual report required by the BUILD Act also must include an analysis of the desired development outcomes for IDFC-supported projects and the extent to which the corporation is meeting associated development metrics, goals, and objectives.
How will the IDFC be managed?
The BUILD Act establishes a Board of Directors ("Board"), a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), a Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Deputy CEO), a Chief Risk Officer, a Chief Development Officer, and any other officers as the Board may determine, to manage the IDFC (§1413(a)).
The BUILD Act vests all powers of the IDFC in the nine-member Board of Directors (§1413(b)). By statute, the Board is composed of
a C hief Executive Officer ; four U.S. government officials —the Secretary of State, USAID Administrator, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of Commerce (or their designees); and four non government members appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, with "relevant experience" to carry out the IDFC's purpose, which "may include experience relating to the private sector, the environment, labor organizations, or international development." These members have three-year terms, can be reappointed for one additional term, and serve until their successors are appointed and confirmed.
The Board's Chairperson is the Secretary of State and the Vice Chairperson is the USAID Administrator (or their designees).
The Board differs in size and potentially composition from that of OPIC's Board. By statute, OPIC's 15-member Board of Directors is composed of eight "private sector" Directors, with specific requirements for representation of small business, labor, and cooperatives interests, and seven "federal government" Directors (including the OPIC President, USAID Administrator, U.S. Trade Representative, and a Labor Department officer). The President of the United States appoints the Board Chairman and Vice Chairman from among the members of the Board.
Five members of the Board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. The Board is required to hold at least two public hearings each year to allow for stakeholder input.
What will be the responsibilities of the officers?
The BUILD Act establishes four officers for IDFC management. A Chief Executive Officer, who is under the Board's direct authority, is responsible for the IDFC's management and exercising powers and duties as the Board directs (§1413(d)). The BUILD Act also establishes a Deputy Chief Executive Officer (§1413(e)). The Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer are appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the President.
The act outlines the positions of the Chief Risk Officer and Chief Development Officer in more detail. Both officers are to be appointed by the CEO, subject to Board approval, from among individuals with senior-level experience in financial risk management and development, respectively. They each are to report directly to the Board and are removable only by a majority Board vote. The Chief Risk Officer, in coordination with the Audit Committee established by the act, is responsible for developing, implementing, and managing a comprehensive process for identifying, assessing, monitoring, and limiting risks to the IDFC (§1413(f)). The Chief Development Officer's responsibilities include coordinating the IDFC's development policies and implementation efforts with USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and other relevant U.S. government departments and agencies; managing IDFC employees dedicated to working on transactions and projects codesigned with USAID and other relevant U.S. government entities; and authorizing and coordinating interagency transfers of funds and resources to support the IDFC (§1413(g)). OPIC's enabling legislation does not include either a specific Chief Risk Officer or Chief Development Officer.
Will the IDFC have any advisory support?
The BUILD Act establishes a Development Advisory Council to advise the Board on the IDFC's development objectives (§1413(i)). By statute, its members are Board-appointed on the recommendation of the CEO and Chief Development Officer, and composed of no more than nine members "broadly representative" of NGOs and other international development-related institutions. Its functions are to advise the Board on the extent to which the IDFC is meeting its development mandate and any suggestions for improvements.
What oversight structures will the IDFC have?
The BUILD Act establishes several oversight structures to govern the agency overall and particular aspects.
Unlike OPIC, which is overseen by the USAID Inspector General, the IDFC is to have its own Inspector General (IG) (§1414) to conduct reviews, investigations, and inspections of its operations and activities. In addition, the act requires the Board to establish a "transparent and independent accountability mechanism" to annually evaluate and report to the Board and Congress regarding statutory compliance with environmental, social, labor, human rights, and transparency standards; provide a forum for resolving concerns regarding the impacts of specific IDFC-supported projects with respect to such standards; and provide advice regarding IDFC projects, policies, and practices (§1415).
The BUILD Act also requires the IDFC to establish a Risk Committee and Audit Committee to ensure monitoring and oversight of the IDFC's investment strategies and finances (§1441). Both committees are under the direction of the Board. The Risk Committee is responsible for overseeing the formulation of the IDFC's risk governance structure and risk profile (e.g., strategic, reputational, regulatory, operational, developmental, environmental, social, and financial risks) (§1441(b)), while the Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing the IDFC's financial performance management structure, including the integrity of its internal controls and financial statements, the performance of internal audits, and compliance with legal and regulatory finance-related requirements (§1444(c)).
IDFC Operations
For what purposes can the IDFC use its authorities?
In general, the IDFC's authorities are limited to (§1421(a))
carrying out U.S. policy and the IDFC's purpose, as outlined in the statute; mitigating risks to U.S. taxpayers by sharing risks with the private sector and qualifying sovereign entities through cofinancing and structuring of tools; and ensuring that support provided is "additional" to private-sector resources by mobilizing private capital that would otherwise not be deployed without such support.
The emphasis on additionality reflects OPIC's current policy, but is not explicitly in OPIC's enabling legislation. Policymakers have debated whether OPIC supports or crowds out private-sector activity.
What financial authorities and tools will the IDFC have?
Under the BUILD Act, the IDFC's authorities would expand beyond OPIC's existing authorities to make loans and guarantees and issue insurance or reinsurance (see Table 1 ). They would also include the authority to take minority equity positions in investments. USAID-drawn authorities include technical assistance and the establishment of enterprise funds. In addition, the IDFC would have the authority to conduct feasibility studies on proposed investment projects (with cost-sharing) and provide technical assistance. A chart depicting the current development finance functions of relevant U.S. agencies, as well as how those functions may be shifted by the BUILD Act, is in the Appendix .
The IDFC's functions are discussed below.
Loan and Guarantees. The IDFC is authorized to make loans or guarantees upon the terms and conditions that it determines (§1421(b)). Loans and guarantees are subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA).
IDFC financing may be denominated and repayable in either U.S. dollars or foreign currencies, the latter only in cases where the Board determines there is a "substantive policy rationale." This is distinct from OPIC, which is limited to making loans in U.S. currency.
Equity Investments. The BUILD Act authorizes the IDFC to take equity stakes in private investments (§1421(c)). The IDFC can support projects as a minority investor acquiring equity or quasiequity stake of any entity, including as a limited partner or other investor in investment funds, upon such terms and conditions as the IDFC may determine. Loans and guarantees may be denominated and repayable in either U.S. dollars or foreign currencies, the latter only in cases where the Board determines there is a "substantive policy rationale." The IDFC is required to develop guidelines and criteria to require that the use of equity authority has a clearly defined development and foreign policy purpose, taking into account certain factors.
The BUILD Act places limitations on equity investment, both in terms of the specific project and the overall support. The total amount of support with respect to any project cannot exceed 30% of the total amount of all equity investment made to that project at the time the IDFC approves support. Furthermore, equity support is limited to no more than 35% of the IDFC's total exposure. The BUILD Act directs the IDFC to sell and liquidate its equity investment support as soon as commercially feasible commensurate with other similar investors in the project, taking into account national security interests of the United States.
The addition of equity authority is potentially significant. OPIC does not have the capacity to make equity investments; it can only provide debt financing as a senior lender, meaning it is repaid first in the event of a loss. Foreign DFIs often have been reluctant to partner with OPIC because they would prefer to be on an equal footing. Potential expansion of OPIC's equity authority capability has met resistance from some Members of Congress in the past, based on discomfort with the notion of the U.S. government acquiring ownership stakes in private investments, among other concerns.
Insurance and r einsurance . The IDFC may issue insurance or reinsurance to private-sector entities and qualifying sovereign entities assuring protection of their investments in whole or in part against political risks (§1421(d)). Examples include currency inconvertibility and transfer restrictions, expropriation, war, terrorism, civil disturbance, breach of contract, or non-honoring of financial obligations.
Investment promotion . The IDFC is authorized to initiate and support feasibility studies for planning, developing, and managing of and procurement for potential bilateral and multilateral development projects eligible for support (§1421(e)). This includes training on how to identify, assess, survey, and promote private investment opportunities. The BUILD Act directs the IDFC, to the maximum extent practicable, to require cost-sharing by those receiving funds for investment promotion.
Special projects and programs. The IDFC is authorized to administer and manage special projects and programs to support specific transactions, including financial and advisory support programs that provide private technical, professional, or managerial assistance in the development of human resources, skills, technology, capital savings, or intermediate financial and investment institutions or cooperatives (§1421(f)). This includes the initiation of incentives, grants, or studies for the energy sector, women's economic empowerment, microenterprise households, or other small business activities.
Enterprise funds. The BUILD Act authorizes but does not require the transfer of existing USAID enterprise funds to the IDFC (§1421(g)). Existing Europe/Eurasia enterprise funds are winding down. The two newer funds, in Tunisia and Egypt, remain primarily funded by U.S. government grant funds and are private sector-managed, arguably requiring close USAID oversight and an in-country presence to ensure the funds fulfill a development, rather than a purely for-profit, mission. As such, their removal to an agency without either feature may make this model less effective as a development instrument. The BUILD Act also gives the IDFC authority to establish new enterprise funds. It has been argued, however, that the IDFC's authority to conduct equity investment would make enterprise funds unnecessary.
Will the IDFC's activities have U.S. government backing?
All of the IDFC's authorities, like prior support by OPIC and USAID components, are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. In other words, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is pledged for full payment and performance of obligations under these authorities (§1434(e)).
Will the IDFC have an exposure limit?
The maximum contingent liability (overall portfolio) that the IDFC can have outstanding at any one time cannot exceed $60 billion (§1433). This is more than double OPIC's current exposure limit—$29 billion. In recent years, OPIC support has reached record highs—totaling $23.2 billion in FY2017. While the IDFC's exposure cap is small compared to the potentially trillions of dollars that China is pouring into development efforts like the BRI, supporters argue that the IDFC could catalyze other private investment to developing countries through the U.S. development finance model.
How will the IDFC be funded?
According to the BUILD Act, the IDFC will be funded through a Corporate Capital Account comprised of fees for services, interest earnings, returns on investments, and transfers of unexpended balances from predecessor agencies (§1434). Annual appropriations legislation will designate a portion of these funds that may be retained for operating and program expenses, while the rest will revert to the Treasury, much like the current OPIC funding process. Like OPIC, the new IDFC is expected to be self-sustaining, meaning that anticipated collections are expected to exceed expenses, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury. The act also authorizes transfers of funds appropriated to USAID and the State Department to the IDFC. This authority will allow USAID missions and bureaus to continue to fund DCA activities related to their projects through transfers, as they now do through transfers to the DCA office within USAID.
The BUILD Act does not authorize annual appropriations levels for administrative and program expenses for the new IDFC, and it is unclear how future appropriations provisions for the IDFC will compare to current OPIC and DCA provisions. In FY2018, appropriators made $79.2 million of OPIC revenue available for OPIC's administrative expenses and $20 million available for loans and loan guarantees. DCA was appropriated $10 million for administrative expenses and authorized to use up to $55 million transferred from foreign assistance accounts managed by USAID to support loan guarantees.
How are losses to be repaid?
In general, if the IDFC determines that the holder of a loan guaranteed by the IDFC suffers a loss as a result of default by the loan borrower, the IDFC shall pay to the holder the percentage of loss per contract after the holder of the loan has made further collection efforts and instituted any required enforcement proceedings (§1423). The IDFC also must institute recovery efforts on the borrower. The BUILD Act puts limitations on the payment of losses, such as generally limiting it to the dollar value of tangible or intangible contributions or commitments made in the project plus interest, earnings, or profits actually accrued on such contributions or commitments to the extent provided by such insurance, reinsurance, or guarantee. The Attorney General must take action as may be appropriate to enforce any right accruing to the United States as a result of the issuance of any loan or guarantee under this title. The BUILD Act also imposes certain limitations on payments of losses.
For how long is the IDFC authorized?
The BUILD Act provides that the IDFC's authorities terminate seven years after the date of the enactment of the act (§1424). It also provides that the IDFC terminates on the date on which its portfolio is liquidated. This is markedly different from the annual extensions of authority required for OPIC in recent years. A longer-term authorization as given to the IDFC could be beneficial for supporting investments in infrastructure projects, which often are multiyear endeavors, as well as underscore a sustained U.S. commitment to respond to China's BRI.
Statutory Parameters for IDFC Project Support
Will there be terms and conditions of IDFC support?
The BUILD Act authorizes the IDFC to set terms and conditions for its support, subject to certain parameters.
Reason for support. The IDFC is only permitted to provide its support if it is necessary either to alleviate a credit market imperfection or to achieve a specified goal of U.S. development or foreign policy by providing support in the most efficient way to meet those objectives on a case-by-case basis (§1422(b)(1)).
Length of support. The final maturity of a loan or guarantee cannot exceed 25 years or the debt servicing capabilities of the project to be financed by the loan, whichever is lesser (§1422(b)(2)).
Risk-sharing. With respect to any loan guarantee to a project, the IDFC must require parties to bear the risk of loss in an amount equal to at least 20% of the guaranteed support by the IDFC to the project (§1422(b)(3))—compared to 50% risk-sharing in most cases for OPIC.
U.S. financial interest. The IDFC may not make a guarantee or loan unless it determines that the borrower or lender is responsible and that adequate provision is made for servicing the loan on reasonable terms and protecting the U.S. financial interest (§1422(b)(4)).
Interest rate. The interest rate for direct loans and interest supplements on guaranteed loans shall be set by reference to a benchmark interest rate (yield) on marketable Treasury securities or other widely recognized or appropriate comparable benchmarks, as determined in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury. The IDFC must establish appropriate minimum interest rates for loan guarantees, and other instruments as necessary. The minimum interest rate for new loans must be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the interest rate of the benchmark financial interest (§1422(b)(5) and (6)).
Fees and premiums. The IDFC must set fees or premiums for support at levels that minimize U.S. government cost while supporting the achievement of objectives for that support. The IDFC must review fees for loan guarantees periodically to ensure that fees on new loan guarantees are at a level sufficient to cover the IDFC's most recent estimates of its cost (§1422(b)(7)).
Budget authority. The IDFC may not make loans or loan guarantees except to the extent that budget authority to cover their costs is provided in advance in an appropriations act (§1422(b)(10)).
Standards. The IDFC must prescribe explicit standards for use in periodically assessing the credit risk of new and existing direct loans or guaranteed loans. It also must rely upon specific standards to assess the developmental and strategic value of projects for which it provides support and should only provide the minimum level of support needed to support such projects (§1422(b)(9) and (11)).
Seniority. Any loan or guarantee by the IDFC is to be on a senior basis or pari passu with other senior debt unless there is a substantive policy rationale for otherwise (§1422(b)(12)).
In which countries can the IDFC operate?
In general, the IDFC is to prioritize support for less-developed countries (i.e., with a "low-income economy or a lower-middle-income economy"), as defined by the World Bank (§1402 and §1411). It must restrict support in less-developed countries with "upper-middle-income economies" unless (1) the President certifies to Congress that such support furthers U.S. national economic or foreign policy interests; and (2) such support is designed to have "significant development outcomes or provide developmental benefits to the poorest population" of that country (§1412). This arguably narrows the IDFC's focus to low-income and lower-middle-income countries, compared to OPIC's statutory requirements and practice.
The IDFC may provide support in any country the government of which has entered into an agreement with the United States authorizing the IDFC to provide support (§1431).
What considerations will factor into the IDFC's decision to support projects?
Preference for U.S. sponsors. The IDFC must give preferential consideration to projects sponsored by or involving private-sector entities that are "U.S. persons"—defined as either U.S. citizens or entities owned or controlled by U.S. citizens (§1451(b)). This presumably eases OPIC's requirement for projects to have a "U.S. connection" based on U.S. citizenship or U.S. ownership shares; the particular requirements vary by program. This change arguably opens up the possibility that the IDFC could support investments by foreign project sponsors, assuming they meet other statutory requirements.
Preference for countries in compliance with i nternational trade obligations . The IDFC must consult at least annually with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding countries' eligibility for IDFC support and compliance with international trade obligations (§1451(c)). The IDFC must give preferential consideration to countries in compliance with (or making substantial progress in coming into compliance with) their international trade obligations. While OPIC does not have a comparable obligation, the USTR (or a designated Deputy USTR) is a member of OPIC's Board of Directors.
Worker rights. The IDFC can only support projects in countries taking steps to adopt and implement laws that extend internationally recognized worker rights (as defined in §507 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2467) to workers in that country. It must include specified language in all contracts for support regarding worker rights and child labor (§1451(d)). These provisions appear to be similar to OPIC's requirements in terms of worker rights.
Environmental and social impact. The Board is prohibited from voting in favor of any project that is likely to have "significant adverse environmental or social impact impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented" unless it provides an impact notification (§1451(e)). The act requires that (1) the notification be at least 60 days before the date of the Board vote and take the form of an environmental and social impact assessment or initial audit; (2) the notification be made available to the U.S. public and locally affected groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the host country; and (3) the IDFC include provisions in any contract relating to the project to ensure mitigation of any such adverse environmental or social impacts. OPIC's enabling legislation has substantially similar requirements as the IDFC's first two requirements with respect to environmental and social impacts.
Women's economic empowerment consideration. The IDFC must consider the impact of its support on women's economic opportunities and outcomes and take steps to reduce gender gaps and maximize development impact by working to improve women's economic opportunities (§1451(f)). This is distinct from OPIC's statutory requirements.
C ountries embracing private enterprise. The IDFC is directed to give preferential consideration to projects for which support may be provided in countries whose governments have demonstrated "consistent support for economic policies that promote the development of private enterprise, both domestic and foreign, and maintain the conditions that enable private enterprise to make full contribution to the development of such countries" (§1451(g)). The BUILD Act gives examples of market-based economic policies, protection of private property rights, respect for rule of law, and systems to combat corruption and bribery. OPIC's private enterprise-related requirement appears to be more limited.
Small business support. The IDFC must, using broad criteria, to the maximum extent possible, give preferential consideration to supporting projects sponsored by or involving small business, and ensure that small business-related projects are not less than 50% of all projects for which the IDFC provides support and that involve U.S. persons (§1451(i)). OPIC's small business support requirement has a 30% target.
What limitations will there be on the IDFC's support?
Limitation on support for a single entity. No entity receiving IDFC support may receive more than an amount equal to 5% of the IDFC's maximum contingent liability (§1451(a)). In comparison, OPIC has specific limitations by program; for example, no more than 10% of maximum contingent liability of investment insurance can be issued to a single investor, and no more than 15% of maximum contingent liability of investment guarantees can be issued to a single investor.
Boycott restriction. When considering whether to approve a project, the IDFC must take into account whether the project is sponsored by or substantially affiliated with any individual involved in boycotting a country that is "friendly" with the United States and is not subject to a boycott under U.S. law or regulation (§1451(h)). The measure is aimed at ensuring that beneficiaries of the new DFI's support are "not undermining [U.S.] foreign policy goals." Concerns about boycotts against Israel appear to figure prominently.
International terrorism/human rights violations restriction . The IDFC is prohibited from providing support for a government or entity owned or controlled by a government if the Secretary of State has determined that the government has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism or has engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights (§1453(a)). In comparison, OPIC must take into account human rights considerations in conducting its programs.
Sanctions restriction. The IDFC is also prohibited from all dealings related to any project prohibited under U.S. sanctions laws or regulations, including dealings with persons on the list of specially designated persons and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Department of the Treasury, except to the extent otherwise authorized by the Secretaries of the Treasury or State (§1453(b) and (c)). OPIC is subject to sanctions restrictions as well.
What requirements will the IDFC have to avoid market distortion?
Commercial banks can provide financing for foreign investment, such as through project finance, and political risk insurance. The BUILD Act requires that before the IDFC provides support, it must ensure that private-sector entities are afforded an opportunity to support the project. The IDFC must develop safeguards, policies, and guidelines to ensure that its support supplements and encourages, but does not compete with, private-sector support; operates according to internationally recognized best practices and standards to avoid market-distorting government subsidies and crowding out of private-sector lending; and does not have significant adverse impact on U.S. employment (§1452).
Monitoring and Transparency
What performance measures and evaluation will the IDFC have?
The BUILD Act requires the IDFC to develop a performance measurement system to evaluate and monitor its projects and to guide future project support, using OPIC's current development impact measurement system as a starting point (§1442). The IDFC must develop standards for measuring the projected and ex post development impact of a project. It also must regularly make information about its performance available to the public on a country-by-country basis.
Measuring development impact can be complicated for a number of reasons, including definitional issues, difficulties isolating the impact of development finance from other variables that affect development outcome, challenges in monitoring projects for development impact after DFI support for a project ends, and resource constraints. Comparing development impacts across DFIs is also difficult as development indicators may not be harmonized. To the extent that the proposed DFI raises questions within the development community about whether it would be truly "developmental" at its core, rigorous adherence to development objectives through a measurement system will likely be critical to gauging its effectiveness. Moreover, Congress may choose to take a broader view of U.S. development impact, given the active U.S. contributions to regional and multilateral DFIs.
What are the IDFC's reporting and notification requirements?
At the end of each fiscal year, the IDFC must submit to Congress a report including an assessment of its economic and social development impact, the extent to which its operations complement or are compatible with U.S. development assistance programs and those of qualifying sovereign entities, and the compliance of projects with statutory requirements (§1443). In addition, no later than 15 days before the IDFC makes a financial commitment over $10 million, the Chief Executive Officer must submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report with information on the financial commitment (§1446(a) and (b)). The CEO also must notify the committees no later than 30 days after entering into a new bilateral agreement (§1446(c)).
What information must it make available to the public?
The IDFC must "maintain a user-friendly, publicly available, machine-readable database with detailed project-level information," including description of support provided, annual report information provided to Congress, and project-level performance metrics, along with a "clear link to information on each project" online (§1444).
The new agency also must cooperate with USAID to engage with investors to develop a strategic relationship "focused at the nexus of business opportunities and development priorities" (§1445). This includes IDFC actions to develop risk mitigation tools and provide transaction-structuring support for blending finance models (generally referring to the strategic use of public or philanthropic capital to catalyze private-sector investment for development purposes).
Implementation
How and when is the IDFC expected to become operational?
The BUILD Act requires the President to submit to Congress within 120 days of enactment a reorganization plan that details the transfer of agencies, personnel, assets, and obligations to the IDFC. The reorganization plan is expected to be submitted by early February 2019.
The President must consult with Congress on the plan not less than 15 days before the date on which the plan is transmitted, and before making any material modification or revision to the plan before it becomes operational.
The reorganization plan becomes effective for the IDFC on the date specified in the plan, which may not be earlier than 90 days after the President has transmitted the reorganization plan to Congress (§1462(e)). The actual transfer of functions may occur only after the OPIC President and CEO and the USAID Administrator jointly submit to the foreign affairs committees a report on coordination, including a detailed description of the procedures to be followed after the transfer of functions to coordinate between the IDFC and USAID (§1462(c)). During the transition period, OPIC and USAID are to continue to perform their existing functions.
Thus, the IDFC could become operational as early as summer 2019 based on this timeline ( Figure 2 ). OPIC anticipates that the IDFC could become operational as of October 1, 2019. At that time, OPIC is to be terminated and its enabling legislation is to be repealed (§1464).
How will the IDFC relate to other U.S. trade and investment promotion efforts?
The IDFC is to replace OPIC, and, as such, would be among other federal entities that play a role in promoting U.S. trade and investment efforts. The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and export credit insurance to support U.S. exports, in order to support U.S. jobs. The Trade and Development Agency (TDA) aims to link U.S. businesses to export opportunities in overseas infrastructure and other development projects, in order to support economic growth in these overseas markets. TDA provides funding for project preparation activities, such as feasibility studies, and partnership building, such as reverse trade missions bringing foreign decisionmakers to the United States. The IDFC's authority to conduct feasibility studies and provide other forms of technical assistance has raised questions about overlap with the functions of TDA, but BUILD Act supporters note that while functions may overlap, they will be for different purposes—supporting U.S. investment abroad in the case of the IDFC and supporting U.S. exports in the case of TDA.
There may also be some overlap of function between the IDFC and USAID if the reorganization plan calls for the transfer of the Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise from USAID to the IDFC and the IDFC starts its own microfinance programs, as microfinance activities are integrated throughout USAID and would not cease with the transfer of the office. Similarly, if the IDFC uses its authority to create new enterprise funds while declining to transfer existing funds under USAID authority, there may be some overlap in that authority as well.
Issues for the 116th Congress
The 116 th Congress will have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the BUILD Act, including review of the reorganization plan, the transition it prescribes, and impact on U.S. foreign policy objectives. As part of this process, Congress may consider a number of policy issues, including the following:
Is the Administration meeting the implementation requirements of the BUILD Act? Does the reorganization plan reflect congressional intent, and are the choices made within the discretion allowed by the BUILD Act justified? How can the IDFC best balance its mission to support U.S. businesses in competing for overseas investment opportunities with its development mandate? What are the policy trade-offs associated with the capacity limits, authorities, policy parameters, and other features formulated by Congress in the BUILD Act? Does the legislation find the right balance, or does the implementation process identify areas where legislative changes might be beneficial? In creating the BUILD Act, Congress gave great consideration to strategic foreign policy concerns. In addition to providing commercial opportunities for U.S. firms, development finance may shape how countries connect to the rest of the world through ports, roads, and other transportation and technological links, providing footholds for the United States to advance its approaches to regulations and standards. Another potential role for development finance is to provide a means to spread U.S. values on governance, transparency, and environmental and social safeguards. Does the current statutory framework enable the IDFC to respond effectively to U.S. strategic concerns, particularly with regard to China's BRI? More fundamentally, is the IDFC's aim to compete with, contain, or counter the BRI and Chinese world vision it represents? Beyond establishing the IDFC, Congress may consider whether to advocate for creating international "rules for the road" for development finance. Such rules could help ensure that the IDFC operates on a "level playing field" relative to its counterparts, given the variation in terms, conditions, and practices of DFIs internationally. U.S. involvement in developing such rules could help advance U.S. strategic interests. However, such rules would only be effective to the extent that major suppliers of development finance are willing to abide by them. For example, China is not a party to international rules on export credit financing, though it has been involved in recent negotiations to develop new rules on such financing. Should Congress press the Administration to pursue international rules on development finance? Is it feasible to engage China in this regard?
Appendix. Reorganization of U.S. Government Development and/or Finance Functions
Summary:
| Members of Congress and Administrations have periodically considered reorganizing the federal government's trade and development functions to advance various U.S. policy objectives. The Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act), which was signed into law on October 5, 2018 (P.L. 115-254), represents a potentially major overhaul of U.S. development finance efforts. It establishes a new agency—the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC)—by consolidating and expanding existing U.S. government development finance functions, which are conducted primarily by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and some components of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
While the IDFC is expected to carry over OPIC's authorities and many of its policies, there are some key distinctions. For example, in comparison to OPIC, the new IDFC, by statute, is to have the following:
More "tools" to provide investment support (e.g., authority to make limited equity investments and provide technical assistance). More capacity (a $60 billion exposure cap compared to OPIC's $29 billion exposure cap). A longer authorization period (seven years compared to OPIC's year-to-year authorization through appropriations legislation in recent years). More specific oversight and risk management (including its own Inspector General [IG], compared to OPIC, which is under the USAID IG's jurisdiction).
A key policy rationale for the BUILD Act was to respond to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China's growing economic influence in developing countries. In this regard, the IDFC aims to advance U.S. influence in developing countries by incentivizing private investment as an alternative to a state-directed investment model. The BUILD Act also aims to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. government development finance functions, as well as to achieve greater cost savings through consolidation.
The BUILD Act requires the Administration to submit to Congress a reorganization plan within 120 days of enactment of the act, and the IDFC is not permitted to become operational any sooner than 90 days after the President has transmitted the reorganization plan.
The 116th Congress will have responsibility for overseeing the Administration's implementation of the BUILD Act. As the IDFC is operationalized, Members of Congress may examine whether the current statutory framework allows the IDFC to balance both its mandates to support U.S. businesses in competing for overseas investment opportunities and to support development, as well as whether it enables the IDFC to respond effectively to strategic concerns especially vis-à-vis China. Congress also may consider whether to press the Administration to pursue international rules on development finance comparable to those that govern export credit financing. More broadly, the IDFC's establishment could renew legislative debate over the economic and policy benefits and costs of U.S. government activity to support private investment, and whether such activity is an effective way to promote broad U.S. foreign policy objectives. | 96 | 54,332 | 54,334 | 54,334 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_R44668 | crs_R44668_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Introduction
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant was created by the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-193 ). It replaced the program of cash assistance for needy families that dated back to the New Deal, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and some of its related programs. The enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law was the culmination of a debate about how to overhaul programs providing cash assistance to needy families with children—specifically, those headed by single mothers—that spanned four decades: from the 1960s to the 1990s.
The 1996 welfare law provided both program authority and funding (appropriations) for TANF through the end of FY2002. Most of the legislative activity on TANF since 2002 has been to extend the program funding and financing authority for TANF. Most of these extensions did not change TANF policy, though policy changes were included in extensions enacted in 2006, 2010, and 2012. The TANF Extension Act of 2019 ( P.L. 116-4 ) extended TANF funding through June 30, 2019.
This report will begin with a brief overview of the history of the AFDC program and the welfare reform debates of the 1960s to the 1990s. That overview will be followed by a summary of the 1996 welfare reform law and the changes made since 1996. The report concludes with a detailed chronology of TANF legislation.
Brief History of AFDC and the Welfare Reform Debates
The modern form of cash assistance for needy families with children dates back to the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, and state- or locally funded mothers' pensions for "fatherless" families. The purpose of these programs was to permit these mothers to stay at home and care for their children.
Federal funding for these programs was first provided in the Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) through the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, later renamed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). Many of the later changes, and the welfare reform debates of the 1960s to the 1990s, focused on issues of work and whether providing cash to nonworking single mothers served as disincentives for both work and marriage.
However, the history of the ADC/AFDC program touched many other facets of the well-being of children and their families. ADC/AFDC provided federal funding for social services, medical assistance, child care, and foster care. These were later spun off into separate programs, with dedicated federal funding. While much of the focus of the welfare reform debates was on the single mother (custodial parent), ADC/AFDC policy also touched on noncustodial parents. The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was created, in great part, to reimburse states and the federal government for the costs of providing assistance to single mothers, and making noncustodial fathers responsible for these costs. CSE has evolved into a program that distributes child support payments collected from noncustodial parents to custodial parents, mostly to families that have never received or are no longer receiving cash assistance.
The Early Years: 1930s to mid-1950s
The Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) created the social insurance programs of Old Age Benefits and unemployment compensation, where workers earned protection against lost wages because of old age and involuntary unemployment. It also created federal funding for state programs providing assistance for low-income aged persons, blind persons, and programs for needy families with children where one parent (usually the father) was unable to support the family.
The ADC program provided grants to the states to help finance programs to assist children who were "deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent" and who lived with the other parent or a relative. States ran the program and determined eligibility for its benefits. The federal government provided funding for a portion of the expenditures made in state ADC programs.
The legislative history of the 1935 act explicitly stated that the purpose of ADC payments was to permit mothers to stay at home rather than work:
The very phrases "mothers' aid" and "mothers' pensions" place an emphasis equivalent to misconstruction of the intention of these laws. These are not primarily aids to mothers but defense measures for children. They are designed to release from the wage-earning role the person whose natural function is to give her children the physical and affectionate guardianship necessary not alone to keep them from falling into social misfortune, but more affirmatively to rear them into citizens capable of contributing to society.
The 1935 Social Security Act left administration and many decisions about eligibility to the states. States also determined ADC benefit amounts.
In the early years, families receiving ADC benefits were often headed by a widow or had a disabled father. However, over time the natures of both the program and the families it aided changed. The Social Security Amendments of 1939 (P.L. 76-379) added "survivor" benefits to the program of old age benefits, renaming it Old Age and Survivors Insurance. Survivor benefits, like old age benefits, were social insurance benefits earned through work in a covered job and paid to spouses and children upon the death of a worker or retiree. This provided an alternative, and more universal, means of aiding widows and their children. The Social Security Amendments of 1956 (P.L. 84-881) added Disability Insurance to Old Age and Survivor Insurance, with the combined program now commonly referred to as Social Security. The 1956 amendments also expanded the types of jobs covered by Social Security. These changes, too, provided more universal means of aiding the types of families that were originally assisted by ADC.
The families receiving ADC increasingly were families where the father was alive but absent. The caseload also became increasingly nonwhite.
The mid-1950s to the 1960s: Self-Sufficiency and Work
The issue of whether single mothers should work was also much debated. The intent of ADC to allow single mothers to stay home and raise their children was often met with resistance at the state and local levels. It was also contrary to the reality that low-income women, particularly women of color, were sometimes expected to, and often did, work. Further, the increase in women's labor force participation in the second half of the 20 th century—particularly among married white women—eroded support for payments that permitted single mothers to remain at home and out of the workforce.
The Social Security Amendments of 1956 (P.L. 84-881) added the goals of creating "self-sufficiency" and strengthening family life to ADC, along with funding for services that would seek to achieve these goals.
P.L. 87-31, enacted in 1961, first made cash assistance benefits available to families headed by two able-bodied parents at state option. This authority was temporary at first (in response to an economic downturn), but was later made permanent. In 1962, the program was renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The 1962 amendments, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (P.L. 87-543), also established a community work and training program for adult AFDC recipients, largely intended for men in two-parent families.
The Social Security Amendments of 1967 (P.L. 90-248) enacted both financial incentives for adult recipients to work and, for the first time, requirements for AFDC mothers to work. These amendments required states to disregard from a family's countable income some earnings when determining its "need" and benefits. The amendments also created a new work program under AFDC—the Work Incentive Program (WIN)—that expanded the population served by an AFDC-related work program to women.
The Late 1960s and 1970s: Negative Income Tax and Guaranteed Incomes
The late 1960s marked the beginning of the welfare reform debates, with proposals put to Congress to completely replace AFDC with a different type of program. This occurred as AFDC's costs and the number of families receiving its benefits increased. In 1964, fewer than 1 million families received AFDC. By 1973, the AFDC rolls had increased to 3.1 million families.
For the decade beginning in 1969, these proposals were based on the "negative income tax" (NIT) concept. The NIT proposals would have provided a guaranteed income to families who had no earnings (the "income guarantee" that was part of these proposals). For families with earnings, the NIT would have provided for a gradual reduction in the benefit as earnings increased.
President Nixon proposed to replace AFDC with an NIT-type program in 1969, the Family Assistance Plan (FAP). This proposal also would have nationalized the program, with the federal government paying the income guarantee and states able to supplement the federal guarantee with their own funds. This legislation was not enacted; it passed the House twice but never passed the Senate. In 1972, the Senate Finance Committee proposed to guarantee jobs—rather than income—for parents of school-age children. That proposal, too, did not ultimately pass.
President Carter also proposed an NIT-based cash assistance program coupled with a public service job program in 1977. President Carter's proposals died in committee (they were never reported to either the full House or Senate). A less ambitious proposal from President Carter in 1979 passed the House but did not pass the Senate.
The 1980s: Devolution and Early Experiments
The proposals to change AFDC made by President Reagan at the beginning of his Administration differed sharply from the earlier welfare reform proposals. They emphasized devolution to the states in decisionmaking, rather than nationalization. They also emphasized requirement to work, rather than work incentives. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 ( P.L. 97-35 ) limited the earnings disregard that was enacted in 1967, ending benefits for many who were on the rolls and working. It also gave states expanded authority to require recipients to engage in community service or work experience programs (unpaid work) in exchange for their AFDC benefit. In 1982, President Reagan proposed to completely devolve cash assistance for families with children. That proposal did not pass.
In the 1980s, there was increasing attention to "welfare dependency." Research at that time showed that while many mothers were on cash assistance for a short period of time, a substantial minority of mothers remained on the rolls for long periods. Additionally, policymakers began to focus on the possibility that a single mother who left welfare for work might be financially worse off than if she did not work and continued to collect benefits. Such a single mother, who might command relatively low wages in the labor force, risked losing medical assistance from Medicaid for herself and her children and faced work-related costs such as child care.
The Family Support Act of 1988 ( P.L. 100-485 ) established in AFDC the notion of mutual responsibility between the cash assistance recipient and the state. It created the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training program, which provided employment services, education, and training for cash assistance recipients. The Family Support Act also mandated that states provide benefits for two-parent families, though it was on more restrictive terms than those for single-parent families.
The Family Support Act also established the Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) program that continued Medicaid coverage for a period of time for those who otherwise would have lost eligibility for Medicaid when moving from welfare to work. Further, it guaranteed child care for AFDC recipients engaged in work activities and provided time-limited (transitional) child care for those who left AFDC for work. Subsequent legislation, enacted in 1990, further expanded child care by creating a new block grant for those without a connection to AFDC, new matching funds to subsidize child care for those "at risk" of receiving AFDC, and a major expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
Additionally, an era of experimentation on "welfare-to-work" initiatives began in the 1980s. President Reagan proposed legislation in 1987 that would have authorized states to conduct demonstration projects that could have included AFDC and any other low-income assistance programs. These demonstrations would have been overseen at the federal level by an Interagency Low-Income Opportunity Board. Though the proposed legislation was not enacted, the Reagan Administration, and subsequently the Administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, issued waivers of AFDC requirements under another provision of law. The experimentation on "welfare-to-work" initiatives found that requiring participation in work or job preparation activities could effectively move single mothers off the benefit rolls and into jobs.
1992 to 1996: "Ending Welfare As We Know It"
The number of families receiving cash assistance had been fairly stable during the period from 1982 to 1988. However, beginning in the summer of 1989 the number of families receiving cash assistance began to increase once again.
President Clinton's Proposal
During the 1992 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." He stressed time-limited aid and expanded financial supports for those who did go to work. The 1993 tax bill further expanded the EITC.
President Clinton made his welfare reform proposal in June 1994. It would have phased in a two-year limit on AFDC receipt without work, followed by required participation in a wage-paying work program after two years. It would also have expanded funding for training within the first two years. It was estimated to increase child care costs for participants in the JOBS program or the wage-paying work program. The proposal would have barred AFDC to unwed minor mothers.
President Clinton's proposal was never considered by either the House or the Senate. However, during the period before the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law, the Administration granted waivers of AFDC law to 43 states allowing them to engage in "welfare reform" demonstration projects. Some of these waivers were for small-scale demonstrations, but some were for statewide demonstrations of state-designed cash assistance and work programs.
The Contract with America
Welfare reform was one of 10 legislative initiatives that was included in the "Contract with America," developed by Republicans for the 1994 congressional campaign. The welfare proposal in the Contract with America would have required recipients to work after two years of AFDC (like the Clinton Administration proposal), but it also would have imposed a lifetime five-year limit on benefits. It would have barred AFDC to unwed minor mothers and would have imposed a "family cap," not increasing benefits for new babies born into AFDC families. Funding for AFDC and child care would have been capped, with states given the option to receive AFDC as a block grant.
A Block Grant for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
H.R. 4 , as introduced at the start of the 104 th Congress, was the Contract with America proposal. However, immediately following the 1994 congressional election, House Republicans worked with several Republican governors to craft an alternative proposal that would block grant funding for AFDC and other social programs. The welfare reform legislation considered by House committees reflected the block grant proposals rather than the original H.R. 4 legislation. Legislation reported from the House committees was bundled into an omnibus welfare reform bill that included the end of AFDC and its replacement with TANF. That bill, the Personal Responsibility Act, substituting for the original text of H.R. 4 , passed the House on March 24, 1995.
H.R. 4 , as passed by the House, formed the basis for all later welfare reform bills considered and passed by the 104 th Congress. It would have
replaced AFDC and related programs of Emergency Assistance, and the work and training program for AFDC recipients, with a block grant to the states for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; allotted TANF basic block grant funds to states based on recent expenditures in AFDC and related programs; allowed states to spend their TANF grants on a broad range of benefits and services; gradually phased in a requirement that 50% of the caseload be either working or engaged in activities, but limited the ability of states to count education and training toward that target; the requirement could also be met, fully or partially, through caseload reduction (i.e., the caseload reduction credit); established a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance; prohibited unwed minor parents from receiving cash assistance; prohibited states from increasing cash benefits when a new baby was born to a family already on the rolls (the family cap); and limited need-tested benefits for noncitizens in need-tested programs, including requiring that noncitizens be in the United States for five years before being eligible for TANF.
The House-passed bill also consolidated AFDC-related child care funding with the block grant created in 1990, and it increased funding for child care. However, it ended the guarantee that those transitioning from welfare-to-work be provided child care.
The Senate Finance Committee ordered H.R. 4 reported in May 1995. The Finance Committee bill adopted a similar structure to the House bill. Different from the House bill, however, the Senate Finance Committee bill
would have continued a separate employment and training program; did not include a family cap; and did not include the prohibition on benefits to unwed minor parents.
Disputes about the committee-reported measure over items such as the distribution of funds held up consideration of the bill until August and September of 1995. Negotiations between party leaders in the Senate, Senator Robert Dole for the Republicans and Senator Thomas Daschle for the Democrats, produced an accord that also adopted the basic structure of the House bill but made some substantial modifications. The compromise bill included
a requirement that states continue to spend some of their own funds (a "maintenance of effort," or MOE requirement) in order to receive their full block grant funds; supplemental grants to states with high rates of population growth and/or low historical welfare spending per poor child; a contingency fund for states experiencing economic need; a provision to allow aid to unwed minor parents who were living in an adult supervised setting; and "charitable choice" provisions to permit increased participation of faith-based organizations in the delivery of welfare services.
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 4 on September 19, 1995.
Welfare Reform Added to the 1995 Budget Bill—First Veto of Welfare Reform
Following passage of welfare reform legislation in the Senate, both the House and Senate began the process of crafting legislation to implement the budget adopted for FY1996. On October 17, 1995, the House Budget Committee reported its budget reconciliation bill ( H.R. 2491 ), which included the end of AFDC and its replacement with TANF. It passed the House on October 26, 1995. The Senate version of the budget reconciliation bill also generally included the Senate-passed version of the TANF proposal, and it passed on October 28, 1995. Conferees came to an agreement on the budget reconciliation bill—including the welfare reform provisions—on November 17, 1995. The House- and Senate-approved conference agreement was vetoed by President Clinton on December 6, 1995. President Clinton's veto message highlighted his opposition to cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, the EITC, and child nutrition programs. The President said:
On welfare reform, I strongly support real welfare reform that strengthens families and encourages work and responsibility. But the provisions in this bill, when added to the EITC cuts, would cut low-income programs too deeply.
Final Agreement on H.R. 4 and Second Veto of Welfare Reform
With the veto of the budget reconciliation bill, attention turned toward finalizing House-Senate agreements on the stand-alone welfare reform bill ( H.R. 4 ). A final conference report on H.R. 4 was filed on December 20, 1995. The final agreement included many of the modifications to TANF that were adopted in the Senate, including
a compromise maintenance of effort requirement; supplemental grants to states with high population growth and/or low historical spending per poor child, but with limited funding; and a state option to impose a family cap.
President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4 on January 9, 1996. In vetoing the bill, the President remarked:
The final welfare reform legislation should provide sufficient child care to enable recipients to leave welfare to work; reward States for placing people in jobs; restore the guarantee of health coverage for poor families; require States to maintain their stake in moving people from welfare to work; and protect States and families in the event of economic downturn and population growth.
The President also objected to budget cuts not related to the TANF proposal, such as provisions that would have cut spending in food stamps (now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), benefits for disabled children, benefits for noncitizens, school lunches, and foster care and adoption assistance.
Legislation Action in 1996
With welfare reform twice vetoed, the National Governor's Association (NGA) in February 1996 adopted a policy position asking for additional child care funds, additional contingency funds for recessionary periods, and bonus payments for states that meet certain employment outcomes. In May 1996, House and Senate Republicans introduced bills that reflected the policies of the vetoed H.R. 4 and provided additional funding for child care, the TANF contingency fund, and performance bonuses.
H.R. 3734 , the budget reconciliation bill for that year, included these welfare reform provisions together with a proposal to revise Medicaid. H.R. 3734 passed the House on July 18, 1996. The Senate made a key modification to the bill by dropping its Medicaid provisions. The welfare reform provisions remained in H.R. 3734 , and it passed the Senate on July 23, 1996. A conference agreement on the bill was filed July 30, 1996; it passed the House on July 31, 1996, and the Senate on August 1, 1996.
President Clinton signed the legislation, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193 ), into law on August 22, 1996.
Major Differences Between AFDC and TANF
The 1996 welfare reform law repealed AFDC and some of its related programs and replaced it with the TANF block grant. Funding for the AFDC-related child care programs was consolidated into a separate funding stream dedicated to child care. Some things did not change with the 1996 law. As was the case with AFDC, TANF programs are run by states (and sometimes localities), and they determine the maximum benefits under the programs and set the income eligibility thresholds.
Table 1 summarizes some of the major differences between AFDC and TANF. It should be noted that at the time of enactment of the 1996 law many states were operating under waivers of the AFDC rules that related to cash assistance. These waivers imposed time limits, set different rules for counting earnings than did the AFDC federal rules, and set different rules for work or participation in job activities. TANF permitted states to continue programs operated under waivers, even if the provisions of the waiver were inconsistent with TANF rules. The last of these waivers expired in 2007.
Overview of Post-1996 TANF Legislation
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA97, P.L. 105-33 ), enacted one year after the 1996 welfare reform law, made a number of changes to TANF. It created a program providing additional funding dedicated to financing work activities. The Welfare-to-Work Grant program (WTW) provided $3 billion for two years, FY1998 and FY1999. Under the program, funding was divided, with 75% provided to states and local workforce areas through a formula and 25% dedicated to competitive grants. The program was originally targeted at the hardest to serve population on TANF and similarly disadvantaged noncustodial parents. The WTW grant program was administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), not the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which administers TANF. Subsequent legislation relaxed requirements for targeting services to the hardest to serve, and as funds were spent more slowly than anticipated, the deadline for expenditures was extended.
The BBA97 made several other permanent changes to TANF, including
permitting a greater percentage of recipients to be counted as engaged in work through education and training, but retaining a limit on counting such participation; setting a statutory limit on transfers from TANF to the Social Services Block Grant at 10%; and making technical corrections to the 1996 welfare reform bill, including technical corrections to TANF.
Attempts at Reauthorization: 2002-2005
In February 2002, President George W. Bush made proposals for the reauthorization of the TANF block grant and related welfare reform proposals. The document, Working for Independence, outlined a five-year reauthorization that would have
funded the basic TANF block grant at the same level provided from FY1997 through FY2002 for an additional five years; provided mandatory child care funding through FY2007 at its FY2002 level (with no inflation or other adjustment over the period FY2003-FY2007); provided dedicated funding for grants to promote healthy marriage; raised the work participation standard to a minimum of 70% of families with a "work-eligible individual" that must be working or engaged in activities; required 40 hours per week of work or engagement in activities for full credit toward meeting the standard, but allowed for partial credit for hours less than 40 hours per week; allowed states to count rehabilitative activities for three months on the rolls, but narrowed the activities that counted after three months to work or community service or work experience; and ended the caseload reduction credit against the work standards, replacing it with a credit for recipients who left the rolls for work.
The Bush Administration proposals were incorporated (with some modifications) into bills that passed the House in 2002 and 2003: H.R. 4737 (107 th Congress) and H.R. 4 (108 th Congress). A major difference between the Bush Administration proposal and the House proposals of 2002 and 2003 was that the House proposals retained the caseload reduction credit and provided extra credit to states that had large historical caseload reductions. Following House action, the Senate Finance Committee reported substantially differing versions of each bill. The Senate Finance Committee bills did not narrow the activities that could be counted toward the work participation standard after three months, and they expanded the ability of states to count participation in rehabilitative activities toward the TANF work participation standard. The Senate Finance Committee bills would have replaced the caseload reduction credit with a credit based on employed leavers, families diverted from the rolls, and families receiving work supports. The full Senate never acted on either of the Senate Finance Committee-reported bills.
In the absence of reauthorization legislation, TANF program and funding authority was extended on a temporary basis 13 times from 2002 to 2006.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
The early part of 2005 again saw committee action on legislation to reauthorize TANF. On March 9, 2005, the Senate Finance Committee ordered reported legislation that became S. 667 (109 th Congress). The following week, the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Human Resources considered H.R. 240 and sent it to the full committee. However, further action on TANF reauthorization did not occur until the fall of 2005, when the House and Senate began considering legislation under the budget reconciliation process.
The House passed as part of their reconciliation bill (the House amendment to S. 1932 ) the TANF reauthorization bills that essentially incorporated the proposals passed by the House in 2002 and 2003 and were contained in H.R. 240 . The Senate version of the reconciliation bill contained no TANF provisions.
The conference report on the budget reconciliation bill included TANF provisions different from those that passed the House. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171 ) included (1) a long-term extension of TANF funding, through the end of FY2010; (2) the elimination of performance bonuses to states; (3) the establishment of a $150 million fund for research and competitive grants on healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood, with $100 million per year for healthy marriage initiatives and $50 million per year for responsible fatherhood initiatives; and (4) changes to TANF work rules, such as counting caseload reduction only from 2005 (rather than 1995) toward the work participation standards, requiring HHS to define specific work activities that may count for each listed statutory work activity, and requiring that states verify work activities of recipients. The DRA also included an increase in mandatory child care funding from $2.717 billion per year to $2.917 billion per year.
The conference report on the DRA passed the House on December 19, 2005. Congress finished reconciling differences between the two chambers in February 2006. President Bush signed the DRA into law as P.L. 109-171 on February 8, 2006.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The economy entered into a recession after December 2007, with a major financial crisis and accelerating job loss occurring in late 2008. In response, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) passed Congress and was signed by President Obama. ARRA included tax cuts; unemployment insurance provisions; and extra funding for programs, including provisions to provide fiscal relief to states.
ARRA also included $5 billion for a new TANF Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) available to be spent in FY2009 and FY2010. The ECF supplemented funding for the regular TANF contingency fund, which itself was depleted in early FY2010. The ECF reimbursed states for 80% of the cost of increased expenditures for basic assistance, short-term emergency aid, and subsidized employment. ARRA also temporarily froze the TANF caseload reduction credit at prerecession levels, through its application to the FY2011 work participation standards.
TANF Legislation from 2010 to 2019
The long-term extension of TANF enacted in the DRA expired at the end of FY2010 (September 30, 2010). Since then, Congress continued TANF program authority and funding through a series of short-term extensions. TANF extensions have been incorporated into stop-gap continuing resolutions or omnibus appropriations bills to fund all or most of the government, added to tax bills, added to unrelated legislation, or passed as stand-alone legislation. (As used in this report, stand-alone legislation represents laws enacted that addressed only TANF and related programs.) There were two gaps in funding for TANF during this period. Funding lapsed during broader "government shutdowns" in October 2013 and beginning in December 2018. States were permitted to draw on unspent, previously appropriated TANF funds to finance their TANF activities during the shutdown.
While many of the short-term extensions of TANF funding did not make changes to TANF policy, three extension laws did
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA, P.L. 111-291 ), a bill to settle claims against the federal government for certain Indian tribes, included a TANF extension through the end of FY2011. It also altered funding for the healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs, splitting the combined $150 million appropriation for them at $75 million for healthy marriage and $75 million for responsible fatherhood (it had previously been $100 million for healthy marriage and $50 million for responsible fatherhood). Additionally, the CRA required special one-time reports from the states on how they spend funds and on individuals with no reported hours of work participation. The CRA also provided funding for TANF supplemental grants only through June 30, 2011 (rather than September 30, 2011, the end of the fiscal year). Supplemental grants were not funded for the last quarter of FY2011, nor any fiscal year thereafter. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-96 ) extended TANF through the end of FY2012, and also permanently amended TANF law to require states to act to prevent cash assistance recipients from withdrawing their benefits at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) at strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores. The FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 115-31 ) extended funding for the TANF block grant for the remainder of FY2017 and for FY2018. It also financed TANF-related research through a set-aside of 0.33% of the TANF basic block grant appropriation. This reduced the TANF basic block grant to each state by 0.33%.
In 2018, the House Ways and Means Committee reported legislation ( H.R. 5861 , 115 th Congress) that would have reauthorized and funded TANF for five years; revised TANF's work rules to measure employment outcomes rather than participation; required all assistance recipients to have an individualized plan; required that all TANF funds be spent on families with incomes at or below 200% of poverty; and required a minimum percentage of TANF funds to be spent on assistance, work activities, or short-term economic aid. The bill was not considered by the full House.
Detailed Legislative Chronology
1996
P.L. 104-193 , enacted August 22, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, established the block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Funds for most TANF grants were appropriated through FY2002; supplemental grants and the TANF contingency fund were appropriated through FY2001. States were required to implement TANF, and accept their block grant funding, by July 1, 1997, though they could opt to implement earlier.
P.L. 104-327 , enacted October 19, 1996, amended the transition rule from the pre-TANF programs to TANF that limited total FY1997 federal funding for TANF and pre-TANF programs. It changed the limit on funding to the states for FY1997 from an amount equal to their basic block grant to an amount equal to their basic block grant plus, if they qualified, what they would have received from the TANF contingency fund.
1997
P.L. 105-33 , enacted August 5, 1997, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, raised the cap limiting the counting of education as work from 20% to 30% of those considered engaged in work, and temporarily removed from that cap teen parents engaged in education through FY1999; set the maximum allowable TANF transfer to Title XX social services at 10% of the block grant (rather than one-third of total transfers); and made technical corrections to P.L. 104-193 . P.L. 105-33 also established the Welfare-to-Work (WTW) grant program within TANF (funded at $3 billion over two years, FY1998 and FY1999), but administered by the Department of Labor at the federal level, with local administration by state workforce investment boards and competitive grantees.
P.L. 105-89 , enacted November 19, 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, reduced the contingency fund appropriation by $40 million.
1998
P.L. 105-178 , enacted June 9, 1998, the Transportation Act for the 21 st Century, permitted the use of federal TANF funds as matching funds for reverse commuter grants. It also set the statutory limit on TANF transfers to Title XX social services at 4.25% of the block grant. (Note that subsequent annual appropriation bills restored the 10% limit on TANF transfers to SSBG.)
1999
P.L. 106-113 , enacted November 29, 1999, an omnibus appropriations act, broadened eligibility for recipients to be served by the WTW grant program and added limited authority for vocational education or job training to be WTW activities.
2000
P.L. 106-554 , enacted December 21, 2000, an omnibus appropriation act, gave grantees two more years to spend WTW grant funds (for a total of five years from the date of the grant award).
2002
P.L. 107-147 , enacted March 9, 2002, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act, extended the TANF supplemental grants and contingency funds, both of which had expired on September 30, 2001, through FY2002. Supplemental grants were extended at FY2001 levels.
P.L. 107-229 , enacted September 30, 2002, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF basic grants, supplemental grants, bonus funds, and contingency funds (and other related programs) through December 20, 2002.
P.L. 107-294 , enacted November 22, 2002, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF and related funding through March 30, 2003.
2003
P.L. 108-7 , enacted February 20, 2003, an omnibus appropriations act, extended TANF and related funding through June 30, 2003.
P.L. 108-40 , enacted June 30, 2003, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through September 30, 2003.
P.L. 108-89 , enacted October 1, 2003, a multipurpose bill, included an extension of TANF and related funding through March 31, 2004.
2004
P.L. 108-199 , enacted January 23, 2004, a consolidated appropriations bill, rescinded all remaining unspent WTW formula grant funds, effectively ending the WTW grant program.
P.L. 108-210 , enacted March 31, 2004, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through June 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262 , enacted June 30, 2004, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through September 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308 , enacted September 30, 2004, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through March 31, 2005.
2005
P.L. 109-4 , enacted March 25, 2005, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through June 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-19 , enacted July 1, 2005, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through September 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-68 , enacted September 21, 2005, allowed states to draw upon contingency funds to assist those displaced by Hurricane Katrina, allowing directly affected states to receive funds from the loan fund, with repayment of the loan forgiven, and suspending penalties for failure to meet certain requirements for states directly affected by the hurricane. It also temporarily extended TANF grants through December 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-161 , enacted December 30, 2005, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF grants through March 30, 2006.
2006
P.L. 109-171 , enacted February 8, 2006, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, extended most TANF grants through FY2010 (supplemental grants were extended through the end of FY2008), eliminated TANF bonus funds, established competitive grants within TANF for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives, revised the caseload reduction credit, and required HHS to issue regulations to define specific activities that count toward the TANF work participation standards as well as verify work and participation in activities.
2008
P.L. 110-275 , enacted July 15, 2008, the Medicare Improvements and Patients and Providers Act of 2008, included an extension of TANF supplemental grants through the end of FY2009.
2009
P.L. 111-5 , enacted February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, established a $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) to reimburse states for increased costs associated with the Great Recession for FY2009 and FY2010. The fund reimbursed states, territories, and tribes for 80% of the increased costs of basic assistance, nonrecurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment. The law also permitted states to freeze caseload reduction credits at prerecession levels, allowed states to use TANF reserve funds for any benefit or service (it was previously restricted to assistance), and extended supplemental grants through the end of FY2010.
2010
P.L. 111-242 , enacted September 30, 2010, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 3, 2010.
P.L. 111-290 , enacted December 4, 2010, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding authority through December 18, 2010.
P.L. 111-291 , enacted December 8, 2010, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, extended basic TANF funding through the end of FY2011 (September 30, 2011) but provided supplemental grants only through June 30, 2011. It also altered funding for the healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs, splitting the combined $150 million appropriation for them at $75 million for healthy marriage and $75 million for responsible fatherhood. The act required some additional reporting on work activities and TANF expenditures.
2011
P.L. 112-35 , enacted September 30, 2011, the Short-Term TANF Extension Act, extended basic TANF funding for three months, through December 31, 2011. No funding was provided for TANF supplemental grants.
P.L. 112-78 , enacted December 23, 2011, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, extended basic TANF funding for two months, through February 29, 2012.
2012
P.L. 112-96 , enacted February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, extended basic TANF funding for the remainder of FY2012 (to September 30, 2012). It also prevented electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs; states would be required to prohibit access to TANF cash at ATMs at such establishments. It also required states to report TANF data in a manner that facilitates the exchange of that data with other programs' data systems.
P.L. 112-175 , enacted September 28, 2012, a continuing resolution providing funding for the first six months of FY2013, extended TANF funding through March, 2013.
2013
P.L. 112-275 , enacted January 14, 2013, the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012, appropriated $612 million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2013 and FY2014, and reserved $2 million from each of the two years' appropriations for the activities of a commission to examine child welfare fatalities.
P.L. 113-6 , enacted March 26, 2013, an omnibus appropriations bill, extended TANF funding through the remainder of FY2013.
P.L. 113-46 , enacted October 17, 2013, a short-term continuing resolution , extended TANF funding through January 15, 2014. (T h is resolution ended the government shutdown and a TANF funding gap from October 1, 2013, through October 16, 2013.)
2014
P.L. 113-73 , enacted January 15, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through January 18, 2014.
P.L. 113-76 , enacted January 17, 2014, a consolidated appropriations act, extended TANF funding for the remainder of FY2014 (through September 30, 2014).
P.L. 113-164 , enacted September 19, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 11, 2014.
P.L. 113-202 , enacted December 12, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 13, 2014.
P.L. 113-203 , enacted December 13, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 17, 2014.
P.L. 113-235 , enacted December 16, 2014, an omnibus appropriations act, extended TANF funding through September 30, 2015.
2015
P.L. 114-53 , enacted September 30, 2015, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 11, 2015.
P.L. 114-96 , enacted December 11, 2015, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 16, 2015.
P.L. 114-100 , enacted December 16, 2015, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 22, 2015.
P.L. 114-113 , enacted December 18, 2015, a consolidated appropriations act, extended TANF funding for the remainder of FY2016 as part of an omnibus appropriations act.
2016
P.L. 114-223 , enacted September 29, 2016, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 9, 2016.
P.L. 114-254 , enacted December 10, 2016, extended TANF funding through April 28, 2017.
2017
P.L. 115-30 , enacted April 28, 2017, extended TANF funding through May 5, 2017.
P.L. 115-31 , the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2017, enacted May 5, 2017, extended TANF funding for the remainder of FY2017 and through the end of FY2018. It provided that 0.33% of the funding in the TANF basic block grant pay for TANF-related research activities. This reduced the basic TANF block grant for each state by that percentage (0.33%). The act also required the Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Labor, to develop a database named "What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to Move Welfare Recipients into Work," to consist of research projects that deliver services to move TANF recipients into work.
2018
P.L. 115-245 , enacted September 28, 2018, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 7, 2018.
P.L. 115-298 , enacted December 7, 2018, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF funding through December 21, 2018.
2019
P.L. 116-4 , the TANF Extension Act of 2019, enacted January 24, 2019, a stand-alone TANF bill, extended TANF funding through June 30, 2019. (This legislation ended a TANF funding gap that occurred after the expiration of P.L. 115-298 on December 21, 2018.)
Summary:
| The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant was created in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). It was born out of the welfare reform debates that spanned four decades, from the 1960s through the 1990s. These debates focused on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which provided federal funding for state-run programs delivering assistance to needy families with children, with most families receiving assistance historically being headed by single mothers who were not working. The welfare reform debates focused on whether and how much single mothers should be expected to work, and whether the program itself contributed to dependency by providing disincentives to work and raise children in two-parent families.
In 1992, then-candidate Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." President Clinton submitted his welfare reform proposal to Congress in June 1994, but Congress did not take any action on it. A welfare reform proposal was included in the House Republican "Contract with America" document during the 1994 congressional campaign. This proposal would have altered, but not replaced, AFDC. Immediately after the 1994 congressional campaign, with Republicans taking control of both the House and the Senate, the new House leadership and Republican governors crafted a proposal to end AFDC and replace it with the TANF block grant. This proposal passed Congress as part of two separate pieces of legislation in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed both.
In 1996, a revised proposal was offered and passed Congress. On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill that ended AFDC and replaced it with TANF, a broad-purpose block grant to the states that helps fund a wide range of benefits, services, and activities to address the effects of, and root causes of, child poverty and economic disadvantage. Reflecting its origins in the welfare reform debates, most TANF policy revolves around the state programs of cash assistance and work programs that the block grant helps fund.
Most TANF policies in effect in 2019 date back to the 1996 welfare reform law. The original funding provided in that law for TANF expired at the end of FY2002 (September 30, 2002), and most of the legislative activity since then has been to continue funding on a short-term basis. From FY2002 to FY2006, TANF was funded by a series of short-term extensions. There was one long-term extension of TANF funding—The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171)—which extended it from FY2006 through the end of FY2010. The DRA also made some changes to TANF work rules and established a program of competitive grants mostly to community-based organizations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives. Since the end of FY2010, TANF has again been funded by a series of short-term extensions. Most recently, it was extended through June 30, 2019, by the TANF Extension Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-4). | 96 | 46,284 | 46,286 | 46,286 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_R45546 | crs_R45546_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Introduction
From its headwaters in Colorado and Wyoming to its terminus in the Gulf of California, the Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles. The river runs through seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior [DOI]) plays a prominent role in the management of the basin's waters. In the Lower Basin (i.e., Arizona, Nevada, and California), Reclamation also serves as water master on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, a role that elevates the status of the federal government in basin water management. The federal role in the management of Colorado River water is magnified by the multiple federally owned and operated water storage and conveyance facilities in the basin, which provide low-cost water and hydropower supplies to water users.
Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes. The river's flow and stored water also are important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreation, among other uses. A majority (70%) of basin water supplies are used to irrigate 5.5 million acres of land; basin waters also provide M&I water supplies to nearly 40 million people. Much of the area that depends on the river for water supplies is outside of the drainage area for the Colorado River Basin. Storage and conveyance facilities on the Colorado River provide trans-basin diversions that serve areas such as Cheyenne, WY; multiple cities in Colorado's Front Range (e.g., Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder, and Colorado Springs, CO); Provo, UT; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM; and Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Imperial Valley in Southern California ( Figure 1 ). Colorado River hydropower facilities can provide up to 42 gigawatts of electrical power per year. The river also provides habitat for a wide range of species, including several federally endangered species. It flows through 7 national wildlife refuges and 11 National Park Service (NPS) units; these and other areas of the river support important recreational opportunities.
Precipitation and runoff in the basin are highly variable. Water conditions on the river depend largely on snowmelt in the basin's northern areas. Observed data (1906-2018) show that natural flows in the Colorado River Basin in the 20 th century averaged about 14.8 million acre-feet (MAF) annually. Flows have dipped significantly during the current drought, which dates to 2000; natural flows from 2000 to 2018 averaged approximately 12.4 MAF per year . In 2018, Reclamation estimated that the 19-year period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping. The dry conditions are consistent with prior droughts in the basin that were identified through tree ring studies; some of these droughts lasted for decades. Climate change impacts, including warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns, may further increase the likelihood of prolonged drought in the basin.
Pursuant to the multiple compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines governing Colorado River operations (collectively known as the Law of the River ), Congress and the federal government play a prominent role in the management of the Colorado River. Specifically, Congress funds and oversees Reclamation's management of Colorado River Basin facilities, including facility operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species. Congress has also approved and continues to actively consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters, and development of new and expanded water storage in the basin. In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate drought and stretch basin water supplies and has considered new authorities for Reclamation to combat drought and enter into agreements with states and Colorado River contractors.
This report provides background on management of the Colorado River, including a discussion of trends and agreements since 2000. It also discusses the congressional role in the management of basin waters.
The Law of the River: Foundational Documents and Programs
In the latter part of the 19 th century, interested parties in the Colorado River Basin began to recognize that local interests alone could not solve the challenges associated with development of the Colorado River. Plans conceived by parties in California's Imperial Valley to divert water from the mainstream of the Colorado River were thwarted because these proposals were subject to the sovereignty of both the United States and Mexico. The river also presented engineering challenges, such as deep canyons and erratic water flows, and economic hurdles that prevented local or state groups from building the necessary storage facilities and canals to provide an adequate water supply. Because local or state groups could not resolve these "national problems," Congress considered ideas to control the Colorado River and resolve potential conflicts between the states. Thus, in an effort to resolve these conflicts and prevent litigation, Congress gave its consent for the states and Reclamation to enter into an agreement to apportion Colorado River water supplies in 1921.
The below sections discuss the resulting agreement, the Colorado River Compact, and other documents and agreements that form the basis of the Law of the River, which governs Colorado River operations.
Colorado River Compact
The Colorado River Compact of 1922, negotiated by the seven basin states and the federal government, was signed by all but one basin state (Arizona). Under the compact, the states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ, near the Utah border. Each basin was apportioned 7.5 MAF annually for beneficial consumptive use, and the Lower Basin was given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by an additional 1 MAF annually. The agreement also required Upper Basin states to deliver to the Lower Basin a total of 75 MAF over each 10-year period, thus allowing for averaging over time to make up for low-flow years. The compact did not address inter- or intrastate allocations of water (which it left to future agreements and legislation), nor did it address water to be made available to Mexico, the river's natural terminus; this matter was addressed in subsequent international agreements. The compact was not to become binding until it had been approved by the legislatures of each of the signatory states and by Congress.
Boulder Canyon Project Act
Congress approved and modified the Colorado River Compact in the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) of 1928. The act ratified the 1922 compact, authorized the construction of a federal facility to impound water in the Lower Basin (Boulder Dam, later renamed Hoover Dam) and related facilities to deliver water in Southern California (e.g., the All-American Canal, which delivers Colorado River water to California's Imperial Valley), and apportioned the Lower Basin's 7.5 MAF per year among the three Lower Basin states. It provided 4.4 MAF per year to California, 2.8 MAF to Arizona, and 300,000 acre-feet (AF) to Nevada, with the states to divide any surplus waters among them. It also directed the Secretary of the Interior to serve as the sole contracting authority for Colorado River water use in the Lower Basin and authorized several storage projects for study in the Upper Basin.
Congress's approval of the compact in the BCPA was conditioned on a number of factors, including ratification by California and five other states (thereby allowing the compact to become effective without Arizona's concurrence), and California agreeing by act of its legislature to limit its water use to 4.4 MAF per year and not more than half of any surplus waters. California met this requirement by passing the California Limitation Act of March 4, 1929.
Arizona Ratification and Arizona v. California Decision
Arizona did not ratify the Colorado River Compact until 1944, at which time the state began to pursue a federal project to bring Colorado River water to its primary population centers in Phoenix and Tucson. California opposed the project, arguing that under the doctrine of prior appropriation, California's historical use of the river trumped Arizona's rights to the Arizona allotment. California also argued that Colorado River apportionments under the BCPA included water developed on Colorado River tributaries, whereas Arizona claimed, among other things, that these apportionments included the river's mainstream waters only.
In 1952, Arizona filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the issue. Eleven years later, in the 1963 Arizona v. California decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona, finding that Congress had intended to apportion the mainstream of the Colorado River and that California and Arizona each would receive one-half of surplus flows. The same Supreme Court decision held that Section 5 of the BCPA controlled the apportionment of waters among Lower Basin States, and that the BCPA (and not the law of prior appropriation) controlled the apportionment of water among Lower Basin states. The ruling was notable for its directive to forgo traditional Reclamation deference to state law under the Reclamation Act of 1902, and formed the basis for the Secretary of the Interior's unique role as water master for the Lower Basin. The decision also held that Native American reservations on the Colorado River were entitled to priority under the BCPA. Later decrees by the Supreme Court in 1964 and 1979 supplemented the 1963 decision.
Following the Arizona v. California decision, Congress eventually authorized Arizona's conveyance project for Colorado River water, the Central Arizona Project (CAP), in the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA). As a condition for California's support of the project, Arizona agreed that, in the event of shortage conditions, California's 4.4 MAF has priority over CAP water supplies.
1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty27
In 1944, the United States signed a water treaty with Mexico (1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty) to guide how the two countries share the waters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. The treaty established water allocations for the two countries and created a governance framework (the International Boundary and Water Commission) to resolve disputes arising from the treaty's execution. The treaty requires the United States to provide Mexico with 1.5 MAF of water annually, plus an additional 200,000 AF when a surplus is declared. During drought, the United States may reduce deliveries to Mexico in similar proportion to reductions of U.S. consumptive uses. The treaty has been supplemented by additional agreements between the United States and Mexico, known as m inutes .
Upper Basin Compact and Colorado River Storage Project Authorizations
Projects originally authorized for study in the Upper Basin under BCPA were not allowed to move forward until the Upper Basin states determined their individual water allocations, which they did under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. The Upper Basin Compact established Colorado (where the largest share of runoff to the river originates) as the largest entitlement holder in the Upper Basin, with rights to 51.75% of any Upper Basin flows after Colorado River Compact obligations to the Lower Basin have been met. Other states also received percentage-based allocations, including Wyoming (14%), New Mexico (11.25%), and Utah (23%). Arizona was allocated 50,000 AF in addition to its Lower Basin apportionment, in recognition of the small portion of the state in the Upper Basin. Basin allocations by state following approval of the Upper Basin Compact (i.e., the allocations that generally guide current water deliveries) are shown below in Figure 2 . The Upper Basin Compact also established the Upper Colorado River Commission, which coordinates operations and positions among Upper Basin states.
Subsequent federal legislation paved the way for development of Upper Basin allocations. The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act of 1956 authorized storage reservoirs and dams in the Upper Basin, including the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Curecanti Dams. The act also established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, which receives revenues collected in connection with the projects, to be made available for defraying the project's costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency expenditures.
In addition to the aforementioned authorization of CAP in Arizona, the 1968 CRBPA amended CRSP to authorize several additional Upper Basin projects (e.g., the Animas La Plata and Central Utah projects) as CRSP participating projects. It also directed that the Secretary of the Interior propose operational criteria for Colorado River Storage Project units (including the releases of water from Lake Powell) that prioritize (1) Treaty Obligations to Mexico, (2) the Colorado River Compact requirement for the Upper Basin to deliver 75 MAF to Lower Basin states over any 10-year period, and (3) carryover storage to meet these needs. The CRBPA also established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, both of which were authorized to utilize revenues from power generation from relevant Upper and Lower Basin facilities to fund certain expenses in the sub-basins.
Water Storage and Operations
Due to the basin's large water storage projects, basin water users are able to store as much as 60 MAF, or about four times the Colorado River's annual flows. Thus, storage and operations in the basin receive considerable attention, particularly at the basin's two largest dams and their storage reservoirs: Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell in the Upper Basin (26.2 MAF of storage capacity) and Hoover Dam/Lake Mead in the Lower Basin (26.1 MAF). The status of these projects is of interest to basin stakeholders and observers and is monitored closely by Reclamation.
Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963, provides the linchpin for Upper Basin storage and regulates flows from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin, pursuant to the Colorado River Compact. It also generates approximately 5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity per year, which the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) supplies to 5.8 million customers in Upper Basin States. Other significant storage in the Upper Basin includes the initial "units" of the CRSP: the Aspinall Unit in Colorado (including Blue Mesa, Crystal, and Morrow Point dams on the Gunnison River, with combined storage capacity of more than 1 MAF), the Flaming Gorge Unit in Utah (including Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River, with a capacity of 3.78 MAF), and the Navajo Unit in New Mexico (including Navajo Dam on the San Juan River, with a capacity of 1 MAF). The Upper Basin is also home to 16 "participating" projects which are authorized to use water for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses, and other purposes.
In the Lower Basin, Hoover Dam, completed in 1936, provides the majority of the Lower Basin's storage and generates about 4.2 billion KWh of electricity per year for customers in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Also important for Lower Basin Operations are Davis Dam/Lake Mohave, which regulates flows to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty, and Parker Dam/Lake Havasu, which impounds water for diversion into the Colorado River Aqueduct (thereby allowing for deliveries to urban areas in southern California) and CAP (allowing for diversion to users in Arizona). Further downstream on the Arizona/California border, Imperial Dam (a diversion dam) diverts Colorado River water to the All-American Canal for use in California's Imperial and Coachella Valleys.
Annual Operating Plans
Reclamation monitors Colorado River reservoir levels and projects them 24 months into the future in monthly studies (called 24-month studies ). The studies take into account forecasted hydrology, reservoir operations, and diversion and consumptive use schedules to model a single scenario of reservoir conditions. The studies inform operating decisions by Reclamation looking one to two years into the future. They express water storage conditions at Lake Mead and Lake Powell in terms of elevation, as feet above mean sea level (ft).
In addition to the 24-month studies, the CRBPA requires the Secretary to transmit to Congress and the governors of the basin states, by January 1 of each year, a report describing the actual operation for the preceding water year and the projected operation for the coming year. This report is commonly referred to as the annual operating plan (AOP). The AOP's projected January 1 water conditions for the upcoming calendar year establish a baseline for future annual operations.
Since the adoption of guidelines by Reclamation and basin states in 2007 (see below section, " 2007 Interim Guidelines "), operations of the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams have been tied to specific pool elevations at Lake Mead and Lake Powell. For Lake Mead, the first level of shortage (1 st Tier Shortage Condition), under which Arizona and Nevada's allocations would be decreased, would be triggered if Lake Mead falls below 1,075 ft. For Lake Powell, releases under tiered operations are based on storage levels in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead (specific delivery curtailments based on lake levels similar to Lake Mead have not been adopted).
As of January 2019, Reclamation predicted that Lake Mead's 2019 elevation would remain above 1,075 ft (approximately 9.6 MAF of storage) and that Lake Powell would remain at its prior year level (i.e., the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier) during 2019. However, Reclamation also projected that there was a 69% chance of a 1 st Tier Shortage Condition at Lake Mead beginning in January 2020. Reclamation predicted a small (3%) chance of Lake Powell dropping to 3,490 feet, or minimum power pool (i.e., a level beyond which hydropower could not be generated) by 2020; the chance of this occurring by 2022 was greater (15%). Improved hydrology for 2019 may decrease the likelihood of shortage in the immediate future.
Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Colorado River Basin Development
Construction of most of the Colorado River's water supply infrastructure predated major federal environmental protection statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq. ) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). Thus, many of the environmental impacts associated with the development of basin resources were not originally taken into account. Over time, multiple efforts have been initiated to mitigate these effects. Some of the highest-profile efforts have been associated with water quality (in particular, salinity control) and the effects of facility operations on endangered species.
Salinity Control
Salinity and water quality are long-standing issues in the Colorado River Basin. Parts of the Upper Basin are covered by salt-bearing shale (which increases salt content in water inflows), and salinity content increases as the river flows downstream due to both natural leaching and return flows from agricultural irrigation. The 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty did not set water quality or salinity standards in the Colorado River Basin. However, after years of dispute between the United States and Mexico regarding the salinity of the water reaching Mexico's border, the two countries reached an agreement on August 30, 1973, with the signing of Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The agreement guarantees Mexico that the average salinity of its treaty deliveries will be no more than 115 parts per million higher than the salt content of the water diverted to the All-American Canal at Imperial Dam in Southern California. To control the salinity of Colorado River water in accordance with this agreement, Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 ( P.L. 93-320 ), which authorized desalting and salinity control facilities to improve Colorado River water quality. The most prominent of these facilities is the Yuma Desalting Plant, which was largely completed in 1992 but has never operated at capacity. In 1974, the seven basin states also established water quality standards for salinity through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
Endangered Species Efforts and Habitat Improvements
Congress enacted the ESA in 1973. As basin species became listed in accordance with the act, federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to address the conservation of the listed species. As a result of these consultations, several major programs have been developed to protect and restore fish species on the Colorado River and its tributaries. Summaries of some of the key programs are below.
Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program
The Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program was established in 1988 to assist in the recovery of four species of endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Congress authorized this program in P.L. 106-392 . The program is implemented through several stakeholders under a cooperative agreement signed by the governors of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; DOI; and the Administrator of WAPA. The recovery goals of the program are to reduce threats to species and improve their status so they are eventually delisted from the ESA. Some of the actions taken in the past include providing adequate instream flows for fish and their habitat, restoring habitat, reducing nonnative fish, augmenting fish populations with stocked fish, and conducting research and monitoring. Reclamation is the lead federal agency for the program and provides the majority of federal funds for implementation. It is also funded through a portion of Upper Basin hydropower revenues from WAPA; FWS; the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah; and water users, among others.
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program was established in 1992 to assist in the recovery of ESA-listed fish species on the San Juan River, the Colorado's largest tributary. The program is concerned with the recovery of the Razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ) and Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus Lucius ). Congress authorized this program in P.L. 106-392 with the aim to protect the genetic integrity and population of listed species, conserve and restore habitat (including water quality), reduce nonnative species, and monitor species. The Recovery Program is coordinated by FWS. Reclamation is responsible for operating the Animas-La Plata Project and Navajo Dam on the San Juan River in a way that reduces effects on the fish populations. The program is funded by a portion of revenues from power generation, Reclamation, participating states, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Recovery efforts for listed fish are coordinated with the Upper Colorado River Program discussed above.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was established in 1997 in response to a directive from Congress under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-575 ) to operate Glen Canyon Dam "in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established." This program uses experiments to determine how water flows affect natural resources south of the dam. Reclamation is in charge of modifying flows for experiments, and the U.S. Geological Survey conducts monitoring and other studies to evaluate the effects of the flows. The results are expected to better inform managers how to provide water deliveries and conserve species. The majority of program funding comes from hydropower revenues generated at Glen Canyon Dam.
Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
The MSCP is a multistakeholder initiative to conserve 27 species (8 listed under ESA) along the Lower Colorado River while maintaining water and power supplies for farmers, tribes, industries, and urban residents. The MSCP began in 2005 and is planned to last for at least 50 years. The MSCP was created through consultation under ESA. To achieve compliance under ESA, federal entities involved in managing water supplies in the Lower Colorado River met with resource agencies from Arizona, California, and Nevada; Native American Tribes; environmental groups; and recreation interests to develop a program to conserve species along a portion of the Colorado River. A biological opinion (BiOp) issued by the FWS in 1997 served as a basis for the program. Modifications to the 1997 BiOp were made in 2002, and in 2005, the BiOp was renewed for 50 years. Nonfederal entities received an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the ESA for their activities in 2005 and shortly thereafter implemented a habitat conservation plan.
The objective of the MSCP is to create habitat for listed species, augment the populations of species listed under ESA, maintain current and future water diversions and power production, and abide by the incidental take authorizations for listed species under the ESA. The estimated total cost of the program over its lifetime is approximately $626 million in 2003 dollars ($882 million in 2018 dollars) and is to be split evenly between Reclamation (50%) and the states of California, Nevada, and Arizona (who collectively fund the remaining 50%). The management and implementation of the MSCP is the responsibility of Reclamation, in consultation with a steering committee of stakeholders.
Tribal Water Rights
Twenty-two federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin have quantified water diversion rights that have been confirmed by court decree or final settlement. These tribes collectively possess rights to 2.9 MAF per year of Colorado River water. However, as of 2015, these tribes typically were using just over half of their quantified rights. Additionally, 13 other basin tribes have reserved water rights claims that have yet to be resolved. Increased water use by tribes with existing water rights, and/or future settlement of claims and additional consumptive use of basin waters by other tribes, is likely to exacerbate the competition for basin water resources.
The potential for increased use of tribal water rights (which, once ratified, are counted toward state-specific allocations where the tribal reservation is located) has been studied in recent years. In 2014, Reclamation, working with a group of 10 tribes with significant reserved water rights claims on the Colorado River, initiated a study known as the 10 Tribes Study . The study, published in 2018, estimated that, cumulatively, the 10 tribes could have reserved water rights (including unresolved claims) to divert nearly 2.8 MAF per year. Of these water rights, approximately 2 MAF per year were decreed and an additional 785,273 AF (mostly in the Upper Basin) remained unresolved. The report estimated that, overall, the 10 tribes are diverting (i.e., making use of) almost 1.5 MAF of their 2.8 MAF in resolved and unresolved claims. Table 1 shows these figures at the basin and sub-basin levels. According to the study, the majority of unresolved claims in the Upper Basin are associated with the Ute Tribe in Utah (370,370 AF per year), the Navajo Nation in Utah (314,926 AF), and the Navajo Nation in the Upper Basin in Arizona (77,049 AF).
Drought and the Supply/Demand Imbalance in the Colorado River Basin
When the Colorado River Compact was originally approved, it was assumed based on the historical record that average annual flows on the river were 16.4 MAF per year. According to Reclamation data, from 1906 to 2018, observed natural flows on the river at Lee Ferry, AZ—the common point of measurement for observed basin flows—averaged 14.8 MAF annually. Natural flows from 2000 to 2018 (i.e., during the ongoing drought) averaged considerably less than that—12.4 MAF annually. While natural flows have trended down, consumptive use in the basin has grown and has regularly exceeded natural flows since 2000. From 1971 to 2015, average total consumptive use grew from 13 MAF to over 15 MAF annually. Combined, the two trends have caused a significant drawdown of basin storage levels ( Figure 3 ).
From 2009 to 2015, the largest consumptive water use occurred in the Lower Basin (7.5 MAF per year), while Upper Basin consumptive use averaged about 3.8 MAF annually. Use of Treaty water by Mexico (1.5 MAF per year) and evaporative loss from reservoirs (approximately 2 MAF per year) in both basins also factored significantly into total basin consumptive use. Notably, consumptive use in the Lower Basin, combined with mandatory releases to Mexico, regularly exceeds the mandatory 8.23 MAF per year that must be released from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and Mexico pursuant to Reclamation requirements. This imbalance between Lower Basin inflows and use, known as the structural deficit , causes additional stress on basin storage.
The current drought in the basin has included some of the lowest flows on record. According to Reclamation, the 19-year period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping. Observers have pointed out that flows in some recent years have been lower than would be expected given the amount of precipitation that has occurred, and have noted that warmer temperatures appear to be a significant contributor to these diminished flows. Based on these and other observations, some have argued that Colorado River flows are unlikely to return to 20 th century averages, and that future water supply risk is high.
2012 Reclamation Study
A 2012 study by Reclamation projected a long-term imbalance in supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin. In the study, Reclamation noted that the basin had thus far avoided serious impacts on water supplies due to the significant storage within the system, coupled with the fact that some Upper Basin states have yet to fully develop the use of their allocations. However, Reclamation projected that in the coming half century, flows would decrease by an average of 9% at Lee Ferry and drought would increase in frequency and duration. At the same time, Reclamation projected that demand for basin water supplies would increase, with annual consumptive use projected to rise from 15 MAF to 18.1-20.4 MAF by 2050, depending on population growth. A range of 64%-76% of the growth in demand was expected to come from increased M&I demand.
Reclamation's 2012 study also posited several potential ways to alleviate future shortages in the basin, such as alternative water supplies, demand management, drought action plans, water banking, and water transfer/markets. Some of these options already are being pursued. In particular, some states have become increasingly active in banking unused Colorado River surface water supplies, including through groundwater banks or storage of unused surface waters in Lake Mead (see below section, " 2007 Interim Guidelines ").
Developments and Agreements Since 2000
Drought conditions throughout the basin have raised concerns about potential negative impacts on water supplies. Concerns center on uncertainty that might result if the Secretary of the Interior were to determine that a shortage condition exists in the Lower Basin, and that related curtailments were warranted. Some in Upper Basin States are also concerned about the potential for a c ompact call of Lower Basin states on Upper Basin states. Drought and other uncertainties related to water rights priorities (e.g., potential tribal water rights claims) spurred the development of several efforts that generally attempted to relieve pressure on basin water supplies, stabilize storage levels, and provide assurances of available water supplies. Some of the most prominent developments since the year 2000 (i.e., the beginning of the current drought) are discussed below.
2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement
Prior to the 2003 QSA, California had been using approximately 5.2 MAF of Colorado River on average each year (with most of its excess water use attributed to urban areas). Under the QSA, an agreement between several California water districts and DOI, California agreed to reduce its use to the required 4.4 MAF under the Law of the River. It sought to accomplish this aim by quantifying Colorado River entitlement levels of several water contractors; authorizing efforts to conserve additional water supplies (e.g., the lining of the All-American Canal); and providing for several large-scale, long-term agriculture-to-urban water transfers. The QSA also committed the state to a path for restoration and mitigation related to the Salton Sea, a water body in Southern California that was historically sustained by Colorado River irrigation runoff from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys.
A related agreement between Reclamation and the Lower Basin states, the Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOPP), went into effect concurrently with the QSA in 2004. IOPP is an administrative mechanism that provides an accounting of inadvertent overruns in consumptive use compared to the annual entitlements of water users in the Lower Basin. These overruns must be "paid back" in the calendar year following the overruns, and the paybacks must be made only from "extraordinary conservation measures" above and beyond normal consumptive use.
2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act
The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act ( P.L. 108-451 , AWSA) significantly altered the allocation of CAP water in Arizona and set the stage for some of the cutbacks in the state that are currently under discussion. It ratified three water rights settlements (one in each title) between the federal government and the State of Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), and the Tohono O'odham Nation, respectively. For the state and its CAP water users, the settlement resolved a final repayment cost for CAP by reducing the water users' reimbursable repayment obligation from about $2.3 billion to $1.65 billion. Additionally, Arizona agreed to new tribal and non-tribal allocations of CAP water so that approximately half of CAP's annual allotment would be available to Indian tribes in Arizona, at a higher priority than most other uses. The tribal communities were authorized to lease the water so long as the water remains within the state via the state's water banking authority. The act also authorized funds to cover the cost of infrastructure required to deliver the water to the Indian communities, much of it derived from power receipts accruing to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
2007 Interim Guidelines/Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead
Another significant development in the basin was the 2007 adoption of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines). Development of the agreement began in 2005, when, in response to drought in the Southwest and the decline in basin water storage (and a record low point in Lake Powell of 33% active capacity), the Secretary of the Interior instructed Reclamation to develop coordinated strategies for Colorado River reservoir operations during drought or shortages. The resulting guidelines included criteria for releases from Lakes Mead and Powell determined by "trigger levels" in both reservoirs, as well as a schedule of Lower Basin curtailments at different operational tiers ( Table 2 ). Under the guidelines, Arizona and Nevada, which have junior rights to California, would face reduced allocations if Lake Mead elevations dropped below 1,075 ft. At the time, it was thought that the 2007 Guidelines would significantly reduce the risk of Lake Mead falling to 1,025 feet. The guidelines are considered "interim" because they were scheduled to expire in 20 years (i.e., at the end of 2026).
The 2007 agreement also included for the first time a mechanism by which parties in the Lower Basin were able to store conserved water in Lake Mead, known as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS). Reclamation accounts for this water annually, and the users storing the water may access the surplus in future years, in accordance with the Law of the River. From 2013 to 2017, the portion of Lake Mead water in storage that was classified as ICS ranged from a low of 711,864 AF in 2015 to a high of 1.261 MAF in 2017 ( Figure 4 ).
Pilot System Conservation Program
In 2014, Reclamation and several major basin water supply agencies (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Denver Water) executed a memorandum of understanding to provide funding for voluntary conservation projects and reductions of water use. These activities had the goal of developing new system water , to be applied toward storage in Lake Mead, by the end of 2019. Congress formally authorized federal participation in these efforts in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 , Division D ), with an initial sunset date for the authority at the end of FY2018. The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 115-244 , Division A ) extended the authority through the end of FY2022, with the stipulation that Upper Basin agreements could not proceed without the participation of the Upper Basin states through the Upper Colorado River Commission. As of mid-2018, Reclamation estimated that the program had resulted in a total of 194,000 AF of system water conserved. These savings were carried out through 64 projects conserving 47,000 AF in the Upper Basin and 11 projects conserving 147,000 AF in the Lower Basin.
Minute 319 and Minute 323 Agreements with Mexico87
In 2017, the United States and Mexico signed Minute 323, which extended and replaced elements of a previous agreement, Minute 319, signed in 2012. Minute 323 included, among other things, options for Mexico to hold water in reserve in U.S. reservoirs for emergencies and water conservation efforts, as well as U.S. commitments for flows to support the ecological health of the Colorado River Delta. It also extended initial Mexican cutback commitments made under Minute 319 (which were similar in structure to the 2007 cutbacks negotiated for Lower Basin states) and established a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan that included additional cutbacks that would be triggered if drought contingency plans (DCPs) are approved by U.S. basin states (see following section, " 2019 Drought Contingency Plans ").
2019 Drought Contingency Plans
Ongoing drought conditions and the potential for water supply shortages prompted discussions and negotiations focused on how to conserve additional basin water supplies. After several years of negotiations, on March 19, 2019, Reclamation and the Colorado River Basin states finalized DCPs for both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. These plans required final authorization by Congress to be implemented. Following House and Senate hearings on the DCPs in early April, on April 16, 2019, Congress authorized the DCP agreements in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act ( P.L. 116-14 ). Each of the basin-level DCPs is discussed below in more detail.
Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plan
The Upper Basin DCP aims to protect against Lake Powell reaching critically low elevations; it also authorizes storage of conserved water in the Upper Basin that could help establish the foundation for a water use reduction effort (i.e., a "Demand Management Program") that may be developed in the future. Under the Upper Basin DCP, the Upper Basin states agree to operate system units to keep the surface of Lake Powell above 3,525 ft, which is 35 ft above the minimum elevation needed to run the dam's hydroelectric plant. Other large Upper Basin reservoirs (e.g., Navajo Reservoir, Blue Mesa Reservoir, and Flaming Gorge Reservoir) would be operated to protect the targeted Lake Powell elevation, potentially through drawdown of their own storage. If established by the states, an Upper Basin DCP Demand Management Program would likely entail willing seller/buyer agreements allowing for temporary paid reductions in water use that would provide for more storage volume in Lake Powell.
Reclamation and other observers have stated their belief that these efforts will significantly decrease the risk of Lake Powell's elevation falling below 3,490 ft, an elevation at which significantly reduced hydropower generation is possible.
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan
The Lower Basin DCP is designed to require Arizona, California, and Nevada to curtail use and thereby contribute additional water to Lake Mead storage at predetermined "trigger" elevations, while also creating additional flexibility to incentivize voluntary conservation of water to be stored in Lake Mead, thereby increasing lake levels. Under the DCP, Nevada and Arizona (which were already set to have their supplies curtailed beginning at 1,075 ft under the 2007 Interim Guidelines) are to contribute additional supplies to maintain higher lake levels (i.e., beyond previous commitments). The reductions of supply would reach their maximums when reservoir levels drop below 1,045 ft. At the same time, the Lower Basin DCP would, for the first time, include commitments for delivery cutbacks by California. These cutbacks would begin with 200,000 AF (4.5%) in reductions at Lake Mead elevations of 1,040-1,045 ft, and would increase to as much as 350,000 AF (7.9%) at elevations of 1,025 ft or lower.
The curtailments in the Lower Basin DCP are in addition to those agreed to under the 2007 Interim Guidelines and under Minute 323 with Mexico. Specific and cumulative reductions are shown in Table 2 . In addition to the state-level reductions, under the Lower Basin DCP, Reclamation also would agree to pursue efforts to add 100,000 AF or more of system water within the basin. Some of the largest and most controversial reductions under the Lower Basin DCP would occur in Arizona, where pursuant to previous changes under the 2004 AWSA, a large group of agricultural users would face major cutbacks to their CAP water supplies.
Reclamation has noted that the Lower Basin DCP significantly decreases the chance of Lake Mead elevations falling below 1,020 ft, which would be a critically low level. Some parties have pointed out that although the DCP is unlikely to prevent a shortage from being declared at 1,075 ft, it would slow the rate at which the lake recedes thereafter. Combined with the commitments from Mexico, total planned cutbacks under shortage scenarios (i.e., all commitments to date, combined) would reduce Lower Basin consumptive use by 241,000 AF to 1.375 MAF per year, depending on Lake Mead's elevation.
Drought Contingency Plan Opposition
Although the DCPs and the related negotiations were widely praised, some expressed concerns related to the implementation of the DCPs as they relate to federal and state environmental laws. Most Colorado River contractors supported the agreements, but one major basin contractor, Imperial Irrigation District (IID, a major holder of Colorado River water rights in Southern California), did not approve the DCPs. IID has argued that the DCPs will further degrade the Salton Sea, a shrinking and ecologically degraded water body in southern California that relies on drainage flows from lands irrigated using Colorado River water. Following enactment of the DCPs, IID filed suit in state court alleging that state approval of the DCPs violated the California Environmental Quality Act. Others have questioned whether federal implementation of the DCPs without a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement might violate federal law, such as NEPA.
Issues for Congress
Funding and Oversight of Existing Facilities and Programs
The principal role of Congress as it relates to storage facilities on the Colorado River is funding and oversight of facility operations, construction, and programs to protect and restore endangered species (e.g., Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Program). In the Upper Basin, Colorado River facilities include the 17 active participating units in the Colorado River Storage Projects, as well as the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. In the Lower Basin, major facilities include the Salt River Project and Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Hoover Dam and All-American Canal, Yuma and Gila Projects, Parker-Davis Project, Central Arizona Project, and Robert B. Griffith Project (now Southern Nevada Water System).
Congressional appropriations in support of Colorado River projects and programs typically account for a portion of overall project budgets. For example, the Lower Colorado Region's FY2017 operating budget was $517 million; $119.8 million of this total was provided by discretionary appropriations, and the remainder of funding came from power revenues (which are made available without further appropriation) and nonfederal partners. In recent years, Congress has also authorized and appropriated funding that has targeted the Colorado River Basin in general (i.e., the Pilot System Conservation Plan). Congress may choose to extend or amend these and other authorities specific to the basin.
While discretionary appropriations for the Colorado River are of regular interest to Congress, Congress may also be asked to weigh in on Colorado River funding that is not subject to regular appropriations. For instance, in the coming years, the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund is projected to face a decrease in revenues and may thus have less funding available for congressionally established funding priorities for the Development Fund.
Indian Water Rights Settlements and Plans for New and Augmented Water Storage
Congress has previously approved Indian water rights settlements associated with more than 2 MAF of tribal diversion rights on the Colorado River. Only a portion of this water has been developed. Congress likely will face the decision of whether to fund development of previously authorized infrastructure associated with Indian water rights settlements in the Colorado River Basin. For example, the ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is being built to serve the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Navajo Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico. Congress may also be asked to consider new settlements that may result in tribal rights to more Colorado River water. For example, in the 116 th Congress, H.R. 244 would authorize the Navajo Nation Water Settlement in Utah.
In addition to development of new tribal water supplies, some states in the Upper Basin have indicated their intent to further develop their Colorado River water entitlements. For example, in the 115 th Congress, Section 4310 of America's Water Infrastructure Act ( P.L. 115-270 ) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of Wyoming whereby the state would fund a project to add erosion control to Fontenelle Reservoir in the Upper Basin. The project would allow the state to potentially utilize an additional 80,000 acre-feet of water storage on the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River.
Drought Contingency Plan Implementation
Congress may remain interested in implementation of the DCPs, including their success or failure at stemming further Colorado River cutbacks and the extent to which the plans comply with federal environmental laws such as NEPA. Similarly, Congress may be interested in the overall hydrologic status of the Colorado River Basin, as well as future efforts to plan for increased demand in the basin and stretch limited basin water supplies.
Summary:
| The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin's water supplies. Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, but it also is important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses.
In recent years, consumptive uses of Colorado River water have exceeded natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin's available supplies and competing demands. A drought in the basin dating to 2000 has raised the prospect of water delivery curtailments and decreased hydropower production, among other things. In the future, observers expect that increasing demand for supplies, coupled with the effects of climate change, will further increase the strain on the basin's limited water supplies.
River Management
The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations. The foundational document of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ (near the Utah border). The Upper and Lower Basins each were allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) annually under the Colorado River Compact; an additional 1.5 MAF in annual flows was made available to Mexico under a 1944 treaty. Future agreements and court decisions addressed numerous other issues (including intrastate allocations of flows), and subsequent federal legislation provided authority and funding for federal facilities that allowed users to develop their allocations. A Supreme Court ruling also confirmed that Congress designated the Secretary of the Interior as the water master for the Lower Basin, a role in which the federal government manages the delivery of all water below Hoover Dam.
Reclamation and basin stakeholders closely track the status of two large reservoirs—Lake Powell in the Upper Basin and Lake Mead in the Lower Basin—as an indicator of basin storage conditions. Under recent guidelines, dam releases from these facilities are tied to specific water storage levels. For Lake Mead, the first tier of "shortage," under which Arizona's and Nevada's allocations would be decreased, would be triggered if Lake Mead's January 1 elevation is expected to fall below 1,075 feet above mean sea level. As of early 2019, Reclamation projected that there was a 69% chance of a shortage condition at Lake Mead in 2020; there was also a lesser chance of Lake Powell reaching critically low levels. Improved hydrology in early 2019 may decrease the chances of shortage in the immediate future.
Drought Contingency Plans
Despite previous efforts to alleviate future shortages, the basin's hydrological outlook has generally worsened in recent years. After several years of negotiations, in early 2019 Reclamation and the basin states transmitted to Congress additional plans to alleviate stress on basin water supplies. These plans, known as the drought contingency plans (DCPs) for the Upper and Lower Basins, were authorized by Congress in April 2019 in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act (P.L. 116-14). The DCPs among other things obligate Lower Basin states to additional water supply cutbacks at specified storage levels (i.e., cutbacks beyond previous curtailment plans), commit Reclamation to additional water conservation efforts, and coordinate Upper Basin operations to protect Lake Powell storage levels and hydropower generation.
Congressional Role
Congress plays a multifaceted role in federal management of the Colorado River basin. Congress funds and oversees management of basin facilities, including operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species. It has also enacted and continues to consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters and development of new water storage facilities in the basin. In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate water shortages and conserve basin water supplies and has enacted new authorities to combat drought and its effects on basin water users (i.e., the DCPs and other related efforts). | 96 | 48,580 | 48,582 | 48,582 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_R45732 | crs_R45732_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Introduction
A plaintiff injured by a defendant's wrongful conduct may file a tort lawsuit to recover money from that defendant. To name an especially familiar example of a tort, "a person who causes a crash by negligently driving a vehicle is generally liable to the victim of that crash." By forcing people who wrongfully injure others to pay money to their victims, the tort system serves at least two functions: (1) "deter[ring] people from injuring others" and (2) "compensat[ing] those who are injured."
Employees and officers of the federal government occasionally commit torts just like other members of the general public. Until the mid-20th century, however, the principle of "sovereign immunity"—a legal doctrine that bars private citizens from suing a sovereign government without its consent—prohibited plaintiffs from suing the United States for the tortious actions of federal officers and employees. Thus, for a substantial portion of this nation's history, persons injured by torts committed by the federal government's agents were generally unable to obtain financial compensation through the judicial system.
Congress, deeming this state of affairs unacceptable, ultimately enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 1946. The FTCA allows plaintiffs to file and prosecute certain types of tort lawsuits against the United States and thereby potentially recover financial compensation from the federal government. Some FTCA lawsuits are relatively mundane; for instance, a civilian may sue the United States to obtain compensation for injuries sustained as a result of minor accidents on federal property. Other FTCA cases, however, involve grave allegations of government misfeasance. For example, after naval officers allegedly sexually assaulted several women at the infamous Tailhook Convention in 1991, those women invoked the FTCA in an attempt to hold the United States liable for those officers' attacks. Family members of persons killed in the 1993 fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco likewise sued the United States under the FTCA, asserting that federal law enforcement agents committed negligent acts that resulted in the deaths of their relatives. Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed an award of over $100 million against the United States in an FTCA case alleging that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) committed "egregious government misconduct" resulting in the wrongful incarceration of several men who were falsely accused of participating in a grisly gangland slaying.
Empowering plaintiffs to sue the United States can ensure that persons injured by federal employees receive compensation and justice. However, waiving the government's immunity from tort litigation comes at a significant cost: the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Bureau) reports that the United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually to pay tort claims under the FTCA, and the Department of Justice reports that it handles thousands of tort claims filed against the United States each year. Moreover, exposing the United States to tort liability arguably creates a risk that government officials may inappropriately base their decisions "not on the relevant and applicable policy objectives that should be governing the execution of their authority," but rather on a desire to reduce the government's "possible exposure to substantial civil liability."
As explained in greater detail below, the FTCA attempts to balance these competing considerations by limiting the circumstances in which a plaintiff may successfully obtain a damages award against the United States. For example, the FTCA categorically bars plaintiffs from pursuing certain types of tort lawsuits against the United States. The FTCA also restricts the types and amount of monetary damages that a plaintiff may recover against the United States. Additionally, the FTCA requires plaintiffs to comply with an array of procedural requirements before filing suit.
This report provides an overview of the FTCA. It first discusses the events and policy concerns that led Congress to enact the FTCA, including the background principle of sovereign immunity. The report then explains the effect, scope, and operation of the FTCA's waiver of the United States' immunity from certain types of tort claims. In doing so, the report describes categorical exceptions to the government's waiver of sovereign immunity, statutory limitations on a plaintiff's ability to recover monetary damages under the FTCA, and the procedures that govern tort claims against the United States. The report concludes by discussing various legislative proposals to amend the FTCA.
Background
A person injured by the tortious activity of a federal employee generally has two potential targets that he might name as a defendant in a tort lawsuit: (1) the federal employee who committed the tort and (2) the federal government itself. In many cases, however, suing the employee is not a viable option. For one, as explained in greater detail below, Congress has opted to shield federal officers and employees from personal liability for torts committed within the scope of their employment. Moreover, even if Congress had not decided to insulate federal employees from tort liability, suing an individual is typically an unattractive option for litigants, as individual defendants may lack the financial resources to satisfy an award of monetary damages.
For many litigants, the legal and practical unavailability of tort claims against federal employees makes suing the United States a more attractive option. Whereas a private defendant may lack the financial resources to satisfy a judgment rendered against him, the United States possesses sufficient financial resources to pay virtually any judgment that a court might enter against it.
A plaintiff suing the United States, however, may nonetheless encounter significant obstacles. In accordance with a long-standing legal doctrine known as "sovereign immunity," a private plaintiff ordinarily may not file a lawsuit against a sovereign entity—including the federal government—unless that sovereign consents. For a substantial portion of this nation's history, the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred citizens injured by the torts of a federal officer or employee from initiating or prosecuting a lawsuit against the United States. Until 1946, "the only practical recourse for citizens injured by the torts of federal employees was to ask Congress to enact private legislation affording them relief" through "private bills."
Some, however, criticized the public bill system. Not only did private bills impose "a substantial burden on the time and attention of Congress," some members of the public became increasingly concerned "that the private bill system was unjust and wrought with political favoritism." Thus, in 1946, Congress enacted the FTCA, which effectuated "a limited waiver of [the federal government's] sovereign immunity" from certain common law tort claims . With certain exceptions and caveats discussed throughout this report, the FTCA authorizes plaintiffs to bring civil lawsuits
1. against the United States; 2. for money damages; 3. for injury to or loss of property, or personal injury or death; 4. caused by a federal employee's negligent or wrongful act or omission; 5. while acting within the scope of his office or employment; 6. under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the plaintiff in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
Thus, not only does the FTCA "free Congress from the burden of passing on petitions for private relief" by "transfer[ring] responsibility for deciding disputed tort claims from Congress to the courts," it also creates a mechanism to compensate victims of governmental wrongdoing. In addition to this compensatory purpose, the FTCA also aims to "deter tortious conduct by federal personnel" by rendering the United States liable for the torts of its agents, thereby incentivizing the government to carefully supervise its employees.
Significantly, however, the FTCA does not itself create a new federal cause of action against the United States; rather, the FTCA waives the United States's sovereign immunity from certain types of claims that exist under state tort law . Thus, in most respects, "the substantive law of the state where the tort occurred determines the liability of the United States" in an FTCA case. In this way, the FTCA largely "renders the Government liable in tort as a private individual would be under like circumstances."
Critically, however, "although the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity is significant and extensive, it is not complete." To address "concerns . . . about the integrity and solvency of the public fisc and the impact that extensive litigation might have on the ability of government officials to focus on and perform their other duties," the FTCA affords the United States "important protections and benefits . . . not enjoyed by other tort defendants" that are explained extensively below. Moreover, to limit the fora in which a plaintiff may permissibly litigate a tort suit against the United States, Congress vested the federal district courts (as well as a small number of territorial courts) with exclusive jurisdiction over FTCA cases. Furthermore, because Congress believed "that juries would have difficulty viewing the United States as a defendant without being influenced by the fact that it has a deeper pocket than any other defendant," FTCA cases that proceed to trial are generally "tried by the court without a jury."
The Preclusion of Individual Employee Tort Liability Under the FTCA
Notably, the FTCA only authorizes tort lawsuits against the United States itself; it expressly shields individual federal employees from personal liability for torts that they commit within the scope of their employment. In other words, the FTCA "makes the remedy against the United States under the FTCA exclusive" of "any other civil action or proceeding for money damages" that might otherwise be available "against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." Congress prohibited courts from holding federal employees personally liable for torts committed within the scope of their employment in order to avert what Congress perceived as "an immediate crisis involving the prospect of personal liability and the threat of protracted personal tort litigation for the entire Federal workforce." Critically, the individual employee generally remains immune from tort liability for torts committed within the scope of his employment even if a provision of the FTCA forecloses the plaintiff from recovering monetary damages from the United States itself.
As the following subsections of this report explain, determining whether the FTCA governs a particular tort case—and, thus, whether the FTCA shields the individual who committed the alleged tort from personal liability—requires the court to ask two threshold questions: (1) whether the individual who committed the tort was in fact a federal employee, and, if so, (2) whether that individual committed the tort within the scope of his office or employment.
Employees and Independent Contractors
First, the FTCA only waives the United States's sovereign immunity as to torts committed by an " employee of the Government." Thus, if a plaintiff attempts to sue the United States for a tort committed by someone who is not a federal employee, the plaintiff's claim against the government will necessarily fail. For the purposes of the FTCA, the term "employee of the government" includes
officers or employees of any federal agency; members of the military or naval forces of the United States; members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under certain provisions of federal law; persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity; and officers and employees of a federal public defender organization (except when such employees are performing professional services in the course of providing representation to clients).
As a result of this relatively broad definition of "employee," the FTCA effectively waives the government's immunity from torts committed by certain categories of persons who might not ordinarily be considered "employees" as a matter of common parlance.
Because the FTCA applies only to torts committed by federal employees, the FTCA provision shielding federal employees from personal tort liability does not protect nonemployees. Thus, with certain caveats discussed below, a plaintiff injured by the tortious action of a nonemployee may potentially be able to sue that nonemployee individually under ordinary principles of state tort law, even though he could not sue the United States under the FTCA.
Notably, the United States commonly hires independent contractors to carry out its governmental objectives. The FTCA, however, explicitly excludes independent contractors from the statutory definition of "employee." As a result, "the government cannot be held liable" under the FTCA "for torts committed by its independent contractors"; the plaintiff must instead attempt to seek compensation from the contractor itself.
Different courts consider different sets of factors when evaluating whether an alleged tortfeasor is an independent contractor as opposed to a government employee. Most courts, however, hold that "the critical factor" when assessing whether a defendant is an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of the FTCA is whether the federal government possesses the authority "to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor." "[A] contractor can be said to be an employee or agent of the United States within the intendment of the [FTCA] only where the Government has the power under the contract to supervise a contractor's day-to-day operations and to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor." Thus, to illustrate, courts have typically determined that certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) working for federal hospitals qualify as employees under the FTCA. These courts have justified that conclusion on the ground that CRNAs do not ordinarily enjoy broad discretion to exercise their independent judgment when administering anesthesia, but instead operate pursuant to the direct supervision and control of an operating surgeon or anesthesiologist working for the federal government. By contrast, courts have generally held that because physicians who provide medical services at facilities operated by the United States often operate relatively independently of the federal government's control, such physicians ordinarily qualify as "independent contractors, and not employees of the government for FTCA purposes."
The Boyle Rule
Because the FTCA's prohibition against suits by individual employees does not insulate independent contractors from liability, a plaintiff injured by the tortious action of an independent contractor working for the federal government may potentially be able to recover compensation directly from that contractor. Nevertheless, a plaintiff asserting a tort claim directly against a federal contractor may still encounter other obstacles to recovery. As the Supreme Court ruled in its 1988 decision in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , a plaintiff may not pursue state law tort claims against a government contractor if imposing such liability would either create "a 'significant conflict'" with "an identifiable 'federal policy or interest'" or "'frustrate specific objectives' of federal legislation." Several courts have therefore rejected tort claims against defense contractors on the ground that allowing such suits to proceed could undesirably interfere with military objectives. Courts have been less willing to extend Boyle immunity to nonmilitary contractors, however.
Scope of Employment
As noted above, the FTCA applies only to torts that a federal employee commits "while acting within the scope of his office or employment." Thus, "[i]f a government employee acts outside the scope of his employment when engaging in tortious conduct, an action against the United States under the FTCA will not lie." Instead, the plaintiff may potentially "file a state-law tort action against the" employee who committed the tort, as the aforementioned protections from liability apply only when employees are acting within the scope of their employment.
Courts determine whether a federal employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time he committed an alleged tort by applying the law the state in which the tort occurred. Although the legal principles that govern the scope of a tortfeasor's employment vary from state to state, many states consider whether the employer hired the employee to perform the act in question and whether the employee undertook the allegedly tortious activity to promote the employer's interests.
Two cases involving vehicular mishaps illustrate how courts perform the scope of employment inquiry in practice. In Barry v. Stevenson , for instance, two soldiers—one driver and one passenger—were returning to their headquarters in a government-owned Humvee military truck after completing a work assignment on a military base. The truck hit a dip in the trail, injuring the passenger. Because the driver "was engaged in annual Army National Guard training" and "driving a government vehicle . . . on government property" at the time of the accident, the court concluded that the driver "was acting within the course of his employment" as a federal officer "when the injury occurred."
In Merlonghi v. United States , by contrast, a special agent employed by the Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) collided with a motorcyclist while driving home from work in a government vehicle. The agent and the motorcyclist had engaged in a verbal altercation and "swerved their vehicles back and forth towards each other" immediately prior to the collision. After brandishing a firearm at the motorcyclist, the agent sharply careened his vehicle into the motorcycle, throwing the motorcyclist to the ground and severely injuring him. The court determined that the agent "was not acting within the scope of his employment" at the time of the collision even though "he was driving a government vehicle and was on call." The court first observed that "engaging in a car chase while driving home from work [wa]s not the type of conduct that OEE hired [the agent] to perform." The court also emphasized that the agent "was not at work, responding to an emergency, or driving to a work assignment" at the time of the collision. The court further noted that the agent's actions were not "motivated . . . by a purpose to serve the employer," as the agent's "argument with [the motorcyclist] and the back-and-forth swerving leading to the altercation had nothing to do with an OEE assignment. His conduct related to personal travel and a personal confrontation." Because the agent "was not acting within the scope of his employment when he crashed into" the motorcyclist, the court ruled that the district court had correctly dismissed the motorcyclist's claims seeking compensation from the United States.
Attorney General Certification
Occasionally a plaintiff will file a tort suit against an individual without realizing that he is a federal employee. In such cases, the FTCA allows the Attorney General to certify "that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose." If the Attorney General files such a certification, then
the lawsuit is "deemed an action against the United States" under the FTCA; the employee is dismissed from the action, and the United States is substituted as defendant in the employee's place; and the case proceeds against the government in federal court.
In such instances, the United States "remain[s] the federal defendant in the action unless and until the [d]istrict [c]ourt determines that the employee . . . engaged in conduct beyond the scope of his employment." By creating a mechanism by which the United States may substitute itself as the defendant in the individual employee's place, the FTCA effectively "immunize[s] covered federal employees not simply from liability, but from suit." In this way, the FTCA "relieve[s] covered employees from the cost and effort of defending the lawsuit" and instead places "those burdens on the Government's shoulders."
In some cases, the Attorney General's decision to substitute the United States in the officer's place may adversely affect the plaintiff's chances of prevailing on his claims. Generally speaking, once the Attorney General certifies that the federal employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the allegedly tortious act, "the FTCA's requirements, exceptions, and defenses apply to the suit." Depending on the circumstances, those requirements, exceptions, and defenses can "absolutely bar [the] plaintiff's case" against the United States, as explained in greater detail below. Moreover, the individual federal employee remains immune from liability even when the FTCA "precludes recovery against the Government" itself. Thus, under certain circumstances, the FTCA will shield both the United States and its employees from liability for its tortious actions, thereby effectively "leav[ing] certain tort victims without any remedy."
"In such cases, to try to preserve their lawsuits" against the federal employee, the plaintiff may attempt to "contest the Attorney General's scope-of-employment certification." That is, the plaintiff may argue that the government employee defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment, such that the suit should therefore proceed against the government official in his personal capacity. If the court agrees that the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the alleged tort, then "the suit becomes an action against the United States that is governed by the FTCA." If, however, the court disagrees with the Attorney General's determination, the suit may proceed against the government employee in his personal capacity.
A plaintiff may, however, prefer to litigate against the United States rather than against an individual government employee, especially if the employee does not have enough money to satisfy a judgment that the court might ultimately render in the plaintiff's favor. Because government employees may be "under-insured or judgment proof," they may lack sufficient assets to "satisfy judgments rendered against them" in tort cases. Thus, oftentimes the plaintiff does not object when the Attorney General certifies that the named defendant was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the alleged tort.
If a plaintiff successfully obtains a judgment against the United States based on the tortious conduct of a federal employee, the government may not subsequently sue the culpable employee to recover the amount of money the government paid to the plaintiff. Consequently, if the government successfully substitutes itself for an individual defendant in an FTCA case, that substitution may effectively relieve the individual employee from all civil liability for his allegedly tortious action. Because this aspect of the FTCA is particularly favorable for government employees, if the Attorney General refuses to certify that an employee was acting within the scope of his employment, that employee may at any time before trial petition a federal district court for certification that he was acting within the scope of his employment for the purposes of the FTCA. If the court agrees that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, then the case proceeds "against the Government, just as if the Attorney General had filed a certification." If, however, the court instead finds that the government employee was not acting within the scope of employment, then the lawsuit may proceed against the government employee in his personal capacity.
Exceptions to the FTCA's Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
As mentioned above, the FTCA imposes significant substantive limitations on the types of tort lawsuits a plaintiff may permissibly pursue against the United States. The Congress that enacted the FTCA, concerned about "unwarranted judicial intrusion[s] into areas of governmental operations and policymaking," opted to explicitly preserve the United States' sovereign immunity from more than a dozen categories of claims. Specifically, Section 2680 of the FTCA establishes the following exceptions preventing private litigants from pursuing the following categories of claims against the United States:
"Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation . . . or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty"; "Any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter"; certain claims arising from the actions of law enforcement officers administering customs and excise laws; certain admiralty claims against the United States for which federal law provides an alternative remedy; claims "arising out of an act or omission of any employee of the Government in administering" certain provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917; "Any claim for damages caused by the imposition or establishment of a quarantine by the United States"; certain claims predicated upon intentional torts committed by federal employees; "Any claim for damages caused by the fiscal operations of the Treasury or by the regulation of the monetary system" ; "Any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war"; "Any claim arising in a foreign country"; "Any claim arising from the activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority"; "Any claim arising from the activities of the Panama Canal Company"; or "Any claim arising from the activities of a Federal land bank, a Federal intermediate credit bank, or a bank for cooperatives."
Some of these exceptions are more doctrinally significant than others. The following sections of this report therefore discuss the most frequently litigated exceptions to the United States' waiver of immunity from tort claims.
The Discretionary Function Exception
First, Section 2680(a) —which is "commonly called the discretionary function exception" —"preserves the federal government's immunity . . . when an employee's acts involve the exercise of judgment or choice." Along with being one of the most frequently litigated exceptions to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity, the discretionary function exception is, according to at least one commentator, "the broadest and most consequential." For example, the United States has successfully invoked the discretionary function exception to avoid tort liability in cases involving exposures to radiation, asbestos, Agent Orange, and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
The discretionary function exception serves at least two purposes. First, the exception "prevent[s] judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort." According to one commentator, the Congress that enacted the FTCA viewed such second guessing to be "inappropriate" because (1) "such judgments are more appropriately left to the political branches of our governmental system;" and (2) "courts, which specialize in the resolution of discrete factual and legal disputes," may not be "equipped to make broad policy judgments." Second, the discretionary function exception is intended to "protect the Government from liability that would seriously handicap efficient government operations." By insulating the government from liability for the discretionary actions of its employees, the discretionary function exception arguably decreases the likelihood that federal employees will shy away from making sound policy decisions based on a fear of increasing the government's exposure to tort liability. Relatedly, exposing the United States to liability for discretionary acts could cause government officials to "spend an inordinate amount of their tax-payer compensated time responding to lawsuits" rather than serving the "greater good of the community." The discretionary function exception thus "marks the boundary between Congress' willingness to impose tort liability upon the United States and its desire to protect certain governmental activities from exposure to suit by private individuals."
As explained in greater detail in the following subsections, to determine whether the discretionary function exception bars a particular plaintiff's suit under the FTCA, courts examine whether the federal employee was engaged in conduct that was (1) discretionary and (2) policy-driven. "If the challenged conduct is both discretionary and policy-driven," then the FTCA does not waive the government's sovereign immunity with respect to that conduct, and the plaintiff's FTCA claim must therefore fail. If, by contrast, an official's action either (1) "does not involve any discretion" or (2) "involves discretion," but "does not involve the kind of discretion—consideration of public policy—that the exception was designed to protect," then the discretionary function exception does not bar the plaintiff's claim.
Whether the Challenged Conduct Is Discretionary
When first evaluating whether "the conduct that is alleged to have caused the harm" to the plaintiff "can fairly be described as discretionary," a court must assess "whether the conduct at issue involves 'an element of judgment or choice' by the employee." "The conduct of federal employees is generally held to be discretionary unless 'a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.'" If "the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive" established by a federal statute, regulation, or policy, "then there is no discretion in the conduct for the discretionary function exception to protect." Put another way, the discretionary function exception does not insulate the United States from liability when its employees "act in violation of a statute or policy that specifically directs them to act otherwise."
Even where a federal statute, regulation, or policy pertaining to the challenged action exists, however, the action may nonetheless qualify as discretionary if the law in question "predominately uses permissive rather than mandatory language." In other words, where "a government agent's performance of an obligation requires that agent to make judgment calls, the discretionary function exception" may bar the plaintiff's claim under the FTCA. Notably, "[t]he presence of a few, isolated provisions cast in mandatory language" in a federal statute, regulation, or policy "does not transform an otherwise suggestive set of guidelines into binding" law that will defeat the discretionary function exception. "Even when some provisions of a policy are mandatory, governmental action remains discretionary if all of the challenged decisions involved 'an element of judgment or choice.'"
The Fourth Circuit's decision in Rich v. United States exemplifies how courts evaluate whether a federal employee has engaged in discretionary conduct. The plaintiff in Rich —a federal inmate who was stabbed by members of a prison gang—attempted to file an FTCA suit alleging that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) should have housed him separately from the gang members. Federal law permitted—but did not affirmatively require—BOP "to separate certain inmates from others based on their past behavior." Because federal law empowered prison officials to "consider several factors and exercise independent judgment in determining whether inmates may require separation," the Rich court held that BOP's decision whether or not to separate an inmate from others was discretionary in nature and therefore outside the scope of the FTCA.
By contrast, in the Supreme Court case of Berkovitz ex rel. Berkovitz v. United States , the discretionary function exception did not shield the United States from liability. The plaintiff in Berkovitz alleged that the federal government issued a license to a vaccine manufacturer "without first receiving data that the manufacturer must submit showing how the product . . . matched up against regulatory safety standards," as required by federal law. After the plaintiff allegedly contracted polio from a vaccine produced by that manufacturer, the plaintiff sued the United States under the FTCA. Because "a specific statutory and regulatory directive" divested the United States of any "discretion to issue a license without first receiving the required test data," the Court held that "the discretionary function exception impose[d] no bar" to the plaintiff's claim.
Courts have disagreed regarding whether the discretionary function exception shields tortious conduct that allegedly violates the U.S. Constitution, as contrasted with a federal statute, regulation, or policy. Most courts have held that "the discretionary-function exception . . . does not shield decisions that exceed constitutional bounds, even if such decisions are imbued with policy considerations." These courts reason that "[t]he government 'has no "discretion" to violate the Federal Constitution; its dictates are absolute and imperative.'" By contrast, a minority of courts have instead concluded that the discretionary function exception shields actions "based upon [the] exercise of discretion" even if they are "constitutionally repugnant." These courts base that conclusion on the fact that the text of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) purports to shield discretionary judgments even when a government employee abuses his discretion. Still other courts have declined to take a side on this issue.
Whether Policy Considerations Influence the Exercise of the Employee's Discretion
If the allegedly tortious conduct that injured the plaintiff was discretionary, the court must then evaluate "whether the exercise or non-exercise of the granted discretion is actually or potentially influenced by policy considerations" —that is, whether the challenged action "implicate[s] social, economic, [or] policy judgments." As the Supreme Court has recognized, the discretionary function exception "protects . . . only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy." For instance, if a given decision requires a federal employee to "balance competing interests" —such as weighing the benefits of a particular public safety measure against that measure's financial costs —then that decision is likely susceptible to policy analysis within the meaning of the discretionary function exception.
When applying the second prong of the discretionary function exception, courts employ an objective rather than a subjective standard. Courts therefore "do not examine . . . 'whether policy considerations were actually contemplated in making the decision'" —that is, "[t]he decision need not actually be grounded in policy considerations so long as it is, by its nature, susceptible to a policy analysis." Indeed, the discretionary function exception "applies 'even if the discretion has been exercised erroneously' and is deemed to have frustrated the relevant policy purpose." For that reason, whether the employee committed negligence in exercising his discretion "is irrelevant to the applicability of the discretionary function exception." Nor does it matter whether the allegedly tortious action was undertaken "by low-level government officials [or] by high-level policymakers." The nature of the conduct challenged by the plaintiff—as opposed to the status of the actor—governs whether the discretionary function exception applies in a given case. As long as the challenged conduct involves the exercise of discretion in furtherance of some policy goal, the discretionary function exception forecloses claims under the FTCA.
If the first element of the discretionary function exception is satisfied, then courts will generally presume that the second element is satisfied as well. The Supreme Court has held that when an "established governmental policy, as expressed or implied by statute, regulation, or agency guidelines, allows a Government agent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the agent's acts are grounded in policy when exercising that discretion." Nevertheless, a plaintiff may rebut that presumption if "the challenged actions are not the kind of conduct that can be said to be grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime" at issue in the case.
Courts assessing the applicability of the discretionary function exception utilize a "case-by-case approach. " Given the fact-intensive nature of the discretionary function inquiry, "deciding whether a government agent's action is susceptible to policy analysis is often challenging." Nevertheless, examples from the case law help illustrate which sorts of governmental actions are susceptible to policy analysis. For instance, in the Rich case discussed above, the court held that "prisoner placement and the handling of threats posed by inmates against one another are 'part and parcel of the inherently policy-laden endeavor of maintaining order and preserving security within our nation's prisons.'" The court explained that "factors such as available resources, proper classification of inmates, and appropriate security levels are 'inherently grounded in social, political, and economic policy.'" Accordingly, the court held that BOP's decision to house the plaintiff with inmates who ultimately attacked him was susceptible to policy analysis, such that the discretionary function exception shielded the United States from liability.
By contrast, courts have held that decisions motivated solely by laziness or careless inattention "do not reflect the kind of considered judgment 'grounded in social, economic, and political policy'" that the discretionary function exception is intended to shield from judicial second-guessing. For example, the discretionary function exception does not shield "[a]n inspector's decision (motivated simply by laziness) to take a smoke break rather than inspect" a machine that malfunctions and injures the plaintiff, as a mere decision to act carelessly or slothfully "involves no element of choice or judgment grounded in policy considerations." Courts have similarly held that allowing toxic mold to grow on food served at the commissary on a naval base is not a decision influenced by "social, economic, or political policy," and that, as a result, the discretionary function exception does not bar a plaintiff sickened by that mold from suing the United States.
The Intentional Tort Exception
Another important exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity is known as the "intentional tort exception." An "intentional tort," as the name suggests, occurs "when the defendant acted with the intent to injure the plaintiff or with substantial certainty that his action would injure the plaintiff." A familiar example of an intentional tort is battery—that is, purposeful harmful or offensive physical contact with another person. Subject to a significant proviso discussed below, the intentional tort exception generally preserves the United States's immunity against claims arising out of
assault; battery; false imprisonment; false arrest; malicious prosecution; abuse of process; libel; slander; misrepresentation; deceit; or interference with contract rights.
As the Supreme Court has observed, however, this list "does not remove from the FTCA's waiver all intentional torts;" moreover, the list includes "certain torts . . . that may arise out of negligent"—and therefore unintentional—"conduct." Thus, while the phrase "intentional tort exception" provides a suitable "shorthand description" of the exception's scope, that moniker is, according to the High Court, "not entirely accurate."
The FTCA's "legislative history contains scant commentary" discussing Congress's rationale for exempting these categories of torts from the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. However, at least some Members of the Congress that first enacted the FTCA appeared to believe (1) that "it would be 'unjust' to make the government liable" for the intentional torts of its employees; and (2) that "exposing the public fisc to potential liability for assault, battery, and other listed torts would be 'dangerous,' based on the notion that these torts are both easy for plaintiffs to exaggerate and difficult to defend against."
The intentional tort exception has shielded the United States from liability for serious acts of misconduct allegedly committed by federal officers. In a particularly high-profile example, a group of women who were allegedly sexually assaulted by naval officers at the 1991 Tailhook Convention sued the United States under the FTCA "for the sexual assaults and batteries allegedly perpetrated by Naval officers at the Convention social events." The court ultimately ruled that the intentional tort exception defeated the plaintiffs' claims against the United States, as the alleged sexual assaults constituted intentionally tortious acts.
The Exception to the Intentional Tort Exception:235 The Law Enforcement Proviso
Critically, however, the intentional tort exception contains a carve-out known as the "law enforcement proviso" that renders the United States liable for certain intentional tort claims committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government." Congress added this proviso "in 1974 in response to widespread publicity over abuse of powers by federal law enforcement officers." Thus, although "private citizens are barred from bringing suit against federal employees for many intentional torts, they may nonetheless bring suit" against the United States for a subset of these torts "if the alleged act was committed by an 'investigative or law enforcement officer.'" Only the following torts fall within the law enforcement proviso's ambit:
assault; battery; false imprisonment; false arrest; abuse of process; and malicious prosecution.
The list of intentional torts that potentially qualify for the law enforcement proviso therefore contains "only half" of "the torts listed in the intentional tort exception." The proviso thereby only "waives immunity for the types of tort claims typically asserted against criminal law enforcement officers, while preserving immunity for other tort claims that are asserted more broadly against federal employees."
To determine whether the proviso applies in any given case, the court must first assess whether the alleged tortfeasor qualifies as an "investigative or law enforcement officer[]." The FTCA defines that term to include "any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to" (1) "execute searches," (2) "seize evidence," or (3) "make arrests for violations of Federal law." Some courts have therefore concluded that the law enforcement proviso waives the United States's immunity only against claims for intentional torts committed by "criminal law enforcement officers," as contrasted with "federal employees who conduct only administrative searches" like Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners. Thus, as a general matter, the United States remains largely immune to claims arising from intentional torts committed by federal employees who are not criminal law enforcement officers.
It is important to note that the law enforcement proviso waives the United States's immunity only for acts or omissions committed "while the officer is 'acting within the scope of his office or employment.'" The underlying tort need not arise while the officer is executing searches, seizing evidence, or making arrests; so long as the officer is "act[ing] within the scope of his or her employment" at the time the tort arises, "the waiver of sovereign immunity holds." In other words, the waiver of sovereign immunity "effected by the law enforcement proviso extends to acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity" at the time they commit the allegedly tortious act. To illustrate, the Supreme Court has held that the intentional tort exception will not necessarily bar a federal prisoner's claim "that correctional officers sexually assaulted . . . him while he was in their custody." Assuming that the correctional officers qualified as law enforcement officers within the meaning of the FTCA and were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the alleged assault, the Court concluded that the law enforcement proviso rendered the intentional tort exception inapplicable even if the correctional officers were not specifically engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity during the assault itself.
The Foreign Country Exception
As the name suggests, the "foreign country exception" to the FTCA preserves the United States' sovereign immunity against "any claim arising in a foreign country." The Supreme Court has interpreted this exception to "bar[] all claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred ." The exception therefore "ensure[s] that the United States is not exposed to excessive liability under the laws of a foreign country over which it has no control," as could potentially occur if the United States made itself liable to the same extent as any private citizen who commits a tort in that country.
The recent case of S.H. ex rel. Holt v. United States illustrates how courts apply the foreign country exception in practice. In that case, a family attempted to sue the United States pursuant to the FTCA, alleging that U.S. Air Force (USAF) officials in California "negligently approved the family's request for command-sponsored travel to a [USAF] base in Spain" with substandard medical facilities. When the mother ultimately gave birth prematurely in Spain, her daughter was injured during birth. After the family returned to the United States, American doctors diagnosed the daughter with cerebral palsy resulting from her premature birth. The court concluded that, because the daughter's "cerebral palsy resulted from the brain injury she sustained in Spain," the foreign country exception barred the family's FTCA claim even though doctors did not diagnose the daughter with cerebral palsy until after the family returned the United States. To support its conclusion, the court reasoned that, for the purposes of the foreign country exception, "an injury is suffered where the harm first 'impinge[s]' upon the body, even if it is later diagnosed elsewhere."
The Military Exceptions
Finally, two exceptions—one created by Congress, one created by the Supreme Court—preserve the federal government's immunity as to certain torts arising from the United States' military activities.
The Combatant Activities Exception
The first such exception, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j), preserves the United States' immunity from "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war." Although the FTCA's legislative history casts little light on the purpose and intended scope of the combatant activities exception, courts have generally inferred that "the policy embodied by the combatant activities exception is . . . to preempt state or foreign regulation of federal wartime conduct and to free military commanders from the doubts and uncertainty inherent in potential subjection to civil suit."
The 1996 case of Clark v. United States illustrates how the combatant activities exception operates in practice. The plaintiff in Clark —a U.S. army sergeant who served in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm—conceived a child with his wife after he returned home to the United States. After the child manifested serious birth defects, the sergeant sued the United States, claiming that his "exposure to the toxins he encountered while serving in Saudi Arabia" during Operation Desert Storm "combined with the medications and shots he received from the U.S. Army" caused his child to be born with significant injuries. The court concluded that, because a state of war existed during Operation Desert Storm, the sergeant's claims arose "out of wartime activities by the military" and were therefore barred by the combatant activities exception.
The Feres Doctrine
In addition to the exceptions to liability explicitly enumerated in Section 2680, the Supreme Court has also articulated an additional exception to the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity known as the Feres doctrine. That doctrine derives its name from the 1950 case Feres v. United States , in which several active duty servicemembers (or their executors) attempted to assert a variety of tort claims against the United States. The executor for one of the servicemembers who died in a fire at a military facility, for instance, claimed that the United States had negligently caused the servicemember's death by "quartering him in barracks known or which should have been known to be unsafe because of a defective heating plant" and by "failing to maintain an adequate fire watch." The second plaintiff claimed that an Army surgeon negligently left a 30-by-18-inch towel in his stomach during an abdominal operation. The executor of a third servicemember alleged that army surgeons administered "negligent and unskillful medical treatment" that resulted in the servicemember's death. The Supreme Court dismissed all three claims, holding "that the Government is not liable under the [FTCA] for injuries to [military] servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to [military] service."
The Feres doctrine thus "applies broadly" to render the United States immune from tort liability resulting from virtually "all injuries suffered by military personnel that are even remotely related to the individual's status as a member of the military." For instance, courts have frequently barred active duty servicemembers from suing the United States for medical malpractice allegedly committed by military doctors.
Notably, the Feres doctrine is not explicitly codified in the FTCA . Instead, courts have justified Feres on the ground that subjecting the United States to liability for tort claims arising out of military service could "disrupt the unique hierarchical and disciplinary structure of the military." According to the Supreme Court, "complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, and . . . control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments." In the Supreme Court's view, requiring federal courts to adjudicate "suits brought by service members against the Government for injuries incurred incident to service" would thereby embroil "the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness."
As discussed in greater detail below, the Feres doctrine has been the subject of significant debate. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed or expanded Feres on several occasions despite opportunities and invitations to overturn or confine its holding. Most recently, on May 20, 2019, the Court denied a petition asking the court to overrule Feres with respect to certain types of medical malpractice claims. Although the Supreme Court has stated that Congress may abrogate or modify Feres by amending the FTCA if it so chooses, Congress has not yet opted to do so.
Other Limitations on Damages Under the FTCA
Apart from the exceptions to the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity discussed above, the FTCA may also limit a plaintiff's ability to obtain compensation from the federal government in other ways. Although, as a general matter, the damages that a plaintiff may recover in an FTCA suit are typically determined by the law of the state in which the tort occurred, the FTCA imposes several restrictions on the types and amount of damages that a litigant may recover. With few exceptions, plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages or prejudgment interest against the United States. The FTCA likewise bars most awards of attorney's fees against the government.
Furthermore, with limited exceptions, an FTCA plaintiff may not recover any damages that exceed the amount he initially requested when he submitted his claim to the applicable agency to satisfy the FTCA's exhaustion requirement, which this report discusses below. "[T]he underlying purpose of" requiring the plaintiff to specify the maximum amount of damages he seeks "is to put the government on notice of its maximum potential exposure to liability" and thereby "make intelligent settlement decisions." Critically, however, a plaintiff can potentially recover damages in excess of the amount he initially requested if the plaintiff can demonstrate "intervening facts" or "newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the claim to the federal agency" that warrant a larger award.
Procedural Requirements
In addition to the aforementioned substantive limitations on a plaintiff's ability to pursue a tort lawsuit against the United States, Congress has also established an array of procedural requirements a plaintiff must satisfy in order to validly invoke the FTCA. Most significantly, the FTCA contains statute-of-limitations and exhaustion provisions that limit when a plaintiff may permissibly file a tort lawsuit against the United States.
For one, with certain exceptions, a plaintiff may not institute an FTCA action against the United States unless (1) the plaintiff has first "presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency" whose employees are responsible for the plaintiff's alleged injury, and (2) that agency has "finally denied" the plaintiff's claim. These administrative exhaustion requirements afford federal agencies an opportunity to settle disputes before engaging in formal litigation in the federal courts. "[E]ncouraging settlement of tort claims within administrative agencies" in this manner arguably "reduce[s] court congestion and avoid[s] unnecessary litigation." Because litigation can be costly and time-consuming, "the settlement of claims within administrative agencies" arguably not only "benefits FTCA claimants by permitting them to forego the expense of full-blown litigation," but also "frees up limited [governmental] resources for more pressing matters."
A claimant ordinarily has two years from the date of his injury to present a written notification of his FTCA claim "to the Federal agency whose activities gave rise to the claim." This written notification must "sufficiently describ[e] the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation." Once the agency receives such notice, it may either settle the claim or deny it.
With limited exceptions, if the claimant fails to submit an administrative claim within the two-year time limit, then "his 'tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred.'" As a general rule, a plaintiff must "exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit"; a plaintiff usually cannot file an FTCA lawsuit and then cure his failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement by belatedly submitting an administrative claim.
If, after the claimant submits his claim to the relevant administrative agency, the claimant and the agency agree on a mutually acceptable settlement, no further litigation occurs. Statistics suggest that "[t]he majority of FTCA . . . claims are resolved on the administrative level and do not go to litigation." If the agency does not agree to settle the claim, however, the agency may deny the claim by "mailing, by certified or registered mail, . . . notice of final denial of the claim" to the claimant. If no administrative settlement occurs, a claimant's right to a judicial determination "is preserved and the claimant may file suit in federal court." The claimant typically has six months from the date the agency mails its denial to initiate an FTCA lawsuit against the United States in federal court if he so chooses. With limited exceptions, if the plaintiff does not file suit before this six-month deadline, his claim against the United States will be "forever barred."
If a federal agency does not promptly decide whether to settle or deny claims that claimants have presented to them, the FTCA establishes a mechanism for constructive exhaustion to prevent claims from being consigned to administrative limbo while the claimant awaits the agency's decision. Pursuant to Section 2675(a) of the FTCA, "[t]he failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of" the FTCA's exhaustion requirement. Thus, under these limited circumstances, Section 2675(a) authorizes a plaintiff to file an FTCA suit against the United States even before the agency has formally denied his administrative claim.
Legislative Proposals to Amend the FTCA
Since Congress first enacted the FTCA in 1946, the federal courts have developed a robust body of judicial precedent interpreting the statute. In recent decades, however, the Supreme Court has rejected several invitations by litigants to modify its long-standing doctrines governing the FTCA's application. In doing so, the Court has expressed reluctance to revisit settled FTCA precedents in the absence of congressional action. Thus, if Congress disapproves of some or all of the legal principles that currently govern FTCA cases, legislative action may be necessary to change the governing standards.
Some observers have advocated a variety of modifications to the FTCA. Recent legislative proposals to alter the FTCA have included, among other things,
carving out certain categories of claims, cases, or plaintiffs to which the FTCA does not apply; expanding or narrowing the FTCA's definition of "employee" —which, as discussed above, is presently relatively broad, but does not include independent contractors; and amending 28 U.S.C. § 2680 to create new exceptions to the federal government's waiver of sovereign immunity—or, alternatively, to broaden, narrow, or eliminate existing exceptions.
Proposals to change the FTCA's substantive standards implicate policy questions that Congress may wish to consider. On one hand, broadening the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity could enable a larger number of victims of government wrongdoing to obtain recourse through the federal courts, but could concomitantly increase the total amount of money the United States must pay to tort claimants each year and exacerbate "concerns . . . about . . . the impact that extensive litigation might have on the ability of government officials to focus on and perform their other duties." Conversely, narrowing the FTCA's immunity waiver could result in a larger number of private individuals bearing the costs of government employee misfeasance, but could result in a cost savings to the United States and decrease the potential for judicial interference with federal operations.
Proposals to Abrogate or Modify Feres
One particular proposal to amend the FTCA that has captured a relatively substantial amount of congressional attention is abrogating or narrowing the Feres doctrine. As discussed above, the Feres doctrine shields the federal government from liability "for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to [military] service." Opponents of Feres argue that the doctrine inappropriately bars servicemembers from obtaining recourse for their injuries. Critics maintain that Feres 's bar on FTCA suits creates especially unjust results with respect to servicemembers who suffer injuries in military hospitals and servicemembers who are victims of sexual abuse, as those types of tortious actions are far removed from the core functions of the military. Some Members of Congress, judges, and legal commentators have therefore advocated eliminating or narrowing the Feres doctrine to allow servicemembers to pursue certain tort claims against the United States under the FTCA.
Supporters of Feres , by contrast, have instead urged Congress to retain the Feres doctrine in its current form. These commentators contend "that the abolition of the Feres doctrine would lead to intra-military lawsuits that would have a very adverse effect on military order, discipline and effectiveness." Supporters further maintain that entertaining tort suits by servicemembers against the United States would increase the government's exposure to monetary liability. Some who support the Feres doctrine argue that even though Feres bars servicemembers from suing the United States under the FTCA for injuries they sustain incident to military service, Feres does not necessarily leave servicemembers without any remedy whatsoever; depending on the circumstances, injured servicemembers may be entitled to certain benefits under other federal statutes.
Congress has periodically held hearings to assess whether to retain, abrogate, or modify the Feres doctrine. The House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted the most recent of those hearings on April 30, 2019.
If Congress desires to authorize servicemembers to prosecute tort lawsuits against the United States, it has several options. For example, Congress could abolish Feres in its entirety and allow servicemembers to file tort suits against the United States subject to the same exceptions and prerequisites that govern FTCA lawsuits initiated by nonservicemembers. Alternatively, instead of abrogating Feres entirely, Congress could allow servicemembers to sue the United States for only certain injuries arising from military service, such as injuries resulting from medical malpractice. As an alternative to authorizing full-fledged litigation against the United States in federal court, Congress could also create alternative compensation mechanisms intended to provide relief to injured servicemembers whose claims would otherwise be barred by Feres . Such alternative compensation procedures could, for example, resemble the alternative compensation scheme Congress established for persons injured by vaccines.
To that end, Congress has periodically introduced bills proposing to modify the Feres doctrine. Most recently, several Members of the 116th Congress cosponsored the Sfc. Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act of 2019 ( H.R. 2422 ), which would authorize "member[s] of the Armed Forces of the United States" to bring claims "against the United States under [the FTCA] for damages . . . arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical, dental, or related health care functions" rendered at certain military medical treatment facilities under specified conditions.
Private Bills
In addition to proposals to modify the FTCA itself, Congress retains the authority to enact private legislation to compensate individual tort victims who would otherwise be barred from obtaining recourse from the United States under the FTCA in its current form. Although, as explained above, Congress enacted the FTCA in part to eliminate the need to pass private bills in order to compensate persons injured by the federal government, Congress still retains some authority to pass private bills if it so desires. Thus, rather than amend the FTCA to expand the universe of circumstances in which the United States will be liable to tort claimants, some have suggested that Congress should pass individual private bills to compensate particular injured persons or groups of persons who might otherwise lack recourse under the FTCA. To that end, Congress has occasionally "provided compensation [to plaintiffs] in situations where the courts have found that the FTCA waiver of immunity provides no relief."
Summary:
| A plaintiff injured by a defendant's wrongful act may file a tort lawsuit to recover money from that defendant. To name a particularly familiar example, a person who negligently causes a vehicular collision may be liable to the victim of that crash. By forcing people who wrongfully injure others to pay money to their victims, the tort system serves at least two functions: (1) deterring people from injuring others and (2) compensating those who are injured.
Employees and officers of the federal government occasionally commit torts just like other members of the general public. For a substantial portion of this nation's history, however, plaintiffs injured by the tortious acts of a federal officer or employee were barred from filing lawsuits against the United States by "sovereign immunity"—a legal doctrine that ordinarily prohibits private citizens from haling a sovereign state into court without its consent. Until the mid-20th century, a tort victim could obtain compensation from the United States only by persuading Congress to pass a private bill compensating him for his loss.
Congress, deeming this state of affairs unacceptable, enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which authorizes plaintiffs to obtain compensation from the United States for the torts of its employees. However, subjecting the federal government to tort liability not only creates a financial cost to the United States, it also creates a risk that government officials may inappropriately base their decisions not on socially desirable policy objectives, but rather on the desire to reduce the government's exposure to monetary damages. In an attempt to mitigate these potential negative effects of abrogating the government's immunity from liability and litigation, the FTCA limits the circumstances in which a plaintiff may pursue a tort lawsuit against the United States. For example, the FTCA contains several exceptions that categorically bar plaintiffs from recovering tort damages in certain categories of cases. Federal law also restricts the types and amount of damages a victorious plaintiff may recover in an FTCA suit. Additionally, a plaintiff may not initiate an FTCA lawsuit unless he has timely complied with a series of procedural requirements, such as providing the government an initial opportunity to evaluate the plaintiff's claim and decide whether to settle it before the case proceeds to federal court.
Since Congress first enacted the FTCA, the federal courts have developed a robust body of judicial precedent interpreting the statute's contours. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has expressed reluctance to reconsider its long-standing FTCA precedents, thereby leaving the task of further developing the FTCA to Congress. Some Members of Congress have accordingly proposed legislation to modify the FTCA in various respects, such as by broadening the circumstances in which a plaintiff may hold the United States liable for torts committed by government employees. | 96 | 64,773 | 64,775 | 64,775 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_R45237 | crs_R45237_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
T his report describes actions taken by the Administration and Congress to provide FY2019 appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. It also provides an overview of enacted FY2018 appropriations for agencies and bureaus funded as part of annual CJS appropriations. The second part of this report provides an overview of historical funding trends for CJS.
The dollar amounts in this report reflect only new funding made available at the start of the fiscal year. Therefore, the amounts do not include any rescissions of unobligated or deobligated balances that may be counted as offsets to newly enacted appropriations, nor do they include any scorekeeping adjustments (e.g., the budgetary effects of provisions limiting the availability of the balance in the Crime Victims Fund). In the text of the report, appropriations are rounded to the nearest million. However, percentage changes are calculated using whole, not rounded, numbers, meaning that in some instances there may be small differences between the actual percentage change and the percentage change that would be calculated by using the rounded amounts presented in the report.
Overview of CJS
The annual CJS appropriations act provides funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, select science agencies, and several related agencies. Appropriations for the Department of Commerce include funding for agencies such as the Census Bureau; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide funding for agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Prisons; the U.S. Marshals Service; the Drug Enforcement Administration; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, along with funding for a variety of grant programs for state, local, and tribal governments. The vast majority of funding for the science agencies goes to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. The annual appropriation for the related agencies includes funding for agencies such as the Legal Services Corporation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Department of Commerce
The mission of the Department of Commerce is to "create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity." The department promotes "job creation and economic growth by ensuring fair and reciprocal trade, providing the data necessary to support commerce and constitutional democracy, and fostering innovation by setting standards and conducting foundational research and development." It has wide-ranging responsibilities including, among others, trade, economic development, technology, entrepreneurship and business development, monitoring the environment, forecasting weather, managing marine resources, and statistical research and analysis. The department pursues and implements policies that affect trade and economic development by working to open new markets for U.S. goods and services and promoting pro-growth business policies. It also invests in research and development to foster innovation.
The agencies within the Department of Commerce, and their major responsibilities, include the following:
International Trade Administration (ITA) seeks to strengthen the international competitiveness of U.S. industry, promote trade and investment, and ensure fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements; Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) works to ensure an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promote continued U.S. leadership in strategic technologies by maintaining and strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export controls and treaty compliance systems, along with active leadership and involvement in international export control regimes; Economic Development Administration (EDA) promotes innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy; Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) promotes the growth of minority owned businesses through the mobilization and advancement of public and private sector programs, policy, and research; Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) is a federal statistical agency that promotes a better understanding of the U.S. economy by providing timely, relevant, and accurate economic accounts data in an objective and cost-effective manner; Census Bureau , a component of ESA, measures and disseminates information about the U.S. economy, society, and institutions, which fosters economic growth, advances scientific understanding, and facilitates informed decisions; National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) advises the President on communications and information policy; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fosters innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth domestically and abroad by providing high-quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property (IP) policy, and delivering IP information and education worldwide; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology enhancing economic security; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides weather forecasts and research, oceanic and atmospheric monitoring, fisheries management and research, ocean exploration, and support of marine commerce.
Department of Justice
DOJ's mission is to "enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." DOJ also provides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executive branch department heads.
The major functions of DOJ offices and agencies are described below:
Office of the United States Attorneys prosecutes violations of federal criminal laws, represents the federal government in civil actions, and initiates proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures owed to the United States; United States Marshals Service (USMS) provides security for the federal judiciary, protects witnesses, executes warrants and court orders, manages seized assets, detains and transports offenders who have not been sentenced, and apprehends fugitives; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of federal criminal law; helps protect the United States against terrorism and hostile intelligence efforts; provides assistance to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and shares jurisdiction with the Drug Enforcement Administration for the investigation of federal drug violations; Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigates federal drug law violations; develops and maintains drug intelligence systems; regulates the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of legitimate controlled substances; and conducts joint intelligence-gathering activities with foreign governments; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) enforces federal law related to the manufacture, importation, and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives; Federal Prison System ( Bureau of Prisons; BOP ) houses offenders sentenced to a term of incarceration for a federal crime and provides for the operation and maintenance of the federal prison system; Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women and administer justice for and strengthen services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages and coordinates the activities of the Bureau of Justice Assistance; Bureau of Justice Statistics; National Institute of Justice; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking; and Office of Victims of Crime; and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) advances the practice of community policing by the nation's state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources.
Science Offices and Agencies5
The science offices and agencies support research and development and related activities across a wide variety of federal missions, including national competitiveness, space exploration, and fundamental discovery.
Office of Science and Technology Policy
The primary function of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is to provide the President and others within the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require the attention of the federal government. The OSTP director also manages the National Science and Technology Council, which coordinates science and technology policy across the executive branch of the federal government, and cochairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a council of external advisors that provides advice to the President on matters related to science and technology policy.
The National Space Council
The National Space Council, in the Executive Office of the President, is a coordinating body for U.S. space policy. Chaired by the Vice President, it consists of the Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security; the Administrator of NASA; and other senior officials. The council previously existed from 1988 to 1993 and was reestablished by the Trump Administration in June 2017.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created to conduct civilian space and aeronautics activities. It has four mission directorates. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is responsible for human spaceflight activities, including the International Space Station and development efforts for future crewed spacecraft. The Science Mission Directorate manages robotic science missions, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Mars rover Curiosity, and satellites for Earth science research. The Space Technology Mission Directorate develops new technologies for use in future space missions, such as advanced propulsion and laser communications. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate conducts research and development on aircraft and aviation systems. In addition, NASA's Office of STEM Engagement (formerly the Office of Education) manages education programs for schoolchildren, college and university students, and the general public.
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the nonmedical sciences and engineering. The foundation was established as an independent federal agency "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." The NSF is a primary source of federal support for U.S. university research. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and support.
Related Agencies
The annual CJS appropriations act includes funding for several related agencies:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights informs the development of national civil rights policy and enhances enforcement of federal civil rights laws; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information; International Trade Commission investigates the effects of dumped and subsidized imports on domestic industries and conducts global safeguard investigations, adjudicates cases involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights, and serves as a resource for trade data and other trade policy-related information; Legal Services Corporation is a federally funded nonprofit corporation that provides financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans; Marine Mammal Commission works for the conservation of marine mammals by providing science-based oversight of domestic and international policies and actions of federal agencies with a mandate to address human effects on marine mammals and their ecosystems; Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. international trade, commodity, and direct investment policy, and overseeing negotiations with other countries; and State Justice Institute is a federally funded nonprofit corporation that awards grants to improve the quality of justice in state courts and foster innovative, efficient solutions to common issues faced by all courts.
FY2018 Enacted Funding
For FY2018, Congress and the President provided a total of $72.119 billion for CJS. This included $70.921 billion in regular funding provided pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 , see Table 1 ) and $1.198 billion in emergency-designated funding provided pursuant to the Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 , see Table 2 ). For FY2018, the Department of Commerce received $12.137 billion ($11.137 billion in regular funding and $1.000 billion in supplemental funding), the Department of Justice received $30.384 billion ($30.299 billion in regular funding and $85 million in supplemental funding), the science agencies received $28.609 billion ($28.511 billion in regular funding and $98 million in supplemental funding), and the related agencies received $989 million ($974 million in regular funding and $15 million in supplemental funding).
Comparisons in this report between FY2018 enacted funding and the Administration's FY2019 request, the House and Senate committee-reported FY2019 amounts, and FY2019 enacted funding are based on FY2018 regular funding (i.e., FY2018 enacted funding excluding supplemental appropriations).
The Administration's FY2019 Budget Request
The Administration requested $66.555 billion for CJS for FY2019, which was 6.2% less than FY2018 regular funding. When comparing the Administration's FY2019 request to the FY2018 funding, it should be considered that the Administration formulated its FY2019 budget request before full-year appropriations for FY2018 were enacted. FY2018 funding levels, for the purposes of the Administration's request, were calculated based on FY2017 funding minus a reduction (0.6791%) as extended under a series of continuing resolutions.
The Administration requested the following:
$9.797 billion for the Department of Commerce, which was 12.0% less than FY2018 regular funding; $28.835 billion for the Department of Justice, which was 4.8% less than FY2018 regular funding; $27.372 billion for the science agencies, which was 4.0% less than FY2018 regular funding; and $551 million for the related agencies, which was 43.4% less than FY2018 regular funding.
The Administration's FY2019 budget for CJS proposed eliminating several agencies and programs:
EDA, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Community Relations Service (its functions would have been moved to DOJ's Civil Rights Division), COPS Office (grants managed by the COPS Office would have been moved to OJP), NASA's Education program, and the Legal Services Corporation.
The Administration requested some funding for the EDA and Legal Services Corporation for what would have been an orderly closeout of these agencies had Congress adopted the Administration's proposal.
The Administration's budget also proposed to move funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program to the DEA. Currently, HIDTA funding is administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The Administration's requested funding for many CJS accounts was below FY2018 levels; however, there were a handful of exceptions:
the Census Bureau's Periodic Census and Programs account (+$1.007 billion, +39.6%), DOJ's Executive Office of Immigration Review (+$59 million, +11.8%), ATF (+$23 million, +1.8%), BIS (+$7 million, +6.3%), NSF's Agency Operations and Award Management account (+$5 million, +1.6%), ESA (+$2 million, +2.0%), and the State Justice Institute (+$2 million, +35.1%).
The Administration also proposed a new account structure for NASA, with three new accounts: Exploration Research and Technology, Deep Space Exploration Systems, and low Earth orbit (LEO) and Spaceflight Operations. The proposed Exploration Research and Technology account would have combined the Space Technology account with some elements of the Exploration account and the proposed Deep Space Exploration Systems account would have been the Exploration account minus the elements moved to the Exploration Research and Technology account. LEO and Spaceflight Operations would essentially have been a renaming of the Space Operations account.
The House Committee-Reported Bill (H.R. 5952)
The House committee-reported bill ( H.R. 5952 ) would have provided a total of $73.923 billion for CJS for FY2019, an amount that was 4.2% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 11.1% greater than the Administration's request. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended the following:
$12.106 billion for the Department of Commerce, which was 8.7% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 23.6% greater than the Administration's request; $31.113 billion for the Department of Justice, which was 2.7% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 7.9% greater than the Administration's request; $29.728 billion for the science agencies, which was 4.3% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 8.6% greater than the Administration's request; and $976 million for the related agencies, which was 0.2% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 77.1% greater than the Administration's request.
The committee-reported bill would have increased funding for most CJS accounts compared to regular FY2018 funding. Some of the exceptions included the following:
ITA (-$2 million, -0.4%); NIST's Scientific and Technical Research and Services account (-$5 million, -0.6%); NIST's Industrial Technology Services account (-$10 million, -6.5%); NIST's Construction of Research Facilities account (-$199 million, -62.4%); NOAA's Operations, Research, and Facilities account (-$63 million, -1.8%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$683 million, -29.8%); U.S. Marshals' Construction account (-$28 million, -53.2%); FBI's Construction account (-$305 million, -82.4%); BOP's Buildings and Facilities account (-$12 million, -7.2%); Juvenile Justice Programs (-$71 million, -25.0%); and NASA's Education account (-$10 million, -10.0%).
In general, the committee-reported bill would have funded CJS accounts at or above the Administration's request, but there were a few exceptions:
BIS (-$7 million, -5.9%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$15 million, -0.9%); DOJ's General Administration Salaries and Expenses (-$12 million, -10.3%); Juvenile Justice Programs (-$18 million, -7.6%); NASA's Operations Research and Technology account (-$103 million, -10.2%); and the State Justice Institute (-$1 million, -15.9%).
The House Committee on Appropriations did not adopt most of the Administration's proposals. The committee did not eliminate funding for EDA, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Community Relations Service, NASA's Education program, and the Legal Services Corporation. With the exception of NASA's Education program, the committee-reported bill would have funded these agencies and programs at a level equal to FY2018 regular funding. Additionally, the committee-reported bill did not provide funding for the HIDTA program under the DEA. However, the committee adopted two of the Administration's proposals. Funding for the COPS program would have been moved to OJP under H.R. 5952 . Also, the committee-reported bill included the Administration's proposed account structure for NASA.
The Senate Committee-Reported Bill (S. 3072)
The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 3072 ) would have provided a total of $72.648 billion for CJS for FY2019, an amount that was 2.4% more than regular FY2018 funding and 9.2% more than the Administration's request. The Senate committee-reported bill would have provided the following:
$11.572 billion for the Department of Commerce, which was 3.9% more than regular FY2018 funding and 18.1% more than the Administration's request; $30.699 billion for the Department of Justice, which was 1.3% more than regular FY2018 funding and 6.5% more than the Administration's request; $29.400 billion for the science agencies, which was 3.1% more than regular FY2018 funding and 7.4% more than the Administration's request; and $977 million for the related agencies, which was 0.4% more than regular FY2018 funding and 77.3% more than the Administration's request.
In general, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended funding many CJS accounts at or above the regular FY2018 funding amount. A few notable exceptions included the following:
NIST's Construction of Research Facilities account (-$161 million, -50.5%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$484 million, -21.1%); U.S. Marshals' Construction account (-$18 million, -34.5%); DOJ's Interagency Law Enforcement account (-$21 million, -3.9%); NASA's Space Operations account (-$112 million, -2.4%); NASA's Safety, Security, and Mission Services account (-$77 million, -2.7%); and NASA's Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account (-$174 million, -31.0%).
The Senate committee-reported bill would have funded nearly every CJS account at or above the level requested by the Administration. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also declined to adopt many of the proposals the Administration put forth in its FY2019 budget. Unlike the House committee-reported bill, S. 3072 would have funded the COPS program through its own account and the committee did not include the Administration's new account structure for NASA. The committee did propose changing the name of NASA's Education account to "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Opportunities." The Senate bill would have also funded the Office on Violence Against Women via a transfer from the Crime Victims Fund.
FY2019 Enacted Funding
On February 15, 2019, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ), which includes $72.908 billion for CJS. The FY2019 enacted amount is 2.8% more than regular FY2018 funding and 9.5% more than the Administration's request. The act includes the following:
$11.414 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is 2.5% more than regular FY2018 funding and 16.5% more than the Administration's request; $30.934 billion for the Department of Justice, which is 2.1% more than regular FY2018 funding and 7.3% more than the Administration's request; $29.583 billion for the science agencies, which is 3.8% more than regular FY2018 funding and 8.1% more than the Administration's request; and $977 million for the related agencies, which is 0.3% more than regular FY2018 funding and 77.3% more than the Administration's request.
FY2019 enacted funding is generally in-line with regular FY2018 funding and higher than the Administration's request. Some notable increases in FY2019 enacted funding compared to regular FY2018 funding include the following:
Census Bureau's Periodic Censuses and Programs account (+$1.007 billion, +39.6%), Executive Office of Immigration Review (+$59 million, +11.8%), U.S. Attorneys (+$75 million, +3.5%), U.S. Marshals' Salaries and Expenses account (+$47 million, +3.5%), FBI's Salaries and Expenses account (+$162 million, +1.8%), DEA's Salaries and Expenses account (+$77 million, +3.5%), BOP's Salaries and Expenses account (+$136 million, +1.9%), BOP's Buildings and Facilities account (+$102 million, 63.4%), NASA's Science account (+$684 million, +11.0%), NASA's Space Technology account (+$167 million, +22.0%), NASA's Exploration account (+$261 million, +5.4%), NSF's Research and Related Activities account (+$186 million, +2.9%), and NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account (+$113 million, +61.8%).
There were also a few notable decreases in FY2019 enacted funding compared to regular FY2018 funding:
NIST's Construction of Research Facilities account (-$213 million, -66.8%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$535 million, -23.4%); U.S. Marshals' Construction account (-$38 million, -71.9%); NASA's Space Operations account (-$112 million, -2.4%); and NASA's Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account (-$214 million, -38.1%).
Congress largely declined to adopt the Administration's proposals for CJS. Congress did not adopt the Administration's proposed account structure for NASA (though Congress changed the name of NASA's Education account to the "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Engagement" account), it did not move funding for the HIDTA program to the DEA, and it did not move COPS funding to OJP. Congress also provided funding for the EDA, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, DOJ's Community Relations Service, and the Legal Services Corporation, all of which the Administration proposed eliminating.
Table 1 outlines the FY2018 funding, the Administration's FY2019 request, the House and the Senate committee-reported amounts, and FY2019 funding for the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the science agencies, and the related agencies. Table 2 provides information on FY2018 supplemental funding for CJS.
Historical Funding for CJS
Figure 1 shows the total CJS funding for FY2009-FY2018, in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars (more-detailed historical appropriations data can be found in Table 3 ). The data show that nominal funding for CJS reached a new 10-year high in FY2018, if emergency supplemental funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) is not counted. Otherwise, peak funding for CJS over the past 10 fiscal years was in FY2009 when ARRA provided a substantial increase in funding. The $15.992 billion in funding for CJS under ARRA added approximately 25% to the amount Congress and the President provided for CJS through the regular appropriation process that year. While regular nominal funding over the past 10 fiscal years was at its highest in FY2018, in inflation-adjusted terms, funding for FY2018 was lower than it was in FY2010.
Increased funding for CJS coincides with the increase to the discretionary budget caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25 ). The BCA put into effect statutory limits on discretionary spending for FY2012-FY2021. Under the act, discretionary spending limits were scheduled to be adjusted downward each fiscal year until FY2021. However, legislation was enacted that increased discretionary spending caps for FY2014 to FY2018. A sequestration of discretionary funding, ordered pursuant to the BCA, cut nearly $4 billion out of the total amount Congress and the President provided for CJS for FY2013. Since then, funding for CJS has increased as more discretionary funding has been allowed under the BCA.
Figure 2 shows total CJS funding for FY2009-FY2018 by major component (i.e., the Departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA, and the NSF). Increases in CJS funding in FY2009 (not including ARRA funding) and FY2010 largely resulted from more funding for the Department of Commerce in support of the 2010 decennial census, though there were small increases during that same time in funding for DOJ, NASA, and NSF.
Although decreased appropriations for the Department of Commerce mostly explain the overall decrease in CJS appropriations from FY2010 to FY2013 (a 47.4% reduction), cuts in funding for DOJ (-8.7%) and NASA (-9.8%) also contributed. Funding for NSF held relatively steady from FY2010 to FY2013.
Overall CJS funding has increased since FY2014, and this is partially explained by more funding for the Department of Commerce to help the Census Bureau prepare for the 2020 decennial census. However, over this time period there have also been steady increases in funding for DOJ (+9.5%), NASA (+18.0%), and NSF (+8.5%), as higher discretionary spending caps have been used to provide additional funding to these agencies. Also, the increase in funding for the Department of Commerce is not solely due to more funding for the Census Bureau. Funding has increased for other agencies within the department, such as NOAA (+18.7%) and NIST (+$41.0%).
Summary:
| This report describes actions taken by the Trump Administration and Congress to provide FY2019 funding for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. It also provides an overview of enacted FY2018 funding for agencies and bureaus funded as part of annual CJS appropriations acts.
The Administration requested $66.555 billion for CJS for FY2019. The request included $9.797 billion for the Department of Commerce, $28.835 billion for the Department of Justice (DOJ), $27.372 billion for the science agencies, and $551 million for the related agencies. The Administration's budget proposed eliminating funding for several CJS agencies and accounts. The Administration proposed moving funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Drug Enforcement Administration, closing the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office and moving its responsibilities to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and a new account structure for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The bill reported by the House Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 5952) would have provided a total of $73.923 billion for CJS for FY2019. The bill would have provided $12.106 billion for the Department of Commerce, $31.113 billion for DOJ, $29.728 billion for the science agencies, and $976 million for the related agencies. The committee largely declined to adopt many of the Administration's proposals to eliminate funding for several CJS agencies and accounts, though the committee-reported bill would have moved funding for the COPS program to OJP and it included the Administration's proposed account structure for NASA.
The bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 3072) would have provided a total of $72.648 billion for CJS for FY2019. The bill would have provided $11.572 billion for the Department of Commerce, $30.699 billion for DOJ, $29.400 billion for the science agencies, and $977 million for the related agencies. The Senate Committee on Appropriations largely declined to adopt many of the proposals put forth by the Administration in its FY2019 budget. Unlike the Administration's request and the House committee-reported bill, S. 3072 would have funded the COPS program through its own account and the committee did not include the Administration's new account structure for NASA.
FY2019 enacted funding for CJS is $72.908 billion. This amount includes $11.414 billion for the Department of Commerce, $30.934 billion for DOJ, $29.583 billion for the science agencies, and $977 million for the related agencies. In general, FY2019 funding for CJS is in-line with FY2018 enacted funding, with a few notable exceptions. These include increased funding for the Census Bureau to help ramp up operations for the 2020 decennial census, increased funding for DOJ's law enforcement agencies and the federal prisons system, and increased funding for several NASA accounts.
For FY2018, Congress and the President provided a total of $72.119 billion in funding for CJS. This included $70.921 billion in regular funding provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141) and $1.198 billion in emergency-designated funding provided in the Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-123). | 96 | 29,465 | 29,467 | 29,467 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_RS21212 | crs_RS21212_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
T he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers several programs designed to help farmers and ranchers recover from the financial effects of natural disasters, including (1) federal crop insurance, (2) the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), (3) livestock and fruit tree disaster programs, and (4) emergency disaster loans for both crop and livestock producers. All have permanent authorization, while the emergency loan program is the only one requiring a federal disaster designation (see Table 1 ). Most programs receive mandatory funding amounts of "such sums as necessary" and are not subject to annual discretionary appropriations. The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334 ) made a number of amendments to these programs, generally to expand availability and support.
Prior to the creation of many of the permanently authorized programs at USDA, Congress had historically provided farmers and ranchers with ad hoc disaster assistance payments authorized through supplemental appropriations. Subsequently, policies shifted away from the temporary forms of assistance in favor of enacting more permanent forms of support. More recently, policies have shifted to supplement permanent programs with ad hoc assistance for select agriculture losses. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ) amended existing disaster assistance programs and authorized $2.36 billion for production losses from hurricanes and wildfires in 2017 that were not covered by existing programs.
This report provides an overview of permanently authorized federal disaster assistance programs for agricultural losses as well as discretionary authority that USDA may use to provide assistance. Recent amendments in the 2018 farm bill and ad hoc assistance authorized by Congress in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 are also discussed.
Federal Crop Insurance
The federal crop insurance program is permanently authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), and is administered by USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA). The program is designed to protect crop producers from risks associated with adverse weather, as well as weather-related plant diseases and insect infestations and declines in commodity prices.
Crop insurance is available for most major crops and many specialty crops (including fruit, tree nut, vegetable, and nursery crops), as well as forage and pastureland for livestock producers. A producer who chooses to purchase an insurance policy must do so by an administratively determined deadline date, which varies by crop and usually coincides with the planting season. Insurance products that protect against loss in revenue and profit margins are also available. Policies are typically available in major growing regions.
The federal crop insurance program was instituted in the 1930s and was subject to major legislative reforms in 1980 and again in 1994 and 2000. The Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-224 ) authorized new federal spending for the program primarily through more generous premium subsidies to help make the program more affordable to farmers and enhance farmer participation levels in an effort to preclude the need for ad hoc emergency disaster payments.
Under the current crop insurance program, a producer who grows an insurable crop selects a level of crop yield and price coverage and pays a premium that increases as the levels of yield and price coverage rise. However, all eligible producers can receive catastrophic (CAT) coverage without paying a premium. The premium for this portion of coverage is completely subsidized by the federal government. Under CAT coverage, participating producers can receive a payment equal to 55% of the estimated market price of the commodity on crop losses in excess of 50% of normal yield—referred to as 50/55 coverage.
Although eligible producers do not have to pay a premium for CAT coverage, they are required to pay upon enrollment a $655 administrative fee per covered crop for each county where they grow the crop. USDA can waive the fee for financial hardship cases. In addition to the administrative fee, producers can elect to pay a premium, which is partially subsidized by the government, to increase the 50/55 CAT coverage to any equivalent level of coverage between 50/100 and 85/100 (i.e., 85% of yield and 100% of the estimated market price) in increments of 5%. These higher levels of coverage are known as "buy up" coverage.
For many insurable commodities, an eligible producer can purchase revenue insurance. Under such a policy, a farmer could receive an indemnity payment when actual farm revenue for a crop falls below the target level of revenue, regardless of whether the shortfall in revenue was caused by poor production or low farm commodity prices. Insured producers are also eligible for reduced coverage if they are late or prevented from planting because of flooding.
The annual agriculture appropriations bill traditionally makes two separate appropriations for the federal crop insurance program. It provides discretionary funding for the salaries and expenses of the RMA. It also provides "such sums as are necessary" for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which finances all other expenses of the program, including premium subsidies, indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance companies. The total cost of the program varies by year, primarily due to fluctuating levels of indemnity payments from changes in commodity prices, planting decisions, and weather conditions. Across all policies, the average premium subsidy was about 63% of total premiums in 2017. The federal government also subsidizes the costs of selling and servicing the policies (as delivery subsidies to Approved Insurance Providers) and absorbs underwriting losses (indemnities in excess of premiums received) in years when indemnities are high.
For a more detailed analysis of the federal crop insurance program, see CRS Report R45193, Federal Crop Insurance: Program Overview for the 115th Congress .
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)
Producers who grow a crop that is currently ineligible for crop insurance may apply for NAP. NAP has permanent authority under Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) and is administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA). It was first authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-354 ). NAP is not subject to annual appropriations. Instead, it receives such sums as are necessary through USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which has a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury to fund an array of farm programs.
Eligible crops under NAP include any commercial crops grown for food, fiber, or livestock consumption for which there is no CAT coverage available under the federal crop insurance program, with limited exceptions. These crops include mushrooms, floriculture, ornamental nursery, Christmas trees, turfgrass sod, aquaculture, honey, maple sap, ginseng, and industrial crops used in manufacturing or grown as a feedstock for energy production, among others. Trees grown for wood, paper, or pulp products are not eligible. To be eligible for a NAP payment, a producer first must apply for coverage by the application closing date, which varies by crop but is generally about 30 days prior to the final planting date for an annual crop. Like CAT coverage under crop insurance, NAP applicants must also pay an administrative fee at the time of application. The NAP service fee is the lesser of $325 per crop or $825 per producer per administrative county, not to exceed a total of $1,950 for farms in multiple counties.
In order to receive a NAP payment, a producer must experience at least a 50% crop loss caused by a natural disaster or be prevented from planting more than 35% of intended crop acreage. For any losses in excess of the minimum loss threshold, a producer can receive 55% of the average market price for the covered commodity. Hence, NAP is similar to CAT coverage in that it pays 55% of the market price for losses in excess of 50% of normal historical production.
Additional coverage (referred to as buy-up coverage) may be purchased at 50% to 65% (in 5% increments) of established yield and 100% of average market price, contract price, or other premium price. The farmer-paid fee for additional coverage is 5.25% times the product of the selected coverage level and value of production (acreage times yield times average market price times the producer's share of the crop). Grazing land is not eligible for buy-up coverage.
A producer of a noninsured crop is subject to an annual payment limit of $125,000 per person for catastrophic coverage and $300,000 for buy-up coverage. A producer is ineligible under NAP if the producer's total adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds $900,000. The total federal cost of NAP was $165 million in FY2014, $125 million in FY2015, $137 million in FY2016, $157 million in FY2017, and $164.3 million in FY2018.
Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs
Four agricultural disaster assistance programs are permanently authorized for livestock and fruit trees: (1) the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); (2) the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP); (3) the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP); and (4) the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). They operate nationwide and are administered by FSA. Producers do not pay fees to participate and can apply at their local FSA offices.
All programs receive "such sums as necessary" in mandatory funding via the CCC to reimburse eligible producers for their losses. Total payments vary each year based on eligible loss conditions. For FY2018, LFP payments totaled $487.5 million, LIP payments totaled $36.6 million, TAP payments totaled $11.3 million, and ELAP payments totaled $47 million. All payments are reduced by sequestration.
For individual producers, payments under LFP may not exceed $125,000 per year. There are no limits on the amount of payments received under LIP, ELAP, and TAP. To be eligible for a payment under any of these programs, a producer's total AGI cannot exceed $900,000.
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP)
LIP provides payments to eligible livestock owners and contract growers for livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality caused by an eligible loss condition (e.g., adverse weather, disease, or animal attack). Payments may also be made when the animal is injured as a direct result of an eligible loss condition but does not die and is sold at a reduced price. Eligible loss conditions may include (1) extreme or abnormal damaging weather that is not expected to occur during the loss period for which it occurred, (2) disease that is caused or transmitted by a vector and is not susceptible to control by vaccination, and (3) an attack by animals reintroduced into the wild by the federal government or protected by federal law. Eligibility is predicated on not only the occurrence of an eligible loss condition but direct causation to the death of the animal.
Eligible livestock include beef and dairy cattle, bison, hogs, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, sheep, goats, alpacas, deer, elk, emus, llamas, reindeer, caribou, and equine. The livestock must have been maintained for commercial use and not produced for reasons other than commercial use as part of a farming operation. The program excludes wild free-roaming animals, pets, and animals used for recreational purposes, such as hunting, roping, or for show. Poultry and swine are the only eligible livestock for contract growers.
The LIP payment rate is equal to 75% of the average fair market value of the deceased animal type. USDA publishes a payment rate for each type of livestock for each year (e.g., $983.90 per adult beef cow and $4.39 per duck in 2018). For eligible livestock contract growers, the payment rate is based on 75% of the national average input costs for the applicable livestock. For livestock sold at a reduced sale price, payments are calculated by multiplying the national payment rate for the livestock category minus the amount the owner received at sale times the owner's share.
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP)
LFP makes payments to eligible livestock producers who have suffered grazing losses on drought-affected pastureland (including cropland planted specifically for grazing), or on rangeland managed by a federal agency due to a qualifying fire.
Eligible producers must own, cash or share lease, or be a contract grower of covered livestock during the 60 calendar days before the beginning date of a qualifying drought or fire. They must also provide pastureland or grazing land for covered livestock that is either (a) physically located in a county affected by a qualifying drought during the normal grazing period for the county or (b) managed by a federal agency where grazing is not permitted due to fire.
Eligible livestock types are livestock that have been grazing on eligible grazing land or pastureland or would have been had a disaster not struck. These include alpacas, beef cattle, buffalo, beefalo, dairy cattle, sheep, deer, elk, emus, equine, goats, llamas, poultry, reindeer, and swine. Livestock must be maintained for commercial use as part of a farming operation. Livestock owned for noncommercial uses, or livestock that is in (or would have been in) feedlots, are excluded.
Payments are generally triggered by the drought intensity level for an individual county as published in the U.S. Drought Monitor, a federal report published each week. The number of monthly payments depends on the drought severity and length of time the county has been designated as such ( Table 2 ). For drought, the payment amount is equal to the number of monthly payments times 60% of estimated monthly feed cost. For producers who sold livestock because of drought conditions, the payment rate is equal to 80% of the estimated monthly feed cost.
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP)
ELAP provides payments to producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish as compensation for losses due to disease, adverse weather, feed or water shortages, or other conditions (such as wildfires) that are not covered under LIP or LFP.
ELAP specifically provides assistance for the loss of honey bee colonies in excess of normal mortality. In order to meet the eligibility requirements for honey bee colony losses, they must be the direct result of an eligible adverse weather or loss condition such as colony collapse disorder, eligible winter storm, excessive wind, and flood. For livestock losses, ELAP covers four categories: (1) livestock death losses caused by an eligible loss condition, (2) livestock feed and grazing losses that are not due to drought or wildfires on federally managed lands, (3) losses resulting from the additional cost of transporting water to livestock due to an eligible drought, and (4) losses resulting from the additional cost associated with gathering livestock for inspection and treatment related to cattle tick fever.
Tree Assistance Program (TAP)
TAP makes payments to qualifying orchardists and nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate trees, bushes, and vines damaged by natural disasters. Losses in crop production—as opposed to the tree, bush, or vine itself—are generally covered by federal crop insurance or NAP. Eligible trees, bushes, and vines are those from which an annual crop is produced for commercial purposes. Nursery trees include ornamental, fruit, nut, and Christmas trees produced for commercial sale. Trees used for pulp or timber are ineligible.
To be considered an eligible loss, the individual stand must have sustained a mortality loss or damage loss in excess of 15% after adjustment for normal mortality or damage. Normal mortality or damage is determined based on (a) each eligible disaster event, except for losses due to plant disease, or (b) for plant disease, the time period for which the stand is infected. Also, the loss could not have been prevented through reasonable and available measures.
For replacement, replanting, and/or rehabilitation of trees, bushes, or vines, the payment calculation is the lesser of (a) 65% of the actual cost of replanting (in excess of 15% mortality) and/or 50% of the actual cost of rehabilitation (in excess of 15% damage), or (b) the maximum eligible amount established for the practice by FSA. The total quantity of acres planted to trees, bushes, or vines for which a producer can receive TAP payments cannot exceed 1,000 acres annually.
Emergency Disaster Loans
When either the President or the Secretary of Agriculture declares a county a disaster area or quarantine area, agricultural producers in that county may become eligible for low-interest emergency disaster (EM) loans available through FSA. Producers in counties that are contiguous to a county with a disaster designation also become eligible for EM loans. EM loan funds may be used to help eligible farmers, ranchers, and aquaculture producers recover from production losses (when the producer suffers a significant loss of an annual crop) or from physical losses (such as repairing or replacing damaged or destroyed structures or equipment or for the replanting of permanent crops such as orchards). A qualified applicant can then borrow up to 100% of actual production or physical losses (not to exceed $500,000).
Once a county is declared eligible, an individual producer within the county (or a contiguous county) must also meet the following requirements for an EM loan: A producer must (1) be an established family farmer and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States; (2) experience a crop loss of more than 30% or a physical loss of livestock, livestock products, real estate, or property; and (3) be unable to obtain credit from a commercial lender but still show the potential to repay the loan, including having acceptable credit history and collateral to secure the loan. Applications must be received within eight months of the county's disaster designation date. Loans for nonreal-estate purposes must generally be repaid within seven years. Loans for physical losses to real estate have terms up to 20 years. Depending on the repayment ability of the producer and other circumstances, these terms can be extended to 20 years for nonreal-estate losses and up to 40 years for real estate losses.
The EM loan program is permanently authorized by Title III of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (P.L. 87-128), as amended, and is subject to annual appropriations. In FY2018, the program received $25.6 million of new loan authority. Unused funds are carried over and available in the next fiscal year. Therefore, the total loan authority can vary greatly depending on appropriated levels, annual use, and total carryover. In FY2019, the total loan authority is $99.5 million.
Also in counties with disaster designations, producers who have existing direct loans with FSA may be eligible for Disaster Set-Aside. If, as a result of disaster, a borrower is unable to pay all expenses and make loan payments that are coming due, up to one full year's payment can be moved to the end of the loan.
Other USDA Assistance
USDA also has several permanent disaster assistance programs that help producers repair damaged land following natural disasters. It also has authority to issue disaster payments to farmers with "Section 32" or "CCC" funds and can use a variety of existing programs to address disaster issues as they arise.
Emergency Agricultural Land Assistance Programs
Several USDA programs offer financial and technical assistance to producers to repair, restore, and mitigate damage by a natural disaster on private land.
The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) are administered by FSA. For both programs, FSA pays participants a percentage of the cost to restore the land to a productive state. ECP also funds water for livestock and installing water conserving measures during times of drought. EFRP was created to assist private forestland owners with losses caused by a natural disaster on nonindustrial private forest land. The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and the EWP floodplain easement program are administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. Forest Service. EWP assists sponsors, landowners, and operators in implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff retardation and erosion prevention to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. The EWP floodplain easement program is a mitigation program that pays for permanent easements on private land meant to safeguard lives and property from future floods and drought and the products of erosion.
For more information on these programs, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation .
"Section 32" and "CCC" Funds for Farm Disaster Payments
USDA has discretionary authority to distribute emergency payments to farmers with "Section 32" and CCC funds. While both Section 32 and CCC have broad authority to support U.S. agriculture, the majority of their activities are required under various statutes, such as omnibus farm bills. Beginning in FY2012, annual appropriations acts limited USDA's discretionary use of CCC and Section 32. The FY2018 omnibus appropriation removed this limitation for CCC and allowed for limited carryover funding under Section 32 to be used pending congressional notification.
USDA's Section 32 program is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts, and funds are used for a variety of activities, including child nutrition programs, the purchase of commodities for domestic food programs, and farm disaster assistance. The statutory authority is Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935 (P.L. 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c). The authority to provide disaster assistance is attributed to clause 3 of Section 32, which provides that funds "shall be used to re-establish farmers' purchasing power by making payments in connections with the normal production." The FY2019 omnibus (§714, P.L. 116-6 ) limits clause 3 to carryover funding of no more than $350 million following a two-week advance notice to Congress. The CCC serves as the funding institution for carrying out federal farm support programs, such as commodity price support and production programs, conservation programs, disaster assistance, agricultural research, and bioenergy development. It is federally chartered by the CCC Charter Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-806), as amended. The authority to provide disaster assistance is attributed to Section 5 of the act (15 U.S.C. 714c), which, among other activities, authorizes the CCC to support the prices of agricultural commodities through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations.
Adjustments to Existing USDA Programs
In addition to implementing the disaster assistance programs discussed above, USDA can use authority under other existing programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. For example, in response to the major drought affecting a large part of the United States in recent years, USDA took a number of administrative actions to assist producers, including
extending emergency grazing and haying on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres; reducing the emergency loan interest rate and making emergency loans available earlier in the season; targeting conservation assistance through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the most extreme and exceptional drought areas; additional funding helps farmers and ranchers implement conservation practices that conserve water resources, reduce wind erosion on drought-impacted fields, and improve livestock access to water (farmers and ranchers contribute about half the cost of implementing the practices); and directing Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants for rural water systems experiencing emergencies resulting from a significant decline in quantity or quality of drinking water.
Assistance to Prevent Spread of Animal Diseases
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301, et seq. ), USDA is authorized to take protective actions against the spread of livestock disease, including seizing, treating, or destroying animals if USDA determines that an extraordinary emergency exists because of the presence of a pest or disease of livestock. As part of its animal health program, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service compensates producers for animals that must be euthanized, for their disposition, and for infected materials that must also be destroyed. Funding is provided by annual appropriations or through the CCC for larger amounts. The most recent example of a large-scale outbreak that resulted in payments to producers was in 2015 and 2016 during outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza affecting the U.S. poultry industry.
Amendments in the 2018 Farm Bill
The 2018 farm bill amended the supplemental disaster assistance programs as well as NAP, crop insurance, and emergency loans. The following provides a summary of changes to select programs included in this report. For a more comprehensive review of amendments under the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45525, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison .
Federal Crop Insurance Amendments
The 2018 farm bill generally expands coverage under the federal crop insurance program, including for forage, grazing, and hemp. Amendments authorize catastrophic level coverage for insurance plans covering grazing crops and grasses. It also allows producers to purchase separate crop insurance policies for crops that can be both grazed and mechanically harvested on the same acres during the same growing season and to receive independent indemnities for each intended use. A number of amendments were also made related to hemp, including eligibility, post-harvest losses, and waivers that allow for the development of policies for hemp. For all crops, the administrative fee for catastrophic coverage was increased from $300 to $655 per crop per county.
NAP Amendments
The 2018 farm bill expands crop eligibility to include crops that may be covered by select forms of crop insurance but only under whole farm plans or weather index policies. It also amends the payment calculation to consider the producer's share of the crop, raises the service fees, and creates separate payment limits for catastrophic ($125,000/person) and buy-up ($300,000/person) coverage. Payments under buy-up coverage are also expanded to include other premium prices (e.g., local, organic, or direct market price), which may be higher than the average market price. The law makes buy-up coverage permanent and adds data collection and program coordination requirements.
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance Program Amendments
The 2018 farm bill expands payments for livestock losses caused by disease and for losses of unweaned livestock that occur before vaccination. The law also expands the definition of eligible producer to include Indian tribes or tribal organizations and increases replanting and rehabilitation payment rates for beginning and veteran orchardists. The law amends the limits on payments received under select disaster assistance programs: Of the four disaster assistance programs, only LFP is now subject to the $125,000/person payment limit.
Emergency Loan Amendments
Eligibility is expanded to allow borrowers who have received a debt write-down or restructuring of a farm loan (due to circumstances beyond the control of the borrower) to maintain eligibility for an emergency loan.
Ad Hoc Assistance
The U.S. farm policy mix that provides assistance to agricultural producers for damage and loss following a natural disaster continues to shift between permanent and temporary authorized support. The authorization of permanent disaster assistance programs in the 2008 and 2014 farm bills, as well as expanded crop insurance and NAP policies, were designed to reduce the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Following enactment of the 2008 farm bill, Congress appropriated little in the way of supplemental disaster assistance for agriculture, most of which was for land rehabilitation efforts under EWP and ECP. This changed in 2018, when an active hurricane and wildfire season in 2017 resulted in the authorization of supplemental assistance in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. In addition to the programmatic changes discussed in the " Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs " section of this report, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 also authorized $2.36 billion for production losses not covered under NAP or crop insurance.
2017 Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program
On July 16, 2018, USDA announced the availability of the bulk of the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act funding through the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP). Only crop, tree, bush, and vine losses from a wildfire or hurricane in 2017 are eligible for assistance under WHIP.
Payments to producers who purchased crop insurance or NAP coverage range from 70% to 95% of the expected value of the crop, depending on the level of coverage purchased. For producers who did not purchase crop insurance or NAP in advance of the natural disaster, payments under WHIP are limited to 65% of expected value of the crop. All payments are reduced by the value of the crop harvested, if any, and any insurance indemnity paid through crop insurance or NAP. All participants are required to purchase crop insurance or NAP for the next two years.
Payments are limited to $125,000 if less than 75% of the participant's AGI is from farming. If more than 75% of the participant's AGI is from farming, then payments are limited to a maximum of $900,000. USDA's initial announcement stated that only 50% of the participant's payment rate will be made up front, with additional payments possible depending on fund availability.
Florida Citrus Block Grant
USDA used a portion of the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act funding for a $340 million block grant to the state of Florida. Under the grant, the state is expected to assist the citrus industry with the cost of buying and planting replacement trees—including resetting and grove rehabilitation—and for repairing damage to irrigation systems, among other activities.
Pecan Trees
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ), also provided supplemental assistance but through an existing program—TAP. The act authorized $15 million for payments to eligible pecan orchardists or pecan nursery tree growers for mortality losses incurred during calendar year 2017. The act lowers the mortality loss threshold under TAP to cover losses in excess of 7.5% but not more than 15%, adjusted for normal mortality. If losses exceeded 15%, then the loss is already eligible for TAP. If applications for these losses (i.e., between 7.5% and 15%) exceed the available $15 million, then payments would be proportionally reduced.
Summary:
| The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers several programs to help farmers recover financially from natural disasters, including drought and floods. All the programs have permanent authorization, and one requires a federal disaster designation (the emergency loan program). Most programs receive mandatory funding amounts that are "such sums as necessary" and are not subject to annual discretionary appropriations.
The federal crop insurance program offers subsidized policies designed to protect crop producers from risks associated with adverse weather, as well as weather-related plant diseases and insect infestations and declines in commodity prices. Policies must be purchased prior to the planting season. Eligible commodities include most major crops and many specialty crops (including fruit, tree nut, vegetable, and nursery crops), as well as forage and pastureland for livestock producers. Producers who grow a crop that is currently ineligible for crop insurance may apply for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). NAP provides a catastrophic level of coverage, as well as options to purchase additional coverage. Similar to crop insurance, policies must be purchased prior to the planting season.
There are four permanently reauthorized disaster programs for livestock and trees. Producers do not pay a fee to participate, and advanced sign-up is not required. The programs are:
1. the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), which provides payments to eligible livestock owners and contract growers at a rate of 75% of market value for livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality or sold at a reduced sale price caused by adverse weather, attacks by reintroduced wild animals, and disease; 2. the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), which makes payments to eligible livestock producers who have suffered grazing losses on drought-affected pasture or grazing land or on rangeland managed by a federal agency due to a qualifying fire; 3. the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP), which provides payments to producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish as compensation for losses due to disease, adverse weather, and feed or water shortages; and 4. the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), which makes payments to orchardists/nursery tree growers for losses in excess of 15% to replant trees, bushes, and vines damaged by natural disasters.
Separately, for all types of farms and ranches, when a county has been declared a disaster area by either the President or the Secretary of Agriculture, producers in that county may become eligible for low-interest emergency disaster loans.
USDA has several permanent disaster assistance programs designed to help producers repair damaged land following natural disasters. It also has authority to issue disaster payments to farmers with funds from "Section 32," or the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Finally, USDA can use a variety of existing programs to address disaster issues as they arise, such as allowing emergency grazing on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) made a number of amendments to the permanent farm bill disaster assistance programs, NAP, and crop insurance, including changes to payment limits, definitions, eligibility, and coverage. | 96 | 31,487 | 31,489 | 31,489 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_RL30478 | crs_RL30478_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Introduction
This report provides background information on the types of water supply and wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater treatment.
For more than four decades, Congress has authorized and refined several programs to help communities address water supply and wastewater problems. The agencies that administer these programs differ in multiple ways. For example, in terms of funding mechanisms, projects developed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) typically require direct, individual project authorizations from Congress.
In contrast, standing program authorizations provide project funding for other agencies, including
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The key practical difference is that with the individual project authorizations there is no predictable assistance, or even guarantee of funding after a project is authorized, because funding must be secured each year in the congressional appropriations process. The programs, on the other hand, have set program criteria, are generally funded from year to year, and provide a process under which project sponsors compete for funding.
In terms of scope and mission, the primary responsibilities of USACE are to maintain inland navigation, provide for flood and storm damage reduction, and restore aquatic ecosystems, while EPA's mission relates to protecting public health and the environment. Further, the Department of Commerce and HUD focus on community and economic development. Likewise, the specific programs discussed in this report—while all address water supply and wastewater treatment to some degree—differ in important respects. Some are national in scope (those of USDA, EPA, and the Department of Commerce, for example), while others are regionally focused (Reclamation's programs and projects). Some focus primarily on urban areas (HUD), some on rural areas (USDA).
For each of the projects and programs discussed, this report describes purposes, financing mechanisms, eligibility requirements, recent funding, and statutory/regulatory authority. The report does not address special projects and programs aimed specifically at assisting Indian Tribes, Alaskan Native Villages, and c olonias , or other regional programs such as those associated with the Appalachian region or U.S. Territories.
This report focuses on municipal and industrial (M&I) water and wastewater activities. This report does not address projects and programs that involve irrigation, flood control, power supply, and recreation. However, in some cases (noted below), a federal program (e.g., Reclamation) may primarily support one or more of these other objectives while providing some support for M&I activities, even if only incidentally.
Other federal authorities of USDA's Rural Utilities Service, Reclamation, and USACE may be available to assist with the provision of emergency water and wastewater needs, such as improving access to water supplies during a drought. These authorities are not discussed in this report.
Table 1 summarizes financial and other key elements of the projects and program activities discussed in this report. As indicated in the table, federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly. Collectively, congressional funding for these programs in recent years has been somewhat eroded by overall competition among the many programs that are supported by discretionary spending, despite the continuing pressure from stakeholders and others for increased funding. While federal support for some traditional financing tools—project grants, formula grants, capitalization grants, direct and guaranteed loans—has declined, policymakers have begun to consider alternative financing approaches, such as trust funds, new types of federal loans, and options to encourage private sector investments in water infrastructure through public-private partnerships. Supporters of some of these newer ideas (e.g., the " Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program ") see them as options to supplement or complement, but not replace, traditional financing tools.
State and local contributions are the most significant source of total funds available to communities for drinking water and wastewater treatment improvements. According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending by state and local governments on drinking water and wastewater has increased much faster than spending by the federal government, especially since the mid-1970s. In 2017, the state and local share of such projects (both capital and operation and maintenance spending) was 96%, while the federal share was 4%.
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was established to implement the Reclamation Act of 1902, which authorized the construction of water works to provide water for irrigation in arid western states. Reclamation owns and manages 475 dams and 337 reservoirs, which are capable of storing 245 million acre-feet of water. The agency's inventory of 4,000 "constructed real property assets" has a current replacement value of nearly $100 billion. Overall, these facilities serve approximately 31 million people, delivering a total of approximately 28.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre-foot is enough to cover one acre of land one foot deep, or 325,851 gallons) annually in nondrought years. Reclamation-funded municipal and industrial (M&I) water deliveries total approximately 2.8 million acre-feet and have more than doubled since 1970.
Reclamation primarily manages M&I water supply facilities as part of larger, multipurpose reclamation projects serving irrigation, flood control, power supply, and recreation purposes. However, since 1980, Congress has individually authorized construction of "rural water supply" projects, as well as reclamation wastewater and reuse/recycling projects. This title also authorized Reclamation to undertake specific and general feasibility studies for reclamation wastewater and reuse projects and to research, construct, and operate demonstration projects. Even so, these projects remain a small part of the overall Reclamation portfolio.
Historically, Reclamation constructed projects with federal funds, then established a repayment schedule based on the amount of total construction costs allocated to specific project purposes. Reclamation project authorizations typically require 100% repayment, with interest, for the M&I portion of water supply facilities, which makes Reclamation assistance a de facto long-term loan. However, for M&I projects under rural water and Title XVI authorities, Congress has authorized terms providing some or all federal funding for projects on a nonreimbursable basis (i.e. a de facto grant). For example, the federal government fully funds rural water projects serving Indian populations. For non-Indian rural water supply projects, Congress has authorized nonreimbursable federal funding of as much as 75%-85% of project costs. The federal share of costs for Title XVI projects is generally much lower than for rural water projects; it is limited to a maximum of 25% of total project costs or, for projects authorized since 1996, a maximum of $20 million per project authorization.
"Traditional" Multipurpose Reclamation Projects9
Unlike many other programs described in this report, Reclamation undertakes projects largely at the explicit direction of Congress. Local project sponsors may approach Reclamation or Congress with proposals for project construction and funding; however, except where blanket feasibility study authorizations exist—for example, for certain program areas described below—specific project feasibility studies must be first authorized by Congress. Once a feasibility study is completed, congressional authorization is typically sought prior to construction. Because there is no "program" per se, there are no clear and concise eligibility or program criteria for selecting large, multipurpose projects. Rather, Congress relies on information provided in feasibility studies, including cost-benefit, engineering, and environmental analyses, and political considerations.
Project Purposes
Individual authorization statutes establish project purposes. Generally, M&I projects are part of larger, multipurpose projects such as those built for irrigation water supply, flood control, and hydro power purposes, or are authorized under the rural water supply or Title XVI water reuse programs described below.
Financing Mechanism
Projects are financed and constructed up front by the federal government, and costs for M&I portions of such projects are generally scheduled to be repaid 100%, with interest, via "repayment" or "water service" contracts. Irrigation districts must also repay their share of project benefits, but such payments are not subject to interest charges.
Eligibility Requirements
Generally, local governments and organizations such as irrigation, water, or conservation districts may approach Reclamation and/or Congress for project support. All construction project funding must be appropriated by Congress. As noted earlier, Reclamation only works on projects located in the 17 western states (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. §391 et seq. ), unless otherwise specifically authorized.
Funding
Funding information for the M&I portions of multipurpose projects is not readily available. Total regular Reclamation appropriations (gross current authority; not including permanent funding) for FY2019 were $1.571 billion. The total FY2020 budget request for Reclamation was $1.109 billion.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Reclamation generally carries out its water supply activities in 17 western states as authorized by the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. §391 et seq. ), as well as through hundreds of individual project authorization statutes.
Rural Water Supply Projects
Similar to its traditional multipurpose projects, Reclamation has undertaken individual rural water projects largely at the explicit direction of Congress. Generally speaking, Congress has in most cases prioritized appropriation of funding for already authorized projects rather than funds for new rural water construction projects.
In lieu of the project-based approach to authorizing new rural water projects, in 2006 Congress authorized a rural water supply program ( P.L. 109-451 ). Under the program, Reclamation was authorized to work with rural communities and Indian tribes to identify municipal and industrial water needs and options to address such needs through appraisal investigations, and in some cases feasibility studies. In 2008, Reclamation published an interim final rule establishing future program criteria. According to the bureau, between 2006 and 2016, it used this authority to study approximately 26 projects to varying extents, although no projects were recommended for construction and authorized by Congress. This authority expired at the end of FY2016 and has not been renewed since. However, Reclamation continues to pursue authorized rural water projects that were previously authorized at the project level. As of early 2019, Reclamation reported that $1.3 billion was still needed to construct authorized, ongoing rural water projects.
Project Purposes
Historically, individual authorization statutes established rural water project purposes. Nearly half of the rural water supply projects authorized to date are somehow connected to previously authorized irrigation facilities under the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP), or otherwise related to water service anticipated but not received under earlier PSMBP authorizations. Many rural water project authorizations are also linked to Indian water settlements or otherwise provide benefits to Indian tribes.
Financing Mechanism
Projects are generally cost-shared between the federal government and local sponsors. In the past, the federal cost-share for these projects has averaged 64%, and ranged from 15% to 80% for non-Indian rural water supply projects. As previously noted, the federal government pays up to 100% of the cost of Indian rural water supply projects. Assistance is generally provided on a competitive basis under the interim final rule's financial criteria. In accordance with the programmatic criteria provided in the rule, a nonfederal cost-share would be required, consistent with any future construction authorization for those projects.
Eligibility Requirements15
Local governments and organizations such as water and conservation districts or associations, including Indian tribes, may approach Reclamation and/or Congress for project support. Currently, all construction project funding must be authorized at the project level and appropriated by Congress. As noted earlier, Reclamation only works on projects located in the 17 western states (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. §391 et seq. ), unless specifically authorized by Congress.
Reclamation previously published an interim final rule (43 C.F.R. Part 404) that established criteria for developing new rural supply projects, but the authority for the program has since expired. The rule does not apply to previously authorized projects. As previously stated, ongoing rural water construction activities are limited to ongoing, previously authorized projects.
Funding
Enacted funding for rural water supply projects in FY2019 was $132.7 million. This included $98 million in additional funding above the Administration's FY2019 budget request to be allocated at the project level by Reclamation in a subsequent work plan for FY2019. For FY2020, the Administration's budget proposal requested $27.7 million for five ongoing authorized rural water projects.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The Rural Water Supply Program was authorized by the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 ( P.L. 109-451 , Title I; 120 Stat. 3345; 43 U.S.C. 2401 note). This programmatic authority expired at the end of FY2016 and has yet to be renewed. Construction and operations and maintenance is ongoing for several geographically specific projects that were previously authorized under various individual acts.
Title XVI Projects
Title XVI of P.L. 102-575 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a program to "investigate and identify" opportunities to reclaim and reuse wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. Generally speaking, water reclaimed via Title XVI projects may be used for M&I water supply (nonpotable and indirect potable purposes only), irrigation supply, groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife enhancement, or outdoor recreation.
The original Title XVI legislation authorized construction of five reclamation wastewater projects and six wastewater and groundwater recycling/reclamation studies. The act was amended in 1996 ( P.L. 104-266 ) to authorize another 18 construction projects and an additional study, and has been amended several times since, resulting in a total of 53 projects individually authorized for construction. Most recently, amendments to Title XVI enacted in December 2016 in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act, P.L. 114-322 ) made changes to the program, including authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to accept and review nonfederal feasibility studies for potential planning, design, and construction projects. As of February 2019, 47 projects had been authorized under the WIIN Act authority. The WIIN Act also authorized a competitive grant program for construction of projects approved under this authority, including an authorization of $50 million in appropriations. Based on agency data, CRS estimates that as of early 2018, the backlog of remaining federal funding for the 94 authorized Title XVI projects (i.e., both "traditional" and WIIN Act authorized projects) was over $1 billion.
Project Purposes
The general purpose of Title XVI projects is to provide supplemental water supplies by recycling/reusing agricultural drainage water, wastewater, brackish surface and groundwater, and other sources of contaminated water. Projects may be permanent or for demonstration purposes.
Financing Mechanism
Title XVI projects are funded through partial de facto grants. The funding is part of the larger Reclamation WaterSMART program, which also provides grants for water conservation and river basin studies under separate authority granted in the Secure Water Act ( P.L. 111-11 , subtitle B). Title XVI project construction costs are shared by the federal government and a local project sponsor or sponsors. The federal share is generally limited to a maximum of 25% of total project costs and is nonreimbursable, resulting in a de facto grant to the local project sponsor(s). In 1996, Congress limited the federal share of individual projects to $20 million in 1996 dollars ( P.L. 104-266 ). The federal share of feasibility studies is limited to 50% of the total, except in cases of "financial hardship"; however, the federal share must be reimbursed. The Secretary may also accept in-kind services that are determined to positively contribute to the study.
Eligibility Requirements
Similar to other Reclamation activities, the Title XVI water reclamation and wastewater recycling program is limited to projects and studies in the 17 western states unless otherwise specified. Authorized recipients of program assistance include "legally organized non-federal entities," such as irrigation districts, water districts, municipalities, and Indian tribes. Prior to enactment of the WIIN Act, Administration requests for construction funding have generally been limited to projects where (1) an appraisal investigation and feasibility study have been completed and approved by the Secretary; (2) the Secretary determined that the project sponsor was capable of funding the nonfederal share of project costs; and (3) the local sponsor entered into a cost-share agreement with Reclamation. The WIIN Act provided DOI with additional authority to accept nonfederal feasibility studies and approve and consider these projects for construction funding if they meet Title XVI program criteria, including that (1) the study complies with federal laws and regulations applicable to water reuse and recycling studies, and (2) the project is technically and financially feasible and provides a federal benefit in accordance with Reclamation laws. The WIIN Act authority has essentially rendered unnecessary the prior practice of obtaining geographically specific authorizations for individual Title XVI projects before they can pursue funding.
Over time, Reclamation has issued and revised multiple documents outlining evaluation criteria for prioritizing Title XVI projects. The most recent evaluation criteria for Title XVI projects (for FY2018 funding) was posted for review and comment in March 2018.
Funding
The total regular appropriation for the Title XVI program in FY2019 was $58.6 million, with $20 million of this funding designated as being available for WIIN Act–authorized projects. The Administration's FY2020 request for Title XVI was $3.0 million.
Projects authorized prior to 1996 ranged in size from $152 million ($38 million for Reclamation's share), to $690 million ($172 million for Reclamation's share). Post-1996 project authorizations have been smaller in size, ranging from $6.6 million ($1.65 million for Reclamation's share) to $319 million ($20 million for Reclamation's share).
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The original statutory authority for the reclamation wastewater and reuse program is the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, Title XVI of P.L. 102-575 , as amended (43 U.S.C. 390h et. seq.). Other statutes that authorized Title XVI projects include the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-266 ); the Oregon Public Land Transfer and Protection Act of 1998 ( P.L. 105-321 ); the 1999 Water Resources Development Act ( P.L. 106-53 , Section 595); the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 ( P.L. 106-554 , Division B, Section 106); a bill amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act ( P.L. 107-344 ); the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2003 ( P.L. 108-7 , Division D, Section 211); the Emergency Wartime Supplementals Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-11 ); the Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-233 ); a bill amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act ( P.L. 108-316 ); the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-70 ); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ( P.L. 110-161 ); the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2009 ( P.L. 110-229 ); the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-11 ; Title IX, Subtitle B); and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nations Act ( P.L. 114-322 , Title III, Subtitle J).
[This section was prepared by Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.]
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works Program)
Under its civil works program, USACE operates water resource projects throughout the country. USACE civil works activities are concentrated on three principal missions—navigation, flood damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Many USACE activities also support municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, environmental infrastructure, hydroelectric generation, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water Supply
A total of 136 USACE reservoirs have roughly 9.8 million acre-feet of storage designated for M&I water. Most of this water was allocated to M&I purposes when the projects were constructed; around 0.9 million acre-feet of this storage space has been allocated to M&I use from existing USACE reservoirs using USACE's general water supply authorities. The provision of M&I water from USACE reservoirs, as discussed below, is subject to availability, and the associated costs are 100% a local, nonfederal responsibility.
Additionally Congress has chosen to authorize a small number of USACE projects primarily for water supply. In the WIIN Act, Congress expanded the agency's authorities related to "water conservation" at its projects. USACE also has authorities related to water supply provision as part of emergency and disaster relief, including during droughts. For all of its projects, USACE policy is that it does not acquire water rights for these water supply and conservation uses; the water user is responsible for securing water rights. Congress has given USACE limited general authority for M&I water supply. A 1958 authority is for permanent allocation of water storage for M&I applications, and a 1944 authority provides for temporary contracts for surplus water from USACE reservoirs. The Water Supply Act of 1958 authorized USACE (and Reclamation) to recommend economically justified M&I water supply storage space in new or existing reservoirs. USACE also has authority for the short-term provision of surplus water as specified in the Flood Control Act of 1944; surplus water contracts have generally been limited to five-year terms, with options to extend.
Project Purposes
As previously noted, Congress authorized USACE to allocate a portion of its multipurpose reservoirs for permanent M&I storage, or to provide M&I water from USACE reservoirs under temporary contacts for surplus water. Neither authority allows USACE to significantly modify its projects or to seriously affect the authorized purposes for which the project operates in order to provide for M&I water supply, nor allows USACE to sell or allocate quantities of water. Instead, USACE M&I contracts are for space in a reservoir and provide no guarantee of a fixed quantity of water to be delivered in a given year. Under these authorities, USACE delivers water if it is available in the storage space and if delivery does not seriously affect other authorized purposes.
Financing Mechanism
No federal money is provided to nonfederal entities through USACE for this work; instead, it is nonfederal entities that pay USACE for M&I water storage. USACE construction projects are financed up front by the federal government, and costs for M&I project purposes are repaid 100%, with interest, via long-term (typically 30-50 years) repayment contracts, unless specified otherwise in law. Through annual contract payments, nonfederal entities pay for the M&I water supply storage services provided. Most agreements for new M&I water supply storage are associated with existing USACE reservoirs and are managed through agreements requiring annual payments.
Eligibility Requirements
For new USACE projects with M&I water supply, existing law and agency policy require that (1) water supply benefits and costs be equitably allocated among multiple purposes; (2) repayment by state or local interests be agreed to before construction; (3) the water supply allocation for anticipated demand at any project not exceed 30% of the total estimated cost; (4) repayment shall be either during construction (without interest), or over 30 years (with adjustable interest rates); and (5) users reimburse USACE annually for all operation and maintenance or replacement costs. Occasional exceptions to USACE's general authority have been enacted by Congress. Allocation of water supply at existing projects is limited to actions that do not seriously affect project purposes.
Funding
The fees collected from nonfederal entities pursuant to water supply agreements are deposited into a general account at the U.S. Treasury. The agency uses the federal funds primarily for administration of its water supply authorities. From FY2018 appropriations, USACE used $8 million to implement its water supply authorities and $1 million for two authorized USACE water supply construction projects to address groundwater depletion in Arkansas. From FY2019 annual appropriations, USACE planned to use $7 million for its water supply authorities, $3 million for the ground water depletion projects in Arkansas, and $2 million a water supply reservoir reallocation study as part of an expansion of a USACE reservoir in Colorado. The Administration's FY2020 budget request included $7 million for USACE's water supply storage activities.
Statutory Authority
Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title III, 72 Stat. 320, as amended; 43 U.S.C. §390b); Flood Control Act of 1944 (Section 6, 58 Stat. 890, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §708); and project specific authorities in Water Resources Development Acts or similar legislation.
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance
Project Purpose
Federal policy generally is that community water supply is a local and state responsibility. However, communities, particularly rural and small communities, increasingly have sought federal water supply assistance. Since 1992, Congress has enacted more than 400 authorizations allowing USACE to provide designated communities, counties, and states with design and construction assistance for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure (including treatment, and distribution/collection facilities) and source water protection and development; these activities are known as environmental infrastructure projects. The authorizations of federal appropriations for these activities vary widely from $0.5 million to $25 million for planning and design assistance, to $0.2 million to $435 million for construction assistance. As with Reclamation's rural water supply and Title XVI projects, congressional funding of these authorizations has enlarged the scope of the agency's activities. Like many USACE activities, congressional support for specific environmental infrastructure assistance authorizations and appropriations is complicated by the authorities' geographic specificity, which is problematic under congressional earmark bans and moratoria.
Financing Mechanism
Under most USACE environmental infrastructure assistance authorizations, federal assistance typically requires a 75% federal and 25% nonfederal cost-share. The federal portion typically is provided by Congress to USACE in annual Energy and Water Development Act appropriations legislation. How USACE and nonfederal financing is managed varies according to the specifics of the authorization. Sometimes USACE is responsible for performing the assistance or for contracting out the work; under other authorizations, USACE uses appropriated funds to financially assist by reimbursing nonfederal sponsors for their work.
Eligibility Requirements
Because environmental infrastructure assistance activities are not part of a national USACE program per se, there are no clear and/or consistent general eligibility criteria. Most of USACE environmental infrastructure authorities specify a specific geographic location (e.g., a city, county, or state) and types of projects (e.g., municipal drinking water) as the principal eligibility requirements. Consequently, an activity's eligibility is evaluated by identifying whether there is an authorization for the geographic area of the activity, and whether the type of activity is eligible under that authorization. Because this assistance is not associated with a traditional USACE water resources projects, it is not subject to USACE planning requirements (e.g., a benefit-cost analysis is not performed).
Funding
Only a subset of authorized USACE environmental infrastructure activities has received appropriations. Since 1992, Congress has provided USACE roughly $2 billion in funds for environmental infrastructure assistance. Congress provided USACE with $70 million for environmental infrastructure assistance activities in FY2018 and $77 million in FY2019. These funds are part of the "additional funding" provided by Congress in enacted appropriations bills. After enactment of an appropriations bill, the Administration follows guidance provided in the bill and accompanying reports to guide its use of these funds on authorized environmental infrastructure assistance activities. The selected environmental infrastructure assistance activities are identified in the agency's Work Plan for the fiscal year, which is typically available within two months after enactment of appropriations. Recent funds have been used to continue ongoing environmental infrastructure assistance. Interpretation of limitations on initiating new USACE activities in appropriations bills and accompanying reports appear to be limiting initiation of USACE funding for the environmental infrastructure activities that do not have a broad geographic scope.
The Trump Administration requested no funding for these activities in its FY2020 request. Since the first authorization for environmental infrastructure assistance in 1992, no administration has asked for funding for USACE environmental infrastructure assistance.
Statutory Authority
Prior to 1992, USACE generally was not widely involved with municipal drinking water treatment and distribution and wastewater collection and treatment; the agency is now authorized to contribute to more than 400 environmental infrastructure projects and programs. A Water Resources Development Act or similar legislation is the typical legislative vehicle for USACE authorizations. Beginning with Sections 219 and 313 of WRDA 1992 ( P.L. 102-580 ), Congress has authorized USACE to assist local interests with planning, design, and construction assistance for environmental infrastructure projects. Subsequent USACE authorization bills included new environmental infrastructure assistance activities, and raised the authorized funding ceilings for previously authorized projects. Policies limiting congressionally directed spending have limited recent congressional authorizing activity of environmental infrastructure assistance. In December 2016, Congress expanded a process for nonfederal entities to propose modifications to existing authorities for environmental infrastructure assistance. For those proposals that meet the criteria established by Congress, the Administration transmits those proposals to Congress for its consideration as part of deliberations regarding USACE authorization legislation.
[This section was prepared by Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.]
Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service (Water and Waste Disposal Programs)
The USDA has a variety of water and waste disposal programs to provide loans and grants for drinking water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage facilities in rural communities. Eligibility is limited to rural communities of 10,000 population or less. These programs are administered at the national level by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at USDA. RUS allocates program funds to the USDA State Rural Development Offices through an allocation formula based on rural population, poverty, and unemployment. Loans originate at the USDA's State Rural Development offices.
Between 2009 and 2016, RUS had funded $13.9 billion for nearly 5,825 projects for water supply and wastewater facilities. According to an RUS FY2016 annual report, 46% of $1.8 billion in investments in that year were for water supply, 49% were for wastewater systems, and the remaining 5% were for combined projects. There is heavy demand for water supply and wastewater disposal funds for small rural communities. At the end of FY2016, USDA reported a $2.5 billion backlog of requests for water and wastewater projects.
Program Purpose
The purpose of these programs is to provide basic human amenities, alleviate health hazards, and promote the orderly growth of the nation's rural areas by meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal facilities. Eligible projects can include drinking water facilities, sanitary sewers, and stormwater drainage and disposal facilities. Funds may be used for installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of rural water facilities, including costs of distribution lines and well-pumping facilities. The law directs that USDA make grants of 1% to 3% of total grant funding to qualified nonprofits to provide technical assistance and training to help communities in preparing applications for grants and loans and to help problem solving operation and maintenance of existing water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas. This has totaled $18 million to $20 million annually in recent years. For FY2018, technical assistance for water and waste disposal facilities will increase to $40 million.
Financing Mechanism
Direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants provide USDA support for water and waste disposal projects. USDA prefers making direct loans. Grants are made only when necessary to reduce average annual user charges to a reasonable level, particularly for lower-income communities. The split between loans and grants distributed from the regular infrastructure program, which is the large majority of spending, was about 75-25 in 2015 and 2016. There is no statutory distribution formula. Funds are allocated to states based upon rural population, number of households in poverty, and unemployment. There are no matching requirements for states.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans. The Rural Development Act of 1972 authorized establishment of the Rural Development Insurance Fund under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Among other activities, this fund is used for loans (direct and guaranteed) to develop storage, treatment, purification, or distribution of water or collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in low-income rural areas. Loans are repayable in not more than 40 years or the useful life of the facilities, whichever is less. USDA makes either direct loans to applicants or guarantees up to 90% of loans made by third-party lenders such as banks and savings and loan associations.
Loan interest rates are based on the community's economic and health environment and are designated poverty, market, or intermediate. Poverty interest rate loans are made in areas where the median household income (MHI) falls below the higher of 80% of the statewide nonurban MHI, or the poverty level, and the project is needed to meet health or sanitary standards; by law, this rate is set at 60% of the market rate. The market rate is adjusted quarterly and is set using the average of a specified 11-bond index. It applies to loans to applicants where the MHI of the service area exceeds the statewide nonurban MHI. The intermediate rate applies to loans that do not meet the criteria for the poverty rate and which do not have to pay the market rate; by law, this rate is set at 80% of the market rate. Interest rates on guaranteed loans are negotiated between the borrower and the lender. The 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 ) amended the water and waste disposal direct and guaranteed loan programs to encourage financing by private or cooperative lenders to the maximum extent possible, use of loan guarantees where the population exceeds 5,500, and use of direct loans where the impact of a guaranteed loan on rate payers would be significant.
Water and Waste Disposal Grants . Grants for the development costs of water supply and waste disposal projects in rural areas also are authorized under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Only communities with poverty and intermediate rate incomes qualify for USDA grants. An eligible project must serve a rural area that is not likely to decline in population below the level for which the project was designed and constructed so that adequate capacity will or can be made available to serve the reasonably foreseeable growth needs of the area. The 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 ) authorized appropriations at $30 million annually through FY2018 for these grants. The appropriation for water and waste water grants is $400 million.
Grant funds may be available for up to 75% of the development cost of a project and should only be used to reduce user costs to a reasonable level. Grants are only made after a determination of the maximum amount of loan that a community can afford and still have reasonable user rates. Grants, which typically provide 35%-45% of project costs, may be used to supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants for project costs, and may be combined with USDA loans when the applicant is able to repay part, but not all, of the project costs. Priority is given to projects serving populations of less than 5,500.
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants . RUS is also authorized to help eligible communities prepare, or recover from, an emergency that threatens the availability of safe, reliable drinking water. Grants, ranging from $10,000 to a maximum of $500,000, are provided for projects to serve a rural area with a population of 10,000 or less that has a median household income not in excess of the statewide nonmetropolitan median household income. Grants for repairs, partial replacement, or significant maintenance of an established system cannot exceed $150,000. Communities use the funds for new systems, waterline extensions, construction of water source and treatment facilities, and repairs or renovation of existing systems and may be awarded for 100% of project cost. Applicants compete on a national basis for available funding. Funding for this program is mandatory through reservation of 3% to 5% of appropriated water and waste disposal grant funds. Of the amounts appropriated for water and waste disposal grants, 3% to 5% is reserved for grants for the Emergency and Imminent Water Assistance program. The 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 ) also authorized an additional $35 million per year through FY2018 for this program. Amounts provided through this program have been quite variable over time, depending on need. In FY2014, $14.7 million was distributed in 14 states; in FY2015, $2.5 million was distributed in 14 states. No funds were appropriated for the program in FY2017 and FY2018.
Eligibility Requirements
Eligible entities are municipalities, counties, and other political subdivisions of a state; associations, cooperatives, and organizations operated on a not-for-profit basis; Indian tribes on federal and state reservations; and other federally recognized tribes. USDA's loan and grant programs are limited to community service areas (including areas in cities or towns) with population of 10,000 or less. To be eligible for assistance, communities must be unable to get reasonable credit through normal commercial channels. Also, communities must be below certain income levels. Loans and grants are made for projects needed to meet health or sanitary standards, including Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act standards and requirements. The 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 ) authorized $5 million per year through FY2018 for USDA to make grants to private nonprofit organizations for the purpose of providing loans to eligible individuals for construction, refurbishing, and servicing of individually owned household water well systems. Loans are limited to $11,000 per water well system. Authorized appropriations for the program were $993,000 in both FY2017 and FY2018.
Funding
Funds available through FY2018 appropriations for USDA's water and waste disposal programs were included in two titles of P.L. 115-141 . Title III provided $560.3 million in total for FY2018, including $400.0 million in grants, $2.0 million in direct loan subsidies ($1.2 billion in loan authority), and $230,000 in subsidy to support guaranteed loans ($50.0 million in loan authority). Title VII (Section 780) provided an additional $500 million for the grant and loan program "of which not to exceed $495,000,000 shall be for grants." Out of the total FY2018 funds, USDA has appropriations of $1.0 million for grants to capitalize revolving loans for water and waste disposal systems and $68 million to support water and waste disposal projects in the colonias, Alaskan Native communities, and Hawaiian Native communities. For FY2019, the President's budget requested $1.20 billion in direct loan authority and $0 for guaranteed loans and water and waste disposal grants.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Statutory authority for the water and waste disposal loan and grant programs is the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, Section 306, 7 U.S.C. 1926. Regulations for these programs are codified at 7 C.F.R. Parts 1778-1780.
[This section was prepared by Tadlock Cowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.]
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The USDA provides assistance to watershed activities under four closely related authorities that are administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program (WFPO) consists of two authorities—referred to as P.L. 566 and P.L. 534 projects. These authorize NRCS to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local organizations to plan and install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage and to conserve, develop, and utilize land and water resources. Dams constructed under the WFPO program are eligible to receive assistance under the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, authorized by Congress in 2000. The fourth watershed authority is an emergency program that is not discussed in this report.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
The WFPO program consists of projects built under two authorities—the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534). The vast majority of the projects have been built pursuant to the authority of P.L. 83-566 (referred to as P.L. 566 projects), under which smaller projects (discussed below) authorized by the Chief of the NRCS are constructed. Larger projects must be approved by Congress. Eleven projects were specifically authorized under P.L. 78-534 (referred to as P.L. 534 projects); they are much larger and more expensive than P.L. 566 projects.
Under P.L. 566, over 2,100 projects have been authorized through FY2018. In FY2018, NRCS funded 23 new projects, 19 existing projects, and five remedial projects.
The 11 projects that were specifically authorized under P.L. 534 encompass a total of almost 37.9 million acres and are divided into component projects in subwatersheds. Approximately 90% of the work on the P.L. 534 projects is complete. With the exception of the two smallest projects, the estimated federal costs for each of these projects range from $40 million to more than $275 million. Three of the projects have been completed, and work on the remainder continues in one or more subwatersheds.
The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 116-6 , FY2019 appropriations) appropriated $150 million in FY2019. Recent amendments in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334 ) permanently authorized an additional $50 million annually from mandatory sources to the WFPO program.
Program Purpose
The purpose of the program is to provide technical and financial assistance to states and local organizations to plan and install watershed projects. Both P.L. 566 and P.L. 534 have similar objectives and are implemented following similar procedures. Both programs fund land treatment, and nonstructural and structural facilities for flood prevention, erosion reduction, agricultural water management, public recreation development, fish and wildlife habitat development, and municipal or industrial water supplies. Structural measures can include dams, levees, canals, and pumping stations. Local sponsors agree to operate and maintain completed projects.
Financing Mechanism
Partial project grants, plus provision of technical advisory services are provided. Financing for water projects under the WFPO program varies depending on project purposes. The federal government pays all costs related to construction for flood control purposes only. Costs for nonagricultural water supply must be repaid by local organizations; however, up to 50% of costs for land, easements, and rights-of-way allocated to public fish and wildlife and recreational developments may be paid with program funds. Additionally, sponsors may apply for USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Water and Waste Program loans to finance the local share of project costs. Participating state and local organizations pay all operation and maintenance costs.
Eligibility Requirements
P.L. 566 has been called the small watershed program because no project may exceed 250,000 acres, and no structure may exceed more than 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity, or 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. The Senate and House Agriculture Committees must approve projects that need an estimated federal contribution of more than $25 million for construction or include a storage structure with a capacity in excess of 2,500 acre feet. If the storage structure will have a capacity in excess of 4,000 acre feet, approval is also required from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. There are no population or community income-level limits on applications for P.L. 566 projects, but at least 20% of the total benefits of the project must directly relate to agriculture (including rural communities).
Funding
The enacted FY2019 appropriation provided WFPO with $150 million. Of the $150 million, $50 million is required to be allocated to projects and activities that can "commence promptly;" address regional priorities for flood prevention, agricultural water management, inefficient irrigation systems, fish and wildlife habitat, or watershed protection; or watershed protection projects authorized under P.L. 534. The FY2020 Administration's request proposes no funding for the program.
Beginning in FY2014, when no funding was appropriated for WFPO, Congress directed funding from another conservation account—Conservation Operations, which funds general conservation technical assistance offered by NRCS—to fund projects authorized under the WFPO authority. The use of Conservation Operation funding for WFPO activities has continued each fiscal year through the FY2019 appropriations. This congressionally directed amount is in addition to the $150 million made available for the program as a whole in FY2019.
In addition to discretionary funding provided through appropriations, the 2018 farm bill permanently authorized $50 million annually from mandatory sources. This mandatory funding will be available unless otherwise amended by Congress. Mandatory funds are authorized for P.L. 566 projects as well as rehabilitation work under the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program consists of two authorities: the Flood Control Act of 1944, P.L. 78-534, as amended, 58 Stat. 905 (33 U.S.C. 701b-1); and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, P.L. 83-566, as amended, 68 Stat. 666 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008). Regulations are codified at 7 C.F.R. Part 622.
Small Watershed Loans
As part of its lending responsibilities, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at USDA (see discussion above) makes loans to local organizations to finance the local share of the cost of installing, repairing, or improving facilities, purchasing sites and easements, and related costs for P.L. 566 and P.L. 534 projects. Loans are limited to $10 million; they must be repaid within 50 years; and the cost-share assistance may not exceed the rate of assistance for similar projects under other USDA conservation programs. NRCS and the local organization must also agree on a plan of work before a loan is obligated. Over the life of the program, 495 RUS loans have been made at a value of almost $176 million.
Small Watershed Rehabilitation
Some of the oldest P.L. 566 projects that have exceeded their design life (dams were constructed starting in 1948) need rehabilitation work to continue to protect public health and safety by reducing any possibility of dam failure, and to meet changing resource needs. By December 2018, approximately 6,245 watershed dams have reached the end of their originally designed life spans. By the end of 2019, more than half of the 11,847 watershed dams will have reached the end of their designed life spans. In response to this concern, Congress created a rehabilitation program, known as the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, in Section 313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-472 ), which revised the WFPO program. From 2000 to 2018, the program authorized the rehabilitation of 288 dams in 31 states. Of this total, 150 projects are complete, and the remaining projects are waiting for funding.
Program Purpose
The purpose of rehabilitation is to extend the service life of the dams and bring them into compliance with applicable safety and performance standards or to decommission the dams so they no longer pose a threat to life and property.
Financing Mechanism
Partial project grants, plus provision of technical advisory services are provided. NRCS may provide 65% of the total rehabilitation costs but no more than 100% of the actual construction cost, and is prohibited from funding operation and maintenance expense. Rehabilitation projects also provide an opportunity to modify projects to provide additional benefits, including municipal water supplies. Local watershed project sponsors provide 35% of the cost of a rehabilitation project and obtain needed land rights and permits. The source of these funds varies from state to state and may include bonds, local taxing authority, state appropriations, or in-kind technical services.
Eligibility Requirements
Only dams constructed under the P.L. 566 authority, the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program, and pilot watershed projects authorized in the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 1953 are eligible for assistance under the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Funding
Since FY2000, Congress has appropriated more than $700 million for rehabilitation projects. The Trump Administration is seeking no funding for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation program for FY2020, citing the Administration's position that the maintenance, repair, and operation of these dams are the responsibility of local project sponsors. Similar positions were cited under the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations.
The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program has discretionary funding authority of up to $85 million annually. The program has received an average annual appropriation of $11.2 million over the last five years, including $10 million in FY2019.
In the past, the program was authorized through omnibus farm bills to receive mandatory funding to remain available until expended. This funding was frequently restricted through annual appropriations to generate annual savings. The FY2018 appropriations act was the first to not restrict the remaining mandatory carryover, thereby making approximately $55 million available for obligation. The 2018 farm bill reauthorized discretionary funding authority for the program, but no additional mandatory funding authority was provided.
Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, P.L. 83-566, as amended by §313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000, P.L. 106-472 , 114 Stat. 2077 (16 U.S.C. 1012). Regulations are codified at 7 C.F.R. Part 622.
[This section was prepared by Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.]
Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes performance levels (e.g., secondary treatment) to be attained by municipal sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful wastes into surface waters. The act also provides financial assistance, so that communities can construct treatment facilities in compliance with the law, which has the overall objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
Since 1973, Congress has appropriated approximately $98 billion in program grants that support wastewater projects. Funds are distributed to states under a statutory allocation formula and are used to assist qualified projects on priority lists that are determined by individual states. These funds are used to assist localities in meeting wastewater infrastructure needs most recently estimated (in 2016) by EPA and states at $271 billion nationally (over the next 20 years) for all categories of projects eligible for federal assistance under the law.
In 1987, Congress amended the CWA ( P.L. 100-4 ) and initiated a new program of federal capitalization grants to support Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs). Prior to 1989 (when the CWSRF program became effective), states used their annual allocations to make grants to cities and other eligible recipients. Since 1989, federal funds (grants of appropriated funds) have been used to capitalize state loan programs with states providing matching funds equal to 20% of the federal funds to capitalize the CWSRF. All 50 states, plus Puerto Rico, participate in the CWSRF program. Over the long term, the loan programs are intended to be sustained through repayment of loans to states, thus creating a continuing source of assistance for other communities.
EPA data indicate that since 1987, 67% of all loans and other assistance have gone to assist communities with 10,000 people or fewer. These loans and assistance have comprised 22% of total CWSRF funding.
Program Purpose
The CWSRF program provides assistance in constructing and upgrading publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment plants, implementing nonpoint pollution management programs, developing and implementing management plans under the National Estuary Program, and supporting other eligible activities.
Financing Mechanism
EPA grants (from appropriated funds) and state matching funds help capitalize state CWSRF programs. These programs may provide seven general types of financial assistance: making loans; buying or refinancing existing local debt obligations; guaranteeing or purchasing insurance for local debt obligations; guaranteeing CWSRF debt obligations (i.e., to be used as security for leveraging the assets in the CWSRF); providing loan guarantees for local government revolving funds; earning interest on fund accounts; and supporting reasonable costs of administering the CWSRF. Loans are made at or below market interest rates, including zero interest loans, as determined by the state in negotiation with the applicant.
Although the CWSRF program is generally a loan program, states may (under certain conditions) provide "additional subsidization"—such as principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, or a combination—to municipalities that meet the state's affordability criteria and for particular projects, such as those that implement water or energy efficiency goals or mitigate stormwater runoff. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted funds to provide additional subsidization. This trend began with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ), which required states to use at least 50% of their funds for this purpose. Recent appropriations acts included an identical condition, requiring 10% of the CWSRF grants be used "to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these)."
All principal and interest payments on loans must be credited directly to the SRF, and loans are to be repaid within 30 years of a project's completion, not to exceed the project's useful life. States are required to ensure that CWSRF-funded projects use American iron and steel products and apply the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Eligibility Requirements
Eligible loan recipients for CWSRF assistance are any municipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or state agency. Private utilities are not eligible to receive funds for construction of wastewater treatment works and most other eligible activities, but in some cases, privately owned projects are eligible for certain types of activities (e.g., decentralized wastewater treatment projects; projects to manage, reduce or treat stormwater; or development of watershed management projects).
Projects or activities eligible for funding were, initially, those needed for constructing or upgrading (and planning and designing) publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment plans. As defined in Clean Water Act Section 212, devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage are eligible. These include construction or upgrading of secondary or advanced treatment plants; construction of new collector sewers, interceptor sewers, or storm sewers; and projects to correct existing problems of sewer system rehabilitation, infiltration/inflow of sewer lines, and combined sewer overflows. Operation and maintenance are not eligible activities. All funds in the clean water SRF resulting from federal capitalization grants are first to be used to assure compliance with enforceable deadlines, goals, and requirements of the act, including municipal compliance. After satisfying the "first use" requirement, funds may be used to implement other eligible uses, which initially included nonpoint source management programs and estuary activities in approved State Nonpoint Management Programs and estuarine Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, respectively.
In 2000, Congress authorized separate CWA grant funding for projects to address overflows from municipal combined sewer systems and from municipal separate sanitary sewers ("wet weather" projects). Overflows from these portions of municipal sewerage systems can occur especially during rainfall or other wet weather events and can result in discharges of untreated sewage into local waterways. This program, contained in the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-554 , Division B, Section 112), authorized $750 million per year in FY2002 and FY2003. No funds were appropriated for this program. America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA, P.L. 115-270 ), enacted on October 23, 2018, reauthorized appropriations for the grant program (and expanded it to include certain stormwater activities) for $225 million for FY2019 and FY2020. The FY2019 appropriations act did not provide funding for this program.
In 2014, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA; P.L. 113-121 ) amended the list of eligible projects by adding several projects and activities, including
replacement of decentralized treatment systems (e.g., septic tanks), energy-efficiency improvements at treatment works, reuse and recycling of wastewater or stormwater, and security improvements at treatment works.
In 2018, AWIA amended the list of eligible activities to allow qualified nonprofits to provide assistance to certain individuals for the repair or replacement of existing decentralized wastewater treatment systems or for the connection of an individual household to a centralized publicly owned treatment works.
Funding
Since the first appropriations for the clean water SRF program in FY1989, Congress has provided more than $46 billion in grants to states and Puerto Rico to capitalize their CWSRFs. Through March 2018, federal funds, together with state matching contributions, repaid loans, and other funds, have been used for $126 billion in SRF assistance to support more than 39,000 SRF loans and debt refinance agreements.
In both FY2016 and FY2017, Congress provided $1.394 billion for the CWSRF program. In FY2018, Congress increased the appropriation to the CWSRF program, providing $1.694 billion ( P.L. 115-141 ). In FY2019, Congress maintained the same level as the previous fiscal year, $1.694 billion ( P.L. 116-6 ). For FY2020, the President requested $1.120 billion for the CWSRF program.
Through a separate process, EPA provides direct grants for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas. EPA also provides direct grants to Indian tribes (33 U.S.C. §1377). The funding for the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes is part of the SRF appropriation to EPA.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Statutory authority for the clean water SRF program is the Clean Water Act, as amended, Sections 601-607, 33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387. Regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R. §35.3100.
[This section was prepared by Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.]
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires public water systems to comply with federal drinking water regulations promulgated by EPA. Through these regulations, EPA has set standards to control the levels of approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water, and more regulations are under development. To help communities meet these federal mandates and to meet the act's public health objectives, Congress amended the SDWA in 1996 to establish a drinking water state revolving fund (DWSRF) loan program. The program is patterned closely after the clean water SRF, and authorizes EPA to make grants to states to capitalize drinking water state revolving loan funds. States use their DWSRFs to provide assistance to public water systems for infrastructure and other drinking water projects. States must match 20% of the federal capitalization grant.
Each year, states must develop an "intended use plan" that includes a list of projects the state intends to fund through the DWSRF (referred to as the project priority list). The law generally directs states to give funding priority to projects that (1) address the most serious health risks; (2) are needed to ensure compliance with SDWA regulations; and (3) assist systems most in need on a per household basis, according to state affordability criteria. The law also directs states to make available at least 15% of their annual allotment to public water systems that serve 10,000 or fewer persons (to the extent the funds can be obligated to eligible projects). Over the life of the program, roughly 71% of DWSRF assistance agreements and 38% of funds have gone to these smaller systems. Capitalization grants are allotted among the states according to the results of the most recent quadrennial survey of the capital improvements needs of eligible water systems. Needs surveys are prepared by EPA and the states, and the most recent survey indicates that public water systems need to invest at least $$472.6 billion on infrastructure improvements over 20 years ($23.63 billion annually) to ensure the provision of safe drinking water and compliance with federal standards.
Program Purpose
This state-administered program provides assistance for infrastructure projects and other expenditures that facilitate compliance with federal drinking water regulations or that promote public health protection. The SDWA directs states to give funding priority to infrastructure projects that are needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements, protect public health, and assist systems with economic need. Further, states may use a portion of the capitalization grant for specified purposes, including programs for protecting sources of drinking water and improving the managerial and technical capacity of water systems.
Financing Mechanism
States may use the DWSRF to make low- or zero-interest loans to public water systems, and loan recipients generally must repay the entire loan plus any interest to the state. DWSRFs may also be used to buy or refinance local debt obligations, to guarantee or purchase insurance for a local obligation, as a source of revenue or security for payment of principal and interest on state revenue or general obligation bonds if the proceeds of the sale of the bonds are deposited into the DWSRF, and to earn interest on DWSRF accounts.
The statute authorizes states to use up to 35% of their annual DWSRF grants to provide additional subsidies (e.g., principal forgiveness and negative interest rate loans) to help economically disadvantaged communities of any size. (A disadvantaged community is one in which the service area of a public water system meets state-established affordability criteria.) As with recent appropriations acts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) requires states to use 20% of their DWSRF capitalization grants "to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these)."
Eligibility Requirements
Drinking water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF assistance include community water systems, whether publicly or privately owned, and not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. Federally owned systems are not eligible to receive assistance from this program.
Projects eligible for DWSRF assistance include (1) capital investments to rehabilitate or replace infrastructure in order to continue providing the public with safe drinking water (e.g., storage facilities, and transmission and distribution pipes); (2) projects needed to address violations of SDWA regulations (e.g., treatment facilities); and (3) project design and planning and associated preconstruction activities. Assistance may also be available for construction of new wells to replace contaminated wells, source water protection, land acquisition, security measures (including infrastructure improvements), and consolidation of water supplies (e.g., in cases where individual homes or public water systems have a water supply that is contaminated, or a system is unable to maintain compliance for financial or managerial reasons).
Projects and activities not eligible for funding include projects primarily intended to serve future growth or to provide fire protection, construction of dams or reservoirs (except reservoirs for treated water), monitoring, and operation and maintenance. Ineligible systems include those that lack the financial, technical or managerial capacity to maintain SDWA compliance and systems in significant noncompliance with any SDWA regulation (unless the project is likely to ensure compliance).
Funding
For FY2018, the President requested $863.2 million for the state DWSRF capitalization grants, and Congress appropriated $1,163.2 million ( P.L. 115-141 ). For FY2019, the President requested $863 million, and Congress provided $1,164.0 million ( P.L. 116-6 ). AWIA reauthorized DWSRF appropriations for FY2019 through FY2021. In recent years, the estimated average state grant has been roughly $17.16 million per fiscal year. The estimated average grant to territories was $3.40 million per fiscal year.
From FY1997 through FY2018, cumulative appropriations for the DWSRF program reached $22.11 billion. Adjusted for set-asides, cumulative net federal contributions totaled $21.52 billion. When combined with the 20% state match ($3.91 billion), bond proceeds, loan principal repayments, and other funds, the total DWSRF investment through FY2018 had reached $39.86 billion, and the program had provided more than $38.22 billion in assistance. Over the same period, more than 14,577 projects had received assistance, and 10,441 had been completed.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The statutory authority for the DWSRF program is the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 ( P.L. 104-182 , Section 1452, 42 U.S.C. 300j-12). Regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R. §35.3500.
[This section was prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, and Elena Humphreys, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.]
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program
Localities are the entities that are primarily responsible for providing water infrastructure services, which include both drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. According to the most recent estimates by states and EPA, funding needs for projects eligible for CWSRF or DWSRF funding—described in the sections above (i.e., projects needed to address water quality and public health-related problems or regulations)—total $655 billion over a 20-year period. However, many water infrastructure capital needs are ineligible for assistance through the SRF programs or are too large or otherwise not suited for those programs.
In 2014, WRRDA established a five-year Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) pilot program. WIFIA authorizes EPA to provide credit assistance—secured (direct) loans or loan guarantees—for a broad range of drinking water and wastewater projects. In contrast to SRF programs, EPA will provide the credit assistance directly to an eligible recipient. Most of the credit assistance will likely be secured loans, as the agency stated that it does not expect much demand for loan guarantees. To be eligible for WIFIA assistance, projects must generally have costs of $20 million or more.
WRRDA also authorizes the Corps to provide similar assistance under the WIFIA for water resource projects, such as flood control or hurricane and storm damage reduction. Although Congress has provided funds to EPA to implement WIFIA, as of the date of this report, Congress has not yet appropriated funds (nor have any been requested) that would enable the Corps to begin preparations or begin making WIFIA loans under the authority in WRRDA.
Program Purpose
WIFIA provides an additional source of funding for water infrastructure projects. Some stakeholders have argued that the clean water and drinking water SRF programs are structured in a way that makes them useful primarily for smaller communities and smaller projects. The WIFIA program can provide credit assistance to large water infrastructure projects that otherwise have difficulty obtaining financing. WIFIA can provide capital at a low cost to the borrower, because even though the interest on 30-year Treasury securities is taxable, Treasury rates can be less expensive than rates on traditional tax-exempt municipal debt.
Financing Mechanism
In federal budgetary terms, WIFIA assistance has much less of an impact than a grant, which is not repaid to the U.S. Treasury. The volume of loans and other types of credit assistance that the programs can provide is determined by the size of congressional appropriations and calculation of the subsidy amount. WIFIA defines the subsidy amount as follows:
The amount of budget authority sufficient to cover the estimated long-term cost to the Federal Government of a Federal credit instrument, as calculated on a net present value basis, excluding administrative costs and any incidental effects on governmental receipts or outlays in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq. ).
Although subsidy rates are project-specific, in the Trump Administration's FY2019 budget proposal, OMB estimated a 0.98% subsidy rate for WIFIA. This equates to a 1:102 ratio. At this subsidy rate, a $10 million appropriation could support a direct loan (or loans) totaling $1.02 billion. Thus, one advantage of the WIFIA program is that it can provide a large amount of credit assistance relative to the amount of budget authority provided.
Eligibility Requirements
WIFIA credit assistance is available to state infrastructure financing authorities for a group of projects and individual project sponsors, which may include the following:
a corporation; a partnership; a joint venture; a trust; or a federal, state, local, or tribal government (or consortium of tribal governments).
Categories eligible for assistance by EPA include the following:
wastewater treatment and community drinking water facilities; enhanced energy efficiency of a public water system or wastewater treatment works; repair or rehabilitation of aging wastewater and drinking water systems; desalination, water recycling, aquifer recharge, or development of alternative water supplies to reduce aquifer depletion; prevention, reduction, or mitigation of the effects of drought; or a combination of eligible projects.
The act, among other provisions, authorizes EPA to provide credit assistance for a range of wastewater and drinking water projects. Project costs must be $20 million or larger to be eligible for credit assistance. In rural areas (defined as populations of 25,000 or less), project costs must be $5 million or more.
Funding
For FY2019, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) provided $68 million for the WIFIA program (including $5 million for administrative costs). To receive funding, a prospective borrower submits a letter of interest to EPA. The letter includes project eligibility, financial creditworthiness, engineering feasibility, and alignment with EPA's policy priorities. From these submittals, the agency selects projects for funding. On March 29, 2019, EPA announced a third round of WIFIA funding. EPA estimated that its budget authority ($63 million) would provide approximately $6 billion in credit assistance.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The statutory authority for the WIFIA program is WRRDA ( P.L. 113-121 , Title V, codified in 33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914). EPA promulgated an interim final rule for the program on December 19, 2016 (81 F ederal Register 91822). Regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R. §35.10000.
[This section was prepared by Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.]
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block Grants
HUD administers assistance in support of state and local government neighborhood revitalization and related community and economic development activities, including infrastructure improvements, primarily under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The program's primary objective is to develop viable communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. CDBG funds are used by state and local governments for a broad range of neighborhood revitalization and community and economic development activities intended to meet one of three national objectives. Specifically, eligible activities must
1. principally benefit low- or moderate-income persons; 2. aid in preventing or eliminating slums and blight; or 3. address an imminent threat to the health and safety of residents.
Program policy requires that at least 70% of funds must benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
The block nature of the CDBG program provides local government discretion in selecting the eligible activities to be undertaken in pursuit of national objectives. Water and waste disposal needs compete with many other eligible activities for this assistance, including historical preservation, energy conservation, economic development, lead-based paint abatement, public facilities and public service activities. Since it began in 1974, the CDBG program has invested $150 billion in communities nationwide. Congress has also used the program to provide supplemental appropriations to assist communities and states in response to natural disasters, the mortgage foreclosure crisis of 2008, economic recessions, and terrorist attacks. Since 1992, Congress has appropriated approximately $50 billion in supplemental CDBG funding to assist targeted states and local governments in their recovery efforts. Funds from the regular CDBG program have been disbursed across several broad categories, including the acquisition and demolition of real property, planning and administrative activities, housing, public services, and public improvements such as water and wastewater treatment facilities. During the five-year period from FY2012 to FY2016, CDBG expenditures for public improvement—including water and sewer improvements—accounted for approximately 33% of all CDBG funds expended. Water and sewer improvements accounted for 10% of total CDBG expenditures during the same five-year span.
After subtracting amounts specified in appropriations acts for special-purpose activities, 70% of CDBG funds are allocated by formula to approximately 1,224 entitlement communities nationwide. These communities are defined as central cities of metropolitan areas, metropolitan cities with populations of 50,000 or more, and statutorily defined urban counties (the entitlement program). These funds are not available for projects in rural communities. The remaining 30% of CDBG funding is allocated by formula to the states for distribution to nonentitlement communities (the state program) for use in areas that are not part of a CDBG entitlement community allocation. These funds, which are administered by each state, may be available for rural community water projects. The 70/30 split and allocation formulas are provided for in law. Between FY2012 and FY2016, disbursements by CDBG recipients for water and sewer improvements have averaged $370 million per year.
Program Purpose
The primary goal of this program is the development of viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Funds may also be used to aid in preventing or eliminating slums and blight or to address an imminent threat to residents of the impacted area.
Financing Mechanism
CDBG program funds are allocated by formula. After amounts specified in an appropriations act are allocated to Section 107 special-purpose activities, 70% of the remaining funds are allocated by formula to entitlement communities and 30% to the states for distribution to nonentitlement communities. Funds are awarded to entitlement communities based on the higher yield from one of two weighted formulas. The first of two formulas uses population, overcrowded housing, and poverty data, while the second formula allocates funds based on an entitlement community's relative share of poverty, housing built before 1940, and the lag in population growth rate relative to the total for all entitlement communities. Similar formulas are used to allocate nonentitlement funds to states.
As a condition of receiving CDBG funds, an entitlement community must submit a consolidated plan at least 45 days before the beginning of its program year detailing the proposed use of funds over a five-year period. Each entitlement community's multiyear consolidated plan (ConPlan) must include a citizen participation plan, a housing needs assessment, and an annual community development plan. In addition to an annual action plan, each jurisdiction must annually submit to HUD a Comprehensive Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) detailing progress it has made in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in its action plans.
States do not actually undertake eligible CDBG activities but act as pass-through agents charged with three distinct responsibilities: (1) determining the method or methods to be used to distribute funds to nonentitlement communities, including seeking the input of affected local governments; (2) selecting local governments that will receive funds; and (3) monitoring local government grant recipient project implementation to ensure compliance with rules governing the program. In addition, each state is required to submit to HUD a ConPlan that includes a five-year housing and homeless needs assessment, a housing market analysis, a strategic plan that includes proposed housing and nonhousing community development activities, and a one-year action plan. Also, each state must submit to HUD a CAPER detailing progress it has made in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in its action plans.
Eligibility Requirements
There are three categories of recipients eligible for direct allocations of CDBG program funds: entitlement communities (including insular areas), states, and Section 107 special project grants. Entitlement communities include central cities of metropolitan areas, metropolitan-based cities with populations of 50,000 or more, and statutorily defined urban counties. As of 2017, there were 1,224 entitlement communities, including the District of Columbia. States include the 50 states and Puerto Rico. Before funds are allocated to states and entitlement communities, a specific amount established by Congress is set aside annually for the United States territories or insular area of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. These funds are awarded annually based on each insular area's relative share of aggregate population for all insular areas.
Eligible activities include a wide range of projects such as public facilities and improvements, housing, public services, economic development, and brownfields redevelopment. State grantees must ensure that each activity meets one of the program's three national objectives: benefitting low- and moderate-income persons (the primary objective), aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or assisting other community development needs that present a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. Under the state program that assists smaller communities, states develop their own program and funding priorities and have considerable latitude to define community eligibility and criteria, within general criteria in law and regulations.
Funding
For FY2017, Congress provided $3.0 billion for CDBG entitlement/nonentitlement formula funds, of which approximately $2.095 billion was available for entitlement communities, $898 million for smaller communities under the state nonentitlement program, and $7 million for insular areas. For FY2018, the President's budget requested $0 in funds for this program, the same as the FY2017 request level. On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, P.L. 115-141 . Division L of the act appropriated $3.365 billion for the HUD-administered Community Development Fund, including $3.3 billion for the CDBG entitlement/nonentitlement formula funds. Of the amount appropriated for CDBG formula grants, $2.305 billion was allocated to entitlement communities, $988 million to states for distribution to nonentitlement communities, and $7 million for insular areas. The act also appropriated $65 million for Indian tribes. For FY2019, the Administration again requested $0 in funds for the CDBG program. On February 15, 2019, Congress, passed and the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, P.L. 116-6 . The act left the program's funding level unchanged from the previous year, appropriating $3.365 billion—including $2.305 for entitlement communities, $988 billion for states to distribute to nonentitlement communities, $7 million for insular areas, and $65 million for Indian tribes. The Administration's budget request for FY2020, released on March 11, 2019, does not include funding for the CDBG program. In proposing termination of the program in FY2020, the Administration cited its intent to redefine the proper role of the federal government in support of community and economic development by devolving responsibility to state and local governments.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Statutory authority for the CDBG program is Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. ). Regulations are codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 570. Regulations covering the CDBG state program for nonentitlement communities are codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 570, Subpart I (§570.480).
CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees
Authorized under the same title (Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) as the formula-based CDBG program, the Section 108 loan guarantees allow an entitlement community or a state, on behalf of a nonentitlement community, to leverage its annual CDBG allocation in support of large-scale economic development and housing rehabilitation projects and the construction, reconstruction, or installation of public facilities.
Program Purpose
Consistent with the goals and objectives of the CDBG program, Section 108 loan guarantees are intended to supplement CDBG program activities. The program allows entitlement communities and states to extend the reach of the formula-based CDBG program, giving them access to additional financial resources to undertake large-scale, transformative neighborhood revitalization efforts.
Eligible activities include acquiring and rehabilitating publicly owned real property; housing rehabilitation; economic development activities, including those carried out by for-profit and nonprofit entities; debt service reserves; payment of interest on the guaranteed loan; issuance cost of the public offering; and the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and installation of public facilities, including water and sewer improvements.
Financing Mechanism
Section 108 loan guarantees are financed through public offerings. Under the program, states and communities are allowed to float bonds, notes, or debentures worth up to five times their annual CDBG allocation, minus any existing Section108 commitments or outstanding principal balances, with a repayment period of up to 20 years. States and entitlement communities must pledge their current and future CDBG allocations as security against default of the bonds or notes. Section 108 funds are made available on an ongoing basis, allowing communities to apply for funds any time during the year. It should be noted that Section 108 loan funds are made available to eligible public entities that may reloan the funds to private participants in a redevelopment project. Applicants are encouraged to meet with HUD staff prior to submitting a formal application.
Eligibility Requirements
Section 108 loan guarantees may be accessed only by CDBG entitlement communities and states on behalf of a CDBG nonentitlement community. All eligible activities must meet one of the three national objectives of the regular CDBG program: principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in eliminating or preventing slums and blight, or address an imminent threat to the health and safety of residents. The program has an open application process, allowing entitlement communities and states to submit applications anytime during the year. The application process governing the Section 108 program can be grouped into several distinct stages: application presubmission, citizen participation, application submission, application review and notification, award allocation, and reporting.
When submitting formal applications, states and entitlement communities must include a description of activities to be carried out, financing structure, source of loan repayment, citizen participation plan, anti-displacement strategy, and a pledge of the applicant's CDBG allocation as security for the Section 108 guaranteed loan. In general, HUD attempts to review an application within 90 days. HUD field offices are encouraged to complete applications within 45 days, with HUD headquarters attempting to complete its review within 45 days. Recipients receiving Section 108 funds are required to file annual performance reports with HUD detailing progress made in meeting the objectives of their community development plans, including Section 108 activities. Between FY2014 and FY2016, HUD issued loan guarantee commitments totaling $314.4 million to 47 projects, including $110.4 million to 17 projects in FY2014, $123.3 million in loan guarantees to 20 projects in FY2015, and $80.7 million to support 10 projects in FY2016.
Funding
For FY2017, Congress authorized a loan commitment ceiling of $300 million and directed HUD to collect fees from borrowers that results in a credit subsidy cost of zero for guaranteeing Section 108 loans. Until FY2015, Congress appropriated an amount necessary to cover the estimated long-term liability to the federal government of a Section 108 loan guarantee (credit subsidy). The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for FY2014 changed that arrangement, allowing HUD to collect a fee from the borrower to cover the cost of the credit subsidy. The amount of the fee will be determined annually by HUD based on a percentage of the principal amount of the Section 108 guaranteed loan. For FY2018, the Trump Administration did not request any new loan guarantee authority. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, P.L. 115-141 , signed by the President on March 3, 2018, included $300 million in Section 108 loan guarantee authority. For FY2019, the again requested no new loan guarantee authority. However, Congress, in passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, P.L. 116-6 , provided $300 million in loan guarantee authority for Section 108 financed projects. For FY2020, the Administration has requested no new loan guarantee authority for the Section 108 program.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Statutory authority for the Section 108 program is Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5308). Regulations are codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 570, Subpart M.
[This section was prepared by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy, Government and Finance Division.]
Department of Commerce
Community Development Block Grants
HUD administers assistance in support of state and local government neighborhood revitalization and related community and economic development activities, including infrastructure improvements, primarily under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The program's primary objective is to develop viable communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. CDBG funds are used by state and local governments for a broad range of neighborhood revitalization and community and economic development activities intended to meet one of three national objectives. Specifically, eligible activities must
1. principally benefit low- or moderate-income persons, 2. aid in preventing or eliminating slums and blight, or 3. address an imminent threat to the health and safety of residents.
Program policy requires that at least 70% of funds must benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
The block nature of the CDBG program provides local government discretion in selecting the eligible activities to be undertaken in pursuit of national objectives. Water and waste disposal needs compete with many other eligible activities for this assistance, including historical preservation, energy conservation, economic development, lead-based paint abatement, public facilities, and public service activities. Since it began in 1974, the CDBG program has invested $150 billion in communities nationwide. Congress has also used the program to provide supplemental appropriations to assist communities and states in response to natural disasters, the mortgage foreclosure crisis of 2008, economic recessions, and terrorist attacks. Since 1992, Congress has appropriated approximately $50 billion in supplemental CDBG funding to assist targeted states and local governments in their recovery efforts. Funds from the regular CDBG program have been disbursed across several broad categories, including the acquisition and demolition of real property, planning and administrative activities, housing, public services, and public improvements such as water and wastewater treatment facilities. During the five-year period from FY2012 to FY2016, CDBG expenditures for public improvement—including water and sewer improvements—accounted for approximately 33% of all CDBG funds expended. Water and sewer improvements accounted for 10% of total CDBG expenditures during the same five-year span.
After subtracting amounts specified in appropriations acts for special-purpose activities, 70% of CDBG funds are allocated by formula to approximately 1,224 entitlement communities nationwide. These communities are defined as central cities of metropolitan areas, metropolitan cities with populations of 50,000 or more, and statutorily defined urban counties (the entitlement program). These funds are not available for projects in rural communities. The remaining 30% of CDBG funding is allocated by formula to the states for distribution to nonentitlement communities (the state program) for use in areas that are not part of a CDBG entitlement community allocation. These funds, which are administered by each state, may be available for rural community water projects. The 70/30 split and allocation formulas are provided for in law. Between FY2012 and FY2016, disbursements by CDBG recipients for water and sewer improvements have averaged $370 million per year.
Program Purpose
The primary goal of this program is the development of viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Funds may also be used to aid in preventing or eliminating slums and blight or to address an imminent threat to residents of the impacted area.
Financing Mechanism
CDBG program funds are allocated by formula. After amounts specified in an appropriations act are allocated to Section 107 special purpose activities, 70% of the remaining funds are allocated by formula to entitlement communities and 30% to the states for distribution to nonentitlement communities. Funds are awarded to entitlement communities based on the higher yield from one of two weighted formulas. The first of two formulas uses population, overcrowded housing, and poverty data, while the second formula allocates funds based on an entitlement community's relative share of poverty, housing built before 1940, and the lag in population growth rate relative to the total for all entitlement communities. Similar formulas are used to allocate nonentitlement funds to states.
As a condition of receiving CDBG funds, an entitlement community must submit a consolidated plan at least 45 days before the beginning of its program year detailing the proposed use of funds over a five-year period. Each entitlement community's multiyear consolidated plan (ConPlan) must include a citizen participation plan, a housing needs assessment, and an annual community development plan. In addition to an annual action plan, each jurisdiction must annually submit to HUD a Comprehensive Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) detailing progress it has made in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in its action plans.
States do not actually undertake eligible CDBG activities but act as pass-through agents charged with three distinct responsibilities: (1) determining the method or methods to be used to distribute funds to nonentitlement communities, including seeking the input of affected local governments; (2) selecting local governments that will receive funds; and (3) monitoring local government grant recipient project implementation to ensure compliance with rules governing the program. In addition, each state is required to submit to HUD a ConPlan that includes a five-year housing and homeless needs assessment, a housing market analysis, a strategic plan that includes proposed housing and nonhousing community development activities, and a one-year action plan. Also, each state must submit to HUD a CAPER detailing progress it has made in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in its action plans.
Eligibility Requirements
There are three categories of recipients eligible for direct allocations of CDBG program funds: entitlement communities (including insular areas), states, and Section 107 special project grants. Entitlement communities include central cities of metropolitan areas, metropolitan-based cities with populations of 50,000 or more, and statutorily defined urban counties. As of 2017, there were 1,224 entitlement communities, including the District of Columbia. States include the 50 states and Puerto Rico. Before funds are allocated to states and entitlement communities, a specific amount established by Congress is set aside annually for the United States territories or insular area of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. These funds are awarded annually based on each insular area's relative share of aggregate population for all insular areas.
Eligible activities include a wide range of projects such as public facilities and improvements, housing, public services, economic development, and brownfields redevelopment. State grantees must ensure that each activity meets one of the program's three national objectives: benefitting low- and moderate-income persons (the primary objective), aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or assisting other community development needs that present a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. Under the state program that assists smaller communities, states develop their own program and funding priorities and have considerable latitude to define community eligibility and criteria, within general criteria in law and regulations.
Funding
For FY2017, Congress provided $3.0 billion for CDBG entitlement/nonentitlement formula funds, of which approximately $2.095 billion was available for entitlement communities, $898 million for smaller communities under the state nonentitlement program, and $7 million for insular areas. For FY2018, the President's budget requested $0 in funds for this program, the same as the FY2017 request level. On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, P.L. 115-141 . Division L of the act appropriated $3.365 billion for the HUD-administered Community Development Fund, including $3.3 billion for the CDBG entitlement/nonentitlement formula funds. Of the amount appropriated for CDBG formula grants, $2.305 billion was allocated to entitlement communities, $988 million to states for distribution to nonentitlement communities, and $7 million for insular areas. The act also appropriated $65 million for Indian tribes. For FY2019, the Administration again requested $0 in funds for the CDBG program. On February 15, 2019, Congress, passed and the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, P.L. 116-6 . The act left the program's funding level unchanged from the previous year, appropriating $3.365 billion—including $2.305 for entitlement communities, $988 billion for states to distribute to nonentitlement communities, $7 million for insular areas, and $65 million Indian tribes. The Administration's budget request for FY2020, released on March 11, 2019, does not include funding for the CDBG program. In proposing termination of the program in FY2020, the Administration cited its intent to redefine the proper role of the federal government in support of community and economic development by devolving responsibility to state and local governments.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Statutory authority for the CDBG program is Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. ). Regulations are codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 570. Regulations covering the CDBG state program for nonentitlement communities are codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 570, Subpart I (§570.480).
CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees
Authorized under the same title (Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) as the formula-based CDBG program, the Section 108 loan guarantees allow an entitlement community or a state, on behalf of a nonentitlement community, to leverage its annual CDBG allocation in support of large-scale economic development and housing rehabilitation projects and the construction, reconstruction, or installation of public facilities.
Program Purpose
Consistent with the goals and objectives of the CDBG program, Section 108 loan guarantees are intended to supplement CDBG program activities. The program allows entitlement communities and states to extend the reach of the formula-based CDBG program, giving them access to additional financial resources to undertake large-scale, transformative neighborhood revitalization efforts.
Eligible activities include acquiring and rehabilitating publicly owned real property; housing rehabilitation; economic development activities, including those carried out by for-profit and nonprofit entities; debt service reserves; payment of interest on the guaranteed loan; issuance cost of the public offering; and the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and installation of public facilities, including water and sewer improvements.
Financing Mechanism
Section 108 loan guarantees are financed through public offerings. Under the program, states and communities are allowed to float bonds, notes, or debentures worth up to five times their annual CDBG allocation, minus any existing Section108 commitments or outstanding principal balances, with a repayment period of up to 20 years. States and entitlement communities must pledge their current and future CDBG allocations as security against default of the bonds or notes. Section 108 funds are made available on an ongoing basis, allowing communities to apply for funds anytime during the year. It should be noted that Section 108 loan funds are made available to eligible public entities that may reloan the funds to private participants in a redevelopment project. Applicants are encouraged to meet with HUD staff prior to submitting a formal application.
Eligibility Requirements
Section 108 loan guarantees may be accessed only by CDBG entitlement communities and states on behalf of a CDBG nonentitlement community. All eligible activities must meet one of the three national objectives of the regular CDBG program: principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in eliminating or preventing slums and blight, or address an imminent threat to the health and safety of residents. The program has an open application process, allowing entitlement communities and states to submit applications anytime during the year. The application process governing the Section 108 program can be grouped into several distinct stages: application presubmission, citizen participation, application submission, application review and notification, award allocation, and reporting.
When submitting formal applications, states and entitlement communities must include a description of activities to be carried out, financing structure, source of loan repayment, citizen participation plan, anti-displacement strategy, and a pledge of the applicant's CDBG allocation as security for the Section 108 guaranteed loan. In general, HUD attempts to review an application within 90 days. HUD field offices are encouraged to complete applications within 45 days, with HUD headquarters attempting to complete its review within 45 days. Recipients receiving Section 108 funds are required to file annual performance reports with HUD detailing progress made in meeting the objectives of their community development plans, including Section 108 activities. Between FY2014 and FY2016, HUD issued loan guarantee commitments totaling $314.4 million to 47 projects, including $110.4 million to 17 projects in FY2014, $123.3 million in loan guarantees to 20 projects in FY2015, and $80.7 million to support 10 projects in FY2016.
Funding
For FY2017, Congress authorized a loan commitment ceiling of $300 million and directed HUD to collect fees from borrowers that results in a credit subsidy cost of zero for guaranteeing Section 108 loans. Until FY2015, Congress appropriated an amount necessary to cover the estimated long-term liability to the federal government of a Section 108 loan guarantee (credit subsidy). The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for FY2014 changed that arrangement, allowing HUD to collect a fee from the borrower to cover the cost of the credit subsidy. The amount of the fee will be determined annually by HUD based on a percentage of the principal amount of the Section 108 guaranteed loan. For FY2018, the Trump Administration did not request any new loan guarantee authority. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, P.L. 115-141 , signed by the President on March 3, 2018, included $300 million in Section 108 loan guarantee authority. For FY2019, the Administration again requested no new loan guarantee authority. However, Congress, in passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, P.L. 116-6 , provided $300 million in loan guarantee authority for Section 108 financed projects. For FY2020, the Administration has requested no new loan guarantee authority for the Section 108 program.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Statutory authority for the Section 108 program is Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5308). Regulations are codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 570, Subpart M.
[This section was prepared by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy, Government and Finance Division.]
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration (Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Program)
The Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA) is authorized to provide development assistance to areas experiencing substantial economic distress. EDA grants for community water and sewer projects are available through its Public Works and Economic Development Facilities program (PWED). Such assistance is also available under the agency's Economic Adjustment Assistance program.
Under the PWED program public works grants are awarded competitively to eligible applicants to revitalize, expand, and upgrade their physical infrastructure. These investments in public works improvements must be linked to projects intended to enable communities to attract new industry, encourage business expansion and retention, diversify local economies, and generate or retain private sector jobs in EDA-designated distressed regions. Grants may be used for a wide range of purposes but frequently have a sewer or water supply element.
The types of projects funded include industrial parks, expansion of port and harbor facilities, redevelopment of brownfields, and water and wastewater facilities primarily serving industry and commerce. Federal law requires that units of government retain ownership of EDA-funded projects. Because EDA grants must directly encourage employment generation, these grants generally are not available for rural residential sewer and water supply development.
Program Purpose
The purpose of the program is to promote long-term economic development and assist in the construction of public works and development facilities needed to initiate and support the creation or retention of permanent private sector jobs in areas experiencing long-term economic deterioration and distress. EDA's public works program supports investments that will help distressed areas address their competitive disadvantages. Funded projects must be part of an EDA-certified Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).
Financing Mechanism
EDA competitively awards public works grants directly to approved applicants. Generally, EDA investment assistance may not exceed 50% of the project cost. Projects may receive an additional amount, not to exceed 30%, based on the relative needs of the region in which the project will be located, as determined by EDA. In the case of certain Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations that have exhausted their effective borrowing capacity, or a state or political subdivision of a state that has exhausted its effective taxing and borrowing capacity, grants totaling 100% of a project's cost may be awarded. Credit may be given toward the nonfederal share for in-kind contributions, including contributions of space, equipment, and services. No minimum or maximum project amount is specified in law.
Eligibility Requirements
Public works grants may be made to states, cities, counties and other political subdivisions of states, an institution of higher education or a consortium of such institutions, and private or public not-for-profit organizations acting in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a state. Under this program, the term "state" includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. For-profit, private sector entities do not qualify.
Qualified projects must fill a pressing need of the area and must (1) be intended to improve the opportunities for the successful establishment of businesses, (2) assist in the creation of additional long-term private sector employment, and (3) benefit long-term unemployed or underemployed persons and low-income families. Projects must also be consistent with the area's CEDS and have an adequate share of local funds. In addition, eligible projects must be located in areas that meet at least one of the following criteria: low per-capita income, unemployment above the national average, or an actual or anticipated abrupt rise in unemployment.
Funding
For FY2017, Congress provided appropriations totaling $100 million for EDA's public works grant program. For FY2018, the President's budget requested no funding for the public works program. On March 23, 2018, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, P.L. 115-141 . Division B of the act appropriated $262.5 million for EDA programs and additional $39 million for salaries and expenses. Of the amount appropriated for EDA programs, $117.5 million is allocated for the public works program. On February 15, 2019, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, P.L. 116-6 . The act appropriated $265 million for EDA programs, including $117 million for the public works program. The act also appropriated an additional $39 million for EDA salaries and expenses. This is the same amount appropriated for FY2018. The Administration's FY2020 budget requests no new funding for EDA program activities but does request $30 million to cover the costs associated with closing down the agency.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The statutory authority for the public works program is the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, P.L. 89-136 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ). Regulations are codified at 13 C.F.R. Chapter III, Part 302, 305, 316, and 317.
Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA)
EDA, through its Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) grant program, awards development assistance to areas experiencing long-term economic deterioration and distress or sudden and substantial economic dislocation. This may include assisting communities/regions affected by natural disasters, natural resource depletion, mass layoffs, and other severe economic shocks that communities experience in restructuring and diversifying their regional economies. Funds have also been made available to aid communities experiencing chronic unemployment and underinvestment and communities impacted by military Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC).
EAA funds are competitively awarded to qualified applicants to assist them in developing and implementing a five-year CEDS. EAA may be used to fund four types of activities:
1. strategic planning activities that include the creation of short-term action plans intended to stabilize a distressed community and regionally oriented long-term development strategies (CEDS) intended to assess and redirect the region's economic future; 2. technical assistance, including feasibility studies; 3. capitalization of revolving loan funds, which would allow qualifying businesses to borrow funds at favorable interest rates; and 4. financing of physical infrastructure projects, including water and sewer facilities, industrial parks, and business incubators.
Program Purpose
The purpose of the program is to promote long-term economic development in areas experiencing sudden economic dislocation or long-term economic distress. EDA's EAA program supports investments that will help distressed areas address their competitive disadvantages and rethink their economic futures. In general, funds may be used to develop CEDS, and funded projects must be part of EDA-certified CEDS.
Financing Mechanism
EDA competitively awards EAA grants directly to approved applicants. Generally, EAA investment assistance may not exceed 50% of the project cost. Projects may receive an additional amount, not to exceed 30%, based on the relative needs of the region in which the project will be located, as determined by EDA. In the case of certain Indian tribes and nonprofit organizations that have exhausted their effective borrowing capacity, or a state or political subdivision of a state that has exhausted its effective taxing and borrowing capacity, grants totaling 100% may be awarded. Credit may be given toward the nonfederal share for in-kind contributions, including contributions of space, equipment, and services. No minimum or maximum project amount is specified in law.
Eligibility Requirements
EAA grants may be made to states, cities, counties and other political subdivisions of states, institutions of higher education or consortia of such institutions, and private or public nonprofit organizations acting in cooperation with officials of political subdivisions of a state. Under this program, the term state includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. For-profit, private sector entities do not qualify.
Qualified projects must fill a pressing need of the area and must (1) be intended to improve the opportunities for the successful establishment of businesses, (2) assist in the creation of additional long-term private sector employment, and (3) benefit long-term unemployed or underemployed persons and low-income families. Projects must also be consistent with the area's CEDS and have an adequate share of local funds. In addition, eligible projects must be located in areas that meet at least one of the following criteria: low per-capita income, unemployment above the national average, or an actual or anticipated abrupt rise in unemployment.
Funding
For FY2017, Congress provided appropriations totaling $35 million for EDA's EAA grant program. For FY2018, the President's budget requested $0 for the EAA program. On March 23, 2018, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, P.L. 115-141 , which included $262.5 million for EDA programs and additional $39 million for salaries and expenses. Of the amount appropriated for EDA programs, $37 million was allocated for the EAA program. On February 15, 2019, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, P.L. 116-6 . The act appropriated $265 million for EDA programs, including $37 million for the EAA program. For FY2020, the Administration seeks to terminate EDA and its programs, citing changing national priorities, including prioritizing rebuilding the military and making critical investments in the nation's security. The Administration is requesting $30 million for salaries and expenses to cover the cost of shutting down the agency.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
The statutory authority for the public works program is the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, P.L. 89-136 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ). Regulations are codified at 13 C.F.R. Chapter III, Part 302, 305, 316, and 317.
[This section was prepared by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy, Government and Finance Division.]
Summary:
| For more than four decades, Congress has authorized and refined several programs to help communities address water supply and wastewater problems. The agencies that administer these programs differ in multiple ways. In terms of funding mechanisms, projects developed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) typically require direct, individual project authorizations from Congress.
In contrast, standing program authorizations provide project funding for other agencies, including
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The key practical difference is that with the individual project authorizations, there is no predictable assistance or even guarantee of funding after a project is authorized, because funding must be secured each year in the congressional appropriations process. The programs, on the other hand, have set program criteria, are generally funded from year to year, and provide a process under which project sponsors compete for funding.
In terms of scope and mission, the primary responsibilities of USACE are to maintain inland navigation, provide for flood and storm damage reduction, and restore aquatic ecosystems, while EPA's mission relates to protecting public health and the environment. The Department of Commerce and HUD focus on community and economic development. Likewise, the specific programs—while all address water supply and wastewater treatment to some degree—differ in important respects. Some are national in scope (those of USDA, EPA, and the Department of Commerce, for example), while others are regionally focused (Reclamation's programs and projects). Some focus primarily on urban areas (HUD) and some on rural areas (USDA), and others do not distinguish based on community size (e.g., EPA, USACE).
Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly. Collectively, congressional funding for these programs in recent years has been somewhat eroded by overall competition among the many programs that are supported by discretionary spending, despite the continuing pressure from stakeholders and others for increased funding. FY2019 appropriations highlights include the following:
$1.164 billion for capitalization grants to states under EPA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water systems and $1.694 billion for EPA's SRF program for wastewater projects; $60 million in subsidy costs for the EPA-administered Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, allowing the agency to provide approximately $5.5 billion in credit assistance for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects; $400 million for USDA's rural water and waste disposal grant program and direct loan authority of approximately $1.4 billion; $3.4 billion for HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (water and wastewater projects are among many eligible uses); and $58.6 million for Reclamation's Title XVI reclamation/recycling projects. | 96 | 119,710 | 119,712 | 119,712 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_RL32665 | crs_RL32665_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Introduction
This report presents background information and issues for Congress concerning the Navy's force structure and shipbuilding plans. The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy's shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years.
The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of 12 new ships, including one Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, three Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one FFG(X) frigate, two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, and two TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's proposed FY2020 shipbuilding program and the Navy's longer-term shipbuilding plans. Decisions that Congress makes on this issue can substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
Detailed coverage of certain individual Navy shipbuilding programs can be found in the following CRS reports:
CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. (This report also covers the issue of the Administration's FY2020 budget proposal, which the Administration withdrew on April 30, to not fund a mid-life refueling overhaul [called a refueling complex overhaul, or RCOH] for the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman [CVN-75], and to retire CVN-75 around FY2024.) CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II Amphibious Ship Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. (This report also covers the issue of funding for the procurement of an amphibious assault ship called LHA-9.) CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.
For a discussion of the strategic and budgetary context in which U.S. Navy force structure and shipbuilding plans may be considered, see Appendix A .
Background
Navy's 355-Ship Ship Force-Structure Goal
Introduction
On December 15, 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship force-level goal replaced a 308-ship force-level goal that the Navy released in March 2015. The 355-ship force-level goal is the largest force-level goal that the Navy has released since a 375-ship force-level goal that was in place in 2002-2004. In the years between that 375-ship goal and the 355-ship goal, Navy force-level goals were generally in the low 300s (see Appendix B ). The force level of 355 ships is a goal to be attained in the future; the actual size of the Navy in recent years has generally been between 270 and 290 ships. Table 1 shows the composition of the 355-ship force-level objective.
355-Ship Goal Resulted from 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA)
The 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by the Navy in 2016. An FSA is an analysis in which the Navy solicits inputs from U.S. regional combatant commanders (CCDRs) regarding the types and amounts of Navy capabilities that CCDRs deem necessary for implementing the Navy's portion of the national military strategy and then translates those CCDR inputs into required numbers of ships, using current and projected Navy ship types. The analysis takes into account Navy capabilities for both warfighting and day-to-day forward-deployed presence. Although the result of the FSA is often reduced for convenience to single number (e.g., 355 ships), FSAs take into account a number of factors, including types and capabilities of Navy ships, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, and weapons, as well as ship homeporting arrangements and operational cycles. The Navy conducts a new FSA or an update to the existing FSA every few years, as circumstances require, to determine its force-structure goal.
355-Ship Goal Made U.S. Policy by FY2018 NDAA
Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA ( H.R. 2810 / P.L. 115-91 of December 12, 2017), states the following:
SEC. 1025. Policy of the United States on minimum number of battle force ships.
(a) Policy.—It shall be the policy of the United States to have available, as soon as practicable, not fewer than 355 battle force ships, comprised of the optimal mix of platforms, with funding subject to the availability of appropriations or other funds.
(b) Battle force ships defined.—In this section, the term "battle force ship" has the meaning given the term in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5030.8C.
The term battle force ships in the above provision refers to the ships that count toward the quoted size of the Navy in public policy discussions about the Navy.
New FSA Now Being Done Could Change 355-Ship Figure and Force Mix
The Navy states that a new FSA is now underway as the successor to the 2016 FSA, and that this new FSA is to be completed by the end of 2019. The new FSA, Navy officials state, will take into account the Trump Administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy document and its January 2018 National Defense Strategy document, both of which put an emphasis on renewed great power competition with China and Russia, as well as updated information on Chinese and Russian naval and other military capabilities and recent developments in new technologies, including those related to unmanned vehicles (UVs).
Navy officials have suggested in their public remarks that this new FSA could change the 355-ship figure, the planned mix of ships, or both. Some observers, viewing statements by Navy officials, believe the new FSA in particular might shift the Navy's surface force to a more distributed architecture that includes a reduced proportion of large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers), an increased proportion of small surface combatants (i.e., frigates and LCSs), and a newly created third tier of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). Some observers believe the new FSA might also change the Navy's undersea force to a more distributed architecture that includes, in addition to attack submarines (SSNs) and bottom-based sensors, a new element of extremely large unmanned underwater vehicles (XLUUVs), which might be thought of as unmanned submarines. In presenting its proposed FY2020 budget, the Navy highlighted its plans for developing and procuring USVs and UUVs in coming years.
Shifting to a more distributed force architecture, Navy officials have suggested, could be appropriate for implementing the Navy's new overarching operational concept, called Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO). Observers view DMO as a response to both China's improving maritime anti-access/area denial capabilities (which include advanced weapons for attacking Navy surface ships) and opportunities created by new technologies, including technologies for UVs and for networking Navy ships, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, and sensors into distributed battle networks.
Figure 1 shows a Navy briefing slide depicting the Navy's potential new surface force architecture, with each sphere representing a manned ship or a USV. Consistent with Figure 1 , the Navy's 355-ship goal, reflecting the current force architecture, calls for a Navy with twice as many large surface combatants as small surface combatants. Figure 1 suggests that the potential new surface force architecture could lead to the obverse—a planned force mix that calls for twice as many small surface combatants than large surface combatants—along with a new third tier of numerous USVs.
Observers believe the new FSA might additionally change the top-level metric used to express the Navy's force-level goal or the method used to count the size of the Navy, or both, to include large USVs and large UUVs.
Navy's Five-Year and 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans
FY2020 Five-Year (FY2020-FY2024) Shipbuilding Plan
Table 2 shows the Navy's FY2020 five-year (FY2020-FY2024) shipbuilding plan. The table also shows, for reference purposes, the ships funded for procurement in FY2019. The figures in the table reflect a Navy decision to show the aircraft carrier CVN-81 as a ship to be procured in FY2020 rather than a ship that was procured in FY2019. Congress, as part of its action on the Navy's proposed FY2019 budget, authorized the procurement of CVN-81 in FY2019.
As shown in Table 2 , the Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of 12 new ships, including one Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, three Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one FFG(X) frigate, two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, and two TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships. If the Navy had listed CVN-81 as a ship procured in FY2019 rather than a ship to be procured in FY2020, then the total numbers of ships in FY2019 and FY2020 would be 14 and 11, respectively.
As also shown Table 2 , the Navy's FY2020 five-year (FY2020-FY2024) shipbuilding plan includes 55 new ships, or an average of 11 new ships per year. The Navy's FY2019 budget submission also included a total of 55 ships in the period FY2020-FY2024, but the mix of ships making up the total of 55 for these years has been changed under the FY2020 budget submission to include one additional attack submarine, one additional FFG(X) frigate, and two (rather than four) LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ships over the five-year period. The FY2020 submission also makes some changes within the five-year period to annual procurement quantities for DDG-51 destroyers, ESBs, and TAO-205s without changing the five-year totals for these programs.
Compared to what was projected for FY2020 itself under the FY2019 budget submission, the FY2020 request accelerates from FY2023 to FY2020 the aircraft carrier CVN-81 (as a result of Congress's action to authorize the ship in FY2019), adds a third attack submarine, accelerates from FY2021 into FY2020 a third DDG-51, defers from FY2020 to FY2021 an LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ship to FY2021, defers from FY2020 to FY2023 an ESB ship, and accelerates from FY2021 to FY2020 a second TAO-205 class oiler.
FY2020 30-Year (FY2020-FY2049) Shipbuilding Plan
Table 3 shows the Navy's FY2020-FY2049 30-year shipbuilding plan. In devising a 30-year shipbuilding plan to move the Navy toward its ship force-structure goal, key assumptions and planning factors include but are not limited to ship construction times and service lives, estimated ship procurement costs, projected shipbuilding funding levels, and industrial-base considerations. As shown in Table 3 , the Navy's FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan includes 304 new ships, or an average of about 10 per year.
Projected Force Levels Under FY2020 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Overview
Table 4 shows the Navy's projection of ship force levels for FY2020-FY2049 that would result from implementing the FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) 30-year shipbuilding plan shown in Table 3 .
As shown in Table 4 , if the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan is implemented, the Navy projects that it will achieve a total of 355 ships by FY2034. This is about 20 years sooner than projected under the Navy's FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan. This is not primarily because the FY2020 30-year plan includes more ships than did the FY2019 plan: The total of 304 ships in the FY2020 plan is only three ships higher than the total of 301 ships in the FY2019 plan. Instead, it is primarily due to a decision announced by the Navy in April 2018, after the FY2019 budget was submitted, to increase the service lives of all DDG-51 destroyers—both those existing and those to be built in the future—to 45 years. Prior to this decision, the Navy had planned to keep older DDG-51s (referred to as the Flight I/II DDG-51s) in service for 35 years and newer DDG-51s (the Flight II/III DDG-51s) for 40 years. Figure 2 shows the Navy's projections for the total number of ships in the Navy under the Navy's FY2019 and FY2020 budget submissions. As can be seen in the figure, the Navy projected under the FY2019 plan that the fleet would not reach a total of 355 ships any time during the 30-year period.
Adjustment Needed for Withdrawn Proposal Regarding CVN-75 RCOH
The projected number of aircraft carriers in Table 4 , the projected total number of all ships in Table 4 , and the line showing the total number of ships under the Navy's FY2020 budget submission in Figure 2 all reflect the Navy's proposal, under its FY2020 budget submission, to not fund the mid-life nuclear refueling overhaul (called a refueling complex overhaul, or RCOH) of the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), and to instead retire CVN-75 around FY2024. On April 30, 2019, however, the Administration announced that it was withdrawing this proposal from the Navy's FY2020 budget submission. The Administration now supports funding the CVN-75 RCOH and keeping CVN-75 in service past FY2024.
As a result of the withdrawal of its proposal regarding the CVN-75 RCOH, the projected number of aircraft carriers and consequently the projected total number of all ships are now one ship higher for the period FY2022-FY2047 than what is shown in Table 4 , and the line in Figure 2 would be adjusted upward by one ship for those years. (The figures in Table 4 are left unchanged from what is shown in the FY2020 budget submission so as to accurately reflect what is shown in that budget submission.)
355-Ship Total Attained 20 Years Sooner; Mix Does Not Match FSA Mix
As shown in Table 4 , although the Navy projects that the fleet will reach a total of 355 ships in FY2034, the Navy in that year and subsequent years will not match the composition called for in the FY2016 FSA. Among other things, the Navy will have more than the required number of large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers) from FY2030 through FY2040 (a consequence of the decision to extend the service lives of DDG-51s to 45 years), fewer than the required number of aircraft carriers through the end of the 30-year period, fewer than the required number of attack submarines through FY2047, and fewer than the required number of amphibious ships through the end of the 30-year period. The Navy acknowledges that the mix of ships will not match that called for by the 2016 FSA but states that if the Navy is going to have too many ships of a certain kind, DDG-51s are not a bad type of ship to have too many of, because they are very capable multi-mission ships.
Issues for Congress
Whether New FSA Will Change 355-Ship Goal and, If So, How
One issue for Congress is whether the new FSA that the Navy is conducting will change the 355-ship force-level objective established by the 2016 FSA and, if so, in what ways. As discussed earlier, Navy officials have suggested in their public remarks that this new FSA could shift the Navy toward a more distributed force architecture, which could change the 355-ship figure, the planned mix of ships, or both. The issue for Congress is how to assess the appropriateness of the Navy's FY2020 shipbuilding plans when a key measuring stick for conducting that assessment—the Navy's force-level goal and planned force mix—might soon change.
Affordability of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Overview
Another oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan. This issue has been a matter of oversight focus for several years, and particularly since the enactment in 2011 of the Budget Control Act, or BCA ( S. 365 / P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011). Observers have been particularly concerned about the plan's prospective affordability during the decade or so from the mid-2020s through the mid-2030s, when the plan calls for procuring Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines as well as replacements for large numbers of retiring attack submarines, cruisers, and destroyers.
Figure 3 shows, in a graphic form, the Navy's estimate of the annual amounts of funding that would be needed to implement the Navy's FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan. The figure shows that during the period from the mid-2020s through the mid-2030s, the Navy estimates that implementing the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan would require roughly $24 billion per year in shipbuilding funds.
Concern Regarding Potential Impact of Columbia-Class Program
As discussed in the CRS report on the Columbia-class program, the Navy since 2013 has identified the Columbia-class program as its top program priority, meaning that it is the Navy's intention to fully fund this program, if necessary at the expense of other Navy programs, including other Navy shipbuilding programs. This led to concerns that in a situation of finite Navy shipbuilding budgets, funding requirements for the Columbia-class program could crowd out funding for procuring other types of Navy ships. These concerns in turn led to the creation by Congress of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF), a fund in the DOD budget that is intended in part to encourage policymakers to identify funding for the Columbia-class program from sources across the entire DOD budget rather than from inside the Navy's budget alone.
Several years ago, when concerns arose about the potential impact of the Columbia-class program on funding available for other Navy shipbuilding programs, the Navy's shipbuilding budget was roughly $14 billion per year, and the roughly $7 billion per year that the Columbia-class program is projected to require from the mid-2020s to the mid-2030s (see Figure 3 ) represented roughly one-half of that total. With the Navy's shipbuilding budget having grown in more recent years to a total of roughly $24 billion per year, the $7 billion per year projected to be required by the Columbia-class program during those years does not loom proportionately as large as it once did in the Navy's shipbuilding budget picture. Even so, some concerns remain regarding the potential impact of the Columbia-class program on funding available for other Navy shipbuilding programs.
Potential for Cost Growth on Navy Ships
If one or more Navy ship designs turn out to be more expensive to build than the Navy estimates, then the projected funding levels shown in Figure 3 would not be sufficient to procure all the ships shown in the 30-year shipbuilding plan. As detailed by CBO and GAO, lead ships in Navy shipbuilding programs in many cases have turned out to be more expensive to build than the Navy had estimated. Ship designs that can be viewed as posing a risk of being more expensive to build than the Navy estimates include Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers, Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, Virginia-class attack submarines equipped with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), Flight III versions of the DDG-51 destroyer, FFG(X) frigates, LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ships, and John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, as well as other new classes of ships that the Navy wants to begin procuring years from now.
CBO Estimate
The statute that requires the Navy to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan each year (10 U.S.C. 231) also requires CBO to submit its own independent analysis of the potential cost of the 30-year plan (10 U.S.C. 231[d]). CBO is now preparing its estimate of the cost of the Navy's FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan. In the meantime, Figure 4 shows, in a graphic form, CBO's estimate of the annual amounts of funding that would be needed to implement the Navy's FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan. This figure might be compared to the Navy's estimate of its FY2020 30-year plan as shown in Figure 3 , although doing so poses some apples-vs.-oranges issues, as the Navy's FY2019 and FY2020 30-year plans do not cover exactly the same 30-year periods, and for the years they do have in common, there are some differences in types and numbers of ships to be procured in certain years.
CBO analyses of past Navy 30-year shipbuilding plans have generally estimated the cost of implementing those plans to be higher than what the Navy estimated. Consistent with that past pattern, as shown in Table 5 , CBO's estimate of the cost to implement the Navy's FY2019 30-year (FY2019-FY2048) shipbuilding plan is about 27% higher than the Navy's estimated cost for the FY2019 plan. ( Table 5 does not pose an apples-vs.-oranges issue, because both the Navy and CBO estimates in this table are for the Navy's FY2019 30-year plan.) More specifically, as shown in the table, CBO estimated that the cost of the first 10 years of the FY2019 30-year plan would be about 2% higher than the Navy's estimate; that the cost of the middle 10 years of the plan would be about 13% higher than the Navy's estimate; and that the cost of the final 10 years of the plan would be about 27% higher than the Navy's estimate.
Treatment of Inflation
The growing divergence between CBO's estimate and the Navy's estimate as one moves from the first 10 years of the 30-year plan to the final 10 years of the plan is due in part to a technical difference between CBO and the Navy regarding the treatment of inflation. This difference compounds over time, making it increasingly important as a factor in the difference between CBO's estimates and the Navy's estimates the further one goes into the 30-year period. In other words, other things held equal, this factor tends to push the CBO and Navy estimates further apart as one proceeds from the earlier years of the plan to the later years of the plan.
Designs of Future Classes of Ships
The growing divergence between CBO's estimate and the Navy's estimate as one moves from the first 10 years of the 30-year plan to the final 10 years of the plan is also due to differences between CBO and the Navy about the costs of certain ship classes, particularly classes that are projected to be procured starting years from now. The designs of these future ship classes are not yet determined, creating more potential for CBO and the Navy to come to differing conclusions regarding their potential cost. For the FY2019 30-year plan, the largest source of difference between CBO and the Navy regarding the costs of individual ship classes was a new class of SSNs that the Navy wants to begin procuring in FY2034 as the successor to the Virginia-class SSN design. This new class of SSN, CBO says, accounted for 42% of the difference between the CBO and Navy estimates for the FY2019 30-year plan, in part because there were a substantial number of these SSNs in the plan, and because those ships occur in the latter years of the plan, where the effects of the technical difference between CBO and the Navy regarding the treatment of inflation show more strongly.
The second-largest source of difference between CBO and the Navy regarding the costs of individual ship classes was a new class of large surface combatant (i.e., cruiser or destroyer) that the Navy wants to begin procuring in the future, which accounted for 20% of the difference, for reasons that are similar to those mentioned above for the new class of SSNs. The third-largest source of difference was the new class of frigates (FFG[X]s) that the Navy wants to begin procuring in FY2020, which accounts for 9% of the difference. The remaining 29% of difference between the CBO and Navy estimates was accounted for collectively by several other shipbuilding programs, each of which individually accounts for between 1% and 4% of the difference. The Columbia-class program, which accounted for 4%, is one of the programs in this final group.
Legislative Activity for FY2020
CRS Reports Tracking Legislation on Specific Navy Shipbuilding Programs
Detailed coverage of legislative activity on certain Navy shipbuilding programs (including funding levels, legislative provisions, and report language) can be found in the following CRS reports:
CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. (This report also covers the issue of the Administration's FY2020 budget proposal, which the Administration withdrew on April 30, to not fund a mid-life refueling overhaul [called a refueling complex overhaul, or RCOH] for the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman [CVN-75], and to retire CVN-75 around FY2024.) CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II Amphibious Ship Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke. (This report also covers the issue of funding for the procurement of an amphibious assault ship called LHA-9.) CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.
Legislative activity on individual Navy shipbuilding programs that are not covered in detail in the above reports is covered below.
Summary of Congressional Action on FY2020 Funding Request
The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of 12 new ships:
1 Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier; 3 Virginia-class attack submarines; 3 DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers; 1 FFG(X) frigate; 2 John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers; and 2 TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships.
As noted earlier, the above list of 12 ships reflects a Navy decision to show the aircraft carrier CVN-81 as a ship to be procured in FY2020 rather than a ship that was procured in FY2019. Congress, as part of its action on the Navy's proposed FY2019 budget, authorized the procurement of CVN-81 in FY2019.
The Navy's proposed FY2020 shipbuilding budget also requests funding for ships that have been procured in prior fiscal years, and ships that are to be procured in future fiscal years, as well as funding for activities other than the building of new Navy ships.
Table 6 summarizes congressional action on the Navy's FY2020 funding request for Navy shipbuilding. The table shows the amounts requested and congressional changes to those requested amounts. A blank cell in a filled-in column showing congressional changes to requested amounts indicates no change from the requested amount.
Appendix A. Strategic and Budgetary Context
This appendix presents some brief comments on elements of the strategic and budgetary context in which U.S. Navy force structure and shipbuilding plans may be considered.
Shift in International Security Environment
World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift over the past several years from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20-25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different strategic situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia, and challenges to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II. This situation is discussed further in another CRS report.
World Geography and U.S. Grand Strategy
Discussion of the above-mentioned shift in the international security environment has led to a renewed emphasis in discussions of U.S. security and foreign policy on grand strategy and geopolitics. From a U.S. perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world's people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of world geography, U.S. policymakers for the past several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another, on the grounds that such a hegemon could represent a concentration of power strong enough to threaten core U.S. interests by, for example, denying the United States access to some of the other hemisphere's resources and economic activity. Although U.S. policymakers have not often stated this key national strategic goal explicitly in public, U.S. military (and diplomatic) operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—can be viewed as having been carried out in no small part in support of this key goal.
U.S. Grand Strategy and U.S. Naval Forces
As noted above, in response to basic world geography, U.S. policymakers for the past several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another. The traditional U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another has been a major reason why the U.S. military is structured with force elements that enable it to cross broad expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival. Force elements associated with this goal include, among other things, an Air Force with significant numbers of long-range bombers, long-range surveillance aircraft, long-range airlift aircraft, and aerial refueling tankers, and a Navy with significant numbers of aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered attack submarines, large surface combatants, large amphibious ships, and underway replenishment ships.
The United States is the only country in the world that has designed its military to cross broad expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival. The other countries in the Western Hemisphere do not design their forces to do this because they cannot afford to, and because the United States has been, in effect, doing it for them. Countries in the other hemisphere do not design their forces to do this for the very basic reason that they are already in the other hemisphere, and consequently instead spend their defense money on forces that are tailored largely for influencing events in their own local region.
The fact that the United States has designed its military to do something that other countries do not design their forces to do—cross broad expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival—can be important to keep in mind when comparing the U.S. military to the militaries of other nations. For example, in observing that the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers while other countries have no more than one or two, it can be noted other countries do not need a significant number of aircraft carriers because, unlike the United States, they are not designing their forces to cross broad expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival.
As another example, it is sometimes noted, in assessing the adequacy of U.S. naval forces, that U.S. naval forces are equal in tonnage to the next dozen or more navies combined, and that most of those next dozen or more navies are the navies of U.S. allies. Those other fleets, however, are mostly of Eurasian countries, which do not design their forces to cross to the other side of the world and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival. The fact that the U.S. Navy is much bigger than allied navies does not necessarily prove that U.S. naval forces are either sufficient or excessive; it simply reflects the differing and generally more limited needs that U.S. allies have for naval forces. (It might also reflect an underinvestment by some of those allies to meet even their more limited naval needs.)
Countries have differing needs for naval and other military forces. The United States, as a country located in the Western Hemisphere that has adopted a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another, has defined a need for naval and other military forces that is quite different from the needs of allies that are located in Eurasia. The sufficiency of U.S. naval and other military forces consequently is best assessed not through comparison to the militaries of other countries, but against U.S. strategic goals.
More generally, from a geopolitical perspective, it can be noted that that U.S. naval forces, while not inexpensive, give the United States the ability to convert the world's oceans—a global commons that covers more than two-thirds of the planet's surface—into a medium of maneuver and operations for projecting U.S. power ashore and otherwise defending U.S. interests around the world. The ability to use the world's oceans in this manner—and to deny other countries the use of the world's oceans for taking actions against U.S. interests—constitutes an immense asymmetric advantage for the United States. This point would be less important if less of the world were covered by water, or if the oceans were carved into territorial blocks, like the land. Most of the world, however, is covered by water, and most of those waters are international waters, where naval forces can operate freely. The point, consequently, is not that U.S. naval forces are intrinsically special or privileged—it is that they have a certain value simply as a consequence of the physical and legal organization of the planet.
Uncertainty Regarding Future U.S. Role in the World
The overall U.S. role in the world since the end of World War II in 1945 (i.e., over the past 70 years) is generally described as one of global leadership and significant engagement in international affairs. A key aim of that role has been to promote and defend the open international order that the United States, with the support of its allies, created in the years after World War II. In addition to promoting and defending the open international order, the overall U.S. role is generally described as having been one of promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights, while criticizing and resisting authoritarianism where possible, and opposing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia or a spheres-of-influence world.
Certain statements and actions from the Trump Administration have led to uncertainty about the Administration's intentions regarding the U.S. role in the world. Based on those statements and actions, some observers have speculated that the Trump Administration may want to change the U.S. role in one or more ways. A change in the overall U.S. role could have profound implications for DOD strategy, budgets, plans, and programs, including the planned size and structure of the Navy.
Declining U.S. Technological and Qualitative Edge
DOD officials have expressed concern that the technological and qualitative edge that U.S. military forces have had relative to the military forces of other countries is being narrowed by improving military capabilities in other countries. China's improving military capabilities are a primary contributor to that concern. Russia's rejuvenated military capabilities are an additional contributor. DOD in recent years has taken a number of actions to arrest and reverse the decline in the U.S. technological and qualitative edge.
Challenge to U.S. Sea Control and U.S. Position in Western Pacific
Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China's improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy's ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China's naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific.
Longer Ship Deployments
U.S. Navy officials have testified that fully meeting requests from U.S. regional combatant commanders (CCDRs) for forward-deployed U.S. naval forces would require a Navy much larger than today's fleet. For example, Navy officials testified in March 2014 that a Navy of 450 ships would be required to fully meet CCDR requests for forward-deployed Navy forces. CCDR requests for forward-deployed U.S. Navy forces are adjudicated by DOD through a process called the Global Force Management Allocation Plan. The process essentially makes choices about how best to apportion a finite number forward-deployed U.S. Navy ships among competing CCDR requests for those ships. Even with this process, the Navy has lengthened the deployments of some ships in an attempt to meet policymaker demands for forward-deployed U.S. Navy ships. Although Navy officials are aiming to limit ship deployments to seven months, Navy ships in recent years have frequently been deployed for periods of eight months or more.
Limits on Defense Spending in Budget Control Act of 2011 as Amended
Limits on the "base" portion of the U.S. defense budget established by Budget Control Act of 2011, or BCA ( S. 365 / P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011), as amended, combined with some of the considerations above, have led to discussions among observers about how to balance competing demands for finite U.S. defense funds, and about whether programs for responding to China's military modernization effort can be adequately funded while also adequately funding other defense-spending priorities, such as initiatives for responding to Russia's actions in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe and U.S. operations for countering the Islamic State organization in the Middle East.
Appendix B. Earlier Navy Force-Structure Goals Dating Back to 2001
The table below shows earlier Navy force-structure goals dating back to 2001. The 308-ship force-level goal of March 2015, shown in the first column of the table, is the goal that was replaced by the 355-ship force-level goal released in December 2016.
Appendix C. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to Current or Potential Future Ship Force Levels
In assessing the appropriateness of the current or potential future number of ships in the Navy, observers sometimes compare that number to historical figures for total Navy fleet size. Historical figures for total fleet size, however, can be a problematic yardstick for assessing the appropriateness of the current or potential future number of ships in the Navy, particularly if the historical figures are more than a few years old, because
the missions to be performed by the Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy ships for performing missions all change over time; and the number of ships in the fleet in an earlier year might itself have been inappropriate (i.e., not enough or more than enough) for meeting the Navy's mission requirements in that year.
Regarding the first bullet point above, the Navy, for example, reached a late-Cold War peak of 568 battle force ships at the end of FY1987, and as of May 7, 2019, included a total of 289 battle force ships. The FY1987 fleet, however, was intended to meet a set of mission requirements that focused on countering Soviet naval forces at sea during a potential multitheater NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, while the May 2019 fleet is intended to meet a considerably different set of mission requirements centered on influencing events ashore by countering both land- and sea-based military forces of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, as well as nonstate terrorist organizations. In addition, the Navy of FY1987 differed substantially from the May 2019 fleet in areas such as profusion of precision-guided air-delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and the sophistication of C4ISR systems and networking capabilities.
In coming years, Navy missions may shift again, and the capabilities of Navy ships will likely have changed further by that time due to developments such as more comprehensive implementation of networking technology, increased use of ship-based unmanned vehicles, and the potential fielding of new types of weapons such as lasers or electromagnetic rail guns.
The 568-ship fleet of FY1987 may or may not have been capable of performing its stated missions; the 289-ship fleet of May 2019 may or may not be capable of performing its stated missions; and a fleet years from now with a certain number of ships may or may not be capable of performing its stated missions. Given changes over time in mission requirements, ship mixes, and technologies, however, these three issues are to a substantial degree independent of one another.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet's ability to perform its stated missions. An increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet's ability to perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet's mission requirements might be increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet's ability to perform stated missions is decreasing, because the fleet's mission requirements might be declining more rapidly than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in total ship numbers.
Regarding the second of the two bullet points above, it can be noted that comparisons of the size of the fleet today with the size of the fleet in earlier years rarely appear to consider whether the fleet was appropriately sized in those earlier years (and therefore potentially suitable as a yardstick of comparison), even though it is quite possible that the fleet in those earlier years might not have been appropriately sized, and even though there might have been differences of opinion among observers at that time regarding that question. Just as it might not be prudent for observers years from now to tacitly assume that the 286-ship Navy of September 2018 was appropriately sized for meeting the mission requirements of 2018, even though there were differences of opinion among observers on that question, simply because a figure of 286 ships appears in the historical records for 2016, so, too, might it not be prudent for observers today to tacitly assume that the number of ships of the Navy in an earlier year was appropriate for meeting the Navy's mission requirements that year, even though there might have been differences of opinion among observers at that time regarding that question, simply because the size of the Navy in that year appears in a table like Table H-1 .
Previous Navy force structure plans, such as those shown in Table B-1 , might provide some insight into the potential adequacy of a proposed new force-structure plan, but changes over time in mission requirements, technologies available to ships for performing missions, and other force-planning factors, as well as the possibility that earlier force-structure plans might not have been appropriate for meeting the mission demands of their times, suggest that some caution should be applied in using past force structure plans for this purpose, particularly if those past force structure plans are more than a few years old. The Reagan-era goal for a 600-ship Navy, for example, was designed for a Cold War set of missions focusing on countering Soviet naval forces at sea, which is not an appropriate basis for planning the Navy today, and there was considerable debate during those years as to the appropriateness of the 600-ship goal.
Appendix D. Industrial Base Ability for, and Employment Impact of, Additional Shipbuilding Work
This appendix presents background information on the ability of the industrial base to take on the additional shipbuilding work associated with achieving and maintaining the Navy's 355-ship force-level goal and on the employment impact of additional shipbuilding work.
Industrial Base Ability
The U.S. shipbuilding industrial base has some unused capacity to take on increased Navy shipbuilding work, particularly for certain kinds of surface ships, and its capacity could be increased further over time to support higher Navy shipbuilding rates. Navy shipbuilding rates could not be increased steeply across the board overnight—time (and investment) would be needed to hire and train additional workers and increase production facilities at shipyards and supplier firms, particularly for supporting higher rates of submarine production. Depending on their specialties, newly hired workers could be initially less productive per unit of time worked than more experienced workers.
Some parts of the shipbuilding industrial base, such as the submarine construction industrial base, could face more challenges than others in ramping up to the higher production rates required to build the various parts of the 355-ship fleet. Over a period of a few to several years, with investment and management attention, Navy shipbuilding could ramp up to higher rates for achieving a 355-ship fleet over a period of 20-30 years.
An April 2017 CBO report stated that
all seven shipyards [currently involved in building the Navy's major ships] would need to increase their workforces and several would need to make improvements to their infrastructure in order to build ships at a faster rate. However, certain sectors face greater obstacles in constructing ships at faster rates than others: Building more submarines to meet the goals of the 2016 force structure assessment would pose the greatest challenge to the shipbuilding industry. Increasing the number of aircraft carriers and surface combatants would pose a small to moderate challenge to builders of those vessels. Finally, building more amphibious ships and combat logistics and support ships would be the least problematic for the shipyards. The workforces across those yards would need to increase by about 40 percent over the next 5 to 10 years. Managing the growth and training of those new workforces while maintaining the current standard of quality and efficiency would represent the most significant industrywide challenge. In addition, industry and Navy sources indicate that as much as $4 billion would need to be invested in the physical infrastructure of the shipyards to achieve the higher production rates required under the [notional] 15-year and 20-year [buildup scenarios examined by CBO]. Less investment would be needed for the [notional] 25-year or 30-year [buildup scenarios examined by CBO].
A January 13, 2017, press report states the following:
The Navy's production lines are hot and the work to prepare them for the possibility of building out a much larger fleet would be manageable, the service's head of acquisition said Thursday.
From a logistics perspective, building the fleet from its current 274 ships to 355, as recommended in the Navy's newest force structure assessment in December, would be straightforward, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley told reporters at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium.
"By virtue of maintaining these hot production lines, frankly, over the last eight years, our facilities are in pretty good shape," Stackley said. "In fact, if you talked to industry, they would say we're underutilizing the facilities that we have."
The areas where the Navy would likely have to adjust "tooling" to answer demand for a larger fleet would likely be in Virginia-class attack submarines and large surface combatants, the DDG-51 guided missile destroyers—two ship classes likely to surge if the Navy gets funding to build to 355 ships, he said.
"Industry's going to have to go out and procure special tooling associated with going from current production rates to a higher rate, but I would say that's easily done," he said.
Another key, Stackley said, is maintaining skilled workers—both the builders in the yards and the critical supply-chain vendors who provide major equipment needed for ship construction. And, he suggested, it would help to avoid budget cuts and other events that would force workforce layoffs.
"We're already prepared to ramp up," he said. "In certain cases, that means not laying off the skilled workforce we want to retain."
A January 17, 2017, press report states the following:
Building stable designs with active production lines is central to the Navy's plan to grow to 355 ships. "if you look at the 355-ship number, and you study the ship classes (desired), the big surge is in attack submarines and large surface combatants, which today are DDG-51 (destroyers)," the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Sean Stackley, told reporters at last week's Surface Navy Association conference. Those programs have proven themselves reliable performers both at sea and in the shipyards.
From today's fleet of 274 ships, "we're on an irreversible path to 308 by 2021. Those ships are already in construction," said Stackley. "To go from there to 355, virtually all those ships are currently in production, with some exceptions: Ohio Replacement, (we) just got done the Milestone B there (to move from R&D into detailed design); and then upgrades to existing platforms. So we have hot production lines that will take us to that 355-ship Navy."
A January 24, 2017, press report states the following:
Navy officials say a recently determined plan to increase its fleet size by adding more new submarines, carriers and destroyers is "executable" and that early conceptual work toward this end is already underway....
Although various benchmarks will need to be reached in order for this new plan to come to fruition, such as Congressional budget allocations, Navy officials do tell Scout Warrior that the service is already working—at least in concept—on plans to vastly enlarge the fleet. Findings from this study are expected to inform an upcoming 2018 Navy Shipbuilding Plan, service officials said.
A January 12, 2017, press report states the following:
Brian Cuccias, president of Ingalls Shipbuilding [a shipyard owned by Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) that builds Navy destroyers and amphibious ships as well as Coast Guard cutters], said Ingalls, which is currently building 10 ships for four Navy and Coast Guard programs at its 800-acre facility in Pascagoula, Miss., could build more because it is using only 70 to 75 percent of its capacity.
A March 2017 press report states the following:
As the Navy calls for a larger fleet, shipbuilders are looking toward new contracts and ramping up their yards to full capacity....
The Navy is confident that U.S. shipbuilders will be able to meet an increased demand, said Ray Mabus, then-secretary of the Navy, during a speech at the Surface Navy Association's annual conference in Arlington, Virginia.
They have the capacity to "get there because of the ships we are building today," Mabus said. "I don't think we could have seven years ago."
Shipbuilders around the United States have "hot" production lines and are manufacturing vessels on multi-year or block buy contracts, he added. The yards have made investments in infrastructure and in the training of their workers.
"We now have the basis ... [to] get to that much larger fleet," he said....
Shipbuilders have said they are prepared for more work.
At Ingalls Shipbuilding—a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries—10 ships are under construction at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, yard, but it is under capacity, said Brian Cuccias, the company's president.
The shipbuilder is currently constructing five guided-missile destroyers, the latest San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship, and two national security cutters for the Coast Guard.
"Ingalls is a very successful production line right now, but it has the ability to actually produce a lot more in the future," he said during a briefing with reporters in January.
The company's facility is currently operating at 75 percent capacity, he noted....
Austal USA—the builder of the Independence-variant of the littoral combat ship and the expeditionary fast transport vessel—is also ready to increase its capacity should the Navy require it, said Craig Perciavalle, the company's president.
The latest discussions are "certainly something that a shipbuilder wants to hear," he said. "We do have the capability of increasing throughput if the need and demand were to arise, and then we also have the ability with the present workforce and facility to meet a different mix that could arise as well."
Austal could build fewer expeditionary fast transport vessels and more littoral combat ships, or vice versa, he added.
"The key thing for us is to keep the manufacturing lines hot and really leverage the momentum that we've gained on both of the programs," he said.
The company—which has a 164-acre yard in Mobile, Alabama—is focused on the extension of the LCS and expeditionary fast transport ship program, but Perciavalle noted that it could look into manufacturing other types of vessels.
"We do have excess capacity to even build smaller vessels … if that opportunity were to arise and we're pursuing that," he said.
Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said shipbuilders are on average running between 70 and 80 percent capacity. While they may be ready to meet an increased demand for ships, it would take time to ramp up their workforces.
However, the bigger challenge is the supplier industrial base, he said.
"Shipyards may be able to build ships but the supplier base that builds the pumps … and the radars and the radios and all those other things, they don't necessarily have that ability to ramp up," he said. "You would need to put some money into building up their capacity."
That has to happen now, he added.
Rear Adm. William Gallinis, program manager for program executive office ships, said what the Navy must be "mindful of is probably our vendor base that support the shipyards."
Smaller companies that supply power electronics and switchboards could be challenged, he said.
"Do we need to re-sequence some of the funding to provide some of the facility improvements for some of the vendors that may be challenged? My sense is that the industrial base will size to the demand signal. We just need to be mindful of how we transition to that increased demand signal," he said.
The acquisition workforce may also see an increased amount of stress, Gallinis noted. "It takes a fair amount of experience and training to get a good contracting officer to the point to be [able to] manage contracts or procure contracts."
"But I don't see anything that is insurmountable," he added.
At a May 24, 2017, hearing before the Seapower subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the industrial-base aspects of the Navy's 355-ship goal, John P. Casey, executive vice president–marine systems, General Dynamics Corporation (one of the country's two principal builders of Navy ships) stated the following:
It is our belief that the Nation's shipbuilding industrial base can scale-up hot production lines for existing ships and mobilize additional resources to accomplish the significant challenge of achieving the 355-ship Navy as quickly as possible....
Supporting a plan to achieve a 355-ship Navy will be the most challenging for the nuclear submarine enterprise. Much of the shipyard and industrial base capacity was eliminated following the steep drop-off in submarine production that occurred with the cancellation of the Seawolf Program in 1992. The entire submarine industrial base at all levels of the supply chain will likely need to recapitalize some portion of its facilities, workforce, and supply chain just to support the current plan to build the Columbia Class SSBN program, while concurrently building Virginia Class SSNs. Additional SSN procurement will require industry to expand its plans and associated investment beyond the level today....
Shipyard labor resources include the skilled trades needed to fabricate, build and outfit major modules, perform assembly, test and launch of submarines, and associated support organizations that include planning, material procurement, inspection, quality assurance, and ship certification. Since there is no commercial equivalency for Naval nuclear submarine shipbuilding, these trade resources cannot be easily acquired in large numbers from other industries. Rather, these shipyard resources must be acquired and developed over time to ensure the unique knowledge and know-how associated with nuclear submarine shipbuilding is passed on to the next generation of shipbuilders. The mechanisms of knowledge transfer require sufficient lead time to create the proficient, skilled craftsmen in each key trade including welding, electrical, machining, shipfitting, pipe welding, painting, and carpentry, which are among the largest trades that would need to grow to support increased demand. These trades will need to be hired in the numbers required to support the increased workload. Both shipyards have scalable processes in place to acquire, train, and develop the skilled workforce they need to build nuclear ships. These processes and associated training facilities need to be expanded to support the increased demand. As with the shipyards, the same limiting factors associated with facilities, workforce, and supply chain also limit the submarine unique first tier suppliers and sub-tiers in the industrial base for which there is no commercial equivalency....
The supply base is the third resource that will need to be expanded to meet the increased demand over the next 20 years. During the OHIO, 688 and SEAWOLF construction programs, there were over 17,000 suppliers supporting submarine construction programs. That resource base was "rationalized" during submarine low rate production over the last 20 years. The current submarine industrial base reflects about 5,000 suppliers, of which about 3,000 are currently active (i.e., orders placed within the last 5 years), 80% of which are single or sole source (based on $). It will take roughly 20 years to build the 12 Columbia Class submarines that starts construction in FY21. The shipyards are expanding strategic sourcing of appropriate non-core products (e.g., decks, tanks, etc.) in order to focus on core work at each shipyard facility (e.g., module outfitting and assembly). Strategic sourcing will move demand into the supply base where capacity may exist or where it can be developed more easily. This approach could offer the potential for cost savings by competition or shifting work to lower cost work centers throughout the country. Each shipyard has a process to assess their current supply base capacity and capability and to determine where it would be most advantageous to perform work in the supply base....
Achieving the increased rate of production and reducing the cost of submarines will require the Shipbuilders to rely on the supply base for more non-core products such as structural fabrication, sheet metal, machining, electrical, and standard parts. The supply base must be made ready to execute work with submarine-specific requirements at a rate and volume that they are not currently prepared to perform. Preparing the supply base to execute increased demand requires early non-recurring funding to support cross-program construction readiness and EOQ funding to procure material in a manner that does not hold up existing ship construction schedules should problems arise in supplier qualification programs. This requires longer lead times (estimates of three years to create a new qualified, critical supplier) than the current funding profile supports....
We need to rely on market principles to allow suppliers, the shipyards and GFE material providers to sort through the complicated demand equation across the multiple ship programs. Supplier development funding previously mentioned would support non-recurring efforts which are needed to place increased orders for material in multiple market spaces. Examples would include valves, build-to-print fabrication work, commodities, specialty material, engineering components, etc. We are engaging our marine industry associations to help foster innovative approaches that could reduce costs and gain efficiency for this increased volume....
Supporting the 355-ship Navy will require Industry to add capability and capacity across the entire Navy Shipbuilding value chain. Industry will need to make investment decisions for additional capital spend starting now in order to meet a step change in demand that would begin in FY19 or FY20. For the submarine enterprise, the step change was already envisioned and investment plans that embraced a growth trajectory were already being formulated. Increasing demand by adding additional submarines will require scaling facility and workforce development plans to operate at a higher rate of production. The nuclear shipyards would also look to increase material procurement proportionally to the increased demand. In some cases, the shipyard facilities may be constrained with existing capacity and may look to source additional work in the supply base where capacity exists or where there are competitive business advantages to be realized. Creating additional capacity in the supply base will require non-recurring investment in supplier qualification, facilities, capital equipment and workforce training and development.
Industry is more likely to increase investment in new capability and capacity if there is certainty that the Navy will proceed with a stable shipbuilding plan. Positive signals of commitment from the Government must go beyond a published 30-year Navy Shipbuilding Plan and line items in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and should include:
Multi-year contracting for Block procurement which provides stability in the industrial base and encourages investment in facilities and workforce development Funding for supplier development to support training, qualification, and facilitization efforts—Electric Boat and Newport News have recommended to the Navy funding of $400M over a three-year period starting in 2018 to support supplier development for the Submarine Industrial Base as part of an Integrated Enterprise Plan Extended Enterprise initiative Acceleration of Advance Procurement and/or Economic Order Quantities (EOQ) procurement from FY19 to FY18 for Virginia Block V Government incentives for construction readiness and facilities / special tooling for shipyard and supplier facilities, which help cash flow capital investment ahead of construction contract awards Procurement of additional production back-up (PBU) material to help ensure a ready supply of material to mitigate construction schedule risk....
So far, this testimony has focused on the Submarine Industrial Base, but the General Dynamics Marine Systems portfolio also includes surface ship construction. Unlike Electric Boat, Bath Iron Works and NASSCO are able to support increased demand without a significant increase in resources.....
Bath Iron Works is well positioned to support the Administration's announced goal of increasing the size of the Navy fleet to 355 ships. For BIW that would mean increasing the total current procurement rate of two DDG 51s per year to as many as four DDGs per year, allocated equally between BIW and HII. This is the same rate that the surface combatant industrial base sustained over the first decade of full rate production of the DDG 51 Class (1989-1999)....
No significant capital investment in new facilities is required to accommodate delivering two DDGs per year. However, additional funding will be required to train future shipbuilders and maintain equipment. Current hiring and training processes support the projected need, and have proven to be successful in the recent past. BIW has invested significantly in its training programs since 2014 with the restart of the DDG 51 program and given these investments and the current market in Maine, there is little concern of meeting the increase in resources required under the projected plans.
A predictable and sustainable Navy workload is essential to justify expanding hiring/training programs. BIW would need the Navy's commitment that the Navy's plan will not change before it would proceed with additional hiring and training to support increased production.
BIW's supply chain is prepared to support a procurement rate increase of up to four DDG 51s per year for the DDG 51 Program. BIW has long-term purchasing agreements in place for all major equipment and material for the DDG 51 Program. These agreements provide for material lead time and pricing, and are not constrained by the number of ships ordered in a year. BIW confirmed with all of its critical suppliers that they can support this increased procurement rate....
The Navy's Force Structure Assessment calls for three additional ESBs. Additionally, NASSCO has been asked by the Navy and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to evaluate its ability to increase the production rate of T-AOs to two ships per year. NASSCO has the capacity to build three more ESBs at a rate of one ship per year while building two T-AOs per year. The most cost effective funding profile requires funding ESB 6 in FY18 and the following ships in subsequent fiscal years to avoid increased cost resulting from a break in the production line. The most cost effective funding profile to enable a production rate of two T-AO ships per year requires funding an additional long lead time equipment set beginning in FY19 and an additional ship each year beginning in FY20.
NASSCO must now reduce its employment levels due to completion of a series of commercial programs which resulted in the delivery of six ships in 2016. The proposed increase in Navy shipbuilding stabilizes NASSCO's workload and workforce to levels that were readily demonstrated over the last several years.
Some moderate investment in the NASSCO shipyard will be needed to reach this level of production. The recent CBO report on the costs of building a 355-ship Navy accurately summarized NASSCO's ability to reach the above production rate stating, "building more … combat logistics and support ships would be the least problematic for the shipyards."
At the same hearing, Brian Cuccias, president, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries (the country's other principal builder of Navy ships) stated the following:
Qualifying to be a supplier is a difficult process. Depending on the commodity, it may take up to 36 months. That is a big burden on some of these small businesses. This is why creating sufficient volume and exercising early contractual authorization and advance procurement funding is necessary to grow the supplier base, and not just for traditional long-lead time components; that effort needs to expand to critical components and commodities that today are controlling the build rate of submarines and carriers alike. Many of our suppliers are small businesses and can only make decisions to invest in people, plant and tooling when they are awarded a purchase order. We need to consider how we can make commitments to suppliers early enough to ensure material readiness and availability when construction schedules demand it.
With questions about the industry's ability to support an increase in shipbuilding, both Newport News and Ingalls have undertaken an extensive inventory of our suppliers and assessed their ability to ramp up their capacity. We have engaged many of our key suppliers to assess their ability to respond to an increase in production.
The fortunes of related industries also impact our suppliers, and an increase in demand from the oil and gas industry may stretch our supply base. Although some low to moderate risk remains, I am convinced that our suppliers will be able to meet the forecasted Navy demand....
I strongly believe that the fastest results can come from leveraging successful platforms on current hot production lines. We commend the Navy's decision in 2014 to use the existing LPD 17 hull form for the LX(R), which will replace the LSD-class amphibious dock landing ships scheduled to retire in the coming years. However, we also recommend that the concept of commonality be taken even further to best optimize efficiency, affordability and capability. Specifically, rather than continuing with a new design for LX(R) within the "walls" of the LPD hull, we can leverage our hot production line and supply chain and offer the Navy a variant of the existing LPD design that satisfies the aggressive cost targets of the LX(R) program while delivering more capability and survivability to the fleet at a significantly faster pace than the current program. As much as 10-15 percent material savings can be realized across the LX(R) program by purchasing respective blocks of at least five ships each under a multi-year procurement (MYP) approach. In the aggregate, continuing production with LPD 30 in FY18, coupled with successive MYP contracts for the balance of ships, may yield savings greater than $1 billion across an 11-ship LX(R) program. Additionally, we can deliver five LX(R)s to the Navy and Marine Corps in the same timeframe that the current plan would deliver two, helping to reduce the shortfall in amphibious warships against the stated force requirement of 38 ships.
Multi-ship procurements, whether a formal MYP or a block-buy, are a proven way to reduce the price of ships. The Navy took advantage of these tools on both Virginia-class submarines and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. In addition to the LX(R) program mentioned above, expanding multi-ship procurements to other ship classes makes sense....
The most efficient approach to lower the cost of the Ford class and meet the goal of an increased CVN fleet size is also to employ a multi-ship procurement strategy and construct these ships at three-year intervals. This approach would maximize the material procurement savings benefit through economic order quantities procurement and provide labor efficiencies to enable rapid acquisition of a 12-ship CVN fleet. This three-ship approach would save at least $1.5 billion, not including additional savings that could be achieved from government-furnished equipment. As part of its Integrated Enterprise Plan, we commend the Navy's efforts to explore the prospect of material economic order quantity purchasing across carrier and submarine programs.
At the same hearing, Matthew O. Paxton, president, Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)—a trade association representing shipbuilders, suppliers, and associated firms—stated the following:
To increase the Navy's Fleet to 355 ships, a substantial and sustained investment is required in both procurement and readiness. However, let me be clear: building and sustaining the larger required Fleet is achievable and our industry stands ready to help achieve that important national security objective.
To meet the demand for increased vessel construction while sustaining the vessels we currently have will require U.S. shipyards to expand their work forces and improve their infrastructure in varying degrees depending on ship type and ship mix – a requirement our Nation's shipyards are eager to meet. But first, in order to build these ships in as timely and affordable manner as possible, stable and robust funding is necessary to sustain those industrial capabilities which support Navy shipbuilding and ship maintenance and modernization....
Beyond providing for the building of a 355-ship Navy, there must also be provision to fund the "tail," the maintenance of the current and new ships entering the fleet. Target fleet size cannot be reached if existing ships are not maintained to their full service lives, while building those new ships. Maintenance has been deferred in the last few years because of across-the-board budget cuts....
The domestic shipyard industry certainly has the capability and know-how to build and maintain a 355-ship Navy. The Maritime Administration determined in a recent study on the Economic Benefits of the U.S. Shipyard Industry that there are nearly 110,000 skilled men and women in the Nation's private shipyards building, repairing and maintaining America's military and commercial fleets.1 The report found the U.S. shipbuilding industry supports nearly 400,000 jobs across the country and generates $25.1 billion in income and $37.3 billion worth of goods and services each year. In fact, the MARAD report found that the shipyard industry creates direct and induced employment in every State and Congressional District and each job in the private shipbuilding and repairing industry supports another 2.6 jobs nationally.
This data confirms the significant economic impact of this manufacturing sector, but also that the skilled workforce and industrial base exists domestically to build these ships. Long-term, there needs to be a workforce expansion and some shipyards will need to reconfigure or expand production lines. This can and will be done as required to meet the need if adequate, stable budgets and procurement plans are established and sustained for the long-term. Funding predictability and sustainability will allow industry to invest in facilities and more effectively grow its skilled workforce. The development of that critical workforce will take time and a concerted effort in a partnership between industry and the federal government.
U.S. shipyards pride themselves on implementing state of the art training and apprenticeship programs to develop skilled men and women that can cut, weld, and bend steel and aluminum and who can design, build and maintain the best Navy in the world. However, the shipbuilding industry, like so many other manufacturing sectors, faces an aging workforce. Attracting and retaining the next generation shipyard worker for an industry career is critical. Working together with the Navy, and local and state resources, our association is committed to building a robust training and development pipeline for skilled shipyard workers. In addition to repealing sequestration and stabilizing funding the continued development of a skilled workforce also needs to be included in our national maritime strategy....
In conclusion, the U.S. shipyard industry is certainly up to the task of building a 355-ship Navy and has the expertise, the capability, the critical capacity and the unmatched skilled workforce to build these national assets. Meeting the Navy's goal of a 355-ship fleet and securing America's naval dominance for the decades ahead will require sustained investment by Congress and Navy's partnership with a defense industrial base that can further attract and retain a highly-skilled workforce with critical skill sets. Again, I would like to thank this Subcommittee for inviting me to testify alongside such distinguished witnesses. As a representative of our nation's private shipyards, I can say, with confidence and certainty, that our domestic shipyards and skilled workers are ready, willing and able to build and maintain the Navy's 355-ship Fleet.
Employment Impact
Building the additional ships that would be needed to achieve and maintain the 355-ship fleet could create many additional manufacturing and other jobs at shipyards, associated supplier firms, and elsewhere in the U.S. economy. A 2015 Maritime Administration (MARAD) report states,
Considering the indirect and induced impacts, each direct job in the shipbuilding and repairing industry is associated with another 2.6 jobs in other parts of the US economy; each dollar of direct labor income and GDP in the shipbuilding and repairing industry is associated with another $1.74 in labor income and $2.49 in GDP, respectively, in other parts of the US economy.
A March 2017 press report states, "Based on a 2015 economic impact study, the Shipbuilders Council of America [a trade association for U.S. shipbuilders and associated supplier firms] believes that a 355-ship Navy could add more than 50,000 jobs nationwide." The 2015 economic impact study referred to in that quote might be the 2015 MARAD study discussed in the previous paragraph. An estimate of more than 50,000 additional jobs nationwide might be viewed as a higher-end estimate; other estimates might be lower. A June 14, 2017, press report states the following: "The shipbuilding industry will need to add between 18,000 and 25,000 jobs to build to a 350-ship Navy, according to Matthew Paxton, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, a trade association representing the shipbuilding industrial base. Including indirect jobs like suppliers, the ramp-up may require a boost of 50,000 workers."
Appendix E. A Summary of Some Acquisition Lessons Learned for Navy Shipbuilding
This appendix presents a general summary of lessons learned in Navy shipbuilding, reflecting comments made repeatedly by various sources over the years. These lessons learned include the following:
At the outset, get the operational requirements for the program right. Properly identify the program's operational requirements at the outset. Manage risk by not trying to do too much in terms of the program's operational requirements, and perhaps seek a so-called 70%-to-80% solution (i.e., a design that is intended to provide 70%-80% of desired or ideal capabilities). Achieve a realistic balance up front between operational requirements, risks, and estimated costs. Impose cost discipline up front. Use realistic price estimates, and consider not only development and procurement costs, but life-cycle operation and support (O&S) costs. Employ competition where possible in the awarding of design and construction contracts. Use a contract type that is appropriate for the amount of risk involved , and structure its terms to align incentives with desired outcomes. Minimize design/construction concurrency by developing the design to a high level of completion before starting construction and by resisting changes in requirements (and consequent design changes) during construction. Properly supervise construction work. Maintain an adequate number of properly trained Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) personnel. Provide stability for industry , in part by using, where possible, multiyear procurement (MYP) or block buy contracting. Maintain a capable government acquisition workforce that understands what it is buying, as well as the above points.
Identifying these lessons is arguably not the hard part—most if not all these points have been cited for years. The hard part, arguably, is living up to them without letting circumstances lead program-execution efforts away from these guidelines.
Appendix F. Some Considerations Relating to Warranties in Shipbuilding and Other Defense Acquisition
This appendix presents some considerations relating to warranties in shipbuilding and other defense acquisition.
In discussions of Navy (and also Coast Guard) shipbuilding, one question that sometimes arises is whether including a warranty in a shipbuilding contract is preferable to not including one. The question can arise, for example, in connection with a GAO finding that "the Navy structures shipbuilding contracts so that it pays shipbuilders to build ships as part of the construction process and then pays the same shipbuilders a second time to repair the ship when construction defects are discovered."
Including a warranty in a shipbuilding contract (or a contract for building some other kind of defense end item), while potentially valuable, might not always be preferable to not including one—it depends on the circumstances of the acquisition, and it is not necessarily a valid criticism of an acquisition program to state that it is using a contract that does not include a warranty (or a weaker form of a warranty rather than a stronger one).
Including a warranty generally shifts to the contractor the risk of having to pay for fixing problems with earlier work. Although that in itself could be deemed desirable from the government's standpoint, a contractor negotiating a contract that will have a warranty will incorporate that risk into its price, and depending on how much the contractor might charge for doing that, it is possible that the government could wind up paying more in total for acquiring the item (including fixing problems with earlier work on that item) than it would have under a contract without a warranty.
When a warranty is not included in the contract and the government pays later on to fix problems with earlier work, those payments can be very visible, which can invite critical comments from observers. But that does not mean that including a warranty in the contract somehow frees the government from paying to fix problems with earlier work. In a contract that includes a warranty, the government will indeed pay something to fix problems with earlier work—but it will make the payment in the less-visible (but still very real) form of the up-front charge for including the warranty, and that charge might be more than what it would have cost the government, under a contract without a warranty, to pay later on for fixing those problems.
From a cost standpoint, including a warranty in the contract might or might not be preferable, depending on the risk that there will be problems with earlier work that need fixing, the potential cost of fixing such problems, and the cost of including the warranty in the contract. The point is that the goal of avoiding highly visible payments for fixing problems with earlier work and the goal of minimizing the cost to the government of fixing problems with earlier work are separate and different goals, and that pursuing the first goal can sometimes work against achieving the second goal.
The Department of Defense's guide on the use of warranties states the following:
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 46.7 states that "the use of warranties is not mandatory." However, if the benefits to be derived from the warranty are commensurate with the cost of the warranty, the CO [contracting officer] should consider placing it in the contract. In determining whether a warranty is appropriate for a specific acquisition, FAR Subpart 46.703 requires the CO to consider the nature and use of the supplies and services, the cost, the administration and enforcement, trade practices, and reduced requirements. The rationale for using a warranty should be documented in the contract file....
In determining the value of a warranty, a CBA [cost-benefit analysis] is used to measure the life cycle costs of the system with and without the warranty. A CBA is required to determine if the warranty will be cost beneficial. CBA is an economic analysis, which basically compares the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) of the system with and without the warranty to determine if warranty coverage will improve the LCCs. In general, five key factors will drive the results of the CBA: cost of the warranty + cost of warranty administration + compatibility with total program efforts + cost of overlap with Contractor support + intangible savings. Effective warranties integrate reliability, maintainability, supportability, availability, and life-cycle costs. Decision factors that must be evaluated include the state of the weapon system technology, the size of the warranted population, the likelihood that field performance requirements can be achieved, and the warranty period of performance.
Appendix G. Some Considerations Relating to Avoiding Procurement Cost Growth vs. Minimizing Procurement Costs
This appendix presents some considerations relating to avoiding procurement cost growth vs. minimizing procurement costs in shipbuilding and other defense acquisition.
The affordability challenge posed by the Navy's shipbuilding plans can reinforce the strong oversight focus on preventing or minimizing procurement cost growth in Navy shipbuilding programs, which is one expression of a strong oversight focus on preventing or minimizing cost growth in DOD acquisition programs in general. This oversight focus may reflect in part an assumption that avoiding or minimizing procurement cost growth is always synonymous with minimizing procurement cost. It is important to note, however, that as paradoxical as it may seem, avoiding or minimizing procurement cost growth is not always synonymous with minimizing procurement cost, and that a sustained, singular focus on avoiding or minimizing procurement cost growth might sometimes lead to higher procurement costs for the government.
How could this be? Consider the example of a design for the lead ship of a new class of Navy ships. The construction cost of this new design is uncertain, but is estimated to be likely somewhere between Point A (a minimum possible figure) and Point D (a maximum possible figure). (Point D, in other words, would represent a cost estimate with a 100% confidence factor, meaning there is a 100% chance that the cost would come in at or below that level.) If the Navy wanted to avoid cost growth on this ship, it could simply set the ship's procurement cost at Point D. Industry would likely be happy with this arrangement, and there likely would be no cost growth on the ship.
The alternative strategy open to the Navy is to set the ship's target procurement cost at some figure between Points A and D—call it Point B—and then use that more challenging target cost to place pressure on industry to sharpen its pencils so as to find ways to produce the ship at that lower cost. (Navy officials sometimes refer to this as "pressurizing" industry.) In this example, it might turn out that industry efforts to reduce production costs are not successful enough to build the ship at the Point B cost. As a result, the ship experiences one or more rounds of procurement cost growth, and the ship's procurement cost rises over time from Point B to some higher figure—call it Point C.
Here is the rub: Point C, in spite of incorporating one or more rounds of cost growth, might nevertheless turn out to be lower than Point D, because Point C reflected efforts by the shipbuilder to find ways to reduce production costs that the shipbuilder might have put less energy into pursuing if the Navy had simply set the ship's procurement cost initially at Point D.
Setting the ship's cost at Point D, in other words, may eliminate the risk of cost growth on the ship, but does so at the expense of creating a risk of the government paying more for the ship than was actually necessary. DOD could avoid cost growth on new procurement programs starting tomorrow by simply setting costs for those programs at each program's equivalent of Point D. But as a result of this strategy, DOD could well wind up leaving money on the table in some instances—of not, in other words, minimizing procurement costs.
DOD does not have to set a cost precisely at Point D to create a potential risk in this regard. A risk of leaving money on the table, for example, is a possible downside of requiring DOD to budget for its acquisition programs at something like an 80% confidence factor—an approach that some observers have recommended—because a cost at the 80% confidence factor is a cost that is likely fairly close to Point D.
Procurement cost growth is often embarrassing for DOD and industry, and can damage their credibility in connection with future procurement efforts. Procurement cost growth can also disrupt congressional budgeting by requiring additional appropriations to pay for something Congress thought it had fully funded in a prior year. For this reason, there is a legitimate public policy value to pursuing a goal of having less rather than more procurement cost growth.
Procurement cost growth, however, can sometimes be in part the result of DOD efforts to use lower initial cost targets as a means of pressuring industry to reduce production costs—efforts that, notwithstanding the cost growth, might be partially successful. A sustained, singular focus on avoiding or minimizing cost growth, and of punishing DOD for all instances of cost growth, could discourage DOD from using lower initial cost targets as a means of pressurizing industry, which could deprive DOD of a tool for controlling procurement costs.
The point here is not to excuse away cost growth, because cost growth can occur in a program for reasons other than DOD's attempt to pressurize industry. Nor is the point to abandon the goal of seeking lower rather than higher procurement cost growth, because, as noted above, there is a legitimate public policy value in pursuing this goal. The point, rather, is to recognize that this goal is not always synonymous with minimizing procurement cost, and that a possibility of some amount of cost growth might be expected as part of an optimal government strategy for minimizing procurement cost. Recognizing that the goals of seeking lower rather than higher cost growth and of minimizing procurement cost can sometimes be in tension with one another can lead to an approach that takes both goals into consideration. In contrast, an approach that is instead characterized by a sustained, singular focus on avoiding and minimizing cost growth may appear virtuous, but in the end may wind up costing the government more.
Appendix H. Size of the Navy and Navy Shipbuilding Rate
Size of the Navy
Table H-1 shows the size of the Navy in terms of total number of ships since FY1948; the numbers shown in the table reflect changes over time in the rules specifying which ships count toward the total. Differing counting rules result in differing totals, and for certain years, figures reflecting more than one set of counting rules are available. Figures in the table for FY1978 and subsequent years reflect the battle force ships counting method, which is the set of counting rules established in the early 1980s for public policy discussions of the size of the Navy.
As shown in the table, the total number of battle force ships in the Navy reached a late-Cold War peak of 568 at the end of FY1987 and began declining thereafter. The Navy fell below 300 battle force ships in August 2003 and as of April 26, 2019, included 289 battle force ships.
As discussed in Appendix C , historical figures for total fleet size might not be a reliable yardstick for assessing the appropriateness of proposals for the future size and structure of the Navy, particularly if the historical figures are more than a few years old, because the missions to be performed by the Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy ships for performing missions all change over time, and because the number of ships in the fleet in an earlier year might itself have been inappropriate (i.e., not enough or more than enough) for meeting the Navy's mission requirements in that year.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet's ability to perform its stated missions. An increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet's ability to perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet's mission requirements might be increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet's ability to perform stated missions is decreasing, because the fleet's mission requirements might be declining more rapidly than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in total ship numbers.
Shipbuilding Rate
Table H-2 shows past (FY1982-FY2019) and requested or programmed (FY2020-FY2024) rates of Navy ship procurement.
Summary:
| The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy's shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years.
On December 15, 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by the Navy in 2016. The Navy states that a new FSA is now underway as the successor to the 2016 FSA. This new FSA, Navy officials state, is to be completed by the end of 2019. Navy officials have suggested in their public remarks that this new FSA could change the 355-ship figure, the planned mix of ships, or both.
The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of 12 new ships, including one Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, three Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one FFG(X) frigate, two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, and two TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships. The Navy's FY2020 five-year (FY2020-FY2024) shipbuilding plan includes 55 new ships, or an average of 11 new ships per year.
The Navy's FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan includes 304 ships, or an average of about 10 per year. If the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan is implemented, the Navy projects that it will achieve a total of 355 ships by FY2034. This is about 20 years sooner than projected under the Navy's FY2019 30-year shipbuilding plan—an acceleration primarily due to a decision announced by the Navy in April 2018, after the FY2019 plan was submitted, to increase the service lives of all DDG-51 destroyers to 45 years. Although the Navy projects that the fleet will reach a total of 355 ships in FY2034, the Navy in that year and subsequent years will not match the composition called for in the FY2016 FSA.
One issue for Congress is whether the new FSA that the Navy is conducting will change the 355-ship force-level objective established by the 2016 FSA and, if so, in what ways. Another oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan. Decisions that Congress makes regarding Navy force structure and shipbuilding plans can substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base. | 96 | 93,389 | 93,391 | 93,391 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
crs_RS22373 | crs_RS22373_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Introduction
This report provides background information and potential issues for Congress on the Navy's irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT) operations. The Navy's IW and CT activities pose a number of potential oversight issues for Congress, including how much emphasis to place on IW and CT activities in Navy budgets, particularly in a context of constraints on Navy budgets and Navy desires to devote resources to developing "high end" combat capabilities for countering improved conventional military capabilities of countries such as China and Russia. Congress's decisions regarding Navy IW and CT operations can affect Navy operations and funding requirements, and the implementation of the nation's overall IW and CT strategies.
This report focuses on Navy IW and CT operations. Another CRS report discusses U.S. special operations forces (SOF) across the military services.
For an overview of the strategic and budgetary context in which Navy IW and CT operations may be considered, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.
Background
Navy Irregular Warfare (IW) Operations
Note on Terminology
The Navy has sometimes used the phrase confronting irregular challenges (CIC) instead of the term irregular warfare. For purposes of convenience, this report continues to use the term irregular warfare and the abbreviation IW.
Navy IW Operations in Middle East and Afghanistan
In the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Navy carried out a variety of irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT) activities. Among the most readily visible of these were operations carried out by Navy sailors serving ashore in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Regarding current operations in the Middle East, the Department of the Navy (DON) states the following in its FY2020 budget highlights book:
The Marine Corps has an active duty force of approximately 1,300 Marines ashore in the U.S. CENTCOM area of operations (AOR) and another roughly 850 Marine Reserve members supporting CENTCOM. Beyond the Marines participating in counterinsurgency, security cooperation, and civil-military operations; on any given day there are about 1,000 Sailors ashore and another roughly 6,500 afloat throughout the CENTCOM AOR. These sailors are conducting activities such as air operations, maritime infrastructure protection, combat construction engineering, cargo handling, combat logistics, maritime security, detainee operations, customs inspections, civil affairs, base operations, and other forward presence activities.
Navy IW Operations Elsewhere
In addition to participating in U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan, Navy IW operations in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, have also included the following:
security force assistance operations , in which forward-deployed Navy ships have exercised and worked with foreign navies, coast guards, and maritime police forces, so as to improve their abilities to conduct maritime security operations; civic assistance operations , in which forward-deployed Navy units, including Navy hospital ships, expeditionary medical teams, fleet surgical teams, and naval construction units have provided medical and construction services in foreign countries as a complement to other U.S. diplomatic and development activities in those countries; disaster relief operations , of which Navy forces have performed several in recent years; and counter-piracy operations , particularly off the Horn of Africa.
DON states in its FY2020 budget highlights book that
In the past year, the Marine Corps executed 170 operations, eight amphibious operations, 115 theater security cooperation events and participated in 51 exercises and relief operations for Hurricanes Maria, Florence, and Michael. Within the context of these efforts, Amphibious Ready Groups / Marine Expeditionary Units (ARG/MEU) supported Combatant commands along-side regional partners providing a range of deliberate and crisis response options. Major exercises were held in Romania, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, and off the coast of Djibouti. The Marine Corps also participated in theater security cooperation (TSC) exercises held in Brazil, Latvia, Jordan, Mexico, and Philippines that enhanced military cooperation, capability, and interoperability with partner nations while sustaining a ready, forward presence in support of the Combatant Commander requirements….
The Navy has active and reserve forces continually deployed in support of contingency operations overseas serving as members of Carrier Strike Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups, Special Operating Forces, Seabee units, Marine forces, and medical units; some also serve as Individual Augmentees (IAs).
Navy Individual Augmentees (IAs)
Some of the Navy's contributions to IW operations around the world in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were made by Navy individual augmentees (IAs)—individual Navy sailors assigned to various DOD operations. DON stated in 2014 that
Navy IAs are providing combat support and combat service support for Army and Marine Corps personnel in Afghanistan. As IAs they are fulfilling vital roles by serving in traditional Navy roles such as USMC support, maritime and port security, cargo handling, airlift support, Seabee units, and as a member of joint task force/Combatant Commanders staffs. Non-traditional roles include detainee operations, custom inspections teams, and civil affairs.
Navy Counterterrorism (CT) Operations
In General
Navy CT operations (and anti-terrorism/force protection activities) at various points since the late 1990s, and particularly in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have included the following:
Operations by Navy special operations forces, known as SEALs (an acronym standing for Sea, Air, and Land), that have been directed against terrorists; Tomahawk cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps and facilities, such as those reportedly conducted in Somalia on March 3 and May 1, 2008, and those conducted in 1998 in response to the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa; surveillance by Navy ships and aircraft of suspected terrorists overseas; maritime intercept operations (MIO) that were aimed at identifying and intercepting terrorists or weapons of mass destruction at sea, or potentially threatening ships or aircraft that are in or approaching U.S. territorial waters—an activity that has included Navy participation in the multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI); protection of forward-deployed Navy ships, an activity that was intensified following the terrorist attack on the Navy Aegis destroyer Cole (DDG-67) in October 2000 in the port of Aden, Yemen; protection of domestic and overseas Navy bases and facilities; working with the Coast Guard to build maritime domain awareness (or MDA, meaning a real-time understanding of activities on the world's oceans), and engaging with the U.S. Coast Guard to use the National Strategy for Maritime Security to more rapidly develop capabilities for Homeland Security, particularly in the area of MDA; assisting the Coast Guard in port-security operations; developing Global Maritime Intelligence Integration (GMII) as part of Joint Force Maritime Component Command (JFMCC) and Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA); and operations by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), for which combating terrorism is a core mission area.
DON stated in 2014 that
While forward, acting as the lead element of our defense-in-depth, naval forces will be positioned for increased roles in combating terrorism.... Expanded Maritime Interdiction Operations are authorized by the President and directed by the Secretary of Defense to intercept vessels identified to be transporting terrorists and/or terrorist-related materiel that poses an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.....
We have done small, precise attacks against terrorist cells and missile attacks against extremist sanctuaries.
DON stated in 2013 that
Our defense efforts are aimed at countering violent extremists and destabilizing threats, as well as upholding our commitments to allies and partner states. These armed adversaries such as terrorists, insurgents, and separatist militias are a principal challenge to U.S. interests in East Africa.
An April 8, 2013, press report about U.S. counterterrorism operations stated, regarding one particular operation, that
The uncertainties were evident nine months into Mr. Obama's first term, when intelligence agencies tracked down Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a suspect in the attacks on two American embassies in East Africa in 1998.
The original plan had been to fire long-range missiles to hit Mr. Nabhan and others as they drove in a convoy from Mogadishu, Somalia, to the seaside town of Baraawe. But that plan was scrubbed at the last minute, and instead a Navy SEALs team helicoptered from a ship and strafed Mr. Nabhan's convoy, killing him and three others. The SEALs landed to collect DNA samples to confirm the identities of the dead.
May 1-2, 2011, U.S. Military Operation That Killed Osama Bin Laden
The May 1-2, 2011, U.S. military operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden—reportedly called Operation Neptune's Spear—reportedly was carried out by a team of 23 Navy special operations forces, known as SEALs (an acronym standing for Sea, Air, and Land). The SEALs reportedly belonged to an elite unit known unofficially as Seal Team 6 and officially as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU). The SEALs reportedly were flown to and from Abbottabad by Army special operations helicopters. Bin Laden's body reportedly was flown by a U.S. military helicopter from Abbottabad to a base in Afghanistan, and from there by a Marine Corps V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft to the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson (CVN-70), which was operating at the time in the Northern Arabian Sea. A few hours later, bin Laden's body reportedly was buried at sea from the ship. Differing accounts have been published regarding certain details of the operation.
Press reports in July 2010 stated that U.S. forces in Afghanistan included at that time a special unit called Task Force 373, composed of Navy SEALs and Army Delta Force personnel, whose mission is "the deactivation of top Taliban and terrorists by either killing or capturing them."
A July 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report and a separate CRS report provide additional background information on the SEALs. Another CRS report provides further discussion of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.
Detention of Terrorist Suspects on U.S. Navy Ships
An August 16, 2015, press report stated the following:
After a suspected militant was captured last year to face charges for the deadly 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, he was brought to the U.S. aboard a Navy transport ship on a 13-day trip that his lawyers say could have taken 13 hours by plane.
Ahmed Abu Khattala faced days of questioning aboard the USS New York from separate teams of American interrogators, part of a two-step process designed to obtain both national security intelligence and evidence usable in a criminal prosecution.
The case, still in its early stages, is focusing attention on an interrogation strategy that the Obama administration has used in just a few recent terrorism investigations and prosecutions. Abu Khattala's lawyers already have signaled a challenge to the process, setting the stage for a rare court clash over a tactic that has riled civil liberties groups but is seen by the government as a vital and appropriate tool in prosecuting suspected terrorists captured overseas.
"I think they view it as important to show that terrorists can be prosecuted in U.S. courts, and this is an attempt to find a compromise between using people they capture as intelligence assets and prosecuting them in U.S. courts," said David Deitch, a former Justice Department terrorism prosecutor. "It's a very hard balance to strike—and may not be possible."
The administration has turned to questioning in international waters as an alternative to past practices in which suspects were sent to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or secret CIA prisons. The process ordinarily begins with questioning from a specialized team of interrogators who collect intelligence that can inform government decisions, such as for drone strikes, but cannot be used in court. Then a team of FBI investigators starts from scratch, advising the detainee of his Miranda rights, such as the right to remain silent, and gathering statements that prosecutors can present as evidence in a trial.
Some legal experts expect the hybrid interrogation technique to survive legal challenges. But defense lawyers are concerned that such prolonged detention can be used to wrangle a confession or amounts to an end-run around the government's obligation to promptly place a suspect before a judge.
"Basically by holding the suspects on a ship and delaying their presentment in federal court, they're able to get a leg up in interrogations," said Seton Hall University law professor Jonathan Hafetz, who has handled terrorism cases.
Abu Khattala is facing charges in Washington in the Sept. 11-12, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Following his June 2014 capture in Libya by U.S. special forces, he was placed aboard a Navy ship that his lawyers say made its way to the U.S. as slowly as possible to allow maximum time for interrogation. They say Abu Khattala was questioned for days by representatives from the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, then for another stretch by FBI agents....
One early point of contention in the court case is the onboard interrogation. Abu Khattala's lawyers submitted court filings this month contending that the government held him "captive on a military ship—without the protection of and in spite of constitutional guarantees—for the explicit purpose of illegally interrogating him for almost two weeks."
Federal prosecutors have yet to respond.
Whatever a judge decides, the case taps into a broader legal debate about the prosecution of terrorist suspects and presents a rare opportunity for a possible ruling on the admissibility of statements gathered aboard a military vessel.
For additional background information on detention of terrorist suspects on U.S. Navy ships, see Appendix E .
Navy Initiatives to Improve Its IW and CT Capabilities
In the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Navy took certain actions intended to improve its IW and CT capabilities and activities, including those discussed below. Some of the actions the Navy took during those years are described briefly below.
Navy Irregular Warfare Office (NIWO)/Navy Warfare Group (NWG)
The Navy in July 2008 established the Navy Irregular Warfare Office (NIWO) so as to "institutionalize current ad hoc efforts in IW missions of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency and the supporting missions of information operations, intelligence operations, foreign internal defense and unconventional warfare as they apply to [CT] and [counterinsurgency]."
In January 2013, the Navy directed the establishment of a Navy Warfare Group (NWG) "to provide a dedicated organization to systematically evaluate, develop, and implement new strategic concepts deemed useful to the service...." NIWO was disbanded, and its responsibilities were transferred to NWG, which is to "[s]erve as the Navy lead for irregular warfare (IW) to incorporate IW into Navy capstone documents and to inform the PPBE [Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution] process."
2010 Navy Vision Statement for Countering Irregular Challenges
The Navy in January 2010 published a vision statement for countering irregular challenges, which stated the following in part:
The U.S. Navy will meet irregular challenges through a flexible, agile, and broad array of multi-mission capabilities. We will emphasize Cooperative Security as part of a comprehensive government approach to mitigate the causes of insecurity and instability. We will operate in and from the maritime domain with joint and international partners to enhance regional security and stability, and to dissuade, deter, and when necessary, defeat irregular forces.
The full text of the vision statement is reproduced in Appendix C .
Navy Community of Interest (COI) for Countering Irregular Challenges
The Navy in December 2010 established "a community of interest [COI] to develop and advance ideas, collaboration and advocacy related to confronting irregular challenges (CIC)."
Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC)
The Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), headquartered at Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA, was established informally in October 2005 and formally on January 13, 2006. NECC consolidated and facilitated the expansion of a number of Navy organizations that have a role in IW operations. DON stated in 2014 that
Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) is a global force provider of expeditionary combat service support and force protection capabilities to joint warfighting commanders. It is responsible for centrally managing the current and future readiness, resources, manning, training and equipping of a scalable, self-sustaining, integrated expeditionary force of active and reserve sailors. Expeditionary sailors are deployed from around the globe, supporting contingency operations and Combatant Commanders' Theater Security Cooperation Plans, providing a forward presence of waterborne and ashore anti-terrorism force protection; theater security cooperation and engagement; and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
DON also stated in 2014 that
The Reserve Component expeditionary forces are integrated with the Active Component forces to provide a continuum of capabilities unique to the maritime environment within NECC. Blending the AC and RC brings strength to the force and is an important part of the Navy's ability to carry out the Naval Maritime Strategy from blue water into green and brown water and in direct support of the Joint Force. The Navy Reserve trains and equips over half of the Sailors supporting NECC missions, including naval construction and explosive ordnance disposal in the CENTCOM region, as well as maritime expeditionary security, expeditionary logistics (cargo handling battalions), maritime civil affairs, expeditionary intelligence, and other mission capabilities seamlessly integrated with operational forces around the world. In addition, Coastal Riverine Group 2 has taken on a new armed escort mission for High Value Units (HVU) which has traditionally been provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. The escort enhances force protection for HVUs while transiting into and out of CONUS ports during restricted maneuvering.
Global Maritime Partnership
The Global Maritime Partnership was a U.S. Navy initiative to achieve an enhanced degree of cooperation between the U.S. Navy and foreign navies, coast guards, and maritime police forces, for the purpose of ensuring global maritime security against common threats. DON stated in 2014 that "through partnerships with a growing number of nations, including those in Africa and Latin America, we will strive for a common vision of freedom, stability, and prosperity."
Partnership Stations
The Southern Partnership Station (SPS) and the Africa Partnership Station (APS) were Navy ships, such as amphibious ships or high-speed sealift ships, that deployed to the Caribbean and to waters off Africa, respectively, to support U.S. Navy engagement with countries in those regions, particularly for purposes of building security partnerships with those countries, and for increasing the capabilities of those countries for performing maritime-security operations. The SPS and APS can be viewed as specific measures for promoting the above-mentioned global maritime partnership. A July 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discussed the APS.
Coastal Riverine Force
The Navy in May 2006 reestablished its riverine force by standing up Riverine Group 1 at Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA (now part of Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, or JEBLC-FS). Riverine Group 1 included three active-duty riverine squadrons of 12 boats each that were established in 2006-2007. Operations of the squadrons from 2006 to 2011 included multiple deployments to Iraq for the purpose, among other things, of relieving Marines who until 2006 had been conducting maritime security operations in Iraqi ports and waterways.
On June 1, 2012, the Navy merged the riverine force and the Maritime Expeditionary Security Force (MESF) to create Coastal Riverine Force (CORIVFOR). The Navy stated that CORIVFOR "performs core maritime expeditionary security missions in the green and brown waters, bridging the gap between traditional Navy blue water operations and land-based forces, providing port and harbor security for vital waterways and protection of high value assets and maritime infrastructure." The Navy stated that CORIVFOR was scheduled to reach initial operating capability (IOC) in October 2012 and full operational capability (FOC) in October 2014, and that "all current and scheduled routine deployments will continue as normal."
A July 14, 2014, news report states the following:
In 2012, the Navy merged Riverine Forces and Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces to form the Coastal Riverine Force. There are currently seven squadrons. Squadrons 1, 3 and 11 are home ported on the west coast and Squadrons 2, 4, 8 and 10 are home ported on the east coast. The force currently consists of both active and reserve service members who man and operate more than 100 boats, ranging from rubber combat raiding crafts to 53-foot command boats that can carry up to 26 personnel.
A January 18, 2013, Navy news report stated the following:
Sailors, former Riverines, and family members attended a disestablishment ceremony for Naval Expeditionary Combat Command's Riverine Squadron (RIVRON) 3 at Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, Jan. 17.
The disestablishment marks the merger of offensive Riverine forces with defensive Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces to form the Coastal Riverine Force (CORIVFOR), formally established June 1[, 2012]....
CORIVFOR's primary mission is to conduct maritime security operations across all phases of military operations by defending high value assets, critical maritime infrastructure, ports and harbors, both inland and on coastal waterways, and when commanded, conduct offensive combat operations.
The budget-initiated merger moved portions of the force to San Diego as part of the National Defense Strategy's rebalance to the Pacific, which will bring Riverine capability to the West coast for the first time since 1974, according to Capt. Eric B. Moss, commander of Coastal Riverine Group 1, formerly Maritime Expeditionary Security Group 1.
"The Riverine forces will do what they've always done, which is continuing to hone their skills and work in brown water and green water areas," said Moss. "There is no abatement of requirements. We continue to get missions and are sourced to meet those requirements. We're doing the same with less."
The merge cuts the former seven active Maritime Expeditionary Security Force (MESF) squadrons and three active RIVRONs down to three active Coastal Riverine squadrons and four reserve squadrons.
"This is a reduction in capacity, but not in capability," said Moss. "I would say this is a very affordable force. We are light, expeditionary, and bring a lot capability in small packages. We are familiar with disaggregated operations, so immediately we give the combatant commander a tailor-able and scalable force."...
Commissioned July 6, 2007, RIVRON 3 served two deployments in Iraq, fulfilling a total of 502 combat missions, 268 water security operations and countless U.S./Iraq tactical convoy operations.
Other Organizational Initiatives
Other Navy initiatives in recent years for supporting IW and CT operations include establishing a reserve civil affairs battalion, a Navy Foreign Area Officer (FAO) community consisting of officers with specialized knowledge of foreign countries and regions, a maritime interception operation (MIO) intelligence exploitation pilot program, and an intelligence data-mining capability at the National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC).
Appendices with Additional Background Information
For additional information on Navy and Marine Corps special operations forces, see the prepared statements of the Navy and Marine Corps witnesses for an April 1,1 2018, hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee reprinted in Appendix A .
The Navy outlined its IW activities as of 2011 in its prepared statement for a November 3, 2011, hearing on the services' IW activities before the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. For the text of the Navy's prepared statement, see Appendix B .
As noted earlier, for the text of the Navy's January 2010 vision statement for irregular warfare, see Appendix C .
A 2012 report on maritime irregular warfare from RAND Corporation, a research firm, provides additional background information on U.S. maritime irregular warfare operations, both historical and more recent (i.e., up to the time of the report's writing). The report also made a series of findings and recommendations relating to U.S. maritime irregular warfare; for a summary of these findings and recommendations, see Appendix D .
As noted earlier, for additional background information on detention of terrorist suspects on U.S. Navy ships, see Appendix E .
FY2020 Funding Request
Overview
DON states that the proposed FY2020 budget "continues funding to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and other locations in theater, as well as for the European Deterrence Initiative," and "supports building a more experienced, better trained, and more capable force by increasing the number of Marines with special skills, like those required for special operations, intelligence operations, electronic, information, and cyber warfare." Special Operations Command's (SOCOM's) proposed FY2020 budget requests, among other things,
$72.6 million in the FY2020 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide (RDT&EDW) account for Program Element (PE) 1160483BB, maritime systems (line 263 in the FY2020 RDT&EDW account), including $45.2 million for Project S0417: Underwater Systems, and $27.4 million for S1684: Surface Craft; and $59.0 million in the FY2020 Procurement, Defense-Wide (PDW) appropriation account for procurement of underwater systems for SOCOM (line 63 in the FY2020 PDW account).
For additional background information on the FY2020 funding requests for lines 263 and 63, see Appendix F .
Potential Oversight Issues for Congress
Degree of Emphasis on IW in Navy Budgets
One potential oversight issue for Congress concerns how much emphasis to place on IW activities in Navy budgets, particularly in a context of constraints on Navy budgets and Navy desires to devote resources to developing "high end" combat capabilities for countering improved conventional military capabilities of countries such as China and Russia. Although the Navy, as discussed earlier in this report, took actions in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that were intended to improve its IW capabilities, the Navy in more recent years has taken other actions that might be viewed as reflecting a reduced Navy emphasis on IW. In that connection, the following points were provided to CRS by the Joint Staff J-7 Irregular Warfare office in August 2016:
"US Navy IW funding and force structure have declined over the last few years." "NIWO's responsibilities now belong to OPNAV N515 [i.e., the office within the Chief of Naval Operations that oversees the NWG], with dedicated IW staff decreasing from 13 government/military personnel along with 6 contractors led by a RDML [rear admiral] to 2 contractors and one O-5 [an officer that in the Navy is a commander] under O-6 [an officer that in the Navy is a captain] oversight." In May 2014, the Navy closed its Maritime Civil Affairs and Security Training Command (MCAST), an action "which reduced civil affairs (CA) and security force assistance (SFA) capacity. The MCAST's mission was to train sailors to perform civil-military affairs and security force assistance missions. It also provided approximately 50 percent of Navy expeditionary training.... MCAST functions are now distributed across the Navy. The Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity serves as the focal point for security assistance training issues. The Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center processes individual augmentees for deployment. Civil affairs functions were not replaced." A July 2015 Navy memo states "that the Navy does not 'possess dedicated CA units or members.'" The Navy's FY2017 budget requested funding to preserve Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron 85, a unit that "supports Naval Special Warfare and other SOCOM [Special Operations Command] assets," which was "a positive development." On the other hand, the Navy in March 2016 "disbanded HSC 84, a sister squadron providing similar support.... This action essentially cut experienced, operational capacity in half. Whether the TSUs [i.e., the two Tactical Support Units that are to be stood up under the Navy's proposed FY2017 budget] will meet SOF requirements remains to be seen." The Navy Community of Interest (COI) for Countering Irregular Challenges "does not extend beyond the Navy Analytic Group. This body, tied to the Community of Interest, submits IW program gap, technical demonstration, and study initiatives to N515 for funding. Members include Fleet Forces Command, the NECC, the Navy Undersea Warfare Center, and the Navy War College. The larger COI has not [as of August 2016] had a formal meeting in approximately 3 years."
A January 17, 2019, press report stated:
After spending the better part of the past two decades supporting wars in a desert region, the U.S. Navy is starting to bring the SEALs back into the fold as it faces threats from major powers such as China and Russia.
The Navy is incorporating its elite special warfare teams into strategic calculations for every potential major power combat scenario, from China and Russia to Iran and North Korea, said Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran in a round-table with reporters at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium.
The movement toward reconnecting with the blue water force (the Navy's regular ships, aircraft and submarine forces) started under former Naval Special Warfare Command head Rear Adm. Brian Losey, who retired in 2016. The effort has continued to grow under subsequent commanders, said Moran.
"It's to the point now where we include them in all of our exercises, our war games, our tabletops — because as much as it is their chance to 're-blue,' it's our chance to reconnect from the blue side," he added. "We've grown used to not having them in a lot of those situations. Now as we've done the tabletops, the exercises and the war games, we see: 'Wow, there is some great capability here that can set the conditions for the kind of operations in every single one of those campaigns.' And that will continue to grow, I think."
There have been indications that the SEALs are specifically eyeing environments similar to those in the South China Sea. A recent environmental assessment obtained by the Honolulu Star Advertiser revealed that the SEALs were looking to triple the amount of training time spent in the Hawaiian islands, expanding from Oahu and Hawaii island to Kauai, Maui, Molokai and Lanai.
A January 30, 2019, press report similarly stated:
Having spent 17 years conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations in the deserts and mountains of the Middle East, the Naval Special Warfare community is shifting its focus to threats from China, Russia and aspiring adversaries.
Navy operations planners are including Navy SEALs in all aspects of planning and training, such as war games, exercises and tabletop scenarios, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran told reporters Jan. 16 at the Surface Navy Association's annual conference.
The shift began in 2013 when Rear Adm. Brian Losey, then-commander of Naval Special Warfare Command, began making "a concerted effort to talk to his teams about getting back to the 'blue side,'" Moran said, referring to the Navy's large fighting forces of ships, submarines and aircraft.
That focus has continued since Losey retired in 2016, Moran added.
"[Losey] saw the 'great power competition,' he saw the threats of an emerging Russia, China, North Korea and Iran," Moran said. [SEALs] have a very specific and important role to play in all situations."
Since the U.S. insertion into Afghanistan in 2001, special operations forces, including the SEALs, have focused on a specific selection of their skill sets, including small-scale strikes and offensive actions, counterinsurgency, hostage rescue, counterterrorism and countering weapons of mass destruction.
But these forces have other expertise that is relevant to both large-scale military conflicts as well as the type of posturing and competing for regional and global dominance that currently is happening, according to a 2017 report by David Broyles and Brody Blankenship, analysts at CNA, an Arlington, Virginia-based think tank that concentrates on the U.S. Navy.
Those skills include preparing an environment for operations, reconnaissance, unconventional operations, military information support operations and foreign humanitarian assistance, according to the report, The Role of Special Operations Forces in Global Competition.
"Special operations forces have a greater role to play in today's global competition through a counteractive approach to adversary maneuvers," Broyles and Blankenship wrote. "The United States has only recently recognized that adversaries are exploiting the U.S. view of 'preparing for future war' vice 'competing in the here and now.' "
Moran agreed that Navy SEALs have a unique talent set that the "blue side" had largely forgotten.
"We've grown used to not having them in a lot of situations. ... Wow, there are some great capabilities here that can set the conditions in the world for the kind of operations we are going to need in every single one of our campaigns," he said.
A draft environmental assessment published by the Navy on Nov. 8 indicated that the SEALs are planning to increase training in Hawaii, asking to increase the number of exercises from the 110 events allowed now on non-federally owned land to as many as 330 training events on non-federal land or waterways and 265 training events on federal property.
The proposed training also would expand the area for conducting exercises to include Kauai, Lanai, Maui and Molokai, in addition to Oahu and Hawaii.
The training, in a location relatively near to and similar in climate to the South China Sea, where China continues to assert its dominance, is necessary to enhance the Navy Special Warfare Command's traditional skill sets, including diving and swimming; operating with submersibles and unmanned aircraft systems; insertion and extraction; reconnaissance and parachuting; and rope suspension training activities, according to the report.
Moran said the SEALs' return to their roots will bolster lethality of the Navy as a whole.
"As much as it's their chance to re-blue, it's our chance to reconnect from the blue side," he said. "That will continue to grow, I think."
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
How do current Navy IW capabilities and capacity compare with those of 5 or 10 years ago? Under proposed Navy budgets, how will Navy IW capabilities and capacity in coming years compare to those of today? In a context of constraints on Navy budgets and Navy desires to devote resources to developing "high end" combat capabilities for countering improved conventional military capabilities of countries such as China and Russia, is the Navy striking the right balance between funding for IW capabilities and capacity and funding for other Navy priorities? Does Congress have sufficient visibility into the operations of U.S. SOF, including Navy SEALs, to support congressional oversight over those operations?
Role of Naval Special Warfare Development Group (Seal Team 6)
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the role of Seal Team 6 in Navy CT and IW operations. A June 6, 2015, press report states the following:
They have plotted deadly missions from secret bases in the badlands of Somalia. In Afghanistan, they have engaged in combat so intimate that they have emerged soaked in blood that was not their own. On clandestine raids in the dead of the night, their weapons of choice have ranged from customized carbines to primeval tomahawks.
Around the world, they have run spying stations disguised as commercial boats, posed as civilian employees of front companies and operated undercover at embassies as male-female pairs, tracking those the United States wants to kill or capture.
Those operations are part of the hidden history of the Navy's SEAL Team 6, one of the nation's most mythologized, most secretive and least scrutinized military organizations. Once a small group reserved for specialized but rare missions, the unit best known for killing Osama bin Laden has been transformed by more than a decade of combat into a global manhunting machine.
That role reflects America's new way of war, in which conflict is distinguished not by battlefield wins and losses, but by the relentless killing of suspected militants.
Almost everything about SEAL Team 6, a classified Special Operations unit, is shrouded in secrecy—the Pentagon does not even publicly acknowledge that name—though some of its exploits have emerged in largely admiring accounts in recent years. But an examination of Team 6's evolution, drawn from dozens of interviews with current and former team members, other military officials and reviews of government documents, reveals a far more complex, provocative tale.
While fighting grinding wars of attrition in Afghanistan and Iraq, Team 6 performed missions elsewhere that blurred the traditional lines between soldier and spy. The team's sniper unit was remade to carry out clandestine intelligence operations, and the SEALs joined Central Intelligence Agency operatives in an initiative called the Omega Program, which offered greater latitude in hunting adversaries.
Team 6 has successfully carried out thousands of dangerous raids that military leaders credit with weakening militant networks, but its activities have also spurred recurring concerns about excessive killing and civilian deaths....
When suspicions have been raised about misconduct, outside oversight has been limited. Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees SEAL Team 6 missions, conducted its own inquiries into more than a half-dozen episodes, but seldom referred them to Navy investigators. "JSOC investigates JSOC, and that's part of the problem," said one former senior military officer experienced in special operations, who like many others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because Team 6's activities are classified.
Even the military's civilian overseers do not regularly examine the unit's operations. "This is an area where Congress notoriously doesn't want to know too much," said Harold Koh, the State Department's former top legal adviser, who provided guidance to the Obama administration on clandestine war....
Like the C.I.A.'s campaign of drone strikes, Special Operations missions offer policy makers an alternative to costly wars of occupation. But the bulwark of secrecy around Team 6 makes it impossible to fully assess its record and the consequences of its actions, including civilian casualties or the deep resentment inside the countries where its members operate. The missions have become embedded in American combat with little public discussion or debate.
Legislative Activity for FY2020
DOD's proposed FY2020 budget requests, among other things,
$72.6 million in the FY2020 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide (RDT&EDW) account for Program Element (PE) 1160483BB, (Special Operations Command [SOCOM]) maritime systems (line 263 in the FY2020 RDT&EDW account), including $45.2 million for Project S0417: Underwater Systems, and $15.6 million for S1684: Surface Craft; and $27.4 million in the FY2020 Procurement, Defense-Wide (PDW) appropriation account for procurement of underwater systems for SOCOM (line 63 in the FY2020 PDW account).
Table 1 summarizes congressional action on the above funding requests.
Appendix A. April 2018 Navy and Marine Corps Testimony on Special Operations Forces
This appendix reprints the prepared statements of Rear Admiral Tim Szymanski, U.S. Navy, Commander, Naval Warfare Special Warfare Command, and Major General Carl E. Mundy, III, U.S. Marine Corps, Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, for an April 11, 2018, hearing the Special Operations Command's efforts to transform the force for future security challenges.
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Szymanski
The text of Admiral Szymanski's statement is as follows:
Chairwoman Ernst, Ranking Member Heinrich and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you, and proud to provide an update on your Navy's Special Operations Force and the U.S. Special Operations Command's maritime component.
As you are aware, the security challenges facing our nation today are numerous, and are made more difficult by adversaries who are exploiting emerging technologies and gaining ground. We will continue to face Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs), while the battlefield expands and becomes more complex and chaotic. Today, our most pressing security concerns involve the aggressive, coercive, and disruptive actions of near-peer competitors and rogue regimes. Exerting power by fighting below the level of armed conflict favors these players to the point that they are gaining advantages that threaten our national security. We must continue to be smarter, stronger, quicker, and more lethal than our adversaries, in order to protect our nation in a world that grows more complex every day.
As an enterprise of nearly 10,000 personnel—2,810 SEALs; 780 Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen; 4,100 support personnel; 780 reservists; 1,240 civilians—your Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command accounts for only 2.4 percent of the Navy's personnel. Our budget accounts for less than one percent of the Department of the Navy's budget, and approximately 12 percent of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) budget.
We continue to have a global presence—operating in more than 35 countries on any given day. We are networked with the U.S. Navy and Joint Forces, the interagency, and allies and foreign partners, executing missions in support of USSOCOM, the U.S. Navy, geographic Combatant Commanders, and ultimately, national objectives across a full range of political and operational environments.
NSW's ALIGNMENT TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY
The National Defense Strategy (NDS) published earlier this year charged the Department of Defense (DoD) to be more agile, more lethal, and more innovative in order to maintain our competitive advantage. The Chief of Naval Operations, in turn, laid out the maritime responsibilities articulated in the NDS, focusing on increasing Naval Power through balancing capability and capacity with readiness and sustainment.
As the Commander, my challenge is to man, train, and equip the Force to be better positioned to support the NDS, the National Military Strategy and the Navy's Strategy for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, while supporting the operational requirements of the theater commanders. Furthermore, the long-term sustainment, health, and well-being of our people remains my highest priority.
NSW RESOURCING
After nearly 17 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are focused on reasserting our capabilities as the maritime component to Special Operations, properly postured to meet the threats of the future, enhancing our partnership with the Navy and exploring opportunities for increased integration and interoperability, while building capabilities and capacity with fleet, submarine, aviation and cyber forces.
Acknowledging that manpower requirements have outpaced authorized and actual growth, we have spent the last year taking a hard look at our force structure to determine how we can best use the resources we have to optimize the impacts we are making on the battlefield. We looked at how to eliminate redundancy, redirect resources and merge assets to build depth and agility and how to meet transregional threats and provide increased combat lethality to the Theater Special Operation Commands. Optimizing our Force is paramount to meeting current operational requirements and provide greater agility to meet future requirements.
We recently collaborated with the Naval Post graduate school to conduct a maritime, multi-thread experiment in Southern California. The exercise allowed us to explore a realistic scenario using unmanned systems in a multi-domain (sea, air and land) environment. We learned a lot and advanced the potential use of artificial intelligence and human-machine teaming in current conflicts which will eventually increase our lethality while reducing risk.
We have made necessary investments aimed at increasing our lethality, and refining our capabilities that enable access to contested areas.
We have made significant increases in our unmanned aerial vehicle lethality by adding targeting capabilities, increasing the capabilities of current sensor suites, and using algorithms and artificial intelligence to speed up the targeting cycle.
We have modernized numerous small arms systems, including procuring a purpose built, full-time suppressed, medium range weapons system; a lighter weight medium machine gun that matches and, in some cases, surpasses the effective range of a .50 caliber machine gun; a sniper weapons system with optics and wind sensing technology; and shoulder-launched munitions that allow for very precise engagements through hardened structures.
We have made great strides in modernizing our maritime mobility platforms. In fact, our partnerships with maritime industries has never been stronger.
We have introduced high performance surface combatant craft into our fleet to serve across the spectrum of maritime operations. They include our new Combatant Craft Assault which replaced the NSW 11-meter rigid-hull inflatable boat and our Combatant Craft Medium which replaced the Mark V Special Operations Craft and the introduction of the new Combatant Craft Heavy.
Special Operations Force (SOF) undersea mobility platforms provide uniquely capable, clandestine means to access peer/near-peer locations. To that end, we expect to introduce two new undersea submersibles this year– the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS), which will replace our legacy SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV), and the Dry Combat Submersible (DCS), a new platform to our inventory.
Nearly a year ago, we piloted a deliberate effort to realize the Secretary of Defense's guidance of exploiting Industry's investment in technology to relentlessly pursue innovative and advanced operational capabilities for our warfighters at a greater speed, relevant to the pace of technology in order to outpace our adversaries. This venture allowed us to understand and take advantage of new DoD contracting and procurement authorities as well as maximizing the utilization of DoD and USSOCOM outreach-to-industry platforms such as Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) and SOFWERX.
NSW has learned and applied how to effectively make use of these and other new and emerging opportunities to rapidly bring future operational concepts to the present: such as our realization of Artificial Intelligence-Autonomy of ISR Drones. This example among others, show promise to have exponential impacts on our capabilities to accomplish our mission in a more agile, lethal and sustainable manner. Our efforts—to rapidly prototype, experiment with and lead in new and emerging technologies are aimed at delivering capabilities at the speed of relevancy to our warfighters.
Finally, bottom up, operator-inspired innovation drives experimentation during exercises, and training eventually equates to relevancy and leads to greater success on the battlefield. With our component partners and throughout USSOCOM, innovation is happening at the unit level up and through headquarters. Our focus on innovation is driven by our people – buying down risk to our force while increasing our speed, accuracy, and lethality.
PEOPLE: THE FIRST SOF TRUTH
Our primary weapons system remains The Operator. We continue to invest heavily in our personnel, whether it's to train, retain or sustain them. We select, train and maintain persons of character, who are mature, highly skilled, culturally attuned and trusted to execute our nation's most sensitive missions.
Thank you for your role in the preservation of our Force with the 10-year, $1 billion Silver Strand Training Center-South, the single most important military construction effort impacting the current and future operational readiness of the NSW Force. Once complete, the complex will consolidate the training requirements of today's force, creating efficiencies and synergy of improved operational planning and preparedness, but also allow our operators to spend more time with their families and communities.
We remain committed to the physical and mental health of our operators, as we have a moral obligation to ensure their well-being. Preservation of the Force and Families, our Human Performance Program, and our most important initiatives involving Cognitive Health are about keeping our warriors in the fight, extending their service life, and giving them a high quality life post-service.
With strong Congressional support, the USSOCOM Preservation of the Force and Family program continues to meet and exceed the intent to build resilience and facilitate the long-term care of our operators and their families, while never forgetting our fallen teammates with ongoing support to our Gold Star Families.
Embedded professional care providers working within validated programs have helped turn the corner on many of the negative trends that have impacted those who have been in this long fight. Our usage data shows an increase in service members and families going to see clinical psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, nurse case managers, which speaks directly to de-stigmatization and trust. Similarly, there is a high number of cross referrals among the various care providers that demonstrates mutual support and clinical trust and reliance.
In regard to Human Performance, our athletic trainers, strength coaches and physical therapists provide tailored and operationally relevant programs have resulted in injury reduction and increased recovery time from injuries with a direct impact to overall team readiness.
Our Warrior and Family Support staff provide hands on, personal touch and connection to our families and children, connecting them to all the Service-provided and SOF-unique programs that are so vital to the strength and resilience of our family members.
We have also learned that long-term physical and psychological challenges may result in impacts to one's memory, attention, processing speed, problem-solving, visuospatial function and impulse control which can affect operational performance and mission accomplishment. Given that we are in the longest continuous stretch of armed conflict in our history, learning about the cognitive health of our force is a critical initiative.
We have initiated a Cognitive Surveillance Program that will be a more pre-emptive approach to intervention where cognitive impacts are indicated. More broadly, this initiative will seek to identify injuries earlier, track individual trends, and assist in developing comprehensive treatment plans to aid in the recovery of our service members. The end-state is to get NSW operators back into the fight while contributing to their long-term wellness.
The Surveillance Program entails an initial baseline screening of all SEAL/SWCC operators within NSW by 30 June 2018; and ongoing re-testing every two years to assess significant change, similar to other routine exams such as dental or audiogram.
Aggressive efforts include increasing awareness of potential issues and not waiting for perfect solutions. Therefore, we are actively 'driving the science' through our blast exposure research efforts, ultimately looking to create a 'dive-table-like' approach to heavy weapons/breaching exposure levels and mitigation needs.
NSW continues to seek and offer best practices as we develop our cognitive health emphases. We rely on education, informed research efforts, and leadership support across the continuum of care to help mitigate the range of brain injuries and increase recovery rates for our members.
Part of that continuum of care focuses on our transitioning veterans, whether at four years or after forty, with a holistic, SOF-unique initiative called Future Former Frogmen, or F3. F3 focuses on ensuring the successful transition of our active duty into civilian life by leveraging our neurocognitive science initiatives, continuum of leadership development efforts, readiness support programs, and veteran's resources. F3 provides structure, process and guidance throughout the complex transition experience giving the service member access to existing programs to ensure NSW veterans remain resilient. SOF for Life, a powerful support network, continues from active duty life to veteran life.
Today in Coronado, California, at the Basic Underwater and Demolition / SEAL school, otherwise known as BUD/S, there are approximately 100 of America's best and brightest going through training to be part of the Navy's elite special operations maritime force as part of the most recent class, Class 330.
Just like those seeking to be part of my brethren's communities, those seeking to be part of the SEAL community, those who succeed in the 63-week course will earn their Trident.
At the end of 63 weeks, each student will have swam 48 miles; hiked or patrolled over 150 miles; and conducted at least 40 dives while spending a minimum of 60 hours, or two and a half days under water. As a class, at the end of those 63 weeks, they will have completed the equivalent of swimming from Cuba to the southern tip of Florida, then running to New York City.
And that is just a snapshot of what we ask them to do before they have taken their first step into their first operation in defense of our country. It is precisely because of what we ask them to do, starting in Coronado, then around the world, through operation after operation, that we are focused on their long-term health, and the well-being of our Force and Families.
Naval Special Warfare Command will continue to place priority on strengthening, equipping and protecting our people; outpacing our enemies in the employment of new technologies and accelerating trends, enabling us to compete below the threshold of conflict. We will refine and adapt our organizational structure to ensure Naval Special Warfare remains relevant and lethal, and when necessary, stands ready, willing and able to engage in combat to fight and win decisively for many years to come.
Thank you for your time, your care for our Naval Special Warfare community, and I welcome the opportunity today to answer your questions.
Prepared Statement of Major General Mundy
The text of Major General Mundy's statement is as follows:
Introduction
Marine Raiders are the Marine Corps' contribution to United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Through specialized and advanced training, MARSOC builds upon its unique attributes and ethos as Marines to produce agile, scalable, fully-enabled, and responsive special operations forces (SOF) comprised of operators and special operations-specific combat support and combat service support specialists. MARSOC formations task organize for every assigned mission and leverage their robust command and control capability and their ability to fuse operations with intelligence down to the team level. All of these factors enable our Raiders to succeed in distributed environments and enable partners at the tactical and operational levels of war. MARSOC contributes to the SOF enterprise and US combatant commands by providing full spectrum special operations capabilities to combat complex transregional problems.
Established in 2006, our organization continues to address the most immediate threats to our Nation and has become a key participant in the ongoing fight against violent extremist organizations. Accepting this, we are also cognizant that we must work to minimize pressure on our force and our families as we simultaneously prepare for future threats. We ensure preparedness by adapting our training methods using feedback from currently deployed forces to better prepare our Raiders for what they will encounter while deployed. Simultaneously, we minimize pressure on the force by ensuring adequate access to Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) resources. We recognize that our operational capability ultimately rests upon a foundation of outstanding individuals and their families. In order to safeguard and sustain MARSOC's human capital, our most valuable resource, we continually strive to balance operational commitments with time Raiders spend at home station. Part of our effort to take care of families involves ensuring that our POTFF program not only delivers responsive and effective support, but that it continues to evolve with changing demands and needs of our force.
Background
During my tenure as the Commander of MARSOC, I have continually been impressed by the caliber of our individuals, be they Marines, Sailors, or civilians. They are well trained, well equipped, and provide the full spectrum special operations capability that has been crucial to success on the modern battlefield in places as diverse as Mali in West Africa, contested areas of Iraq, and Marawi in the Philippines. Twelve years on, MARSOC is maturing into a full and integral member of the SOF enterprise just as it continues to provide Raiders to counter our Nation's threats. Taking into account where MARSOC is today, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge some of the formative episodes in the history of our Marine Corps that got us here.
The United States Marines Corps' rich history is one that is replete with expeditionary operations against what we know today as irregular threats. These actions serve as the foundation for what is Marine Corps Special Operations today. Although the United States Marine Corps (USMC) did not provide a service component to the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) until 2005, the Marine Corps has demonstrated an ability to conduct and support special operations throughout its history.
In the early years of America's involvement in World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was determined to bring the war to our enemies as rapidly as possible. Because of the Marine Corps' historical successes in small wars and its recent development of amphibious operational concepts, it was considered to be the ideal parent organization for the president's vision for "commando" operations.
In January 1942 the United States Marine Corps established two Raider battalions. The mission of the new Raider units was to spearhead amphibious landings, conduct raiding expeditions against Japanese held territory, as well as conduct guerilla-type operations behind enemy lines for extended periods. Marine Raiders were intellectually dynamic, morally disciplined, and physically fit with an irrepressible sense of duty, loyalty to one another, and imbued with a "Gung Ho" spirit in the face of adversity… much like the Marines and Sailors we select and train as Raiders today.
During the Vietnam War and throughout the Cold War era, the Marine Corps did not formally possess a specialized unit. However, many Marines were members of specialized Joint and certain, tailored conventional units, such as force reconnaissance and Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable). These units performed some of the types of missions we associate with Special Operations today. The complex global environment produced by the end of the Cold War as well as the world changing events of September 11, 2001, prompted an almost immediate need for additional special operations capacity capable of achieving operational and strategic effects. In light of these events and the pressing need for more SOF, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called for the Marines to work more closely with USSOCOM.
After validating an initial proof of concept in 2004 known as the Marine Corps Special Operations Command Detachment (DET One), the Secretary of Defense directed the Marine Corps to provide a permanent contribution to USSOCOM – what would become Marine Corps Forces, Special Operations Command – in November 2005. On 24 February 2006, MARSOC activated at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina as a service component assigned to USSOCOM. MARSOC today comprises a headquarters, one Marine Raider Regiment, one Marine Raider Support Group, and the Marine Raider Training Center. The Command has forces on both the east coast at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and on the west coast at Camp Pendleton, California. Presiding over a total force of approximately 3,000 Marines, Sailors, and 200 Federal Civilians, the Command is employed across the globe executing special operations missions in support of SOCOM and the geographic combatant commands that span the SOF core activities. With a focus on counterterrorism, direct action, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, security force assistance, and counterinsurgency, your modern-day Raiders also have the capability to directly support hostage rescue and recovery, countering of weapons of mass destruction, unconventional warfare, foreign humanitarian assistance, military information, and civil affairs operations. In order to achieve success and provide full spectrum capability across this wide swathe of core activities, we must prioritize our efforts.
MARSOC Priorities
Understanding our role as a force provider and capability generator within the SOF enterprise, we have taken the SOCOM Commander's priorities of "Win, Transform, and People," and applied them to how we prepare our forces to accomplish assigned missions. To this end, MARSOC currently focuses on four priority areas: the provision of integrated full spectrum SOF, capabilities integration between SOF and Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTF), future force development, and the preservation of the force and families.
Priority 1: Force Provider
Our first priority is to provide integrated full spectrum SOF that are task organized, trained and equipped to accomplish assigned special operations tasks. At any given point in the year, MARSOC has approximately 400 Raiders deployed across 18 countries carrying out assigned missions. We maintain three, forward task organized Marine Special Operations Companies; one each in Central Command, Africa Command, and the Pacific Command areas of responsibility. In addition to company-level deployments, we maintain one persistent O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel) level Special Operations Task Force in Central Command and a one-third rotational split with Naval Special Warfare Command for an O-6 (Colonel) level Combined/Joint Special Operations Task Force Headquarters, also in Central Command. At every level, these deployed formations bring integrated capabilities across all functional areas and allow us to operate across the full range of special operations missions. We believe that it is these high-end capabilities that provide our forces with a competitive edge against the adversaries we face.
Providing our force begins with the recruitment process and continues through our assessment, selection, and individual training pipeline. We are focused on recruiting the best individuals from across the Marine Corps. Based on the results of our deployed forces and feedback from supported commanders, our recruiting and selection methods are working. Our training is progressive. As individuals earn new special operations specialties, they are moved to teams or special skills training environments. This training continues until deployment and covers everything from individual skill sets to high-end, advanced, complex unit collective training.
In order to assess and certify Marine Special Operations Companies for deployment, MARSOC has created the RAVEN exercise. Held six times each year, RAVEN emphasizes realistic decision making for company and team commanders and provides a venue to practice the full planning, decision, execution, and assessment cycle. Alternating between Gulfport, Mississippi and Smyrna, Tennessee, RAVEN is a living exercise that enables MARSOC to incorporate the most current lessons from our deployed units as well as anticipated enemy actions inform and support ongoing joint contingency planning. For example, our most recent RAVEN conducted in Tennessee, featured a more robust foreign intelligence threat that undertook both physical and technical surveillance against our Marine Special Operations Teams. During this RAVEN we also exposed our teams to the degraded communications environment we would expect to encounter when facing a near-peer/emerging competitor.
The training environments we create are dynamic. Not only do they prepare our Raiders for the current operational challenge, but they also evolve based on emerging threats and our expected participation in support of standing operational plans. Another benefit of the RAVEN exercises is its utility as a venue for integrating conventional Marine Corps resources into what is otherwise a SOF-centric exercise.
Priority 2: Capabilities Integration with MAGTFs (Interoperability, Integration, and Interdependence)
Second, we provide a bridge for routine capabilities integration with SOF and the deployed Marine Air Ground Task Forces to fully maximize the complimentary capabilities of each formation; especially in light of near-peer/emerging competitors. Given the threats present on contemporary battlefields and considering those we expect to face in the future, it has become increasingly important for SOF to be able to integrate "seamlessly" with the conventional forces and vice versa. Conventional forces offer capabilities and a capacity that simply do not exist in our small formations. In today's complex operating environment, the extent to which we, across the Joint Force, are able to leverage one another's strengths, and thereby offset our vulnerabilities, could determine the difference between success and failure. Cyber and space based capabilities, intelligence exploitation, mobility, fire support, logistics and medical support, are all examples of capabilities that we partially rely on conventional forces to provide– especially in scenarios involving high intensity combat.
Examples of interoperability and capabilities integration occur every day across the globe from Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines and remote locations in Africa. With deliberate efforts to participate in each other's wargames, exercises, and training, we can institutionalize these efforts to the point that they become routine.
Priority 3: Future Force Development
As the operating environment evolves and more complex threats emerge, MARSOC must adapt its force to meet these new challenges. Constant and deliberate innovation, and evolution is critical to our success. Our concept for development is based on both a bottom-up driven process that incorporates immediate battlefield feedback into our training curricula, equipment research, testing, procurement; and a top-down approach that combines more traditional capability acquisition processes with longer-term future concept and wargaming efforts.
Regarding equipment development and acquisition, we are tightly integrated with SOCOM and the Marine Corps and look forward to benefiting from the ongoing efforts of SOCOM's Acquisition Technology &Logistics, SOFWERX, and the Marine Corps' Rapid Capabilities Office. All of these organizations offer us an expedited procurement process for emerging technology. We have already taken steps to bring our vision to fruition with regard to capability development in particular technology areas. These include freeze dried plasma, semi-autonomous seeing and sensing capability, organic precision fires, counter-UAS rapid self-defense, unmanned cargo UAS and ground systems, rapid fusion of big data analytics and machine assisted learning, broadband tactical edge communications, and specialized insertion capabilities. As we research and improve our warfighting capabilities, we must kept in mind that our near-peer/emerging competitors are also making similar advances and investing in emerging technology. It is critical that we ensure that the technological capabilities we opt for are able to operate, communicate, and self-heal in a signals degraded environment.
Likewise from a training perspective, we recognize the need to simulate operations in a degraded/denied communications environment that reflect what we might face when confronting near-peer/emerging competitors. We also plan to continue to improve our proficiency in the critical combined arms skills that both increase our lethality and allow us to maintain a tactical advantage over our adversaries. Last, we acknowledge that we must be able to operate in any clime and place, therefore we are committed to training in environments that replicate the full range of what we may experience on the battlefield.
Complementing our near and mid-term efforts at capability development is longer term work on the development of a MARSOC-specific futures concept. Although this concept bears a resemblance to similar initiatives undertaken with the Department, it very much reflects MARSOC's unique place within SOF and interpretation of what the future operating environment might look like. We see a world overwhelmingly influenced by a resurgence of regional competition and instability. As these two themes collide, the complexity of the operating environment will dramatically challenge the ability of leaders at all levels to first, understand what is happening and, second, make sound decisions. This is the very situation in which Raider formations of the future must be prepared to operate; an urgent, volatile, complex, high-stakes problem that comprises multiple actors and defies the application of traditional US strengths and solutions.
The results of our futures analysis, conducted over the past 18 months, have provided broad implications for the force as well as options which MARSOC can use to shape future capability to meet the challenges posed by the future operating environment. Throughout our internal wargame series, four discrete concepts or 'themes' consistently emerged. Each theme describes a distinct aspect of a vision for MARSOC, but at the same time each built upon the others such that the four are interconnected and mutually supporting. Together they provide a strong conceptual basis for a future MARSOC force that outpaces changes in the operating environment and remains a reliable force across warfighting and Title X functions. Collectively, these themes have come together to form the four, core pathways of innovation: MARSOF as a Connector, Combined Arms for the Connected Arena, The Cognitive Operator, and Enterprise Level Agility.
Our futures vision document, MARSOF 2030 explains each of these innovation pathways in depth and also explores how they interconnect with one another. I will briefly introduce them here for the benefit of the committee. 'MARSOF as a Connector' is intended to capture MARSOC's facility in building cohesive, task organized teams. It is the idea that MARSOC can be the ideal integrator and synchronizer of U.S. Governmental capabilities with USSOF and partner nation actions. It also acknowledges the non-military nature of many of the problems we face and the need to look beyond for more durable solutions that involve tools other than the military.
'Combined Arms for the Connected Arena' aims to get at the requirement to 'sense' and 'make sense of' what is happening in diverse and multi-dimensional environments. This second pathway also speaks to the use of cyber and information 'domains' as potential venues for conflict now, but certainly with increasing relevance as we look toward the future. From our standpoint, we must become as comfortable operating in these 'virtual' domains as we are in the physical.
Perhaps the most foundational of all of our innovation pathways is 'the Cognitive Operator'. This pathway touches all others. At its core is the idea that the future requires a SOF operator with an equal amount of brains to match the brawn; foresight in addition to fortitude. Your future Raiders must preside over expanded capabilities that include the ability to influence allies and partners; understand complex problems; apply a broad set of national, theater, and interagency capabilities to those problems; and fight as adeptly in the virtual space as the physical.
The last innovation pathway, 'Enterprise Level Agility', leverages MARSOC's relatively small size as an advantage. MARSOC possesses the advantage of being a relatively small force with its own component headquarters – this allows the command to rapidly reorient the organization to confront new challenges as they emerge. In other words, MARSOC's organizational dexterity can provide SOCOM with an agile, adaptable force to meet unexpected or rapidly changing requirements. In this context, MARSOC's small size becomes a strength; one that can provide both institutional and operational agility to the SOCOM Commander.
Priority 4: Preservation of the Force and Families
Calling to mind the SOF Truth that "people are more important than hardware," our fourth priority is the preservation of our force and families program that provide our Raiders and their families with the access to resources promoting personal resiliency increasing longevity in service. Although listed as my fourth priority, preservation of the force and families is equally as important as the previous three priorities because people are at the heart of all we do. Currently, MARSOF special operators average 1 day overseas for every 1.9 days at home. Our capability specialists that enable communications, intelligence, air support, explosive ordnance disposal, and our canine handlers, vary by occupational specialty but average between 1 to 1.7 and 1 to 1.2 days deployed as opposed to days spent at home station. What these numbers do not reflect is the additional time that is spent away from home while training in CONUS. Although difficult to measure, Personnel Tempo or PERSTEMPO receives significant attention at all leadership levels within the Command such that we aim to balance our service members' schedules between training at and training away from home station.
Because of this high operational tempo, POTFF has become an integral tool for maintaining the overall health of our force through programs that are focused on improving human performance, providing resources for behavioral health, developing spiritual fitness, and offering other family-oriented opportunities that are designed to strengthen the family unit. We appreciate the continual support from Congress on providing the funding for programs and specialized capabilities to make these programs effective.
Culture of accountability:
Closely tied to these efforts, in concert with both SOCOM and the Marine Corps, is our command-wide push to enhance our culture of accountability as it relates to issues such as sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, personal accountability, and unauthorized media release. As an example, our reported number of sexual assault cases remains in the low single digits and we have not had any victim reported incidents in Fiscal Year 18. We attribute this low number of incidents to our constant command level messaging campaign and our strong Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. While we believe that even a single incident is one too many, we continue to strive to eradicate sexual and other forms of misconduct from our force. We strive each day to provide you SOF personnel that continue to embody the values of accountability, integrity, and commitment in honorable service to our nation.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I am committed to providing Marine Raiders that provide the nation with full spectrum special operations capability and whose actions continually demonstrate our motto of Spiritus Invictus, or 'unconquerable spirit'. Your Marine Special Operators will remain always faithful, always forward. I thank the committee for your continued support of our military members and their families and also for your commitment to national security.
Appendix B. November 2011 Navy Testimony on Navy IW Activities
This appendix presents the text of the Navy's prepared statement for a November 3, 2011, hearing before the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on the IW activities of the military services. The text of the statement, by Rear Admiral Sinclair Harris, Director, Navy Irregular Warfare Office, is as follows:
Chairman Thornberry, Congressman Langevin, and distinguished members of the House Armed Services Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, it is an honor for me to be here with you today to address the U.S. Navy's efforts to institutionalize and develop proficiency in irregular warfare mission areas. These efforts are vital to our national interests and, as part of a comprehensive approach for meeting complex global challenges, remain relevant in a time of uncertainty and constant change. To meet these challenges Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, recently provided his Sailing Directions to our Navy emphasizing the mission to deter aggression and, if deterrence fails, to win our Nation's wars. Today, the Navy is engaged around the world conducting preventive activities that stabilize, strengthen, and secure our partners and allies providing regional deterrence against state and non-state actors, while at the same time fighting, and winning, our Nation's wars. We expect the demand for these activities to increase in the future security environment as a capacity constrained Navy seeks to maintain access and presence. Emphasis on increased training and education will enable our continued readiness to effectively meet global demand.
As demand for our Navy continues to grow, we continue to leverage our Maritime Strategy with our partners, the Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The maritime domain supports 90% of the world's trade and provides offshore options to help friends in need, and to confront and defeat aggression far from our shores as part of a defense in depth approach to secure our homeland. CNO's Sailing Directions, coupled with an enduring Maritime Strategy, underscore the Navy's focus on multi-mission platforms and highly trained Sailors that conduct activities across the operational spectrum. Key tenets of the force are readiness to fight and win today while building the ability to win tomorrow; to provide offshore options to deter, influence, and win; and to harness the teamwork, talent and imagination of our diverse force. While the Maritime Strategy spans the spectrum of warfare, the Navy's Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges (CIC), released in January 2010, addresses mission areas of irregular warfare as well as maritime activities to prevent, limit, and interdict irregular threats and their influence on regional stability through, insurgency, crime, and violent extremism.
The CIC Vision is derived from our Maritime Strategy with the intention to implement steps towards increasing the Navy's proficiency in supporting direct and indirect approaches that dissuade and defeat irregular actors who exploit uncontrolled or ungoverned spaces in order to employ informational, economic, technological, and kinetic means against civilian populations to achieve their objectives. The CIC Vision is guiding the alignment of organizations, investments, innovation, procedures, doctrine, and training needed to mainstream CIC capabilities within the Fleet. These efforts are focused on outcomes of increased effectiveness in stabilizing and strengthening regions, enhancing regional awareness, increasing regional maritime partner capacity, and expanding coordination and interoperability with joint, interagency, and international partners. These outcomes support promoting regional security and stability and advancing the rule of law allowing good governance and promoting prosperity by helping partners better protect their people and resources. In addition to preventive activities, the Vision guides efforts to inhibit the spread of violent extremism and illicit, terrorist, and insurgent activities. To achieve these outcomes, the Navy is actively reorienting doctrine and operational approaches, rebalancing investments and developmental efforts, and refining operations and partnerships to better support a comprehensive approach to U.S. efforts. These efforts will provide a Navy capable of confronting irregular challenges through a broad array of multi-mission capabilities and a force proficient in the CIC missions of security force assistance, maritime security, stability operations, information dominance, and force application necessary to support counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and foreign internal defense missions.
In line with its strategy for confronting irregular challenges the Navy has leveraged key force providers, such as the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, and established Maritime Partnership Stations, and Maritime Headquarters with Maritime Operations Centers to meet the demands and missions consistent with its strategy and vision. The evolution of intelligence and strike capabilities has enabled the Navy to meet urgent Combatant Commander requirements for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations and highlighted further opportunities for the Navy as an important joint partner. While these operational organizations and activities deliver Navy capabilities in theater, the Navy Irregular Warfare Office, established by the CNO in July 2008, has guided the implementation and institutionalization of the CIC Vision. The Navy Irregular Warfare Office, working closely with USSOCOM, other Combatant Commanders, Services, interagency and international partners, has rapidly identified and deployed Navy capabilities to today's fight, and is institutionalizing confronting irregular challenges concepts in the Navy's planning, investment, and capability development.
The Navy Irregular Warfare Office operates under three primary imperatives consistent with the Maritime Strategy, CNO's Sailing Directions, and the Navy's Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges. They provide integration and institutionalization in CIC mission areas and are; (1) improve the level of understanding concerning the maritime contribution to the joint force; (2) increase proficiency of the whole of Navy to confront irregular challenges; and (3) drive maritime and special operations forces to seamless integration in addressing irregular challenges. These three imperatives focus the Navy's implementation efforts and mainstream the concept that preventing wars is as important as winning them. Our Navy must be ready to transition seamlessly between operational environments, with the capability and training inherent in the Fleet.
Department of Defense Directive 3000.07 directs the services to "improve DoD proficiency for irregular warfare, which also enhances its conduct of stability operations" and directs reporting to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff annually. Navy efforts to institutionalize and provide proficiency in confronting irregular challenges, includes proficiency in irregular warfare missions along with missions of maritime security operations and information dominance, a key enabler for CIC. Currently, the Navy leverages its access and persistent presence to both better understand and respond to irregular challenges and is actively evolving its proficiency to prevent and counter irregular threats while maintaining its ability to conduct the full spectrum of naval warfare. Its access, presence, and emphasis on maritime partnerships enable broader government efforts to address underlying conditions of instability that enhance regional security. Through its mix of multi-mission capabilities, the Navy provides political leaders with a range of offshore options for limiting regional conflict through assurance, deterrence, escalation and de-escalation, gaining and maintaining access, and rapid crisis response. In addition to its inherent ability to protect the maritime commons, its effectiveness in building maritime partner capability and capacity contributes to achieving partner security and economic objectives. Operating in and from the maritime domain with joint and international partners, the Navy is enhancing regional security while dissuading, deterring, and when necessary, defeating irregular threats.
The Navy acknowledges the complexity of the future security environment and continues to explore balanced approaches. Following are the Navy's current focus areas:
Fleet-SOF Integration: Navy's afloat basing support to special operations forces has extended their reach into denied or semi-permissive areas enabling highly successful counterterrorism missions. Navy provides inherent combat capabilities, multi-mission ships and submarines collecting mission critical information, approval for 1052 support billets for Naval Special Warfare, two dedicated HCS squadrons, and shipboard controlled UAV orbits supporting counterterrorism operations. The Navy is aligned to improve this integration through pre-deployment training, mission rehearsals, improvements to fleet bandwidth allocation, shipboard C4I enhancements, and C2 relationships needed to prosecute time sensitive targets.
Maritime Partnerships: Establishing enduring maritime partnerships is a long-term strategy for securing the maritime commons. Legal, jurisdictional, and diplomatic considerations often complicate efforts to secure the maritime commons, especially from exploitation by highly adaptive irregular actors. In recognition of these considerations, the Navy is emphasizing partnership engagements with U.S. and international maritime forces to strengthen regional security.
Information Sharing Initiatives: In an information dominated environment, initiatives that link joint warfighters, the technology community, and academia are crucial to rapidly fielding solutions to emerging irregular challenges. These initiatives are the basis for longer-term efforts to adapt and improve proficiency of Navy platforms to address irregular challenges.
Doctrine: Development of Tri-Service (Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard) Maritime Stability Operations doctrine that will enable a more effective response to instability in the littorals.
Organization: Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, which continues to provide in-demand capabilities such as Maritime Civil Affairs Teams, Riverine Forces, Maritime Security Forces, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams, and Expeditionary Intelligence Teams.
Today, the Navy continues to meet planned global operational commitments and respond to crises as they emerge. Overseas Contingency Operations continue with more than 12,000 active and reserve Sailors serving around the globe and another 15,000 at sea in Central Command. Navy's Carrier Strike Groups provide 30 percent of the close air support for troops on the ground in Afghanistan and our Navy and Marine Corps pilots fly almost 60% of electronic attack missions. Yet, as our national interests extend beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, so do the operations of our Navy. Over the last year, more than 50 percent of our Navy has been underway daily; globally present, and persistently engaged. Last year, our Navy conducted counter-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean and North Arabian Sea with a coalition of several nations, trained local forces in maritime security as part of our Global Maritime Partnership initiatives in Europe, South America, Africa and the Pacific and forces in the Sixth Fleet supported NATO in complex operations in Libya. Navy responded with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to the earthquake in Haiti, the flooding in Pakistan, and the earthquake and tsunami in Japan; and, conducted the world's largest maritime exercise, Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), which brought together 14 nations and more than 20,000 military personnel, to improve coordination and trust in multi-national operations in the Pacific. Our Sailors continue to deploy forward throughout the world, projecting US influence, responding to contingencies, and building international relationships that enable the safe, secure, and free flow of commerce that underpins our economic prosperity and advances the mission areas that address irregular challenges.
The future vision of the Navy in meeting the uncertain challenges around the globe remains a force forward, present, and persistent in areas critical to the national interests of the United States. CNO, in previous testimony, stated: Our Navy continues to conduct a high tempo of global operations, which we expect to continue even as forces draw down in Afghanistan. Global trends in economics, demographics, resources, and climate change portend an increased demand for maritime presence, power, and influence. America's prosperity depends on the seas… and as disruption and disorder persist in our security environment, maritime activity will evolve and expand. Seapower allows our nation to maintain U.S. presence and influence globally and, when necessary, project power without a costly, sizeable, or permanent footprint ashore. We will continue to maintain a forward-deployed presence around the world to prevent conflict, increase interoperability with our allies, enhance the maritime security and capacity of our traditional and emerging partners, confront irregular challenges, and respond to crises. To continue as a global force in the preventive and responsive mission areas that confront irregular challenges, including those of irregular warfare, the Navy will be faced with increasing demand in a fiscally induced capacity constrained environment. Constrained capacity requires a prioritization of areas requiring persistent presence, to include those regions of current or forecast instability. Also required is an understanding of the risk incurred to mission, and to force, if we do not get that priority correct. We must ensure our Navy remains the finest, best trained, and most ready in the world to sustain key mission areas that support confronting irregular challenges, and has the ability to face a highly capable adversary. The Navy looks forward to working with Congress to address our future challenges and thank you for your support of the Navy's mission and personnel at this critical crossroads in U.S. history.
Appendix C. 2010 Navy Irregular Warfare Vision Statement
This appendix reproduces the Navy's January 2010 vision statement for irregular warfare.
Appendix D. 2012 RAND Corporation Report Findings and Recommendations
This appendix presents findings and recommendations from a 2012 report on maritime regular warfare by RAND Corporation, a research firm.
Findings
The report made the following findings, among others:
The study's main findings span the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Several are specific to MIW, while others have implications both for MIW [maritime irregular warfare] and for IW operations more broadly.
First, the maritime force is generally considered to play a supportive role to ground forces in IW and therefore has the potential to be underutilized even in IW operations conducted in a predominantly maritime environment ....
Second, countries that have a prevalent maritime dimension associated with an insurgency could potentially benefit from the enhancement of civil-military operations (CMOs) in the maritime arena ....
Third, maritime operations in IW can allow the United States to scale its ground involvement in useful ways ....
Fourth, if one assumes that future MIW engagements that entail building a partner's capacity will resemble OEF-P [Operation Enduring Freedom—Philippines], it is important to manage strategic expectations based on realistic assessments of the partner's capabilities ....
Fifth, when building partner capacity, either in MIW or land-based IW, the United States should make efforts to provide equipment and technology that the partner will be able to maintain and operate without difficulty ....
Sixth, with regard to operational methods, coastal maritime interdiction can play an instrumental role in setting the conditions for success in IW by cutting the supply lines that sustain an insurgency ....
Seventh, as the [1980s] Nicaragua case illustrates, U.S. partners in MIW may only have to influence and monitor the sensibilities of a local population, but the legitimacy of U.S. involvement may be tested in worldwide public opinion ....
Finally, international cooperation in confronting MIW adversaries is often necessary, and the U.S. Navy should make an effort to ensure that it is tactically and operationally interoperable with partner navies in order to facilitate coordination ....
Recommendations
The report made the following recommendations, among others:
The findings presented here have several direct implications for the U.S. conventional Navy and Naval Special Warfare Command (NSW). First, U.S. naval forces should continue to provide U.S. partners with suitable equipment that they will be able to operate and maintain and should continually strive to increase their interoperability with partner forces. Second, U.S. naval forces may have to continue or expand training of partner forces to confront future MIW threats. Third, when conducting MIW, operating from a sea base offers advantages to NSW. However, due to the costs of such a practice, both NSW and the conventional Navy must also recognize that decisions regarding when and where to support sea basing of this sort need to be made carefully. Fourth, in support of future MIW operations, NSW is likely to have ongoing requirements for maritime interdiction and containment. Fifth, the United States could benefit from maintaining operational and tactical capabilities with which to assist its partners in surveillance, particularly against small submarines and mining threats. Sixth, NSW should consider increasing its capacity to conduct maritime-based CMOs.
Conventional U.S. naval forces should similarly consider their role in supporting significant irregular ground operations launched from the sea, as well as their role in interdiction and containment campaigns. In contrast to those of NSW, conventional U.S. Navy capabilities to support IW might entail CMOs and related activities to a greater extent than direct action.
Appendix E. Detention of Terrorist Suspects on U.S. Navy Ships
This appendix presents additional background information on detention of terrorist suspects on U.S. Navy ships.
On July 6, 2011, it was reported that
The U.S. military captured a Somali terrorism suspect [named Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame] in the Gulf of Aden in April and interrogated him for more than two months aboard a U.S. Navy ship before flying him this week to New York, where he has been indicted on federal charges....
Other U.S. officials, interviewed separately, said Warsame and another individual were apprehended aboard a boat traveling from Yemen to Somalia by the U.S. military's Joint Operations Command. The vessel was targeted because the United States had acquired intelligence that potentially significant operatives were on board, the officials said. Court documents said the capture took place April 19.
One of the senior administration officials who briefed reporters said that the other suspect was released "after a very short period of time" after the military "determined that Warsame was an individual that we were very much interested in for further interrogation."
According to court documents, Warsame was interrogated on "all but a daily basis" by military and civilian intelligence interrogators. During that time, officials in Washington held a number of meetings to discuss the intelligence being gleaned, Warsame's status and what to do with him.
The options, one official said, were to release him, transfer him to a third country, keep him prisoner aboard the ship, subject him to trial by a military commission or allow a federal court to try him. The decision to seek a federal indictment, this official said, was unanimous.
Administration officials have argued that military commission jurisdiction is too narrow for some terrorism cases - particularly for a charge of material support for terrorist groups - and the Warsame case appeared to provide an opportunity to try to prove the point.
But some human rights and international law experts criticized what they saw as at least a partial return to the discredited "black site" prisons the CIA maintained during the Bush administration....
Warsame was questioned aboard the ship because interrogators "believed that moving him to another facility would interrupt the process and risk ending the intelligence flow," one senior administration official said.
The official said Warsame "at all times was treated in a manner consistent with all Department of Defense policies" - following the Army Field Manual - and the Geneva Conventions.
Warsame was not provided access to an attorney during the initial two months of questioning, officials said. But "thereafter, there was a substantial break from any questioning of the defendant of four days," court documents said. "After this break, the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights" - including his right to legal representation – "and, after waiving those rights, spoke to law enforcement agents."
The four-day break and separate questioning were designed to avoid tainting the court case with information gleaned through un-Mirandized intelligence interrogation, an overlap that has posed a problem in previous cases. The questioning continued for seven days, "and the defendant waived his Miranda rights at the start of each day," the documents said....
U.S. Navy Vice Adm. William H. McRaven alluded to the captures in testimony before a Senate committee last week in which he lamented the lack of clear plans and legal approvals for the handling of terrorism suspects seized beyond the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
At one point in the hearing, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, referred to "the question of the detention of people" and noted that McRaven had "made reference to a couple, I think, that are on a ship."
McRaven replied affirmatively, saying, "It depends on the individual case, and I'd be more than happy to discuss the cases that we've dealt with."
Another press report on July 6, 2011, stated the following:
In a telephone briefing with reporters, senior administration officials said Mr. Warsame and another person were captured by American forces somewhere "in the Gulf region" on April 19. Another official separately said the two were picked up on a fishing trawler in international waters between Yemen and Somalia. That other person was released.
Mr. Warsame was taken to a naval vessel, where he was questioned for the next two months by military interrogators, the officials said. They said his detention was justified by the laws of war, but declined to say whether their theory was that the Shabab are covered by Congress's authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; whether the detention was justified by his interactions with Al Qaeda's Yemen branch; or something else.
The officials also said interrogators used only techniques in the Army Field Manual, which complies with the Geneva Conventions. But they did not deliver a Miranda warning because they were seeking to gather intelligence, not court evidence. One official called those sessions "very, very productive," but declined to say whether his information contributed to a drone attack in Somalia last month.
After about two months, Mr. Warsame was given a break for several days. Then a separate group of law enforcement interrogators came in. They delivered a Miranda warning, but he waived his rights to remain silent and have a lawyer present and continued to cooperate, the officials said, meaning that his subsequent statements would likely be admissible in court.
Throughout that period, administration officials were engaged in deliberations about what to do with Mr. Warsame's case. Eventually, they "unanimously" decided to prosecute him in civilian court. If he is convicted of all the charges against him, he would face life in prison.
Last week, Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, who was until recently in charge of the military's Joint Special Operations Command, told a Senate hearing that detainees are sometimes kept on Navy ships until the Justice Department can build a case against them, or they are transferred to other countries for detention.
Another senior administration official said Tuesday that such detentions are extremely rare, and that no other detainees are now being held on a Navy ship.
A July 7, 2011, press report stated the following:
In interrogating a Somali man for months aboard a Navy ship before taking him to New York this week for a civilian trial on terrorism charges, the Obama administration is trying out a new approach for dealing with foreign terrorism suspects.
The administration, which was seeking to avoid sending a new prisoner to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, drew praise and criticism on Wednesday [July 6] for its decisions involving the Somali suspect, Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, accused of aiding Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen and the Shabab, the Somali militant group.
A July 6, 2011, entry in a blog that reports on naval-related events stated that the U.S. Navy ship to which Warsame was taken was the amphibious assault ship Boxer (LHD-4).
An October 24, 2012, press report stated the following:
Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the "disposition matrix."
The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the "disposition" of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.
Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation's counterterrorism ranks: The United States' conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years....
The database is meant to map out contingencies, creating an operational menu that spells out each agency's role in case a suspect surfaces in an unexpected spot. "If he's in Saudi Arabia, pick up with the Saudis," the former official said. "If traveling overseas to al-Shabaab [in Somalia] we can pick him up by ship. If in Yemen, kill or have the Yemenis pick him up."
Officials declined to disclose the identities of suspects on the matrix. They pointed, however, to the capture last year of alleged al-Qaeda operative Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame off the coast of Yemen. Warsame was held for two months aboard a U.S. ship before being transferred to the custody of the Justice Department and charged in federal court in New York.
"Warsame was a classic case of 'What are we going to do with him?'" the former counterterrorism official said. In such cases, the matrix lays out plans, including which U.S. naval vessels are in the vicinity and which charges the Justice Department should prepare.
An October 6, 2013, press report stated the following:
An accused operative for Al Qaeda seized by United States commandos in Libya over the weekend is being interrogated while in military custody on a Navy ship in the Mediterranean Sea, officials said on Sunday [October 6]. He is expected eventually to be sent to New York for criminal prosecution.
The fugitive, known as Abu Anas al-Libi, is seen as a potential intelligence gold mine, possessing perhaps two decades of information about Al Qaeda, from its early days under Osama bin Laden in Sudan to its more scattered elements today.
The decision to hold Abu Anas and question him for intelligence purposes without a lawyer present follows a pattern used successfully by the Obama administration with other terrorist suspects, most prominently in the case of Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, a former military commander with the Somali terrorist group Shabab....
"Warsame is the model for this guy," one American security official said....
Abu Anas is being held aboard the U.S.S. San Antonio, a vessel brought in specifically for this mission, officials said.
A June 27, 2014, press report stated the following:
Right now, a suspected terrorist is sitting in the bowels of a U.S. Navy warship somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and Washington, D.C. Ahmed Abu Khattala, the alleged leader of the September 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, is imprisoned aboard the USS New York, likely in a bare cell normally reserved for U.S. military personnel facing disciplinary action at sea. En route to the United States for more than a week, he's being questioned by military and civilian interrogators looking for critical bits of intelligence before he's read his Miranda rights, formally arrested, and transferred to the U.S. District Court in Washington, where he'll face trial. Meanwhile, the sailors aboard are going about the daily business of operating an amphibious transport ship—even as the ship's mission has been redefined by the new passenger in their midst.
This isn't the first time the Navy has played such a critical, curious, and largely under-reported role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. In 2011, Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, a military commander for the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab, was captured aboard a fishing boat in the Gulf of Aden and detained by the Navy, on the high seas, for two months. In 2013, Abu Anas al-Libi, the alleged mastermind of the 1998 terrorist attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, was held aboard the USS San Antonio—an identical ship to the one being used this week. Both men were interrogated at sea before being flown to the United States to face criminal charges in federal courts....
In many ways, it's not surprising that the U.S. government has been turning Navy assets into floating prisons for these dangerous men. Taking the slow route back to the United States offers interrogators the time and space to gather crucial intelligence from high-value sources like al-Qaeda-linked operatives. During the two months that Warsame was at sea, a select team of FBI, CIA, and Defense Department officials, part of the Obama administration's High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, questioned the Somali terrorist on "all but a daily basis." He was cooperative throughout and some reports suggest that subsequent U.S. counterterrorism operations, including a drone attack in Somalia shortly after his capture, were a direct result of intelligence Warsame provided to authorities. While al-Libi was only detained at sea for about a week—a chronic medical condition prevented him from being held on a ship for an extended period—reports suggest that similar intelligence-collection efforts were underway in his case as well.
The U.S. government has also embraced the approach because it has limited options for holding and interrogating men like Abu Khattala after capture. The Obama administration remains committed to ending detention operations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. While the facility is still home to almost 150 alleged terrorists, the United States has not sent any new detainees there since March 2008. Detaining suspected terrorists at other overseas facilities is likewise not an option. For a time, U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan were a possibility. But the detention facility in Parwan is now an Afghan-run prison, and using facilities in other countries would raise a host of legal, operational, and humanitarian concerns. Even if U.S. officials were willing to forgo the opportunity to question Abu Khattala before he's arraigned in federal court and provided with a lawyer, flying alleged terrorists to the United States immediately presents its own set of problems. Seemingly small operational and political considerations about the ways in which the United States transports terrorists captured abroad have major strategic implications, particularly given lingering questions about U.S. rendition efforts under the Bush administration. In this context, the Navy has taken on the role of high-seas prison warden, even as lawyers continue to debate whether and what international legal rules apply to terrorists captured abroad and detained, temporarily, on a ship.
Appendix F. Background Information on FY2020 Funding Requests for Lines 263 and 63
As noted earlier in this report, DOD's proposed FY2020 budget requests, among other things,
$72.6 million in the FY2020 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide (RDT&EDW) account for Program Element (PE) 1160483BB, (Special Operations Command [SOCOM]) maritime systems (line 263 in the FY2020 RDT&EDW account), including $45.2 million for Project S0417: Underwater Systems, and $15.6 million for S1684: Surface Craft; and $27.4 million in the FY2020 Procurement, Defense-Wide (PDW) appropriation account for procurement of underwater systems for SOCOM (line 63 in the FY2020 PDW account).
Research and Development for Maritime Systems (Line 263)
Regarding the FY2020 funding request for line 263, DOD states that
This program element provides for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of Special Operations Forces (SOF) Surface and Undersea Mobility platforms. This program element also provides for pre-acquisition activities to quickly respond to new requirements for SOF surface and undersea mobility, looking at multiple alternatives to include cross-platform technical solutions, service-common solutions, Commercial-Off-The-Shelf technologies, and new development efforts. Middle-Tier Acquisition (2016 NDAA, Section 804) to accommodate rapid prototyping, may be utilized.
The Underwater Systems project provides for EMD of combat submersibles, SOF operator diving systems, underwater support systems, and underwater equipment. This project also provides for pre-acquisition activities (material solutions analysis, advanced component, prototype development, and exploitation of emerging technology opportunities to deliver enhanced capabilities) to respond to emergent requirements. These submersibles, equipment, and diving systems are used by SOF in the conduct of infiltration/extraction, personnel/material recovery, hydrographic/inland reconnaissance, beach obstacle clearance, underwater ship attack, and other missions. The capabilities of the submersible systems, diving systems, and unique equipment provide small, highly trained forces the ability to successfully engage the enemy and conduct clandestine operations associated with SOF maritime missions.
The Surface Craft project provides for EMD of medium and heavy surface combatant craft, combatant craft mission equipment, and pre-planned product improvement and technology insertion engineering changes to meet the unique requirements of SOF. This project element also provides for pre-acquisition activities (materiel solutions analysis, advanced component development and prototypes) to quickly respond to new requirements for maritime craft and subsystems. The craft capabilities and unique equipment provide small, highly trained forces the ability to successfully engage the enemy and conduct operations associated with SOF maritime missions….
[S0417: Underwater Systems] provides for engineering and manufacturing development of combat underwater submersibles, Special Operations Forces (SOF) operator diving systems, underwater support systems, and underwater equipment. This project also provides for pre-acquisition activities (materiel solutions analysis, advanced component development and prototypes) to respond to emergent requirements. Middle-Tier acquisitions to accommodate rapid prototyping may be utilized. These submersibles, equipment, and diving systems are used by SOF in the conduct of infiltration/extraction, personnel/material recovery, hydrographic/inland reconnaissance, beach obstacle clearance, underwater ship attack, and other missions. The capabilities of the submersible systems, diving systems, and unique equipment provides small, highly trained forces the ability to successfully engage the enemy and conduct clandestine operations associated with SOF maritime missions….
[Within Project S0417, the subproject for Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS)] provides for the design, development, test, manufacturing and sustainment of one Engineering Development Model (EDM) and ten production units to replace the legacy MK 8 MOD 1 Seal Delivery Vehicle (SDV) system. SWCS is a free-flooding combat submersible mobility platform suitable for transporting and deploying SOF and their payloads for a variety of SOF missions. SWCS will be deployable from a Dry Deck Shelter (DDS), surface ships, and land. The SWCS system includes the SWCS vehicle and SWCS support Equipment, comprised of Mission Support Equipment (MSE), Pack-Up Kit (PUK), and Transportation and Handling (T&H). It also includes integration efforts with the current Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) and development of product improvements accomplished throughout the lifecycle of the system….
[The sub-project for Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) Modernization] provides for the pre-planned product improvements, testing, and integration of specialized underwater systems to meet the unique requirements of SOF, and compatibility with the submarine fleet. The current DDS is a certified diving system which attaches to modified host submarines that provides for insertion of SOF forces and platforms. Funding supports product improvements to the current DDS, as well as associated diver equipment for in-service submarine support systems, unmanned underwater vehicles, and follow on development efforts for future SOF payloads….
[The sub-project for combat diving] is a Middle Tier of Acquisition designated program which provides for the development, testing, and rapid fielding and prototyping of SOF peculiar diving equipment providing the SOF combat diver the ability to engage the enemy and conduct operations. SOF Combat Diving will support the SDV, SWCS, and DCS with the conduct of infiltration/extraction, material recovery, underwater ship attack, beach clearance, and other missions. Technologies include, but are not limited to, commercial and developmental life support, maneuverability and propulsion, diver navigational accuracy and situation awareness, environmental protection, and communications between dive teams as well as between divers and external vessels/craft….
[The sub-project for Undersea Craft Mission Equipment (UCME)] provides a rapid response capability to support SOF underwater craft and diver systems, subsystems, and their emerging requirements. UCME provides technology refresh efforts to correct system deficiencies, improve asset life, and enhance mission capability to leverage and exploit emerging technologies within the maritime Special Operations Forces undersea capability portfolio….
[Project S1684: Surface Craft] provides for engineering and manufacturing development of medium and heavy surface combatant craft, combatant craft mission equipment, and preplanned product improvement (P3I) and technology insertion engineering changes to meet the unique requirements of Special Operations Forces (SOF). This project also provides for pre-acquisition activities (materiel solutions analysis, advanced component development and prototypes) to quickly respond to new requirements for maritime craft and subsystems Middle-Tier acquisition to accommodate rapid prototyping, may be utilized. The craft capabilities and unique equipment provide small, highly trained forces the ability to successfully engage the enemy and conduct operations associated with SOF maritime missions….
[The sub-project for Combatant Craft Medium (CCM) Mk 1] is a semi-enclosed multi-mission combatant craft for platoon-size maritime mobility in maritime denied environments. It is multi-mission capable, including Maritime Interdiction, Insert / Extract, and Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS) Operations. CCM is Naval Special Warfare's (NSW) craft-of-choice for long-range, high-payload SOF mobility operations in denied environments up to high threat. CCM has NSW's best Iron Triangle: 40 knot (kt) speed; 4 crew + 19 passengers (pax) / 10,000 pound (lb) payload; and 600 nautical miles (nm) range. CCM Mk 1 payload capacity enables inclusion of shock mitigating seats, which is critical for ride quality, operator tactical readiness, and operator health. At 60 feet long, CCM is C-17 / C5 transportable and can launch/recover by well deck or shore based trailer….
[The sub-project for Combatant Craft Heavy (CCH)] represents a family of solutions that provides platoon-size maritime surface mobility. The current CCH is the Sea, Air, Land Insertion, Observation, and Neutralization (SEALION) craft. SEALION is a fully-enclosed, climate- controlled, semi-submersible craft that operates in denied environments up to high-threat. SEALION is NSW's most versatile and survivable combatant craft and the craft-of-choice for sensitive maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Iron Triangle: 40 kt speed; 7 crew + 12 pax / 3,300 lb payload; and 400 nm range. SEALION payload capacity enables inclusion of shock mitigating seats, which is critical for ride quality, operator tactical readiness, and operator health. At 77+ feet long, SEALION is C-17/C-5 transportable and can launch/recover by well deck or shore based mobile travel lift or crane….
[The sub-project for Combatant Craft Mission Equipment (CCME)] provides a rapid response capability to support SOF combatant craft systems, subsystems, and their emerging requirements. CCME provides technology refresh efforts to correct system deficiencies, improve asset life, and enhance mission capability. Demonstrations and modifications may be made to support emerging capability enhancements such as, but not limited to, conformal antennas, identification friend-or-foe capabilities, enhanced communications, weapon integration, software refresh, and navigation subsystems in support of future missions. Solutions to these emerging requirements may be commercial-off-the-shelf leveraged from other government agencies, or new solutions….
[The sub-project for Combatant Craft Assault (CCA)] is a combatant craft for squad-size maritime mobility operations in maritime denied environments. CCA is NSW's best craft for VBSS in maritime denied environments up to and including medium threat. It is the craft-of-choice for maritime interdiction and boarding operations because of the open deck space, maneuverability, and interoperability with an Afloat Forward Staging Base. Iron Triangle: 40 kt speed; 3 crew + 12 pax / 5,000 lb payload; and 300 nm range. At 41 feet long, CCA is air transportable by C-130 / C-17 / C-5 and can launch/recover by crane, davit, well deck, or shore based trailer….
[The sub-project for Threat Awareness System (TAS)] provides SOF with an Electronic Intelligence capability for enhanced force protection of SOF in Maritime denied environments by allowing them to identify and avoid enemy detection capabilities. TAS will utilize technological advancements to gain significant improvements in capability such as miniaturization and marinization to enable seamless craft integration….
[The sub-project for Maritime Precision Engagement (MPE)] is a family of standoff, loitering, man-in-the-loop weapons systems deployed on combatant craft and capable of targeting individuals, groups, vehicles, high value targets, and small oceangoing craft with low collateral damage. The program consists of combatant craft alterations, launcher systems, and munitions.
Procurement of Underwater Systems (Line 63)
Regarding the FY2020 funding request for line 63, DOD states that
The Underwater Systems line item procures dry and wet combat submersibles, modifications, field changes to the Dry Deck Shelter (DDS), and various systems and components for Special Operations Forces (SOF) Combat Diving. Current acquisition procurement programs of record are the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) program, Dry Combat Submersible (DCS), SOF Combat Diving and Dry Deck Shelter (DDS). Middle-Tier Acquisition (2016 NDAA, Section 804) to accommodate rapid fielding, may be utilized. SWCS is the next generation free-flooding combat submersible that transports SOF personnel and their combat equipment in hostile waters for a variety of missions. SOF units require specialized underwater systems that improve their warfighting capability and survivability in harsh operating environments. The DCS will provide the capability to insert and extract SOF and/or payloads into denied areas from strategic distances. The program is structured to minimize technical, cost, and schedule risks by leveraging commercial technologies, procedures, and classing methods to achieve an affordable DCS. SOF Combat Diving supports the unique requirements impacting fully equipped operators while conducting underwater, real-world missions. Examples of underwater systems and maritime equipment include, underwater navigation, diving equipment, and underwater propulsion systems. These systems and equipment are used for infiltration/extraction, reconnaissance, beach obstacle clearance, and other missions. The capabilities of submersible systems and unique equipment provides small, highly trained forces the ability to successfully engage the enemy and conduct operations associated with SOF maritime missions….
Justification:
1. DDS: The DDS is a certified diving system that attaches to modified host submarines and provides for insertion of SOF forces and platforms. SOCOM has a cost share agreement with the Navy to support the modernization of the DDS in order to accommodate current and future Naval Special Warfare payloads as well as large U.S. Navy payloads.
FY 2020 PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION: Funding continues the support of the DDS modernization effort, which includes relocation of equipment inside the DDS Hangar to support current and future payloads. Funding also includes field changes for product improvements developed to overcome obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS).
2. SWCS: Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) is a free-flooding combat submersible mobility platform suitable for transporting and deploying SOF and their payloads for a variety of SOF missions. SWCS will be deployable from a DDS, surface ships, and land.
FY 2020 PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION: Purchases two SWCS vehicles and support equipment, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), engineering change proposals (ECP), detachment deployment packages, and initial spares.
3. DCS: The DCS provides SOF with a dry diver lock-in and lock-out capability that transports personnel and their combat equipment in hostile waters for a variety of missions.
FY 2020 PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION: Purchases initial spares, GFE, ECP, system integration lab, and simulator.
4. SOF Combat Diving: This is designated a Middle-tier Acquisition program allowing for rapid fielding which provides the transition of SOF peculiar diving technologies for the SOF combat diver while conducting underwater, real-world missions.
FY 2020 PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION: Procures total of 10 divers' maritime environmental protection and diver navigation.
Press Reports
A November 30, 2016, press report states the following:
USSOCOM is currently pursuing two programmes to enhance the sub-surface capabilities of US Navy (USN) SEALs including the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) and Dry Combat Submersible (DCS). Both solutions are fully enclosed vehicles for operators, thereby reducing any requirement for teams to wear rebreathing equipment during mission insertions and extractions....
The main difference between SWCS and DCS is range, with the latter solution providing a longer insertion distance with a greater depth capability.
The SWCS, for example, is being designed to replace legacy Mk 8 Mod 1 SEAL Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs), bringing an improved electronic architecture and software on top of the requirements list for NSWC. SOF sources associated with USSOCOM explained to IHS Jane's how the first SWCS could be delivered to the Command in 2017. This would be followed by extensive operational evaluation with NSWC elements ahead of initial and full entry into service, sources added.
According to USSOCOM officials, a total of two SWCS platforms will be procured by the DoD in 2017, along with associated batteries, trailers, mission system suites, and spares. Capable of transporting six operators at low-level depths close to the surface, the SWCS can carry a total payload of 10,000 lb (4,535 kg). SWCS contractor Teledyne Brown Engineering was unable to provide further details to IHS Jane's because of operational security reasons. However, industry sources have suggested that the SWCS measures approximately 22 ft (6.7 m) in length and 5 ft in width.
The SWCS has yet to be officially designated, but the nomenclature Mk 9 is expected to be granted to the platform type. Teledyne Brown Engineering beat the incumbent manufacturer of the Mk 8 Mod 1, Columbus Group, to the programme in 2011 when it was awarded a USD383 million contract by the DoD.
Ahead of SWCS's entry into service, General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) continues to assist the NSWC with ongoing support for legacy Mk 8 Mod 1 SDV systems. Work will include projects relating to SDVs as well as other NSWC-specific efforts associated with the Maritime Mission Systems Division. The latest support contract, worth USD4 million, was signed in December 2015.
Elsewhere, the DCS solution has been designed as a dry diver lock-in/lock-out solution, capable of inserting and extracting personnel and all associated combat equipment, including in hostile waters, according to USSOCOM sources. The development of this option follows the cancellation of the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) in 2006.
Designed to carry six operators, the DCS has a larger payload capacity than the SWCS, with the ability to carry up to 40,000 lb at depths as low as 58 m. Sources also informed IHS Jane's that the DCS could have a maximum operating range of 60 n miles.
In July 2016, it was announced that Lockheed Martin and Submergence Group would jointly design, develop, and manufacture the DCS for USSOCOM, with industry figures reiterating the vessel's ability to provide improved endurance and operating depths.
According to Lockheed Martin, a USD166 million contract will involve the delivery of three DCS vehicles over a five-year period, with the gross weight for each vessel being more than 30 tons. A company spokesperson explained to IHS Jane's how NSWC concepts of operations would see the DCS launched at a stand-off position from surface vessels, before inserting SEAL operators over "long distances underwater" onto objectives and target areas....
Details regarding the DCS design remain scarce. However, sources indicated to IHS Jane's that the solution will feature technology drawn from Lockheed Martin's S302 Manned Combat Submersible (MCS) craft, which is capable of carrying six personnel as well as a pilot and navigator.
According to Lockheed Martin company literature, "The dry one-atmosphere environment of these vehicles provides an alternative to traditional wet submersibles being used by the US and international Special Forces communities today, and will deliver operators to their destination in better physical condition to complete a mission."
Vessels are fitted with standard inertial navigation systems and Doppler velocity logs, as well as a communications suite featuring an underwater telephone and a UHF radio; obstacle avoidance sonar; and fathometer. Additional sensor payloads, dependent upon mission requirements, can also be integrated, Lockeed Martin explained.
The S302 MCS measures 31 ft in length, and can operate 100 m below the surface for more than 24 hours. The craft can travel up to 60 n miles at a 5 kt cruising speed, although it has a top speed of more than 7.5 kt for rapid reaction.
USSOCOM continues to integrate Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) technology on board a variety of Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) for special operations support....
Although a total of six DDS systems are currently in service with the USN and USSOCOM, by the end of 2016 nine submarines will possess DDS capabilities, enabling them to launch and recover SDVs, sources explained.
Featuring automated launch-and-recovery technology, DDS enables combat divers to enter and leave the dry dock individually, as was explained during a press briefing by NSWC officials at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) in Tampa, Florida, in May 2016.
In 2017, the USN aims to concentrate on a series of modifications to the DDS in order to allow for the integration of DCS and SWCS, including the relocation of equipment stowage in the DDS and upgrades in lighting, cameras, and mechanical noise reduction.
Industry sources have noted that DDS solutions are being extended by 50 inches to enable the integration of DCS and SWSC variants, thereby supporting a 'mothership' concept of operations (CONOPS) for maritime special forces. This would enable SOF teams to insert at greater distances from submarines and surface vessels, before entering the water at a suitable stand-off range from target areas and inserting via onboard DCS or SWCS craft.
A September 15, 2016, press report states the following:
SEALs will soon have new underwater vehicles delivering them to targets that officials say will make a huge difference during missions.
SEALs now use a delivery vehicle that one SEAL described as a kind of underwater sled.
SEALs ride in the sled in full scuba gear completely exposed to the water, in often freezing cold and in "pure blackout" conditions and total silence for eight to 10 hours.
Ask a SEAL what that's like, and they'll say it's like being locked in a cold, dark, wet closet for hours....
The new vehicles, which are called dry combat submersibles, will be akin to mini-submarines, and allow SEALs to stay warmer and drier for longer, and more physically ready, as they close in on their target.
That's a huge advantage for missions that one retired SEAL who is now a congressman described as "can't fail."...
The vehicles will also allow the SEALs to communicate before a mission, compared with "only seeing your buddy's eyes" and a glow stick for 10 hours, the SEAL joked.
The first submersible is due to arrive in July 2018, and it will be operational as early as the fall. Final testing is to be completed in 2019.
As SEALs await the delivery of the first vehicle, they have two "demonstrator" vehicles to experiment with....
That demonstrator is about 39 feet long, is about 7 to 8 feet in diameter, and weighs about 30 tons. So far, it has gone up to five knots for 60 nautical miles....
It is also surface-launched, which means it is launched into the water by a crane or from a surface ships with a crane, versus from a submarine.
The vehicle is able to hold up to eight SEALs and their gear, in addition to a pilot and navigator.
The submersible consists of three compartments: a swimmers' compartment where the SEALs will ride for the duration of the time, a "line in and line out" compartment where they exit and enter the submersible, and a compartment for the navigator and pilot.
The swimmers' compartment is only about 10 to 12 feet long, which could be a tight squeeze for eight SEALs.
Still, officials say it'll be a huge improvement over the current systems.
"The DCS Program is on track to provide a capability that our warfighters have not had in a long time," said Navy Capt. Kate Dolloff, who is in charge of all maritime programs for Special Operations Command Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
"We still have a long way to go, but a stepped approach using technology demonstrators to mitigate risk and a close relationship with the user community has been extremely successful to date and led to contract award," she said.
The U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) finalized a contract in July with Lockheed Martin for the first submersible to be delivered in July 2018, with the option of two more by 2020—an unusually fast schedule for acquiring new technology.
The total cost for the three submersibles is $236 million.
The timeline and cost is years shorter and hundreds of millions cheaper than a previous submersible program, which was killed in 2006 after cost overruns and other issues.
That program would have cost $1 billion for one submersible and have taken two to three times longer to build, officials said.
Officials say the costs are much lower because they're taking off-the-shelf commercial technology developed by Lockheed Martin and modifying it to fit their needs, whereas the previous program started from scratch.
Officials say the new vehicles will have 80 to 90 percent of the same capability, but will be delivered much faster at a much lower cost.
The new program also comes with a "fixed price incentive fee" structure, where the cost of the program is fixed and any overruns are shared with the manufacturer.
A July 22, 2016, press report states that
... a new 'missile sub' promises to deliver to battle underwater far more easily—and keep them dry when they travel.
Called the Swimmer Delivery Vehicle, it will be built by Lockheed Martin and Submergence Group after winning a US$166 million contract to supply the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) with a new class of combat submersibles.
According to Lockheed, the three 30-ton (27-tonne) DCS [Dry Combat Submersible] vehicles that it is contracted to build will allow warfighters to travel deeper and farther underwater than today.
The craft are dry submersibles that support two operators (pilot and navigator) plus up to six swimmers with the ability to lock them out and in.
'The dry one-atmosphere environment of these vehicles provides an alternative to traditional wet submersibles being used by the U.S. and international Special Forces communities today, and will deliver operators to their destination in better physical condition to complete a mission,' Lockheed Martin says....
It will carry two pilots and six passengers, have a depth rating of 328 ft (100 m), a lock-out depth of 98 ft (30 m), and a top speed of 5 knots (6 mph, 9 km/h).
Lockheed says the new DCS will boast improved hydrodynamics and propulsion compared to the previous vehicles.
An August 20, 2014, blog post states the following:
The U.S. Navy is hard at work developing new underwater transports for its elite commandos. The SEALs expect the new craft—and improvements to large submarine "motherships" that will carry them—to be ready by the end of the decade.
SEALs have ridden in small submersibles to sneak into hostile territory for decades. For instance, the special operators reportedly used the vehicles to slip into Somalia and spy on terrorists in 2003.
Now the sailing branch is looking to buy two new kinds of mini-subs. While details are understandably scarce, the main difference between the two concepts appears to be the maximum range.
The Shallow Water Combat Submersible will haul six or more naval commandos across relatively short distances near the surface. The SWCS, which weighs approximately 10,000 pounds, will replace older Mark 8 Seal Delivery Vehicles, or SDVs.
The other sub, called the Dry Combat Submersible, will carry six individuals much farther and at greater depths. The most recent DCS prototype weighs almost 40,000 pounds and can travel up to 60 nautical miles while 190 feet below the waves.
Commandos could get further into enemy territory or start out a safer distance away with this new vehicle. SEALs could also use this added range to escape any potential pursuers.
Both new miniature craft will also be fully enclosed. The current SDVs are open to water and the passengers must wear full scuba gear—seen in the picture above.
In addition, the DCS appears to pick up where a previous craft, called the Advanced SEAL Delivery System, left off. The Pentagon canceled that project in 2006 because of significant cost overruns.
But the Navy continued experimenting with the sole ASDS prototype for two more years. The whole effort finally came to a halt when the mini-sub was destroyed in an accidental fire.
Special Operations Command hopes to have the SWCS ready to go by 2017. SOCOM's plan is to get the DCS in service by the end of the following year.
Underwater motherships
SOCOM and the sailing branch also want bigger submarines to carry these new mini-subs closer to their targets. For decades now, attack and missile submarines have worked as motherships for the SEALs.
Eight Ohio- and Virginia-class subs currently are set up to carry the special Dry-Deck Shelter used to launch SDVs, according to a presentation at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in May.
The DDS units protect the specialized mini-subs inside an enclosed space. Individual divers also can come and go from the DDS airlocks.
The first-in-class USS Ohio—and her sisters Michigan, Florida and Georgia—carried ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads during the Cold War. The Navy had expected to retire the decades-old ships, but instead spent billions of dollars modifying them for new roles. Today they carry Tomahawk cruise missiles and SEALs.
The Virginias—Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina and the future North Dakota—are newer. The Navy designed these attack submarines from the keel up to perform a variety of missions.
SOCOM projects that nine submersible motherships—including North Carolina as a backup—will be available by the end of the year.
The Navy has a pool of six shelters to share between the subs. SOCOM expects the DDS to still be in service in 2050.
But prototype DCS mini-subs cannot fit inside the current shelter design. As a result, a modernization program will stretch the DDS units by 50 inches, according to SOCOM's briefing.
The project will also try to make it easier to launch undersea vehicles and get them back into the confines of the metal enclosure. Right now, divers must manually open and close the outside hatch to get the SDVs out.
Crews then have to drive the craft back into the shelter without any extra help at the end of a mission—underwater and likely in near-total darkness. The sailing branch wants to automate this process.
With any luck, the SEALs will have their new undersea chariots and the motherships to carry them ready before 2020.
Summary:
| In the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Navy has carried out a variety of irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT) activities. Among the most readily visible of these were operations carried out by Navy sailors serving ashore in the Middle East and Afghanistan, as well as the May 1-2, 2011, U.S. military operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden.
During these years, the Navy took certain actions intended to improve its IW capabilities. For example, the Navy established the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) informally in October 2005 and formally in January 2006. NECC consolidated and facilitated the expansion of a number of Navy organizations that have a role in IW operations. The Navy also established the Navy Irregular Warfare Office in July 2008, published a vision statement for irregular warfare in January 2010, and established "a community of interest" (COI) to develop and advance ideas, collaboration, and advocacy related to IW in December 2010.
The Navy during these years also reestablished its riverine force and initiated The Global Maritime Partnership, which was a U.S. Navy initiative to achieve an enhanced degree of cooperation between the U.S. Navy and foreign navies, coast guards, and maritime police forces, for the purpose of ensuring global maritime security against common threats. In addition, the Navy operated the Southern Partnership Station (SPS) and the Africa Partnership Station (APS), which were Navy ships, such as amphibious ships or high-speed sealift ships, that deployed to the Caribbean and to waters off Africa, respectively, to support U.S. Navy engagement with countries in those regions, particularly for purposes of building security partnerships with those countries and for increasing the capabilities of those countries for performing maritime-security operations.
The Navy's current IW and CT activities pose a number of potential oversight issues for Congress, including how much emphasis to place on IW and CT activities in Navy budgets, particularly in a context of constraints on Navy budgets and Navy desires to devote resources to developing "high end" combat capabilities for countering improved conventional military capabilities of countries such as China and Russia. | 96 | 141,110 | 141,112 | 141,112 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-19-207 | gao_GAO-19-207_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
EM oversees a nationwide complex of 16 sites. A majority of the sites were created during World War II and the Cold War to research, produce, and test nuclear weapons (see figure 1). Much of the complex is no longer in productive use but still contains vast quantities of radioactive and hazardous materials related to the production of nuclear weapons. In 1989, EM began carrying out activities around the complex to clean up, contain, safely store, and dispose of these materials. Starting at about the same time, DOE documents indicate that EM and state and federal regulators entered into numerous cleanup agreements that defined the scope of cleanup work and established dates for coming into compliance with applicable environmental laws. EM has spent more than $170 billion since it began its cleanup program, but its most challenging and costly cleanup work remains, according to EM documents.
The processes that govern the cleanup at EM’s nuclear waste sites are complicated, involving multiple laws, agencies, and administrative steps. EM’s cleanup responsibilities derive from different laws, including CERCLA, RCRA, the Atomic Energy Act, and state hazardous waste laws. Federal facility agreements, compliance orders, and other compliance agreements also govern this cleanup.
Federal facility agreements are generally enforceable agreements that DOE enters into with EPA and affected states under CERCLA and applicable state laws. For each federal facility listed on the National Priorities List, EPA’s list of seriously contaminated sites, section 120 of CERCLA requires the relevant federal agency to enter into an interagency agreement with EPA for the completion of all necessary cleanup actions at the facility. The interagency agreement must include, among other things, the selection of the cleanup action and schedule for its completion. Interagency agreement provisions can be renegotiated, as necessary, to incorporate new information, adjust schedules, and address changing conditions.
States generally issue federal facility compliance orders to DOE under RCRA and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act. RCRA prohibits the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste without a permit from EPA or a state that EPA has authorized to implement and enforce a hazardous waste management program. Under the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, federal agencies are subject to state hazardous waste laws and state enforcement actions, including compliance orders. RCRA regulations establish detailed and often waste-specific requirements for the management and disposal of hazardous wastes, including the hazardous waste component of mixed waste. Tri-party agreements among DOE, EPA, and the relevant state often serve as both a federal facility agreement and a compliance order.
In addition to federal facility agreements, other types of agreements governing cleanup at specific sites may also be in place, including administrative compliance orders, court-ordered agreements, and settlement agreements. Administrative compliance orders are orders from state agencies enforcing state hazardous waste management laws. Court-ordered agreements result from lawsuits initiated primarily by states. Settlement agreements are agreements between parties that end a legal dispute.
These agreements may include milestones—dates by which DOE commits to plan and carry out its cleanup work at the sites. DOE has identified two different types of milestones: enforceable and planning milestones. Generally, an enforceable milestone has a fixed, mandatory due date, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, whereas a planning milestone is not enforceable and usually represents a placeholder or shorter term of work. In this report, we are examining any enforceable milestone that derives from either federal facility agreements or other compliance agreements.
EM manages its cleanup program based on internal guidance, on milestone commitments to regulators, and in consultation with a variety of stakeholders. First, according to EM officials, EM manages cleanup activities based on requirements listed in a cleanup policy that it issued in July 2017 along with guidance listed in standard operating policies and procedures associated with this policy. The 2017 cleanup policy states that EM will apply DOE’s project management principles described in Order 413.3B to its operations activities in a tailored way. Second, EM’s budget requests are explicit regarding the role the milestones play in the cleanup effort. For example, in its fiscal year 2019 request to Congress, EM stated that the request addresses cleanup “governed through enforceable regulatory milestones.” Third, in addition to the milestone commitments to EPA and state environmental agencies, other stakeholders involved include county and local governmental agencies, citizen groups, and other organizations. These stakeholders advocate their views through various public involvement processes, including site- specific advisory boards.
At EM’s 16 Cleanup Sites, Cleanup Is Governed by 72 Agreements, but EM Headquarters and Sites Do Not Consistently Define or Track Milestones
At EM’s 16 cleanup sites, cleanup is governed by 72 agreements and hundreds of cleanup milestones. These agreements include federal facility agreements generally negotiated between DOE, the state, and EPA, and compliance orders from state regulators. These agreements may impose penalties for missing milestones and may amend or modify earlier agreements, including extending or eliminating milestone dates. Within the agreements, hundreds of milestones outline deadlines for specific actions to be taken by EM as it carries out its cleanup work. However, because EM lacks a standard definition of milestones, some sites track milestones differently than EM headquarters, limiting EM’s ability to monitor performance.
At EM’s 16 Cleanup Sites, Cleanup Is Governed by 72 Agreements, Most of Which Include Cleanup Milestones
In total, DOE has entered into 72 cleanup agreements at EM’s 16 cleanup sites. The agreements were initially signed between 1985 and 2009 (see table 1). With the exception of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project in Utah and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, each site is governed by at least one cleanup agreement. Twelve are governed by multiple agreements (up to as many as 17 at the Savannah River Site, for example).
Twelve sites are governed by federal facility agreements, generally with the relevant state and EPA. These agreements generally set out a sequence for accomplishing the work, tend to cover a relatively large number of cleanup activities, and include milestones that DOE must meet. All of the 12 sites with federal facility agreements are also governed by additional compliance agreements that have been negotiated at each site subsequent to the initial federal facility agreement or other agreement with the state. These agreements may impose penalties for missing milestones and may amend or modify earlier agreements, including extending or eliminating milestone dates. For example, the Hanford Site is subject to three consent decrees that resulted from litigation in which the state of Washington sued DOE for failing to meet certain cleanup milestones.
EM Headquarters and Selected Cleanup Sites Do Not Consistently Define or Track Milestones
EM headquarters and cleanup site officials provided us with different totals on the number of milestones in place at the four sites we selected for further review. Both federal facility agreements and other compliance agreements contain milestones with which EM must comply and, according to EM officials and our review of the agreements, these agreements collectively contain hundreds of milestones. However, milestone information that EM headquarters and site officials shared with us was not consistent. For example, for milestones due in fiscal years 2018 through 2020, officials at EM headquarters identified 135 enforceable cleanup milestones at the four selected sites, which was less than half of the number of such milestones officials at those sites reported to us (see table 2).
These discrepancies result from how headquarters and selected sites define and track milestones.
Milestone definitions. EM headquarters officials said that they are primarily concerned with milestones related to on-the-ground cleanup; that is, cleanup activities that actually result in waste being removed, treated, or disposed of. EM officials said they consider these to be major milestones. However, not all sites make the same distinction between major and non-major milestones and, as a result, are not consistently reporting the same types of milestones to EM headquarters. For example, officials at the Savannah River Site track milestones in a federal facility agreement that lists 79 milestones due in fiscal years 2018 through 2020. This agreement makes no distinction between major and non-major milestones and includes administrative activities, such as revisions to cleanup reports, in its milestone totals. EM headquarters officials, on the other hand, do not include these activities as major milestones and list only 43 milestones due in the same time frame. Similarly, Hanford officials do not distinguish between major or other milestones in their internal tracking. As a result, Hanford officials are tracking 178 milestones due in fiscal years 2018 through 2020, whereas EM headquarters officials are tracking 57 for the same time frame at Hanford.
Requirements for updating milestones. Sites do not consistently provide EM headquarters with the most up-to-date information on the status of milestones at each site. This is because EM requirements governing the submission of milestone information do not specify when or how often sites are to update this information, so sites have the discretion to choose when to send updated milestone data to headquarters. As a result, the information on the list of milestones used to track cleanup performance by EM headquarters may differ from the more up-to-date information kept by the sites. For example, officials at each of the four sites we examined stated that they try to send updated information on the status of milestones to headquarters on an annual basis, though they sometimes send it less frequently. Officials at EM headquarters acknowledged that their list of milestones is not always up-to-date because of the lag between when a milestone changes at the site and when sites update that information in the EM headquarters’ database.
In addition to inconsistencies in tracking and defining milestones, lists of milestones maintained by EM headquarters and the four selected sites may not include all cleanup milestones governing the cleanup work at the site. We found two cases in which permits at two sites included milestones that neither EM headquarters nor site officials included in their list of sites’ cleanup milestones. For example, milestones related to a major construction project at one of the selected sites we reviewed— Savannah River—are not listed in either EM headquarters’ or the Savannah River Site’s list of enforceable milestones. According to South Carolina state environmental officials, milestones associated with this project are part of a separate permit and dispute resolution agreement not connected to the federal facility agreement or one of the sites’ compliance agreements. Recently, DOE acknowledged in its fiscal year 2019 budget request that this project has faced technical challenges, and officials noted that the previously agreed-upon start date for operating this project would be delayed. However, this milestone and its delay are not included in either EM headquarters’ or Savannah River’s list of milestones. Similarly, officials at the Hanford Site said that some milestones governing Hanford’s cleanup are part of the site wide RCRA permit issued by the state, which is separate from its federal facility agreement, and, as a result, officials do not track this information in the same Hanford milestone tracking system and do not report it to EM headquarters.
EM does not have a standard definition of milestones for either sites or headquarters to use for reporting and monitoring cleanup milestones or guidance on how often sites should update the status of milestones. EM headquarters officials cited guidance that sites can refer to when entering their milestone data into the headquarters-managed database. This guidance addresses how to submit milestone data but does not include a definition of milestones or specify how often sites should update the information. EM headquarters officials noted that sites have the discretion to input milestones as they choose. EM’s lack of a standard definition of milestones limits management’s ability to use milestones to manage EM’s cleanup mission and monitor its progress. We have previously found that poorly defined, incomplete, or missing requirements make it difficult to hold projects accountable, result in programs or projects that do not meet user needs, and can result in cost and schedule growth. In addition, according to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, information and communication are vital for an entity to achieve its objectives. According to these standards, the first principle of information and communication is that management should define the information requirements at the relevant level and the requisite specificity for appropriate personnel. Without this, EM’s ability to use milestones for managing and measuring the performance of its cleanup program is limited.
EM Does Not Track Sites’ Renegotiated Milestone Dates and Has Not Consistently Reported Milestone Information to Congress as Required
EM relies on cleanup milestones, among other metrics, to measure the overall performance of its operations activities. However, sites regularly renegotiate milestones they are at risk of missing, and EM does not track data on the history of postponed milestones. As a result, EM cannot accurately track the progress of cleanup activities to meet these milestones. Additionally, EM has not consistently reported required information to Congress, and the information it has reported is incomplete. For example, in its report to Congress on the status of the enforceable milestones, EM includes the latest (meaning the most recently renegotiated) milestone dates with no indication of whether or how often those milestones have been missed or postponed.
Sites Renegotiate Milestone Dates Before They Are Missed, and EM Does Not Track How Often This Occurs
Site officials typically renegotiate enforceable milestones they are at risk of missing with their regulators, in accordance with the modification procedures established in federal facility agreements. EM officials said that sites have the ability to renegotiate milestones before they are missed. For example, the Hanford Site Federal Facility Agreement allows DOE to request an extension of any milestone; the request must include, among other things, DOE’s explanation of the good cause for the extension. As long as there is consensus among EM and its regulators, the milestone is changed. Similarly, the Los Alamos Federal Facility Agreement requires site officials to negotiate cleanup milestones each fiscal year. Because renegotiated milestones are not technically missed, EM avoids any fines or penalties associated with missed milestones.
Site officials we interviewed at the four selected sites stated that it is common for regulators and sites to renegotiate milestones before sites miss them. For example, at the Savannah River Site, both DOE and South Carolina officials said they could not recall any missed milestones among the thousands of milestones completed since the cleanup began. Similarly, Hanford officials told us that since the beginning of the cleanup effort in 1989, more than 1,300 milestones had been completed and only 62 had actually been missed because, in most cases, whenever milestones were at risk of being missed, they were renegotiated. However, officials at these sites could not provide us with the exact number of times milestones had been renegotiated. This is because once milestones are changed, sites are not required to maintain or track the original milestones. As a result, the new milestones become the new agreed-upon time frame, essentially resetting the deadline.
Because EM does not track the original baseline schedule for renegotiated milestone dates, milestones do not provide a reliable measure of program performance. According to best practices identified in GAO’s schedule assessment guide, agencies should formally establish a baseline schedule against which performance can be measured. In particular, we have previously found that management does not have the ability to identify and mitigate the effects of unfavorable performance without a formally established baseline schedule against which it can measure performance. We have also found that, without a documented and consistently-applied schedule change control process, program staff may continually revise the schedule to match performance, hindering management’s insight into the true performance of the project. In addition, DOE’s internal project management policies call for steps to maintain a change control process, including setting a baseline schedule for completing certain activities and maintaining a record of any subsequent deviations from that baseline. EM uses milestones as one of its metrics for measuring the performance of its cleanup efforts, since the milestones are effectively schedule targets. However, since neither EM headquarters nor the sites track renegotiated milestones and their baseline dates at the sites, EM cannot accurately use milestones for managing and measuring the performance of its cleanup program.
EM Has Not Consistently Reported Required Information to Congress, and the Information It Has Reported Is Incomplete
EM has not consistently reported required information to Congress on the status of its milestones. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 established a requirement for EM to annually provide Congress with a future-years defense environmental cleanup plan. This plan is to contain, among other things, information on the current dates for enforceable milestones at specified cleanup sites, including whether each milestone will be met and, if not, an explanation as to why and when it will be met. However, since 2011, EM has only provided Congress with the required annual plan in 2 years—2012 and 2017—and EM officials told us in September 2018 that they were unsure when EM would release the next future-years plan. EM officials said that, instead of the annual plan, they have provided oral briefings to Congressional staff during the 4 years when a formal report was not produced.
In addition, our analysis of the 2012 and 2017 plans EM submitted to Congress identified three ways in which the plans provide inaccurate or incomplete information on EM’s enforceable milestones.
No historical record. First, the plans contain no indication of whether each milestone date reported is the original date for that milestone or whether or how many times the milestones listed have been missed or postponed. Instead, the plans report the latest (and most recently renegotiated) dates for the milestones without listing the original dates or acknowledging that some of the milestones have been delayed, in some cases by several years, beyond their original agreed-upon completion dates. For example, we found that at least 14 milestones from the 2012 plan were repeated in the 2017 plan with new forecasted completion dates, but the 2017 plan gave no indication that these milestones had been postponed (see table 3). The milestones’ due dates had been pushed back by as many as 6 years without any indication in the 2017 report that they were delayed. As noted above, EM headquarters does not track changes to milestones and EM officials at both headquarters and the sites said that they have not historically kept a record of the original baseline dates for renegotiated milestones they change. As a result, EM officials could not readily provide information on whether the other milestones listed in the 2012 report met their listed due date or whether they were postponed. Headquarters officials stated that to gather this information they would need to survey officials at each site.
Inaccurate forecast. Second, the forecast completion dates for milestones listed in the 2012 and 2017 plans may not present an accurate picture of the status of the milestones and EM’s cleanup efforts. For example, in the 2012 plan, DOE reported that four out of 218 milestones were at risk of missing their planned completion date, while the rest were on schedule. As discussed above, we found 14 of the milestones in the 2012 plan had been postponed and listed again in the 2017 plan. Similarly, the 2017 plan listed only one milestone out of 154 as forecasted to miss its due date. However, because EM does not have a historical record of the changes made to the milestones, it is unclear how many of these milestones represented their original due dates.
Incomplete list. Third, the plans did not include milestones from all of the 10 DOE cleanup sites that EM is required to report on. In 2012, EM did not report milestone information for two of the 10 sites that were required to be included in the plan. In the 2017 plan, information was missing for one of the 10 required sites. EM headquarters officials said that this could be because some sites did not update their milestone information or some sites may still be renegotiating new milestones. However, neither report indicated that data were missing for these sites.
As a result of these issues, DOE’s future-years defense environmental cleanup plans provide only a partial picture of the milestones and overall cleanup progress made across the cleanup complex, and actual progress made in cleanup is not transparent to Congress. The absence of reliable and complete information on the progress of EM’s cleanup mission limits EM’s ability to manage its mission and complicates Congress’s ability to oversee the cleanup work.
EM Does Not Analyze the Root Causes of Missed or Postponed Milestones and Does Not Have Guidelines for Considering Root Causes When Renegotiating New Milestones
Best practices and DOE requirements for project management call for a root cause analysis when problems lead to schedule delays, but EM officials at both headquarters and selected sites have not analyzed reasons why milestones are missed or postponed. According to best practices identified in GAO’s cost estimating guide, agencies should identify root causes of problems that lead to schedule delays and renegotiated milestones. Specifically, when risks materialize (i.e., when milestones are missed or delayed), risk management should provide a structure for identifying and analyzing root causes. The benefits of doing so include developing a better understanding of the factors that caused milestones to be missed and providing agencies with information to more effectively address those factors in the future. In addition, DOE has recently emphasized the importance of doing this kind of analysis. In 2015, DOE issued a directive requiring sites to do a root cause analysis when the project team, program office, or independent oversight offices determine that a project has breached its cost or schedule thresholds. This directive, which applies to all programs and projects within DOE, calls for “an independent and objective root cause analysis to determine the underlying contributing causes of cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortcomings,” such as missed or postponed milestones.
However, EM has not done a complex-wide analysis of the reasons for missed or postponed milestones. Similarly, officials we interviewed at the four selected sites said that they were not aware of any site-wide review of why milestones were missed or postponed. According to headquarters officials, this analysis has not been done because EM has determined that DOE requirements governing this type of analysis apply only to contract schedules, not regulatory milestones, and that missed or postponed milestones are not necessarily an indication of cleanup performance shortcomings. However, as previously noted in this report, missing or postponing milestones is a systemic problem across the cleanup complex that makes it difficult for DOE to accurately identify cleanup performance shortcomings. Because EM has not analyzed why it has missed or postponed milestones, EM cannot address these systemic problems and consider those problems when renegotiating milestones with regulators. Without such analysis, EM and its cleanup regulators lack information to set more realistic and achievable milestones and, as a result, future milestones are likely to continue to be pushed back, further delaying the cleanup work. As we have reported previously, these delays lead to increases in the overall cost of the cleanup.
Conclusions
The federal government faces a large and growing future environmental liability, the vast majority of which is related to the cleanup of radioactive and hazardous waste at DOE’s 16 sites around the country. EM has responsibility for addressing the human health and environmental risks presented by this contamination in the most cost-effective way. However, most of EM’s largest projects are significantly delayed and over budget, and state regulators for nearly all of EM’s cleanup sites have responded by initiating enforcement actions, often leading to additional agreements, including administrative orders and court settlements, in addition to initial federal facility agreements to ensure those risks are addressed.
EM relies on cleanup milestones, among other metrics, to measure the overall performance of its operations activities, and EM reports that very few of its cleanup milestones over the past 2 decades have been missed. However, EM’s self-reported performance in achieving milestones does not provide an accurate view of actual progress in cleaning up sites. EM has not established clear definitions for tracking and reporting milestones and does not have any requirements governing the way sites are to update milestone information. As a result, EM’s internal tracking of these milestones has inconsistencies. Additionally, since the requirement to annually report on the status of milestones was set in 2011, EM has produced only two reports to Congress, and these were inaccurate and incomplete. Without a clear and consistent approach to collecting and reporting this data, including the history of milestone changes, EM cannot accurately use milestones for managing and measuring the performance of its cleanup program. The absence of reliable and complete information on the progress of EM’s cleanup mission also limits EM’s and Congress’s ability to oversee the cleanup work. In addition, without a root cause analysis of why milestones are missed or postponed, EM and its cleanup regulators lack information to set more realistic and achievable milestones. As a result, future milestones are likely to continue to be pushed back, further delaying the cleanup work, which will likely increase cleanup costs and risks to human health and the environment.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making the following four recommendations to DOE: The Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Office of Environmental Management should update EM’s policies and procedures to establish a standard definition of milestones and specify requirements for both including and updating information on milestones across the complex. (Recommendation 1)
The Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Office of Environmental Management should track original milestone dates as well as changes to its cleanup milestones. (Recommendation 2)
The Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Office of Environmental Management should comply with the requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act by reporting annually to Congress on the status of its cleanup milestones and including a complete list of cleanup milestones for all sites required by the act. The annual reports should also include, for each milestone, the original date along with the currently negotiated date. (Recommendation 3)
The Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Office of Environmental Management should conduct root cause analyses of missed or postponed milestones. (Recommendation 4)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. DOE provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix II; the agency also provided technical comments that we incorporated in the report as appropriate. Of the four recommendations in the report, DOE agreed with three, and partially agreed with one.
Regarding the recommendation that DOE update EM’s policies and procedures to establish a standard definition of milestones and specify requirements for both including and updating information on milestones across the complex, the agency agreed with the recommendation. DOE stated that these policy-driven reforms can improve the efficiency of milestone tracking.
Regarding the recommendation that DOE track changes to cleanup milestones, the agency agreed with the recommendation. DOE stated that EM currently monitors milestone status, including changes as the need for changes are identified and as part of its ongoing communication with field offices, and therefore DOE considers the recommendation to be closed. However, as we noted in the report, neither EM headquarters nor the sites track the original baseline schedule for renegotiated milestone dates. We adjusted the language of the recommendation to make clear that the EM Assistant Secretary should track original milestone dates as well as changes to cleanup milestones. DOE stated in its written comments that EM does not believe that tracking original and changed milestones will strengthen EM's ability to use milestones to manage and measure the performance of its cleanup program. However, as we noted in this report, according to best practices identified in GAO's schedule assessment guide, agencies should formally establish a baseline schedule against which performance can be measured. We have found that, without a documented and consistently-applied schedule change control process, program staff may continually revise the schedule to match performance, hindering management's insight into the true performance of the project. In addition, DOE's internal project management policies call for steps to maintain a change control process, including setting a baseline schedule for completing certain activities and maintaining a record of any subsequent deviations from that baseline.
Regarding our recommendation that DOE comply with the requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act by reporting annually to Congress on the status of its cleanup milestones and including a complete list of cleanup milestones for all sites required by the act, the agency partially agreed with the recommendation. DOE stated that additional budget and clarification of purpose and scope would be required to fulfill this recommendation. As we point out in our report, DOE has not fully complied with requirements established by the act, including not submitting all required annual reports and, even when DOE did submit these reports, its reporting omitted information about some sites. DOE stated that EM is reviewing options to address this recommendation.
Regarding our recommendation that DOE conduct root cause analyses of performance shortcomings that lead to missed or postponed milestones, the agency agreed with the recommendation and stated that EM is evaluating options to implement it. However, DOE stated that there may be multiple reasons why milestones are changed, and not all of the changes are due to DOE performance. To acknowledge the uncertainty in the causes of missed or postponed milestones, we adjusted the language of the recommendation to clarify that the EM Assistant Secretary should conduct root cause analyses of missed or postponed milestones.
In addition, in its written comments, DOE disagreed with the draft report's description of the process and authorities related to renegotiating compliance milestones, stating that EM cannot and does not unilaterally delay/postpone milestones and that EPA and state regulator approval of milestone changes is required. We agree, and the report states that it is common for regulators and sites to renegotiate milestones before sites miss them. DOE also disagreed with the draft report’s characterization of the coordination between EM sites and headquarters in tracking milestones. In particular, DOE’s written comments state that site-specific databases include all regulatory compliance milestones drawn from applicable agreements, while the headquarters database tracks major enforceable milestones. However, as our report notes, because not all sites make the same distinction between major and non-major milestones, sites are not consistently reporting the same types of milestones to EM headquarters. In addition, DOE’s written comments state that EM sites and headquarters routinely collaborate and discuss the status of milestones via meetings and EM periodically requests that sites verify the data in the EM headquarters database. Nevertheless, as our report notes, EM requirements governing the submission of milestone information do not specify when or how often sites are to update this information.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Appendix I: Department of Energy (DOE) Cleanup Sites
Brookhaven National Laboratory
The Brookhaven National Laboratory was established in 1947 by the Atomic Energy Commission. Formerly Camp Upton, a U.S. Army installation site, Brookhaven is located on a 5,263-acre site on Long Island in Upton, NY, approximately 60 miles east of New York City. Historically, Brookhaven was involved in the construction of accelerators and research reactors such as the Cosmotron, the High Flux Beam Reactor, and the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor. These accelerators and reactors led the way in high-energy physics experiments and subsequent discoveries but also resulted in radioactive waste. To complete the cleanup mission, DOE is working to build and operate groundwater treatment plants, decontaminate and decommission the High Flux Beam Reactor and the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor, and dispose of some wastes off-site.
Energy Technology Engineering Center
The Energy Technology Engineering Center occupies 90 acres within the 290 acre Santa Susana Field Laboratory 30 miles north of Los Angeles, California. The area was primarily used for DOE research and development activities. In the mid-1950s, part of the area was set aside for nuclear reactor development and testing, primarily related to the development of nuclear power plants and space power systems, using sodium and potassium as coolants. In the mid-1960s, the Energy Technology Engineering Center was established as a DOE laboratory for the development of liquid metal heat transfer systems to support the Office of Nuclear Energy Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program. DOE is now involved in the deactivation, decommissioning, and dismantlement of contaminated facilities on the site.
Hanford Site
DOE is responsible for one of the world’s largest environmental cleanup projects: the treatment and disposal of millions of gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste at its 586 square mile Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. Hanford facilities produced more than 20 million pieces of uranium metal fuel for nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. Five plants in the center of the Hanford Site processed 110,000 tons of fuel from the reactors, discharging an estimated 450 billion gallons of liquids to soil disposal sites and 53 million gallons of radioactive waste to 177 large underground tanks. Plutonium production ended in the late 1980s. Hanford cleanup began in 1989 and now involves (1) groundwater monitoring and treatment, (2) deactivation and decommissioning of contaminated facilities, and (3) the construction of the waste treatment and immobilization plant intended, when complete, to treat the waste in the underground tanks.
Idaho National Laboratory
DOE’s Idaho Site is an 890-square-mile federal reserve, situated in the Arco Desert over the Snake River Plain Aquifer in central Idaho. The Idaho Cleanup Project involves the environmental cleanup of the Idaho Site, contaminated with legacy wastes generated from World War II-era conventional weapons testing, government-owned research and defense reactors, spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, laboratory research, and defense missions at other DOE sites.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The 1-square-mile Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory site is an active, multi-program DOE research laboratory about 45 miles east of San Francisco. A number of research and support operations at Lawrence Livermore handle, generate, or manage hazardous materials that include radioactive wastes. The site first was used as a Naval Air Station in the 1940s. In 1951, it was transferred to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and was established as a nuclear weapons and magnetic fusion energy research facility. Over the past several years, Lawrence Livermore constructed several treatment plants for groundwater pumping and treatment and for soil vapor extraction. These systems will continue to operate until cleanup standards are achieved.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory is located in Los Alamos County in north central New Mexico. The laboratory, founded in 1943 during World War II, served as a secret facility for research and development of the first nuclear weapon. The site was chosen because the area provided controlled access, steep canyons for testing high explosives, and existing infrastructure. The Manhattan Project’s research and development efforts that were previously spread throughout the nation became centralized at Los Alamos and left a legacy of contamination. Today, the Los Alamos National Laboratory Cleanup Project is responsible for the treatment, storage, and disposition of a variety of radioactive and hazardous waste streams; removal and disposition of buried waste; protection of the regional aquifer; and removal or deactivation of unneeded facilities.
Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Project
The Moab Site is located about 3 miles northwest of the city of Moab in Grand County, Utah. The former mill site encompasses approximately 435 acres, of which about 130 acres is covered by the uranium mill tailings pile. Uranium concentrate (called yellowcake), the milling product, was sold to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission through December 1970 for use in national defense programs. After 1970, production was primarily for commercial sales to nuclear power plants. During its years of operation, the mill processed an average of about 1,400 tons of ore a day. The milling operations created process-related wastes and tailings, a radioactive sand-like material. The tailings were pumped to an unlined impoundment in the western portion of the Moab Site property that accumulated over time, forming a pile more than 80 feet thick. The tailings, particularly in the center of the pile, have a high water content. Excess water in the pile drains into underlying soils, contaminating the ground water.
Nevada National Security Site
In 1950, President Truman established what is now known as the Nevada National Security Site in Mercury, Nevada, to perform nuclear weapons testing activities. In support of national defense initiatives, a total of 928 atmospheric and underground nuclear weapons tests were conducted at the site between 1951 and 1992, when a moratorium on nuclear testing went into effect. Today, the site is a large, geographically-diverse research, evaluation, and development complex that supports homeland security, national defense, and nuclear nonproliferation. In Nevada, DOE activities focus on groundwater, soil, and on-site facilities; radioactive, hazardous, and sanitary waste management and disposal; and environmental planning.
Oak Ridge Reservation
DOE’s Oak Ridge Reservation is located on approximately 33,500 acres in eastern Tennessee. The reservation was established in the early 1940s by the Manhattan Engineer District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and played a role in the production of enriched uranium during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. DOE is now working to address excess and contaminated facilities, remove soil and groundwater contamination, and enable modernization that allows the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue its national security and nuclear nonproliferation responsibilities and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to continue its mission for advancing technology and science.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, located within an approximately 650-acre fenced security area in in McCracken County in western Kentucky, opened in 1952 and played a role in the production of enriched uranium during and after the Cold War until ceasing production for commercial reactor fuel purposes in 2013. Decades of uranium enrichment and support activities required the use of a number of typical and special industrial chemicals and materials. Plant operations generated hazardous, radioactive, mixed (both hazardous and radioactive), and nonchemical (sanitary) wastes. Past operations also resulted in soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination at several sites located within plant boundaries.
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant is located in Pike County, Ohio, in southern central Ohio, approximately 20 miles north of the city of Portsmouth, Ohio. Like the Paducah Plant, this facility was also initially constructed to produce enriched uranium to support the nation’s nuclear weapons program and was later used by commercial nuclear reactors. Cleanup activities here are similar to those at the Paducah Plant.
Sandia National Laboratories
The Sandia National Laboratories comprises 2,820 acres within the boundaries of the 118 square miles of Kirtland Air Force Base and is located about 6 miles east of downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration. Sandia National Laboratories was established in 1945 for nuclear weapons development, testing, and assembly for the Manhattan Engineering District. Beginning in 1980, the mission shifted toward research and development for nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons. Subsequently, the mission was expanded to research and development on nuclear safeguards and security and multiple areas in science and technology.
Savannah River Site
The Savannah River Site complex covers 198,344 acres, or 310 square miles, encompassing parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties in South Carolina, bordering the Savannah River. The site is a key DOE industrial complex responsible for environmental stewardship, environmental cleanup, waste management, and disposition of nuclear materials. During the early 1950s, the site began to produce materials used in nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium-239. Five reactors were built to produce nuclear materials and resulted in unusable by-products, such as radioactive waste. About 35 million gallons of radioactive liquid waste are stored in 43 underground tanks. The Defense Waste Processing Facility is processing the high-activity waste, encapsulating radioactive elements in borosilicate glass, a stable storage form. Since the facility began operations in March 1996, it has produced more than 4,000 canisters (more than 16 million pounds) of radioactive glass.
Separations Process Research Unit
The Separations Process Research Unit is an inactive facility located at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Niskayuna, New York, near Schenectady. The Mohawk River forms the northern boundary of this site. Built in the late 1940s, its mission was to research the chemical process to extract plutonium from irradiated materials. Equipment was flushed and drained, and bulk waste was removed following the shutdown of the facilities in 1953. Today, process vessels and piping have been removed from all the research unit’s facilities. In 2010, cleanup of radioactivity and chemical contamination in the Lower Level Railroad Staging Area, Lower Level Parking Lot, and North Field areas was completed.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is an underground repository located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, that is used for disposing of defense transuranic waste. The plant is managed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management and is the only deep geological repository for the permanent disposal of defense generated transuranic waste.
West Valley Demonstration Project
The West Valley Demonstration Project occupies approximately 200 acres within the 3,345 acres of land called the Western New York Nuclear Service Center. The project is located approximately 40 miles south of Buffalo, New York. The West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980 established the project. The act directed DOE to solidify and dispose of the high-level waste and decontaminate and decommission the facilities used in the process. The land and facilities are not owned by DOE. Rather, the project premises are the property of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. DOE does not have access to the entire 3,345 acres of property.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Nico Sloss (Assistant Director), Jeffrey T. Larson (Analyst in Charge), Natalie M. Block, Antoinette C. Capaccio, R. Scott Fletcher, Cindy K. Gilbert, Richard P. Johnson, Jeffrey R. Rueckhaus, Ilga Semeiks, Sheryl E. Stein, and Joshua G. Wiener made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
EM manages DOE's radioactive and hazardous waste cleanup program using compliance agreements negotiated between DOE and other federal and state agencies. Within the agreements, milestones outline cleanup work to be accomplished by specific deadlines. EM's cleanup program faces nearly $500 billion in future environmental liability, which has grown substantially.
GAO was asked to review DOE's cleanup agreements. This report examines the extent to which EM (1) tracks the milestones in cleanup agreements for EM's cleanup sites; (2) has met, missed, or postponed cleanup-related milestones at selected sites and how EM reports information; and (3) has analyzed why milestones are missed or postponed and how EM considers those reasons when renegotiating milestones.
GAO reviewed agreements and milestones at EM's 16 cleanup sites and compared information tracked by EM headquarters and these sites; interviewed officials from four selected sites (chosen for variation in location and scope of cleanup, among other factors); and reviewed EM guidance related to milestone negotiations.
What GAO Found
The cleanup process at the 16 sites overseen by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) is governed by 72 agreements and hundreds of milestones specifying actions EM is to take as it carries out its cleanup work. However, EM headquarters and site officials do not consistently track data on the milestones. EM headquarters and site officials provided GAO with different totals on the number of milestones in place at the four sites GAO selected for review. These discrepancies result from how headquarters and selected sites define and track milestones. First, not all sites make the same distinction between major (i.e., related to on-the-ground cleanup) and non-major milestones and, as a result, are not consistently reporting the same milestones to EM headquarters. Second, sites do not consistently provide EM headquarters with the most up-to-date information on the status of milestones at each site. These inconsistencies limit EM's ability to use milestones to manage the cleanup mission and monitor its progress.
EM does not accurately track met, missed, or postponed cleanup-related milestones at the four selected sites, and EM's milestone reporting to Congress is incomplete. EM sites renegotiate milestone dates before they are missed, and EM does not track the history of these changes. This is because once milestones change, sites are not required to maintain or track the original milestone dates. GAO has previously found that without a documented and consistently-applied schedule change control process, program staff may continually revise the schedule to match performance, hindering management's insight into the true performance of the project. Further, since 2011, EM has not consistently reported to Congress on the status of the milestones each year, as required, and the information it has reported is incomplete. EM reports the most recently renegotiated milestone dates with no indication of whether or how often those milestones have been missed or postponed. Since neither EM headquarters nor the sites track renegotiated milestones and their baseline dates at the sites, milestones do not provide a reliable measure of program performance.
EM officials at headquarters and selected sites have not conducted root cause analyses on missed or postponed milestones; thus, such analyses are not part of milestone negotiations. Specifically, EM has not done a complex-wide analysis of the reasons for missed or postponed milestones. Similarly, officials GAO interviewed at the four selected sites said that they were not aware of any site-wide review of why milestones were missed or postponed. Best practices for project and program management outlined in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide note the importance of identifying root causes of problems that lead to schedule delays. Additionally, in a 2015 directive, DOE emphasized the importance of conducting such analysis. Analyzing the root causes of missed or postponed milestones would better position EM to address systemic problems and consider those problems when renegotiating milestones with regulators. Without such analysis, EM and its cleanup regulators lack information to set more realistic and achievable milestones and, as a result, future milestones are likely to continue to be pushed back, further delaying the cleanup work. As GAO has reported previously, these delays lead to increases in the overall cost of the cleanup.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making four recommendations, including that EM establish a standard definition of milestones across the cleanup sites, track and report original and renegotiated milestone dates, and identify the root causes of why milestones are missed or postponed. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE agreed with three of the recommendations and partially agreed with a fourth. | 96 | 47,697 | 47,699 | 47,699 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-486 | gao_GAO-18-486_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
UI Program Administration and Funding
The federal-state UI program provides temporary cash benefits to eligible workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Under this arrangement, states administer their own programs according to certain federal requirements and under the oversight of DOL’s Office of Unemployment Insurance. States have considerable flexibility to set benefit amounts and their duration, or the maximum period of time that the state pays benefits, and establish eligibility requirements.
UI benefits are funded primarily through state payroll taxes on employers, and administrative costs are primarily funded through a federal payroll tax on employers. The states collect taxes that will be used to pay UI benefits, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury holds these funds in trust on behalf of the states in the Unemployment Trust Fund. DOL certifies for payment to the states administrative grants to operate their UI programs, which amounted to about $2.7 billion in fiscal year 2017. DOL is responsible for ensuring that state UI laws include certain provisions, which is a condition of the state receiving its UI administrative grant.
Individuals typically claim their UI benefits by filing claims with their state UI agency online or by phone on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. In fiscal year 2017, the average weekly UI benefit was about $350, and claimants remained on the program for an average of 15 weeks, according to DOL data.
Work Search Requirements for UI Claimants
Federal law establishes a work search requirement for UI eligibility, but the specific work search activities UI claimants are expected to conduct vary by state, according to a DOL report. To be eligible for unemployment benefits, individuals are generally required to actively search for work under federal law. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 amended the Social Security Act to, among other things, require states to have work search requirements for UI claimants specified in their laws as a condition of eligibility for the states’ UI administrative grants. Specifically, states must have laws that require UI claimants to be “actively seeking work” as a condition of eligibility for unemployment compensation for any week. Because federal law does not specifically define actively seeking work, states have some discretion to establish a reasonable definition, according to DOL’s 2013 guidance to states. For example, a state can specify a minimum number of weekly contacts a claimant must have with potential employers. Acceptable work search activities might also include searching for jobs online, submitting job applications, visiting a job center, attending a networking event, or establishing a LinkedIn account, according to a DOL report.
Depending on the state, UI claimants may be directed to register for work with their state’s Employment Service, which provides job search assistance, job placement assistance, and referrals to employers. In addition, in some cases UI claimants may be directed to participate in reemployment services at an American Job Center. In 2017, DOL provided $115 million in grants to states to provide Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments (RESEA). RESEA services include in-person reemployment services and eligibility assessments in American Job Centers for ex-service members and UI claimants determined to have a high likelihood of exhausting their UI benefits. RESEA-funded activities include developing an individual reemployment plan, providing labor market information, identifying job skills and prospects, and reviewing the claimant’s continued eligibility for UI benefits.
Process for Identifying Work Search Overpayments in State Benefit Accuracy Measurement Audits
DOL uses its Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) system to determine the accuracy of UI benefit payments and estimate the amount and rate of improper payments. Under the BAM system, each state reviews a number of randomly selected cases on a weekly basis and reconstructs the UI claims process to assess the accuracy of the payments that were made. The state determines what the benefit payment should have been according to its laws and policies. States report the results of their BAM case reviews to DOL—including overpayments and underpayments—through an online data system. DOL uses the data to estimate improper payment rates by state, as well as to calculate a nationwide rate.
State BAM audits involve reviews of existing records in the state’s UI claims information system as well as original fact-finding by the state BAM investigator. DOL requires states to use a standard claimant questionnaire when conducting BAM audits. The questionnaire includes numerous questions about the claimant’s circumstances—including their work search efforts—during the week under review. The questionnaire includes questions that could indicate that a claimant qualifies for an exemption from work search requirements, or made specific job contacts and the results of the job contacts, such as whether the claimant submitted an application and received a job offer.
State BAM investigators are also expected to take steps to verify the information reported by the claimant by collecting documentation from claimants and contacting employers or other third parties. According to DOL’s 2016 BAM annual report and BAM procedures, state BAM investigators are to review a sufficient number of work search activities to determine whether the claimant has complied with the state’s minimum requirement for the number of weekly work search activities. The BAM program assigns one of three classifications to each of the work search activities reviewed:
Acceptable – Documentation exists that the work search activity reported by the claimant, such as an employer contact, employment application, or other state approved work search activity, was made by the claimant and was acceptable according to the state’s law or policy.
Unverifiable – The investigator was unable to establish sufficient information to make a judgment of whether the work search activity was either acceptable or unacceptable according to the state’s law or policy.
Unacceptable – Written documentation exists that the work search activity reported by the claimant was not made at all by claimant, or was made but was unacceptable according to the state’s law or policy.
According to DOL’s BAM annual report, work search activities classified as acceptable or unverifiable may be considered in calculating whether the claimant has satisfied the state’s required number of work search activities for purposes of BAM. If the state investigator finds that the claimant’s work search is unacceptable and does not meet the state’s requirements, he or she may determine the claimant was ineligible for benefits and establish an overpayment, depending on state law (see fig. 1). Currently, several states have formal warning policies and provide claimants warnings for the first instance of noncompliance with work search requirements, whereas states without these policies count these cases as overpayments, according to DOL.
Reported Causes of UI Improper Payments
Since 2002, federal agencies have been required to identify and report improper payments. The leading reported cause of UI improper payments in fiscal year 2017 was overpayments to claimants who failed to meet work search requirements. DOL data show that states made an estimated $1.36 billion in overpayments to such claimants in fiscal year 2017. Other major reported causes of UI improper payments in fiscal year 2017 included payments made to individuals who continue to make claims even after returning to work (benefit year earnings) and payments made to claimants who were determined ineligible due to disqualifying job separations, such as quitting a job without good cause or being discharged for misconduct (separation issues). (See fig. 2. Table 8 in app. II provides greater detail.)
According to DOL officials, many UI improper payments cannot be prevented given certain legal requirements that states pay claims in a timely manner and provide claimants with due process when the state finds an eligibility issue. Specifically, according to DOL, federal law requires that when an eligibility issue is detected, the claimant has a right to receive notice and provide the state information before being denied benefits. In addition, if an eligibility issue associated with work search, or any other matter, is detected but not resolved, the state is still required to pay for a claimed week no later than the week after an eligibility issue is detected, according to DOL. The time it takes to work through the necessary due process steps can prevent states from stopping the payment before it must be paid.
Trend in Reported Work Search Overpayments
Nationally, the estimated work search overpayment rate and the estimated amount of work search overpayments have risen in recent years. Specifically, in fiscal year 2013, approximately $1 billion in estimated work search overpayments were made to claimants who were not actively searching for work and, in fiscal year 2017, the amount increased to close to an estimated $1.36 billion (see fig. 3). The national work search overpayment rate for such claimants also increased during this time. (See table 9 in app. II for additional details.) According to DOL officials, some states implemented more stringent work search requirements, which may account for the recent trend. As work search requirements become more stringent, the opportunities for non- compliance and errors increase and thus higher improper payment rates, according to DOL officials. While the national work search overpayment rate was 4.5 percent in fiscal year 2017, state work search overpayment rates varied widely from an estimated 0 to 41 percent of the UI benefits that states paid in fiscal year 2017. (See table 10 in app. II for state-by- state estimates of work search overpayment rates and amounts.)
States use various methods to recover overpayments to UI claimants, including setting up payment plans, off-setting UI benefits, or deducting refunds from federal or state income tax returns. Like all recovered UI overpayments, recoveries of work search overpayments must be deposited in the unemployment trust fund of the state that recovered the money and can be used only for the payment of UI benefits, according to DOL officials. National data are not available on the amount of work search overpayments that states have recovered because, although DOL collects recovery data from states, it does not require states to separate out work search overpayment recoveries from other types of recoveries in their reporting.
Conducting More Work Search Investigations Is Associated With Lower Estimated Work Search Overpayment Rates, As Is the Use of Formal Warnings
Based on our analysis of DOL data, we found that certain state administrative practices, including investigating a higher percentage of claimant-reported work search activities and frequent use of formal warnings, were associated with lower reported state work search overpayment rates. However, DOL recently determined that federal law does not permit states to warn claimants the first time they failed to meet work search requirements (i.e., issue formal warnings) instead of establishing that an overpayment was made. Additionally, a higher percentage of claimants required to search for work is associated with higher reported state work search overpayment rates.
Investigating Claimant- Reported Job Contacts Is Associated with Lower Work Search Overpayment Estimates, but the Extent to Which States Verified Contacts Varied
One of the administrative practices significantly associated with lower work search overpayment estimates was investigations of claimants’ reported job contacts. Specifically, a higher percentage of cases with claimants whose contacts were investigated by the state UI agency as part of the state’s BAM audit was associated with a lower work search overpayment rate estimate. According to our analysis, for every 1 percentage point increase in the percentage of cases with claimants’ whose job contacts were investigated, there was a 0.072 percentage point decrease in the work search overpayment rate estimate.
The extent to which states attempted to verify claimants’ reported job contacts through these investigations varied, according to our analysis of DOL data. Nationally, in fiscal year 2017, states investigated job contacts in about 80 percent of BAM cases where claimants were required to search for work. However, among the states, the proportion of cases in which job contacts were investigated was less than 50 percent in 5 states. (Table 11 in app. II shows the percentage of contacts that were investigated for each state.)
Furthermore, states often were not able to verify the information claimants reported. Of the job contacts that were investigated, states reported that about 48 percent of the job contacts were acceptable, about 8 percent were unacceptable, and about 45 percent could not be verified (see fig. 5).
Our analysis of BAM data for fiscal year 2017 also shows that for the overpayments that states were able to detect, that a large portion were found through investigating and verifying claimants’ work search contacts. Specifically, 47 percent of reported work search overpayments were found through this practice. Interviewing claimants about their work search was the next most common way states detected work search overpayments. States reported identifying 32 percent of work search overpayments in fiscal year 2017 using this practice.
Although overpayments can be the result of actions taken by the claimant or the agency administering the program, states reported that most work search overpayments are associated with claimants. For example, claimants may provide inadequate or incorrect information needed by the UI agency to determine if the claimant met work search requirements. In fiscal year 2017, states attributed about 99 percent of overpayments at least partially to claimant action, while they attributed about 2 percent at least partially to administrative errors at the state agency.
Frequent Use of Formal Warnings Is Associated with Reporting Lower Work Search Overpayments, but DOL Recently Determined Their Use Is Legally Impermissible
According to DOL data, 22 states issued formal warnings to one or more claimants at some point between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2017 for failure to meet work search requirements instead of finding that the claimants were overpaid. Although the states that made use of these warnings varied over this period, the number of states issuing formal warnings has generally increased over time from 13 states issuing formal warnings in fiscal year 2013 to 19 states in fiscal year 2017. Overall, states that most frequently issued formal warnings had lower reported work search overpayment rates than states that did not issue formal warnings. However, their work search overpayment rates are lower because, under their state policies, they did not count an overpayment when they issued a formal warning.
Our analysis indicates that states which issued formal warnings frequently—in 75 percent or more of cases involving work search errors— had estimated work search overpayment rates that were 3.5 percentage points lower, on average, than states that did not issue formal warnings. However, states that use formal warnings less frequently—in fewer than 75 percent of cases involving work search errors—reported work search overpayment rates that were between 3 and 4 percentage points higher than states that did not issue formal warnings. See appendix I for a detailed discussion of our econometric analysis.
Table 1 shows the average work search overpayment rate estimates for each of these groups of states when formal warnings are not counted as overpayments, and the potential average work search overpayment rate when formal warnings are counted as overpayments. Excluding formal warnings, two of the groups—frequent and low users of formal warnings—had average work search overpayment rate estimates lower than the average for states that did not use formal warnings. However, when formal warnings are included in the overpayment rate, only low users of formal warnings have a work search overpayment rate estimate lower than the average for states that did not use formal warnings.
GAO’s analysis of DOL data shows that in fiscal year 2017, estimated work search overpayments were nearly $1.4 billion, but potentially would have been an estimated $1.8 billion greater if states had not issued formal warnings and established overpayments. Our analysis further shows that if formal warning cases had been included in DOL’s calculation of the UI overpayment rates for fiscal year 2017, the nationwide UI overpayment rate would have increased by about 6 percentage points, from an estimated 12 percent to an estimated 18 percent. Moreover, these figures represent an increase from the fiscal year 2016 figures we presented in our previous report on states’ use of formal warnings related to work search requirements. At that time, we found the nationwide UI overpayment rate would have increased by about 5 percentage points from an estimated 11 percent to an estimated 16 percent with the inclusion of formal warning cases. The amount of UI payments made to claimants for weeks in which they received formal warnings in fiscal year 2016 was about $1.6 billion. Table 12 in appendix II shows how the estimated UI overpayment rate in each state issuing formal warnings in fiscal year 2017 may have increased if formal warnings were not used.
State use of formal warnings has resulted in inconsistent reporting of work search overpayments, which affects DOL’s reported improper payment rate for the UI program. Specifically, states that issue formal warnings have not counted as overpayments cases in which claimants did not actively search for work and received a UI benefit payment. On the other hand, states that did not have formal warning policies counted such cases as overpayments, which are factored into DOL’s reported improper payments rate. The variation among states related to formal warning policies makes it difficult for DOL and others to understand the reasons behind states’ reported work search overpayments.
DOL has determined and documented in its FY 2017 Agency Financial Report that the use of formal warnings is no longer allowed under the 2012 federal law, which generally requires UI claimants to actively seek work. DOL officials told us in July 2017 they would soon issue a letter to states to inform them that they are no longer permitted to use formal warnings when they determine that claimants failed to meet work search requirements. To date, DOL has not issued such a letter. In May 2018, DOL officials told us that they expect to issue the letter by the end of calendar year 2018. Federal internal control standards direct agency management to remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis. Federal internal controls standards also state that management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Additionally, these standards state that agency management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results.
According to DOL officials, they began discussing the need for a potential discontinuation of formal warnings at conferences with states in the first half of 2017. However, we found that states continued to implement their formal warning policies, potentially resulting in an increase in the estimated amounts of overpayment dollars associated with formal warnings between fiscal year 2016 and 2017. Until DOL informs states of the need to discontinue the use of formal warnings through a letter or another mechanism, states will continue to be inconsistent in whether they count as overpayments cases in which claimants who failed to search for work in any week were provided benefits. Additionally, once DOL provides additional information to states on formal warnings, it should monitor states’ responses to help ensure that DOL achieves its desired results. Furthermore, having more consistent information on overpayments related to work search issues could help DOL assess how the program is working nationwide and whether further federal and state actions would be needed to address this leading source of reported improper payments in the UI program.
DOL officials stated that the national work search overpayment rate is likely to increase in the future as states begin to eliminate their formal warning practices. Officials also stated that this may take some time as some states may need to amend laws or regulations in order to do so.
Higher Percentages of Claimants Required to Search for Work Are Associated with Higher Work Search Overpayment Rate Estimates
State work search overpayment rate estimates were higher for states where a higher proportion of claimants were required to search for work. Based on our analysis, for every one percentage point increase in the fraction of cases with claimants required to search for work, there was a 0.084 percentage point increase in the work search overpayment rate estimate on average, all else being equal.
Nationwide in fiscal year 2017, states reported that work searches have been required in 80 percent of cases, with requirements in individual states ranging from 38 to 100 percent of cases. Three states reported requiring fewer than 50 percent of claimants to perform work searches, while five states reported requiring more than 95 percent of their claimants to perform work searches. The most common reasons states exempted claimants from work searches were because claimants were “job-attached” (e.g. temporarily laid-off, recalled), or they had union deferrals because they were seeking employment through their union, according to DOL data. The map in figure 6 shows the range among all the states in the percentage of UI claimants required to search for work, according to our analysis of DOL data for fiscal year 2017.
Selected States Used Multiple Approaches to Address Work Search Overpayments, but Cited Challenges Verifying Claimants’ Work Search Activities
Selected states used multiple approaches to address work search overpayments, including online systems to facilitate the work search reporting and verification process, work search audits beyond the BAM audits, and messaging to inform claimants of their work search responsibilities. For example, three of six states in our review had online systems where claimants could report specific work search activities as part of filing their weekly claims, according to state officials (see table 2). Some of the approaches states used were specifically designed for UI claimants participating in state reemployment programs.
State officials cited several benefits of the approaches they use to address work search overpayments. The online systems, work search audits, and messaging helped prompt work search activities and prevent work search overpayments in some cases, according to state officials. According to officials from the selected states that used them and a study on work search improper payments, online systems can facilitate the work search reporting and verification in several ways:
Automatically documenting the claimants’ work search activities.
Online reporting of work search activities can help prevent overpayments because their work search is documented in the online claims system, which means the claimant does not need to keep a work search log. In addition, online job search/training systems can be used to track the work search activities completed by claimants, making it easier for the state to verify that the work search was completed. For example, officials in Mississippi and Indiana told us they piloted an online system called NextJob and required RESEA program participants to conduct work search activities through the system. Mississippi officials reported that NextJob motivated claimants to conduct their job search and increased the speed of reemployment among these individuals. Similarly, New Jersey officials told us that UI claimants selected to participate in New Jersey’s RESEA program are required to use an online job search and training system called OnRamp, which, for example, allows job seekers to create or upload their resume on the website, search for jobs, access online training, and receive email alerts on potential job matches. In addition, officials in Nevada said that the online reporting system is beneficial because the work search activities are documented in the system and are more reliably retrieved if the claimant is selected for a BAM audit because few claimants maintain and retain their work search effort logs.
Performing automated checks on data the claimants submit. The online claims systems can identify potentially duplicate job contacts and check whether the claimant reported the required number of job contacts. For example, Utah officials reported that if a claimant enters job contacts from another week, officials would follow up with the claimant by phone after it is flagged by their online system. If claimants report self-disqualifying information, such as an insufficient number of job contacts, the system can automatically put a hold on a claim until the issue is resolved.
Facilitating communication with the claimant. Some states added messages to their online claims system that pop up if the claimant enters incorrect or insufficient information. For example, Mississippi officials stated that they used messaging to better inform claimants of their responsibilities and to encourage them to report accurate information. According to the officials, if claimants do not report the required number of work search activities in the online system, a questionnaire will pop up requesting that the claimants explain why they did not do so. The system requires the claimants to enter more information in order to submit their claims and to receive their benefit payments. Mississippi officials also stated that adding targeted messaging resulted in fewer denials of benefits due to claimant failure to meet work search requirements and also reduced the number of appeals related to this type of denial. Some state officials said that messaging encouraged accurate reporting. For example, Indiana officials told us that at the end of the online claim filing process, claimants receive a message notifying them of the state’s work search requirements and informing them that they are required to search for work to continue receiving benefits. In Utah, officials developed a video that covers claimants’ responsibilities, including work search requirements, which claimants must view before receiving their initial benefit payment, according to state officials.
Officials in three of the states we reviewed reported using additional work search audits beyond BAM to help reinforce their state policies. Pennsylvania officials reported conducting 7,182 work search audits for RESEA program participants in 2016. As a result, officials reported that the state issued 1,300 warnings to claimants. The two other states— Mississippi and Utah—report that their random work search audits, coupled with their online systems, helped prevent work search overpayments as they are able to disqualify claims before the payment goes out. Mississippi and Utah officials also reported that they were also able to identify and recover some work search overpayments (see table 3).
Despite implementing these approaches, state officials in five of the six states we contacted told us they face challenges with verifying work search activities. These officials stated that they have difficulty verifying work search activities as some claimants do not understand the work search requirements or do not keep accurate records of their work search activities, which makes it difficult for the state to confirm compliance with the state requirements. In addition, state officials also said that many employers do not keep records of job seekers’ inquiries or do not respond to state requests for information when they are trying to verify claimants’ work search activities. For example, Nevada officials said that work search contacts are often virtually unverifiable as many companies outsource their hiring processes to contractors who refer the job candidate for a job posting and keep the job application. Officials said these contractors also rarely respond to state inquiries about claimants’ job applications. As discussed later, DOL has provided states tools to help address this issue, such as a messaging toolkit to help states improve communications with claimants and employers.
DOL Monitors States’ Work Search Overpayment Rate Estimates and Provides Assistance, but Lacks Clear Procedures on Work Search Verification
DOL Monitors States’ Work Search Overpayment Rate Estimates and Has Identified Strategies and Provided Tools to Help States Reduce Their Rates
DOL uses UI performance data to monitor state progress in reducing the estimated improper payment rate, including data on overpayments to claimants who failed to meet work search requirements. To do so, DOL requires states to submit State Quality Service Plans, which serve as the performance reporting and grant application documents through which states receive administrative funding. The plans include a summary of state performance on various measures related to operating the UI program, including the improper payment rate, according to DOL documentation we reviewed. States with estimated improper payment rates of 10 percent or more are required to submit corrective action plans to DOL. For example, data from two of the six states we reviewed– Nevada and New Jersey–had estimated improper payment rates above 10 percent during DOL’s most recent planning cycle and developed corrective action plans. Nevada’s corrective action plan noted that the state expects their rate to decline due to their June 2017 implementation of online work search reporting as part of their UI claims system. New Jersey’s corrective action plan noted that the state plans to implement new online tools that will help them verify wage and employment information. DOL separately monitors each state’s estimated work search overpayment rate. In addition, all states, including those who estimated improper payment rates of less than 10 percent, are required to prepare a state-specific action plan that describes the root causes of improper payments and the state’s strategies to address them. According to agency officials, DOL reviews plans to monitor state performance and help states identify strategies to improve performance.
Although DOL requires states with estimated improper payment rates of 10 percent or more to develop corrective action plans, according to DOL, the agency has limited options to require state UI agencies to take actions to respond to high improper payment rates. DOL officials told us that, beyond routine monitoring and providing states with technical assistance to help reduce their improper payments rate, their enforcement options are limited to withholding the state’s administrative funding or removing federal tax credit reductions, which is, in effect, a tax increase for the state’s employers. According to DOL officials, both are considered extraordinary sanctions that require significant due process. The agency has not withheld state administrative funding to address improper payments, according to DOL officials. DOL officials also told us that they are concerned about the effects on UI claimants if they were to withhold administrative funding. The administration’s fiscal year 2019 congressional budget justification includes a legislative proposal that would authorize the Secretary of Labor to require states to implement corrective action measures for poor state performance in the UI program, helping to reduce improper payments in states with the highest estimated rates.
DOL has identified strategies to address the leading causes of UI improper payments—including work search issues—and provided states tools and funding to help implement them. For example:
Pathway to Reemployment Framework. In 2016, DOL and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies published a framework that contained a broad menu of work search options that states could adopt to better reflect how individuals search for work, such as allowing use of online job search tools to count as an approved work search activity. The framework also includes suggestions for how states could document or verify claimants’ work search activities for eligibility purposes.
Messaging toolkit. In 2012, DOL published a messaging toolkit designed in part to improve claimants’ understanding of work search requirements as a condition of eligibility for benefits. According to DOL, claimants who fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences of not fulfilling them may be more likely to complete the required work search activities, thereby reducing instances of claimants’ failing to search for work. DOL provided states supplemental funding to support improved messaging and tracked state implementation of the strategies.
Online tool to record work search activities. In 2011, DOL provided supplemental funding to New York to develop an online work search record that could be replicated by other states. This tool is designed to reduce improper payments that result from inadequate documentation of work search activities. Claimants can use the tool to record their work search online when they file their UI claims. The work search record is automatically shared with state job centers, which in turn act to enhance claimants’ work search and connect claimants with jobs. New York used open source technologies when designing the tool in an effort to help more states replicate the product at a lower cost.
UI Integrity Center. The DOL-funded UI Integrity Center of Excellence (UI Integrity Center) was established as a way to help states develop and share innovative strategies to prevent and detect UI improper payments, reduce fraud, and improve program integrity. For example, the UI Integrity Center funded a pilot project in 2016 to support a state in implementing an online tool that trains claimants on how to effectively search for jobs and allows claimants to use the tool to complete their work search activities. The UI Integrity Center also hosted national conferences in 2016 and 2018 that included presentations on state practices to address work search improper payments.
DOL Directs States to Investigate a Sample of Claimants’ Work Searches, but Has Not Clarified Procedures on Verifying Work Search
Although DOL monitors states’ work search overpayment rate estimates and has provided assistance to help states address such overpayments, it has provided limited direction to states on the level of effort states must make to verify whether claimants are actively searching for work. Specifically, DOL’s BAM procedures direct states to investigate a sufficient number of work search contacts in its BAM sample of UI cases to determine if the claimants met the state’s work search requirement. However, DOL has not provided states any additional direction on what is considered “sufficient.” As previously mentioned, the extent to which states attempted to verify job contacts from claimants’ work searches varied across states. Some states reported to DOL that they did not investigate work search activities for a majority of their BAM cases even though work search was required and the claimant reported job contacts.
Federal internal control standards state that agency management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve its objectives, including addressing related risks. According to DOL officials, the agency plans to clarify its BAM procedures, to include providing more definitive instructions to states on work search verification requirements, after the agency issues its planned letter to states about discontinuing the use of formal warning policies. As of May 2018, the agency said it plans to issue the letter on formal warning policies by the end of calendar year 2018. However, as previously stated, it has been nearly a year since DOL initially told us they were planning to issue the letter to states.
Effective monitoring of state compliance with the clarified work search verification requirements will also be important once DOL revises its BAM procedures. Federal internal control standards state that agency management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Monitoring states’ responses could help ensure that DOL achieves its desired results. By providing clear direction to states about work search verification requirements and monitoring states’ implementation of these requirements, DOL would have greater assurance that states are complying with its requirements.
Conclusions
The health of the UI program depends, in part, on the ability of states to control its benefit payments by accurately determining individuals’ eligibility. Improper payments, including overpayments, in the UI program have led to billions of federal and state funds being used inappropriately.
Actively seeking work has generally been an eligibility requirement for individuals receiving unemployment benefits under federal law since 2012, but states have not consistently implemented the requirement for claimants in similar circumstances. States with formal warning policies reported lower work search overpayments not necessarily because they are better at ensuring claimants’ compliance with requirements, but because they are not counting cases where claimants receive formal warnings as overpayments. Furthermore, although DOL determined in 2017 that states are not permitted to issue formal warnings rather than reporting an overpayment, it has not officially told states to stop using warnings. Without providing states with this information and monitoring their response, states will continue to report inconsistent information on the extent of work search overpayments.
State efforts to check whether claimants are meeting work search requirements also vary. Our evidence suggests that states making a greater effort to investigate work search activities tend to have lower overpayment rate estimates associated with this issue. However, some states are not investigating claimant-reported work search activities as part of their BAM audits despite DOL’s procedures directing them to do so. Until DOL provides clear direction to states about verifying work search and monitors state compliance, DOL has little assurance that states are complying with its requirements.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making the following four recommendations to the Department of Labor:
The Assistant Secretary of DOL’s Employment and Training Administration should provide states with information about its determination that the use of state formal warning policies is no longer permissible under federal law. (Recommendation 1)
The Assistant Secretary of DOL’s Employment and Training Administration should monitor states’ efforts to discontinue the use of formal warning policies. (Recommendation 2)
The Assistant Secretary of DOL’s Employment and Training Administration should clarify information on work search verification requirements in its revised Benefit Accuracy Measurement procedures. The revised procedures should include an explanation of what DOL considers to be sufficient verification of claimants’ work search activities. (Recommendation 3)
The Assistant Secretary of DOL’s Employment and Training Administration should monitor states’ compliance with the clarified work search verification requirements. (Recommendation 4)
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor (DOL) for review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DOL agreed with all four of our recommendations and stated that it would take action to address them. DOL also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Additionally, we provided excerpts of the draft report to state UI officials in the selected six states we included in our review. We incorporated their technical comments as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Labor, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Appendix I: Econometric Analysis of Estimated State Work Search Overpayment Rates
Data
We used the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Unemployment Insurance Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) data. The BAM program is designed to determine the accuracy of paid and denied claims for unemployment insurance (UI) in three major UI programs—state UI, Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE), and Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX). The BAM data covers claimants in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Each week, state workforce agencies select random samples of paid and denied unemployment insurance claims (i.e., cases). State BAM investigators then audit these cases to determine whether the claimant was properly paid or was properly denied benefits in the week for which the claim was made (i.e., key week). The bases for determining whether paid and denied claims were accurate are federal and state law, regulations, and policy.
We used BAM cases for paid claims for all UI programs and all states for fiscal years 2013 through 2017. The number of cases for each state is determined by DOL for each year. Cases are chosen randomly each week from the population of claims for that week. The normal weekly number of paid claims sampled in most states is 9, with a minimum of 6, for an annual sample of around 480 cases. For the 10 states with the smaller UI workloads, the normal weekly number of paid claims sampled is 7, with a minimum of 5, for an annual sample of around 360 cases.
For each paid claim case, the BAM data include variables describing the claimant, as well as information on their UI benefit year, separation from their last job, monetary eligibility, benefit payment history, employment services registration and work search, and the outcome of the BAM investigation. For cases for which BAM auditors identify errors, the BAM data also include information on the errors. In 2016, work search issues, benefit year earnings, and separation issues were the most common causes of reported overpayments:
Work search issues. These occur when the state finds that claimants did not actively search for work during the key week. Federal law generally requires people receiving unemployment compensation to be actively searching for work. States have discretion to establish requirements for what constitutes active work search, and these requirements vary by state.
Benefit year earnings issues. These occur when claimants have earnings that exceed the threshold for UI eligibility in their state or when these earnings are not properly reported.
Separation issues. These occur when claimants are ultimately determined to be ineligible for UI due to disqualifying job separations, such as quitting a job without good cause or being discharged for misconduct under the state UI law.
Other causes of overpayments include incorrect reporting of wages used to calculate benefits, able and available to work issues, employment service registration issues, and other issues. For some cases, BAM investigators identify multiple errors with different causes. When this occurs, BAM investigators determine the overpayment amount associated with each cause.
BAM sample data is weighted to make inferences about the population. In accordance with DOL’s method, we calculated the weight on each BAM sample case as (1) the number of unemployment compensation payments to claimants for the state and the week from which the BAM sample case was selected divided by, and (2) the number of completed BAM sample cases for that week, as long as there were two or more completed cases for the week.
Because each state followed a probability procedure based on random selections to pick cases, the BAM sample is only one of a large number of samples that they might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of the BAM sample’s results using confidence intervals. For example, a 95 percent confidence interval is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. In some tables we provide the margin of error instead of the confidence interval, where the margin of error is the half-width of the confidence interval.
Our analysis sample consists of cases with no missing or invalid values of variables used in our analysis that also have positive sample weights. Our analysis sample includes 98.1percent of all cases.
Estimated Overpayment Rates Due to Failure to Meet Work Search Requirement
In accordance with DOL’s method, the estimated overpayment rate is equal to the amount of UI benefits overpaid as a percentage of the total amount of UI benefits paid. The amount of UI benefits overpaid includes fraud, nonfraud recoverable, and nonfraud nonrecoverable overpayments; and overpayments from all causes and responsible parties. The amount overpaid excludes overpayments that DOL considers as technically proper. An overpayment may be considered technically proper by DOL under a finality rule, which generally means that too much time has passed between the decision to pay the claimant and the detection of the eligibility issue, or for some other reason. Our estimated work search overpayment rate is calculated using the same method as the official overpayment rate and is generally comparable to work search overpayment rates reported by DOL.
More specifically, we used the BAM data to identify cases with overpayments and with overpayments due to work search, excluding formal warnings and other payments DOL considers to be technically proper. Next, we applied DOL’s proration algorithm to allocate overpayment amounts for each error associated with a case so that the total amount of overpayments from all errors does not exceed the key week amount paid. Then, we calculated the total overpayment amount and work search overpayment amount for cases with overpayments and work search overpayments, respectively. Finally, we tracked the key week amount paid for each case. To estimate the work search overpayment rate for each state and fiscal year, we calculated the weighted sum of work search overpayment amounts as a percentage of the weighted sum of amounts paid.
Table 4 shows the estimated national work search overpayment rate, the average estimated state work search overpayment rate, and the median estimated state work search overpayment rate for each fiscal year. The national work search overpayment rate estimate has increased from 2.4 percent in 2013 to 4.5 percent in 2017. Over the same time period, the average state work search overpayment rate estimate has increased from 2.6 to 4.6 percent, and the median state work search overpayment rate estimate has increased from 1.4 percent to 2.7 percent. Most states’ work search overpayment rate estimates are less than 5 percent, but some states’ rates are more than 10 percent.
To identify state practices and other factors that may be associated with state work search overpayment rates, we reviewed DOL documents describing the BAM program and summarizing key features of states’ UI programs, as well as research on factors associated with time claimants spend searching for employment. Based on our review, we identified factors that may be associated with work search overpayments that can be measured using variables in the BAM data:
Exemptions from work search requirements. According to DOL, while federal law generally requires claimants to be actively seeking work, it does allow states to exempt claimants in some circumstances. For example, according to DOL, because states may not deny benefits to an individual in approved training, all states provide an exemption from the requirements to be able and available for work and conducting an active work search for any week the individual is in approved training. In addition, according to DOL, some states allow work search exemptions if the worker is union-attached and finds work through the union hall, or if a separation is classified as a temporary lay-off and there is a reasonable expectation that the worker will return to work soon. According to DOL, other state work search exemptions include that the worker has a specified start date for new employment, has jury duty, has a compelling personal reason, is in a labor dispute with the employer, is the victim of domestic violence, or labor market or other information indicates no suitable employment.
It is possible for a case with a claimant who indicated he or she was not required to search for work to have a work search error if the claimant provided an invalid reason for being exempt from his or her state’s work search requirement. For example, the claimant may have said that he or she was a member of a union with a hiring hall and obtained employment through union referrals or that he or she had a definite recall date, and therefore, the work search requirement was waived. However, the BAM investigator’s verification with the union found that the claimant was not in good standing, or the investigator’s verification with the employer found that the claimant had no definite recall date. In such a situation, the claimant might be held ineligible for a failure to conduct an active work search because the exemption was invalid.
Claimant response. According to DOL, the claimant interview anchors the BAM audit and is a major error detection point, and the claimant questionnaire is a required standard form. Claimants may provide information for the BAM audit either in person, over the phone, or via mail or some other method. Some claimants may not respond to the audit at all. For the period from 2013 to 2017, of the work search overpayments that BAM auditors detected in their BAM sample of cases, about 37 percent of cases were uncovered during the claimant interview.
State investigation of job contacts. Claimants are asked to provide information about job contacts as evidence that they were actively searching for work as part of the required claimant questionnaire. In addition, even if the claimant does not respond to the BAM audit, job contacts may be available for BAM auditors to investigate if the state’s continued claim process captured the claimant’s work search information. BAM staff must investigate a sufficient number of contacts to establish whether the claimant has met the state’s work search requirement. For the period from 2013 to 2017, of the work search overpayments that BAM auditors detected in the BAM sample of cases, about 45 percent were uncovered by investigating claimant- provided job contacts.
State use of formal warnings. If the BAM audit of a case determines that the claimant’s work search during the key week was not acceptable, the state might issue a formal warning to the claimant instead of finding that the claimant received a work search overpayment, and these cases are not included in the calculation of the work search overpayment rate for that state. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, of the BAM sample of cases for which work search errors were identified, state workforce agencies issued formal warnings for about 46 percent.
Claimant demographic and other characteristics. Characteristics of claimants that are associated with the amount of time claimants spend searching for work include age, education, gender, length of time between initial claim and key week, and weekly benefit amount as a percentage of the normal weekly wage in the claimant’s industry. To the extent that they affect time spent searching for work, these characteristics may also be associated with the likelihood of claimants receiving a work search overpayment.
Some factors that may be associated with work search overpayments cannot be measured using variables in the BAM data and, thus, are excluded from our analysis. Examples include:
Minimum number of work search activities. According to DOL, the minimum number of work search activities required per week varies across states and can vary based on labor market conditions, which can, for example, produce different requirements in a rural area versus an urban area. However, some states do not specify a required number of work search activities and instead require that the number of work search activities be “reasonable,” according to a DOL report.
Type of required employer contacts. According to DOL, some states allow claimants to search for part-time work as well as full-time work, while others do not. In addition, according to DOL, some states specify that participation in reemployment services counts as a contact, and some states require claimants to make at least one contact through the state online system.
Frequency and method of reporting. According to DOL, some states require weekly claimant reporting of work search activities, while others require bi-weekly reporting. In addition, according to DOL, some states require claimants to report online as part of their continued claim, while others require claimants to keep a log of their work search activities.
Econometric Mode
Our econometric model is the following: work search overpayment rates, = α + β∗work search requireds, + γ*n-person responses, + γ*telephone responses, + γ*mail, email, fax, or other responses, + δ*contacts investigateds, + φ + X’Θ + year indicators + ε, where s and y denote state and year, respectively, and the explanatory variables in the model are the following:
Work search required is the estimated fraction of cases with claimants for whom work search is required, according to the BAM data.
In-person response, telephone response, and mail, email, fax, or other response are the estimated fractions of cases with claimants who responded to the BAM audit in person, by telephone, or by mail, email, fax, or other method, respectively.
Contacts investigated is the estimated fraction of cases for which BAM auditors investigated one or more job contacts.
Low, moderate, and frequent formal warning use are binary indicator variables equal to 1 if the state issued a low, moderate, or high number of formal warnings in the fiscal year as a percentage of BAM cases with work search errors, respectively, and 0 otherwise. We defined low formal warning states as those that issued formal warnings for some but less than 25 percent of the cases with work search errors, moderate formal warning states as those that issued formal warnings for at least 25 percent but less than 75 percent of cases with work search errors, and high formal warning states as those that issued formal warnings for anywhere from 75 to 100 percent of cases with work search errors. The omitted group is states that issued no formal warnings during the fiscal year.
X is a list of other characteristics of claimants that may be associated with work search, including the estimated distributions of cases across claimants’ age groups, education levels, gender, length of time between initial claim and key week, and weekly benefit amount as a percentage of the normal weekly wage for their occupation. ε is an error term.
The parameters of interest in our econometric model are β, γ, γ, γ, δ, φ is an estimate of the change in the work search overpayment rate associated with a 1 percentage point increase in the fraction of cases with claimants who responded to the BAM audit in person, all else being equal. The parameters γ and γ are estimates of the change in the work search overpayment rate associated with a 1 percentage point increase in the fraction of cases with claimants who responded to the BAM audit by telephone and by mail, email, fax, or other method, respectively, all else being equal.
The parameter δ is an estimate of the change in the work search overpayment rate associated with a 1 percentage point increase in the fraction of cases for which BAM auditors investigated one or more job contacts, all else being equal.
The parameters φTable 5 shows descriptive statistics for the explanatory variables, other than formal warnings.
Table 6 shows descriptive statistics for states’ use of formal warnings.
Our analysis is subject to several limitations, and the results we discuss below should be interpreted with caution.
No causality. Our econometric approach can establish correlations between state work search overpayment rate estimates and the factors we analyzed, but it cannot establish causal relationships. This limitation is especially important when it comes to interpreting the relationship between work search overpayment rate estimates and the fraction of cases for which BAM auditors investigated job contacts. BAM investigations can only detect work search overpayments, not prevent them, because BAM investigators are reviewing cases after the payment has already been made. Preventing work search overpayments is the only way to reduce the work search overpayment rates. Thus, the relationship between investigation of claimant- provided contacts and work search overpayment rates likely reflects not a causal relationship but an equilibrium relationship in which claimants who know that their job contacts will be investigated are more likely to search for work, all else being equal.
Nongeneralizability. Our results do not generalize to other time periods with different labor market conditions, different rules and regulations about unemployment insurance, or other differences.
Omitted variables. As discussed above, we have excluded from our models some state practices that may be associated with work search overpayments because those variables were not included in the BAM data. For example, we do not account for the fact that, according to DOL, some states require claimants to engage in more work search activities than other states, which could affect the likelihood that a claimant receives a work search overpayment. In addition, according to DOL, some states require claimants to report their work search activities in order to continue receiving benefits, which might prevent some work search overpayments from occurring. We have also likely excluded some relevant claimant characteristics as well. For example, total income for a claimant’s household and a claimant’s number of dependents may affect their work search efforts. However, variables describing a claimant’s household income and composition are not included in the BAM data and thus are omitted from our analysis. To the extent that these factors are correlated with the factors we included, our estimates of the relationships between work search overpayment rates and the included factors could be biased.
Measurement error. Our variables may have been measured with error, which could bias our coefficient estimates. If the measurement error is random, our coefficient estimates would be biased down, but if the measurement error is systematic, then we cannot say whether our coefficient estimates would be biased down or up.
Results
Our baseline specification suggests that some state practices are associated with state work search overpayment rates estimates (see column 1 of table 7). We used the 10 percent level of significance as our threshold for statistical significance because we have a relatively small number of observations (259).
State work search overpayment rate estimates were higher in states with more cases with claimants who were required to search for work. A 1 percentage point increase in the fraction of cases with claimants required to search for work was associated with a 0.084 percentage point increase in the work search overpayment rate estimates on average, all else being equal.
Work search overpayment rate estimates were lower in states with more cases for which the BAM auditors investigated one or more job contacts. A one percentage point increase in the fraction of cases for which the BAM auditors investigated contacts was associated with a 0.072 percentage point reduction in the work search overpayment rate on average, all else being equal.
Compared to states that did not issue any formal warnings, work search overpayment rate estimates were higher in states that made low or moderate use of formal warnings but lower in states that issued formal warnings frequently. Work search overpayment rate estimates in states that were low and moderate users of formal warnings were 3.9 and 3.1 percentage points higher on average than those in states that issued no formal warnings, all else being equal. Work search overpayment rate estimates in states that were frequent users of formal warnings were 3.5 percentage points lower on average than those in states that issued no formal warnings.
Our state-level analysis also suggests that some characteristics of cases are not associated with state work search overpayment rate estimates, but others are. State work search overpayment rate estimates were not significantly associated with the distribution of cases by claimant age, gender, duration of unemployment benefits receipt, or key week amount as a percentage of the normal weekly wage in their occupation, or with the number of cases. However, state work search overpayment rate estimates were higher in states with more cases with claimants with some college or an associate’s degree relative to cases with claimants without a high school degree or GED. A one percentage point increase in the estimated fraction of cases with claimants with some college or an associates degree was associated with a 0.192 percentage point increase in estimated work search overpayment rates on average, all else being equal.
To assess the sensitivity of our results, we estimated fractional response models with robust standard errors instead of clustered standard errors (see column (2) of table 7). We also estimated fractional response models that replaced the fractions of cases by claimant response method with the fraction of cases with claimants who responded to the BAM audit by all methods combined, with both types of standard errors. Finally, we estimated linear models, also with both types of standard errors. While the direction and magnitude of the relationship between estimated work search overpayment rates and the fraction of cases with claimants required to search for work was generally similar across specifications, it was not always statistically significant. The direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the relationship between estimated work search overpayment rates and the fraction of cases for which BAM auditors investigated job contacts was generally similar across specifications, with the exception of the linear model with clustered standard errors, where it was not statistically significant. The directions, magnitudes, and statistical significance of the relationship between estimated work search overpayment rates and estimated state formal warning use were generally similar across specifications.
Appendix II: Additional Benefit Accuracy Measurement Data Tables
This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used throughout this report, using the Department of Labor’s Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) data for fiscal years 2013 through 2017.
According to DOL, because the BAM data are based on a statistical survey, estimates produced from our analysis of the BAM data are subject to sampling and non-sampling errors. Sampling errors are errors that arise in a data collection process as a result of taking a sample from a population rather than using the whole population. Non-sampling errors are errors or biases that arise in a data collection process as a result of factors other than taking a sample, such as the timeliness of data collection, data entry errors, biased questions in fact-finding, biased decision-making, and inappropriate analysis and conclusions completed by state investigators or false or inaccurate information provided by survey respondents. We express our confidence in the precision of our results by reporting the margins of error associated with 95 percent confidence intervals. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples the respective agency could have drawn.
In addition, it may be misleading to compare one state's work search overpayment rates with another state's rates. According to DOL, no two states' written laws, regulations, and policies specifying eligibility conditions are identical, and differences in these conditions influence the potential for error.
The following tables and information are included in this appendix:
Table 8: The estimated overpayment amounts for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program by cause in fiscal year 2017 (also represented in fig. 2 in the letter portion).
Table 9: The national work search overpayment rate estimates and dollar amounts for fiscal years 2013 through 2017 (also represented in fig. 3 in the letter portion).
Table 10: The work search overpayment rates estimates and dollar amount of work search overpayments in each state in fiscal year 2017, excluding cases where formal warnings were given.
Table 11: The percentage of cases in which claimants were required to search for work and the percentage of those cases in which job contacts were investigated in each state in fiscal year 2017.
Table 12: For states that issued formal warnings in 2017, the UI overpayment rate estimates excluding and including cases in which formal warnings were issued, and the difference in the dollar amount of overpayments if formal warnings were not used.
Appendix III: Summary of Six States’ Work Search Requirements for Unemployment Insurance Claimants
Work search requirements for Unemployment Insurance claimants vary by state. According to our review of program documents in our six selected states, the minimum number of work search activities required per week ranged from not specified to four. Three of the states limited the work search activities to applying for jobs or contacting employers in other ways and the three other states had broader definitions of what would qualify as a work search activity. See table 13 below for a summary of the work search requirements, confirmed by state officials, for the six states included in our review.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Cindy Brown Barnes 202-512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact names above, Danielle Giese (Assistant Director), Cathy Roark (Analyst in Charge), Carl Barden, Rachel Beers, Deborah Bland, Beryl Davis, Holly Dye, Alex Galuten, Dana Hopings, Joel Marus, Phillip McIntyre, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean McSween, Courtney LaFountain, Stacy Spence, Almeta Spencer, Matt Valenta made significant contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
The UI program, which is overseen by DOL and administered by states, paid $30 billion to about 5.7 million individuals in 2017. Under federal law, to be eligible for benefits, individuals are generally required to actively search for work, but the specific work search requirements vary by state. Yet, states found that some benefits were overpaid to UI claimants who were ineligible because they were not meeting work search requirements. GAO was asked to review improper payments due to UI claimants' failure to actively search for work. Building on GAO's prior work ( GAO-18-133R ), this report examines (1) state administrative practices associated with work search overpayments; (2) selected states' approaches to address work search overpayments; and (3) DOL's oversight and support of states' efforts.
GAO analyzed DOL data, including the results of state reviews of a representative random sample of UI payments made from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. GAO also reviewed UI information from six states selected for variation in work search requirements and overpayment rates, interviewed DOL and state officials, and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance.
What GAO Found
GAO's analysis of Department of Labor (DOL) data found that certain state administrative practices, such as reviewing a higher percentage of claimant-reported work search activities and frequent use of formal warnings, were associated with lower estimated work search overpayment rates for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. According to DOL data, 22 states were warning claimants after the first discovered occurrence of their failure to meet work search requirements (i.e., issuing formal warnings) rather than reporting that an overpayment was made, while the other states were reporting such cases as overpayments. In 2017, DOL determined that federal law does not permit states to use such policies. GAO's analysis of DOL data shows that in fiscal year 2017, estimated work search overpayments were nearly $1.4 billion (see fig.), but would have been an estimated $1.8 billion (+/-$0.2 billion) greater if states had not issued formal warnings and established overpayments. DOL officials told GAO in July 2017 that the agency would issue a letter to states informing them that federal law does not permit them to warn claimants instead of establishing an overpayment. To date, DOL has not issued the letter. Until DOL provides states with such notification, states may continue to report inconsistent information on overpayments.
State officials GAO interviewed reported using multiple approaches to address work search overpayments, including using their online systems that automate collecting information on claimants' work search activities; conducting audits of claimants work search activities beyond those required; and sending automated messages to claimants regarding their work search requirements. Officials said that their approaches encouraged claimants to conduct a more active work search and prevented work search overpayments in some cases.
DOL monitors states' work search overpayment rate estimates and has helped states address such overpayments, but lacks clear procedures for how states should verify claimants' work search activities. DOL directs states to verify a “sufficient” number of work search activities during their audits but has not provided information on what is considered sufficient. DOL data show that some states did not review claimants' work search activities for a majority of audited cases. DOL officials said that the agency plans to clarify its procedures after issuing a letter about formal warnings. By clarifying these procedures, DOL will have greater assurance that states are complying with verification requirements.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making four recommendations to DOL, including that it provide states information about its determination that the use of state formal warning policies is no longer permissible and clarify its work search verification requirements. DOL agreed with GAO's recommendations and stated that it would take action to address them. | 96 | 69,290 | 69,292 | 69,292 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-19-220 | gao_GAO-19-220_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
State is the lead agency involved in implementing American foreign policy and representing the United States abroad. According to State and USAID’s joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, State’s goals are to (1) protect America’s security at home and abroad, (2) renew America’s competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job creation, (3) promote American leadership through balanced engagement, and (4) ensure effectiveness and accountability to the American taxpayer.
State’s Foreign Service employees serve in a variety of functions at overseas posts as either generalists or specialists. Foreign Service generalists help formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy and are assigned to work in one of five career tracks: consular, economic, management, political, or public diplomacy. Generalists at overseas posts collect information and engage with foreign governments and citizens of foreign countries and report the results of these interactions back to State headquarters in Washington, D.C., among other functions. Foreign Service specialists abroad support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts and serve in one of 25 different skill groups, in positions such as security officer or information management. Specialists at overseas posts play a critical role in ensuring the security and maintenance of the posts’ facilities, computer networks, and supplies as well as the protection of post staff, their family members, and local staff, among other functions.
State may require Foreign Service employees to be available for service anywhere in the world, as needed, and State has the authority to direct Foreign Service employees to any of its posts overseas or to its headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, as noted in our 2012 report, State generally does not use this authority, preferring other means of filling high-priority positions, according to State officials. The process of assigning Foreign Service employees to their positions typically begins when they receive a list of upcoming vacancies for which they may compete. Foreign Service employees then submit a list of positions for which they would like to be considered, known as bids, to the Office of Career Development and Assignments and consult with their career development officer. The process varies depending on an officer’s grade and functional specialty, and State uses a variety of incentives to encourage Foreign Service employees to bid on difficult-to-fill posts.
State groups countries of the world—and corresponding U.S. overseas posts in these countries—into areas of responsibility under six geographic regional bureaus:
Bureau of African Affairs
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Overseas posts report to State headquarters through their respective regional bureaus. For example, because the Bureau of African Affairs has responsibility for developing and managing U.S. policy concerning parts of the African continent, U.S. overseas posts in Nigeria report through the bureau to State headquarters.
According to State officials, State maintains personnel data on State employees in its GEMS database. GEMS includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions; in particular, it shows the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions at State and whether each position is currently filled or vacant. As displayed in figure 1, the GEMS data show that the majority of Foreign Service employees (73 percent) work in positions at overseas posts. However, some Foreign Service staff (27 percent) are assigned to positions in the United States, where they may complete required language or other training, serve as desk officers for the regional bureaus, or work in other functions at State headquarters.
Overseas Foreign Service Vacancies Have Persisted over Time While Overseas Foreign Service Staffing Has Increased, Staffing Gaps Persist
According to State data, the number of both staffed and vacant overseas Foreign Service positions increased between 2008 and 2018. As shown in figure 2, the number of positions staffed grew from 6,979 in 2008 to 8,574 in 2018—a more than 20 percent increase. Despite the increase in the number of positions staffed, our analysis found that as of March 31, 2018, overall, 13 percent of State’s overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant. This vacancy percentage is similar to the percentages of vacancies in overseas Foreign Service positions that we reported in 2012 and 2008. In 2012, we reported that 14 percent of State’s overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of October 31, 2011, and we reported that the same percentage of overseas Foreign Service positions—14 percent—were vacant as of September 30, 2008.
According to State officials, State’s ability to hire Foreign Service employees to fill persistent vacancies has been affected by factors such as reduced appropriations. For instance, according to State officials and State’s Five Year Workforce Plan, because of funding cuts enacted in fiscal year 2013, State could only hire one employee for every two leaving the Foreign Service. From fiscal years 2014 to 2016, funding for State’s annual appropriations supported hiring to replace Foreign Service employees projected to leave the agency, according to State officials. These officials indicated, however, that Foreign Service hiring was again impacted from January 2017 through May 2018 by a hiring freeze. As a result, State hired below levels required to replace full projected attrition of Foreign Service employees.
State’s Data Show Higher Vacancy Rates in Foreign Service Specialist Positions Compared to Foreign Service Generalist Positions
While State’s data show persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts, specialist positions remain vacant at a higher rate. State’s data show that 12 percent (680 of 5,660) of overseas Foreign Service generalist positions were vacant as of March 31, 2018, a slight decrease from the 14 percent of overseas Foreign Service generalist positions that we reported vacant in 2012. State’s data also show that 14.2 percent (594 of 4,188) of all overseas Foreign Service specialist positions were vacant, close to the 14.8 percent vacancy rate that we reported in 2012.
Foreign Service Generalists
State’s data show persistent vacancies in Foreign Service generalist positions responsible for analysis, engagement, and reporting at overseas posts. As shown in table 1, among Foreign Service generalist career tracks, the political, economic, and “other” tracks had the largest percentage of vacant positions, with, respectively, 20 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent of positions vacant as of March 31, 2018. Our 2012 report noted vacancies in the same three career tracks. Political officers at overseas posts are responsible for collecting and analyzing information on political events, engaging with foreign governments, and reporting back to State headquarters. Economic officers at overseas posts work with foreign governments and other U.S. agencies on technology, science, economic, trade, and environmental issues. The “other” generalist career track includes positions designated as “Executive” or “International Relations,” which, according to State officials, may be filled by generalists from any of State’s five career tracks.
State’s data show persistent vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. Among the 10 largest Foreign Service specialist skill groups, security officer, office management specialist, and information management had the largest percentages of vacant positions. As shown in figure 3, in these three groups, respectively, 16 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent of positions were vacant. The vacancies in these three specialist skill groups are persistent; in 2012, we reported that the same three groups had the largest numbers of vacant positions. Security officers are typically responsible for responding to various threats to the physical security of overseas posts and for ensuring the protection of post staff, their family members, and local staff. Office management specialists provide professional management and administrative support. Information management staff are typically responsible for maintaining and ensuring the security of State’s computer networks and communications systems at overseas posts.
State Faces Challenges Recruiting Personnel to Fill Some Foreign Service Specialist Positions That Often Require Specialized Skills and Competencies
State officials said that State has had difficulty in recruiting and hiring Foreign Service employees to fill specialist positions in some skill groups at overseas posts. According to State officials and staff at overseas posts, some vacant specialist positions are more difficult to fill than others because candidates for these positions must often possess skills in fields such as medicine or information technology that tend to be highly sought after in the private sector. According to staff at overseas posts, it is not uncommon for specialist candidates in these fields to choose higher- paying jobs in the private sector rather than specialist positions in the Foreign Service. Additionally, in some circumstances, State must compete with other federal agencies to recruit specialists from the same limited pool of talent. Consequently, according to State officials, State has been unable to attract and retain personnel with the skills necessary to fill some Foreign Service specialist positions, which has led to persistent vacancies in specialist positions.
Vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions at overseas posts present additional challenges because specialized skills and competencies are often required to perform the work of these positions. According to State officials, because Foreign Service generalists may be assigned to work outside of their career tracks, in some circumstances, State has more flexibility in filling a generalist vacancy than a specialist vacancy. For example, generalists outside the consular career track can serve as a consular officer for one or more tours of duty. However, specialist positions often require specialized skills or experience that generalists may not possess. In addition, according to staff at overseas posts, it is generally not possible for a Foreign Service specialist from one skill group to perform the work of a Foreign Service specialist from a different skill group. For instance, a Foreign Service specialist assigned to the medical section at a post will not be able to help address the workload of a vacant position in the information management section. Thus, according to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in specialist positions at the posts may create greater challenges than vacancies in generalist positions.
State’s Data Show Persistent Foreign Service Vacancies at Overseas Posts with State’s Highest Foreign Policy Priorities
According to State’s data, as of March 31, 2018, overseas posts with State’s highest foreign policy priorities had the highest percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions. Using its Overseas Staffing Model process, State assigns each embassy to one of seven categories based primarily on the level and type of work required to pursue the U.S. government’s diplomatic relations with the host country at post. As we previously reported, the rankings are closely associated with the department’s foreign policy priorities; the higher the category, the greater the resources needed to conduct the work of the overseas post and the higher the post’s foreign policy priority. For example, the highest-level category, level 5+, includes the largest, most comprehensive full-service posts, where the host country’s regional and global role requires extensive U.S. personnel resources. The lowest-level category includes small embassies with limited requirements for advocacy, liaison, and coordination in the host country’s government. As shown in table 2, according to State’s data, as of March 31, 2018, overseas posts in the “Embassy 5+” category had the highest percentage of vacant positions. The results of this analysis were similar to those we reported in 2012.
State’s Data Show Higher Vacancy Rates in Regions with Security Risks That Could Threaten U.S. Foreign Policy Interests
While State has Foreign Service vacancies worldwide, as of March 31, 2018, the highest percentages of vacancies were in the South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau (SCA) and Near Eastern Affairs Bureau (NEA)—bureaus representing regions with heightened security risks that could threaten U.S. foreign policy interests, according to State. SCA, which includes countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, faces a host of security and stability challenges that could threaten U.S. interests, according to a February 2018 report from State’s Office of Inspector General. NEA includes countries, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, which have faced numerous security threats in recent years that could also threaten U.S. interests overseas.
As shown in figure 4, among State’s regional bureaus, as of March 31, 2018, SCA and NEA had the highest percentages of overseas Foreign Service vacancies at 21 percent (238 of 1,115 positions) and 18 percent (234 of 1,279 positions), respectively. In 2012, we reported that these two bureaus also had the highest percentages of overseas Foreign Service vacancies among regional bureaus.
Overseas Foreign Service Vacancies Have Adverse Effects on State’s Diplomatic Readiness Vacancies in Overseas Foreign Service Positions Increase Workloads and Affect Employee Morale, According to Staff at Overseas Posts
Vacancies in Foreign Service positions at overseas posts increase workloads and adversely affect the morale of Foreign Service employees. According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, when a Foreign Service position at an overseas post is vacant, Foreign Service employees at that post are generally responsible for covering the workload of the vacant position. Further, Foreign Service employees at some posts—particularly posts with fewer Foreign Service staff—may be responsible for covering the workload of multiple vacant positions. For example, at two African posts we heard examples of Foreign Service employees covering the workload of multiple vacant Foreign Service positions. As a result of increased workloads, Foreign Service employees are also more likely to have less time available to perform some important functions, according to staff at overseas posts. According to staff at overseas posts, such functions include training and supervising entry- level Foreign Service employees, local staff, and eligible family members (EFM); reducing the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse; improving and innovating processes at post that could reduce inefficiencies; initiating and implementing projects that could enhance various diplomatic efforts; and conducting maintenance of systems.
In addition, according to staff at overseas posts, vacancies adversely affect staff morale. Staff at multiple posts said that vacancies and the resulting increased workloads had created substantial stress and increased “burnout” of Foreign Service employees at the posts. They noted that these levels of stress and burnout had contributed to Foreign Service employees’ ending their overseas assignments early for medical or personal reasons. These curtailments, in turn, had increased the overall vacancies and their effects at overseas posts.
Vacancies in Overseas Foreign Service Generalist Positions, Especially in the Political and Economic Career Tracks, Adversely Affect State’s Diplomatic Readiness
According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in Foreign Service generalist positions at overseas posts adversely affect State’s diplomatic readiness. Among Foreign Service generalist career tracks, the political and economic career tracks had the two largest percentages of vacant positions—20 percent and 16 percent, respectively—as of March 31, 2018.
According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in political and economic positions at overseas posts—particularly posts with fewer Foreign Service employees—limit the amount of reporting on political and economic developments that posts are able to submit back to State headquarters. For example, Foreign Service employees from three posts in Africa told us that persistent, long-term vacancies in those posts’ political and economic positions had constrained their abilities to provide full reporting on political and economic developments in their host countries. According to staff at overseas posts, reporting on political and economic developments in other countries—submitted by overseas posts back to State headquarters—is essential for State to make informed foreign policy decisions. Foreign Service employees from two posts in large countries in East and South Asia also told us that vacancies in these sections had limited their capacity to engage with host government officials on important, strategic issues for the United States, such as reducing nuclear proliferation or enhancing trade and investment relationships with the United States. Vacancies in the political and economic career tracks at overseas posts could adversely affect State’s ability to achieve two of the goals in State and USAID’s joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022—(1) renew America’s competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job creation and (2) promote American leadership through balanced engagement.
Vacancies in Overseas Foreign Service Specialist Positions May Heighten Security Risks at Overseas Posts and Disrupt Post Operations
According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions at overseas posts may heighten the level of security risk at the posts and disrupt post operations. Among Foreign Service specialist skill groups with the highest number of vacant positions, security officer, office management specialist, and information management had the largest percentages of vacant positions—16 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent, respectively—as of March 31, 2018.
Security Officer
According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in security officer positions at overseas posts reduce the amount of time that security staff can spend identifying, investigating, and responding to potential security threats to the post. Security officers are also responsible for identifying and analyzing host-country intelligence-gathering efforts at their respective overseas posts—and post staff told us that, because of vacancies in these positions, some security officers had been unable to complete this work for their posts, potentially increasing the risk of foreign government officials gaining access to sensitive information. Also, post staff told us that security officer vacancies limit the amount of time that security officers present at posts can devote to important security oversight activities, including regular training, drilling, and supervising of local guard forces and security contractors. Post staff noted, for example, that security officers at overseas posts should conduct regular training and drilling exercises to evaluate their local guard force’s effectiveness in searching a vehicle entering the post compound for explosive devices. According to post staff, when these important security oversight activities are not properly and regularly conducted, the level of security risk at these overseas posts may increase.
Information Management
According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, as well as reporting by State’s OIG, vacancies in information management positions at overseas posts have increased the vulnerability of posts’ computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats. State officials told us that the Foreign Service had faced chronic shortages of information management staff available to fill these positions worldwide. According to State officials, because of ongoing information management vacancies, some required tasks—such as conducting planned network maintenance—were performed infrequently or not at all. In another example, staff at overseas posts said that because of vacancies, information management staff had been unable to regularly check their computer system logs to ensure that security breaches had not taken place. Post staff added that, if a breach did occur, vacancies could increase the amount of time needed to identify an attack and deploy countermeasures, further increasing the risks to posts’ computer networks. Inspections conducted by State’s OIG from fall 2014 to spring 2016 found that information management staff at 33 percent of overseas posts had not performed various required information management duties. According to State’s OIG, neglect of these duties may leave the department vulnerable to increased cybersecurity attacks.
Office Management Specialist
According to staff at overseas posts, the office management specialist position at overseas posts has evolved considerably over time; these specialists increasingly play a critical role in ensuring that the work of overseas posts is effectively completed. Post staff said that office management specialists provide administrative and other support services to other Foreign Service employees and are assigned to various sections of post. For example, staff at one post noted that office management specialists assigned to the Security Officer sections at overseas posts reduce the workload of security officers by completing more routine security tasks and allowing the security officers to focus on more challenging or involved tasks necessary to secure overseas posts. Post staff told us that vacancies in office management specialist positions reduce the amount of work that can be completed by other Foreign Service employees at overseas posts. For example, when office management specialist positions assigned to the Security Officer or Information Management sections of posts are vacant, these vacancies further exacerbate the higher number of vacancies that already exist in these sections. According to staff at overseas posts, higher numbers of office management specialist vacancies require other Foreign Service employees to spend a significant amount of time on administrative tasks, reducing the amount of time these staff can spend on mission-critical activities.
State Described Various Efforts to Address Overseas Foreign Service Vacancies, but These Efforts Are Not Guided by an Integrated Action Plan to Reduce Persistent Vacancies State Officials Described Various Efforts to Help Address Vacancies
Officials in headquarters and at overseas posts described various State efforts to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies. According to State officials, Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts are a complex problem that multiple offices within State address on an individual basis.
State’s Efforts to Address Overseas Foreign Service Vacancies Are Not Guided by an Integrated Action Plan to Reduce Persistent Vacancies
State’s various efforts to address overseas Foreign Service vacancies are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies. Our 2017 High-Risk Series report calls for agencies to, among other things, design and implement action plan strategies for closing skills gaps. The action plan should (1) define the root cause of all skills gaps within an agency and (2) provide suggested corrective measures, including steps necessary to implement solutions. This report also emphasizes the high risk that mission-critical skills gaps in the federal workforce pose to the nation.
While various State offices have implemented the efforts we identified, State lacks an action plan that is integrated—or consolidated—across its relevant offices to guide its efforts to address persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies. Moreover, some staff at overseas posts acknowledged that the efforts State has taken to help address vacancies have not reduced persistent Foreign Service vacancies, notably in specialist positions. In response to our inquiry about an action plan, State officials said that the agency does not have a single document that addresses Foreign Service staffing gaps at overseas posts. Instead, State officials directed us to State’s Five Year Workforce Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020, stating that it was the most comprehensive document that outlines State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts. The workforce plan notes that it provides a framework to address State’s human capital requirements and highlights State’s challenges and achievements in recruiting, hiring, staffing, and training Foreign Service staff. However, in reviewing the portions of the workforce plan that State indicated were most relevant, we found that the workforce plan does not include an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of the persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies we identified or suggest corrective measures to reduce vacancies in these positions, including steps necessary to implement solutions.
State officials also noted that they frequently meet to discuss and address workforce issues. For example, they said they convene a multi-bureau planning group that meets biweekly to discuss strategic workforce issues such as hiring needs based on attrition and other issues. However, according to State officials, this group has not developed an action plan to reduce persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts.
State lacks an integrated action plan to guide its efforts to address persistent Foreign Service vacancies that includes corrective measures to address the root causes of the vacancies. Without defining the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and identifying appropriate corrective measures, overseas vacancies may persist and continue to adversely affect State’s ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals.
Conclusions
Foreign Service generalists and specialists at overseas posts are critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy and economic interests abroad. However, for at least a decade, the Foreign Service has had persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts. In particular, large numbers of vacant positions have persisted over time in certain overseas Foreign Service positions, such as information management and security officer positions. These vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts have adversely affected State’s ability to carry out its mission effectively and threaten State’s ability to ensure the security and safety of its employees, their families, and post facilities. While State has made some efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies, addressing chronic vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts requires a thoughtful, coherent, and integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts along with suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, following what was called for in our 2017 High-Risk Series report. Developing such an action plan would help State address its persistent staffing gaps, improve its ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals, and help ensure secure and efficient operations.
Recommendation for Executive Action
The Secretary of State should develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and provides suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions. (Recommendation 1)
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to State for review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, State concurred with our recommendation. State also noted that it has taken actions and identified some causes of vacancies, but acknowledged that it lacks an integrated action plan and will take steps to develop such a plan. State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This report examines (1) vacancies in the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies.
To address these three objectives, we interviewed State officials from the department’s Bureau of Human Resources and Bureau of Consular Affairs as well as State officials representing the Offices of the Executive Director for State’s six regional bureaus. We also interviewed staff at 10 overseas posts. We conducted in-person interviews with staff at 3 of these posts—the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai, China, and the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India. We conducted telephone interviews with staff at the other 7 posts—the U.S. Embassies in Abuja, Nigeria; Bogota, Colombia; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kabul, Afghanistan; Mexico City, Mexico; and N’Djamena, Chad; and the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany. We used the following criteria to select overseas posts for interviews: (1) posts with larger numbers of Foreign Service vacancies; (2) posts with diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant; (3) posts with higher relative importance to U.S. economic, national security, and other foreign policy interests; and (4) posts in a range of geographic locations by State region.
To examine vacancies in State’s Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, we analyzed State’s personnel data on Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts from the department’s Global Employment Management System (GEMS), as of March 2018. Our analysis of the GEMS data includes Foreign Service positions filled by permanent Foreign Service employees as well as positions filled by nonpermanent Foreign Service employees, such as Consular Fellows. This analysis does not include the number of staffed and vacant positions at overseas posts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which, at the time of our review, were in suspended operations status, as well as U.S. Mission Somalia, which was operating under special circumstances at a different location.
To calculate vacancy rates, we divided the total number of positions by the number of positions listed as vacant in GEMS. For example, a post with 10 positions and 2 vacancies would have a vacancy rate of 20 percent. We calculated vacancy rates for each of the following categories: type (i.e., generalist or specialist), function (e.g., consular or information management), regional bureau (i.e., Bureau of African Affairs or Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs), and embassy and nonembassy rankings from State’s Overseas Staffing Model (i.e., Embassy 3+ or 5).
According to State officials, the data in GEMS have a number of limitations:
The number of vacant positions at overseas posts listed in GEMS may be overstated, because State has not yet decided to remove some of these positions from its database.
Some of the vacancies in GEMS are short-term or temporary. Foreign Service employees periodically rotate out of their positions at their overseas posts, sometimes creating temporary vacancies until the positions are filled by incoming Foreign Service employees.
The GEMS data show larger numbers of vacant Foreign Service positions at posts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan than actually were unstaffed at these posts. According to State officials, this discrepancy results from State’s relying heavily on shorter-term assignments to fill Foreign Service positions at these locations. These shorter-term assignments are not reflected in GEMS, and the positions therefore appear vacant.
The GEMS data may not reflect Foreign Service employees who have been temporarily reassigned from one overseas post to another.
The GEMS data may show positions as filled although the Foreign Service employee filling the position has not yet arrived at post.
To assess the reliability of the GEMS database, we asked State officials whether State had made any major changes to the database since our 2012 report, when we assessed the GEMS data to be sufficiently reliable. State officials indicated that no major changes had been made. We also tested the data for completeness, confirmed the general accuracy of the data with officials at selected overseas posts, and interviewed knowledgeable officials from State’s Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis concerning the data’s reliability. We found the GEMS data to be reliable for the purpose of determining the numbers and percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions at overseas posts. We did not validate whether the total number of authorized overseas Foreign Service positions was appropriate or met State’s needs.
We also reviewed State workforce planning documents and budget documents, such as State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020 and Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. In addition, we reviewed State Office of Inspector General reports as well as our previous reports on human capital challenges at State and effective strategic human capital management across the federal government. In particular, our report High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others notes that strategic human capital management is a high-risk issue across the federal government and lists five key elements as a road map for agency efforts to improve and ultimately address such issues. For our third objective, we assessed whether State’s efforts to address vacancies were guided by a corrective action plan that identifies the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to March 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Analysis of Vacant Foreign Service Positions at Overseas Posts in Various Categories as of March 31, 2018
Management 10 largest specialist skill groups at overseas posts Security Officer
Staffed positions at overseas posts Overseas posts by Overseas Staffing Model category Embassy 1 or 2 655
The “Economic” generalist career track includes positions from the “Science Officer” staffing skill group in the GEMS data. 170 Foreign Service employees were not staffed to one of the six regional bureaus.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant Director), Ian Ferguson (Analyst-in-Charge), Anthony Costulas, Natalia Pena, Debbie Chung, Chris Keblitis, Reid Lowe, Justin Fisher, and Alexander Welsh made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
State staffs Foreign Service employees to more than 270 embassies and consulates worldwide to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. In 2009 and 2012, GAO identified ongoing Foreign Service staffing gaps.
GAO was asked to review State's Foreign Service staffing. This report examines (1) vacancies in State's Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State's efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed State's Global Employment Management System data as of March 2018. The system includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, including the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions and whether each position is filled or vacant. GAO also reviewed its relevant prior reports and State workforce planning documents. In addition, GAO interviewed State staff at 10 overseas posts, selected on the basis of large numbers of Foreign Service vacancies and diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant at these posts, among other factors.
What GAO Found
The Department of State's (State) data show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts since 2008. According to the data, 13 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of March 2018. This percentage is similar to the percentages GAO reported for 2008 and 2012, when 14 percent of these positions were vacant. In addition, State's data show persistent vacancies at overseas posts in generalist positions that help formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy and in specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. State's data also show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts with State's highest foreign policy priorities and in regions with security risks that could threaten U.S. foreign policy interests.
According to staff at overseas posts, Foreign Service vacancies adversely affect State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Staff at overseas posts told us that vacancies increase workloads, contributing to low morale and higher stress for Foreign Service staff and that vacancies in Political and Economic positions—20 percent and 16 percent, respectively—limit the reporting on political and economic issues that posts are able to provide to State headquarters. Notably, officials also stated that vacancies in specialist positions may heighten security risks at overseas posts and disrupt post operations. For instance, some overseas post staff said that vacancies in Information Management positions had increased the vulnerability of posts' computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats.
State described various efforts—implemented by multiple offices in the department —to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies, but these efforts are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies. An example of State's efforts is the “Hard-to-Fill” program, which allows Civil Service staff an opportunity to fill a Foreign Service vacancy on a single overseas tour. According to GAO's 2017 High-Risk Series report, an agency should design and implement an action plan—integrated across its relevant offices—that defines the root causes of all skills gaps and suggests corrective measures. However, State has not developed such an action plan for reducing persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies. Without developing an integrated action plan, overseas Foreign Service vacancies may persist. As a result, State's ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals and help ensure secure and efficient operations could be adversely impacted.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that State develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies. State concurred with our recommendation and noted that it will take steps to develop an integrated action plan. | 96 | 36,842 | 36,844 | 36,844 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-19-148 | gao_GAO-19-148_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
VA administers its services and programs through three distinct administrations—Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. VHA is the largest property holder within VA and is responsible for overseeing health care delivery to enrolled veterans and managing all VA medical facilities. VHA’s VISNs are responsible for overseeing medical facilities, and VA works with the VISNs and local medical facilities to manage its real property assets through VA’s capital-planning process.
Responsibilities for Disposing of Properties
Various VA offices share responsibilities for managing and disposing of real properties. Specifically:
VISNs and local facilities are responsible for identifying, planning, and managing underutilized and vacant properties, including executing demolitions of buildings.
Office of Capital Asset Management, Engineering, and Support, within VHA, is responsible for supporting the property disposal efforts of VISNs and local facilities, including providing funding for demolitions (if properties are part of a minor construction project or non-recurring maintenance project).
Office of Construction and Facilities Management, within VA’s Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction, is responsible for: (1) developing and updating policies and procedures on disposal actions (except enhanced-use leases) and executing them; (2) coordinating the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act’s (McKinney- Vento Act) screening process for potential homeless use prior to disposal; (3) overseeing implementation of required federal environmental reviews for planning and construction of major projects and real property actions; and (4) promulgating policy related to historic preservation, among other things.
Office of Asset Enterprise Management (Asset Enterprise Office), within the VA’s Office of Management, is responsible for: (1) ensuring local facility disposal requests align with VA policy; (2) reviewing real- property inventory data, including annual disposal plans; (3) monitoring completion of disposal projects; (4) executing enhanced- use lease-related disposals; and (5) overseeing the Strategic Capital Investment Planning process, among other responsibilities.
VA’s Disposal Process
According to VA’s guidance on managing underutilized properties and disposals, the process for managing vacant properties usually begins with VISNs and local medical facilities. Together, they are responsible for identifying underutilized real properties and updating this information in the CAI database, which VA uses to manage its real property.
VA has also identified and prioritized disposal options VISNs and local facilities have for determining what to do with vacant and underutilized properties they have identified. As shown in figure 2, VA’s first priority is to re-use vacant and underutilized properties within the department. If properties cannot be re-used, then VA looks at disposal options that would remove them from its inventory. If no disposal options are feasible, then VA may choose to close or “mothball” properties.
Properties in the CAI database with utilization rates that are less than 50 percent—including vacant properties—are candidates for disposal, and VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers are required to develop a disposal plan for all vacant buildings or update an existing plan for these facilities each year.
VA may choose from several options to dispose of vacant and underutilized properties, including: entering into an enhanced-use lease, demolition, like-kind exchange, transfer of real properties to the state for nursing home use, declaring excess property for disposals through GSA, or mothball, among others. (See fig. 3.) The disposal process differs depending on the disposal method selected.
As part of the disposal process, VA is required to take certain actions, including conducting environmental reviews and considering the effects of its actions on historic properties. Accordingly, VA conducts “due diligence” reviews on vacant properties, and these reviews include complying with selected federal requirements described in table 1 below.
Number and Characteristics of Disposals
From fiscal years 2012 through 2017, VA disposed of 577 properties (including 471 buildings with about 5-million gross square feet), primarily through demolition of medical facilities and enhanced-use lease agreements (see fig. 4). These two methods accounted for the disposal of 3.6-million gross square feet of building space. VA used other disposal methods, such as transferring property to states for nursing home care or negotiating a sale, for the remaining 50 properties, as shown in figure 4 below. As of July 2018, VA reported initiating the disposal or re-use of 167 of the 430 vacant buildings the Secretary identified for disposal in June 2017.
Of the 471 building disposals from fiscal years 2012 through 2017, VA disposed of 203 buildings in fiscal year 2012 alone in contrast to 61 building disposals in fiscal year 2017, as shown in figure 5. A VA official attributed the decline in disposals from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013 to limitations placed on VA’s enhanced-use lease authority in 2012.
The characteristics of the 471 buildings VA disposed of varied from fiscal years 2012 through 2017. The majority (331 out of 471) was offices, housing quarters, service buildings, and warehouses; other buildings included hospitals, laboratories, and outpatient healthcare facilities. VA reported many of these buildings as historic, as shown in figure 6. More than a third of the vacant buildings designated as non-historic were demolished. Almost a third of the buildings—primarily housing quarters— were disposed of using enhanced-use leases.
VA Is Addressing Some of Its Ongoing Disposal Challenges but Lacks Procedures to Manage Property Disposals
VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with said that administering both environmental and historic reviews are key challenges for disposals. Two other ongoing challenges—the marketability of VA properties and prioritizing funding for disposals—were also mentioned as factors impeding VA’s property disposal efforts. As part of VA’s initiative to begin the re-use or disposal process for 430 vacant properties within 2 years, VA has begun addressing its environmental and historic review challenges. For example, VA established a working group to assist VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers in conducting these reviews. While VA is addressing challenges related to these reviews, limited interest in purchasing or leasing VA properties and competition for funding with other important VA projects directly related to veterans’ care are ongoing challenges that continue to hinder disposal efforts.
VA is Taking Steps to Facilitate Environmental and Historic Reviews, but Properties’ Marketability and Competing Priorities Remain Challenging
Environmental and Historic Reviews
VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with cited the time it takes to complete the required environmental and historic reviews as a challenge in managing the disposal process. Although VA does not maintain data on how long these reviews can take or how long it takes to dispose of its properties, in our review of 31 selected properties, we found variation in the timespan to conduct environmental and historic reviews. The environmental reviews of these properties took about 2 years on average to complete, depending on the condition of the property. For example, an environmental review of temporary storage facilities in Biloxi took about a year, as no environmental issues were identified. In another case, it took about 2 years to conduct an environmental review of VA’s Cincinnati-Fort Thomas property, as asbestos and lead paint were identified during the course of the review. For those disposals requiring historic reviews, we found that it took about 5 years on average, depending on the complexity of the disposal. For example, it took 5 years to complete a historic review of the St. Louis, Jefferson Barracks property due to the need to collaborate with multiple stakeholders, including the neighboring Army National Guard base, the state’s historic preservation office, local community council, community organizations, and many veteran service organizations; and addressing the adverse effects on historic properties, according to VA officials. VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with stated that due to lack of staff expertise and resources, VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers may choose to contract out these reviews, but procuring contractors may also add time to the disposal process, as facility managers need to define the terms of work and identify contractors.
Further, environmental and historic reviews can affect VA’s decision- making process with regard to choosing a disposal method, potentially lengthening the time it takes for disposal. For example, VA officials told us that they began a historic review on the Pittsburgh-Highland Drive property in 2012 but discontinued the review in 2013, partially due to disagreements with historic preservation stakeholders about the proposed demolition of some historic buildings. After 4 years, in 2017, VA decided to declare the property as excess and turn it over to GSA for disposal. According to VA officials, this required a different historic review, as it entailed a different disposal method. GSA is currently administering the additional historic review of this property.
VA has begun taking actions to reduce the time it takes to conduct environmental and historic reviews as part of VA’s initiative to begin the process of re-using or disposing of 430 vacant buildings within 2 years. For example, VA worked with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to obtain a program comment alternative to reduce time spent with historic preservation stakeholders when consulting on “ancillary utilitarian support buildings and structures,” such as a boiler plant or a sewage plant. VA officials also told us that they established a headquarters-level working group consisting of experts in historic preservation and environmental reviews as well as real property transactions to assist VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers in administering disposals, including conducting these reviews, and in moving them forward. VA officials also told us that they awarded four regional contracts with contractors to complete the environmental and historic reviews and expedite the disposal process.
VA officials and historic preservation stakeholders we spoke with also said they can have disagreements on how to meet the historic review requirements, and such disputes can add time to the review process. The historic preservation stakeholders commented that VA does not consult with them early in the disposal’s decision-making process and does not provide adequate information on the adverse effects of demolishing a historic property as well as other potential methods through which VA could dispose of a property. VA officials we spoke with stated that they have been consulting with historic preservation stakeholders on all disposal projects as required.
To improve collaboration and communication between VA and external stakeholders, VA developed a toolkit in June 2017 on how to effectively communicate with stakeholders. This communications toolkit responded to our recommendation for VA to develop and distribute guidance for VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers to use when communicating with stakeholders on facility alignment changes, and we subsequently closed this recommendation.
Competing Priorities
VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with also pointed out that competing priorities for VA funds is another remaining challenge. VA officials stated that projects to demolish buildings compete for funding with other capital projects, such as renovating inpatient units. Since VA’s mission is to provide health care services, demolishing buildings is not as high a priority compared to other projects that may lead to providing better health care services.
VA officials also told us that competing priorities can affect how long it takes to dispose of vacant properties. If a demolition project is part of a construction project, then VA may give it a relatively high priority for funding. For example, at VA’s Dayton campus it took about a year from when VA requested funding in 2016 to demolish two historic buildings in 2017. A VA official said that due to a $1 million donation to build a Fisher House on VA’s Dayton campus, funds were prioritized to demolish two national historic landmark buildings to make space available for construction of the Fisher House. However, according to other VA officials, demolition projects in and of themselves do not rank well for funding; such rankings can affect the time it takes for disposal.
For example, a VA official said that VA had initially planned to demolish a temporary building on the Cleveland Wade Park campus sometime during the 2012-to-2013 time frame; however, VA did not demolish the temporary building until 2017, in part due to the longer than expected time it took for VA to allocate funds to this project. If funds are not available for demolition, a building can remain vacant for many years. For example, VA closed several properties on its Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center campus in North Hills, CA, after they sustained major damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. According to VA officials, competing funding priorities, among other factors, contributed to the long wait to demolish these vacant properties, which had not been disposed of as of October 2018 (see fig. 7). VA officials also noted that waiting for VA to allocate funds to demolish properties can result in additional potential cost later on. For instance, VA officials mentioned that since buildings on the Sepulveda campus have been vacant for many years, they now qualified for historic status, requiring them to undergo a historic review—a requirement that could have been avoided if VA had demolished them more than 20 years ago when they were originally identified for disposal.
VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with identified property characteristics that affect the marketability of VA properties—historic status, deficient physical conditions, location, unusable building configuration, and repair costs—as barriers for disposal. This is a long- standing challenge that limits VA’s ability to re-use or dispose of vacant and underutilized properties. In our recent analysis of VA’s CAI data, we found that a majority of VA’s vacant properties (about 78 percent) from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 have an historic status, and the average age of those vacant properties is about 91 years old. As discussed earlier, historic reviews can be lengthy and can make the disposal process challenging, according to VA officials. Also, older buildings are likely to have configurations that are difficult to use or are in need of significant repair.
VA officials and stakeholders said that the location of VA properties limits disposal options. For example, a VA official told us that demolition is sometimes the only disposal option available when a deficient building is located on an existing VA campus and cannot be re-used or disposed of and removed from VA’s inventory. VA officials also stated that historic buildings are frequently located in the middle of a campus and sometimes cannot be easily demolished due to the historic designation (see fig. 8). In these cases, VA will close and “mothball” the building to minimize maintenance and operations costs and let the buildings sit vacant as an interim measure. VA officials commented that there are also safety and security challenges associated with disposing of or re-using a building located in the middle of a VA campus. For example, a local facility manager told us that when two of its buildings on campus were leased out to an organization on a short-term lease for use as dormitories, young adults from the dormitories gained access to private inpatient areas, violating patients’ privacy. This is consistent with our previous findings that many disposable VA properties located in the middle of medical campuses draw limited private sector interest making some disposal options challenging.
VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with—including commercial real estate experts—also indicated that it can be difficult to attract developers for several reasons. In one instance, a VA official and a stakeholder we spoke with told us that it took multiple years to identify developers that would take on environmental mitigation efforts as part of the negotiated sale and transfer of VA’s properties to the City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky. According to a stakeholder, developers were not willing to take on the cost and risk of environmental mitigation without a title to the property and no guaranteed income from the property. VA, however, could not transfer the property title to a third party without first meeting federal standards for cleaning up the environmental hazards on the properties. While the issue was ultimately addressed, it took several years to complete the deal.
VA Lacks Clear Procedures to Manage Property Disposals
Another challenge that VA officials and stakeholders raised was VA’s lack of clear disposal procedures. Several VA officials and stakeholders we spoke with stated that it is unclear what specific steps need to be taken for disposals, what are the targeted time frames for completing those steps, and who is responsible for completing them.
VA’s guidance on managing underutilized properties and disposals provides policies and procedures on a portfolio level, such as VA’s priorities for disposing of vacant properties and the different disposal options available. However, VA’s guidance does not specify sequential steps and actions that need to be taken at the project level to plan, implement, and execute property disposals for VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers. Further, a VA official in headquarters told us that VA does not have formal guidance on selecting any particular disposal methods.
While we found that documentation on policies and procedures exists for some specific disposal methods, such as enhanced-use lease projects, VA officials told us that policies and procedures for other disposal actions, such as transferring or declaring property as excess and disposing of it through GSA, are not documented. A VA official in headquarters told us that informal guidance may exist in some VISNs, but no standardized procedures on managing a disposal project is available. VA officials said there are no step-by-step procedures to refer to when using a disposal options more complex than demolishing a building. A VISN facilities’ manager we spoke with further pointed out that a decision-tree to help plan, implement, and execute for the different disposal methods does not exists to help local facilities navigate through VA’s decentralized and complex disposal process.
VA officials told us that its disposal process is decentralized, an approach that can contribute to unclear procedures for disposal projects. According to VA officials, VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers are responsible for making disposal decisions, developing a disposal plan, and executing the disposal. As previously discussed, different VA program offices are responsible for different disposal actions, depending on the disposal method that VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers are considering. VA officials noted that this decentralized approach to managing disposals can make it difficult for VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers as well as local stakeholders to know when or how best to coordinate with the appropriate VA offices. A real property stakeholder we spoke with also noted that common uncertainties in working with VA, such as its lack of a clear and timely disposal process, can hinder developers’ interests in VA properties. Specifically, the stakeholder stated that VA’s decision-making process is divided among different entities within VA, a situation that may add time to the disposal process, and stated that having a clear and timely disposal process may provide a level of certainty for developers.
VA officials and stakeholders also said that in some cases, VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers may lack the knowledge and experience to manage disposals. For example, VA officials told us that while facility managers generally know what actions are needed to demolish properties, they are not familiar with actions that need to be taken for transferring or selling properties to a third party or turning excess property over to GSA for disposal. VA officials also mentioned staff turnover and the infrequency of disposals as contributing factors to staff’s lack of knowledge on procedures for disposing of properties. For example, two facilities’ managers we spoke with said that in their many years of working for VA they have never reported a property as excess and disposed of it through GSA, until recently. VA officials and stakeholders further noted that VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers may lack expertise conducting historic and environmental reviews as they are usually engineers, who are not experts on environmental and historic issues. For example, a VISN facility manager informed us that a local facility manager was not familiar with administering an environmental review, a lack that led to a misstep in the review and duplication of work and added time to the disposal process.
While VA has policies and guidance on historic and environmental reviews, our review of these documents showed that they do not provide guidance on how to make decisions, what actions to take, what are the targeted time frames for taking those actions, and who should be completing those actions.
Further, while VA officials with experience in disposals may estimate how long these reviews can take, VA does not have documented guidance on estimated time frames (milestones) for taking those actions.
Federal internal controls call for documentation to help management oversee execution of procedures by establishing and communicating the “who, what, when, where, and why” to personnel. Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel and a means to communicate that knowledge as needed to external parties, such as external auditors or interested third parties. Federal internal controls also call for management to define objectives in specific terms—in this case, disposal actions—so they are understood at all levels of the entity. This understanding involves clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the estimated time frames for achievement. Without procedural documentation that describes the disposal options and the actions needed to carry out the disposal, including estimated time frames, it is difficult for VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers to plan, implement, and execute the different disposal options available and efficiently dispose of vacant properties.
A procedural document at the project level may include information on who is authorized to make decisions and include estimated time frames around historic and environmental reviews to ensure timely and appropriate disposal of VA properties. For example, VA officials with experience in disposals estimated that it should take about 6-to-8 months for a property disposal, if there are no environmental and historic issues involved and funding is available. For disposals where environmental and historic reviews are needed, those officials told us it should take about 2- to-4 years from when VA decided to dispose of a property to complete the disposal. According to facilities managers we spoke to, additional procedural documentation at the project level could help VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers navigate through the complex disposal process and avoid missteps or delays in the disposal of vacant properties.
VA Enhanced Its Collection of Data on Vacant Properties but Lacks Key Information to Track and Monitor Disposals VA Has Taken Steps to Enhance How It Collects Data on Vacant Properties
To enhance the monitoring of its real property and to meet reporting requirements, VA officials told us VA has taken steps in the last 6 years to improve its real property inventory and the data it collects on its vacant properties, including properties VA has identified for disposal. These steps include:
Requiring VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers to verify and certify the accuracy of the information in the CAI. VA’s Asset Enterprise Office sends out an annual call for facility managers to verify and certify the validity of vacant property data for each of the facilities.
Requiring VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers to make ongoing updates to the CAI database. VA’s annual data-call memo requires these managers to continuously update the data as they take actions. Facility managers we spoke to stated they update this information regularly, including when actively planning disposal projects and individual projects are complete. One facility manager told us that VA’s Asset Enterprise Office is “actively pushing” local managers to update this information, and the data in the CAI have improved as a result.
Generating “discrepancy reports” to identify problems with inaccurate or outdated property data in the CAI. VA officials in headquarters told us that facility managers review these reports and explain any identified discrepancies regarding vacant properties, including those identified for disposal. VA officials told us they then correct any errors. Discrepancy reports include checks on whether facility managers have specified a disposal method for each disposal, estimated an associated disposal’s cost, and entered a planned future year for the disposal.
Refining the database by, for example, adding new “business rules” to limit user errors. VA officials told us that since 2012 it has implemented program changes and new business rules to the CAI database to address inaccuracies in the data, including data that support disposal information. For example, a VA official in headquarters told us that to decrease the number of errors caused by users entering data more than once, the database now limits the number of times users may enter the same information. This prevents multiple data entries appearing for, for example, the year a building was built, according to VA officials. VA officials in headquarters also told us they developed similar business rules to identify “clearly wrong” data entries and duplicative data. For instance, users cannot enter letters in numeric fields which, they told us, has led to fewer errors.
VA Does Not Collect Key Information to Track and Monitor Property Disposals
Although VA has enhanced its data collection efforts for vacant properties, we found that VA does not collect all the information necessary for its headquarters officials to track and monitor the disposal of VA’s vacant properties. As part of its annual call for validating data, VA requires facility managers to record certain information about disposals in the CAI, including: which buildings are identified for disposal, whether a disposal plan is in place, when the disposal is to occur, what type of disposal method is to be used, and what are the costs associated with the disposal.
However, VA does not have the ability in its CAI to collect detailed data on the status of disposal projects—specifically, data fields for facility managers to input detailed information on the status of: (1) disposal actions, (2) due diligence reviews, and (3) approvals, such as environmental permits that are necessary to complete the disposal. Since CAI does not have this information, VA’s Asset Enterprise Office, as part of the Secretary’s initiative to begin the re-use or disposal process of 430 buildings, developed a standalone spreadsheet to track and monitor the disposal status of these buildings. Then, according to officials in VA’s Asset Enterprise Office, they had to ask local facility managers what was the status of each individual disposal.
Federal internal-control standards state that management should use quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives and establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. This includes management obtaining data on a timely basis and using it for effective monitoring, which includes controls to achieve complete and accurate data. While the Secretary’s initiative has raised the priority of tracking and monitoring VA’s real property disposals, the CAI does not contain key information to improve VA’s routine tracking as called for in internal controls. A key official in VA’s Asset Enterprise Office told us that officials there usually leave it to local facilities to track key information and that the CAI currently does not collect this information. Without incorporating information needed to better track and monitor disposals through VA’s primary real property tracking database—CAI—VA may not be able to efficiently track and monitor its real property disposals going forward after the Secretary’s initiative is completed. VA officials in headquarters told us that without data on the actions and status of disposals, including steps taken to complete environmental and historic reviews, they are unable to track and monitor the progress of disposal projects—including the length of time these reviews take—and to identify any areas where management may assist local facilities in disposing of properties. For instance, as previously mentioned, VA officials in headquarters told us they used the information gathered as part of the 430 re-use or disposal initiative to identify and award contracts to perform environmental and historic reviews and, as a result, more quickly expedited the disposal process.
In addition, VA officials in headquarters do not collect documentation, such as environmental and historical review documents, that could allow headquarters staff to verify the status of disposal projects. As mentioned, federal internal controls state that management should use quality information to achieve an entity’s objective, including obtaining data on a timely basis and using these data for effective monitoring, which includes controls to achieve complete and accurate data. Further, VA requires VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers to record a planned or completed disposal in the CAI, including updating information as changes occur. However, a key official in VA’s Asset Enterprise Office told us the CAI database does not currently have enough space for facility managers to upload supporting documentation, including environmental and historic review documents. As part of the Secretary’s initiative to begin the re-use or disposal process for 430 buildings, VA’s Asset Enterprise Office set up a website to collect and exchange documents, such as environmental and historic review documents from local facility managers. This process allowed VA’s Asset Enterprise staff to verify the disposal information of the properties in the spreadsheet using this collected information. While VA created a website to exchange documentation as part of the 430 re- use or disposal initiative, this website is separate from CAI and was created because VA had not previously collected supporting documents in CAI. However, a VA official told us that when they compared information they collected from the website, they found the information in CAI is not always correct and appropriately updated.
As we have previously found, documentation provides a means to retain organizational knowledge while mitigating the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel. Documentation can also ensure that knowledge gets communicated to external parties, such as external auditors. As previously mentioned, some VA staff lack expertise and organizational knowledge to properly document a variety of disposal options. VA also experiences frequent staff turnover. These issues, together with the inability of facilities’ managers to upload disposal-related documents directly into CAI, puts VA at risk of losing valuable information about the disposal process. For example, according to a stakeholder we spoke with, VA could not readily provide information about consulting stakeholders on historic properties, as required by historic review requirements. A VA official told us that after contacting facility managers for information about specific disposal projects as part of the 430 initiative, they found disposal procedures were not consistently documented and, in some cases, documents were missing.
VA officials in headquarters provided us with a draft proposal to enhance the CAI in several ways, including: to add specific data fields for dates, including completion dates for reviews and to increase the capacity of the CAI to allow facility managers to upload disposal documentation, including environmental and historic review documentation.
However, the proposed changes do not include some key information, such as the start dates for compliance reviews, so VA cannot monitor and track when the reviews began and how disposals are progressing. Additionally, a VA official we spoke with could not provide a specific time frame for increasing the capacity of CAI, as VA is currently working on developing space requirements that are needed to increase capacity and help estimate a time frame.
Conclusions
Given that the number of VA’s vacant buildings has been generally increasing in the last 6 years and the implementation of the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018 could lead to more unneeded buildings, effectively managing VA’s real property disposal is crucial. Otherwise, VA may maintain a large inventory of vacant buildings that may be costly to secure and maintain. While effectively disposing of excess and underutilized property has been a long-standing challenge for VA, the agency has taken some positive actions, such as examining ways to streamline the historic review process, having some documented procedures, and improving data collection efforts on vacant properties. However, without documented procedures for all the disposal options to assist VISNs’ and local facilities’ managers in planning, implementing, and executing disposals and navigating the complex property-disposal process, VISNs and local facilities—which are responsible for managing their real property—may continue to struggle to facilitate property disposals efficiently. Also, without important information on the status of disposal projects and supporting documents, it is unclear how VA can monitor and track disposals, including identifying any areas where management can assist in the disposal of its vacant properties.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making the following three recommendations to the VA: 1. The Secretary should develop clear procedures for each of VA’s disposal options to help facilities’ managers plan, implement, and execute projects to dispose of vacant and unneeded properties. (Recommendation 1) 2. As VA implements its plans to enhance the CAI to collect key data on disposal projects, the Secretary should collect data on disposal status information and time frames (e.g., environmental and historical reviews’ starting dates) to ensure VA has the information it needs to track the length of the disposal process and identify any areas where management may assist local facilities in implementing property disposals. (Recommendation 2) 3. As VA pursues its plans to enhance the CAI, the Secretary should increase the capacity of the CAI to allow local facilities to upload disposal-specific documentation, such as environmental- and historical-review documents, to ensure all documentation related to a property’s disposal is available to appropriate parties, including VA officials. (Recommendation 3)
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to VA for review and comment. In written comments, reproduced in appendix II, VA concurred with our recommendations and stated that it has begun or is planning to take actions to address them. VA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Veteran’s Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, please contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
This report examines the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) efforts to dispose of properties, including the management of its real property disposals. Specifically, we address: (1) the challenges VA faces disposing of its vacant property and how it is addressing those challenges and (2) the extent to which VA is tracking and monitoring the disposal of its properties.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies, handbooks, and other documents related to VA’s real property management, including VA’s Handbook and Directive on Managing Underutilized Real Property Assets, including Options for Reuse and Disposal and VA’s Capital Asset Inventory User Guide as well as VA’s annual budget submissions to Congress to fully understand VA’s disposal process. To examine the full scope and extent of VA’s vacant and disposed of properties, we obtained and analyzed data from VA’s Capital Asset Inventory for fiscal years 2012 through 2017 and assessed their reliability. To assess the reliability of VA’s data we: (1) looked for any missing data, outliers, or other obvious data errors; (2) reviewed existing documentation about the data and the system that produced them; (3) reviewed VA’s processes for checking and validating the data; and (4) interviewed officials knowledgeable about the data. We found the data to be reliable for our purposes of identifying the number and type of vacant and disposed of buildings and the characteristics of those buildings.
To identify challenges that VA faces when disposing of property and how VA is addressing them, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 31 properties using data from VA’s Capital Asset Inventory as mentioned above. The 31 properties we selected were either completed in fiscal year 2017 or planning was under way for disposal, including through the General Services Administration (GSA). Specifically, we selected properties that: captured a range of disposal methods available to VA using VA’s current process for disposal, included both recently planned and completed disposals to observe disposals in different phases of planning and were likely documented by current VA staff, and represented a variety of building and disposal characteristics, including associated disposal costs, historic status, age, and size.
The challenges faced by these selected properties cannot be used to make inferences about all VA properties. However, they illustrate the range of challenges that VA faces in disposing of properties.
In addition, to help identify disposal challenges VA faces, including those challenges that were identified as a lengthy time frame for disposal, we obtained and reviewed documents related to the 31 selected properties, including environmental review reports and historic review documents. We used environmental and historic review documents to help estimate the timespan for disposals, including time frames to conduct these reviews. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with VA officials and external stakeholders, who were involved or knowledgeable about the disposal of these selected properties and are familiar with VA’s disposal process. These included interviews with facility managers from VA’s Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) and local facilities who were knowledgeable about the disposal of the 31 selected properties. This group represented 7 of VA’s 18 VISNs and 10 local medical facilities, including two local medical facilities—Perry Point (MD) and Sepulveda (CA)—with planned disposal projects—we visited. We also interviewed external stakeholders who included officials from the GSA; veterans service organizations (e.g., Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion); a local community that purchased VA properties, a major commercial real estate company; and historic preservation groups (e.g. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers) as well as selected State Historic Preservation Officers to obtain their perspectives on VA’s disposal challenges. To identify common challenges, along with illustrative examples and lengthy time frames, we reviewed and analyzed documents from the 31 properties we selected as well as interviews with VA officials and external stakeholders. This analysis included one analyst reading through all of the documents and interviews, creating a list of challenges mentioned, and then a subsequent analyst verifying this list. To identify steps VA has taken to address challenges, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials from VA’s Office of Asset Enterprise Management and its Office of Construction & Facilities Management as well as Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Capital Asset Management and Engineering Support. We then assessed VA’s efforts to address these challenges against applicable federal internal control standards.
To determine the extent to which VA is tracking and monitoring the disposal of its vacant properties, we reviewed the current data fields in VA’s Capital Asset Inventory, as well as VA’s planning and guidance documents, including the Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Asset Inventory and Disposal Plans Updates (Annual Call Memo). In addition, we interviewed VA officials in headquarters, including VA’s Office of Asset Enterprise Management and the Office of Construction and Facilities Management to determine the extent to which VA is tracking and monitoring the disposal of its vacant properties. We obtained and reviewed a copy of VA’s data discrepancy report for fiscal year 2016 that VA uses to verify data and track and monitor vacant properties and disposals. We also reviewed VA’s planning documents, including a tracking spreadsheet that VA is using to monitor the disposal of vacant properties. In addition, we interviewed VA officials, including facility managers from VISNs and local facilities, to obtain their perspective on VA’s efforts to track and monitor disposals, specifically. Subsequently, we assessed VA’s plan to track and monitor these properties against applicable federal internal controls.
We conducted our work from November 2017 to December 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Contact
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Kyle Browning; Cathy Colwell (Assistant Director); Gina Hoover; Jennifer Kim (Analyst in Charge); Brian Lepore; Jeff Mayhew; Nitin Rao; Malika Rice; Minette Richardson; Todd Schartung; Michelle Weathers; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
VA is one of the largest federal property-holding agencies, and its inventory of vacant buildings has generally increased over the last 6 years. Disposing of its excess properties has been a long-standing challenge.
GAO was asked to review how VA manages its real property disposals. This report addresses: (1) the challenges VA faces in disposing of its vacant properties and how it is addressing those challenges and (2) the extent to which VA is tracking and monitoring the disposal of its vacant properties.
GAO reviewed VA's policies and planning documents regarding property disposals. GAO also selected 31 properties that were either disposed of or planned for disposal in fiscal year 2017, among other selection criteria. GAO interviewed VA officials and stakeholders involved in the disposal of the 31 selected properties and familiar with VA's disposal process, including steps VA is taking to address challenges.
What GAO Found
Conducting required environmental and historic reviews in a timely manner is among the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces in its real property disposal process. These reviews include assessing the potential effects of property disposals on the environment and historic preservation. VA is taking steps to address these ongoing challenges. For example, VA has established a working group consisting of experts in historic preservation, environmental reviews, and real property to assist facilities' managers in expediting disposals. However, other ongoing challenges remain, including the marketability of VA properties and VA's lack of clear procedures for property disposals. While VA has guidance on disposals at the broad portfolio level, GAO determined that this guidance does not contain step-by-step procedures at the project level to assist facilities' managers to plan, implement, and execute disposals for the different disposal options. (See figure.) For example, a number of managers told GAO that they were not familiar with actions to take when transferring properties to a third party or turning over excess property to the General Services Administration for disposal. VA officials commented that facilities' managers do not frequently dispose of properties, so a procedural document outlining the steps and who is responsible for taking those steps may help staff navigate more complex disposal processes and avoid missteps and delays.
VA has enhanced its data collection on vacant properties, but the agency does not collect information needed to track and monitor disposal projects at the headquarters level. For example, VA requires facilities' managers to verify and certify the validity of vacant property data in the database used to manage real property—the Capital Asset Inventory. On disposal projects, however, VA lacks certain information, such as the status of environmental or historical reviews, to monitor progress. According to VA, the Capital Asset Inventory currently does not have enough capacity to collect key information and supporting documentation. VA officials said they plan to increase the capacity, but VA has not yet included some key information in the Capital Asset Inventory that could enable VA to monitor the progress of disposals. Without information on the status of disposal projects, VA cannot readily track and monitor its progress and identify areas where facilities' managers may need additional assistance.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making three recommendations. These include developing disposal procedures for facilities' managers to help plan, implement, and execute disposal projects and collecting key information on the status of disposal projects, as VA implements its plans to increase the capacity of VA's Capital Asset Inventory. VA concurred with GAO's recommendations. | 96 | 44,910 | 44,912 | 44,912 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-271 | gao_GAO-18-271_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
CBP and Partner Agency Processing of Imported Goods
Imported goods flow into the U.S. market through a process that CBP facilitates and enforces, in collaboration with other federal agencies and with companies, including customs brokers, engaged in international trade. Imported goods enter the United States at more than 300 ports by air, land, or sea. The processing of imported goods includes three stages: pre-arrival, arrival/cargo release, and post-release.
Pre-arrival. Before goods leave their country of origin, importers and shipping companies file paperwork and provide required advance electronic information for CBP to review.
Arrival/cargo release. Importers or brokers file entry documents when goods reach a U.S. port of entry. At the ports, CBP and other agencies with regulatory responsibilities review documents and may examine the goods for import security and trade enforcement purposes. Some goods selected for examination may be deemed nonadmissible because of trade law or other violations. Admissible goods are released from the port and enter into U.S. commerce.
Post-release. After goods are released from a port, importers or brokers file additional entry summary documents, which CBP reviews to ensure compliance with trade laws. CBP verifies importers’ cargo classifications and calculation of customs duties, taxes, and fees owed, taking action when needed. CBP and other agencies may determine that entered goods are noncompliant, thus triggering post- release enforcement action.
Figure1 summarizes agency roles at these three stages of import processing.
ACE Development and Implementation, 1994– 2013
CBP initiated planning and preliminary development of ACE in 1994, following the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Title VI of the act required the creation of a national customs automation program that would allow electronic processing of commercial imports. According to CBP, its existing electronic system for processing imports—the Automated Commercial System (ACS), which became operational in 1984—used antiquated hardware and software and, because of limited processing capability, was increasingly difficult and expensive to operate. In addition, despite ACS’s availability, CBP continued to rely heavily on paper documents.
The following year, a multi-agency task force launched an effort to develop the International Trade Data System—a government-wide system for reporting data used to clear imports and exports—and efforts to develop ITDS and ACE were subsequently integrated. The 2006 SAFE Port Act mandated the creation of ITDS to provide a “single portal” trade data system, to be implemented no later than the date when ACE is fully implemented. CBP initially planned to deploy ACE incrementally from 1998 through 2005. According to CBP officials, after substantial difficulties, CBP awarded a contract to begin implementing ACE in 2001 and began deploying ACE capabilities in 2003. However, continued slow progress led DHS to halt all new ACE development in 2010. A CBP acquisition decision memorandum issued at that time stated that the scope and complexity of ACE projects had been consistently underestimated during the period leading up to this decision.
DHS authorized CBP to renew work on ACE in 2013, after CBP had completed a revision of ACE’s schedule, cost, and performance goals. This “rebaselining” of ACE included adopting the agile approach to system development, which involves segmenting development and deployment into small consecutive stages, with frequent opportunities to test new capabilities and confirm that they meet requirements. CBP’s new plan called for completing core ACE capabilities to allow CBP and partner agencies to employ the system in all phases of import and export processing by November 2016, 11 years later than initially planned. A February 2014 Executive Order, as well as provisions in TFTEA, subsequently reinforced this commitment to complete the system before the end of 2016.
In rebaselining ACE, CBP consulted with partner agencies and trade community representatives to identify the core trade processing capabilities needed for the system to achieve full operational capacity, according to CBP officials. CBP officials stated that these capabilities are laid out in an internal 2013 CBP document describing, in general terms, key activities, processes, and functions that must be performed to automate import and export processing and improve targeting and security. We use “core ACE capabilities” to refer to activities, processes, and functions that CBP has defined as core.
CBP Has Implemented Core ACE Capabilities but Delayed Completion Several Times
After revising its schedule, cost, and performance goals for ACE in 2013, CBP developed and deployed most of the capabilities that it defined as core ACE. On February 27, 2018, CBP announced that it had deployed the last of the major scheduled core trade processing capabilities. However, CBP delayed completion of these capabilities several times and has deferred deployment of collections—a capability for collecting import duties, taxes, and fees—while it considers alternative approaches to make this capability operational.
Using the agile approach, CBP began deploying new ACE capabilities in November 2013, introducing elements iteratively every few months. For example, the November 2013 deployment included functions related to the pre-arrival and arrival/cargo release phases of import processing, initial steps to support two agencies in pilot testing ACE participation, and a number of efforts to resolve technical problems. By mid-2016, CBP had deployed all core pre-arrival and arrival/cargo release capabilities, but several post-release capabilities remained to be deployed. In June 2016, CBP officials reported that the program would not complete several key events by November 2016 as planned and declared a cost and schedule breach; in November 2016, CBP rebaselined ACE again. CBP subsequently reported that it expected to finish deploying post-release core ACE capabilities by January 2017, but the agency was unable to complete this deployment as planned. In April 2017, CBP officials reported that the program was again in breach, and CBP subsequently moved the target date for completing deployment of remaining core capabilities to July 2017.
Reconciliation, Liquidation, and Drawback During reconciliation, preliminary data on import transactions provided to CBP at the time of entry (such as the dollar value of imported goods) may be updated. During liquidation, import transactions are finalized and duty, taxes, and fees due to CBP are determined. During drawback, exporters may be able to claim and recover certain duties, taxes, or fees upon the exportation or destruction of imported merchandise under CBP supervision.
February 2018. The February 2018 deployment completed most core capabilities for post-release, including reconciliation, liquidation, and drawback—functions related to the final determination and payment of duties to CBP (see sidebar).
CBP initially intended to implement collections in ACE along with other post-release core capabilities. However, CBP officials told us that after a series of unsuccessful attempts to move collections from ACS to ACE, the agency decided in July 2017 to decouple collections from the other remaining post-release capabilities. Agency officials explained that this would allow deployment of other post-release capabilities by the end of February 2018. CBP officials observed that technical challenges involved in moving the current collections function—which is needed to complete post-release functions such as liquidation—from ACS into ACE primarily accounted for CBP’s inability to finish deploying core ACE capabilities in 2017.
CBP officials stated that the agency will continue to link the newly deployed post-release capabilities to collections in ACS while deciding how to proceed. According to CBP officials, the agency expects to select one of three options for collections by the end of March 2018: (1) add a collections capability to ACE, (2) retain collections in ACS, or (3) develop a separate collections system. CBP officials stated that the agency would revise its estimate of the overall cost of completing and maintaining ACE through the system’s expected life cycle after reaching this decision.
The timeline in figure 2 summarizes CBP’s efforts to develop and deploy core ACE capabilities since 2013.
Partner Agencies That Clear or License Cargo Have Access to ACE, but Extent of Use Varies
All partner agencies that CBP identified as bearing responsibility for clearing or licensing goods for import or export have been granted some access to ACE data. However, as our case studies of five partner agencies illustrate, the extent to which these agencies use the system varies, and agencies are continuing efforts to enhance their use of ACE.
All Agencies with Responsibility for Clearing and Licensing Cargo Have Been Granted Access to ACE Data
Each of the 22 partner agencies with responsibility for clearing or licensing cargo has signed a memorandum of understanding with CBP that allows access to ACE and details the information the agency will receive through the system, according to CBP officials. Table 1 lists the 22 partner agencies CBP identified as having responsibility for clearing or licensing cargo and as having signed a memorandum of understanding with CBP According to CBP, each memorandum of understanding specifies data that the partner agency may access in accordance with its responsibilities and as allowed by statute. Agencies may obtain these data through ACE in the following ways:
Agencies may specify data elements to be included in the ACE partner government agency message set—that is, the consolidated set of data that importers and exporters submit electronically. In many cases, the message set includes data elements formerly collected through paper forms, according to CBP officials.
Agencies may require submission of supporting documents (e.g., cargo manifests) as image files through the ACE Document Image System.
Agencies may access these data directly through ACE or may establish web linkages between ACE and their own data processing systems that will allow their systems to receive automatic transmissions of ACE data. CBP documents show that among the 22 agencies CBP identified as having responsibility for clearing or licensing cargo,
16 have established web linkages between ACE and their own data
14 obtain agency-specific data through the ACE message set, and
17 receive document image files from importers through ACE.
In addition, 15 of the 22 agencies have completed, or are conducting, pilots to initiate or expand their participation in ACE.
Case Studies Show Variation in Use of ACE among Agencies That Clear or License Cargo
While all of the 22 agencies that CBP identified as having responsibility for clearing or licensing cargo have access to ACE data, our case studies of 5 agencies found considerable variation in the extent to which they use ACE for import processing. As table 2 shows, 4 of these agencies (FDA, NHTSA, CPSC, and APHIS) have established linkages between ACE and their own import data analysis systems, apply ACE data in those systems, and have completed pilots to begin or expand their use of ACE. Agency staff also may access ACE directly to obtain additional information that is not available in their agencies’ systems. Nonetheless, we found significant differences in the agencies’ use of ACE to obtain agency- specific data from importers: While FDA and NHTSA have largely transitioned to using ACE for this purpose, CPSC and APHIS use it to a more limited extent, and FWS continues to obtain data on imported goods largely without using ACE. All five agencies reported ongoing efforts to resolve difficulties related to using ACE and make greater use of the system.
According to CBP documents, several of these 27 other agencies have not concluded an ACE memorandum of understanding with CBP and do not appear to be accessing ACE—in some cases because ACE does not generate information that serves an agency need, according to CBP and Treasury Department officials.
FDA Uses ACE Data to Review and Target Imports for Health Risks
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) FDA applies health and safety standards to a variety of imported products, including food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, biologics, tobacco, and radiation-emitting electronic products. To carry out these functions, FDA maintains a nationwide network of port-based staff with authority to review and, if necessary, refuse entry to goods that do not comply with pertinent laws and regulations that it enforces. FDA maintains two internal information technology systems to assist these efforts: the Operational and Administrative System for Import Support, for admissibility review of imports, and the Predictive Risk Evaluation for Dynamic Import Targeting system, a risk-based screening tool that performs an initial electronic screening of import entries containing FDA regulated articles to target those items with potentially higher public health risk for a manual admissibility review.
FDA has integrated its internal systems with ACE and uses ACE data to review imports under its jurisdiction, targeting FDA-regulated imports that pose higher public health risks for manual review to determine the imports’ admissibility, according to FDA officials. FDA has worked with CBP to establish bilateral transmission of import entry data between CBP and FDA since 1997, when the two agencies linked FDA’s earlier import operations system with CBP’s ACS, according to FDA. Consequently, FDA officials described the transition to ACE as an upgrade, substantially expanding the information available to the agency, rather than a new approach to processing imports.
FDA officials stated that they coordinated with the trade community and CBP to complete the transition to using ACE. For example, the officials said that they consulted with the trade community to develop FDA’s ACE message set, with the goal of improving the clearance process. According to FDA officials, the data that the agency required through the message set included more information than it had previously required from importers through ACS. FDA officials explained that their intent in adding data elements was to facilitate the automated admissibility review of low- risk FDA-regulated articles and thus focus agency resources on articles associated with a higher public health risk. Additionally, FDA worked with the trade community to develop recommendations for technical enhancements to ACE. Finally, FDA tested the new systems and the viability of the message set in a pilot that it successfully concluded in 2016.
According to agency officials, in November 2016, FDA issued a final rule requiring that the trade community, when electronically submitting an entry in ACE, provide certain information on all incoming cargo that is subject to FDA regulation. In most cases, FDA finds this information sufficient to determine admissibility. However, in about 3 percent of cases, FDA requests additional information directly from importers, using the agency’s Import Trade Auxiliary Communications System. FDA officials stated that the agency is pursuing improvements in its ability to communicate with importers via ACE.
NHTSA Uses ACE Data to Review Motor Vehicle Imports
National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA) NHTSA works to ensure that imported motor vehicles and equipment (e.g., tires) meet U.S. safety standards. According to agency officials, because NHTSA does not have independent authority to hold incoming cargo and does not have any staff at U.S. ports, it relies on U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to hold and inspect cargo and to take enforcement action if indicated (e.g., seizing goods or denying entry) in consultation with NHTSA. To fulfill its tasks, NHTSA uses its Motor Vehicle Importation Information database to assist in admissibility and targeting decisions.
NHTSA is using ACE data to review and clear imported motor vehicles and equipment for entry into the U.S. market and works with CBP to assess the compliance of certain products offered for importation. NHTSA established an electronic link between its internal system and CBP’s ACS in 1992. At that time, NHTSA and CBP arranged for importers to submit NHTSA’s required paper form electronically through ACS. In 2015, NHTSA began transitioning to ACE by pilot-testing submission of data for a large ACE message set. According to NHTSA officials, the testing process revealed significant technical problems. Prior to the pilot testing, the trade community expressed concern about the number of data elements that NHTSA asked CBP to collect from the trade community. The Office of Management and Budget determined that certain proposed requirements were burdensome for the trade community and asked NHTSA to eliminate some of these requirements. Subsequently, in March 2016, NHTSA completed its transition to ACE with fewer data requirements.
In addition to using ACE data, NHTSA continues to obtain information directly from importers, when necessary, through its Motor Vehicle Importation Information system. For example, according to NHTSA officials, the agency requests information through its system when it identifies reporting errors in ACE or when additional information is needed for certain temporary imports, such as vehicles or equipment imported for research or demonstration purposes. NHTSA officials stated that they are working with CBP to overcome a major challenge to efficient collaboration: NHTSA uses vehicle identification numbers to track imported vehicles, while ACE does not. According to NHTSA officials, NHTSA has developed a database to provide public access to manufacturer identification and vehicle identification number-deciphering information submitted by manufacturers. According to NHTSA, CBP port staff have begun accessing the database but it has not yet been linked to ACE.
CPSC Uses ACE Data to Target Imported Consumer Products
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) CPSC protects the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death associated with consumer products, including over two-thirds of all categories of imported goods, such as toys, children’s sleepwear, and household electronics. CPSC expanded examination of. imported goods in 2008 following passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which required the agency to develop a risk-assessment methodology for certain imports. CPSC maintains a limited presence at U.S. ports and has independent authority to hold incoming cargo for inspection. The agency employs its Risk Assessment Methodology targeting system to assist in its import oversight responsibilities by generating potential targets for inspection.
CPSC uses only ACE data collected under CBP authority to support its oversight of consumer product imports and is considering expanding the information it receives from ACE. CPSC’s internal Risk Assessment Methodology targeting system focuses on 300 high-risk categories of imports listed by CPSC, using U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes, and currently receives the standard data that CBP obtains via ACE on all imported goods under the agency’s jurisdiction, according to CPSC officials. After launching an initial pilot version of its system in 2011, CPSC initiated discussion with the trade community in 2014 about expanding its electronic data reporting requirements to add certain data elements to the ACE message set that would assist the agency in determining whether incoming products meet applicable standards. However, CPSC reduced the scope of the proposed expansion of reporting requirements after trade community representatives expressed concerns. In 2016, CPSC concluded an initial, limited pilot test of electronic filing of several additional data elements. According to CPSC officials, the agency plans to study the benefits of adding these elements before it initiates a second pilot and has not reached a final decision about requiring importers to submit any additional information through ACE.
CPSC staff continue to rely primarily on the agency’s internal targeting system to target incoming shipments for review and possible inspection, with contributions from CPSC staff at CBP’s Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center and at ports, according to CPSC officials. These officials stated that the agency’s representative at the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center employs CBP and CPSC resources to generate about 30 percent of the targeting orders disseminated to CPSC staff at ports. Agency staff at two New York ports told us that ACE can be a useful source of additional information for their local targeting efforts.
APHIS Makes Limited Use of ACE Data to Review Imports for Agricultural Risks
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) APHIS collaborates with Customs and Border Protection agricultural specialists to keep agricultural pests and diseases out of the United States. In pursuit of this mission, the agency maintains Plant Protection and Quarantine and Veterinary Services units at some ports of entry and operates its own data analysis system, the Agriculture Risk Management system. APHIS also implements a requirement to file a plant and plant produce import declaration on arrival in the United States, as mandated under the 2008 Lacey Act. Importers may file the declaration in ACE or in APHIS’s Lacey Act Web Governance System.
APHIS’s use of ACE data remains limited while the agency works to expand linkages between its data processing systems and ACE. According to APHIS officials, the agency did not establish an electronic link to ACS, ACE’s precursor system, and instead used paper forms in its import review processes. In 2016, the agency pilot-tested electronic submission of APHIS-specific partner agency message set data through ACE and subsequently announced that data could be submitted through ACE for APHIS compliance review. However, trade community participation remains voluntary except for Lacey Act–covered imports. According to APHIS officials, companies that import APHIS-regulated products have been slow to invest the resources required to transition to reporting through ACE and, as a result, use paper forms to submit information about most shipments of such products. However, APHIS officials observed that reporting through ACE occurs for a small but growing share of all imports subject to APHIS regulation.
APHIS has been collaborating with CBP to provide for the effective flow of information between ACE and APHIS’s systems, but these efforts remain incomplete. While staff of APHIS’s Veterinary Services unit may access ACE data directly to complete their import review processes, APHIS intends for its Plant Protection and Quarantine staff to access ACE data through the agency’s Agriculture Risk Management system, according to APHIS officials. However, these officials informed us that the functionality required for accessing ACE data through that system is still under development. They explained that Plant Protection and Quarantine staff will use ACE to receive and reply to inquiries from, and provide assistance to, CBP agricultural specialists regarding incoming cargo requiring inspection and that significant coordination is required to fully integrate the two agencies’ data processing systems.
APHIS officials observed that a CBP requirement for partner agencies to complete extensive background checks of staff before they can receive access to ACE has presented another obstacle to greater use of the system by staff of both Plant Protection and Quarantine and Veterinary Services. In November 2017, APHIS officials informed us that more than 100 agency staff had completed these background checks and thus had access to ACE but that the current number of users remained insufficient to process many APHIS-regulated goods in ACE.
Fish and Wildlife Service Makes Little Use of ACE Data
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) FWS monitors wildlife trade and works to prevent the illegal importation or exportation of species (including parts and products thereof) that are regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and U.S. wildlife laws and regulations, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Virtually all wildlife imports and exports must be declared to FWS and cleared by FWS wildlife officers, according to CBP. To carry out its responsibilities, FWS maintains staff at 38 U.S. ports and generally requires that all internationally traded wildlife and wildlife products be routed through designated ports. FWS staff are able to place holds on, to inspect, and to deny entry or exit to incoming or outgoing cargo, according to agency officials. FWS staff obtain information about incoming or outgoing cargo from data filed by the trade community in the agency’s own data analysis and targeting system, the Law Enforcement Management Information System.
FWS use of ACE data in its import review and regulation activities has been minimal, in part because of technical challenges. According to FWS officials, the agency attempted during the 1990s to integrate its activities with ACS. After concluding that ACS did not meet FWS needs, the agency discontinued these efforts in 2000 and developed its own Electronic Declarations system for the trade community to submit data to the agency’s data analysis and targeting system. Agency officials told us that FWS port staff may access ACE and that some find it a useful source of additional information on incoming cargo. However, FWS has not yet integrated ACE into FWS operations.
FWS officials told us that lack of alignment between the Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes that CBP uses to organize its work and FWS’s regulatory responsibilities constitutes a significant challenge in integrating ACE into FWS operations. For example, the tariff schedule may indicate only that an import is leather footwear, while FWS operations may also require additional information about the leather’s source, such as the type of animal, its nation of origin, and its domestication status. According to FWS and CBP officials, FWS has so far been unable to overcome this difficulty.
According to FWS officials, the agency pilot-tested participation in ACE during 2016 but suspended the test in January 2017 in light of trade community concerns about expanded reporting requirements, lack of clarity in the requirements, and uncertainty regarding FWS’s authority to collect data electronically. According to FWS officials, the agency subsequently began efforts to reach agreement with trade community representatives and CBP on an approach to data collection through ACE that will meet the needs of both FWS and the trade community. FWS officials stated in November 2017 that these discussions had produced an interim solution and were continuing and that FWS and CBP planned to resume pilot testing in March or April 2018.
ACE Users Report Cost Savings and Enforcement Benefits
CBP and partner agency officials and trade community representatives told us that their use of ACE has reduced costs by increasing the efficiency of trade processing. CBP and partner agency officials also reported that the system has strengthened their ability to enforce trade laws and regulations. CBP has developed metrics for itself and the trade community that estimate savings associated with the increased efficiency of some processes in ACE. According to CBP documents and officials, the agency plans to expand its metrics for capturing ACE benefits—for example, to estimate the value of increased efficiencies for partner agencies and to measure any savings associated with the remaining core ACE capabilities after they are implemented.
ACE Users Report the System Has Improved Efficiency, Reduced Costs, and Enhanced Enforcement
Agencies and Trade Community Report Improved Efficiency and Associated Savings
CBP, partner agencies, and trade community representatives who use ACE to conduct their work told us that the use of ACE had improved the efficiency of import processing and brought associated cost savings.
Fewer paper records. According to CBP officials at the Port of New York, the use of ACE for electronic data submission has significantly reduced reliance on paper forms in processing imports. The officials noted that before ACE was implemented, their reception area was typically filled with couriers delivering large volumes of paper for manual processing. CBP officials told us that electronic data submission through ACE had allowed CBP and partner agencies to automate over 250 paper forms. In addition, one trade community representative we spoke with said that elimination of paper records had been the primary benefit realized through ACE implementation.
CBP has estimated, on the basis of an informal poll survey of private companies, that eliminating document delivery to CBP offices would save $25 per courier trip.
Faster processing. According to CBP and partner agency officials, ACE’s automated review of data submitted by importing companies speeds the agencies’ processing and clearing of eligible shipments for release. CBP officials at the Port of New York commented that although reviewing and clearing incoming cargo for release through ACS required approximately 24 hours, performing this process through ACE takes only a few minutes if data are complete and properly formatted and if the cargo does not require inspection. For example, CBP officials stated that the Environmental Protection Agency formerly took an average of about 4 days to clear cargo for release into the U.S. market but now takes only seconds to clear nonproblematic shipments. CBP officials further observed that the reduction in document processing and the elimination of manual data review for nonproblematic imports increases the time available for CBP officials at ports to engage in tasks such as examining cargo that may violate U.S. trade and customs laws. In addition, NHTSA officials stated that ACE had substantially speeded their review and clearance process. Further, FDA reported that since the agency’s cargo review and clearance process had been linked to ACE, the portion of incoming FDA-regulated cargo receiving an automated “may proceed” had increased from 26 to 62 percent and processing time for these entries averaged less than 2 minutes. According to trade community representatives and CBP officials, ACE has also dramatically reduced the time required to file bond applications, from several days to a few seconds.
Reduced labor and storage costs. CBP officials and trade community representatives reported that efficiency improvements resulting from the use of ACE can lead to substantial labor- and storage-cost savings for the trade community. CBP officials observed that expedited processing can reduce storage and demurrage costs for importers. For example, CBP officials commented that companies in the Newark, N.J., area could be charged $250 to $300 per day to store a container awaiting clearance to enter the U.S. market.
Fewer supply chain disruptions. CBP and trade community representatives reported that ACE had reduced the negative impacts that import processing delays can have on company supply chains. For example, a pharmaceutical company representative stated that ACE had reduced delays in processing incoming cargo that, before ACE was implemented, sometimes lasted for 10 days or longer, resulting in costly supply chain failures. According to this representative, a longer-than-expected delay of an imported material that is a vital ingredient in a time-sensitive clinical trial or a treatment could result in significant material losses.
CBP and Partner Agencies Report ACE Has Improved Enforcement
While ACE is not a targeting system, the data that ACE provides has improved CBP’s and partner agencies’ ability to identify and examine incoming cargo for inspection, according to CBP and partner agency officials. For example, ACE, in addition to other sources, provides data that CBP uses in its Automated Targeting System and that most of the partner agencies we examined use in their data analysis and targeting systems to flag relatively high-risk cargo for possible inspection by port officials. (See text box for examples of CBP’s and partner agencies’ targeting efforts.)
Examples of CBP and Partner Agency Efforts to Target High-Risk Imports U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its partner agencies perform targeting of imports at the national and local levels. For example:
CBP. At the national level, CBP maintains the Automated Targeting System, which compares traveler, cargo, and conveyance information against law enforcement, intelligence, and other enforcement data, using risk-based targeting scenarios and assessments to identify relatively high-risk cargo. CBP also operates the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center, which facilitates targeting and enforcement information sharing among partner agencies involved in clearing or licensing cargo. In addition, CBP maintains five National Targeting and Analysis Groups, each targeting higher-risk imports related to one of the CBP’s priority trade issues. For instance, the National Targeting and Analysis Group for Trade Agreements targets shipments for which the country of origin has been misrepresented to avoid import duties. CBP officials at ports of entry also conduct locally focused targeting efforts.
Partner agencies. All five of the partner agencies we selected for our review—the Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service—work with CBP in the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center while also employing their own import data analysis and targeting systems. In addition, agencies with personnel at U.S. ports of entry may conduct locally focused targeting efforts.
CBP officials indicated that ACE had improved their trade enforcement efforts. For example:
CBP officials stated that ACE’s streamlining of import processing helps to better ensure compliance with trade laws and regulations. CBP port staff stated that reduction in the time required to process paper forms has allowed them to devote more time to higher value- added activities such as inspecting incoming cargo. In addition, CBP officials at the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center said that it was easier to access and generate reports in ACE than in ACS.
CBP officials observed that ACE’s collection of additional information facilitates trade enforcement. Officials in the agency’s National Targeting and Analysis Groups explained that ACE functions as a valuable system of record that can be employed to refine and focus targeting efforts, as the results of each examination undertaken are recorded in ACE for future reference. Similarly, CBP officers in the New York area said that ACE was a valuable source of additional information—for example, data on particular products or importing companies—that helped them in their local targeting efforts.
In addition, partner agency officials at ports indicated that ACE data were indirectly or directly useful in their enforcement efforts. For example, FDA officials in the New York area told us that, while they do not access ACE directly, FDA’s targeting system, on which they primarily rely, does access ACE data. FDA headquarters officials noted that ACE provides the agency’s targeting system with more data elements than it received through ACS and that this has led to greater processing efficiency. A CPSC port official stated that he found ACE a very useful source of information that helped him to refine his local targeting efforts.
CBP expects the use of ACE to also yield indirect, economy-wide benefits by improving the targeting of shipments that violate U.S. trade policy, according to a CBP official and a CBP analysis. For example, according to a CBP official we interviewed, more-thorough enforcement of U.S. anti- dumping and countervailing duty orders would reduce the entry of products that unfairly compete with U.S. producers. Similarly, a cost- benefit analysis that CBP conducted in 2002 cited reduced predatory or unfair trade practices as a potential benefit of ACE. In addition, the CBP official observed that the use of ACE for targeting shipments could help to prevent injuries to American consumers by reducing the number of unsafe foreign products that enter the U.S. market.
CBP Has Developed, and Plans to Expand, Metrics to Estimate the Value of Process Efficiencies Gained through ACE
CBP Has Developed Some Metrics to Value Efficiency Gains for Itself and the Trade Community
CBP has developed metrics to estimate the value of efficiency gains associated with the use of some of the implemented ACE capabilities for itself and the trade community. CBP’s metrics capture reductions in the time required for CBP staff to complete certain import processes now included in ACE and translate these efficiency gains into dollar values. CBP performs similar calculations for the trade community, using survey data from companies on the savings they estimate are realized when import processes are transitioned into ACE. For fiscal year 2017, CBP estimated that efficiencies gained through the implemented core ACE capabilities for which it had developed metrics had a total value of nearly $28 million for itself and about $52 million for the trade community. These metrics estimate potential cost savings associated with efficiency gains resulting from the use of ACE, according to CBP officials; the estimates do not account for CBP’s costs for developing and maintaining ACE, which, according to CBP, amounted to about $118 million in fiscal year 2017. In addition, the estimates do not account for costs that the trade community has sustained in adapting to ACE. For example, one representative of a large company estimated that the total cost of developing appropriate software had exceeded $12 million.
CBP’s metrics capture increased efficiency gains in a number of areas. For example, ACE includes a feature that allows members of the trade community to submit corrections to data on incoming shipments after the data have been summarized and presented to, and accepted by, CBP.
Importers formerly requested such “post summary corrections” by submitting a paper form for CBP’s review. To capture the value of this procedural change for CBP, the agency surveys CBP officials to determine their time savings on each post summary correction and multiplies the average per-transaction time saved by the number of summaries submitted and the CBP officials’ average hourly compensation rate. To capture the value of the change for members of the trade community, CBP surveys importers, brokers, and shippers to determine their average savings for each transaction and multiplies the reported savings by the number of summaries submitted. CBP’s metrics also capture reductions in the time that CBP officers devote to completing primary processing for incoming cargo, the time that trucks must spend waiting at border crossings for clearance to enter the United States, and the time that CBP and members of the trade community devote to processing applications for customs bonds, among other things.
CBP’s estimate of the value of efficiencies resulting from the use of ACE has grown over time. For example, for fiscal year 2014, CBP estimated the total value of these efficiencies for CBP and the trade community at about $33 million—about 40 percent of the total value of such efficiencies CBP reported for fiscal year 2017. This increase reflects CBP’s progress in deploying core capabilities and in developing and applying metrics to capture the capabilities’ value to CBP and the trade community. The increase in the estimated value also reflects growing use of ACE by partner agencies and members of the trade community. For example, the number of import entry summaries that partner agencies filed in ACE increased fourfold in the 3-year period from January 2014 through January 2017.
According to CBP officials, CBP and partner agencies are unable to develop metrics to quantify trade enforcement benefits that may have resulted from their use of ACE, in part because of a lack of baseline information and the difficulty of isolating such impacts. For example, an increase in seizures may reflect increased efforts, increased efficiency in those efforts, or an increase in the volume of imports subject to seizure. Similarly, according to a CBP official, a lack of baseline information makes it difficult to assess any broader impacts of improved trade enforcement resulting from the use of ACE, such as prevention of injuries to American consumers through better targeting of harmful foreign products.
CBP Plans to Expand Its Metrics for Savings and Other Benefits
CBP reported that it is working to expand its metrics for estimating cost savings associated with improved trade processing efficiencies and other benefits resulting from the use of ACE.
CBP officials stated that they expect to have collected sufficient data in the near future to begin reporting on the estimated dollar value of efficiencies that partner agencies are realizing through ACE. While CBP measures efficiency improvements and associated savings resulting from CBP and the trade community’s use of ACE, CBP and most partner agencies currently do not collect or report information about efficiency improvements or associated savings that the partner agencies may have realized.
CBP has prepared baseline information that will allow it to measure efficiency improvements and estimate any savings associated with several post-release core ACE capabilities, including reconciliation, liquidation, and drawback, after they are implemented. For example, on the basis of an internal study completed in late 2016, CBP has determined that agency officials take about 1.8 hours, on average, to process a drawback entry summary. Comparing this average time with the average time required after this post-release capability is implemented in ACE will allow CBP to calculate the average time saved per transaction. CBP plans to obtain comparable information from the trade community to allow similar calculations of efficiency improvements for importing companies.
CBP officials stated that, while the agency does not currently measure any improvement in revenue collection that may have resulted from the implemented capabilities, CBP plans to undertake efforts to better understand the current revenue collection environment and to explore ways to collect baseline information on revenue collections. The officials said that CBP intends to identify revenue collection metrics that are quantifiable and reportable after it deploys the liquidation and reconciliation capabilities in ACE and completes deployment of collections.
According to CBP documents, CBP’s Office of Trade has outlined a strategy for improving the agency’s ability to measure benefits resulting from the use of ACE. CBP documents indicate that this strategy will include efforts to measure, to the extent that data are available, the impact of any enhancements to the system after implementation of core capabilities is complete, including enhancements identified as critical components in improving import or export operations.
Approach to Managing ACE after Implementation of Core Capabilities Has Not Been Established
CBP does not have a process in place to manage the continued development of ACE after February 2018, when it finished implementing most of the capabilities it identified as core. ACE users in CBP, partner agencies, and the trade community have identified a number of shortcomings in ACE and have suggested enhancements to address them. CBP has identified a small number of enhancements suggested by CBP and the trade community as near-term priorities and identified a number of others to consider for priority status. However, a substantial number of additional suggested enhancements, including submissions from partner agencies, remain unaddressed. Further, a process for prioritizing all suggested enhancements has not been established. Moreover, funding for the continued development of ACE after fiscal year 2018—including funding to address most of the suggested enhancements—has not been identified. CBP and its partner agencies are working to establish a management approach that includes processes for prioritizing and funding enhancements from all sources, but it is unclear when these discussions will conclude or the extent to which they will resolve outstanding issues. Federal guidance calls for establishing the organizational structure necessary to achieve objectives, including compatible means of operating across agency boundaries.
ACE Users Have Identified Shortcomings in ACE and Suggested Enhancements to Address Them
ACE users in CBP, the trade community, and partner agencies have identified a variety of shortcomings in ACE and have suggested enhancements to address them. Examples of reported shortcomings include the following:
CBP officials tasked with validating data in ACE to assess compliance with trade laws and with processing importers’ protests of duty assessments told us that performing those tasks in ACE is labor intensive and cumbersome.
CBP and agency officials noted that ACE has not yet been updated to respond to a number of legal requirements, including several TFTEA provisions and agency regulations necessitating certain enhancements to ACE.
Some partner agency officials cited capabilities that were included in ACS but, despite being needed by the agencies for their import review and enforcement responsibilities, had not been deployed in ACE.
CBP agriculture specialists identified a number of shortcomings in ACE capabilities for processing imported agricultural goods. ACE contains a “workspace” specifically designed for agricultural goods, but it is incomplete.
Trade community officials highlighted the need for a variety of improvements in the arrival/cargo-release and post-release phases of the import process, such as improving the ability of agency officials and the trade community to send messages in ACE and increasing the size of files that the trade community can submit.
A 2016 CBP survey of ACE users, including trade community representatives and partner agency officials, found that while the majority of respondents were satisfied with the ease of using ACE, substantial minorities (29 percent of CBP respondents, 36 percent of partner agency respondents, and 31 percent of trade community respondents) were dissatisfied, citing concern with navigation and functional limitations.
In response to such shortcomings, ACE users have submitted a large number of suggestions for enhancements to ACE. According to a CBP document, as of July 2017, 671 enhancements had been submitted since the early 2000s and many of these had been addressed; however, a third of those submitted (223) remained to be addressed. Of the unaddressed enhancements, nearly three-quarters were submitted by trade community representatives (see fig. 3). According to CBP officials, funding constraints, as well as the effort required to complete deployment of core ACE capabilities within established time frames, largely precluded efforts to address enhancements over the last year. CBP officials stated that, because ACE is not funded to support enhancements, funding for enhancements suggested by CBP or the trade community must be provided by a CBP unit and funding for enhancements suggested by a partner agency must be provided by that agency.
While postponing action on these suggestions, as of November 2017 CBP had prioritized seven enhancements suggested by CBP staff or the trade community to be implemented in the near term, most of them in response to legal or technical requirements. CBP also had identified 22 additional enhancements suggested by CBP staff or the trade community for consideration as priorities.
Prioritized enhancements. CBP’s seven prioritized ACE enhancements include two that had been scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 2017 and five that were scheduled for implementation as post-core activities begin. According to CBP officials, the agency prioritized three of the seven enhancements in response to provisions in TFTEA; one of these three, pertaining to drawback processes, was necessitated by changes in the act, and the other two were intended to support changes in CBP procedure mandated by the act, according to CBP officials (see table 3). The CBP officials said that a fourth enhancement was required to comply with a new electronic filing rule by the U.S. Court of International Trade and that a fifth was needed to correct technical obsolescence. As table 3 shows, the information that CBP officials provided identified in general terms the enforcement or other benefits that could be realized through addressing these prioritized enhancements. As the table shows, as of September 2017, CBP had identified funding for three of these seven priorities.
Accepted but unprioritized enhancements. CBP officials also provided us with a list of 22 unprioritized enhancements suggested by CBP staff and the trade community that had been presented to CBP’s Product Management Committee for assessment and possible prioritization. Several of these enhancements are aimed at strengthening ACE provisions for processing agricultural imports. For example, one enhancement would improve the interface between ACE and various Department of Agriculture subsystems, reducing the need to manually enter data in multiple systems. Another enhancement would integrate the ACE agricultural workspace and CBP’s Automated Targeting System, strengthening targeting for agricultural imports. The list of unprioritized enhancements also includes initiatives to simplify several import processing steps for the trade community, allowing faster processing and associated cost savings.
Process for Prioritizing Enhancements from All Sources Has Not Been Established
While CBP has a process for prioritizing enhancements suggested by its own staff or by members of the trade community (see text box), no process has been established for prioritizing enhancements suggested by partner agencies or for making priority decisions among all suggested enhancements, including those submitted by partner agencies. Enhancements suggested by partner agencies are provided to the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) for prioritization. The BIEC, which CBP chairs, was created to improve coordination among ITDS partner agencies. The BIEC’s responsibilities extend to reviewing and prioritizing partner agency suggestions for enhancing ACE, according to CBP officials. However, CBP officials told us in September 2017 that the BIEC did not have explicit criteria for prioritizing partner agency suggestions and had not yet agreed on a cost-sharing strategy that would allow multiple agencies to share the cost of enhancements that might benefit those agencies. In the absence of such a process, CBP has been evaluating partner agency–suggested enhancements on a first-come, first-served basis, and partner agencies requesting such enhancements are required to pay for them on a fee-for-service basis, according to CBP officials.
CBP’s Documented Process for Prioritizing ACE Enhancements Suggested by CBP Staff or the Trade Community
CBP policy offices consider six criteria to decide whether to accept or reject enhancements suggested by CBP and the trade community: (1) completion of technical requirements to assess the required level of effort; (2) legal and regulatory provisions; (3) overlap with, or connection to, other enhancements in development or already deployed; (4) availability of funding and contract vehicles; (5) possible burden on trade, especially on existing coding or business processes; and (6) possible burden on CBP. CBP adds accepted enhancements to a list of “unprioritized initiatives.”
CBP’s Product Management Committee considers four criteria in assessing unprioritized initiatives for placement on the agency’s “short list” of priorities: (1) the enhancement aligns with a CBP mission priority, (2) the enhancement meets a legislative or regulatory requirement, (3) the enhancement is associated with a security protocol or gap, and (4) funding for the enhancement is available. According to CBP officials, an affirmative response to one or more of these criteria yields a higher probability that the enhancement will be deemed a priority. To prepare enhancements for development and deployment, CBP estimates the level of effort required, gathers high-level requirements, and conducts impact assessments. Once planning is complete, the CBP policy office sponsoring the priority develops a business case for initiatives on the “short list” of priorities, including budget justification and information on potential benefits/return on investment.
Funding for ACE Development after Fiscal Year 2018 Has Not Been Identified
Although CBP identified funding to complete the implementation of core ACE capabilities as defined by CBP in fiscal year 2018, officials of CBP and its partner agencies stated that they have not identified funding for the continued development of ACE, including most of the enhancements that have been suggested by CBP, the trade community, or partner agencies. Through fiscal year 2017, CBP maintained separate accounts to support ACE operations and maintenance and ACE acquisitions—that is, development and deployment of new ACE capabilities. According to CBP officials, the agency’s ACE acquisition funds were used exclusively to develop and deploy ACE capabilities that the agency defined as core. Neither acquisition funds nor operations and maintenance funds were available for enhancements to the core system, according to the officials.
However, CBP officials told us in November 2017 that, beginning in fiscal year 2018, the agency’s planned annual budgets for ACE would include funds only for operations and maintenance and would no longer include funds to support acquisitions. CBP officials stated that the agency had identified additional funding to complete core ACE capabilities, other than collections, in fiscal year 2018 and to ensure that these capabilities operate in concert with ACS, which the agency uses for collections. However, the agency had not yet identified funding for several enhancements that CBP considered near-term priorities (see table 3) or for the longer list of accepted but unprioritized enhancements suggested by CBP staff or the trade community. CBP officials estimated that supporting post-core development will require about $7 million in additional funds in fiscal year 2019 and slightly more than $14 million annually in additional funds in the succeeding 3 years. Figure 4 summarizes CBP’s anticipated ACE funding requirements for fiscal years 2019 through 2022, as identified by CBP in November 2016 and September 2017.
Approach to Managing ACE after Completion of Core Capabilities Has Not Been Finalized
CBP is working with its partner agencies in the BIEC to reach agreement on an approach to managing ACE’s continued development after completing the implementation of core capabilities, but this approach has not been finalized. According to CBP officials and some partner agency officials, the BIEC is seeking agreement on processes for prioritizing all suggested enhancements and for sharing the costs of maintaining and enhancing the system.
Process for prioritizing enhancements. According to CBP officials, the BIEC is developing a process for prioritizing enhancements, including criteria to be applied and a governance process to guide decision making. CBP officials stated that this process would be applied to all suggested enhancements, regardless of their source.
Process for sharing costs. According to CBP officials, the BIEC agreed in early 2016 to begin working toward consensus among CBP and its partner agencies on an approach to sharing future ACE operations and maintenance and development costs. This consensus is to include an agreement on criteria for classifying suggested enhancements as operations and maintenance or as new capabilities and on funding arrangements for both categories. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget requested the Department of Homeland Security and CBP to develop a cost-sharing framework, according to CBP.
However, the BIEC has not yet finalized a management approach to address these tasks. According to CBP, in early December 2017 the BIEC produced a document, titled “BIEC Principals Single Window Sustainment Decision Memorandum,” proposing a “sustainment model” for ACE and received partner agency comments on this document later that month. CBP did not provide us with copies of the memorandum or the partner agencies’ comments but stated that the comments covered the following areas: acceptance of a proposed definition of operations and maintenance and a “pay as you go” funding model, evaluation criteria for prioritizing suggested enhancements, and an overall process for making prioritization decisions. According to CBP officials, a draft cost-sharing and prioritization process plan was distributed to the BIEC principals and discussed in detail at a principals meeting on January 30, 2018, and work on refining and finalizing this plan is continuing. CBP officials estimated that this process would be completed by October 31, 2018.
In light of funding constraints and the need for broad interagency agreement to adopt processes such as those reportedly under discussion in the BIEC, it is unclear whether these discussions will conclude within the specified time frame or whether the sustainment model will resolve all outstanding issues in a manner satisfactory to participating agencies. For example, according to FDA and Treasury officials, some partner agencies maintain that certain improvements to ACE suggested by partner agencies should be regarded as part of the core system—traditionally supported by CBP acquisition funds—rather than treated as enhancements that must be supported by the agencies that suggest them. It remains unclear how such enhancements will be categorized or funded, since CBP has indicated that it will no longer allocate funds to ACE acquisition and that operations and maintenance funds have traditionally not been used for such purposes.
The solutions to these unresolved issues will affect both CBP and its partner agencies, according to agency officials. FDA officials observed that CBP will not fund or implement additional capabilities without funding for these efforts, whether through its own budget or from partner agencies. Treasury officials observed that interagency coordination and transfers of funding are cumbersome, costly processes. FDA officials also commented that, rather than try to arrange cost sharing with other agencies that may have funding constraints, partner agencies might develop alternative systems to compensate for capabilities lacking in ACE. FDA officials observed that this could result in multiple agencies’ developing separate systems to meet similar needs.
According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should establish an appropriate organizational structure and communicate effectively to achieve agency objectives. In addition, key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration include articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, and establishing compatible means of operating across agency boundaries. Until CBP, in collaboration with partner agencies, finalizes its management approach to ACE, including processes for prioritizing, and sharing costs for, critical enhancements, U.S. agencies and the trade community will not realize the system’s full potential benefits.
Conclusions
The need for an international trade data system to enhance U.S. agencies’ efficiency and effectiveness in processing cargo and enforcing U.S. trade laws has long been clear. Indeed, information available from CBP, partner agencies, and the trade community points to savings and enforcement benefits resulting from the implemented core ACE capabilities, including faster import processing; improved targeting; and other benefits to partner agencies, the trade community, and consumers. However, realization of the full benefits of transitioning to ACE continues to be hampered by a variety of functional shortcomings’.
CBP and its partner agencies recognize the need to agree on an approach to maintaining and continuing to develop the system after core ACE is completed. While CBP recently completed deployment of most of the capabilities that it identified as core, CBP and its partner agencies in the BIEC have not yet agreed on processes for prioritizing enhancements—including those that ACE users have suggested to improve the system—and for sharing the costs of operating and enhancing the system. Until CBP, in collaboration with its partner agencies, finalizes an approach to post-core management of ACE that includes such processes, as well as time frames for implementing them, CBP, its partner agencies, and the trade community will not realize the full potential benefits of the substantial investment ACE represents.
Recommendation for Executive Action
We are making the following recommendation to DHS: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commissioner of CBP, in collaboration with partner agencies, finalizes an interagency approach to the post-core management of ACE that includes (1) processes for prioritizing enhancements to ACE and for sharing ACE operations and maintenance and development costs, including the costs of suggested enhancements among partner agencies that may benefit, and (2) time frames for implementing such processes. (Recommendation 1)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to DHS; the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the Interior, the Treasury, and Transportation; and CPSC. DHS provided substantive comments, which are reproduced in appendix III. In addition, DHS; the Departments of Health and Human Services, the Interior, Transportation, and the Treasury; and CPSC provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Agriculture did not provide comments.
In its substantive comments, DHS concurred with our recommendation. DHS also reported that some steps toward developing an interagency approach to post-core management of ACE had been taken after we distributed our draft report for agency comment. DHS estimated that the process would be completed by the end of October 2018. We updated our report accordingly.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Commissioner of CBP, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the Interior, the Treasury, and Transportation. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk.gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
In this report, we examine (1) the status of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) efforts to implement core Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) capabilities since 2013, (2) CBP partner agencies’ access to ACE and use of the system for import processing, (3) available information about any cost savings and trade enforcement benefits that have resulted from using ACE, and (4) the approach that will be used to manage ACE after core capabilities have been completed.
To examine CBP’s efforts to implement ACE since 2013, we obtained information from CBP’s Office of Information Technology and Office of Trade, which have been responsible for developing and administering ACE. CBP documents reviewed include ACE deployment schedules, acquisition decision memos, remediation plans, cost estimates, and a staff post mortem report on the ACE acquisition process. We also interviewed officials from CBP and five partner agencies regarding the ACE acquisition process since 2013: the Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). We selected these five agencies on the basis of their size (to include both large and small agencies), the degree to which they require documentation for clearing or licensing cargo, and recommendations from officials of CBP and the Department of the Treasury regarding agencies that would provide a range of experience in transitioning to ACE. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on ACE acquisition. While ACE is designed to permit management of both exports and imports, we focused on the implementation of ACE capabilities to manage imports, because CBP’s efforts to complete and improve ACE functionality are currently focused primarily on import trade.
To examine other agencies’ progress in accessing and using ACE data, we obtained summary information on ACE usage for CBP’s 49 partner agencies, including information such as whether an agency had a memorandum of understanding with CBP regarding ACE access, whether it accessed trade data through ACE data and how it did so. While we collected information on all 49 partner agencies, we focused our analysis on the 22 partner agencies that CBP identified as requiring documentation for clearing or licensing cargo for import or export. To collect this information, we identified and reviewed Federal Register notices posted by the agencies. We obtained documentation on agency participation in ACE from CBP officials and from the Department of the Treasury. We also discussed the documentation and our descriptions with CBP officials and partner agency officials. To understand how the five selected agencies used ACE, we conducted case studies that included reviewing CBP user guidance documents and documents from the respective agencies on their transitions and interviewing agency officials in Washington, D.C., and at the ports of New York and Newark.
To examine available information about actual and potential cost savings and enforcement benefits from using ACE, we obtained information on efforts by CBP, partner agencies, and companies involved in international trade to identify and measure efficiency gains and potential cost savings. The CBP documents we reviewed included listings and definitions of metrics for determining efficiency gains and CBP’s method for using those to calculate potential cost savings, and also documentation of CBP’s process for determining the reliability of the data and measures. In addition, we reviewed a 2015 report on CBP’s ACE metrics by the DHS Office of the Inspector General, which recommended that CBP strengthen its metrics; the Inspector General subsequently closed those recommendations as implemented. On the basis of our review of the available information, we determined that CBP’s metrics were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of conveying the estimated value of these efficiency gains. To understand earlier CBP estimates of potential cost savings from ACE, we reviewed a cost-benefit analysis conducted and revised by CBP during 2002-2004. We also reviewed a more recent cost benefit analysis conducted by FDA. In addition, we interviewed officials at CBP and the 5 case study partner agencies regarding information on potential cost savings and other benefits from ACE, including officials in CBP’s Office of Enforcement who discussed challenges with developing metrics to measure enforcement benefits. In addition, to obtain information on observed and potentials benefits and cost savings of ACE to importers and exporters, and related companies, we interviewed representatives of these companies. We also obtained information from CBP regarding their preparations to assess the benefits of enhancements to ACE after core ACE capabilities are completed. We interviewed CBP and agency officials in Washington, D.C., and at the ports of New York, N.Y., and Newark, N.J., concerning benefits and challenges associated with using ACE. We selected these ports because they allowed us to interview CBP officials charged with processing a large volume of diverse imported goods, representing both air and sea cargo. These ports also afforded an opportunity to interview field staff representing four of our five case-study agencies (APHIS, CPSC, FDA, and FWS). We also discussed these issues with CBP officials with the agency’s Center for Commercial Targeting and Analysis, each of CBP’s five National Targeting and Analysis Groups, and six of the agency’s 10 Centers of Excellence and Expertise (national-level CBP units responsible for processing imported goods associated with designated industry sectors), which we judgmentally selected. We also discussed these issues with 16 trade community representatives—that is, representatives of companies that buy and sell internationally traded products as well as brokers and shippers that work for and with these companies—some of whom participate in organizations that advise CBP regarding its operations. These 16 representatives included members of the Trade Support Network, a private sector group created to provide input to CBP on its business processes, including ACE; the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, a private sector group created to advise the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security on CBP’s commercial operations; and the National Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association.
To analyze the approach that will be used to manage ACE after core capabilities have been completed, we obtained information on CBP processes to identify, evaluate, and operationalize changes to enhance ACE. We also obtained information from CBP about its projected “post- core” budgetary needs. In addition, we reviewed documentation from CBP regarding interagency dialogue on post-core management of ACE and interviewed officials from CBP and other agencies to obtain their views on the challenges to be addressed and progress toward addressing them.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to February 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE
Table 4 provides information about participation in U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by the 22 partner agencies that CBP identified as requiring documentation to clear or license cargo. Table 5 provides information about participation in ACE by the 27 partner agencies that CBP did not identify as requiring such documentation.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Celia Thomas (Assistant Director), Michael McAtee (Analyst-in-Charge), Marybeth Acac, Ryan Deloughry, Philip Farah, Reid Lowe, Scott McClinton, Maria Stattel, Bryant Torres, and Alex Welsh made key contributions to this report. Neil Doherty and Justine Lazaro provided technical assistance.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
CBP began work on ACE in 1994 to update the agency's existing electronic trade processing system. In 2006, Congress broadened this effort by mandating creation of a “single portal” International Trade Data System to, among other things, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce and more effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade. Performance problems halted implementation of ACE from 2010 to 2013. In 2014, the President set a deadline of December 31, 2016, for completing the system.
The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to report on issues related to ACE implementation. In this report, GAO examines (1) CBP efforts to complete core ACE capabilities since 2013; (2) agencies' access to ACE and use of the system to process imports; (3) any cost savings and trade enforcement benefits from using ACE; and (4) the approach that will be used to manage ACE after core capabilities are completed. GAO reviewed information from 22 agencies as well as importers, exporters, and brokers and interviewed agency and trade community representatives.
What GAO Found
Since renewing efforts to implement the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) in 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has deployed a number of key ACE activities, processes, and functions that it terms core capabilities. After several delays, CBP reported that it had finished implementing these capabilities—other than a capability for revenue collections—in February 2018. CBP expects to decide how to proceed with collections by the end of March 2018, according to agency officials.
The 22 agencies CBP identified as requiring documentation to clear or license cargo are all authorized to access ACE, although GAO found considerable variation in their use of the system for import processing. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has integrated its systems with ACE and uses ACE data to review imports under its jurisdiction and target public health risks. In contrast, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet integrated ACE into its operations.
ACE users at CBP and partner agencies and in the trade community told GAO that using ACE has reduced costs by making trade processing more efficient and has strengthened enforcement of trade laws and regulations. CBP has developed metrics for itself and the trade community and estimated savings that could result from the increased efficiency of some processes in ACE. CBP also reported efforts to expand its metrics to capture more ACE benefits—for example, to estimate the value of increased efficiencies for partner agencies.
CBP has not yet established an approach for the management of ACE after February 2018. The agency plans to enhance ACE to address shortcomings ACE users have identified—such as difficulty in transmitting messages and required information —but has not established a process for prioritizing all suggested enhancements. CBP also has not identified funding for continued ACE development, including enhancements, after fiscal year 2018. CBP is leading an interagency effort to develop an ACE management approach that includes processes for prioritizing enhancements and sharing costs, but this approach has not been finalized. Federal guidance calls for establishing the organizational structure necessary to operate effectively and for examining efforts as needed to adopt coordinated approaches. Until processes for prioritizing ACE enhancements and sharing costs are finalized, agencies and the trade community will not realize the system's full potential benefits.
What GAO Recommends
The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commissioner of CBP, in collaboration with partner agencies, finalizes an interagency approach to managing ACE that includes processes for prioritizing enhancements and sharing system costs. CBP concurred with GAO's recommendation. | 96 | 73,678 | 73,680 | 73,680 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-78 | gao_GAO-18-78_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
DOD Public Water Systems
DOD has two types of public water systems that provide drinking water to people that live and work on military installations. The first type provides drinking water that has been treated by DOD. The second type provides water treated by a private company or a local utility, which we refer to as “non-DOD-treated” drinking water. Drinking water systems vary by size and other factors, but they most typically include a supply source, treatment facility, and distribution system. A water system’s supply source may be a reservoir, aquifer, well, or a combination of these sources. The treatment process for surface water generally uses sedimentation, filtration, and other processes to remove impurities and harmful agents, and disinfection processes such as chlorination to eliminate biological contaminants. Distribution systems are comprised of water towers, piping grids, pumps, and other components to deliver treated water from treatment systems to consumers.
Drinking Water Regulations and Administrative Orders
EPA regulates drinking water contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act by issuing legally enforceable standards, known as National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, which generally limit the levels of these contaminants in public water systems. EPA has issued such regulations for approximately 90 drinking water contaminants. In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA may authorize a state to have primary enforcement responsibility for drinking water regulations, as long as the state has, among other things, drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The Safe Drinking Water Act also authorizes EPA to take emergency actions necessary to protect public health when informed that a contaminant is present in or is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment. For example, EPA may issue administrative orders, which generally include actions to be taken, such as remediating contaminated sources of drinking water or requiring the provision of alternative water supplies. State regulators may also issue orders to public water systems to address contaminated drinking water.
Public water systems, including the DOD public water systems that provide drinking water to about 3 million people living and working on military installations, are required to comply with EPA and state drinking water regulations. EPA divides violations of drinking water regulations into two types: (1) health-based violations and (2) other types of violations that include violations of monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA also is required to identify unregulated contaminants that present the greatest health concern, establish a program to monitor drinking water for unregulated contaminants, and decide whether or not to regulate at least five such contaminants every 5 years. EPA has not regulated any new contaminants using this process since 1996.
DOD’s environmental compliance policy states that ASD (EI&E) is responsible for providing guidance, oversight, advocacy, and representation for environmental compliance programs—to include overseeing the military departments’ compliance with health-based drinking water regulations at DOD public water systems. The policy directs the military departments to annually report to ASD (EI&E) the total population receiving water from both “regulated” and “other” DOD public water systems—referred to in this report as DOD public water systems that provide DOD- and non-DOD-treated drinking water, respectively— that did and did not attain all Safe Drinking Water Act health-based drinking water standards. The policy also requires the military departments to report information regarding each instance health-based drinking water standards were not attained during the reporting period, to include the name and location of the military installation; the nature of the issue (e.g., the contaminant type); the DOD population affected; the duration of the issue; the corrective actions taken or planned (e.g., flushing the system, resampling the water, or implementing system upgrades); and the estimated date for achieving the standard.
EPA Health Advisories
In addition to issuing drinking water regulations, EPA may also publish drinking water health advisories. In contrast to drinking water regulations, health advisories are nonenforceable. Drinking water health advisories provide technical guidance on health effects, analytical methodologies, and treatment technologies. These advisories recommend the amount of these contaminants that can be present in drinking water—”health advisory levels”—at which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur over specific exposure durations, to include 1 day, 10 days, several years, or over a lifetime. EPA issues provisional health advisories to provide information in response to an urgent or rapidly developing situation. DOD’s list of emerging contaminants includes 11 contaminants, including PFOS, PFOA, and perchlorate, for which EPA has issued a drinking water health advisory. Specifically,
PFOS. PFOS is part of a larger group of fluorinated organic chemicals that have been incorporated into an array of consumer products (i.e., to make some more resistant to stains, grease, and water) and also in firefighting foam used by DOD and civilian airports. According to EPA, the major manufacturer of PFOS in the United States voluntarily agreed to phase out production of the chemical in 2002. According to EPA’s health advisory, exposure to PFOS may remain possible due to legacy uses, existing and legacy use in imported goods, and the chemical’s “extremely high persistence” in the environment. According to the EPA, exposure to PFOS may result in adverse health effects, such as fetal developmental effects during pregnancy or to breastfed infants, cancer, liver damage, immune effects, thyroid effects, and other effects. See table 1 for details of the EPA provisional health advisory that was issued in 2009 and the lifetime health advisory that was issued in 2016, which superseded the provisional health advisory.
PFOA. PFOA is a fluorinated organic chemical that has been used in generally the same products as PFOS, including firefighting foam used by DOD and civilian airports. According to EPA, PFOA was voluntarily phased out by eight major companies in the manufacturing of their products at the end of 2015. According to the EPA, adverse health effects from exposure to PFOA are similar to those for PFOS. See table 1 for details of the EPA provisional health advisory that was issued in 2009 and the lifetime health advisory that was issued in 2016, which superseded the provisional health advisory.
Perchlorate. Perchlorate is commonly used in solid propellants, fireworks, matches, signal flares, and some fertilizers, and has been used by DOD for rocket fuel and ammunition. EPA published an interim health advisory for perchlorate in 2008; the interim health advisory level was set at 15 parts per billion. According to the health advisory, perchlorate can disrupt the functions of the thyroid gland.
DOD-Identified Emerging Contaminants
In 2009, DOD issued a policy on the identification, assessment, and risk management of emerging contaminants that have the potential to impact DOD. According to that policy, chemicals and materials used or planned for use by DOD that meet the definition of an emerging contaminant should be identified as early as possible. The policy further states that DOD is to assess and, when appropriate, take action to reduce risks posed by its emerging contaminants to people; the environment; and DOD missions, programs, and resources. Where necessary, DOD is to perform sampling, conduct site-specific risk assessments, and take response actions for emerging contaminants released from DOD facilities, in accordance with relevant statutes.
According to the DOD policy on emerging contaminants, ASD (EI&E) is to develop and maintain a list of emerging contaminants with potential or probable high risk to the department’s personnel and functions. As of April 2017, DOD’s list of emerging contaminants comprised 49 chemicals or substances. According to our analysis of EPA documents, DOD’s list includes 21 contaminants that can be found in drinking water. Of these 21 contaminants, 10 contaminants have been regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and 11 contaminants are currently unregulated but have an EPA-issued drinking water health advisory. The other 28 DOD-identified emerging contaminants do not have EPA drinking water regulations or health advisories. Appendix II provides more information on the drinking water regulatory status of DOD-identified emerging contaminants.
DOD Has Not Internally Reported All Data on Compliance with Drinking Water Regulations or Used Available Data to Evaluate Differences between Its Drinking Water Systems
For the years we reviewed—fiscal years 2013 through 2015—the military departments annually reported information internally to ASD (EI&E) on compliance with EPA and state health-based drinking water regulations, which indicate that drinking water quality at DOD public water systems was similar to other systems in the United States. However, not all violations of health-based regulations were reported to ASD (EI&E) during this time frame, as is required by DOD policy. The military departments reported that a total of 77 military installations had at least one violation at some point from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015, but we found that at least 16 additional installations had violations that were reported to EPA but were not internally reported to ASD (EI&E). DOD also has not used available compliance data to identify why DOD public water systems that provide DOD-treated drinking water appear to have more violations of health-based regulations than DOD systems that provide non-DOD- treated drinking water.
Military Departments Have Internally Reported Data on Compliance with Health-Based Drinking Water Regulations, but Have Not Reported All Violations
For the years we reviewed—fiscal years 2013 through 2015—the military departments annually reported information to ASD (EI&E) on compliance with and violations of EPA and state health-based drinking water regulations at the DOD public water systems that provide drinking water to military installations. The military departments’ data for fiscal years 2013 through 2015 indicate that about 92 percent of people who received drinking water from DOD public water systems were served by a system that complied with EPA and state health-based regulations. This is similar to the percentage of people in the United States—also about 92 percent, according to EPA—who received drinking water during that time frame from a community public water system with no health-based violations. The data for that time period also indicate that about 8 percent of people were provided drinking water from a DOD public water system that had at least one violation of a health-based regulation. Health-based violations can be for any length of time during a fiscal year—for example, a violation lasting 1 day is counted the same as a violation lasting for 1 month. Across the 3 fiscal years, the military departments reported that a total of 77 military installations had at least one violation at some point during that time period: 35 in fiscal year 2013, 25 in fiscal year 2014, and 17 in fiscal year 2015. The most common types of contaminants for which the military departments reported violations were coliform and two disinfection byproducts—trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids—which, according to EPA, are among the most common types of contaminants for which health-based drinking water violations occur across the United States.
However, we found that the military departments have not always reported all violations to ASD (EI&E), as required by DOD policy. Based on our review of data in EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System for fiscal years 2013 through 2015, we found that the military departments did not report violations to ASD (EI&E) for at least 16 installations—9 Air Force installations, 5 Navy installations, and 2 Army installations. According to EPA’s database, the total population served by DOD public water systems at these installations is approximately 180,000 people, and most of the violations that went unreported involved coliform and disinfection byproduct contaminants. However, the actual population number affected by these violations and the contaminants involved— along with other information such as the duration of the contamination and the corrective actions planned or taken—were not included in the military departments’ annual reports to ASD (EI&E). These violations were recorded in EPA’s system, which indicates that the installations reported the violations to the appropriate state regulatory agencies, who then reported them to EPA’s database. However, the violations were not reported to ASD (EI&E), as required by DOD policy.
According to military department officials, violations of health-based drinking water regulations went unreported to ASD (EI&E) due to a lack of clarity in DOD’s reporting requirements and misunderstandings of the requirements on the part of installations and the military departments. We found that violations were either not reported by the military installations where the violations occurred or that they were not reported by the installations’ chains of command. Navy officials cited turnover of installation personnel as the reason some violations went unreported, as well as misinterpretations by installation personnel of DOD’s reporting requirements. Air Force officials also told us that most of their unreported violations were not reported to ASD (EI&E) because the Air Force did not interpret them as health-based violations, although DOD policy requires these types of violations to be reported. Army officials told us that, based on their interpretation of DOD’s policy, the policy did not require them to report violations at installations where formal, written notification was not received from the state regulatory agency. However, ASD (EI&E) officials stated that all violations of health-based regulations should be reported, whether or not the state provides formal, written notification of the violation. Navy officials also told us that they have not reported violations at some of the Navy’s smaller systems that purchase drinking water from non-DOD public water systems, due in part to misinterpretation of DOD’s internal reporting requirements. However, Navy officials told us that ASD (EI&E) had instructed them to begin reporting these types of violations in fiscal year 2016, and the Navy is working with ASD (EI&E) and the other military departments to determine whether these types of systems should regularly report health-based violations.
Currently, ASD (EI&E) does not have complete data in accordance with DOD’s policy, limiting its ability to conduct oversight and analyze how many people at military installations receive drinking water with health- based violations, what contaminants were involved, the duration of the contamination, or what corrective actions the military departments have planned or taken to address the violation. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that quality information is needed to achieve an organization’s objectives. Those standards also indicate that actions such as improved communication to and additional training for personnel are helpful for an organization to meet its objectives. According to DOD officials, a committee comprised of ASD (EI&E) and military department officials began a review in 2016 of DOD’s internal reporting requirements for drinking water compliance data. While such a committee could be in a position to make recommendations on clarifying the annual reporting requirements, no documentation on the committee’s efforts was yet available at the time of our review as the committee’s work was still in progress. In addition, at present, there are no firm dates for when its work will be completed or when any potential changes would be implemented. Absent actions by ASD (EI&E) to identify and implement any necessary changes to clarify annual reporting requirements in its environmental compliance policy, and absent actions by the military departments to increase understanding at their installations and commands about the requirements, adherence to DOD’s environmental compliance policy will remain limited and DOD will lack complete data to conduct oversight of regulatory compliance at its public water systems.
DOD Has Not Used Available Data to Assess Why DOD-Treated Water Appears to Have More Health-Based Violations Than Non-DOD-Treated Drinking Water
DOD has not used available data to assess why DOD public water systems providing DOD-treated drinking water appear to have more violations of health-based drinking water regulations than systems providing non-DOD-treated drinking water. Although we found that not all violations were reported by the military departments to ASD (EI&E), the data that were reported during fiscal years 2013 through 2015 indicated that about 99 percent of the people who received non-DOD-treated drinking water were served by systems with no violations, while about 89 percent of the people who received DOD-treated drinking water were served by systems with no violations.
When we asked ASD (EI&E) and military department officials why these differences may exist, they were unable to provide an explanation because they had not used the reported water quality data to identify the reasons why DOD public water systems providing DOD-treated water appear to have more violations than systems providing non-DOD-treated water. Although some officials offered ideas on the reasons for differences in compliance—including the relative expertise of utilities and private companies, versus DOD, in providing drinking water—DOD officials acknowledged that the agency has not evaluated the data to identify specific reasons for why the differences may exist. All public water systems, including DOD public water systems, are required to comply with applicable EPA and state drinking water regulations. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should establish and operate activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Such monitoring should assess the quality of performance over time and promptly resolve any findings. Without reviewing the data reported by the military departments to identify why there appear to be differences in violations between DOD’s two types of public water systems and without identifying and implementing any actions to address any differences, ASD (EI&E) and the military departments may not be able to improve overall compliance with health-based drinking water regulations.
DOD Has Initiated Actions to Address Concerns with Its Firefighting Foam as Well as Elevated Levels of PFOS, PFOA, and Perchlorate in Drinking Water
DOD is taking steps to address health and environmental concerns with its use of firefighting foam that contains PFCs—including PFOS and PFOA—to include restricting the use of foam at its installations and funding research into the development of a PFC-free foam that can meet DOD performance requirements. DOD also has responded to EPA and state orders and initiated additional actions to address elevated levels of PFOS, PFOA, and perchlorate.
DOD Is Taking Steps to Address Health and Environmental Concerns with Firefighting Foam That Contains PFCs
DOD is taking steps to address PFOS- and PFOA-related health and environmental concerns with its use of firefighting foam that contains PFCs. Firefighting foam is used by DOD to put fires out quickly while also ensuring that they do not reignite. This is critical if, for example, there is a fire from a fighter jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier. DOD has outlined performance requirements in its military specification for firefighting foam, which was authored by the Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command but is approved for use in all of DOD. For example, the military specification states how long it should take for firefighting foam to extinguish a fire—based on the size of the fire and the amount of foam used—and how long the foam should prevent the extinguished fire from reigniting. DOD’s military specification also requires that firefighting foam purchased and used by the department must contain PFCs.
DOD’s steps to address concerns with the use of firefighting foam include restricting the use of existing foams that contain PFCs; testing its current foams to identify the amount of PFCs they contain; and funding research into the future development of PFC-free foam that can meet DOD’s performance and compatibility requirements (see table 2). Some of these steps, such as limiting the use of firefighting foam containing PFCs, are in place. Others, such as determining the specific amount of PFCs in existing firefighting foams or researching potential PFC-free firefighting foams, are in progress with targets, in some cases, but no firm completion dates.
Navy officials stated that they are planning to revise the military specification after they have completed their testing—to be completed in late 2017 or 2018—on the amounts of PFOS, PFOA, and other PFCs found in the firefighting foam currently used by DOD. That revision, according to Navy officials, is intended to set limits for the amount of PFCs that are allowed in firefighting foam. According to DOD, at present there is no PFC-free firefighting foam that meets DOD’s performance and compatibility requirements. As a result, the Navy has no plans to remove the requirement for firefighting foam to contain PFCs at this time. However, if a PFC-free foam is developed in the future that can meet DOD performance and compatibility requirements, Navy officials said that any necessary revisions to the military specification would be made at that time—a process that could take months to complete.
DOD Has Responded to Orders from EPA and a State Regulator and Has Initiated Additional Actions to Address Elevated Levels of PFOS and PFOA in Drinking Water at or near Military Installations
DOD has taken steps to respond to four administrative orders directing the department to address PFOS and PFOA levels that exceeded EPA’s health advisory levels for drinking water. One order was issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, and three orders were issued by the EPA directed at: the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire; Horsham Air Guard Station in Pennsylvania; and the former Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster in Pennsylvania. Under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA may issue orders necessary to protect human health where a contaminant in a public water system presents an imminent and substantial endangerment. EPA may do so if appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect human health. These orders may require, among other things, carrying out cleanup studies, providing alternate water supplies, notifying the public of the emergency, and halting disposal of the contaminants threatening human health. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has similar authority.
According to information provided by officials from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and DOD, DOD has taken steps to respond to the administrative orders. Table 3 provides further details on each order and examples of actions by DOD to address the orders.
In addition to actions specific to these four installations, DOD has initiated other actions to test for, investigate, and mitigate elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA at or near installations across the military departments. Following the release of EPA’s lifetime health advisory for PFOS and PFOA in May 2016, each of the military departments issued guidance directing installations to, among other things, test for PFOS and PFOA in their drinking water and take steps to address drinking water that contained amounts of PFOS and PFOA above the EPA’s lifetime health advisory level. The military departments also directed their installations to identify locations with a known or suspected prior release of PFOS and PFOA and to address any releases that pose a risk to human health— which can include people living outside DOD installations.
As a result of these efforts, DOD has initiated actions to address PFOS and PFOA in drinking water both on military installations and outside military installations. As of March 2017, DOD data indicated that the department was taking steps to address levels of PFOS and PFOA above the EPA’s lifetime health advisory level in drinking water on 11 military installations in the United States, 2 of which we visited during the course of this review (see fig. 1).
According to DOD data, these installations took various corrective actions to mitigate the presence of PFOS and PFOA in the drinking water, including shutting down drinking water wells, providing alternative drinking water, and installing treatment systems. For example, at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, the Air Force reported shutting down three of the installation’s six drinking water wells and installing a treatment system to remove PFOS and PFOA from the drinking water. At Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California, the Navy reported that a well contaminated with PFOS and PFOA was taken out of service and that the affected reservoir was drained and replaced with water from another source; follow-on testing showed that the presence of PFOS and PFOA were returned to below the EPA’s lifetime health advisory level. At Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, the Army reported that the private company that operates the installation’s drinking water system had shut down two wells contaminated with PFOS and PFOA and plans to install a treatment system before returning those wells to service.
Additionally, according to DOD data as of December 2016 the military departments had identified 391 active and closed installations with known or suspected releases of PFOS and PFOA, and had reported spending almost $200 million on environmental investigations and mitigation actions at or near 263 (or about 67 percent) of those installations. In particular, DOD had initiated mitigation actions, which include installing treatment systems or supplying bottled water, to address PFOS and PFOA in drinking water for people living outside 19 installations—5 of which we visited during the course of this review (see fig. 2).
The following cost data provided by DOD were current as of December 2016, and are supplemented by additional information we obtained during our installation visits.
The Air Force identified 203 installations with known or suspected releases of PFOS and PFOA, spent about $120 million on environmental investigations at those installations, and spent about $33 million on mitigation actions at or near 14 of the 203 installations. For example, the Air Force reported spending over $5 million on environmental investigations and mitigation actions at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado. During our visit to that installation, officials showed us the sites they are investigating—to include the current (see fig. 3 below) and former fire training areas—to determine the extent to which their prior use of firefighting foam may have contributed to the discovery of PFOS and PFOA in the drinking water of three nearby communities. Additionally, the Air Force has awarded a contract for, among other things, installing treatment systems in those communities. In another example, the Air Force reported spending about $800,000 on environmental investigations at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia, but nothing yet on mitigation actions. During our visit to this installation, officials told us that they had not taken any mitigation actions because they do not use the installation’s groundwater as a drinking water source; the utility that serves the installation, as well as the nearby city of Newport News, obtains its drinking water primarily from a surface water source, which officials said was approximately 20 miles from the installation.
The Navy identified 127 installations with known or suspected releases of PFOS and PFOA, spent about $20.5 million on environmental investigations at 47 of those installations, and spent about $24 million on mitigation actions at or near 5 of those installations. For example, the Navy reported spending about $15 million on environmental investigations and mitigation actions at the former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove in Pennsylvania. During our visit to this installation, officials told us that the Navy is investigating the extent to which PFOS and PFOA on the installation may have contaminated a nearby town’s drinking water. The Navy has agreed to fund installation of treatment systems and connections of private well owners to the town’s drinking water system, among other things. In another example, the Navy reported spending nearly $3 million on environmental investigations and mitigation actions at Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress in Virginia. During our visit to this installation, officials told us that the Navy is providing bottled water to the approximately 20 to 30 personnel who work there and plans to install a treatment system to treat for PFOS and PFOA.
The Army identified 61 installations with known or suspected releases of PFOS and PFOA, spent about $1.6 million on environmental investigations at 13 of those installations, and has not yet begun any mitigation actions at or near the identified installations. For example, the Army reported spending about $26,000 on environmental investigations at Fort Carson in Colorado, but nothing yet on mitigation actions. During our visit to this installation, officials told us that they had found PFOS and PFOA in groundwater near their previous fire training area but that the installation does not use that groundwater as a drinking water source, and state officials told us that it is unlikely that PFOS and PFOA from Fort Carson had affected any nearby drinking water sources.
According to DOD, it may take several years for the department to determine how much it will cost to cleanup PFOS and PFOA contamination at or near its military installations. In January 2017, we reported that DOD had not notified Congress that the costs for environmental cleanup at closed installations will significantly increase due to the high cost of remediating emerging contaminants—including PFOS and PFOA. We also reported that DOD officials had not determined the total costs for cleaning up emerging contaminants at closed installations. We recommended that DOD include in future annual reports to Congress best estimates of the environmental cleanup costs for emerging contaminants as additional information becomes available, and DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated its commitment to do so.
DOD Previously Directed Installations to Test for Perchlorate in Drinking Water
DOD previously directed installations to test for perchlorate in drinking water. Following the EPA’s issuance of an interim drinking water health advisory for perchlorate in 2008, DOD issued policy in April 2009—which superseded similar policy that was issued in January 2006—directing DOD-owned drinking water systems that were testing for inorganic substances to also test for perchlorate. Installations that found perchlorate in their drinking water were to consult with their leadership on appropriate actions to take and to continue testing on a quarterly basis until they determined that perchlorate levels were likely to remain below EPA’s health advisory level, or any applicable federal or state regulation. Citing congressional and regulatory agency concerns related to perchlorate, DOD developed a database for storing the results of perchlorate testing. According to ASD (EI&E), the database was last updated in 2009 and is no longer being used by the department.
ASD (EI&E) officials stated that they are no longer regularly testing drinking water for perchlorate unless there is a state requirement to do so; previous testing indicated that DOD was not a primary source of perchlorate in drinking water and that known releases of perchlorate did not currently pose a threat to drinking water. According to EPA, the agency expects to issue a final drinking water regulation for perchlorate by the end of 2019. ASD (EI&E) officials told us that, once EPA has issued a final regulation, DOD is committed to complying with it.
Conclusions
During the period we reviewed, DOD data indicate that DOD public water systems complied with EPA and state health-based drinking water regulations at a level comparable with other systems in the United States. However, we found that the military departments did not report all violations of these regulations to ASD (EI&E) during that period, which illustrates that DOD’s internal reporting requirements for drinking water data are either not clear in DOD regulations or are not clearly understood by those implementing them. Unless ASD (EI&E) and the military departments act to make any necessary clarifications to and increase understanding of DOD’s annual reporting requirements, ASD (EI&E) may not have complete data to effectively oversee the military departments’ compliance with drinking water regulations. Further, the data indicated that systems providing DOD-treated drinking water had more reported health-based violations than DOD systems providing non-DOD-treated drinking water. However, DOD has not used these data to identify the reasons that these differences may exist. Without using available data to identify why differences in violations appear to exist between DOD’s two types of public water systems, DOD will likely be hampered in its ability to identify what actions, if any, could be taken to address any differences and improve overall compliance with health-based drinking water regulations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making a total of five recommendations to DOD.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, should identify and implement any necessary changes to DOD’s environmental compliance policy to clarify DOD’s reporting requirements for violations of health-based drinking water regulations. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of the Army should identify and implement actions to increase understanding at Army installations and commands about DOD’s reporting requirements for violations of health-based drinking water regulations. These actions may include improved communication to or additional training for personnel. (Recommendation 2)
The Secretary of the Navy should identify and implement actions to increase understanding at Navy installations and commands about DOD’s reporting requirements for violations of health-based drinking water regulations. These actions may include improved communication to or additional training for personnel. (Recommendation 3)
The Secretary of the Air Force should identify and implement actions to increase understanding at Air Force installations and commands about DOD’s reporting requirements for violations of health-based drinking water regulations. These actions may include improved communication to or additional training for personnel. (Recommendation 4)
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, should (a) review reported compliance data to identify the reasons for any differences in the number of violations of health-based drinking water regulations between DOD’s two types of public water systems and (b) identify and implement any actions needed to address the causes of any differences in the number of violations between DOD’s two types of public water systems. (Recommendation 5)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to DOD and EPA for review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOD concurred with our recommendations. DOD and EPA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Based on technical comments from DOD, we revised the title of the report to more clearly specify the actions DOD should take to address the findings in our report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Administrator of EPA. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact us at J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov, or Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Senate Report 114-255 accompanying a bill for the national defense authorization for fiscal year 2017 included a provision for us to review the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to manage contaminants in drinking water. This report examines the extent to which DOD has (1) internally reported data on compliance with health-based drinking water regulations at military installations and used those data to assess compliance at its two types of public water systems and (2) taken actions to address concerns with its firefighting foam containing perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and to address elevated levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perchlorate in drinking water at or near military installations.
For objective one, we reviewed DOD’s policy on environmental compliance in the United States, which directs the military departments to annually report data to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment (ASD (EI&E)) on compliance with and violations of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state health- based drinking water regulations at military installations. We analyzed data reported by the military departments to ASD (EI&E) on compliance with and violations of health-based drinking water regulations at DOD public water systems located at military installations in the United States for fiscal years 2013 through 2015, the most recent data available at the time of our review. We analyzed the data to identify (1) the number of people served by DOD public water systems that complied with applicable EPA and state health-based drinking water regulations during the fiscal year and (2) the number of people served by DOD public water systems that violated at least one of these regulations sometime during the fiscal year. We performed this analysis for both types of DOD public water systems—those that provide DOD-treated drinking water, and those that provide non-DOD-treated drinking water. We also used the data to identify the military installations where the reported violations occurred; the nature of the violation (including the contaminant involved); and the number of people affected. Next, we collected data from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System for all public water systems in the United States. We used DOD-provided public water system identification numbers to identify in the EPA system any violations for health-based drinking water regulations at those DOD systems for fiscal years 2013 through 2015. We then compared the violations found in EPA’s data to the data reported by the military departments to ASD (EI&E) to determine the extent to which the military departments were reporting all violations of health-based drinking water regulations to ASD (EI&E).
We also analyzed DOD’s data to identify any differences in violations between DOD- and non-DOD-treated drinking water. We evaluated the military departments’ reported data and DOD’s use of these data to determine compliance with DOD’s reporting requirements in the department’s environmental compliance instruction and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. According to these standards, quality information is needed to achieve an organization’s objectives, management is to monitor performance over time and promptly resolve any findings, and actions such as improved communication to and additional training for personnel are helpful for an organization to meet its objectives. We also discussed our analysis with ASD (EI&E) and military department officials, and discussed possible reasons for why any violations went unreported to ASD (EI&E) and why there may be differences in violations between DOD- and non-DOD- treated drinking water. We assessed the reliability of the DOD and EPA data on violations of health-based drinking water regulations by reviewing relevant documentation, testing the data for obvious errors, and interviewing knowledgeable officials. As we have previously found, EPA’s data system may not contain all public water violations as states have under-reported the violations. During this review, we found that some public water system identification numbers for DOD installations could not be matched with EPA’s system and, therefore, were excluded from our analysis. As a result, some DOD installation violations may be missing from the data, and we may not have comprehensive violations data for health-based drinking water regulations at DOD installations. Nonetheless, we determined that DOD and EPA data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying whether any drinking water violations were recorded in EPA’s system but not internally reported within DOD, and to indicate possible differences in drinking water violations, as reported by the military departments, between DOD’s two types of public water systems.
For objective two, we reviewed policies issued by the military departments on the use of firefighting foam that contains PFCs. We also reviewed DOD documents related to research into PFC-free firefighting foams that can meet the department’s performance and compatibility requirements, as well as DOD’s military specification document that outlines those requirements. We met with officials from ASD (EI&E) and the military departments to discuss their policies on the use of firefighting foam and actions taken to address concerns with the use of firefighting foam containing PFCs, including the future use of firefighting foam. Additionally, we met with Navy officials responsible for testing existing firefighting foam products and setting the military specifications for firefighting foam use in DOD.
Additionally, we obtained and reviewed four regulatory administrative orders—three from EPA and one from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency—directing DOD to address elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA contamination in drinking water at or near four active and closed military installations, and reviewed documentation related to DOD’s efforts to address these administrative orders. We also met with officials from Ohio and the EPA regions that issued the orders—EPA Regions 1 and 3—as well as DOD officials who responded to the orders, to discuss DOD’s response to the orders. We reviewed drinking water guidance issued by ASD (EI&E) and the military departments on testing installation drinking water for PFOS and PFOA and responding to known or suspected releases of PFOS and PFOA. We analyzed DOD-provided data on the installations where DOD-conducted testing showed the presence of PFOS and PFOA in drinking water above the EPA’s health advisory level for those contaminants (as of March 2017) and on the costs and actions taken to investigate and mitigate PFOS and PFOA at or near military installations (as of December 2016). We assessed the reliability of the data by examining the data for obvious errors and inconsistencies, comparing the data, where applicable, with other information collected, and by interviewing knowledgeable officials; we found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes of describing what DOD has reported on its actions and costs for responding to PFOS and PFOA.
Additionally, we reviewed DOD policy and our prior work on testing for and responding to perchlorate at military installations. We met with ASD (EI&E) and military department officials to discuss DOD actions to address PFOS, PFOA, and perchlorate. To obtain additional information on DOD actions to address emerging contaminants in drinking water, we conducted site visits to a nongeneralizable sample of seven current and former military installations—at least two installations per military department—that were selected because they were investigating or responding to unregulated DOD-identified emerging contaminants in drinking water; these installations are listed below. We also met with EPA and state regulatory officials to better understand how DOD was responding to administrative orders and addressing PFOS, PFOA, and perchlorate at or near DOD installations. Specifically, we met with officials from selected EPA regions and state regulatory offices that had issued an administrative order for PFOS and PFOA or whose region or state included the installations we visited; those EPA regions and states are listed below. We also compared DOD’s list of emerging contaminants with EPA documentation to determine how many DOD-identified emerging contaminants (1) have been regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act or (2) are currently unregulated but have an EPA-issued drinking water health advisory.
We visited or contacted the following offices and locations during our review. Unless otherwise specified, these organizations are located in or near Washington, D.C.
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff of the Army for Installation
U.S. Army Installations Management Command, Fort Sam Houston,
U.S. Army Environmental Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
Fort Carson, Colorado
Fort Jackson, South Carolina
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Energy and Environmental
Commander, Navy Installations Command
Marine Corps Installations Command
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Naval Sea Systems Command
Former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove,
Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress, Virginia Department of the Air Force
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations,
Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas
Former Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia
Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
Office of Research and Development
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
EPA Region 1, Boston, Massachusetts
EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
EPA Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia
EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois
EPA Region 8, Denver, Colorado
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control We conducted this performance audit from June 2016 to October 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Drinking Water Regulatory Status for Department of Defense-Identified Emerging Contaminants
The Department of Defense’s (DOD) list of emerging contaminants includes 21 contaminants that can be found in drinking water: 10 that have been regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act and 11 that are currently unregulated but have an EPA-issued drinking water health advisory. Table 4 shows the regulatory status for each of the 21 contaminants.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contacts named above, Maria Storts (Assistant Director), Diane B. Raynes (Assistant Director), Kazue Chinen, Michele Fejfar, Jennifer Gould, Karen Howard, Richard P. Johnson, Mae Jones, Daniel Kuhn, Summer Lingard-Smith, Daniel Longo, Felicia Lopez, Geoffrey Peck, Ophelia Robinson, Jerry Sandau, and Sara Sullivan made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
According to DOD, about 3 million people in the United States receive drinking water from DOD public water systems, which are to comply with EPA and state health-based regulations. EPA and DOD have detected elevated levels of two unregulated, DOD-identified emerging contaminants found in firefighting foam—PFOS and PFOA—in drinking water at or near installations. Perchlorate, an unregulated chemical used by DOD in rocket fuel, can also be found in drinking water.
The Senate Report accompanying a bill for national defense authorization for fiscal year 2017 included a provision for GAO to review DOD management of drinking water contaminants. This report examines the extent to which DOD has (1) internally reported data on compliance with health-based drinking water regulations at military installations and used those data to assess compliance at its two types of public water systems, and (2) taken actions to address concerns with its firefighting foam and elevated levels of PFOS, PFOA, and perchlorate in drinking water at or near military installations. GAO reviewed DOD guidance and EPA drinking water regulations, advisories, and orders; analyzed DOD and EPA drinking water data; and visited seven installations from among those addressing emerging contaminants in drinking water.
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD) has not internally reported all data on compliance with health-based drinking water regulations or used available data to assess compliance. DOD data for fiscal years 2013-2015 indicate that DOD public water systems complied with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state health-based drinking water regulations at levels comparable with other systems in the United States. However, the military departments did not report all violations to DOD, i.e., while 77 installations reported violations to DOD, GAO found that at least 16 additional installations did not. Until DOD takes steps to increase the clarity and understanding of its internal reporting requirements, it may not have the data it needs to fully oversee compliance. DOD also has not used its data to determine why its two types of systems—one that provides DOD-treated water and another that provides non-DOD-treated water—have different compliance rates. Specifically, DOD's data indicate that about 99 percent of the people who received non-DOD-treated drinking water were served by systems with no violations, while about 89 percent of the people who received DOD-treated drinking water were served by systems with no violations. Absent further analysis of its data, DOD may not be able to improve overall compliance.
DOD has initiated actions to address concerns with both its firefighting foam and also with elevated levels in drinking water of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perchlorate, which are DOD-identified emerging contaminants. PFOS and PFOA can be found in DOD's firefighting foam. DOD has restricted its use of this foam and is funding efforts to develop a new foam that meets DOD performance requirements. Additionally, at 11 military installations (see fig.), DOD has shut down wells, provided alternate water sources, or installed water treatment systems to respond to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA, at times in response to EPA and state orders.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making five recommendations to improve DOD's reporting and use of data on compliance with health-based drinking water regulations. DOD concurred with the recommendations. | 96 | 50,380 | 50,382 | 50,382 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-420 | gao_GAO-18-420_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
The federal government is the largest real property owner in the United States with a vast inventory costing billions of dollars annually to operate and maintain. Federally owned buildings include courthouses, offices, warehouses, schools, hospitals, housing, data centers, and laboratories, among other things. GSA acts as the federal government’s landlord, and is responsible for designing, constructing, and managing federal buildings for other federal agencies and the judiciary to occupy. There are currently approximately 1,600 federally owned buildings under GSA’s custody and control.
According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, including GSA, should have accurate information on acquisition and “lifecycle” costs of current and proposed assets, including costs for designing and constructing the building, O&M, and disposal. For example, when planning and designing new federal buildings, GSA must analyze building energy and water systems (e.g., for air conditioning and heating) to identify those with the lowest acquisition and operating costs. In addition, once the building is constructed, GSA building managers and O&M contractors are responsible for maintaining the building, which includes tasks related to recurring maintenance and repair (e.g., on heating and cooling systems), maintaining the property’s roads and grounds, cleaning and janitorial services, and paying for utilities.
In 1994, GSA instituted the Design Excellence Program, a process for designing, constructing, renovating, altering, and repairing federal courthouses and office buildings. This program was developed in response to criticisms that federal buildings lacked architectural distinction. It stresses creativity in the design of buildings with the intent of constructing spaces that meet the tenant’s functional needs while also becoming public landmarks. More specifically, the program aims to meet several guidelines—called the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture— including designing spaces that: reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the U.S. government; avoid uniformity; and are built in locations in which federal buildings can be incorporated into the existing public streets and landscape.
According to GSA officials, the Design Excellence Program also streamlines how GSA selects and manages the private-sector architects and engineering firms it hires for new projects. The process consists of four primary stages: planning for the prospective tenant’s needs and general project details (e.g., request for proposal announcement); selecting and working with an architectural and engineering firm to design the building; selecting a contractor to construct the building; and occupancy by the tenants.
The process is overseen by a GSA project team, consisting of a project manager, contracting officer, officials from GSA’s Office of the Chief Architect, and additional subject matter experts, who work with the federal tenant that plans to occupy the space.
A large number of the federal courthouses and office buildings constructed and controlled by GSA in the last 20 years have been completed under the Design Excellence Program. Under the program, GSA has constructed 78 facilities including 62 courthouses and 16 federal office buildings, including a data center and laboratories. These buildings account for more than 36-million square feet of space, are located in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and many have won architecture and design awards. Figure 1 shows examples of federal courthouses and office buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program.
GSA Made Design Choices That Decreased and Increased O&M Costs
Some GSA Design Choices Have Decreased O&M Costs
According to interviews with GSA officials and building tenants, GSA has made choices in some Design Excellence buildings intended to reduce long-term O&M costs. For example: Increased natural light. All 10 of the Design Excellence buildings we visited were designed to include interior natural light, which some building managers reported reduced energy costs. According to GSA officials, natural light is not only aesthetically pleasing; it also improves lighting quality for building tenants and reduces lighting costs. For example, the First Street Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles, California) has a light well as part of its atrium and a serrated glass façade that maximizes natural light. Building officials said that 22 of the 24 courtrooms in the building receive natural light from multiple sources, reducing energy usage and requiring less frequent replacement of lighting. In addition, building officials at the Albert Armendariz, Sr., U.S. Courthouse (El Paso, Texas) reported extensive natural light from a three story window wall and the front atrium; both features provide ample light for building tenants. (See fig. 2).
Durable and easily maintained materials and finishes. In most of the 10 Design Excellence buildings we visited, GSA officials and building tenants reported selecting materials and finishes that (1) are highly durable and easy and inexpensive to clean; (2) are expected to last a long time; and (3) required little maintenance. For example, the lobby walls and floors of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse (Santa Ana, California) are made out of travertine, a very durable stone, which has lasted more than 15 years without the need for repairs or replacement. In addition, officials at a few buildings noted that the decision to install carpet tiles in lieu of large patches of carpet has made it very easy and relatively inexpensive to maintain and repair office spaces and courtrooms.
Low-maintenance landscaping. Several of the 10 Design Excellence buildings we visited incorporated native flora into the landscape design, which can reduce energy and water costs. For example, officials planted native, drought resistant plants around the First Street Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles, California). Building officials at the Las Cruces U.S. Courthouse (Las Cruces, New Mexico), which is located in a desert environment, also reported most of the native landscape around the courthouse does not require watering.
Some GSA Design Choices Have Increased O&M Costs
According to our survey respondents—building managers at all 78 Design Excellence buildings included in our review—certain GSA design choices, such as multistory atriums and custom windows, have resulted in increased O&M costs compared to an average GSA building without those features. Almost all Design Excellence building managers (76 out of 78) reported that certain design choices resulted in increased O&M costs that would not have occurred had that design choice not been selected. For example, 67 out of 78 building managers for Design Excellence buildings stated that the effect of including multistory open spaces, like atriums, increased O&M costs due to the challenges associated with heating and cooling, making needed repairs, and cleaning these spaces. (See table 1). Building managers and tenants we spoke with confirmed our survey results, and provided examples of design choices that resulted in unexpected O&M cost increases. For example, officials noted increased O&M costs associated with separate structures and multistory atriums that were difficult to access for cleaning and repairs.
Separate Structures. Managers from only 21 of 78 Design Excellence buildings reported having an attached, but separate structure (e.g., pavilions, rotundas, restaurants, and other additional spaces connected to the building), but managers at 19 of those buildings stated that the effect of such design features increased O&M costs. For example, one federal building we visited had a rotunda with a domed roof that, according to building managers, has multiple gutter leaks that are not currently accessible due to the design of the space. As a result, maintenance staff continuously patch the ceiling without addressing the cause of the leaks (see fig. 3).
Atriums and Lobbies. Managers from 67 of 78 Design Excellence buildings reported their buildings’ multistory atriums and lobbies increased O&M costs. Several GSA managers we interviewed identified additional costs to maintain a multistory atrium or lobby, including costs for renting expensive scaffolding or mechanical lifts. For example, one Design Excellence building we visited has water leaks in the lobby ceiling, which can only be reached by extensive and expensive scaffolding (see fig. 4).
Large, Custom Windows. Managers from 65 of 78 Design Excellence buildings reported that the effect of design choices related to their buildings’ windows increased O&M costs. In addition, several Design Excellence buildings we visited had custom or uniquely shaped windows, which occasionally increased the costs to replace, repair, or maintain them. For example, GSA officials at one courthouse reported repairing one two-story, custom-made window pane, which cost $80,000 to fabricate and $50,000 to install. The courthouse had eight of these windows, and a GSA official stated that the windows are an attractive feature of the building that introduced natural light, but a different window choice would have been cheaper to maintain (see fig. 5).
Mission Spaces. Managers from 48 Design Excellence buildings reported that the effect of design choices related to mission spaces (i.e., spaces in which federal employees conduct work) increased O&M costs. Specifically, managers from 32 buildings stated that design choices made in mission spaces increased repair costs, and managers from 30 buildings reported increased cleaning costs. GSA officials at several buildings we visited discussed challenges accessing and maintaining mechanical systems incorporated into tenant mission spaces. For example, one Design Excellence building includes a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system that is hidden under a raised floor within mission spaces. Because building managers cannot easily access the system, there are maintenance delays and challenges identifying and making necessary repairs, which ultimately result in higher O&M costs. Building officials reported they considered replacing the HVAC system, but doing so would cost approximately $55 million. (See fig. 6).
Other Design Choices. According to Design Excellence building managers that responded to our survey and at locations we visited, the effect of several other design choices including energy efficient elements (e.g., solar panels and green roofs), courtyards, floors, and circulation (e.g., hallways, stairways, and elevators) increased O&M costs. For example, according to these officials, (1) the design of green roofs led to water leaks; (2) the design of courtyards led to problems maintaining unique landscaping; (3) flooring choices, specifically selected materials, led to premature scuffing and cracking; and (4) the design of hallways and stairways made them difficult to maintain.
GSA Does Not Fully Consider O&M and Functionality Effects When Making Design Choices
With the Design Excellence Program, GSA aims to create buildings that are cost-effective and function well for tenants. However, GSA makes design choices for Design Excellence buildings during the planning and design stages of new projects without fully considering the effect of these choices on O&M costs and functionality.
GSA Does Not Fully Consider How Design Choices Affect O&M Costs
GSA does not estimate most O&M costs during planning and design. Specifically, according to GSA officials we interviewed and planning documents we reviewed, when planning and designing new buildings, officials estimate the costs of major energy systems, such as boilers and chillers. However, based on our review of GSA and industry data, these systems only account for about one-third of O&M costs in Design Excellence buildings. GSA officials stated that they do not estimate the remaining two-thirds of O&M costs—which include maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping—until late in the building’s construction. However, GSA officials also said that it would be costly to make significant design changes at that point in the process. In addition, the O&M estimates for maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping are for the purpose of selecting a contractor to provide these services, not as a means for addressing or reducing future O&M costs, according to officials.
GSA building and regional managers who are responsible for addressing the O&M consequences of design choices told us that they were not always integrated or asked to participate in planning and designing new Design Excellence buildings. Specifically, GSA building and regional managers at several of the buildings we visited stated that they were never, or seldom, consulted on O&M costs and issues during the design process, nor did they have an opportunity to review design documents. A few GSA building managers we spoke with stated that on rare occasions when they were consulted their input was rarely incorporated, or was requested too late in the construction stage to allow for necessary changes. According to these officials, if given the chance, they could have highlighted issues with certain design choices that would significantly increase O&M costs and could have offered potential solutions to reduce those costs. Officials responsible for overseeing the Design Excellence Program told us that other officials with an understanding of issues surrounding O&M are involved in the process for designing new buildings through, for example, subject matter reviews of the design concepts. Officials agreed, however, that more could be done to formally involve the perspective of facilities staff, such as building managers, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of O&M.
We found that GSA’s lack of consideration of how design choices may affect the O&M costs of Design Excellence buildings could be attributed to existing procedures that do not emphasize the need to consider such costs during the planning and design stage. Specifically, GSA’s procedures for planning, designing, and constructing new Design Excellence buildings focus on design creativity, construction challenges, budget, and schedule and do not direct GSA to estimate O&M costs during planning and design. While these procedures promote several factors to consider in a building’s design—including aesthetics, functionality, and constructability—and generally require firms to submit documentation on budget and schedule, they do not call for information on expected O&M costs. In addition, these procedures do not include seeking input on design decisions from facilities personnel who will have responsibility for the ongoing O&M once the building is occupied.
Federal standards for internal control state that federal agencies should use complete and relevant information when making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives. These federal standards also state that federal agencies should ensure the communication of information internally, for example through procedures that allow management to receive quality information from personnel, to help achieve the entity’s objectives. In addition, guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget directs officials to consider and strive for the lowest possible costs, including O&M costs, when designing buildings.
Information on how specific design choices could affect ongoing O&M costs would allow GSA to better understand the impact of those choices. Such information is critical as O&M accounts for a significant proportion of resources dedicated to federal buildings over the long-term. According to GSA and industry associations, O&M costs are significantly higher over time than all other costs, including for construction, and typically account for between 60 and 80 percent of building lifecycle costs. To illustrate this point, we analyzed GSA construction and O&M data for Design Excellence buildings. As figure 7 shows, we estimate that over an average building’s age (60 years) the total construction and O&M costs for GSA’s 78 existing Design Excellence buildings could be about $18 billion—$8.1 billion for construction (45 percent) and $9.9 billion for O&M (55 percent). Because GSA’s procedures do not direct officials to estimate about two-thirds of O&M costs or fully integrate officials with an understanding of the O&M consequences of design decisions, officials may not have been aware of how design choices would affect approximately $6.6 billion (two-thirds of $9.9 billion) in O&M costs. In addition, without procedures that clearly emphasize the need to more fully consider O&M costs in Design Excellence buildings during the planning and design stage, GSA and other stakeholders may not have a complete picture of all relevant information necessary to make informed decisions on how to best design future federal buildings.
GSA realizes that the focus of Design Excellence projects has been on design and construction, not O&M costs, and, in September 2017, initiated a process, called “Operational Excellence”, to more fully consider O&M costs. This process includes considering ways to more fully consider O&M costs during planning and design, including developing a cost tool that would estimate future O&M costs. In addition, GSA is considering ways to update existing procedures for designing and constructing new buildings to include a more comprehensive evaluation of potential O&M costs, for example, by more fully integrating knowledgeable personnel at key stages. However, according to GSA officials, they are still in the early stages of determining what needs to be done in part due to a small staff, which includes one full-time employee and one part-time employee. As of March 2018, GSA has not established a schedule for updating its procedures to require considering O&M during design.
Design Excellence Buildings Generally Function Well, but Some Costly Design Choices Did Not Improve Functionality
Most design choices made for Design Excellence buildings, including the shape and size of courtrooms and the lighting in hallways, have had a positive effect on overall building functionality (i.e., helped the tenant agency achieve its mission), according to officials we surveyed and interviewed. For example, GSA building managers we surveyed reported the functionality of at least one design choice in most buildings (72 of 78 buildings) as good or very good. Specifically, they reported that in most buildings, the overall functionality of design choices was good in many of the areas we asked them about. In addition, building managers reported that the functionality of the following design choices was also good or very good: selected material color (53 buildings) and lighting (58 buildings); shape and size of the space (61 buildings); pedestrian circulation (61 buildings); and temperature control in the areas critical for a building’s operation, such as courtrooms or office space (46 buildings).
GSA and tenant agency officials whom we interviewed were also positive about how the design choices affected the functionality of their buildings, especially the use of windows and atriums to allow natural light. Tenants also reported they enjoyed other features of the new buildings, including commissioned artwork and the design of the interior and exterior. Tenants’ satisfaction with the function of Design Excellence buildings may, in part, reflect the condition of their previous office space. For example, one tenant noted that moving from temporary trailers into a state-of-the-art courthouse was a substantial functional improvement.
However, we found that increased spending on certain design choices did not always provide improved functionality for the building tenant. For example, GSA building managers reported that in many buildings (67 of 78) atriums and lobbies (i.e., vertical penetrations) have increased O&M costs due to higher repair, cleaning, and energy costs. At the same time, building managers reported that in 51 of those 67 buildings, choices made in the design of multistory atriums and lobbies, e.g., material color and lighting, did not have a positive effect on building functionality (see table 2). Similarly, the decision to install solar panels and green roofs (e.g., energy efficient elements), increased O&M costs in several areas, particularly repair costs, but in over half of the buildings with these features, building managers did not report an improvement in functionality. For example, in two courthouses we visited solar panels installed with the intention of saving on energy costs are not supplying as much power as expected and, therefore, have not yet provided the expected energy benefits.
Tenants we interviewed also noted that in some cases, design choices have not functioned well and are costly to maintain and operate. According to a tenant at one Design Excellence office building, while the decision to construct a multistory atrium has added aesthetic value for federal employees, it has also resulted in challenges balancing air pressure between the atrium and the adjacent office spaces. These differences in air pressure have resulted in uncomfortable working conditions, such as fluctuating temperatures, which have hampered productivity. Another tenant told us about design choices such as long hallways and elevators that do not stop at all floors, making it difficult for tenant employees to move efficiently through the building. Some of these design choices, such as elevators with mechanical systems at the bottom of the elevator shaft, have proven costly to maintain as they age more quickly. Other tenants noted that the selection of heating and cooling systems, which automatically adjust building temperatures based on time of day, for example, have not functioned as planned, resulting in variable temperatures and employee discomfort.
In addition, GSA has sometimes made design choices in buildings that do not apply to one of the primary functional goals of the Design Excellence Program—to serve as a landmark that positively represents the federal government to the public. Specifically, GSA does not consider that some buildings, due to their purpose or location, are unlikely to function as landmarks because they have limited interaction with or limited visibility by the public. In this regard, we found that most Design Excellence buildings (66 of 78) are visible and accessible to the general public, i.e., “public-facing”. Many of these buildings have succeeded in becoming public landmarks and several have won awards for their design. Specifically,
62 serve as courthouses, which are visible from public streets and people may enter to observe judicial proceedings or conduct personal business. See figure 8 for an example of a Design Excellence courthouse with publicly visible exteriors and interiors.
Four serve as office buildings for various federal agencies that are publicly accessible.
In contrast, we found that 12 Design Excellence office buildings restrict the public from accessing interior spaces. Specifically,
Seven can be seen from public sidewalks or roads, even though the building is not open to the public, such as the U.S. Secret Service Headquarters and FBI field office buildings. As a result, these buildings’ exteriors could be public landmarks that represent the federal government, but the interior design features are not publicly accessible. For example, the Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the United Nations Building in New York City has an impressive and publicly visible exterior façade but restricts public access to a multi- story rotunda and art space (see fig. 9).
Five have obstructed views from public roads and sidewalks in addition to restricting public access to the interior. Neither the exterior nor interior design choices, which can be expensive to operate and maintain, in these buildings can be seen or appreciated by the public. For example, according to the tenant agency and GSA officials, the visually impressive interior atrium and courtyard at the Ariel Rios Federal Building have proven logistically challenging and expensive to maintain and are not accessible to the public. In addition, the façade of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite Operations Facility, which, according to GSA officials, is expensive to maintain and repair, is not accessible by the public. (See fig. 10).
According to GSA officials, when they carry out their planning and design for Design Excellence buildings, they do not differentiate between buildings that will be public-facing and those that will not. This approach may be in part due to the fact that GSA’s procedures for planning and designing new Design Excellence buildings do not call for consideration of how design choices may have different functional benefits, including whether the interior and exterior of planned buildings would be accessible to the public. Federal standards for internal control state that federal agencies should use complete and relevant information when making decisions and designing control activities, including procedures to achieve objectives. By taking a “one size fits all” approach and not considering the functionality of design choices, such as how a building’s location and intended use will affect the public’s ability to see the exterior and interior, GSA may be selecting design choices that increase O&M costs without improving functionality.
GSA Does Not Systematically Collect and Share Information on Common O&M Cost Experiences That Could Affect Design Choices
According to GSA officials, GSA currently does not systematically collect and share information on how design choices made for previous Design Excellence projects have affected O&M costs with the project teams— consisting of a project manager, contracting officer, and other GSA officials—that are responsible for overseeing the planning and design of new buildings. GSA has evaluated what is and is not working effectively in some existing Design Excellence buildings and has on occasion shared these evaluations with project teams. For example, GSA has evaluated the performance of 6 out of 78 Design Excellence buildings. These evaluations included identifying design decisions that led to higher O&M costs and, on one occasion, developed a formal presentation to share these lessons with the team working on a new Design Excellence project.
According to officials, GSA requires agency personnel with subject matter expertise to review building design concepts provided by private-sector architects and engineers. GSA also fosters information sharing through procedures that encourage project teams to exchange ideas, lessons learned, and concerns. However, these processes either (1) are not done in a consistent or systematic way, or (2) require information sharing among a small group of officials, i.e., a project team, which might not have visibility over the extensive design choices made in all existing buildings. While all of these information-sharing initiatives offer benefits, GSA’s procedures do not include a systematic collection and sharing of information with the project teams responsible for managing new Design Excellence projects on how design choices affected O&M costs in existing Design Excellence buildings. According to GSA officials, they are considering formalizing this sort of information collection and sharing as part of the Operational Excellence process, but as previously noted, GSA is in the early stages of setting up this initiative and has not established a schedule for completing its actions or updating its procedures.
As discussed, some design choices in existing Design Excellence buildings have decreased or increased O&M costs. Since GSA does not systematically share how these types of design choices affected O&M costs with teams responsible for planning and designing new buildings, similar issues could occur in future buildings. For example, we previously mentioned that building managers indicated that using durable materials, low maintenance landscaping, and energy-efficient lighting can reduce long-term O&M costs.
Building managers also reported common issues caused by design choices that led to increased costs including: Inefficiently located mechanical systems. Building managers reported the location of mechanical systems in Design Excellence buildings often led to increased cost. Specifically, building managers reported the location of these systems increased repair costs (41 out of 77 buildings) and energy costs (32 out of 77 buildings). In the Design Excellence buildings we visited, building managers and tenants reported issues with the location of mechanical systems (4 buildings). For example, officials indicated that air-conditioning systems were placed in inefficient locations that required more energy usage because water had to be pumped unnecessarily far distances (see fig. 11).
Difficult-to-access lights. Building managers reported that design choices for the location of interior lights increased maintenance costs in the majority of Design Excellence buildings (55). In particular, managers reported that the location of lights in atriums and lobbies (38 buildings) and courtrooms and other mission spaces (33 buildings) increased costs. In addition, GSA officials at locations we visited said that lights above tall staircases, ceiling lights in atriums and auditoriums, and lights directly above permanent structures led to additional costs, including the need to use scaffolding or rent large equipment to maintain these lights. (See fig. 12). One way that a majority of GSA building managers (61) we surveyed are attempting to mitigate high maintenance cost for lighting issues is to install energy efficient equipment, such as light-emitting diode (LED) lights.
Difficult-to-maintain materials and finishes. In 68 Design Excellence buildings, building managers reported that materials or finishes were chosen that are easily worn. Similarly, in buildings we visited (4 buildings), GSA officials reported that decisions on the materials used or configuration of exterior surfaces (e.g., the roof or façade) of a Design Excellence building led to repair and maintenance problems, particularly water leaks. (See fig. 13).
Hard to clean surfaces. Cleaning surfaces, especially in atriums, can be a challenge for maintaining Design Excellence buildings. For example, building managers we surveyed reported that the decision to install certain types of window treatments increased cleaning costs (49 buildings). In three buildings we visited, building managers and tenants also said Design Excellence buildings required special equipment or scaffolding to clean windows or surfaces, which led to increased cleaning costs. (See fig. 14).
According to federal standards for internal control, agencies should use and communicate complete and relevant information when designing control activities, including procedures to achieve objectives. Without a formalized process for systematically collecting and sharing how design choices affected O&M costs in existing buildings, designs for future Design Excellence buildings may not benefit from the successful strategies used by others to reduce O&M costs or may continue to repeat problematic choices that may result in increased O&M costs.
Conclusions
Through the Design Excellence Program, GSA has achieved excellence in architecture and the design of federal buildings. Buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program have created unique and aesthetically pleasing workspaces, have met the functional needs of tenant agencies, and have become public landmarks. However, because GSA does not have program procedures that call for consideration of how certain design features may affect O&M, it may not be fully aware of the costs of including these features in its building design and plans. Specifically, GSA does not estimate or gather all perspectives from building and regional managers on the full O&M costs of design choices, or consider the extent to which they will improve the functionality of the building for tenants and the public. For example, GSA’s one-size fits all approach in designing these buildings does not consider whether non- public buildings need the same costly architectural elements as buildings intended to serve as public landmarks. Further, GSA is missing opportunities to improve future building designs by not systematically gathering and sharing information on the common design choices that had both positive and negative effects on O&M costs. Without a clear picture of the ongoing costs of these choices, GSA and other stakeholders are missing critical information to better inform the design and construction of new buildings. While GSA has just begun an Operational Excellence initiative to help identify future O&M costs, it is not clear what actions GSA will take to improve consideration of O&M costs during planning and design or when it will take those actions.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making the following four recommendations to GSA:
The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to estimate the full operations and maintenance costs of design choices in the planning and design process for new Design Excellence buildings. (Recommendation 1)
The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to obtain information from personnel responsible for addressing the operations and maintenance consequences of design choices at key decision points during the planning and design of new Design Excellence buildings. (Recommendation 2)
The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to further consider and document, during the planning and design of new Design Excellence buildings, how design choices may affect building functionality, such as whether a building is publicly visible and accessible. (Recommendation 3)
The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to systematically collect and share information with project teams responsible for overseeing the planning and design of new buildings on the positive and negative effects of common design choices on operations and maintenance costs in existing Design Excellence buildings. (Recommendation 4)
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce for comment. In written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, GSA stated that it agreed with our recommendations and provided several technical comments. GSA clarified its policies for selecting and analyzing the lifecycle costs of building systems. In addition, GSA stated that table 2 in our report did not capture the full functional benefits and reasons for making certain design choices. As we noted in the report, this table does not preclude that a specific design choice may be functional or have functional benefits. We also included several of the examples GSA highlighted in their comments, such as the functional need for a separate structure, which may serve key security functions. GSA also stated that our conclusions did not indicate that most Design Excellence buildings functioned well. We added language to the conclusions to clarify this point.
The U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Commerce. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This report assesses the extent to which: (1) the General Services Administration (GSA) made design choices that affect operations and maintenance (O&M) costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and designing buildings; and (3) GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs related to design choices in existing buildings.
To address all of our objectives, we reviewed applicable federal regulations; GSA procedures, policies, and standards for designing, constructing, and operating federal facilities, including specific policies and procedures for Design Excellence buildings; our prior work; and reports by other federal agencies and related professional organizations on topics, including the standard costs of operating and maintaining office buildings. Our review examined 78 federal buildings and courthouses that GSA constructed under the Design Excellence Program—referred to as “Design Excellence buildings”—since the program started in 1994. At our request, GSA provided a list of all buildings under the agency’s custody and control that were constructed under the Design Excellence Program. Based on input from GSA officials indicating that large campuses were unlikely to have reliable O&M data, we excluded nine buildings that are part of the White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. We reviewed relevant GSA documents pertaining to the remaining 78 Design Excellence buildings, including the most recent Asset Business Plans detailing investment needs for maintenance and repairs, strategies for efficient operations, building use, and tenant satisfaction. We analyzed GSA-provided historical data on construction and O&M costs from 2000 to 2016 for the buildings in our review and projected O&M future costs. To calculate our projection, we made several assumptions, including (1) that annual O&M costs would increase at the same level as 2016 O&M costs ($174 million), and (2) that Design Excellence buildings will reach the average age of all current GSA buildings (60 years). We assessed the reliability of these data through electronic testing and reviewing documentation on the data. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of illustrating the extent to which O&M costs make up total building costs.
We also conducted a web-based survey of GSA building managers responsible for overseeing O&M for the 78 Design Excellence buildings included in our review. The survey addressed the extent to which certain design choices affect O&M costs and building functionality. We developed the survey based on our objectives, prior GAO work, and site visits to 10 Design Excellence buildings. We pretested the survey with GSA officials at three Design Excellence buildings, which were selected based on building age, location, total square feet, fiscal year 2016 O&M costs, and the building’s primary use (e.g., office or courthouse). As part of our pretesting, we asked GSA building managers to explain their understanding of survey questions and made edits based on their comments. We conducted the survey from November 2017 to March 2018 and our response rate was 100 percent (78 out of 78). See appendix III for a copy of the survey and summarized responses.
We visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA regions to view design choices and O&M activities. As part of these site visits, we conducted interviews that included tenant agencies located in these buildings, GSA building managers responsible for managing these buildings and officials from GSA regional offices with oversight responsibilities for these buildings. To select our site visit locations and ensure geographic and agency diversity, we considered several factors including building operating costs, size, location, and the tenant agency. Based on these criteria we selected the buildings listed in table 3. The interviews and tours we conducted during our site visits do not allow us to generalize the findings to all Design Excellence buildings. Information gathered from our site visits did allow us to show how O&M costs were considered in specific Design Excellence buildings and the effects of design choices.
We also interviewed GSA officials located in GSA Headquarters within the Office of Design and Construction, including the Chief Architect, and the Office of Facilities Management. We also interviewed GSA regional officials within the Office of Facilities Management in four of GSA’s 11 regional offices: Greater Southwest Region, National Capital Region, Pacific Rim Region, and Southeast Sunbelt Region. We selected regional offices based on the location of our site visits and included one additional regional office based on it having the highest total O&M operating costs of the eight remaining regional offices. We discussed several topics with GSA officials, including how O&M costs were considered during planning and design and how information on the O&M costs of design choices are shared.
To determine the extent to which GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and designing buildings, we analyzed Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) data. Our analysis of U.S. government- owned office buildings that are less than 40 years old, occupied, and needed for a tenant’s mission, identified five potentially relevant variables to explain variation in the O&M costs: building type (i.e., whether a building was constructed under the Design Excellence Program), size, age, and condition of the building, as well as the median hourly wage of O&M services in the building’s location. After controlling for these variables, we found that size and median hourly wage but not building type had a statistically significant relationship to O&M costs. We assessed the reliability of these data through electronic testing as well as a review of documentation for each federal data source. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing our attempts to identify factors that influence O&M costs in federal buildings. We also requested and received additional information from the building managers of Design Excellence federal office buildings. Specifically we asked for information on the extent to which these federal office buildings are public-facing, have restrictions on public entry and are visible from public sidewalks or roads, and what the daily volume of public visitors was.
We compared GSA’s efforts to consider O&M costs in the planning and design of Design Excellence buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government on using complete and relevant information when making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives, as well as on communicating information internally. In addition, we compared GSA’s efforts to consider these costs in the planning and design of Design Excellence buildings to guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget that directs agency officials to consider and strive for the lowest possible costs, including O&M costs, when designing buildings. We also compared GSA’s efforts to consider functionality when planning and designing these buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government on using complete and relevant information when making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives.
To assess the extent to which GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs related to design choices in existing Design Excellence buildings, we reviewed Post Occupancy Evaluations commissioned by GSA on six Design Excellence buildings. These evaluations contain information, such as how GSA buildings are performing and the extent to which they comply with GSA’s federal standards for public buildings. These evaluations can include reviews of operations and maintenance documentation, interviews and surveys with building occupants, and interviews with relevant GSA staff, architectural and engineering design team staff, and an on-site evaluation. We also compared GSA’s process for collecting and sharing how design choices affected O&M costs in existing buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government on using and communicating complete and relevant information when designing control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to May 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence Program
GSA created the Design Excellence Program in 1994. Under this program, GSA has constructed 78 buildings in 33 states and the District of Columbia, buildings that range in size from about 35,000- to over 3- million gross square feet (see table 4).
Appendix III: Survey of General Services Administration (GSA) Building Managers and Summarized Results
This appendix provides a copy of the survey completed by managers for all 78 buildings constructed under GSA’s Design Excellence Program included in our review. The appendix also includes the responses received for each of the close- ended questions (1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, 3a, and 4a); it does not include information on open-ended responses (1d, 1f, 2b, 3b, 3c, 4b, and 5). The purpose of this survey was to gather responses on how design choices affected operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and building function. See appendix I for additional information on our survey methodology.
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director); Matthew Cook (Analyst in Charge); Eli Albagli; Sarah Arnett; Colin Ashwood; Melissa Bodeau; Lacey Coppage; Caitlin Cusati; Terrence Lam; Joshua Ormond; Dae Park; Minette Richardson; Kelly Rubin; Ardith Spence; and Dave Wise made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
Since 1994, GSA has spent more than $8 billion to construct 78 new federal buildings through its Design Excellence program. Some design choices can affect a building's O&M costs and functionality.
GAO was asked to review GSA's ability to manage O&M costs under the Design Excellence program. This report assesses the extent to which: (1) GSA's design choices affect O&M costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and designing buildings; and (3) GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs.
GAO conducted a web-based survey of building managers for the 78 Design Excellence buildings. GAO also visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA regions selected based on several factors, including geographic and agency diversity. GAO reviewed GSA documents, and interviewed GSA officials and building tenants. Information obtained through site visits and interviews is not generalizable.
What GAO Found
The goals of the General Services Administration's (GSA) Design Excellence Program are to creatively design federal buildings that meet federal agencies' functional needs and become public landmarks. Some design choices for Design Excellence buildings have decreased ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, but others have increased those costs. GSA's building managers and tenants told GAO that design choices that have reduced O&M costs include the use of durable materials and low maintenance landscaping. Other design choices have increased O&M costs. For example, according to GAO's survey of 78 building managers of Design Excellence buildings, multistory atriums often led to additional O&M costs, including the need to erect expensive scaffolding for maintenance.
While GSA aims to create Design Excellence buildings that are cost-effective and functional, it makes design choices without fully considering their effect on O&M costs and functionality. For example, GSA officials do not estimate the majority of O&M costs, such as the building maintenance associated with their design choices until the design is almost finalized. This outcome is partly because GSA procedures do not direct GSA officials to develop such estimates during the design and planning of Design Excellence buildings and because building and regional managers responsible for addressing the O&M consequences are also not involved in the design and planning process. As a result, important cost information that could help building project teams make the most cost-effective design choices is not available to help them. In addition, while building managers GAO surveyed reported that GSA's design choices generally support a building's functionality, they also reported that some design choices increased O&M costs without improving functionality. For example, they identified design choices related to material color and lighting that increased O&M costs but did not enhance the functionality of the building for the tenants.
Although GSA has developed some information on how design choices can affect O&M costs, it does not consistently collect and share such information. For example, GSA has evaluated the performance of only six Design Excellence buildings, and does not systematically collect information on how design choices have affected O&M costs in all existing buildings. Without a process to collect and share such information, future buildings may not benefit from these lessons, and problematic choices may be repeated.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making four recommendations to update existing GSA procedures for planning and designing new buildings to: (1) estimate full O&M costs; (2) obtain information from personnel responsible for addressing the O&M consequences of design decisions; (3) further consider how design choices may affect building functionality; and (4) systematically collect and share lessons from existing buildings. GSA agreed with these recommendations. | 96 | 47,765 | 47,767 | 47,767 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-17-781T | gao_GAO-17-781T_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Law Enforcement Agencies Reported Various Uses and Benefits from the Transfer of the DOD Excess Controlled Property
Federal law enforcement agencies and state coordinators in our survey— as well as officials we interviewed from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies—reported various uses of DOD excess controlled property for law enforcement activities. The reported uses included enhancing counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border-security activities. Also, law enforcement agencies reported using DOD’s excess controlled property for other law enforcement activities, such as search and rescue, natural disaster response, surveillance, reaching barricaded suspects, police training, and the serving of warrants.
Federal, state, and local agencies cited a number of ways in which they had benefited from LESO program, with several reporting that the transfers of controlled property allowed them to save money. For example, a local law enforcement official in Texas reported that 96 percent of the department budget goes to salaries and that the LESO program helped the department acquire items that it would otherwise not be able to afford, saving the department an estimated $2 million to $3 million. Additionally, agencies provided examples of how property they received through the LESO program have been used. For example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs officials reported they have used vehicles to support their Office of Justice Services’ drug unit during marijuana eradication and border operations by providing transport to agents over inhospitable terrain in mountainous and desert environments. In another example, Texas law enforcement officials reported that the San Marcos and Hays County police departments used their issued Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to rescue more than 600 stranded people from floodwaters in October 2015. Moreover, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department reported that it used a robot to remove a rifle from an attempted murder suspect who had barricaded himself.
DLA Has Taken Some Actions to Address Weaknesses in Its Excess Controlled Property Program, but Deficiencies Exist in Key Processes
DLA Actions to Address Weaknesses in LESO Program
DLA has taken some steps to address previously identified weaknesses in its processes for transferring and monitoring its excess controlled property through revisions to its policy and procedures on the management, oversight, and accountability of the LESO program. Such revisions were made, in part, because of recommendations made by the DOD and DLA Offices of Inspector General. The DOD and DLA Offices of Inspector General conducted four audits of the LESO program between 2003 and 2013 that identified more than a dozen recommendations, such as developing and implementing written standard operating procedures for the approval and disapproval of law enforcement agency property requests and issuance, transfer, turn-in and disposal of LESO property. In our July 2017 report, we found the department had taken the following actions to enhance its transfer process through revisions to policy and procedures: transitioned full management responsibility of the LESO Program to DLA Disposition Services in 2009; developed LESO Program Standard Operating Procedures in 2012 and updated them in 2013; transitioned to a new data system in 2013 after identifying that the old system was not capable of post-issue tracking;revised the DLA instruction that provides policy, responsibility, and procedures for DLA’s management responsibilities of the LESO program in 2014 and 2016; and revised LESO program processes in 2016 to incorporate recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, such as defining executive order controlled property or prohibiting schools K-12 from participating in the program.
In addition, DLA is in the process of developing additional training on LESO program policies and procedures, and is establishing memorandums of understanding with federal law enforcement agencies on the general terms and conditions of participating in the program, including the restrictions on the transfer and sale of controlled property.
DLA Has Deficiencies in Its Processes for Verifying and Approving Applications and Transferring Property and Has Not Conducted a Risk Assessment
We found weaknesses in three areas: (1) verifying and approving applications, (2) transferring property, and (3) the assessment of risk. First, our independent testing of the LESO program’s internal controls identified deficiencies in the processes for verification and approval of federal law enforcement agency applications. Specifically, our investigators posing as authorized federal law enforcement officials of a fictitious agency applied and were granted access to the LESO program in early 2017. In late 2016, we emailed our completed application to the LESO program office. Our application contained fictitious information including agency name, number of employees, point of contact, and physical location. In early 2017, after revising our application at the direction of LESO officials we were notified that our fictitious law enforcement agency was approved to participate in the LESO program. LESO officials also emailed us to request confirmation of our agency’s authorizing statute; in response, our investigators submitted fictitious authorizing provisions as provisions in the U.S. Code. At no point during the application process did LESO officials verbally contact officials at the agency we created—either the main point of contact listed on the application or the designated point of contact at a headquarters’ level—to verify the legitimacy of our application or to discuss establishing a memorandum of understanding with our agency.
DLA’s internal controls for verifying and approving federal agency applications and enrollment in the LESO program were not adequate to prevent the approval of a fraudulent application to obtain excess controlled property. Specifically, LESO’s reliance on electronic communications without actual verification does not allow it to properly vet for potentially fraudulent activity. For example, DLA did not require supervisory approval for all federal agency applications, or require confirmation of the application with designated points of contact at the headquarters of participating federal agencies. Additionally, at the time we submitted our application, DLA officials did not visit the location of the applying federal law enforcement agency to help verify the legitimacy of the application. After our briefing of DLA officials in March 2017 on the results of our investigative work, DLA officials stated they took immediate action, and in April 2017 visited 13 participating federal law enforcement agencies. However, at this time DLA has not reviewed and revised the policy or procedures for verifying and approving federal agency applications and enrollment in the LESO program.
Second, our independent testing also identified deficiencies in the transfer of controlled property, such as DLA personnel not routinely requesting and verifying identification of individuals picking up controlled property or verifying the quantity of approved items prior to transfer. Our investigators, after being approved to participate in the LESO program, obtained access to the department’s online systems to view and request controlled property. We subsequently submitted requests to obtain controlled property, including non-lethal items and potentially-lethal items if modified with commercially available items. In less than a week after submitting the requests, our fictitious agency was approved for the transfer of over 100 controlled property items with a total estimated value of about $1.2 million. The estimated value of each item ranged from $277 to over $600,000, including items such as night-vision goggles, reflex (also known as reflector) sights, infrared illuminators, simulated pipe bombs, and simulated rifles. Our investigator scheduled appointments and obtained the controlled property items, such as those shown in the photos below.
Using fictitious identification and law enforcement credentials, along with the LESO-approved documentation, our investigator was able to pass security checks and enter the DLA Disposition Service warehouse sites. Personnel at two of the three sites did not request or check for valid identification of our investigator picking up the property. According to DLA guidance, direct pickup of allocated property may be made by an individual with valid identification and the appropriate DOD authorization form that is signed by the authorized individual listed in the letter.
DLA has not taken steps to reasonably ensure that onsite officials routinely request and verify valid identification of the individual(s) authorized to pick up allocated property from the LESO program, as required by the guidance. DLA officials acknowledged they could take additional steps to ensure compliance with the requirements in the handbook. Furthermore, although we were approved to receive over 100 items and the transfer documentation reflects this amount, we were provided more items than we were approved to receive. The discrepancy involved one type of item—infrared illuminators. We requested 48 infrared illuminators but onsite officials at one Disposition Services site provided us with 51 infrared illuminators in 52 pouches, of which one pouch was empty. Additionally, we found that one DLA Disposition Services site had a checklist as a part of their transfer documentation for their personnel to complete. The checklist required manual completion of several items, including quantity, date, and who fulfilled the order. The other two DLA Disposition Services sites, including the site that transferred the wrong quantity, did not include this checklist with the transfer documentation we received. DLA guidance states that accountability records be maintained in auditable condition to allow property to be traced from receipt to final disposition. We concluded that without guidance that specifically requires DLA Disposition Services’ on-site officials to verify the type and quantity of approved items against the actual items being transferred prior to removal from the sites, DLA will lack reasonable assurance that the approved items transferred are appropriately reflected in their inventory records.
Third, while DLA has taken some steps, mostly in early 2017, to address identified deficiencies in the LESO program, DLA lacks a comprehensive framework for instituting fraud prevention and mitigation measures. During the course of our review, DLA revised the LESO program applications by requiring applicants to sign an attestation that the agency that they represent is a legitimate law enforcement agency. Further, DLA officials stated they are more carefully reviewing the legitimacy of some information on the application such as email addresses and physically visiting federal agencies that enter into memorandums of understanding with the LESO program.
However, as previously discussed, we identified internal controls weakness in the policy and procedures for verifying and approving federal agency applications and enrollment as well as weakness throughout the process from approval to the actual transfer of the items to the agencies, which indicates that DLA has not examined potential risks for all stages of the process. According to GAO’s Fraud Risk Framework, effective fraud risk managers collect and analyze data on identified fraud schemes, use these lessons learned to improve fraud risk management activities, and plan and conduct fraud risk assessments that are tailored to their programs. The framework states there is no universally accepted approach for conducting fraud risk assessments since circumstances among programs vary. However, per leading practices, assessing fraud risks generally involves five actions: (1) identifying inherent fraud risks affecting the program, (2) assessing the likelihood and effect of those fraud risks, (3) determining fraud risk tolerance, (4) examining the suitability of existing fraud controls and prioritizing residual fraud risks, and (5) documenting the program’s fraud risk profile.
DLA has begun to examine some fraud risks associated with the LESO program. However, DLA officials acknowledged during our March 2017 meeting that they have not conducted a fraud risk assessment on the LESO program to include the application process, and as such, has not designed or implemented a strategy with specific control activities to mitigate risks to the program. We concluded that conducting such an assessment could have program-wide improvements, including strengthening the controls to verify the legitimacy of applicants.
Overall, we concluded in our July 2017 report that DLA’s internal controls did not provide reasonable assurance in preventing fraud. Therefore, we made four recommendations for DLA to: review and revise policy or procedures for verifying and approving federal agency applications and enrollment; ensure compliance that DLA Disposition Services on-site officials transferring controlled property verify that persons picking up items have valid identification and are authorized to pick up allocated property from the LESO program; issue guidance that requires DLA Disposition Services on-site officials to verify the type and quantity of approved items against the actual items being transferred prior to removal from the sites; and conduct a fraud risk assessment to design and implement a strategy with specific internal control activities to mitigate assessed fraud risks.
DOD concurred with all of our recommendations and highlighted actions to address each one.
Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our prepared statement. My colleague, Mr. McElrath, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments
For questions about this statement, please contact Zina D. Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov or Wayne A. McElrath at (202) 512-2905 or mcelrathw@gao.gov. In addition, individuals making significant contributions to this statement include: Marilyn Wasleski, Assistant Director; Laura Czohara, Martin de Alteriis, Barbara Lewis, Felicia Lopez, Maria McMullen, George Ogilvie, Richard Powelson, and Samuel Woo.
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.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's July 2017 report, entitled DOD Excess Property: Enhanced Controls Needed for Access to Excess Controlled Property ( GAO-17-532 ).
merrittz@gao.gov or Wayne A. McElrath at (202) 512-2905 or mcelrathw@gao.gov .
What GAO Found
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has taken some actions and is planning additional actions to address identified weaknesses in its excess controlled property program. However, internal control deficiencies exist for, among other things, ensuring that only eligible applicants are approved to participate in the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) program and receive transfers of excess controlled property. DLA is establishing memorandums of understanding with participating federal agencies intended to, among other things, establish general terms and conditions for participation, revise its program application to require additional prospective participant information, and plans to provide additional online training for participating agencies that is expected to begin in late 2017. However, GAO created a fictitious federal agency to conduct independent testing of the LESO program's internal controls and DLA's transfer of controlled property to law enforcement agencies.
Through the testing, GAO gained access to the LESO program and obtained over 100 controlled items with an estimated value of $1.2 million, including night-vision goggles, simulated rifles, and simulated pipe bombs, which could be potentially lethal items if modified with commercially available items . GAO's testing identified that DLA has deficiencies in the processes for verification and approval of federal law enforcement agency applications and in the transfer of controlled property, such as DLA personnel not routinely requesting and verifying identification of individuals picking up controlled property or verifying the quantity of approved items prior to transfer. Further, GAO found that DLA has not conducted a fraud risk assessment on the LESO program, including the application process. Without strengthening DLA and LESO program internal controls over the approval and transfer of controlled property to law enforcement agencies, such as reviewing and revising policy or procedures for verifying and approving federal agency applications and enrollment, DLA lacks reasonable assurance that it has the ability to prevent, detect, and respond to potential fraud and minimize associated security risks.
Examples of Controlled Property Items Obtained
DLA maintains a public Internet site to address statutory requirements to provide information on all property transfers to law enforcement agencies. DLA's public Internet site shows all transferred property, and, as of April 2017, in response to GAO's findings, has included a definition of controlled property to distinguish for the general public what items are considered controlled. | 96 | 15,162 | 15,164 | 15,164 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-249 | gao_GAO-18-249_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
CFIUS Overview
In 1975, an executive order established CFIUS to monitor the impact of and coordinate U.S. policy on foreign investment in the United States. In 1988, Congress enacted the Exon-Florio amendment adding section 721 to the Defense Production Act of 1950. The amendment authorized the President to investigate the impact of certain foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies on national security and to suspend or prohibit acquisitions that might threaten to impair national security. FINSA further amended the Defense Production Act, established CFIUS as it currently exists, and guides the committee. One of the purposes of FINSA’s enactment was to ensure national security while promoting foreign investment and the creation of U.S. jobs.
CFIUS reviews transactions involving a large variety of countries and industry sectors to determine if such transactions pose a threat to national security and whether the transactions should be allowed to proceed (for more information on the characteristics of transactions reviewed by CFIUS, see app. II). FINSA does not formally define national security, but provides a number of factors for CFIUS and the President to consider in determining whether a transaction poses a risk. These factors include the potential national security-related effects on U.S. critical technologies and whether the transaction could result in the control of a U.S. business by a foreign government. CFIUS also may consider other factors that it finds appropriate in determining whether a transaction poses a national security risk (for a full list of factors, see app. III).
Under FINSA, CFIUS is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and includes voting members from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; and the Offices of the U.S. Trade Representative, and Science and Technology Policy. In addition, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Labor (DOL) are nonvoting ex officio members. Various other White House offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS activities (see fig. 1). CFIUS may also solicit perspectives and expertise from nonmember agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, designating them as members for purposes of the review of particular transactions, as appropriate, which can include negotiating or imposing mitigation measures or referring the transaction to the President for decision. The committee, which meets weekly at a staff level, generally has three core functions: (1) review transactions that have been submitted to the committee and take action as necessary to address any national security concerns; (2) monitor and enforce compliance with mitigation measures; and (3) identify transactions of concern that have not been notified to CFIUS for review.
The Secretary of the Treasury, as the chair of CFIUS, is responsible for a number of tasks. According to Department of the Treasury (Treasury) officials, these tasks, including coordinating operations of the committee, facilitating information collection from parties to a transaction, reviewing and sharing data on mergers and acquisitions with member agencies, and managing CFIUS timeframes, are carried out by Treasury employees specifically staffed to support CFIUS. Treasury also communicates on the committee’s behalf with the parties, members of Congress, and the general public. When necessary, Treasury is responsible for delivering the committee’s recommendation that the President should suspend or prohibit a transaction.
Selecting Transactions for CFIUS Review
In examining covered transactions, CFIUS members seek to identify and address, as appropriate, any national security concerns that arise as a result of the transaction. According to the FINSA amendment, a “covered” transaction is defined as any merger, acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person that could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. CFIUS reviews “notices” that have been submitted—or notified—to the committee by parties to transactions. Notices to CFIUS contain information about the nature of the transaction and the parties involved. According to guidance on the Treasury website, with limited exceptions, a transaction receives “safe harbor” when CFIUS has completed its review and determines that the transaction may proceed. According to Treasury officials, safe harbor provides the parties to the transaction some certainty that CFIUS and the President will not subject the transaction to review again.
FINSA does not require that parties notify CFIUS of a transaction; however, CFIUS may choose to initiate a review of any covered transaction. Transactions that have not been notified to CFIUS for review are known as “non-notified transactions.” According to member agency officials, Treasury and several other member agencies have processes for identifying non-notified transactions for CFIUS to potentially review. For instance, Treasury staff compile data on mergers and acquisitions and distribute information about potential non-notified transactions to member agencies for review. In addition, according to member agency officials, in 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began a working group, now called Project Iceberg, which is responsible for identifying and understanding counterintelligence threats posed by foreign investments that have not been notified to CFIUS. The working group holds monthly meetings that intelligence agencies as well as CFIUS member agencies are invited to attend. In the absence of voluntary reporting by the parties involved or independent discovery of the transaction, it is possible that CFIUS may not review a covered transaction that could pose a risk to national security.
CFIUS Process for Reviewing Notified Transactions
Based on information including FINSA and regulations, the CFIUS process for reviewing transactions that have been notified to the committee comprises up to four stages: pre-notice consultation, national security review, national security investigation, and presidential action. CFIUS reviews each transaction individually, with a focus on the aspects of the transaction that could pose a risk. For each transaction reviewed, the committee identifies agencies with relevant expertise to act as co-lead with Treasury to guide the transaction through the CFIUS process. CFIUS reviews are confidential and protected from public disclosure. A CFIUS review could be concluded when CFIUS members reach consensus about whether the transaction should be allowed to proceed, including on the basis of mitigation, if necessary, or when the parties withdraw their notice, whether for commercial reasons or in light of CFIUS’s national security concerns. Absent one of these conclusions to a CFIUS review, the committee may send the transaction to the President, with a recommendation that the President suspend or prohibit it. See figure 2 for an overview of the steps that comprise the CFIUS process for reviewing selected transactions.
Before a transaction is reviewed by CFIUS, Treasury may conduct a pre- notice consultation with parties to a notified transaction. Upon request, Treasury and other agencies meet with the parties, provide informal guidance on the CFIUS review process, and may review early drafts of the notice.
Once the parties have developed the final draft, they submit it to the committee for review. When Treasury, with input from member agencies, determines that the notice of the transaction is complete, the official CFIUS review of the transaction commences.
CFIUS conducts a national security review of each notified transaction, which includes determining whether it is a covered transaction and developing a national security threat assessment. The national security review lasts up to 30 days and begins the day after Treasury determines the filing is complete and circulates the filing to CFIUS member agencies. At the beginning of the national security review, CFIUS identifies co-lead agencies. According to Treasury officials, typically within the first 10 to 12 days of the national security review, CFIUS develops a “covered transaction analysis,” which determines whether the transaction is a covered transaction according to FINSA. According to Treasury officials, there typically is consensus among voting members on whether the transaction is a covered transaction. During the national security review, CFIUS also assesses whether there is credible evidence that the foreign party in control of that U.S. business might take action to impair the national security of the United States as well as whether the covered transaction is a foreign government-controlled transaction. Concurrently, ODNI develops a national security threat assessment, with input and support from the intelligence community, to be completed during the first 20 days of the national security review.
If CFIUS finds that the covered transaction does not present national security risks or that other provisions of law provide adequate and appropriate authority to address the risks, CFIUS may end its review. If CFIUS chooses to conclude its review at this point, CFIUS is to advise the parties in writing that the transaction has been cleared and allowed to proceed. According to information provided by Treasury, CFIUS has historically concluded action on the majority of transactions during or at the end of the 30-day national security review. The committee’s determination must be certified to specified members of Congress after the review is completed. However, if at the end of the national security review, CFIUS has not yet determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns and the committee requires additional time, CFIUS may proceed to a national security investigation, which must be completed within 45 days.
If, during the 45-day national security investigation, CFIUS identifies an unresolved national security concern, it works with the parties to mitigate, if appropriate, any national security risks that may exist. If an agency identifies an unresolved national security concern, the agency develops an analysis of the potential risks posed by the covered transaction and includes recommendation for action, such as mitigation measures or referral to the President, and shares this analysis with other members of the committee. Mitigation measures may include ensuring that only authorized persons have access to certain technologies, information, or facilities, or providing the U.S. government the right to review certain business decisions and to object if the decisions raise national security concerns. According to Treasury officials, CFIUS member agencies aim for mitigation that would be effective, can be monitored, and would be enforceable. If there is a difference of opinion among CFIUS member agencies about the level or type of mitigation that should be utilized, CFIUS agencies discuss the matters to reach consensus.
In some cases, parties may choose to withdraw and resubmit the notice. If CFIUS has determined that national security concerns cannot be mitigated, according to Treasury officials, CFIUS typically advises the parties that the committee will refer the matter to the President for decision. According to Treasury officials, parties have the opportunity to withdraw and resubmit the notice if they need additional time to discuss CFIUS’s concerns or to present additional information or mitigation proposals for CFIUS’s consideration. Sometimes parties choose to withdraw and abandon the transaction if, for instance, CFIUS proposes mitigation measures that the parties choose not to accept. Parties may also abandon the transaction for commercial reasons unrelated to the CFIUS review. If parties choose to withdraw and resubmit a transaction, the national security review begins again, and the committee has another 75 days to complete the review of the transaction.
If CFIUS obtains consensus from committee members that there are no unresolved national security concerns or the national security concerns have been mitigated, the national security investigation ends, and the covered transaction receives safe harbor. Treasury and the co-lead agency send written certification to specified members of Congress that there are no unresolved national security concerns. However, if the committee concludes that a proposed foreign investment threatens to impair the U.S. national security and the threat cannot be mitigated, CFIUS will elevate the notice to the President for determination and CFIUS may recommend that the President suspend or prohibit the transaction. According to Treasury officials, parties may also withdraw their notice at this point rather than have the President decide whether to block the transaction.
If, at the end of the national security investigation, CFIUS elevates a transaction to the President for determination, the President has 15 days from the completed investigation to decide to prohibit or suspend the acquisition, or to take no action. Only four transactions reviewed by CFIUS have been the subject of a presidential prohibition since the committee was established in 1975.
Stakeholders Have Concerns about the Increased CFIUS Workload but Treasury Has Not Coordinated Staffing Level Assessments
CFIUS has experienced an increase in workload in recent years, but Treasury, as CFIUS lead, has not coordinated member agency efforts to better understand staffing levels needed to complete core committee functions. According to CFIUS member agency officials, the volume of transactions notified to the committee and the complexity of CFIUS reviews in terms of technology, transaction structure, and national security concerns have increased substantially from 2011 through 2016, while CFIUS staffing levels have experienced a modest increase during the same time period. Member agency officials stated that CFIUS is able to review all transactions that have been voluntarily notified to the committee. However, many stakeholders, including most member agency officials and several external experts, expressed concerns that CFIUS member agencies were limited in their ability to complete other CFIUS functions, such as identifying non-notified transactions. In addition, agency officials were unsure if they would have sufficient staff if the CFIUS workload were to continue to increase. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should establish the organizational structure necessary to achieve its objectives and periodically evaluate this structure. Treasury has not coordinated member agency efforts to better understand the staffing levels needed to complete the current and future workload associated with core functions of the committee.
The Volume of Covered Transactions CFIUS Reviewed Increased between 2011 and 2016
Despite figures decreasing in one year, overall, the number of covered transactions that CFIUS reported it reviewed increased from 111 transactions in 2011 to 172 transactions in 2016, or almost 55 percent (see table 1). In 2017, CFIUS reviewed 238 transactions, according to Treasury officials. According to member agency officials, the increased volume of covered transactions resulted in increased work for all CFIUS members, no matter which agency is the co-lead, because each member agency must review each transaction notified to the committee.
The number of reported covered transactions requiring national security investigations almost doubled during this same period, increasing from 40 transactions in 2011 to 79 transactions in 2016. Treasury officials told us that they estimated that the total number of transactions that proceeded to national security investigations was greater in 2017 than it was in 2016. They said that the increase in the number of covered transactions that require a national security investigation is another indication that the committee’s workload has increased. One Treasury official noted that the number of times that parties withdraw and resubmit transactions can increase the workload of the committee as it must review the transaction each time it is submitted.
Additionally, the number of reported covered transactions that include mitigation measures has increased. Each year, CFIUS places mitigation measures on a relatively small number of covered transactions. For example, according to Treasury officials, 18 (roughly 10 percent) of 172 transactions the committee reviewed in 2016 resulted in mitigation measures. According to member agency officials, mitigation measures rarely expire; thus, the number of these measures increases over time, as does the accompanying workload for co-lead agencies tasked with overseeing the measures.
The Increased Complexity of CFIUS Reviews Has Increased CFIUS Workload
Officials from CFIUS member agencies stated that the complexity of CFIUS reviews in terms of technology, transaction structure, and national security concerns has increased in recent years. They said that additional time and staff have been required to address this rise in complexity and to complete these reviews. For instance, one member agency official told us that reviews of transactions from parties whose companies use new and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and robotics, typically require input from agency subject matter experts to help the committee understand how, if at all, the acquisition of these technologies by foreign parties could create national security concerns.
According to member agency officials, the amount of time and number of staff needed to review a transaction can fluctuate greatly based on, among other things, the technology involved. One agency official said that 6 of their employees, on average, are involved in reviewing a less complex transaction, but up to 15 employees may be necessary to complete the review if the technology involved is more complicated. The number of agency staff involved can increase further if senior level management is required to participate in the review. This official also stated that most of the transactions reviewed in the past were from sectors that agency officials were familiar with and involved more predictable issues, but recently, transactions more frequently involved complex technology, which required additional expertise. Officials from another member agency stated that a majority of their staff involved in reviewing transactions do not have CFIUS as a primary duty and that their agency has reallocated resources to address the increased case load. One Treasury official stated that one case was so complex that it required one staff member to dedicate all of their time to its review, and the other responsibilities of this employee had to be shifted to other members of the staff.
Additionally, according to member agency officials, reviews of transactions involving technologies the government frequently uses have increased, requiring additional time and staff to understand how this technology affects various agencies. For instance, member agency officials said that reviewing transactions involving semiconductors, which are commonly used in an array of products used by the government, typically requires additional time and staff because CFIUS member agencies must understand, among other things, how the approval of a transaction could affect systems across government agencies.
According to CFIUS member agency officials, the structures of the transactions the committee reviews have also become more complex, requiring more time and staff to assess. For example, business arrangements—such as complex corporate arrangements, joint ventures, loan arrangements, nondisclosure agreements, and memoranda of understanding—may require the work of additional staff. Treasury officials also stated that these arrangements can make it more difficult to determine whether the transaction is covered by CFIUS authorities, as there may be commercial relationships that affect the parties’ decision- making. According to Treasury officials, such arrangements can also increase the complexity of the national security review, as they may create additional “indirect threats” that must also be analyzed.
Member agency officials explained that it has become more challenging to identify the ultimate beneficial owners—the persons who ultimately own and control a company—due to the structure of the transaction. According to Treasury officials, in certain countries, it can be difficult to distinguish between control by a private entity and control by a state entity due to the various relationships created by the transaction structure. In these cases, CFIUS often requires additional information from the parties in such transactions before the national security review can begin. Member agency officials stated that they had been encountering these arrangements more frequently, and additional time and staff had been required to examine the national security implications of these transactions.
Finally, the nature of the national security concerns the committee considers has expanded beyond the traditional threats, requiring more time and staff to assess them, according to member agency officials. National security concerns include traditional ones, such as threats to U.S. critical infrastructure. Emerging concerns include the possibility of a foreign entity obtaining access to personally identifiable information that, if disclosed, could be exploited for purposes that have national security consequences or the proximity of property to areas considered sensitive by the U.S. government.
Treasury Has Not Coordinated Assessments of Staffing Levels Needed to Complete CFIUS Core Functions
According to agency officials, the number of staff assigned to CFIUS activities has not kept pace with the increase in covered transactions reviewed by CFIUS. According to one Treasury official, the more an agency is required to act as co-lead, the more time and staff are needed of the agency. After Treasury, which acts as co-lead on every review, the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS) acted as co-lead on the largest number of CFIUS reviews in 2016 (see table 2).
According to information provided by member agency officials, CFIUS saw a modest increase in staff assigned to CFIUS activities since 2011, with Treasury, DOD, DOE, DHS, and State adding a few staff, while staffing levels did not rise at the other member agencies. The total number of staff assigned to CFIUS activities increased from 82 in 2011 to 91 in 2016, an increase of 11 percent. During that same period, covered transactions reviewed by CFIUS increased from 111 transactions in 2011 to 172 transactions in 2016, an increase of almost 55 percent (see fig. 3).
Member agency officials stated that the number of staff assigned to work on CFIUS activities may fluctuate throughout the year based on the committee’s work. For example, as previously discussed, CFIUS member agencies may rely on experts with other responsibilities throughout each agency to provide assistance with the review as the need arises. For instance, in fiscal year 2016, DOE had four staff dedicated to CFIUS, but one DOE official said he reaches out to relevant subject matter experts, who have other responsibilities, to provide input on transactions within their area of expertise.
Treasury officials stated that staff have been able to review the number of transactions that have been voluntarily notified to CFIUS to date. One Treasury official said that, despite the increase in the number of transactions reviewed by CFIUS, the committee has almost always provided a determination to the parties within the timeframes required as to whether the covered transaction should be allowed to proceed or blocked by the President. Further, Treasury officials stated that despite staff constraints, CFIUS has, as needed, appropriately mitigated the national security concerns for the transactions the committee has approved.
However, several member agency officials and external experts expressed concerns that, due to staff constraints, CFIUS member agencies were limited in their ability to complete other CFIUS functions, such as monitoring mitigation measures and identifying non-notified transactions. First, the time and staff necessary to monitor mitigation measures varies. For instance, according to one member agency official, some mitigation measures require daily monitoring from officials, while other mitigation measures require only the review of an annual report submitted by parties to the transaction. Several member agency officials acknowledged that they have fewer staff than they would like to devote to monitoring mitigation measures.
Second, these member agency officials also said that they are not able to devote the amount of time they would like to the task of identifying non- notified transactions. CFIUS member agencies review data on mergers and acquisitions to identify non-notified transactions of concern, those that have not been notified to CFIUS for review. In recent years, according to agency officials, CFIUS has seen an increase in the number of non-notified transactions CFIUS could potentially review. One official indicated that in 2016, their agency examined 2,683 potential non-notified transactions, an increase of roughly 38 percent from 2014. Member agency officials stated that because non-notified transactions are frequently reviewed after the acquisition has been completed, the process of mitigating potential national security concerns of non-notified transactions can be difficult. Several member agency officials suggested that they would like to devote more time to examining non-notified transactions, but staff constraints limit the amount of time agencies can spend conducting this task.
Several member agency officials said that they do not know if current staffing levels would be able to address a further increase in CFIUS workload. Treasury officials noted that the volume of transactions reviewed by CFIUS will likely continue to increase. Moreover, congressional bills have been introduced that, if enacted, would alter the CFIUS process. As discussed later in this report, agency officials stated that some of these potential changes would likely further increase CFIUS workload. According to several CFIUS member agency officials, if the CFIUS workload were to increase, additional staff would likely be necessary to complete committee functions, such as identifying non- notified transactions and monitoring mitigation measures. Officials from two member agencies also expressed concerns about their ability to review transactions that have been notified to the committee if the volume of CFIUS notices increased.
According to Treasury officials, CFIUS does not have a centralized budget, and Treasury does not have authority to determine CFIUS staffing levels at committee member agencies. Treasury officials stated that they have taken steps, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to collect data from the member agencies on current staffing levels expended on CFIUS core functions but have not established timeframes for this data collection. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should establish the organizational structure necessary to achieve its objectives and periodically evaluate this structure. Treasury officials stated that they have conducted an assessment of Treasury’s staffing needs and have encouraged other agencies to do the same. However, Treasury, as CFIUS lead, has not coordinated member agencies’ efforts to better understand the staffing levels needed to address the current and future CFIUS workload associated with core committee functions, such as identifying and reviewing non-notified transactions. Without this information, CFIUS may be limited in its ability to fulfill its objectives and address threats to the national security of the United States.
CFIUS Member Agencies and External Experts Provided Views on Benefits and Drawbacks of Possible Changes to CFIUS
Officials from CFIUS member agencies (voting and nonvoting) and selected nonmember participant agencies, as well as external experts, expressed a range of views on the potential benefits and drawbacks to possible changes to CFIUS. In our interviews with them, these stakeholders discussed a variety of possible changes to CFIUS that we organized into three categories: (1) altering the structure of CFIUS, (2) redefining which merger and acquisition transactions should be considered for CFIUS review, and (3) expanding the list of factors CFIUS considers as it evaluates the impacts of a foreign transaction on national security. For the most part, CFIUS member agencies and nonmember participant agencies stated that the existing structure is working effectively and described drawbacks to potential changes, such as changing membership or voting rights. Perspectives among agency officials and external experts varied on the potential effects of redefining which transactions should be considered for review, such as requiring CFIUS to review all covered transactions. Agency officials and external experts described a range of potential effects of expanding the list of factors CFIUS considers. They generally stated that including a net economic benefit test in the review, for example, would not be beneficial. Many officials and external experts agreed that one potential drawback of many of the possible changes is a likely increase to the CFIUS workload, generating concerns about the committee’s capacity to complete its core functions.
Agencies Participating in CFIUS Were Generally Satisfied with the Structure of the Committee
In general, officials from member and nonmember agencies participating in CFIUS were satisfied with the structure of the committee. Possible changes, which would affect the way CFIUS is organized and does its work, include changes to the chairmanship of CFIUS, changes to the voting membership of CFIUS (adding new voting members and giving voting rights to current nonvoting members), and changes to the timeframes under which CFIUS works. However, for the most part, CFIUS member agencies and nonmember participant agencies reported that the existing structure works effectively. See tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 for details on the perspectives expressed on these changes.
Perspectives Varied on the Effects of Changes to the Types of Transactions to Be Considered for CFIUS Review
Member agency officials and external experts offered a range of views about the effects of changes to the types of transactions reviewed by CFIUS. Possible changes, which would affect which merger and acquisition transactions would be considered for CFIUS review, include changes to the definition of a covered transaction and changing the voluntary notification process to make review of all or some covered transactions mandatory. Stakeholders we spoke with identified benefits and drawbacks to each of these changes. Many stakeholders agreed that one potential drawback of these possible changes is a likely increase to the CFIUS workload. See tables 7, 8, and 9 for details on the perspectives expressed.
Most Stakeholders Were Satisfied with the Factors CFIUS Currently Considers in Reviewing Foreign Transactions
Member agency officials and external experts were generally satisfied with the list of factors CFIUS currently considers when it reviews foreign transactions and offered a variety of opinions on the effects of changes to them. Possible changes include expanding the statutory national security factors to be considered and introducing an economic impact assessment. Stakeholders we spoke with identified benefits and drawbacks to each of these changes. See tables 10 and 11 for details on the perspectives expressed.
Conclusions
The United States maintains an open investment climate that recognizes the benefits of foreign investment to its economy. CFIUS reviews certain foreign acquisitions, mergers, or takeovers of U.S. businesses to determine the effect of the transaction on the national security of the United States. The increased number of covered transactions notified to CFIUS and the complexity of these cases compared with the modest increase in the number of people assigned to reviewing them have, according to member agency officials, taxed the staff of CFIUS member agencies. Member agency officials and external experts have expressed particular concern that CFIUS member agencies were limited in their ability to complete core functions, such as identifying non-notified transactions and monitoring mitigation measures. At the same time, congressional bills have been introduced proposing changes to FINSA that could increase the committee’s workload. Officials from Treasury and other member agencies are aware of pressures on their CFIUS staff given the current workload and have expressed concerns about possible workload increases. Treasury and OMB have begun to collect information from agencies on their current CFIUS staffing levels. This is a crucial first step that could facilitate a better understanding for both the committee and Congress of the current staffing levels across the committee’s organizational structure. However, Treasury, as CFIUS lead, has not coordinated member agency efforts to assess the current and future staffing levels needed to complete the committee’s core functions. Without attaining an understanding of the staffing levels needed to address the current and future CFIUS workload, particularly if legislative changes to CFIUS’s authorities further expand its workload, CFIUS may be limited in its ability to fulfill its objectives and address threats to the national security of the United States.
Recommendation for Executive Action
The Secretary of the Treasury, as the chair of CFIUS, and working with member agencies, should coordinate member agencies’ efforts to better understand the staffing levels needed to address the current and projected CFIUS workload associated with core committee functions. (Recommendation 1)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Labor, State, and the Treasury as well as the Offices of the U.S. Trade Representative, Science and Technology Policy, and the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Communications Commission. We also provided a draft to the Office of Management and Budget.
Treasury provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix V. In its comments, Treasury stated that it is working with OMB to determine current resource levels across the CFIUS member agencies and has encouraged agencies to assess their staffing needs. Treasury also stated that it generally concurred with the draft report’s recommendation to “conduct an assessment to better understand staffing levels needed to address the current and projected CFIUS workload.” However, Treasury noted that CFIUS does not have a centralized budget, and Treasury does not have the authority over CFIUS staffing levels at member agencies. We acknowledge Treasury’s points and, therefore, we modified the report and clarified the recommendation to focus on Treasury’s coordination role, since, as we note in the report, Treasury is responsible for coordinating the operations of the committee and communicating on the committee’s behalf with the parties, members of Congress, and the general public. Treasury stated in an email that the clarifications to the recommendation address the point raised in its comment letter.
USDA also provided written comments, reproduced in appendix VI. In its comments, USDA stated that it generally agreed with the findings in GAO’s draft report. The letter further noted that USDA is satisfied with Treasury’s willingness to include USDA in cases related to food and agriculture and is comfortable continuing to work as a non-voting member of CFIUS.
The Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, and the Offices of the U.S. Trade Representative and Science and Technology Policy provided written technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
The Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Communications Commission indicated via email that they did not have comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Labor, State, and the Treasury as well as the Offices of the U.S. Trade Representative, Science and Technology Policy, and the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Communications Commission. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov or Marie A. Mak at (202) 512-2527 or makm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This report (1) examines changes in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’ (CFIUS) workload and staffing from 2011 through 2016, and (2) provides information on stakeholder views on potential changes to CFIUS.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, executive orders, and regulations. We interviewed officials from each CFIUS voting member agency, including the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and the Treasury as well as the Offices of the U.S. Trade Representative and Science and Technology Policy. We also interviewed officials from the two nonvoting ex officio members, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Labor. In addition, we interviewed officials from nonmember agencies that have CFIUS case-related expertise, including the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, and the Federal Communications Commission.
To examine the changes in CFIUS workload and staffing levels over the past 5 years, we analyzed information on workload and staffing levels at the voting member agencies from 2011 through 2016, the most recent information available at the time of our review. We also reviewed the 2014 and 2015 CFIUS annual reports. In addition, we interviewed officials from the nine CFIUS voting member agencies about their workload and staffing levels; any changes in the volume, types, and complexity of transactions reviewed by CFIUS; and their ability to complete the core functions of the committee. We requested information from the 9 CFIUS voting member agencies on the number of staff assigned to CFIUS more than 50 percent of their time.
To collect information on stakeholder views on potential changes to CFIUS, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with selected stakeholders, which consisted of officials from the nine CFIUS voting member agencies, the two ex officio nonvoting member agencies, and three selected nonmember agencies that have CFIUS case-related expertise, as well as with external experts. To identify external experts, we asked stakeholders to recommend other stakeholders we should speak with (i.e., snowball sampling). From our list of potential stakeholders, we selected 16 external experts, including former government officials, lawyers who represent parties with transactions notified to CFIUS, and representatives from industry associations and think tanks. In our interviews, we collected views and information on the challenges that CFIUS faces, options for addressing the challenges, and the possible benefits and drawbacks of these options. The information obtained from these stakeholders cannot be generalized across all stakeholders; however, these stakeholders provided insights into the possible effects of implementing certain changes to CFIUS.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2016 to February 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Characteristics of Transactions Reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
Appendix II: Characteristics of Transactions Reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS reviews covered transactions from a large variety of industries, but the largest number of transactions reviewed come from the manufacturing sector. In 2016, the manufacturing sector represented approximately 42 percent of the 172 covered transactions reviewed by CFIUS and, in recent years, the number of transactions reviewed from that sector has increased from 49 transactions in 2011 to approximately 72 transactions in 2016. Computer and electronic transactions, such as those by companies that produce semiconductor technology, accounted for approximately 32 of the 72 covered transactions from the manufacturing sector that CFIUS reviewed in 2016. For instance, in 2016, CFIUS reviewed the potential acquisition of Aixtron, a Germany-based semiconductor firm with assets in the United States, by the Chinese firm Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund. That year, the President chose to prohibit the acquisition of the U.S. business of Aixtron upon determining that the foreign purchasers might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States in exercising control of the U.S. business of Aixtron. Treasury, as the chair of CFIUS, stated in a press release that the national security risks posed by the transaction related to, among other things, a Chinese firm obtaining the company’s body of knowledge and experience.
Transactions from the manufacturing sector involve a variety of other industries, including textiles, chemicals, and food manufacturing. For example, in 2013, according to a report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, CFIUS reviewed the acquisition of Smithfield Foods Inc., for $7.1 billion, by China’s Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. A letter submitted by members of the Senate Agriculture Committee raised concerns that the transaction posed a threat to the nation’s food security; however, according to Security and Exchange Commission filings, CFIUS ultimately completed its investigation and cleared the transaction to proceed.
Acquisitions by Chinese-owned companies accounted for the largest number of covered transactions reviewed by CFIUS from 2014 through 2016. According to CFIUS, the number of covered transactions the committee reviewed from China has increased substantially in recent years, from 10 transactions in 2011 to 67 in 2016. In previous years, companies from the United Kingdom were party to the largest share of covered transactions submitted for CFIUS review; however, from 2013 through 2015, parties from the United Kingdom and Canada submitted the second and third largest number of notices. Forty-four percent of all covered transactions reviewed by the committee during this time period involved companies from China, the United Kingdom, or Canada.
Appendix III: Factors to Determine Whether Submitted Transactions Pose a National Security Risk
Appendix III: Factors to Determine Whether Submitted Transactions Pose a National Security Risk The potential effects of the transaction on the domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements. The potential effects of the transaction on the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies. The potential effects of a foreign person’s control of domestic industries and commercial activity on the capability and capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of national security. The potential effects of the transaction on U.S. international technological leadership in areas affecting U.S. national security. The potential national security-related effects on U.S. critical technologies. The potential effects on the long-term projection of U.S. requirements for sources of energy and other critical resources and material. The potential national security-related effects of the transaction on U.S. critical infrastructure, including critical physical infrastructure such as major energy assets. The potential effects of the transaction on the sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to countries that present concerns related to terrorism; missile proliferation; chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons proliferation; or regional military threats. The potential that the transaction presents for transshipment or diversion of technologies with military applications, including the relevant country’s export control system.
Whether the transaction could result in the control of a U.S. business by a foreign government or by an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. The relevant foreign country’s record of adherence to nonproliferation control regimes and record of cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
Other factors that the President or the committee may determine to be appropriate, generally or in connection with a specific review or investigation.
Appendix IV: Reported Number of Agency Staff Assigned to Committee Activities
Department of the Treasury (Chair)
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Treasury
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Marie A. Mak, (202) 512-4841 or makm@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contacts named above, Christine Broderick (Assistant Director), Christina Werth (Analyst-in-Charge), Anthony Costulas, Scott Purdy, Kendal Robinson, Lynn Cothern, Grace Lui, Justin Fisher, and Neil Doherty contributed to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
The United States economy has historically been the largest recipient of foreign direct investment in the world—receiving $373 billion in 2016, according to U.S. government statistics. Ensuring that these foreign investments do not harm national security can be a challenge. CFIUS is an interagency group that reviews transactions under its authority—certain foreign acquisitions or mergers of U.S. businesses—to determine their effects on U.S. national security, while maintaining an open investment climate. If CFIUS identifies concerns, it may work with parties to the transaction to mitigate them. In rare cases, CFIUS may recommend that the President block or suspend a transaction.
GAO was asked to review the CFIUS process and possible changes to that process. This report (1) examines changes in CFIUS's workload and staffing from 2011 through 2016, and (2) provides information on stakeholder views on potential changes to CFIUS. GAO analyzed CFIUS information on staffing levels and transactions reviewed, and interviewed officials from member agencies, selected nonmember agencies that have CFIUS-related expertise, and knowledgeable external experts, such as think tanks.
What GAO Found
states that management should establish the organizational structure necessary to achieve its objectives and periodically evaluate this structure. Treasury—the agency that leads CFIUS— has not coordinated member agencies' efforts to better understand the staffing levels needed to address the current and future workload associated with core functions of the committee. Without this information, CFIUS may be limited in its ability to fulfill its objectives and address national security concerns.
Officials from CFIUS member agencies and selected nonmember agencies, as well as external experts, expressed a range of views on the potential benefits and drawbacks to possible changes to CFIUS. GAO organized the possible changes into three categories: (1) altering the structure of CFIUS, (2) redefining which transactions should be considered for CFIUS review, and (3) expanding the factors CFIUS considers when evaluating the impacts of a foreign transaction on national security. Agency officials were generally satisfied with CFIUS' structure, such as the committee's chair and membership. Views among officials and experts varied on redefining which transactions should be considered for review, such as requiring CFIUS to review all transactions covered by its authority regardless of notification. Officials and experts generally did not support expanding the list of national security factors CFIUS considers, such as by adding a net economic benefit test. Agency officials and experts agreed that one trade-off related to some possible changes is a likely increase to the CFIUS workload, which they noted is already straining agencies' staff resources.
What GAO Recommends
Treasury, as CFIUS lead, should coordinate member agencies' efforts to better understand the staffing levels needed to address the current and projected CFIUS workload associated with core committee functions. Treasury concurred. | 96 | 47,694 | 47,696 | 47,696 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-7 | gao_GAO-18-7_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
The National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and Reducing Demand
The 2014 National Strategy defines wildlife trafficking as including all aspects of the trade, from poaching and transit through consumer use. The National Strategy outlines the guiding principles and strategic priorities for U.S. efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife, and one of the top three priorities identified is to “Reduce Demand for Illegally Traded Wildlife.” Specifically, the National Strategy states that, as a strategic priority, reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife calls for raising public awareness of the harms done by wildlife trafficking through outreach in the United States and public diplomacy abroad. The National Strategy also states that the Task Force will seek to enlist individual consumers in this fight through education and outreach to reduce demand for these products and change consumption patterns that drive wildlife trafficking.
While the Implementation Plan outlines a unique set of activities to reduce demand, other activities under the plan’s objectives may indirectly affect demand. For example, one of the objectives under “Reduce Demand for Illegally Traded Wildlife” is to raise public awareness and recognition of wildlife trafficking and its negative impacts and associated risks of prosecution (emphasis added) as a means to change harmful consumption patterns. Implementing robust legal frameworks and effective enforcement increases the risk of prosecution, which may deter not only wildlife traffickers but also consumers, who may risk legal penalties. For the purposes of this report, we consider efforts to reduce consumption of wildlife and law enforcement efforts to prevent illegal use of wildlife as demand reduction-related activities.
The Implementation Plan designates various U.S. agencies to lead or participate in achieving the strategic priority of reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife, which are outlined in table 1.
In fiscal years 2014 through 2017, Congress directed that not less than certain specified amounts, totaling $271 million over the 4 fiscal years, be made available to combat wildlife trafficking (see fig. 1).
Global Efforts to Reduce Wildlife Trafficking
Since September 2016, U.S. agencies and global stakeholders have taken a range of actions to address CWT issues (see fig. 2). For example, in October 2016, Congress passed the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt (END) Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016. Among other things, the act calls for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, to submit an annual report that lists each country determined by the Secretary of State to be a focus country and a country of concern. The act also directs the Task Force to submit an annual strategic assessment of its work and provide a briefing to Congress. Additionally, the 17th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) took place September 24, 2016, to October 5, 2016. In December 2016, China announced that it would close its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017, and in March 2017, China announced closure of 67 ivory carving entities and retail outlets across the country.
Estimates of the Illegal Wildlife Trade
As reported by the United Nations, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), and other sources, wildlife trafficking networks span the globe. Although sources have attempted to measure trade flows, there is no precise estimate of illegally traded wildlife, and available estimates are subject to uncertainty. In 2014, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that various sources estimate the global scale of illegal wildlife trade is between $7 billion and $23 billion annually. In 2016, UNEP and INTERPOL estimated that the scale of wildlife crime may have increased, based on a rise in environmental crime. They estimate that environmental crime increased by 26 percent since 2014 and continues to increase by 5 to 7 percent annually. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing often are not included in these estimates since discussion of wildlife trafficking, as it relates to marine species, focuses on those species protected under CITES and under statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, according to NOAA. While IUU fishing targets commercially harvested marine species, as the Implementation Plan outlines, the trafficking of fisheries products is a form of wildlife trafficking. In 2016, UNEP and INTERPOL estimated that the global scale of IUU fishing ranges from $11 billion to $24 billion annually.
Demand for Illegal Wildlife and Wildlife Products Is Difficult to Measure, but Data and Reports Indicate Range of Species and Products Is Diverse
The United States, China, and countries in Southeast Asia consume many types of legal and illegal wildlife for diverse purposes. It is difficult to measure demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products due to the illicit nature of the trade, but various data sources and reports provide examples of the range of wildlife demand by illustrating types of wildlife that are seized by governments and purchased by consumers.
Illegal Wildlife Demand and Trade Are Diverse in the United States
U.S. trade in wildlife and wildlife products includes a variety of wildlife such as live reptiles, birds, mammals, and elephant ivory, according to law enforcement information, reports, and government and NGO officials. FWS and NOAA data on wildlife products seized at U.S. ports provide examples of the diversity of illegally traded wildlife in the United States. FWS and NOAA may seize wildlife products for a variety of reasons that include import, export, or sale of endangered or threatened species protected under U.S. laws and regulations. For example, FWS may seize a shipment due to invalid documentation needed to clear the shipment. From 2007 to 2016, the top 10 wildlife shipments—by species or species group—seized nationally by FWS were coral, crocodile, conch, deer, python, sea turtle, mollusks, ginseng, clam, and seahorse. These seized wildlife were in a variety of forms when confiscated, as shown in table 2. For example, more than half of seized seahorse shipments were dead whole animals, and a smaller percentage were medicinal parts or products. During the past 10 years, more than one-third of the wildlife shipments seized by FWS were confiscated while being imported from or exported to Mexico (13.6 percent), China (13 percent), Canada (8.6 percent). Additional examples of wildlife seized by FWS are shown in figure 3 and in appendix II.
Seizure data from NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Law Enforcement show that it has also seized a variety of marine wildlife products. From 2007 to 2016, confiscated shipments have included whale teeth and meat, seal oil pills, shark fins, and seal fur products like mittens and boots, according to NOAA’s seizure data. Seizure data from FWS and NOAA provide a helpful illustration of wildlife that has been confiscated at U.S. ports but may not be fully reflective of the illegal wildlife trade and consumption.
Seizure data show the types of wildlife confiscated at ports of entry in a country, but there are limits to what these data can tell us about the demand for products like illegally traded wildlife. Various factors influence the number of seizures at any given time or in any location such as the level of illicit trade and the level and efficacy of enforcement efforts. For example, as part of their enforcement, both NOAA and FWS conduct inspections of shipments at U.S. ports. In some cases, they conduct targeted inspections that may be based on information they have about a particular species or market, which may influence detection and seizures of illegal products. NOAA and FWS officials indicated that they can increase their enforcement efforts by targeting investigations on specific species or products. This additional effort may result in the seizure of more shipments than would be made using routine inspection processes.
In 2016, the NGO WildAid published a baseline survey conducted by KRC Research to inform a public awareness campaign effort with FWS. The survey reported that roughly 1 in 10 respondents in the United States indicated that they had purchased or knew someone who had purchased live animals such as iguanas, parrots, parakeets, or tortoises. A smaller proportion of those that responded (roughly 1 in 20) reported that they had purchased or knew someone who had purchased ivory. Reporting by the International Fund for Animal Welfare in 2013 also identifies the United States as a key end market for reptiles such as crocodiles, pythons, and caimans and for wildlife products such as ivory.
Based on reporting and discussions with U.S. government officials, there may be varying reasons for the demand for wildlife and wildlife products. Potential drivers of demand in the United States—in particular demand for illegal wildlife from Latin America— may include a desire for rare and exotic plants and animals, according to reporting by Defenders of Wildlife. FWS officials in Miami told us that some of the wildlife products they confiscate—such as products from cruise passengers— were purchased by travelers who were unaware of the restrictions on the wildlife product. FWS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials told us that consumers use wildlife for many different purposes, including as pets, trophies, jewelry, food, religious items, and for medicinal purposes. For example, FWS officials in Miami told us that coral is often smuggled as part of the pet trade for use in aquariums. At the Port of Miami, an FWS official told us that FWS has also seized queen conch meat, which is exported from the Caribbean as a delicacy, according to FWS. During investigations, FWS has found wildlife intended to be used as art or trophies. During the course of their investigations, FWS officials in Miami have found a rhino bust being sold for $80,000 and a giraffe bust being sold for $100,000. FWS has also seized scarlet macaw feathers being used in jewelry, elephant ivory carved as decorative pieces, and taxidermy big cats seized as hunting trophies.
Illegal Wildlife Demand and Trade Are Diverse in China and Countries in Southeast Asia
Demand for illegally traded wildlife in China and countries in Southeast Asia includes many wildlife species and end uses, according to reports and government and NGO officials in the region. For example, iconic wildlife such as elephants and rhinos are often cited in reports and by officials in the field as examples of wildlife consumption in China and Southeast Asia, but other wildlife, such as pangolins, bears, sharks, and sea turtles are also named among the wildlife being consumed.
China is a consumption country for illegal wildlife, while Hong Kong, Thailand, and Vietnam are consumption and transit locations, according to officials we spoke with from the U.S. government, foreign governments, international organizations, and NGOs in these locations. Thailand often serves as a transshipment point for illegal wildlife due to its land borders with China, Laos, and Cambodia, according to government of Thailand officials. Government officials in Vietnam stated a similar claim, explaining that the country is often a transshipment point due to its land borders with China and Laos. Table 3 displays examples of wildlife consumed and trafficked in China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to U.S. government, foreign government, and NGO officials in-location and at DOI Headquarters.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare has reported that China is the world’s largest consumer of illegal wildlife products due to its demand for ivory, rhino horn, pangolin scales, bear bile, tiger bone, and shark fin soup. According to analysis by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) of seizure data from the World Wildlife Seizure database, China was the destination for about 40 percent of the ivory shipments that had reported destinations from 2006 to 2015.
Reports also identify Thailand as a part of the illegal ivory trade. INTERPOL’s 2015 investigation, Operation Worthy II, resulted in seizures of several tons of elephant ivory in Thailand and Singapore. TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, visited retail outlets in Bangkok, Thailand, during certain periods in 2013 and 2014 and, through covert surveys of vendors, found bangles, rings, toothpicks, hairpins, chopsticks, sculptures, and other products made of ivory for sale. TRAFFIC reports that for seven consecutive months, from November 2013 to May 2014, their surveys found more than 10,000 ivory items openly on display for sale in Bangkok.
An NGO official we spoke with in China told us that part of the NGO’s efforts includes targeting Chinese tourists traveling to Africa and Southeast Asia to prevent purchasing of ivory as well as rhino horn. UNODC has reported that more than two-thirds of rhino horns seized from 2006 to 2015 were destined for China or Vietnam.
Government officials in Hong Kong told us that they have also seized a variety of wildlife products such as pangolin scales and turtles. Examples of wildlife products seized by the government of Hong Kong are shown in figure 4 and in appendix II. Hong Kong’s government has also seized elephant ivory, though as of March 2017, certain registered ivory can be legally traded in Hong Kong under a license.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that high economic growth may fuel consumer demand for status goods such as art from elephant ivory and traditional medicine using rhino horn. According to NGO officials we met with in Vietnam and China, consumers purchase illegal wildlife products as a status symbol or to demonstrate wealth. Wildlife is considered to be expensive and exotic in these countries, and there is conspicuous consumption in some areas, according to State officials in Vietnam and an FWS attaché. UNODC reports that a survey of 18 restaurants— identified as high end by UNODC— in Vietnam found that all of these restaurants sold pangolin meat. UNEP and INTERPOL describe a similar phenomenon of a culture of conspicuous consumption for wildlife products that indicate wealth. These organizations report that buyers place higher value on illegal wildlife products when they are considered rare and uncommon and thus drive up prices for illegal wildlife. Higher prices and the perception of luxury associated with products such as tiger pelts and shark fin soup may attract consumers who want to display their wealth, according to Global Financial Integrity.
Another end use of illegally traded wildlife is in traditional medicine in China and Vietnam, according to State and NGO officials in these countries. They stated that there are beliefs that certain wildlife provide health benefits; for example, pangolin scales are believed to help lactating mothers produce milk. State and NGO officials noted that traditional Chinese medicine has a long history of using various wildlife products. For example, American ginseng root is often consumed as a medicinal ingredient in China, according to FWS. While export of American ginseng is permitted, there are restrictions based on factors such as the age of the root. FWS has seized American ginseng root being exported from the United States to China, and the Hong Kong government has seized American ginseng being smuggled into Hong Kong. For additional examples of how wildlife is consumed, see the side bar for results from surveys conducted by USAID’s Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) program.
Agencies Are Implementing Demand Reduction Efforts, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Collaboration in Southeast Asia FWS Raises Awareness and Enforces Laws in the United States and Builds Capacity Abroad
State Contributes to CWT- Related Diplomacy, Training, and Outreach
State has led diplomacy efforts and implemented training and outreach programs in Southeast Asia and China.
Diplomacy: State’s diplomatic CWT efforts have included coordinating discussions between the U.S. and Chinese presidents in 2015 that, according to State, contributed to China and the United States jointly committing to further restrict ivory exports and imports. In June 2016, State and China’s State Forestry Administration also led the breakout session on wildlife trafficking during the eighth round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing. In December 2016, China announced that it would implement a domestic ivory ban, and in March 2017, China announced the closure of approximately one-third of the country’s licensed ivory stores and carvers.
Training programs: State’s INL works to build law enforcement capacity abroad by supporting various trainings and workshops. For example, in 2015, Thailand INL funded training in wildlife trafficking and environmental crimes for 179 participants. In 2016, ILEA Bangkok sponsored two FWS-led CWT training courses and one environmental crimes course led by officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. During our field visit to Bangkok, we observed an ILEA course on combating wildlife trafficking for law enforcement officers, which is shown in figure 7. Through the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, INL funds Border Liaison Offices in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, intended to enhance interdiction and investigation capacity at land borders to prevent illicit trafficking. At these offices, INL has supported training for officials on wildlife trafficking detection and investigations.
Outreach efforts: State has supported and implemented activities to raise awareness about wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia and China.
For example, State collaborated with USAID and the government of Vietnam to implement Operation Game Change, a 2015 awareness- raising effort designed to inform the Vietnamese public about wildlife trafficking issues such as the trade in rhino horn. In 2016, for World Wildlife Day, State’s Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs published an opinion editorial for the South China Post in Hong Kong to raise awareness about the illegal trade in elephant ivory.
Four Major Initiatives Frame USAID CWT Efforts in Asia
USAID conducts a range of CWT activities that are part of biodiversity, conservation, or other initiatives, but it has four major initiatives explicitly dedicated to CWT in Asia.
Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking: ARREST was a multiyear program completed in 2016. The program was designed to curb wildlife trafficking by reducing consumer demand, strengthening law enforcement capacity, and boosting regional learning networks. As part of ARREST’s demand reduction objective, the program implemented various awareness-raising efforts such as the iThink campaign, which developed and displayed public service announcements in airports and subways in China, Thailand, and Vietnam and on television stations in China and Vietnam. Through the initiative dubbed “Wildlife Friendly Skies,” the ARREST program raised awareness among airline and airport staff in transport hubs identified as hotspots for wildlife trafficking, which included Bangkok, Thailand; Guangzhou, China; Hanoi, Vietnam; Nairobi, Kenya; and Nanning, China. The ARREST program also held various courses aimed at strengthening capacity across Asia. For example, the program held 14 courses for 195 trainees who were from Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand, and Vietnam to train participants on completing wildlife crime investigations.
Saving Species: This USAID project began in 2016 and is a 5-year, $9.9 million effort to combat wildlife trafficking in Vietnam. The project specifically aims to reduce consumer demand for and consumption of illegal wildlife and wildlife products, strengthen wildlife law enforcement and prosecution, and improve and harmonize the legal framework for prosecuting wildlife crimes in Vietnam. Some of the project’s planned activities for the first year include market surveys focused on demand for wildlife such as elephant ivory, rhinos, pangolins, and tigers. The project plans to use the survey results to inform its awareness campaign messaging. The project also plans to conduct capacity assessments of enforcement agencies in Vietnam to inform development of targeted training curricula, modules, and materials.
Wildlife Asia: This USAID activity, in collaboration with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, aims to reduce the demand for wildlife products and to improve regional action to end wildlife crime in Southeast Asia and China. As of August 2016, USAID has issued one contract, with an estimated value of $22.9 million, to implement this activity.
Protect Wildlife: This USAID project began in 2016 and is a 5-year, $24.5 million effort to reduce threats to biodiversity in the Philippines such as poaching and the illegal trade of wildlife and wildlife products as well as to sustain healthy ecosystems. USAID is working with public and private partners in the Philippines to strengthen conservation policies and improve habitat management and on-site and off-site enforcement systems.
USAID also conducts biodiversity and conservation initiatives that have CWT-related objectives but are not dedicated solely to CWT. For example, USAID implemented the Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries project in the Philippines, designed to conserve marine biodiversity, enhance ecosystem productivity, and improve law enforcement at fisheries to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
Other Agencies Also Contribute to CWT
DOJ, NOAA, and Homeland Security also support efforts to combat wildlife trafficking in the United States and Asia. DOJ prosecutes criminals and publicizes through press releases the results of criminal convictions to encourage public awareness of this issue. DOJ also has participated in capacity-building workshops in Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam and CWT events such as the 2016 Hanoi Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade and the annual U.S.–China Joint Liaison Group on law enforcement, in which DOJ, State’s INL, and other agencies participate in the Anti- smuggling Working Group. According to DOJ officials, DOJ also regularly advocates the use of the United Nations Transnational Organized Crime Convention as a legal basis for international cooperation to combat wildlife trafficking.
Domestically, NOAA inspects and seizes shipments at U.S. ports, investigates cases of wildlife trafficking, and raises awareness about wildlife crimes. NOAA has a liaison at Homeland Security’s CTAC and, according to NOAA officials, the CTAC has allowed NOAA to more proactively target shipments and improve coordination with FWS and CBP through daily interaction and more information sharing. As part of their efforts to raise awareness about wildlife trafficking, NOAA also works with DOJ, FWS, and State’s Bureau of Public Affairs to publicly report information on and raise awareness about law enforcement efforts such as seizures. Internationally, NOAA provides technical assistance, conducts capacity-building, and serves as a resource in international policy discussions. For example, in collaboration with USAID, an analysis unit from NOAA assisted the Philippines in developing an intelligence assessment of illegal trade and trafficking in marine species. In November 2015, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement officers participated in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Trade and Environmental Dialogue in Malaysia, providing presentations on illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and ways to combat the trade in IUU fish and fish products.
DHS’s CBP supports and coordinates with FWS and NOAA to interdict illegal wildlife shipments at U.S. ports. ICE HSI investigates wildlife crime in the United States, and in Asia it supports foreign government CWT efforts through capacity building and information sharing. For example, in Vietnam, ICE HSI regularly shares information on wildlife seizures with the host government to support investigations. In 2015, in Thailand, ICE HSI conducted a 5-day workshop on advanced wildlife trafficking investigations for officials across the government.
Disagreement on Roles and Responsibilities Hindered Some CWT Activities in Southeast Asia
Although agencies have worked together to combat wildlife trafficking, disagreement on roles and responsibilities has hindered some CWT activities in Southeast Asia, according to some officials. In prior work, we defined collaboration broadly as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the organizations act alone. We also identified practices that can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, including establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, defining and articulating a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities.
We found that agencies applied some collaboration mechanisms but also have an opportunity to improve on agreeing on roles and responsibilities. For example, the White House established a joint strategy, the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, in 2014. The strategy lays out guiding principles and strategic priorities for U.S. efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife. In Southeast Asia, the U.S. embassy in Malaysia’s Integrated Country Strategy articulates mission goals and objectives for a coordinated effort among all U.S. agencies and includes prevention of illegal wildlife trafficking as a key activity, according to officials. In addition, U.S. missions in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Laos, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam are developing CWT-specific country strategies, according to officials.
Agencies also defined and articulated a common outcome, outlined in the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan). The Implementation Plan states that success relies on agencies working in concert to carry out the objectives, which include strengthening enforcement, reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife, and building international cooperation. Under three strategic priorities, the Implementation Plan identifies 24 objectives and ways to measure progress for each. In Southeast Asia, State and USAID officials told us that they work toward those shared outcomes. In particular, they stated that to achieve the shared outcome of reducing demand for wildlife products, they cooperated on raising public awareness. For example, State collaborated with USAID in Vietnam to implement Operation Game Change, a 2015 awareness-raising effort designed to inform the Vietnamese public about wildlife trafficking issues. In addition, to achieve the common outcome of strengthening law enforcement capacity, USAID is partnering with State, FWS, and DHS and other nongovernmental actors to implement the Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species program, which aims to increase enforcement capacity at ports of entry in Vietnam and other countries.
The Implementation Plan designates various U.S. agencies to lead or participate in achieving CWT strategic priorities, so it provides high-level direction on agency roles. However, the Implementation Plan does not define specific roles and responsibilities at the working level for mission staff implementing programs and activities. Officials at some missions reported that agreement on roles, responsibilities, and priorities facilitated collaboration on CWT activities in some instances. For example, an FWS attaché in the region told us that there has been effective collaboration between FWS, State, and ICE HSI due to agreement on roles and a shared understanding of key law enforcement terms and responsibilities. In Thailand, FWS and ICE HSI officials told us that they share information on cases, and FWS and State officials indicated that they have jointly conducted a variety of capacity-building activities across the region. State officials at ILEA in Bangkok attributed their successful regional collaboration with FWS to a mutual understanding that CWT capacity building is a responsibility that should be prioritized. State officials in Cambodia indicated that their Embassy CWT Interagency Working Group has been a forum for discussion among agencies in Cambodia to collaborate on CWT roles and activities. The working group has a designated lead agency and provides a forum to prevent or resolve potential differences in points of view among the agencies.
However, some officials also reported instances of disagreement on roles and responsibilities that they said led to bad outcomes. For example, at the mission in Bangkok, Thailand, which coordinates CWT activities across the Southeast Asia region, agencies’ disagreements on roles and responsibilities have resulted in the delivery of inappropriate training activities and interference with U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign government, according to some officials. Specifically, FWS, State, and ICE HSI have disagreed with USAID on the roles and responsibilities that USAID implementing partners play with regard to law enforcement activities. USAID officials stated that they entrust their implementing partners to conduct law enforcement training and believe they sufficiently involve their U.S. agency counterparts. However, FWS, State, and ICE HSI officials believe that due to their law enforcement responsibilities specifically related to strengthening host countries’ antiwildlife trafficking enforcement efforts, they should be consulted and involved to a greater degree on activities directly related to such efforts.
In Thailand, a USAID implementing partner’s lack of collaboration with U.S. law enforcement entities resulted in inappropriate training activities, according to some officials. Officials from FWS, ICE HSI, and an NGO told us that a CWT course conducted by a USAID implementing partner in Thailand was inappropriate due to a focus on ambush and military tactics, which are not suitable for the park rangers that received the training. In addition, another training course conducted in Thailand was not tailored for that country’s landscape, according to a U.S. official, who explained that the Thai officers receiving the training would be unable to apply its lessons locally due to differences in terrain. FWS and ICE HSI officials stated that they were not sufficiently consulted prior to the training and, although they have provided feedback to USAID about these issues, they expressed concern that USAID had not fully considered the feedback. USAID officials indicated that training on ambush or military tactics would not have been allowed, and they have no evidence it occurred. USAID officials also stated that they were unaware of training that was not properly tailored and that host countries generally praised training that was provided by its implementing partner.
FWS and State officials in Thailand also told us that agencies’ and implementing partners’ efforts to share information on wildlife crime with foreign governments have been fragmented due to disagreements about roles. For example, USAID’s implementing partners and FWS separately approached foreign government entities to provide information or support during a recent law enforcement seizure of wildlife products. According to State and FWS officials in Thailand, while USAID’s implementing partner has a role in providing information that can support CWT activities, U.S. agencies in-country are responsible for official engagement on law enforcement matters and, therefore, should take the lead in communicating with host governments, particularly in criminal investigations.
According to USAID officials, USAID and its implementing partners share this responsibility and have a role to play. USAID officials told us that they were aware of the difference in views and acknowledged that there may have been instances in which an implementing partner overstepped. USAID officials further explained that they have made an effort to address this particular issue by changing its implementing partner as well as changing their CWT program structure from a cooperative agreement to a contract so that USAID has more oversight and control. The new implementing partner also brought in a law enforcement expert to help ensure that training and related activities will be appropriate, according to USAID officials. In addition, the new USAID program specifies that coordination with other agencies is required, and USAID conducted a regional workshop in March 2017 to serve as a mechanism for coordination.
However, even after this conference, officials indicated that some agencies still had not agreed on the appropriate balance for how implementing partners should collaborate with U.S. law enforcement on criminal investigations. According to State and FWS officials, differences in agency views of their roles have hindered U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign government and confuse foreign government officials who may not realize that an implementing partner is not a U.S. government agency and thus does not have the same authority. USAID officials indicated that they were unaware of instances where its implementing partner interfered with U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign government.
Our work has shown that although collaborative mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain key features, including clarity of roles and responsibilities. For example, our work also notes that agreement on roles and responsibilities helped agencies determine who will lead a collaborative effort, clarify who will perform specific tasks, organize joint and individual efforts, and facilitate decision making. In addition, we have previously reported that key issues agencies should consider whether participating agencies have clarified the roles and responsibilities of participants in collaborative efforts and whether participating agencies have agreed to a process for making and enforcing decisions. Some U.S. missions in Southeast Asia are developing CWT- specific country strategies, which could provide a platform for the Task Force to give additional guidance on roles and responsibilities of mission staff engaged in CWT efforts in the region. Doing so would help clarify which agency will do what and facilitate maximum use of resources.
FWS, State, and USAID Have Taken Steps to Assess CWT Activities
FWS, State, and USAID Monitor CWT Activities
FWS uses a range of measures to track the progress of its partners and grantees. For example, FWS has established standard indicators for CWT, which include the following: the number of arrests of large-scale wildlife traffickers resulting from a project’s investigations, operations support, or both; and the number of wildlife traffickers who have been arrested who are successfully prosecuted.
Specifically for public relations efforts, the guidance calls for applicants to identify the desired behavior that the campaign is intended to encourage. In addition, FWS required 2017 CWT project proposals to identify all expected outputs or products of key project activities. This may include management plans, brochures, posters, training manuals, number of people trained, workshops held, hours of training provided, and equipment purchased.
One FWS-funded program designed to counter pangolin trafficking to China by laying the foundations for reducing consumer demand provides an illustrative example of how it applied FWS monitoring guidance. Among other activities, the program proposed developing and piloting strategies to change behavior, with the goal of eliminating the market for illegally traded wildlife in key areas. The proposal identifies outputs, such as reports on consumer demand, and states that key components of developing a demand reduction strategy include identification of target audiences and the specific behaviors that the campaign aims to change. Quarterly reports as of April 2017 have described progress toward goals, outlining methodological details on how motivation and potential barriers for desired behavior will be measured. The program is scheduled to conclude in September 2017.
The FWS Office of Law Enforcement Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020 identifies a set of CWT-related metrics for CWT, such as interdictions, penalties, fines, and value of illegal activities. FWS reports this information publicly. For example, Operation Crash, an ongoing nationwide criminal investigation led by FWS that focuses on the illegal trade in rhinoceros horn and elephant ivory, has resulted in 32 individuals sentenced and approximately 34 years of total prison sentences, $2 million in fines, and $6 million in forfeitures as of February 2017.
Regarding U.S.-based partnerships, FWS monitored the U.S. Illegal Wildlife Demand Reduction Campaign by tracking the estimated number of people who see the ads (reach) and the number of times content is displayed (impressions). From launch through the middle of the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, FWS reported the following:
Billboards: Monthly, about 5 million travelers are estimated to pass by the airport billboards at the international airports of Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Miami, Florida. To date, an estimated total of about 45 million travelers have passed through these airports and may have seen the messages.
Social media: On September 7, 2016, FWS and its implementing partner, WildAid, launched the campaign with joint press conferences held at the Atlanta International Airport and at the Los Angeles International Airport. This resulted in more than 1 million impressions on Twitter, engagement of more than 236,000 friends on Facebook, and 5,000 new followers on Instagram.
In addition, at the beginning of the campaign, WildAid completed a public survey to assess what percentage of the U.S. general public was aware of wildlife trafficking. At the conclusion of the 3-year campaign, WildAid intends to facilitate another public survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign, with results expected in late 2018.
State
INL’s Guide to Developing a Performance Measurement Plan states that program teams are to monitor project activities and results in order to identify project successes and challenges, guide resource allocations, and facilitate improved performance. According to a State official, INL requires every CWT program implementer to provide quarterly progress and financial reports and final programmatic and financial reports. Quarterly reports must provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of work performed and include, among other things, results achieved, challenges encountered, and action taken. At the end of a program, INL extracts best practices and lessons learned for future planning, according to a State official.
We examined monitoring documentation related to three INL CWT programs as illustrative examples, described below.
From February to March 2016, State’s ILEA in Thailand provided a Wildlife Trafficking Investigators course designed to cover a range of topics, including case management, corruption, and wildlife identification. The report covering the first quarter of calendar year 2016 for this program describes progress made toward objectives and identifies challenges and corrective action. For example, the report states that students participated in crime scene processing, surveillance, undercover operations, interviewing, raid planning, and case presentation exercises – all reflective of a specific performance measurement objective. The report also identifies challenges such as securing role players for exercises and proposes using FWS instructors and ILEA staff as a solution.
State provided an approximately $2 million grant, running from September 2015 to September 2017, to the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) aimed at strengthening the capacity of government and law enforcement officials on wildlife trafficking across key countries in Latin America and Asia. The report covering the first quarter of calendar year 2017 for this program describes progress and activities related to objectives. For example, one activity is intended to strengthen legislative frameworks to combat wildlife trafficking, and the report states that in Vietnam, WCS has been providing inputs to articles of the penal code relevant to wildlife protection.
State provided approximately $400,000 to UNODC and the University of Washington for a program running from September 2015 to September 2017 to facilitate forensic DNA analysis of ivory seizures in Africa and Asia. The most recent quarterly report for the program provides information on results associated with objectives. For example, one objective is to conduct DNA analysis on 175 African elephant reference samples, and the report indicates that over 100 samples had been analyzed from countries in Africa.
USAID’s Evaluation Policy states that performance monitoring reveals whether implementation is on track and that project managers will ensure that implementing partners collect relevant monitoring data. To monitor ARREST, USAID’s implementing partner collected and self-reported data on activities and progress against main goals. For example, the implementing partner reported in 2016 that to strengthen law enforcement, ARREST trained approximately 2,300 people. To reduce consumption of endangered species, ARREST’s iThink campaign at its peak reached more than 40 million people per day, according to the partner’s report. In addition, a contractor analyzed ARREST’s iThink demand reduction campaign results. According to its report, 62 percent of the audience in China had received the message after 6 months. In Thailand, 63 percent of the audience had received the message, while in Vietnam, 75 percent of the audience had received the message. The report also provided suggestions for future work based on lessons learned, such as segmenting the market, incorporating social norms, and increasing the emphasis on social media.
USAID designed monitoring elements into and developed plans for its recently initiated programs in Southeast Asia. For example, USAID’s request for proposal (RFP) for Saving Species Vietnam, issued in January 2016 prior to the contract award, identifies key results and illustrative indicators for the main tasks. Specifically, the RFP suggests metrics for reducing consumer demand, such as percentage of target audience that receives the intended message and percentage change in purchases of targeted illegal wildlife products. In addition, the RFP calls for quarterly reports that must include, among other things, performance indicator results against targets. USAID’s RFP for Wildlife Asia also designed monitoring into the program from the start by including similar elements.
In May 2017, USAID produced an Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan for Saving Species (MEL Plan), which includes a Results Framework that identifies the purpose of the program and details associated tasks and key results. According to the MEL Plan, the Results Framework was developed based on a range of inputs, including USAID’s Measuring Efforts to Combating Wildlife Crime – A Toolkit for Improving Action and Accountability. The MEL Plan also provides a mix of output and outcome performance indicators with baselines and targets, to be used for communication and decision making. In addition, the MEL Plan calls for Pause and Reflect Sessions, Annual Strategic Reviews, work planning sessions, and other key learning events to reflect on progress and use that knowledge to adapt accordingly. In May 2017, USAID also produced a draft MEL Plan for Wildlife Asia, which provides performance indicators with baselines and targets. In addition, the April 2017 draft MEL Plan for the Philippines Protect Wildlife program contains similar information and, according to USAID officials, the MEL Plan used the action and accountability toolkit to inform the development of CWT metrics.
One Evaluation of CWT Activities Has Been Conducted by USAID
One USAID CWT program in Asia conducted a midterm evaluation, but State and FWS have not conducted any evaluations. State has not conducted any evaluations of INL CWT activities because none meet State’s criteria for completing an evaluation, including funding and duration thresholds, according to a State official. FWS has not conducted any evaluations of its CWT activities in Asia but has established a new CWT-focused branch, which is developing a strategic plan, a framework, and indicators to measure progress and success for CWT efforts. In March 2016, the Task Force released an annual progress report that describes U.S. government accomplishments; however, according to an official, the Task Force does not plan to issue a progress report in 2017 due to vacancies in leadership and because agencies are working on a similar report planned for completion sometime in 2017, in response to the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016.
USAID’s Evaluation Policy states that for each project, consideration will be given during the design phase to the performance evaluation that will be undertaken. The ARREST program conducted a midterm evaluation, and we assessed it against key elements to determine the quality of the evaluation. We have previously reported that addressing or requiring certain elements provides the basis for a high-quality evaluation. For this analysis, we considered a range of criteria, including the following:
Evaluation questions align with program goals.
Target population and sampling method are appropriate, given the scope and nature of the evaluation questions.
Data collection is appropriate for answering the evaluation questions.
Data analysis is appropriate to answer the evaluation questions.
We found that overall, the midterm evaluation was acceptable in quality, although it fell short of fully addressing all the key elements. For example, the evaluation generally met the first two elements above. However, the evaluation only partially met the element for data collection and data analysis. For example, the evaluation did not clearly specify how survey recipients had been selected and did not provide precise details about how qualitative data from in-person interviews had been analyzed. USAID did not conduct a final evaluation of ARREST because, according to officials, the timing of a late midterm evaluation was such that its findings were used in the development of the new Wildlife Asia program, and it would not have been cost-effective to conduct a final evaluation, among other reasons.
The draft Wildlife Asia MEL Plan identifies plans to prepare for a midterm and final performance evaluation at the middle and end of the program time line, and USAID officials confirmed that they intend to conduct evaluations of the program. The Saving Species MEL Plan indicates that program officials will work in collaboration with USAID to conduct a midterm evaluation and that one objective will be to provide recommendations in order to improve effectiveness and evaluate factors that help or hinder the achievement of expected outcomes and objectives. The MEL Plan also calls for a third-party firm, identified by USAID through a competitive process, to conduct the evaluation in the third year of the program. The draft Philippines Protect Wildlife MEL Plan indicates that the program will conduct a midterm and final evaluation.
FWS, State, and USAID Have Identified and Applied Some Lessons Learned
FWS, State, and USAID guidance states that agencies should learn from monitoring and evaluation efforts so they can identify what works, what does not work, and why. For example, from monitoring the first year of implementation, FWS learned from its domestic campaign that most Americans consider themselves wildlife lovers, but most know little about wildlife trafficking, indicating the need for outreach and education efforts.
State officials told us that they took stock of regional CWT activities in Asia to improve program planning. As a result, before launching the next set of CWT courses, INL is conducting a needs assessment to clarify skill gaps, impact potential, and alignment with other activities. In addition, INL is examining approaches to strengthen sustainability such as adding train-the-trainer courses.
USAID and implementing partner officials told us that they learned lessons during the implementation of ARREST and applied or plan to apply them to new programs. For example, in response to ARREST’s midterm evaluation recommendation to focus demand reduction efforts increasingly on behavior change communication, officials stated that they adjusted the message of their campaign advertisements to target behavior change and worked to recruit a range of key opinion leaders to maximize reach and impact. USAID intends to carry this lesson over to its new regional program, according to 2016 plans that call for the use of behavior change communication methodologies, as opposed to one-off public relations campaigns, in demand reduction activities. Officials told us that in practice this means future campaigns will focus on specific species, such as pangolins, and target Chinese and Vietnamese consumers who believe pangolin scales can help with lactation. USAID’s implementing partner for Saving Species also identified possible ways to improve the impact and sustainability of CWT training. For example, instead of providing traditional, onetime classroom training, officials plan to establish mentoring and on-the-job training programs in which officials in similar roles teach one another. This facilitates learning and may help identify CWT champions, enhancing sustainability and effectiveness, according to program officials.
Conclusions
Wildlife trafficking, worth at least an estimated $7 billion annually, continues to push some protected and endangered animal species to the brink of extinction. Although agencies have worked together to combat wildlife trafficking, as outlined in the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan, disagreement on roles and responsibilities has hindered some CWT activities in Southeast Asia. We have previously reported that key issues agencies should consider include whether participating agencies have clarified the roles and responsibilities of participants in collaborative efforts and whether participating agencies have agreed to a process for making and enforcing decisions. Agencies have collaborated on a range of CWT activities, including building law enforcement capacity, raising awareness, and helping spur partner-nation action on CWT. While agencies have applied some practices that can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, such as establishing joint strategies and defining a common outcome, some officials in Southeast Asia reported a level of disagreement on roles and responsibilities, resulting in the delivery of inappropriate training activities and in the hindering of U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign government. DOI, State, and USAID are members of the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking that is charged with coordinating among agencies combating wildlife trafficking efforts. By ensuring that all relevant member agencies have agreed on and clearly defined roles and responsibilities, agencies will have more reasonable assurance that they can effectively marshal the contributions of all agencies to take full advantage of their expertise and resources in addressing CWT issues. Taking steps to clarify specific roles and responsibilities, for example by including them in a CWT country strategy or other document, could help improve coordination, help ensure activities are mutually reinforcing, reduce the risk of fragmented efforts, and maximize the impact of CWT activities in Southeast Asia.
Recommendations for Executive Action
GAO is making the following three recommendations:
The Secretary of the Interior should work with the Task Force to clarify roles and responsibilities of mission staff engaged in collaborative efforts on combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of State should work with the Task Force to clarify roles and responsibilities of mission staff engaged in collaborative efforts on combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. (Recommendation 2)
The Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development should work with the Task Force to clarify roles and responsibilities of mission staff engaged in collaborative efforts on combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. (Recommendation 3)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, the Interior, Justice, State, and the Treasury, and USAID. The Departments of the Interior and State and USAID agreed with our recommendations, and their comments are reproduced in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively. The Departments of Commerce, the Interior, Justice, and State and USAID provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
In its comments, USAID indicated that it objects to the phrase “bad outcomes”, the word “inappropriate,” and the description related to an implementing partner that may have “overstepped” as used in our discussion of agency collaboration. We attribute that language specifically to certain agency officials, acknowledge differences in agency views, and include perspectives from USAID officials for balance.
In its comments, DOI notes that that the content in the report that most directly substantiates the recommendations occasionally reads as disagreements involving a few specific activities among a small number of U. S. government personnel. Our findings focus on a limited set of people and activities but reflect a clear opportunity to clarify roles and responsibilities. Moreover, as we mention, the mission in Bangkok coordinates CWT activities across the Southeast Asia region, so efforts to improve collaboration potentially would have a broad effect and benefit.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Secretaries of Commerce, Homeland Security, the Interior, State, and the Treasury; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrator of USAID. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8612, or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and of Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This report examines (1) what is known about the demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products in the United States and in Asia, (2) actions agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products in the United States and Asia, and (3) the extent to which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Department of State (State), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are assessing the effectiveness of their combating wildlife trafficking (CWT) activities.
We limited the scope of this review to the United States and Asia— identified as major markets for the illegal wildlife demand—to complement our 2016 report and to provide geographical diversity in our work. We selected these geographic areas based on our review of reports on demand for illegally traded wildlife and discussions with U.S. government agencies.
To address our objectives, we analyzed agency documentation and met with officials from DOI, State, USAID, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which have designated roles in the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan to lead or participate in efforts to reduce illegal wildlife demand; the Department of Homeland Security, which has a role in enforcement and capacity-building efforts; and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that focus on combating wildlife trafficking. We conducted fieldwork in Miami, Florida; China; Hong Kong; Thailand; and Vietnam. We selected these locations using a combination of criteria: (1) Since fiscal year 2014, the location has received at least $1 million in U.S. government funding for efforts related to CWT; (2) CWT activities are under way in the location; and (3) the location has the presence of at least two U.S. government agencies conducting CWT work. This sample is not generalizable to all the locations in which the United States has CWT-related programs.
While in each location in Asia, we interviewed officials who played a role in CWT activities, which included officials from State, USAID, and the Departments of Homeland Security and the Interior. We also interviewed officials from host governments responsible for the management of natural resources and parks and representatives from NGOs, some of which were involved in implementing U.S. government programs related to awareness raising, law enforcement, and other CWT objectives.
To describe what is known about the demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products in the United States and in Asia, we reviewed reports on wildlife trafficking produced by United Nations organizations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and NGOs about the demand for these products in our locations of interest. We also reviewed surveys conducted for programs partially or fully funded by U.S. agencies that asked questions about purchasing behaviors for these products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and Thailand. These reports were either recommended to us by officials we interviewed or had been identified during our prior work on the supply of wildlife products. We reviewed the methodologies described in the reports and surveys and determined they were sufficiently reasonable for providing examples of wildlife and wildlife products traded and consumed and drivers for consumption in China and countries in Southeast Asia. However, it was beyond the scope of this review to determine the reliability of the underlying data. Many of these reports depend heavily on seizure data, which have limitations. The amount and location of seizures depend on law enforcement efforts, efficacy of law enforcement efforts, presence of illicit trade, and other factors, which are difficult to isolate.
Additionally, we analyzed national seizure data from the FWS’s Law Enforcement Management Information System to report on wildlife confiscated in the United States. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed agency officials, reviewed documentation about the data, and conducted basic logical tests. We reviewed the 42,100 seizure records that FWS provided for logical consistency and removed a few hundred records for which we found duplicative, unknown, or blank values. Overall, we determined the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of identifying wildlife products seized between fiscal years 2007 and 2016. Data on seizures may not be indicative of underlying trends in trade and consumption, as they are dependent upon factors such as enforcement and techniques used by those importing the goods. To gather perspectives on demand for illegally traded wildlife in China and Southeast Asia, during our field visits to China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Vietnam, we interviewed officials from DOI, State, USAID, the Department of Homeland Security, and officials at foreign ministries, NGOs that are implementing partners for U.S. agencies or have cooperated with U.S. agencies on CWT activities, and one company. We interviewed the company for illustrative purposes.
To examine actions agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products in the United States and Asia, we interviewed relevant officials and reviewed information, including agency and implementing partner documentation of CWT-related projects, programs, and grants. We also analyzed how agencies combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia are applying selected practices that can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts. As we have previously reported, such practices include establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, defining and articulating a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. In addition, we conducted fieldwork at the Port of Miami and interviewed U.S. government officials at this location to obtain insights on U.S. government activities. We selected the Port of Miami because it has been the site of large-scale CWT operations, and agency officials identified Miami as a hub for wildlife trade and an illustrative example of U.S. government CWT operations. We also conducted fieldwork in China and Vietnam, where we visited rescue centers and interviewed host government officials and NGO representatives.
To examine the extent to which FWS, State, and USAID are assessing the effectiveness of their CWT activities, we selected programs to analyze, spoke with agency officials, and reviewed documentation from the programs selected. We included programs that had started, finished, or been ongoing from the beginning of fiscal year 2015 to the end of fiscal year 2016 and that are or were solely dedicated to CWT. Specifically for State, programs must have been identified by its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs as a discrete activity that contributed to CWT and must have been at least 3 months into implementation. Specifically for USAID, programs must have (or have had) funding greater than $1 million. To assess agency monitoring practices, we analyzed agency guidance on monitoring and examined selected programs as illustrative examples of how agencies applied their own guidance. To assess evaluation practices, we assessed a USAID midterm evaluation against key elements to determine quality. Two social science analysts independently assessed this evaluation using the same criteria, methods, and procedures that we developed for GAO-17-316. The analysts met and reconciled any initial differences in their assessments.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to October 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Photographs Related to Combating Wildlife Trafficking in the United States and Asia
The following photographs (see fig. 8-26) were taken by GAO staff during field visits to Miami, Florida; Beijing, China; Hong Kong; Bangkok, Thailand; and Hanoi, Vietnam. GAO observed and photographed the following: shipment inspections conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inspectors at the Port of Miami; examples of wildlife that are traded in the United States; examples of wildlife and wildlife products that have been seized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; examples of wildlife and wildlife products that have been seized in antiwildlife trafficking awareness campaigns at the Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport; Beijing Capital International Airport; Hong Kong International Airport; Suvarnabhumi Airport, Bangkok, Thailand; Chatuchak Market in Bangkok, Thailand; and a highway in Hanoi, Vietnam; wildlife at the Beijing Rescue and Rehabilitation Center; the Endangered Primate Rescue Center, Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam; and the Carnivore and Pangolin Rescue Center, Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam; and shops that sell ivory products in Hong Kong.
To view these photographs online, please click on this hyperlink.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612, or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Judith Williams (Assistant Director), Marc Castellano (Analyst-in-Charge), David Dayton, Martin De Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Mark Dowling, Michael Hoffman, and Jasmine Senior made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
Wildlife trafficking—illegal trade in wildlife—is estimated to be worth $7 billion to $23 billion annually and, according to State, continues to push some protected and endangered animal species to the brink of extinction. In 2013, President Obama issued an executive order that established an interagency Task Force charged with developing a strategy to guide U.S. efforts to combat wildlife trafficking.
GAO was asked to review U.S. agencies' CWT efforts. GAO's September 2016 report on wildlife trafficking focused on supply side activities ( GAO-16-717 ). This report focuses on demand side activities and examines, among other things, (1) what is known about the demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products in the United States and in Asia and (2) actions agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products in the United States and in Asia. GAO reviewed information from U.S. agencies and international and nongovernmental organizations and interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and Miami, Florida, and U.S. and foreign government officials in China, Thailand, and Vietnam.
What GAO Found
In the United States, China, and countries in Southeast Asia, there is diverse demand for illegally traded wildlife, according to data, reports, and various officials. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has seized a variety of wildlife at U.S. ports, such as coral for aquariums, conch meat for food, seahorses for medicinal purposes, and crocodile skin for fashion items. In China and Southeast Asian countries, reports and officials have identified seizures and consumption of illegally traded wildlife products such as rhino horn, elephant ivory, pangolins (shown below), turtles, and sharks, among others, used for purposes such as food, decoration, pets, or traditional medicine.
U.S. agencies are taking actions designed to reduce demand for illegal wildlife, including building law enforcement capacity and raising awareness, but disagreement on roles and responsibilities has hindered some combating wildlife trafficking (CWT) activities in Southeast Asia. FWS inspects shipments in the United States and facilitates law enforcement capacity building with partner nations overseas. The Department of State (State) conducts diplomatic efforts, some of which contributed to a joint announcement by China and the United States to implement restrictions on both countries' domestic ivory trade. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) works with local organizations abroad to support programs intended to reduce wildlife demand, strengthen regional cooperation, and increase law enforcement capacity. Several other agencies also contribute expertise or resources to support various demand reduction activities. Certain practices can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, such as establishing joint strategies, defining a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. GAO found that agencies applied the first two practices but could improve with regard to agreement on roles and responsibilities in Southeast Asia. For example, although the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan designates various Task Force agencies to lead or participate in achieving CWT strategic priorities, it does not define specific roles and responsibilities at the working level. Agencies have different views on roles and responsibilities in Southeast Asia. According to some officials, this disagreement resulted in inappropriate training activities and hindered U.S. cooperation with a host nation. More clearly defining roles and responsibilities would enhance agency collaboration.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that Interior, State, and USAID work to clarify roles and responsibilities for staff collaborating on combating wildlife trafficking efforts in Southeast Asia. Agencies agreed with GAO's recommendations. | 96 | 66,219 | 66,221 | 66,221 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
gao_GAO-18-403 | gao_GAO-18-403_0 | You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.
Report:
Background
Civil aviation in the United States can be generally divided into two broad categories—general aviation and commercial aviation. All civilian pilot students undergo their initial pilot training in the general aviation sector, which comprises all aviation activities other than military and commercial airlines. Once hired in the commercial aviation sector for businesses that carry passengers or cargo for hire or compensation, pilots may receive additional, employer-specific training.
FAA is responsible for regulating the safety of civil aviation in the United States, including the administration of pilot certification (licensing) and conducting safety oversight of pilot training. Regulations for initial pilot training and certification are found in two parts of the Federal Aviation Regulations—pilot training requirements and requirements for obtaining a pilot school certificate.
Pilot training requirements: These regulations prescribe the minimum training, knowledge, and experience requirements for acquiring a private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate, and for becoming a certificated flight instructor (CFI). Individual flight instructors can provide pilot training to individuals under these regulations and the training is not subject to direct FAA oversight beyond the initial flight instructor certification and subsequent renewal.
Requirements for obtaining a pilot school certificate: These regulations prescribe requirements pilot schools must meet to obtain an FAA certificate and the general operating rules applicable to a school’s holding a certificate. FAA-certificated schools are required to meet prescribed standards with respect to training equipment, facilities, student records, personnel, and curriculum. Schools’ pilot program curriculum can vary in content, but FAA provides core training guidelines that schools must follow to receive a certificate. To ensure safety, FAA requires its inspectors to conduct on-site inspections of each FAA-certificated school at least once a year, focusing on pilot school operations and training aircrafts’ airworthiness.
Schools that provide initial pilot training generally fall into three categories: (1) collegiate aviation schools, (2) non-collegiate vocational pilot schools, and (3) non-collegiate, instructor-based pilot schools. Collegiate aviation schools that provide initial pilot training typically offer a 2- or 4- year undergraduate degree in an aviation-based major along with the pilot certificates and ratings necessary to become a commercial pilot. All pilot schools must comply with FAA’s pilot training requirements, but some may elect to become FAA-certificated as well. Instructor-based schools offer flexible training environments where the training sequence can be altered to meet specific students’ needs and time commitments. Upon completion of the training, the students can obtain pilot certificates for which they were trained, as long as they pass FAA’s tests. FAA-certificated vocational schools do not allow flexible training environments as the training sequence outlined in the curriculum cannot be altered. FAA requires annual inspections of these schools, unlike flight instructor- based schools.
As we have previously reported, it takes years of training to meet FAA’s certification and aeronautical experience qualifications to become an airline pilot. Once cleared by a medical examination, an individual may obtain a medical certificate and a student pilot certificate from FAA. Pilot students may then begin training, acquiring the knowledge and flight training to obtain a private pilot certificate, instrument rating, commercial pilot certificate, and multi-engine rating (see fig. 1).
To be eligible for hire as either a captain or first officer for an airline, individuals must also obtain an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate in addition to the other certificates and ratings. In July 2013, FAA began requiring all first officers to have an ATP certificate, which requires 1,500 hours of flight experience. Pilots with fewer than 1,500 hours can obtain a “restricted-privileges” ATP certificate (R-ATP), under which specific academic training courses can count toward the required hours of total flight time. FAA made this change for airline first officers following the 2009 Colgan Air Inc. crash in New York, and subsequent legislation that required FAA to modify, among other things, first officer qualifications. In our 2014 report, FAA and industry stakeholders estimated that it could take an additional 1 to 2 years for pilots coming out of school to meet the 1,500 hour requirement.
Consistent with airline representatives’ views from our prior report, regional airline association representatives have recently cited the revised first officer training requirements and several other factors as contributing to a tight pilot labor market. By increasing the minimum number of required flight hours for a first officer, entry into the airline pilot profession may take longer, which may decrease the pool of eligible pilots that mainline and regional airlines can hire as a first officer. In addition, as we previously reported, the civil aviation industry has been a historically volatile industry because demand for air travel is sensitive to economic conditions, as well as political, international, and even health-related events. After several years of industry contraction during the 2007-2009 economic recession, demand for air travel has increased since 2012, and FAA projects continued future growth. In addition, since 2014, pilot retirements have been increasing, further tightening the labor market, according to one study. That study forecasts between 2,000 and 3,000 annual mandatory age retirements from the mainline airlines between 2018 and 2021. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most of the newly hired pilots in the next 10 years will be replacing retiring pilots.
While Some Information on Collegiate Aviation Schools’ Pilot Degree Programs Is Available, Enrollment and Graduation Data are Limited
Collegiate Aviation Schools Are Located across the Country and Offer Different Types of Pilot Degree Programs
We identified 147 U.S. colleges and universities that offered at least one professional pilot degree program in academic year 2015-2016. These collegiate aviation schools are located throughout the country, as shown in figure 2. They may offer pilot programs within different academic departments, such as aviation or business. Within a department, pilot programs may be offered as a stand-alone program, as an integral part of a larger major, such as flight education or aviation management, or as a specialty or track within a major.
Professional pilot degree programs at collegiate aviation schools may vary in several ways:
School type: About three-quarters of collegiate aviation schools are public (110 out of 145), while the remainder are either private non- profits or private for-profits, according to Education’s data (see fig. 3).
Program degree length: A majority of collegiate aviation schools offer 4-year degree programs, as shown in figure 3. Program degree length may affect how long it takes pilot students to meet FAA’s requirements and their career options once they complete training. For example, pilot students in 2-year degree programs may complete the program and acquire a commercial pilot certificate and ratings in less time than the 4-year degree program, which may save the students time and money. However, according to associations representing pilot training providers and pilots, mainline airlines prefer pilots with a 4-year degree. In addition, representatives from one mainline airline told us that the airline requires a 4-year degree for employment as a pilot. Regardless of which school and degree program a pilot student graduates from, all pilot students must pass the same knowledge and flight tests to obtain pilot certificates and are, by FAA’s standards, eligible for the same career opportunities.
FAA Regulations and academic curriculum: Forty-six collegiate aviation schools we identified operate their pilot programs solely under FAA’s pilot training requirements. The remaining 101 collegiate aviation schools’ pilot programs are certificated by FAA under FAA’s pilot school requirements. As previously discussed, FAA-certificated schools must meet prescribed standards, have structured programs, and FAA must approve their pilot program’s curriculum. In addition, each pilot program’s academic curriculum may differ, though all must meet FAA’s pilot training requirements and, if the school is certificated, FAA’s pilot school requirements.
R-ATP authorization: Only FAA-certificated collegiate aviation schools may apply to FAA for authority to certify eligible graduates for an R- ATP certificate with a reduced number of flight hours. Since FAA promulgated the new first officer qualification rule and established the R-ATP certificate in 2013, FAA has issued R-ATP authorizations to more schools each year. As of August 22, 2017, 86 collegiate aviation schools hold R-ATP authorizations. In addition, the number of R-ATP certificates FAA has issued to eligible graduates each year has steadily increased, from 37 in 2013 to 2,190 in 2016. The number of R-ATP certificates issued in 2016 represented about 18 percent of all ATP certificates. The reduced flight-hour eligibility may save students time and money on their path to becoming a professional pilot, depending on how they gain flight experience, which may motivate more students to consider attending collegiate aviation schools that are authorized for R-ATP certificates, compared to other training alternatives.
Aviation Accreditation Board International accreditation: Schools’ professional pilot programs may choose to pursue program accreditation in addition to the school’s institutional accreditation. Thirty-two collegiate aviation schools we identified have pilot programs accredited by the Aviation Accreditation Board International and an additional 4 schools have pilot programs that are candidates for accreditation, as of December 27, 2017.
The collegiate aviation schools we identified require that students complete training that includes both classroom (ground) and flight training. Ground school aims to provide students with the required aeronautical knowledge and cognitive skills necessary to perform the tasks required to become a pilot. Flight training focuses on teaching how to manipulate the controls of and safely operate an airplane. Most schools (89 of 147) conduct their own flight training using university-owned or – leased aircraft and university employed CFIs (in-house flight training). The number of CFIs employed by collegiate aviation schools varies and is one of the primary determinants of a school’s enrollment capacity. The remaining 58 schools contract out their flight training to one or more pilot schools or allow students to complete their flight training at a pilot school of the student’s choosing.
Schools that provide in-house flight training operate at a relatively small number of all domestic airports, which vary greatly in size as measured by annual passenger enplanements (see fig. 4). Approximately 69 percent of these schools operate at non-primary airports—those with fewer than 10,000 passenger enplanements a year. Flight training may comprise a large proportion of an airport’s activity, particularly at smaller airports, according to representatives from seven schools and two airport authorities. The remaining 28 percent of the schools that provide in-house flight training operate at primary airports with over 10,000 passenger enplanements a year. There are advantages to operating at small and large airports. Representatives from three schools and five stakeholders representing flight training providers, airports, and pilots told us that operating out of smaller airports may be advantageous because they are less crowded, a condition that can save waiting time for take-offs and allows students to practice certain maneuvers that may be more difficult to perform at larger airports. Conversely, according to representatives from two schools, two pilot training provider associations, and one airport, operating at larger airports can be advantageous because students can learn to fly in the controlled environment that airline pilots will eventually fly in.
Pilot Student Enrollment and Graduation Data Are Limited
For several reasons, there are no comprehensive data on pilot student enrollment at collegiate aviation schools. First, because non-certificated schools are not subject to periodic FAA inspections, FAA does not collect any enrollment data for these schools. Second, enrollment data are available for only some FAA-certificated schools because reporting that data is optional for those schools during FAA’s certification and inspection process. In addition, FAA does not verify the data to determine their accuracy. As previously noted, FAA is responsible for regulating the safety of civil aviation in the United States. As such, according to FAA officials, FAA requires data collection when such a requirement serves a safety purpose, such as data required for pilot school certification and FAA oversight. FAA officials told us that other data on collegiate aviation schools, such as enrollment numbers, do not serve FAA’s primary safety purpose.
The size of collegiate aviation schools appears to vary greatly. Although voluntary, almost all FAA-certificated collegiate aviation schools submitted enrollment data to FAA. According to FAA’s data provided to us on October 5, 2017, 92 FAA-certificated schools had reported average yearly enrollment data for their pilot programs. Reported enrollment at these FAA-certificated collegiate aviation schools varied greatly—from 5 professional pilot students to 850. Despite this wide range, most (66) of these schools reported that they enrolled 100 students or less in their pilot programs. A majority (15 of 18) of representatives from selected collegiate aviation schools noted an increase in enrollment over the past 5 years.
Additionally, the data on graduations from professional pilot programs are not comprehensive. Education requires schools, including collegiate aviation schools, to report how many students they graduate annually. School officials classify and report completed degrees by program type to Education using the agency’s classification system. One of Education’s program codes—for “Airline/Commercial/Professional Pilot and Flight Crew”—appears to best capture graduates from professional pilot programs. Education’s data for professional pilot degrees awarded by collegiate aviation schools under this code totaled 1,356 in academic year 2015–2016. However, of the 147 collegiate aviation schools we identified for academic year 2015–2016, 72 reported pilot student graduates using the code. This might be because collegiate aviation schools may report their pilot student graduates under other program codes, such as “Aeronautics/Aviation/Aerospace Science and Technology, General” and “Aviation/Airway Management and Operations.” According to an Education official, while the agency expects schools to provide precise reporting of graduations from each degree program, he said it is possible that some school officials may not perceive their programs consistently with Education’s program classifications, despite specific definitions for each program category. Because pilot student graduates could be reported under a number of aviation-related program codes in Education’s system, the number of professional pilot graduates could be higher.
According to Education’s data, the number of professional pilot degrees awarded by collegiate aviation schools under the Airline/Commercial/Professional Pilot and Flight Crew code fluctuated from year to year between academic year 2010–2011 and 2015–2016. Almost half of the representatives from our selected collegiate aviation schools (8 of 18) noted increased pilot student graduations over the past 5 years. The number of these graduations could continue to increase in the next few years since, according to representatives from seven schools, student enrollment generally responds to industry need and the perception of a more stable career pathway. According to one of these representatives, graduations increase with a lag relative to the increased industry demand and student enrollment, given the time it takes to complete the degree program. Given the observations from school representatives of increasing enrollment, graduations may continue to increase as well.
Flight Instructor Turnover, Cost of Training, and Other Factors Affect Collegiate Aviation Schools’ Ability to Produce Pilots
Retaining Flight Instructors Is a Key Challenge for Collegiate Aviation Schools’ Ability to Produce Pilots
Selected school and other aviation industry representatives we spoke with generally agreed that retaining and recruiting flight instructors is one of the key challenges facing collegiate aviation schools. Representatives from nearly all (16 of 18) of the schools identified recruiting and retaining flight instructors as a great or moderate challenge and a majority stated that it was their greatest challenge affecting their ability to produce pilots (see app. I for a summary of the responses.). According to representatives from 3 aviation industry stakeholders, in the current environment some schools are unable to recruit and retain enough flight instructors to train all the pilots that they otherwise have the resources to accommodate in their pilot programs. To illustrate, representatives from 2 schools reported an inability to accept some qualified students because they did not have sufficient flight instructors.
Meanwhile, representatives from 4 other schools said they have been able to hire enough new instructors to keep up with flight instructor attrition. In addition to presenting a management challenge, instructor turnover may hinder training effectiveness. For example, one pilot association representative told us that the quality of instruction tends to be lower when students are routinely subject to new instructors since there is little instructional continuity.
Representatives of 6 of the collegiate aviation schools we interviewed said they recognize that instructor turnover is unavoidable because most pilots do not pursue flight instruction as a long-term career. Regardless, the rate of turnover in recent years has increased, according to selected school and other aviation industry representatives. As previously discussed, school representatives told us that most pilots use flight instruction as a stepping stone to accrue the required flight time to become an airline pilot, which commands a higher salary and greater prestige than flight instructor positions. Flight instructors generally seek employment with an airline as soon as they are eligible, according to most school representatives (15 of 18) and other stakeholders we spoke with. According to two aviation industry stakeholder representatives, the career progression of civilian-trained pilots from flight instructor to commercial airline pilot has typically worked in this way. However, stakeholders have stated that in recent years, airline industry growth, increasing pilot retirements, and other factors previously discussed have caused commercial airlines to accelerate pilot recruitment, ultimately causing pilots to move through the instructor ranks more quickly.
Regional airlines now hire qualified pilots as soon as they accrue the minimum hours required by FAA, according to representatives from one airline pilots association. According to one study, in the mid-2000s most of the larger regional airlines set minimum flight-hour requirements for first officer applicants of 800 to 1,000 hours, which were well above the FAA requirements at the time. Furthermore, applicants needed an even higher number of hours to be competitive for those positions prior to that time—between 1,500 and 2,000 hours, according to representatives of a pilots’ association.
Recruiting and retaining flight instructors with more advanced qualifications, such as instructors qualified to train other pilots to be flight instructors and chief instructors, can be a particular challenge for collegiate aviation schools:
Flight instructors qualified to train flight instructors: FAA requires flight instructors to have a minimum 2 years of instructor experience before they may train other pilots to obtain their CFI certificate. Representatives from almost half (8 of 18) of collegiate aviation schools reported challenges with retaining flight instructors long enough for them to meet that requirement. According to some school representatives, flight instructors typically accrue the minimum hours required to qualify for their ATP or R-ATP within 2 years or soon afterward. The resulting attrition of experienced flight instructors can therefore hamper schools’ ability to train enough pilots to become flight instructors, an ability that is crucial for turning out the next generation of instructors and pilot students.
Chief Instructors: FAA requires certificated schools to have a chief instructor who meets minimum regulatory qualifications, such as at least 2,000 hours of flight time as “pilot-in–command.” Representatives from two schools told us that because of high instructor turnover, few instructors meet these qualifications and the schools find it challenging to recruit qualified chief instructors.
Four school representatives and two other aviation stakeholders we interviewed noted that the revised first officer requirements have helped collegiate aviation schools retain flight instructors. As previously discussed, these revised requirements increased the minimum number of flight hours a pilot must have to become a first officer, so instructors continue to instruct longer than they might have otherwise. The school representatives noted that while they are still experiencing high flight instructor turnover the situation would be more challenging without the new requirements. In addition, representatives from two large collegiate aviation schools stated that when there is a high demand for pilots, they would not be able to recruit and retain any flight instructors in the absence of FAA’s first officer requirements.
As shown in table 1, several of the collegiate aviation schools we interviewed have taken some actions to address the challenge of recruiting and retaining flight instructors.
At least 6 regional airlines offer cadet programs, which may provide additional incentives for graduates to remain at their alma mater as flight instructors until they meet FAA’s first officer qualification requirements, according to school representatives we spoke to. These programs may include incentives such as bonus pay for a number of flight hours, health benefits, or tuition reimbursement. Students who sign onto the cadet programs typically accept a provisional employment offer and are expected to work for the airline upon obtaining the number of hours necessary for the ATP certificate and completing an airline’s new hire training. Representatives from two schools said that few students participated in these programs, attributing lower participation to students who may not want to commit to one airline.
In addition to actions that schools can take to retain flight instructors, school representatives suggested additional actions that would require cooperation from airlines. Representatives from one state university told us that the school negotiated an agreement with one airline to initially hire its graduates as part-time pilots, allowing the pilots to continue to work part-time as flight instructors. The school is attempting to go one step further by negotiating agreements whereby airlines will not hire its instructors until the school is ready to relinquish them. According to the school’s representatives, two regional airlines have recognized that keeping instructors at the school longer could be to their benefit, increasing the school’s capacity to produce more pilots that the airlines will then hire. Another school representative suggested that airlines might consider loaning out their pilots to instruct for schools, but a representative from an airline association said that airlines do not have extra personnel to spare. Representatives of a pilot school said they are working with airlines to change the seniority system so that pilots can get their seniority number while they are instructors, which could reduce the strong incentive to become an airline pilot as quickly as possible.
School representatives and a stakeholder described additional actions that could be taken to address this issue, including encouraging students to obtain their CFI, encouraging retired airline pilots to instruct, and raising the profile of the flight instructor profession as a possible career path. Collegiate aviation schools may require their students to obtain a CFI to graduate. Those schools that do not require a CFI may produce fewer graduates who are qualified to instruct. A representative from one school told us that it is now encouraging students to obtain their CFI as a way to increase the number of potential flight instructors. Representatives from three industry associations said the FAA should consider changing its requirement for instructors to have 2 years instructing experience before they may train other pilots to obtain their CFIs. In addition, in 2017 the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee issued a report recommending that FAA permit completion of an FAA-approved standardized course at FAA-certificated schools as an alternative to the 2-year experience requirement. According to FAA officials, the agency is drafting a proposed regulatory change to allow appropriately qualified flight instructors who have met proficiency requirements to train other pilots to obtain a CFI.
The Cost of Flight Training Is a Challenge for Some Colleges in Recruiting and Retaining Students
There was general agreement among the majority of school representatives we interviewed that in the last 5 years more students have shown interest in the pilot profession by applying for and enrolling in pilot programs at collegiate aviation schools. Representatives from eight schools and one aviation industry stakeholder noted that students may be interested in becoming pilots because there appears to be more pilot career opportunities and a greater likelihood of a secure and lucrative career path. Some airlines have created career path programs that document the requirements to move along the career path from pilot school to a particular regional airline and on to a particular mainline airline. According to an association representing pilots, they have done so to encourage more students to enter the pilot profession. Nonetheless, representatives from nearly all schools we interviewed identified the cost of a professional pilot degree program as a great (10 schools) or a moderate (6 schools) challenge to recruiting and retaining students.
While high education costs are not unique to pilot programs, these programs can be particularly expensive, and therefore unaffordable to many students. As previously reported, professional pilot students incur flight training “lab fees” in addition to general college tuition and fees, that together often exceeds $100,000. Schools’ tuition and fees can vary significantly. Factors affecting cost include whether the school is public, private non-profit, or private for-profit, whether the school offers a 2-year or 4-year program, and the student’s resident status. According to Education’s data, annual in-state tuition at public collegiate aviation schools we identified ranges from approximately $1,100 to $13,000. However, annual out-of-state tuition at a public 4-year program can cost as much as approximately $28,800. Private school tuition can cost more. For example, one 4-year private for-profit collegiate aviation school lists estimated annual undergraduate tuition of nearly $36,000, not including room and board or flight training costs.
Flight training costs also vary considerably. According to the University Aviation Association’s 2016 directory of collegiate aviation schools, a majority of pilot programs (27 of 45) have total approximate flight training costs of more than $50,000, with an upper cost of about $81,000. Flight training costs may vary, depending on the school requirements, student interest, and aptitude. Pilot program curriculum may differ and some students may choose to take additional classes. Each additional certificate and rating adds to the total cost of the training. Also, the time required for students to complete their certificates and ratings varies. Compounding the issue of cost is that the maximum federal financial aid available to eligible students is well below the full cost of a collegiate flight education, a factor that is also not unique to collegiate aviation students. For academic years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019, the maximum federal Pell Grant award is currently $5,920, and annual federal loan limits range from $5,500 up to $12,500 depending on the student’s year in school, dependency status, and other factors. Most students need to either use family resources or take out private loans to pay for the total cost of a pilot program, according to representatives from four schools. Not all students have the means to do so, as private lenders may require a co-signer with good credit and a minimum income level. Also, representatives from two schools said that some students who initially secure private loans for flight training are unable or unwilling to secure loans needed later on to complete this training, causing them to leave the pilot program. This financing challenge may pose a significant barrier for lower income students to enter the pilot profession.
There are lower cost alternatives to collegiate aviation schools, though they are not entirely equivalent. Students may obtain a flight education and achieve the same FAA certificates and ratings from a non-collegiate pilot school and incur flight training expenses without the added cost of college tuition. As previously discussed, a pilot with non-collegiate flight training could be eligible for the same employment opportunities with regional airlines, but according to five stakeholders, airlines prefer or have typically hired pilots with a 4-year degree. Military service is another lower cost alternative for flight training, as service members are compensated for their time while they are training. However, one school representative noted that service members may enlist in the military with the intention of pursuing flight training, but they are not guaranteed to receive a flight assignment.
Representatives from two stakeholders told us it is not possible to significantly reduce the cost of flight training because it is inherently expensive, and four school representatives said that costs are increasing. One approach to controlling costs for students is to make it easier for them to transfer from public 2-year pilot programs to 4-year programs, since public 2-year programs are typically less expensive. A representative from a state university told us that he is developing a degree completion program for professional pilot students from U.S. 2- year colleges. This program would enable students to complete their bachelor’s degree online with the university after they have obtained an associate’s degree in flight. Similarly, a community college has transfer agreements with several 4-year universities, and most of its students aim to obtain a 4-year college degree. We previously found that when colleges provide their students with information on transfer agreements they help students save on tuition costs by enabling students to predict which credits will transfer and reducing the likelihood that they will need to repeat coursework. Two schools have opened satellite campuses for their flight programs, and two other schools are considering that option, both to expand their capacity and to provide options for students to receive flight training while living closer to home, according to school representatives.
Other actions schools have taken focus on ensuring that students are able to pay for the program and offering assistance with costs where possible. Representatives of three schools told us that they are raising money for departmental scholarships, and a representative of one school said the school raises awareness about outside scholarships that may be available to its students. A representative from a community college said that there are scholarships available for women and minorities. According to one industry representative, there are not enough women and minorities in aviation, which will negatively affect the supply of future pilots. One state university offers in-state tuition for flight students who are residents of nearby states, with the aim of both reducing some students’ costs and increasing enrollment at the school. Representatives of four schools told us that they emphasize communication with potential students about costs before they enroll to improve pilot student retention. In addition, one school we spoke with requires students to pay their flight training fees for each certification upfront in one lump sum to ensure that students will be able to complete the training.
Initiatives to assist students with funding and reduce costs of flight training have been in place for a long time with limited impact, according to one flight training provider association. Other aviation stakeholders noted that regional and mainline airlines could have a greater effect than previous efforts by working together. For example, airlines could provide scholarships and subsidize students’ flight training while students are still in school. The airlines could also work together as an industry to provide scholarships to students. However, as one aviation association noted, airlines are reluctant to provide scholarships to students who are likely to fly for a competitor. Representatives from two stakeholders suggested that increases to limits on federal student loans could provide additional resources to help students pay for flight training costs. To some extent and even if additional actions are taken to help defray some of the educational costs, some students may not be able to afford the cost of collegiate aviation schools.
A Variety of Other Factors May Present Challenges for Some Collegiate Aviation Schools
Some selected school representatives also cited other challenges, though these challenges were cited by fewer representatives, and most of the representatives characterized these challenges as moderate or slight.
Purchasing and maintaining aircraft. Representatives from 13 schools said that purchasing or maintaining aircraft, or obtaining the requisite purchase approvals can be challenging. New single-engine training aircraft could cost more than $300,000, while a new multi-engine aircraft can cost around $750,000. Purchasing older, used equipment is one possible way to defray aircraft costs, but older equipment requires more time offline for maintenance. Representatives from two schools stated that aircraft used for training requires extensive scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, which can interfere with their ability to train students.
Airport infrastructure and airspace constraints. When asked about challenges related to airport infrastructure, representatives of six schools identified challenges related to space constraints. Issues included insufficient space to store and maintain aircraft, insufficient classroom and office space, and crowded airspace that cannot accommodate the desired flight operations to train the number of pilot students they could with their existing resources. Few representatives identified infrastructure availability at the airport as a great (1 school) or moderate (3 schools) challenge, while 6 representatives reported that infrastructure posed only a slight challenge and 7 said it was not a challenge at all.
VA education benefit program administration—publication of specific training hours and costs. Representatives from eight schools and two stakeholders expressed some concern about new enforcement of VA education benefit rules from the Post 9/11 GI Bill, as amended by the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. VA issued two policy advisories in 2015 to notify collegiate aviation schools about statutory education benefit policies and bring them into compliance. One policy advisory notified schools that they must publish the specific number of training hours, as well as the specific cost of training, for each flight course, effectively setting a maximum number of training hours and fixed fees for each course taken as part of a standard degree program. According to VA, before the agency issued the policy advisories there was great public and congressional outcry about individual pilot students receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from VA for their education. VA issued the policy advisories to specify what pilot training activities are appropriate uses of VA money, and under what circumstances. VA funds cannot be used to pay for pilot training to proficiency because that would entail an unlimited amount of funds to be available for an individual’s flight training.
Representatives from five selected schools reported that this rule made it difficult to provide efficient and effective flight training for all pilot students. Depending on the program structure, students who cannot finish the course in the set number of hours must either pay out of pocket for additional training or accept a failing grade and take the course again. VA education benefits pay for eligible beneficiaries to repeat the course if needed. In contrast, FAA imposes a minimum but not a maximum number of hours per certificate, because the training goal is to achieve a certain level of proficiency for each certificate. One school representative stated that the school allowed its VA education benefit eligibility to lapse because it allowed them the freedom to train students to proficiency without maximum training hours; however, veterans can no longer use their benefits to enroll in that program.
VA education benefit eligibility for contracted flight instruction.
Representatives of two out of the five schools we interviewed that contract out flight training and one stakeholder reported a challenge concerning a rule described in the second VA policy advisory; the rule places restrictions on collegiate aviation schools that contract out flight training to a non-collegiate school. Previously, veterans received benefits for flight training conducted at non-collegiate pilot schools through the institution of higher learning that contracted out the flight training. However, in its policy advisory VA stated that this practice was not consistent with the rules of the education benefit program because there are different rules for non-collegiate pilot schools; VA benefits cannot be used to pay for training toward private pilot certification at non-collegiate pilot schools. In addition, federal law states that the VA cannot approve the enrollment of an eligible veteran in a course if it involves contracted training that is either otherwise barred from being approved or has not obtained approval on its own.
As a result, to remain eligible for VA education benefits, a collegiate aviation school cannot include private pilot certification training provided by a non-collegiate pilot school in its degree program since such training is statutorily barred from approval at the contracted non- collegiate pilot school. Therefore, all students enrolled in such programs must have already earned their private pilot certificate before matriculating in the program, whether they use veterans’ education benefits or not. According to VA, it issued its policy advisory to clarify the statutory limitations of education benefits under the GI Bill relating to private pilot certificate courses. Representatives from two schools said that they are currently not eligible for VA education benefits as a result of this rule, which representatives of one school said has affected the school’s enrollment of veterans. Furthermore, industry stakeholders have expressed concern about greater limits on VA education benefits for flight training based on possible future legislative action. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Transportation has announced a new “Forces to Flyers Initiative” with two objectives: (1) to assess the level of interest among veterans in becoming pilots and (2) to help veterans who are not former military pilots to receive the training they need to become commercial pilots. Though representatives from five schools identified this issue as a great challenge, overall its impact is limited because not all schools have students using veterans’ benefits for their pilot programs, and a small percentage of students overall use veterans’ benefits to pay for their education.
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this product to the DOT, Education, and VA for comment. DOT provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Education and VA declined to provide formal or technical comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of the Department of Education, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
For our review we addressed (1) what is known about collegiate aviation schools with professional pilot degree programs in terms of location, types of training programs available, and enrollment; and (2) challenges that affect collegiate aviation schools’ ability to produce professional pilots and schools’ response to these challenges.
To address both objectives, we reviewed a range of reports from GAO, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Congressional Research Service, and Bureau of Labor Statistics: these reports included general background information on a variety of related issues on pilot training, issues such as pilot certification and training issues in the United States; FAA regulatory training requirements for different levels of pilot certification; types and requirements of pilot training schools; current supply and demand, and forecasts for commercial airline pilots; and airport infrastructure financing. Furthermore, we reviewed the Federal Aviation Regulations related to training and certification for pilots under Part 61 and Part 141. We also reviewed provisions of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-216) related to “Flight Crewmember Screening and Qualifications” and “Airline Transport Pilot Certification.”
To determine what is known about collegiate aviation schools we analyzed several sets of data and interviewed representatives from collegiate aviation schools and other aviation stakeholders. To identify colleges and universities with professional pilot degree programs for fixed wing aircraft in academic year 2015–2016, we compared FAA’s data on FAA-certificated pilot schools as of August 19, 2016; the Aircraft Owner and Pilot Association’s list of colleges and universities with aviation programs as of September 19, 2016; and the University Aviation Association’s 2016 directory of collegiate aviation schools. These data were the most applicable given the academic year reviewed. We verified schools on all three lists by checking school websites, typically the program’s webpage or course catalog detailing degree program requirements. For schools that were included on only one or two of the lists, two staff members independently reviewed school information and categorized the school as inside or outside of our scope. Disagreements between coders were reviewed by a third staff member and resolved through discussion. In a few cases where website information was unclear, the staff member contacted school officials to verify that they offered a professional pilot degree program. To determine the airport and airport types at which schools with professional pilot degree programs operated their flight training, we reviewed information from FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the Aircraft Owner and Pilot Association, and school websites. We also selected and interviewed representatives of six airports of varying types (e.g., medium-hub, small- hub, and non-hub) and in different geographic areas of the country, all of whom had collegiate aviation school tenants. Because we selected the airports as part of a nonprobability sample, our findings cannot be generalized to all airports with collegiate aviation school tenants.
To determine what is known about the institution type, college-wide tuition and fees, and graduations at these schools, we analyzed data from Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Of the 147 collegiate aviation schools with professional pilot degree programs that we identified, 146 of them have an IPEDS identification number. According to Education officials, schools with an IPEDS identification number are likely to participate in Title IV financial aid, be accredited, and consequently be monitored by Education through several mechanisms including IPEDS, federal student aid compliance, and accreditation. With respect the institution type, the categories of schools included in our analysis included degree-granting institutions of the following types: public, private non-profit, and private for profit with either 4-year baccalaureate or 2-year associates degrees. With respect to tuition and fees, we reviewed both in-state and out-of-state costs schools reported to Education. Data were not available for academic year 2014–2015 for two collegiate aviation schools we identified. In a few instances schools offered lower-cost tuition and fees to local students (in-district). For purposes of comparison, we did not include these costs in our report, since not all schools offer in-district discounts. With respect to the graduations data, we analyzed graduations data in academic year 2015– 2016 in 10 aviation-related categories within Education’s Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) for schools we identified as having professional pilot degree programs. We determined that IPEDS data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives based on prior testing of the data from these systems and interviews with knowledgeable officials at Education’s National Center for Education Statistics.
To determine what is known about enrollment at collegiate aviation schools, we analyzed enrollment and flight instructor data voluntarily reported to FAA by some schools between October 2015 and October 2017. Through interviews with FAA officials, we have determined these data were the most complete sources available and, while limited, were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of illustrating the variety in the size of professional pilot degree program enrollment. We also obtained and analyzed FAA’s pilot certificate and instrument rating data to identify, for a number of categories, the number of new pilot certificates FAA issued from 2012 through 2016 and the total number of pilot certificate holders for those years. One limitation associated with the database in which FAA stores certificate-holder information is that the agency does not have an active process in place to discover and deactivate deceased pilots. This lack may lead to an over count in the number of active pilot certificates. However, airline transport pilot certificate holders must regularly renew their medical certificates to remain active. We found that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting the number of “restricted privileges” airline transport pilot certificates FAA has issued since 2013.
To determine challenges that affect collegiate aviation schools’ ability to produce professional pilots, we reviewed documents, interviewed, and administered a standardized question set to a non-generalizable sample of 18 collegiate aviation schools about their pilot programs and key challenges that affect their ability to produce professional pilots. To select our non-generalizable sample of schools, we used information from FAA, the Aircraft Owner and Pilot Association, school websites, and initial interviews with aviation stakeholders. Based on the schools’ geographic location, we selected schools in each of FAA’s nine airport regions. In order to provide a variety of perspectives in our selection, we included schools of each institution type (public, private non-profit, and private for- profit), of each program type (2-year and 4-year), some that were FAA- certificated and some that contracted out flight training. While the sample allowed us to learn about challenges that affect these schools’ ability to produce professional pilots, it was designed to provide anecdotal information, not findings that would be representative of all collegiate aviation schools with professional pilot degree programs in the United States. Our initial selection included 20 schools, of which 19 responded to our request for interview. Of these 19, 18 schools responded to our question set, and representatives of one additional school provided us with general information about their program.
In our question set, we asked schools to rate 10 factors that we identified in preliminary interviews as potentially affecting schools’ ability to recruit, retain, and train professional pilot students—thereby affecting their ability to produce pilots. Schools rated each factor as a great challenge, a moderate challenge, a slight challenge, or not a challenge to the ability to recruit, retain, and train professional pilot students. After our interviews with officials from the selected schools, we analyzed and aggregated responses to these questions, and identified two factors that schools most frequently cited as the most challenging to their ability to produce pilots. In addition, 3 other factors were cited by multiple schools as a great or moderate challenge. Schools generally cited the remaining 5 factors as a slight or moderate challenge.
To describe stakeholders’ views of factors that affect collegiate aviation schools’ ability to produce pilots and actions that have been or could be taken to address these factors, we reviewed and summarized schools’ comments. We also reviewed documents and interviewed FAA officials, representatives of airports and industry organizations representing collegiate and non-collegiate pilot schools, airports, flight instructors, pilots, regional airlines, and mainline airlines, selected to reflect a range of perspectives about initial pilot training. (See table 4.) In addition, we reviewed documents and interviewed Education and Department of Veterans Affairs officials about regulations and policies related to pilot programs’ eligibility for federal student financial aid and the use of veterans’ education benefits.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2016 to May 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D. (Director); Vashun Cole (Assistant Director); Jaclyn Mullen (Analyst-in- Charge); Amy Abramowitz; Danielle Ellingston; Dave Hooper; Delwen Jones; Serena Lo; John Mingus; Natasha Oliver; Malika Rice; Michelle St. Pierre; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.
Summary:
| Why GAO Did This Study
Collegiate aviation schools are one pathway for initial civilian pilot training in the United States and are a key source of airline pilots. Over the past 5 years, aviation stakeholders have voiced concerns that there is an insufficient supply of qualified airline pilots, citing increased airline pilot retirements, among other factors.
The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 included a provision for GAO to review aspects of collegiate aviation schools' operations. This report examines: (1) what is known about schools with professional pilot degree programs and (2) challenges that affect schools' ability to produce professional pilots and schools' responses to these challenges.
GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and documents from the FAA, Veterans Affairs, and Education; analyzed FAA's data on flight schools, airports, and pilots; and analyzed Education's degree completion data for the 2015–2016 academic year, the most recent data available. GAO also interviewed representatives from: 18 schools, selected based on factors including program type and location; 6 airports selected based on type and location; and 11 additional aviation stakeholders representing schools, airlines, pilots, airports, and flight instructors, selected to reflect a range of perspectives about initial pilot training. The results of the interviews are not generalizable to all aviation schools and stakeholders. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. On a draft of the report, DOT provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
What GAO Found
GAO identified 147 collegiate aviation schools that offered professional pilot degree programs in academic year 2015–2016. All pilot students must pass the same knowledge and flight tests to obtain pilot certificates from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but schools' programs vary. For example, 101 of these schools operated relatively more formalized, FAA-certificated degree programs. The other 46 schools operated under a model that provides flexibility and meets FAA requirements but that does not require FAA certification to conduct such training. Total annual pilot-student enrollment and graduation numbers are not known. According to FAA officials, FAA does not require schools to submit enrollment data and does not verify enrollment data that many certificated schools voluntarily submit. Regarding graduation data, schools must classify and report completed degrees by program type to the Department of Education (Education) using that agency's classification system. Education's data indicated a total of 1,356 professional pilot degrees in academic year 2015–2016. Because pilot-student graduates can be classified under a number of aviation-related programs in Education's system, the number of pilot-student graduates could be higher.
Flight instructor retention, which has been influenced by the current high demand for airline pilots, and the high cost of pilot training are key challenges that affect schools' ability to produce pilots, according to aviation stakeholders GAO interviewed.
Flight instructor retention : Nearly all (16 of 18) selected school representatives cited difficulty recruiting and retaining flight instructors as a great or moderate challenge for schools' ability to train pilots. According to most school representatives (15) and other selected stakeholders, instructors who aspire to be airline pilots are rapidly accruing the flight hours necessary to qualify and are obtaining employment as soon as they are eligible. In addition, regional airlines have recently increased hiring, generating high turnover among flight instructors, who are traditionally their main source of new pilots.
High cost of training : Nearly all (16) selected schools' representatives identified the cost of a professional pilot degree program as a great or moderate challenge to recruiting and retaining pilot students. High education costs are not unique to these programs. Nonetheless, in addition to tuition, flight training fees alone often exceed $50,000, well above the cap for federal financial aid available to eligible students.
Schools and regional airlines have taken a range of actions to address these challenges. For example, eight selected school representatives reported increasing flight instructors' compensation and benefits. In addition, some regional airlines' cadet programs provide mentorship and incentives such as bonus pay or tuition reimbursement to select students while they are still in school. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has also launched an initiative to assess the level of interest among veterans in becoming pilots and to examine strategies for employing military veterans as pilots. | 96 | 53,646 | 53,648 | 53,648 | ... [The rest of the report is omitted]
|
fd_FRIENDS_07x04 | fd_FRIENDS_07x04_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[Scene: Monica, Chandler, and Phoebe's, everyone is there and they are finishing watching the first episode of Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E. Joey is of course Mac.]
Mac: (on TV) Well, if we learned one thing today C.H.E.E.S.E. is that cheerleaders and high explosives don't mix. (Cut to Joey laughing while Rachel, Chandler, and Monica aren't amused.)
C.H.E.E.S.E: You can say that again Mac.
Mac: Well, I couldn't have done it without you buddy. You're a genius.
C.H.E.E.S.E: Oh yeah? Well then how come I can't get my VCR to stop blinking 12:00?
(They both break into a huge laugh and do that stop-motion thing they had at the end of ChiPs.)
Joey: (laughing and turning off the TV) So, what did you guys think?
(They all make happy faces as they are unable to express their feelings verbally. Finally, the phone rings and the race to answer it is won by Monica.)
Monica: (on phone) Hello? (Listens) Hold on please. Joey, it's your mom. (Hands him the phone.)
Chandler: It's your mommy. It's your mommy.
Ross: Ohhhh...
Rachel: That's nice.
Joey: (on phone) Mom, so what did you think? (He walks away allowing the gang a chance to figure out what they're gonna say.)
Rachel: Well that was umm...Okay.
Ross: It wasn't the best.
Chandler: That was one of the worse things ever. And not just on TV.
Monica: Wh-what are we gonna tell him?
Ross: Well, the lighting was okay.
Rachel: Ohh no you don't! You got lighting last time, lighting is mine!
Monica: And I have costumes.
Ross: Oh great! That means I'm stuck with, "So, we were watching you in there (Points to the TV) and you were sittin' right here! Whoa!"
(Phoebe gets up.)
Rachel: What are you gonna do Pheebs?
Phoebe: I don't know. I don't know. I can't lie to him again. Oh no I-no! I'm just gonna press my breasts up against him.
Chandler: And say nothing?
Phoebe: Uh-huh, yeah that's right.
Joey: (hangs up the phone) Wow! Well, my folks really liked it! So what-what did you guys think? (Phoebe smiles, walks up to him, and presses her breasts against him.) It wasn't that good.
Opening Credits
[Scene: Central Perk, Phoebe and Monica are reading on the couch.]
Monica: Phoebe, do you think that your favorite animal says much about you?
Phoebe: What? You mean behind my back?
Rachel: (entering, excitedly) Oh! Hi you guys, oh my God! You'll never gonna believe what happened to me today! I am sitting in my office and...
Joey: (entering from bathrooms excitedly) You guys! You guys! You're not gonna believe what my agent just told me!
Rachel: Joey! Kinda in the middle of a story here!
Joey: Ooh, sorry. Sorry. You finish, go.
Rachel: Okay, so anyway I'm sittin' in my office and guess who walks in.
Joey: I'm gonna be on two TV shows!
Monica and Phoebe: Oh, that's great!!
Rachel: Joey!
Joey: Oh, you weren't finished?
Rachel: Yeah! Guess who walks into my office is the end of my story. (To Monica and Phoebe) It was Ralph Lauren! (Monica and Phoebe gasp) Ralph Lauren walked into my office!
Joey: Uh Rach, if you're gonna start another story, at least let me finish mine.
Rachel: It's the same story.
Joey: (groans in disgust) Wow, it's really long.
Rachel: (ignoring him) Anyway, Ralph just came in to tell me that he's so happy with my work that he wants me to be the new merchandising manager for polo retail.
Monica: Still get a discount on wedding dresses?
Rachel: Yeah!
Monica: I'm so happy for you!
Joey: Well, these really are the days of our lives.
Monica: What?!
Joey: Well, since you ask. They want me back on Days of Our Lives!
Phoebe: (gasps) Oh God!
Rachel: I got-I get a big pay raise!
Phoebe: Oh hey!
Joey: I'll be playing Drake Ramoray's twin brother, Stryker!
Monica: Oooh!
Rachel: I get to hire my own assistant!
Monica and Phoebe: Ahhh!!
Joey: (jumps up) Well-I got a head rush from standing up too fast right there.
[Scene: Rachel's New Office, she's interviewing a potential new assistant, Hilda.]
Rachel: (reading the resume) And you were at this job for four years?
Hilda: That's right.
Rachel: Okay, well this is all very impressive Hilda, um I just have one last question for you. Uh, how did I do? Was this okay?
Hilda: What?
Rachel: I've never interviewed anyone before. I've actually never had anyone work for me before. Although when I was a kid, we did have a maid, but this is-this isn't the same thing.
Hilda: No dear. It's not.
Rachel: No. Yeah, and I know that. All right, well thank you so much for coming in, it was nice to meet you.
Hilda: Thank you! Good meeting you.
Rachel: All right. (Hilda exits) I'm a total pro!
(There's a knock on the door and a handsome man enters.)
Man: Hello?
Rachel: (seeing him) Wow! H-umm! Hi! Yes, uh I'm sorry the models are actually down the hall.
Man: Actually, I'm here about the assistant job.
Rachel: Really?! (Taking his resume) Okay well then, all right, well just have a seat there. Umm, so what's-what is-what's your name?
Man: Tag Jones.
Rachel: Uh-huh, go on.
Tag: That's it. That's my whole name.
Rachel: That's your whole name, okay of course it is! Okay, well let's-let's just have a look-see here. (Looking at his resume)
Tag: I know I haven't worked in an office before, and I really don't have a lot of experience, but uh...
Rachel: Oh come on, what are you talking about? You've got three years painting houses. Two whole summers at T.G.I. Friday's, come on!
Tag: It's lame, I know. But I'm a goal-oriented person, very eager to learn...
Rachel: Okay, hold on just a second. (She grabs a camera out of the desk and takes his picture.) I'm sorry, it's for human resources, everybody has to do it. Could you just stand up please?
[Scene: Central Perk, Chandler is sitting on the couch when some unknown guy comes in and sits in their easy chair.]
Chandler: No-no-no-no. (Waves him away as Monica and Phoebe enter whispering to each other.) Hey! (Monica shushes him.)
Phoebe: (To Monica) Anyway, I should go. Okay, bye.
Monica: (To Chandler) Hey sweetie.
Chandler: Hi sweetie. So, what was with all the whispering?
Monica: I can't tell you. It's a secret.
Chandler: Secret? Married people aren't supposed to have secrets between one another. We have too much love and respect for one another.
Monica: Awww. (Kisses him.) But still no.
Chandler: No I'm serious, we should tell each other everything. I do not have any secrets from you.
Monica: Really? Okay, so why don't you tell me what happened to Ross Junior year at Disneyland?
Chandler: Oh no-no, I can't do that.
Monica: If you tell me, I'll tell you what Phoebe said.
Chandler: Okay.
Monica: Okay.
Chandler: So, Ross and I are going to Disneyland and we stop at this restaurant for tacos. And when I say restaurant, I mean a guy, a hibachi, and the trunk of his car. So Ross has about 10 tacos. And anyway, we're on Space Mountain and Ross starts to feel a little iffy.
Monica: Oh my God. He threw up?
Chandler: No, he visited a little town south of throw up. (Monica laughs hysterically.) So what was Phoebe's secret?
Monica: Oh, Nancy Thompson from Phoebe's old massage place is getting fired.
Chandler: That's it?! I gave up my Disneyland story for that?
Monica: That's right! You lose sucker!! (Pause) Please still marry me.
[Scene: Monica, Chandler, and Phoebe's, Chandler, Rachel, and Phoebe are there.]
Rachel: Chandler, you have an assistant right?
Chandler: (angrily) Did she call? You-you told her I was sick right? Always tell her I am sick!
Rachel: No, I-I just don't know how you decide who to hire. I mean I've got it narrowed down to two people. One of them has great references and a lot of experience and then there's this guy...
Chandler: What about him?
Rachel: I love him. He's so pretty I wanna cry! I don't know what to do. Tell me what to do.
Phoebe: Come on you know what to do! You hire the first one! You don't hire an assistant because they're cute, you hire them because they're qualified.
Rachel: Uh-huh. No, I hear what you're saying and-and-and that makes a lot of sense but can I just say one more thing? (Takes out his picture.) Look how pretty!
Phoebe: Let's see. (Looking at the picture) Oh my God! Oh... But no! No! You can't-you can't hire him, because that-it's not professional. Umm, this is for me (The picture) yes? Thanks. (Puts it in her pocket.)
Rachel: Okay you're right. I'll hire Hilda tomorrow. Dumb old perfect for the job Hilda!
Chandler: Let me see this guy. (Phoebe hands him the picture.) W-H-Wow! Don't show this to Monica! And don't tell her about the W-H-Wow!
[Scene: The Days of Our Lives producer's office, Joey is entering to find Terry there.]
Terry: Hey-hey-hey Joey!
Joey: Hey Terry!
Terry: Good to see you again!
Joey: It's been a while, huh? Wow, it's funny these halls look smaller than they used to.
Terry: It's a different building.
Joey: So! Stryker Ramoray huh? When do you want me to start?
Terry: Why don't we start right now!
Joey: Okay.
Terry: Here are the audition scenes. (Holds out the script.)
Joey: (looking between the pages and him) Audition? I thought you were gonna offer me the part.
Terry: Why would you think that?
Joey: Well, I was Dr. Drake Ramoray, Stryker's twin brother. I mean, who looks more me than me right?
Terry: Everybody has to audition.
Joey: Y'know Terry, I-I don't really need to do this. I got my own cable TV series, (Pause) with a robot.
Terry: I'm sorry Joey that's...that's the way it is.
Joey: Well. I guess you think you're pretty special huh? Sittin' up here in your fancy small hall building. Makin' stars jump through hoops for ya, huh? Well y'know what? (Throws the script away) This is one star who's hoop... This is a star that the hoop-this hoop-I was Dr. Drake Ramoray!
[Scene: Rachel's office, she's there as Tag knocks on the door and enters carrying a plant.]
Rachel: Hi! Tag. What are you doing here?
Tag: I just wanted to come by and thank you for not laughing in my face yesterday. And I noticed there aren't any plants in your office so I wanted to bring you your first... (Notices her plant) There is a plant in your office.
Rachel: Kinda.
Tag: Right. So I guess I shouldn't put "good at noticing stuff" on my resume. (Sets the plant down on her desk.)
Rachel: Oh-ohh, thank you.
Tag: Anyway, I'm guessing you hired somebody.
Rachel: Well...
Tag: Gotcha. Thanks again for meeting with me. (Starts to leave.)
Rachel: But I hired you!
Tag: What?
Rachel: Yeah! You-you got the job! You're my new assistant!
Tag: I am?!
Rachel: Yeah!
Tag: I can't believe it!
Rachel: Me either. Umm, all right, first thing I need you to do is go downstairs and find a women named Hilda and tell her to go home.
[Scene: Monica, Chandler, and Phoebe's, Monica is setting the table for dinner as Chandler enters.]
Chandler: Hey.
Monica: Hey! Good, you're home!
Chandler: Oh it's always nicer to hear than, "Aw crap! You again!"
Monica: Hey baby. (Kisses him.)
Chandler: Hey.
Monica: I made you a surprise.
Chandler: Oh yeah?
Monica: Yeah, tacos! Ever since you told me that story I've had such a craving for them.
Chandler: Did you not understand the story?
Ross: (entering) Hey!
Chandler: Hey! What's up?
Monica: Ross!
Ross: Oh, nothin' much. Just trying to figure out what I'm gonna do for dinner.
Chandler: Huh.
Ross: (notices the table) Hey-Ooh! What's-what's that, dinner stuff? You making dinner?
Chandler: No! (The oven dings.) Shhh!
Ross: What you got over there? Tacos?
Monica: No! No. They're umm... They're just uh...ground beef smileys. (Holding up one of the shells.)
Ross: Uhh, those are tacos.
Monica: Excuse me Mr. Mexico.
Ross: Eh, either way I'll pass. (Quietly to Chandler) I still can't eat those. (Monica is getting something out of the fridge and starts laughing.) What's so funny?!
Monica: (trying not to laugh) I'm not laughing.
(Ross and Chandler move closer to her and she starts laughing again.)
Ross: (To Chandler) You told her!
Chandler: Nancy Thompson's getting fired! (Monica slaps him on the shoulder.)
Ross: (To Monica) Look, okay-okay I had food poisoning! It's not like I chose to do it! It's not like-It's not like I said, "Umm, what would make this ride more fun?!"
Monica: You're right. I mean I'm sorry. Yeah, I shouldn't be laughing. I should be laying down papers for you! (Runs off laughing which gets Chandler laughing.)
Ross: (To Chandler) How could you tell her?!
Chandler: I had to okay?! We're getting married! Married couples can't keep secrets from one another!
Ross: Oh really? Well I-I guess Monica should know about Atlantic City.
Chandler: Du-ude!
Monica: (running up to Ross) What happened in Atlantic City?!
Ross: Well, Chandler and I are in a bar...
Chandler: Did you not hear me say, "Du-ude?!"
Ross: And this girl is making eyes at Chandler, okay? So after awhile he-he goes over to her and uh, after a minute or two, I see them kissing. Now, I know what you're thinking, Chandler's not the type of guy who just goes to bars and makes out with girls, and you're right, Chandler's not the type of guy who just goes to bars and makes out with...girls.
Monica: (To Chandler) You kissed a guy?!! Oh my God.
Chandler: In my defense, it was dark and he was a very pretty guy.
Ross: Oh Mon, I laughed so hard...
Chandler: Ho-ho, so hard we had to throw out your underwear again?
Ross: Whatever dude, you kissed a guy.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Joey and Rachel's, Phoebe is giving Joey a massage as Rachel enters.]
Rachel: Hi!
Joey: Hey.
Phoebe: Hey-Ooh, how's Hilda? Is she working out?
Rachel: Ohh, my new assistant is working out, yes.
Joey: Was she happy you gave her the job?
Rachel: Oh, my-my new assistant was very happy that I hired my new assistant.
(The phone rings and Joey answers it.)
Joey: (on phone) Hello? (Listens) Oh hey! Can you, can you hang on a second? (To Phoebe and Rachel) It's the producers over at Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E. can you excuse me for a minute? (On phone) Hey, funny you should call. I was just looking over next week's script. (Listens) Canceled?! (Listens) Like they're taking it off the air? (Listens) Ohh. (Listens) All right, see you Monday. (Listens) We're not even shootin' them anymore?!! (Listens) All right, bye! (Hangs up) They canceled Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E!
Phoebe: Sorry.
Rachel: I'm sorry Joey.
Joey: Why would they do that?! It was a good show right?!
(Phoebe and Rachel both pause, look at each other, and go press their breasts against him. Which Joey doesn't mind, of course.)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Monica, Chandler, and Phoebe's, Chandler, Monica, and Ross are still giving away all of their secrets.]
Chandler: You wanna tell secrets?! Okay! Okay! In college, Ross used to wear leg warmers!
Ross: All right! All right! Chandler entered a Vanilla Ice look-a-like contest and won!
Chandler: Ross came in fourth and cried!
Monica: Oh my God! (Laughing)
Ross: Oh, is that funny?! Oh, you-you find that funny?! Well maybe Chandler should know some of your secrets too!
Monica: I-I already told him everything! (Threateningly) You shush!!
Ross: Once Monica was sent to her room without dinner, so she ate the macaroni off a jewelry box she'd made.
Monica: Ross used to stay up every Saturday night to watch Golden Girls!
Ross: Monica couldn't tell time 'til she was 13!
Monica: It's hard for some people!
Chandler: (To Monica) Of course it is. (Mouths to Ross) Wow-whoa!
Monica: Chandler one time wore my underwear to work!
Chandler: Hey!!!
Monica: Ohh, I'm sorry I couldn't think of any more for Ross!
Ross: Ohh! Ohh! In college, Chandler got drunk and slept with the lady who cleaned our dorm!
Chandler: That was you!
Ross: Whatever dude, you kissed a guy.
[Scene: Joey and Rachel's, Joey is still bumming about cancellation of Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E.]
Joey: How could this happen to me?! Yesterday I had two TV shows! Today, I got nothin'!
Rachel: Well wait a minute, what happened to Days of Our Lives?
Joey: Uh, well they might be a little mad at me over there.
Phoebe: What happened?
Joey: Well maybe I got a little upset and maybe I told them where they could go.
Rachel: Joey, why would you do that?
Joey: Because they wanted me to audition!
Phoebe: You! An actor?! That's madness!
[Scene: Rachel's Outer Office, Tag is sitting at his desk as Rachel walks up. She stops and watches him pick up the phone.]
Tag: Rachel Green's office. (Hangs up.)
Rachel: Tag? (He turns and looks at her.) Hi, who was that?
Tag: (shyly) Nobody. I was just practicing.
Rachel: Really? (Giggles.)
(Phoebe rounds the corner.)
Phoebe: Hi!
Tag: Hi! Rachel Green's office.
Phoebe: You must be Hilda.
Rachel: Yeah, this is Tag. Tag, this is Phoebe. Phoebe, can I see you for a second? (Goes into office.)
Tag: Phoebe! That's a great name.
Phoebe: Oh, you like that? You should hear my phone number.
Rachel: (grabbing Phoebe) Okay. We'll be right back. (They go into her office and she closes the door.)
Phoebe: So you hired yourself a little treat did ya?
Rachel: All right I know, I know how it looks Pheebs, but I'm telling you...
Phoebe: But-but you know you cannot get involved with your assistant.
Rachel: Yes, I know that. I know that. And I know that hiring him was probably not the smartest thing that I've ever done. But I'm telling you, from this moment on I swear this is strictly professional. (There's a knock on the door.) Yes?
(Kathy enters (Because she's listed in the credits).)
Kathy: Hey Rachel!
Rachel: Hi!
Kathy: Cute assistant! What's his story? Is he...
Rachel: Gay? Yeah. (Kathy leaves dejectedly.)
[Scene: Terry's office, Joey has come to beg for a second chance.]
Joey: Hey! Terry.
Terry: Joey Tribbiani! I'm surprised your big head could fit through our small halls! (Gets up) I gotta go Joey.
Joey: Wait! Terry! Wait-Look-Wait I-I... Look, I'm really sorry about before. I was an idiot thinking I'm too big to audition for you. You gotta give me another chance.
Terry: I can't help you Joey.
Joey: Wait! Terry! Please! Look, I just lost my other job. Okay? You have no idea how much I need this. Please, help me out, for old times sake.
[Cut to a hospital room set on the Days of Our Lives stage. Two nurses are standing next to a bed with a man whose face is completely covered in bandages and reading his chart.]
Nurse #1: This poor guy's been in a coma for five years. It's hopeless.
Nurse #2: It's not hopeless! Dr. Stryker Ramoray's a miracle worker. Look, here he comes.
(Stryker enters, only it's not Joey playing him.)
Dr. Stryker Ramoray: Good morning. (He walks over to the bed, leans down, and whispers to him.) Drake, it's your brother Stryker. Can you hear me?
The Director: And cut!
Joey: (jumping up and removing the bandages) I'm back baby! Ha-ha-ha!
[Scene: Central Perk, Chandler, Monica, and Ross are sitting there and not talking to each other.]
Monica: Y'know, in my defense, umm there was no glitter on the macaroni and very little glue.
Ross: And in my defense, the cleaning lady came on to me!
Chandler: (To Monica) You have no trouble telling time now right?
Monica: No!
Chandler: Quick! What time is it?! (Holds his watch in front of her face.)
Monica: I don't know! Time to kiss a guy maybe?! (Ross laughs.) What are you laughing at Pampers? (He stops laughing and glares at her.)
Chandler: Y'know when I said that because we're getting married that we should share everything and not have any secrets?
Monica: Yeah?
Chandler: Yeah that was stupid. Let's not do that.
Monica: Ohh, absolutely.
Ross: And! We should keep all the stuff uh, we told each other secret from everybody else.
Monica: Yeah, definitely!
Ross: Okay, (gets up) if you'll excuse me, I-I'm gonna go hang out with some people who don't know the Space Mountain story.
Monica: Then, I'd steer clear of Phoebe.
Ross: Man! (Monica mouths, "I'm sorry.")
Chandler: Yeah, and not that you would, but I wouldn't hang out with...all the guys in my office.
(Ross storms out.)
Ending Credits
[Scene: Rachel's office, she's looking at a picture of Tag when he knocks and enters.]
Rachel: (noticing him) Hi! (Puts the pictures away.)
Tag: Do you have a minute?
Rachel: Well yeah, sure, what's up?
Tag: I got asked out twice today when I was at lunch...by guys.
Rachel: Oh really?!
Tag: Yeah. Did you tell someone that I was gay?
Rachel: Oh, did you not want people to know that?
Tag: But I'm not gay. And I especially wouldn't want you to think I was gay.
Rachel: Why's that?
Tag: I don't think I should say.
Rachel: Ohh, you can say. Come on, I don't want you to feel like you can't tell me things. (Motions for him to sit down.)
Tag: Okay.
Rachel: 'Kay.
Tag: Well...
Rachel: Yeah.
Tag: I'd love to ask out your friend Phoebe.
Rachel: (Pause) Yeah, she's gay.
Summary:
| Rachel must choose between a hunky young guy, Tag, or an experienced and well-qualified woman, to hire as her executive assistant. Joey is offered the part of Dr. Stryker Ramoray, the twin of his old character Dr. Drake Ramoray, on Days of Our Lives but is offended when he is asked to audition. However, when Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E. is cancelled, Joey finds himself crawling back to the producers. Monica, Chandler, and Ross (who wore leg warmers) all reveal secrets about each other. Monica tells Phoebe's secret of an employee getting fired. Chandler reveals about his trip to Disneyland where Ross ended up ill on a ride after eating road-side tacos. Ross tells Monica about an Atlantic City trip where Chandler accidentally kissed a guy. Fat Monica ate her macaroni diorama. Ross kissed a cleaning lady. | 95 | 20,533 | 20,535 | 20,535 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_04x14 | fd_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_04x14_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
An Initiative briefing.
Maggie: This is your objective.
Narrator: Previously on Buffy the vampire slayer.
Walsh: .. demon classed as the Polgara species
Engelman: ...bone skewers jut from the creature's forearms during battle. It's imperative not to damage its arms.
Buffy: Why exactly can't we damage this polka thing's arms?
Cut to Engelman and Walsh in a lab.
Engelman: She's an unnecessary risk.
Cut to Walsh speaking to Buffy.
Walsh: Two of our hostiles broke free
Cut to Buffy faces the two demons
Walsh: and escaped into the tunnels
Cut to Walsh and Riley in the Initiative.
Walsh: She's dead Riley.
Riley: I don't understand. On the monitors behind them.
Buffy: Professor Walsh if you think that's enough to kill me. you really don't know what a slayer is.
Cut to Walsh musing in lab.
Walsh: She wants a fight we'll give her one.
Cut to Buffy talking.
Buffy: It's not safe for any of us.
Cut to Walsh musing in lab.
Walsh: And then when she least expects it, ahhh. She is impaled by a skewer.
Walsh: Adam.
Adam: Mommy.
cut to Giles apt. This scene is a direct continuation of the previous episode with a time gap of perhaps one to five minutes. Buffy is talking to Giles, Willow, Xander, Anya and Spike.
Buffy: So Maggie sends me down into the sewers with one of those blasto guns and the next thing I know it's raining monsters.
Xander: Hallelujah.
Buffy: And then this gate slams down behind me and I-I try to use the gun but it goes pfft.
Giles: You're saying that Maggie Walsh set you up?
Buffy: That's exactly what I'm saying. She sent me on a one way recon.
Spike: Got to hand it to you goldilocks - you do have bleeding tragic taste in men. I've got a cousin married to a regurgitating {{frovilops}} demon {that's} got better instincts than you.
Buffy: What does my taste in men have to do with this?
Spike: You think Riley was out knitting booties for your future offspring while Maggie stringing you up? Anya, Xander and Giles are silent.
Buffy: You guys think Riley had something to do with this.
Giles: Um, probably not but we, uh, be remiss if we didn't think all the possibilities {through}.
Buffy: {Great./Right.} Remiss. No! No, Maggie made sure that he was nowhere around when she sent me on this very special make Buffy dead assignment.
Willow: Plus Riley he seems like he wouldn't tell a little white lie let alone a whole bunch of big dirty ones.
Xander: That's why they call it the secret forces Will, cause they kinda keep the whole lying thing to themselves.
Buffy: All I know is that Maggie has it in for me which means the Initiative has it in for me.
Xander: I'm guessing the mad scientist isn't too keen on the fact that the entire scooby gang knows that the Initiative is up to no good.
Buffy: Which brings us back to the not safe for any of us concept.
Giles: What could have happened to make Professor Walsh want to kill you?
Buffy: I don't know, uh. She wasn't keen on the fact that I was asking a lot of questions that's for sure.
Anya: So you were getting too close to something.
Giles: Clearly. Although one can only imagine what she'd be so desperate to hide.
cut to An Initiative exit. A being exits. Adam is sewn together from parts of different demons. He has a metal brace on his left leg, there are metal parts on the left side of his face and the back of his head, his right breast, his right shoulder and forearm of his right arm. The only recognizably human portion is the right upper side of his face and his hair. His left eye is red. He had green and grey-pink demon parts sewn together and there is a huge scar or seam with what could be links of a large chain reinforcing it running down the middle of his chest. He is a mix of demon, Frankenstein monster and Terminator/Borg. It smiles. roll credits
Buffy: Everybody grab a weapon. We've gotta move. Buffy hands Xander an ax and Anya a grappling hook (like a fisherman might use.)
Xander: Storm the Initiative. Yeah let's take on those suckers.
Buffy: I was thinking more that we'd hide.
Xander: Oh thank God.
Giles: I think perhaps we should talk about this.
Buffy: We need to relocate someplace we're less likely to be found. We need to come up with a plan.
Willow: We could go to my place.
Buffy: The Initiative guys know how close we are. They'll automatically check the places that you hang out. Xander, what about your basement? The guys haven't seen us together that much and there's enough room.
Willow: Ooh Plus mirrored ball.
Xander: Cool! Come on down and boogie at Xander's hideaway.
Anya (less happy): Yes, come boogie.
Giles: Absolutely not! I will not squat in that dank hole.
Spike: What, it was good enough for me, but you're above it all?
Giles: Precisely. Besides I-I don't see why we can't stay right where we are. Pfft. It's very unlikely that those Initiative boys are going to come round here to look for uh_ Door bangs open. Riley enters.
Riley: Buffy! God Buffy are you ok? What happened?
Buffy: You know?
Riley: I know something went down. umph. Tell me.
Buffy: Maggie tried to kill me.
Anya: It didn't work, but they're all upset anyway.
Riley: Ok listen I need you to go over everything step by step. There has to be..has to be some kind of mistake
Xander: There was no mistake. And how do you know something happened?
Riley: I was on a mission but I came back and... I'm not sure.. Look let's just keep her heads and not jump to any _ Riley stops and is staring.
Buffy: What?
Riley: That's hostile 17.
Spike: No, I'm just a friend of Xaannderr's. Pfftt. Spike drops his drawl.
Spike: Bugger it. I'm your guy.
Buffy: This is Spike. He's um.. It's a really long story b-but he's not bad anymore. Spike jumps up.
Spike: Hey! What am I, a bleeding broken record? I'm bad it's just I can't bite anymore. Thanks to you w*nk*rs. Spike indicates Riley with a head movement.
Riley: We've been looking all over the place for him - but you've known where's he's been all along.
Buffy: It's not like that.
Riley: Then what is it like?.. What's he doing here?
Spike: Leaving you swabs to your dramatics, thanks. I've got my stories on the telly for that. Spike puts on his black leather coat
Spike: By the by. If you're trying to kill her. Spike leans back with a big grin and two thumbs up. (His Fonzie imitation?) Buffy and Willow roll their eyes. Spike runs out the door into the sunlight covering his head and arms with his coat.
Riley: Buffy, what is this? You're hiding an H.S.T.?
Xander: Why don't you just back off and let her ask the questions, Jack? Your boss just tried to make monster food out of her. Riley looks around. Giles crosses his arms. Riley: I-I didn't see much, I wasn't there unnhhh. All I know is that Professor Walsh told me you were dead but then I saw you on the monitors. Ummph. {look} This isn't Professor Walsh. Ummph. There must be something making her act this way. Something ummph I don't know, controlling her.
Giles (softly): We think Buffy may have been becoming too inquisitive. That she was getting close to something that Professor Walsh was trying to hide. Do you have any idea what that might be?
Buffy: What about 314? Maybe that's it.
Riley: Maybe she was trying to test you. What if it was only a drill?
Buffy: Then why did she tell you I was dead? Riley it wasn't a test.
Giles (softly): See I've heard rumors that the Initiative isn't all that we've been told. That, um, secretly they're working toward some darker purpose, something that might harm us all.
Riley: No! That's - that's not what happens there.
Buffy: Riley!
Riley: I would know!
Buffy: No one is sure of anything, ok? We're were just trying to sort it out.
Riley: I can't be here. I'll sort it out on my own.
Buffy: Riley.
Riley: No. Just, umph, I'm sorry. Riley leaves.
Cut to A forested area. A small boy, perhaps 7 to 9, is squatting and playing with a silver armored doll. His bike is beside him. Adam sees the boy and approaches.
Adam: What am I? The boy stands.
Boy: You're a monster.
Adam (resigned?): I thought so. Adam (curious?): What are you?
Boy: Me? I'm a boy.
Adam: A boy. How do you work?
Boy: I don' know. I just do. Boy points to bone skewer/spur coming of Adam's wrist.
Boy: What's that for? Adam raises his wrist to look at the skewer, then looks at the boy. Adam smiles.
Cut to Riley wandering the campus at night. He passes a couple on a bench. A solitary student passes him.
Cut to Engelman entering darkened lab. He flicks the light switch several times but nothing happens.
Engelman: Dr Walsh? Engelman closes the door slowly.
Engelman: Adam? Engelman slips and falls. He sees red on his hands and realizes it is blood. He looks to see the puddle leads to a body. He trembles and scrambles back.
Cut to Mirrored ball in Xander's basement. Zooming and engine sounds are heard. Reflected light from the ball strikes Giles in the eye waking him. He is sleeping in plastic furniture. Pan past a makeshift curtain to Willow, Anya and Buffy in bed watching television. Wiley Coyote drops a wrecking ball on a chain. The ball misses the Roadrunner and instead of stopping halfway up, continues in a full circle, taking out Wiley Coyote.
Buffy: That would never happen.
Willow: Well, no Buff, that's why they call them cartoons, not documentaries.
Giles: Must we have the noise. My head is splitting. Giles is standing and turns off the tv.
Willow: Well, look who's cranky bear in the morning.
Giles: Yes I can't imagine why I didn't sleep well in my beach ball.
Anya: Every time you moved it made squeaky noises. It was irritating.
Giles: Really. I'm surprised you could hear it over your Wagnerian snoring.
Buffy: Ok you guys, could we not please? Everything's screwed up enough without you two doing scenes from my parent's marriage.
Anya (to Giles): Sorry.
Giles (to Anya): {Sorry/Sallright.}
Buffy: Thank you.
Willow: It'll be ok Buffy, Riley's just confused, that's all.
Buffy: I don't know. It just seems like things could get heavier. His whole world's falling apart.
Anya: And after everything you've been through with Angel. You really should get yourself a boring boyfriend. Like Xander. You can't have Xander!
Buffy: That was the idea. Riley was supposed to be Mr. {{Joe Guy.}} We were going to do dumb things like hold hands through the daises going tra-la-la.
Willow: Poor Buffy. Your life resists all things average.
Anya: So dump him. But you can't have Xander!
Buffy: I'll try and remember that. It's too late anyway - I'm already at the I hurt when he hurts, I smile when he smiles stage.
Anya: I hate that part.
Buffy: I'll just have to make it work. Xander comes down the stairs carrying a breakfast tray with orange juice and some food.
Xander: Turn on the tv. Now! Willow does so and lays down again.
TV Announcer: Sunnydale is still reeling from news of the crime. A source in the coroner's office tells us that the boy was stabbed with what looks like some kind of large skewer and his body was then mutilated. Police have not named a suspect and the killer is still at large.
Buffy: The Polgara demon had a skewer in its arm. That's the one that Maggie insisted we bring back alive. Giles: She must have sent it after you.
Buffy: And it got distracted... God.
Willow: Buffy, its not your fault. Anya shakes head.
Willow: How could you know?
Giles: She's right. You mustn't blame yourself. Xander shakes head.
Buffy: I'm not going to. I'm going to the crime scene to see what I can find out. Buffy stands.
Buffy: You guys research the Polgara demon. I want to know where it is. When I find it I'm going to make him pay for taking that kid's life, I'll make him die in ways he can't even imagine.
Anya's eyes lower. Buffy: That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas.
Cut to Frat house. Riley starts walking up the stairs. Forest sees him and catches up.
Forrest: Hey. Where've you been all night? Well, congratulations. I see you and Buffy have finally gotten past the shy phase.
Riley: I wasn't with Buffy. I had to be alone, think some things through.
Forrest: What things? Riley enters his room and closes the door behind Forest.
Forrest: This is mighty ominous. Forrest: What's up man?
Riley: Professor Walsh tried to have Buffy killed. Forrest: What? Did Buffy tell you that, I mean do you have any proof?
Riley: I saw enough to know it's true.
Forrest: I don't get it. Why?
Riley: I dunno. Buffy thinks that she's getting too close to something - that Professor Walsh has some secret.
Forrest: I wouldn't put it past Buffy to get on Professor Walsh's bad side. She tends to put her nose where it doesn't belong.
Riley: What?
Forrest: She's a pain. Always wanting to know why this and why that?
Riley: And you're saying she should die because of that?
Forrest: I don't know. Maybe Professor Walsh found out that Buffy was up to something bad. That ever cross your mind?
Riley: Why does it bug you so much that I'm hanging with her? Is it because she's a better soldier than you?
Forrest: It bugs me that she's using you to infiltrate our operation.
Riley: So you saying that she's a spy? Hmpph You're crazy.
Forrest: Riley think about it. The professor's not stupid, she tried to kill Buffy, maybe Buffy needed killing. Graham enters.
Graham: Guys.
Riley: Not now {Brian/Graham/Brad}. Graham doesn't leave.
Forrest: What is it?
Graham: Professor Walsh is dead.
Cut to Initiative lab. Riley goes to see Walsh's body. Two scientists kneel over it. Military garbed types are standing guard. Forrest arrives moments later.
Forrest: Look at that wound. She's been staked, wouldn't you say brother?
Riley: What?
Forrest: Only one person I can think of that who could do something like that.
Riley: You better not be saying what I think you're saying. When we don't know a person did this - the Polgara demon has skewers. Riley walks off. Forrest walks after him.
Forrest: {No way } man that's your girlfriend's m.o. Riley grabs Forest's shirt.
Riley: That's a serious accusation. You better be ready to deal with the consequences. Forrest shoves Riley back.
Forrest: Bring em on. That supernatural freak has blinded you and I'm sick of it.
Riley: That's enough.
Engelman: Stand back {man/Finn}. Show some respect. Listen, everybody's upset but arguing isn't going to help anything and it's certainly not what Professor Walsh would want.
Riley: No sir.
Engelman: Alright, good. Now Washington is sending in a team to do an internal investigation. I've been told we have to wait for their word.
Riley: What do you mean wait? This has to be the work of the Polgara demon we captured last week.
Engelman: Probably. It looks like last night the Polgara escaped through tunnel 72. Riley: It's out loose somewhere?
Engelman: I'm afraid so.
Riley: Then we have to go after it.
Engelman: My orders from Washington are for a total lock down until they arrive. I'm sorry. Now, return to your quarters. There's nothing you can do here.
cut to Riley and some commandos alone.
Riley: Listen. Engelman can talk all he wants, but I'm still in charge 'til the brass gets here and tells me otherwise and I say we've got a demon to hunt. Now suit up for armed patrol And by that I mean loaded guns, men. Target practice is over. We're {going} for blood.
Cut to daylight. The Initiative is entering mausoleums or burial crypts.
various voices: Move. Let's go inside. Establish a perimeter. {unintelligible} back. Forrest and Graham enter a crypt.
Forrest: Somebody's been staying here.
Graham: What do you think, a homeless guy?
Forrest: Could be - or a squatter of the demon variety.
Graham: Not the Polgara.
Forrest: Who cares? I see a demon - it dies. Graham puts his hand on the tv.
Graham: It's warm. Both remove cover of a fixed stone coffin only to find bones and a black shroud/dress.
Forrest: Damn. Forrest smashes the tv with the butt of his gun as he leaves.
Forrest: Animals! Spike peeks out from beneath the bones and the black dress or shroud. He exhales.
cut to The crime scene. Buffy looks from a distance. Yellow tape surround a policeman, someone in plain clothes and two ambulance personnel. Behind Buffy Riley approaches past a policeman dressed in commando garb.
Riley: Buffy. Hey. Buffy: Hey.
Buffy: Look I'm sorry about earlier. I know that {{au burn?}} came on pretty strong. And the Spike thing isn't as tweaked as it looks. Ok maybe it is but there's an explanation that almost makes sense. Hello. I'm apologizing here. And I-I think that's pretty big of me considering I'm the one who was almost made a demon sandwich. This is the part where you throw me a bone.
Riley: Maggie's dead. silence
Riley: Happy now?
Buffy: How can you ask me that? Of course I'm not happy. What happened?
Riley: That's classified.
Buffy: Classifie_ The Polgara. It got her and escaped. Didn't it?
Buffy: I'm gonna find it. I'm gonna find it and destroy it. And then you can stop asking me how happy all this death makes me. She walks away
Cut to knocks Tara opens her door.
Willow: Howdy.
Tara: I just got your message a minute ago. I was in class. But I was about to call you.
Willow: I had so much fun the other night, those spells.
Tara: Yeah, that was nice.
Willow: I hope you don't think that I just come over for the spells and everything. I mean ,I really like just talking and hanging out with you and stuff.
Tara: I know that. But you wanna do a spell.
Willow: Yeah. Tara giggles.
Willow: But only because it's really important. There's this..
Tara: No you don't have to explain I don't mind really. I've been uh thinking about that last spell we did... all day.
Willow: You have?
Tara: Mmmhmmm.
Willow: Well this one should be really fun too. We conjure the goddess Thespia to help us locate demonic energy in the area.
Tara: The goddess Thespia. Are you sure we're ready for that?
Willow: You and me! This is beneath us.
Tara: Ok. exhales Tara: If you say so.
cut to bar Buffy enters. Willy cringes and moves down to the end of the bar after tilting his head to tell Buffy to move down there. Demons are drinking, hanging out.
Willy: You're killing me here.
Buffy: Oh missed you too. Joint's jumping.
Willy: Yeah ya know. I'm making some changes with my life. Getting away from my old image.
Buffy: You mean as a double dealing snitch.
Willy: Uh Hunh. I know you're going think I'm blowing smoke, but after those Apocalypse demons nearly did me in I had an experience of the spiritual variety.
Buffy: That's swell really. But I need to know if you've heard anything about a Polgara demon doing some killings in the last few days.
Willy: You see that's the thing. I don't talk behind people's backs no more. And I'm bringing some class to the joint, ya know. It's Willy's Place now, see. Brings in a better clientele. I got one of those deep fryers. These demons just go crazy for chicken fingers. Look - if they see me dealing with you then I'm just the same old Willy working both sides of the street.
Buffy: I'm going to have to punch you aren't I?
Willow: Just once and it don't have to hurt, just make it look good. Buffy cocks her arm.
Willy: Ohhh. Oww.
Buffy: Not yet. I haven't touched you Willy: Sorry right, right, g-go ahead. Wait. Willy (loudly): No! I can't talk to you! Buffy punches him. She doesn't seem to have held back. Willy grabs his nose.
Willy: Ohhh! Owwww!
Buffy: What have you heard about the Polgara?
Willy: Heard there was one around a week or two back. Word was you got him. You and those army guys.
Buffy: And that was the last you heard?
Willy: Yeah as far as I know he's off the streets.
Buffy: What about those army guys? What do you know? You heard anything about 314? Beads rattle as Riley enters.
Buffy: What are you doing here? Following me?
Riley: You told me you were tracking the Polgara demon, I thought I'd help. But now I see you're not hunting demons you're socializing with them. Again! I thought you were supposed to be killing these things not buying them drinks.
Buffy: Oh that's smooth, officer Riley. They teach you those undercover moves in special forces?
Riley: No I'm serious Buffy. What are you doing here?
Willy: Just cooling her dogs like the rest of us. Why don't you sit down, relax?
Riley: I want you to tell me. Who are you?
Willy: No kidding. How about I get you some chicken fingers on the house?
Riley: Hey think you could shut up!
Willy: Look I'm just saying.
Riley: I said shut up! Or maybe you'd like to go back to the lab with me. I'm sure the coats would love to classify a - whatever you are.
Buffy: Leave him alone Riley, he's human.
Riley: So he's human. Riley is trembling.
Buffy: You're shaking.
Riley: He just harbors demons. Which makes him a good guy like you? Riley grabs Buffy's arms.
Riley: The truth, Buffy, now!
Buffy: You have the truth. You are just screwed up because of what happened to Professor Walsh to see it. Now let go of me. Buffy breaks his grip. An old woman starts to leave. Riley: Hold it you! Riley turns with drawn pistol pointed at the woman.
Riley: No leaving til I say so! His hand is trembling.
Willy: Hey! We got new rules here, no killing.
Riley: Right. Except rules don't seem to apply much these days do they? Like if I shot you right now I don't know if I'd have a corpse on my hands or one pissed off vampire.
Buffy: Riley.
Riley: I mean who do you believe? First it sounds like lies, then it sounds like truth. Buffy (softly): Riley. Silence. The old woman starts crying. Perhaps she says please in between sobs. Riley's hand continues to shake. Riley puts gun down on bar, smashing glasses. Riley trembles and Buffy steps closer.
Riley: Oh what's happening to me?
=3D=3D=3D
cut to Xander's basement
Riley sits on a bed holding his head in his hands. The makeshift curtain is closed to allow some privacy. Buffy sits next to him and puts a shawl on his back. He sets it down.
Buffy: Riley why don't you lie down? You'll be more comfortable. Riley is shaking. And he is scratching his hand bloody.
Buffy: Stop it. Buffy grabs his hand.
Riley: I can't. It's like something's growing inside of me.
Buffy: No. You're hurting yourself. Ok shhh. Buffy takes off her bandana and wraps it around his hand.
Riley: I thought I knew, but I don't. I don't know anything.
Buffy (softly): Sshhh. You're sick. Once you get some rest... Riley trembles and shakes during this.
Riley: No. Buffy. I don't know... anything. I don't know what's going on. Who the bad guys are. Maybe I'm the bad guy. Maybe I'm the thing you should kill.
Buffy: No! Don't you even think that. Buffy strokes Riley's cheek.
Buffy (softly): Ok listen to me. You're sick. You just need to get some sleep. Please. Lie down for me. Come on. Riley curls up in a fetal position. Shaking. Buffy strokes his forehead. Buffy: {It'll} be ok. Riley seems to calm and shake less. His breathing calms. Perhaps he is asleep. Buffy exits through the makeshift curtains.
[SCENE_BREAK]
On the other side.
Giles: How is he?
Buffy: It isn't just grief making him act this way. Something's affecting him physically and its getting worse.
Anya: {Do} you think Professor Walsh did something to him?
Buffy: I don't know, but I'm ready to find out.
Xander: That's gonna be tough, what with Maggie's deadness and all.
Buffy: She must have kept records somewhere. A-about Riley, about 314, about all of it. And I'm sure she wasn't the only person that knew what she was up to.
Xander: So what's the plan?
Buffy: Giles, Anya keep researching. Xander, you and I are going undercover.
Anya: Hey! Remember before. No Xander! Not in a boyfriend way or a lead him to a certain death way.
Buffy: He's the only one with military experience.
Anya: It's not like he was in the 'Nam. He was GI Joe for one night.
Xander: It's ok Anya. I've backed up Buffy before.
Anya: Can't you do something else to help them? Like... Xerox handouts or something? Xander holds Anya's arms.
Xander: I'll be careful. Promise. Xander goes off.
Giles: It's a minor point but how do you plan to get in to the Initiative? I sure their, uh, security system's almost impenetrable.
Buffy: I have my clearance. I'm hoping she didn't have time to revoke it.
Giles: {Ok}. As to the whereabouts of this Polgara demon... I'm afraid we've-we've not turned up much. There's been no reports since its original capture.
Buffy: Then we'll just have to keep looking.
cut to A square of twine with the points held down by four different colored crystals. Pull back to reveal Willow and Tara sitting.
Tara: So the square is Sunnydale.
Willow: Right it's like a map. We both take different parts of the potion and when we do the incantation we both blow it onto the square at the exact same time.
Tara: But hown does it work?
Willow: Well that's the cool part. When the potion mixes and Thespia is called it creates this mist over the parts where the demons are. I-It even makes different colors for different breeds.
Tara: Wow. Tara nodds.
Willow: You ready? Tara nodds. Willow pours some green powder into Tara's hand from a grey stone bowl or mortar, then some white powder into her own hand from a green mortar.
Willow: Let's do it. Willow closes her eyes. Tara closes her eyes.
Tara: Thespia, we walk in shadow, walk in blindness. You are the protector of the night.
Willow: Thespia, goddess, ruler of all darkness, we implore you, open a window to the world of the underbeing. Both blow but Tara surreptitiously lowers her hand and dumps her powder under the bed/table cloth? while Willow is actually blowing her powder.
Willow: With your knowledge may we go in safety. With your grace may we speak of your benevolence. Willow opens her eyes to see no effect.
Willow: Or not. Willow looks confused. Tara looks down and looks back a Willow.
Cut to Frat house. Buffy is wearing glasses with her hair up in a bun and carrying a white cloth bag. Xander is dressed in green military style gear. But he has a white t-shirt showing.
Xander: Seems pretty quite.
Buffy: It usually is this time of _ A man goes past them. They continue on. Buffy touches a panel and then stands in front of the full length mirror.
Xander: Buff, maybe You should check the look later.
Buffy: Shhh. Buffy pushes Xander so he is not in front of the mirror.
Xander: Oww! What'd you do that for?
Buffy: Sorry, I'm the only one that can pass the retinal scan.
Xander: The. Ewww. I don't wanna see that.
Buffy: Retinal. Scan. Xander.
Buffy: Well we'll know in a few seconds if my clearance is still good.
Xander: Or if we're about to die at the hands of fifty grief filled military goons.
Voice: Retinal scan recorded. Summers, Buffy. Elevator opens and Buffy steps in.
Xander: Why am I not entirely comforted by the arrival of the man-sized microwave? Xander steps in. The doors close behind them. View of the elevator from below as it descends. They exit as the doors open.
Cut to The Iniative.
Xander: Holy moley. Buffy: I know.
Speaker voice: {____} Xander: I totally get it now. Can I have s*x with Riley too? Buffy looks at Xander.
Speaker voice: Dr Forman {to the examining area} Xander: Quick pretend to make out with me.
Buffy: Wait, what are you talking about?
Xander: Well I uh, you know. In the movies the guy and the girl have to hide.
Speaker voice: {Doctor _} Buffy: Please, could you possibly draw more attention to us. The two guys Xander saw coming up the stairs pass them as Buffy looks at her clipboard.
Speaker voice: Agent Owens to interrogation.
Buffy: This is the Initiative Xander. Military guys and scientists do not make out with each other.
Xander: Well maybe that's wrong with the world. Ever think about that?
Cut to Xander's basement.
Willow: It totally failed. It wasn't even like the spell went wrong. It just wouldn't.
Giles: If it's any consolation, we haven't fared much better here.
Willow: Really. Is Riley ok?
Giles: Well he's asleep finally. {But} he doesn't look good. And the, uh, research is troubling as well. I mean, this-this demon we're after seems highly atypical for a Polgara. This child that it killed is mutilated. There's no recorded cases of a Polgara ever having done such a thing.
Anya: Also the Polgara have to eat every two hours. Factor in the low I.Q. and you have a demon who's not exactly low profile.
Willow: So how had he been hiding in Sunnydale for the last two days without anyone seeing him?
Giles: Exactly. Willow pulls back the curtain surrounding the bed. Riley is standing there, no longer lying down.
Willow: Riley!
Riley: Where's Buffy?
Willow: She went out. Can-can I get you something?
Riley: Just tell me where she is.
Giles: You're not well Riley you need to rest. Riley puts on his boots.
Riley: Did she find the Polgara? Hunh? Is that it?
Giles: Well, no, we're still looking.
Riley: Well what?
Willow: She went to find out what's making you sick.
Riley: I'm not sick. Are you're telling me she went to the Initiative. Riley goes to grab his stuff.
Willow: Riley she's just trying to help you. Willow moves between Riley and the stairs.
Riley: She doesn't belong there. Willow: Riley listen/
Riley: Stand away from the stairs.
Willow: No, you're gonna get Buffy killed. Riley tosses Willow behind him and she falls. Giles: Hey. Riley goes up the stairs. Giles and Anya go to a fallen Willow. They help her up.
Giles: You alright?
cut to Initiative. Buffy eavedrops on a conversation while Xander stands by her.
Engelman: how many of the men are still out the longer they go without their meds
Scientist: Everyone's off their schedules because of the professors' death.
Engleman: It's dangerous I don't want to think about the damage out guys could do under the stress of withdrawal especially since they won't understand what's happening to them. These guys don't know they've been getting meds in their food so we better get them in here stat
Scientist: we've located all but a few. the last ones were in pretty bad shape but we stabilized them
Engleman: but Finn wasn't one of them, right.
Scientist: no
Engleman: Find him. He's the one I care about. He's too important to our work to lose now.
Scientist: indeed.
cut to bar music: I had said it time and time again spike: double shot of {{verneg}}, keep. Make it the good stuff don't want no freaking orangutan willy: got ya
Spike: been a real pisser of a day isn't it? Those army blokes are on a tear. They ran me out of my place. And all over town. A demon places a hand on his shoulder
Spike: Yeah what's that. Spike gets punched in the face
Engleman: Keep me posted. I'll be in records Engleman enters a room with his card and Buffy manages to follow him before the door shuts. Buffy grabs Engelman's shirt.
Buffy: Now I don't generally like to kill humans. But I've learned that it pays to be flexible in life.
Engleman: I was wondering when you'd turn up.
Buffy: Oh darn! She takes off the glasses. Buffy: So this isn't a surprise. She sets the glasses down. Buffy: Now you can tell me what you did to Riley and after that we can take a tour of room 314.
Engleman: Somebody's coming, you know. I'm sure they've already seen you on the security monitors. Riley enters.
Riley: Monitors are non-functional at this time, sir. Went down about ten minutes ago.
Buffy: What! I didn't do that.
Xander: Thank god for small favors and we'll worry about the details later, hunh, Buff?
Engleman: Finn take this girl to the stockade immediately.
Buffy: Riley, he can tell us what we need to know. Maggie wanted me dead, didn't she?
Engleman: She did. He looks at Riley Engleman: But understand the Initiative has no interest in eliminating the slayer. He looks back at Buffy. Engleman: It was her own vendetta.
Buffy: Why? Spell it out for me! I feel an attack of dumb blonde coming on.
Engleman: I don't know. {Buffy grabs a little tighter.}
Buffy: Well think harder!
Engleman: It was the project.
Buffy: Project? 314.
Engleman: It... He looks at Riley and back.
Engleman: It escaped. Riley steps closer.
Riley: That's enough! You're making her sound like some psychopath. She wasn't like that! she was a brillant woman! Engleman is looking at Riley. Engleman moves his hand downward in a take it easy gesture.
Engleman: She was. It's not..
Riley: All she was doing was trying to help people and this is the way you want them to remember her!
Buffy: Engleman said Walsh was feeding you drugs. Riley moves within arm's reach. Buffy lets Engelman go.
Riley (pointing to Buffy): You're doing this to me, aren't you? Engleman slips back.
Riley: This all started because of you.
Buffy: If you will just listen to me, I am trying to help you get to the truth.
Riley: You want truth then tell me, what did you do to her Buffy? Riley grabs Buffy and she breaks the grip.
Buffy: Stop it! I didn't do anything. Again Riley grabs Buffy and she breaks the grip.
Buffy: Riley stop! This isn't about us, everything that we need to know is here, we just need to find out what was in 314. An commando's body drops from a raised platform. On the platform is Adam.
Adam: Me.
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Adam paces on the platform.
Adam: I've been thinking about the world. I wanted to see it, learn it.
Adam: I saw the inside of that boy... and it was beautiful, but it didn't tell me about the world. It just made me feel. So now I want to learn about me. Why I feel? What I am? Adam simply steps off the platform and drops about 3 yards/meters.
Adam: So I came home. Adam inserts a thick disk from a pouch on his right waist into his chest. The letters Ad__ were on it.
Adam: I'm a kinematically redundant, biomechanical demonoid designed by Maggie Walsh. She called me Adam and I called her mother.
Engleman: Adam. Maggie would want you to stand down.
Adam: Yes. But I seem to have a design flaw. Engleman pales.
Adam: In addition to organic material I'm equipped with GP-2, D-11 Infrared Detectors, A Harmonic Decelerator, plus D.C. Servo.
Buffy: She pieced you together from parts of other demons.
Adam: And man. And machine. Which tells me what I am, but not who I am. Mother wrote things down. Hard data, but also her feelings. That's how I learned that I have a job here. And that she loved me.
Riley: She wasn't your mother and she didn't love you!
Xander: Is that really the issue?
Riley: She made you because she was a scientist!
Xander: Riley! Adam pulls another disk from a pouch on his waist and inserts it in his chest. It has the letters FI__ on it.
Adam: Riley Finn.
Riley: Stop! Those files...
Adam: Oh! Mother created you too.
Riley: Maggie's not my mother! I have a mother! A real _
Adam: A birth mother. Yes. But after you met Maggie, she was the one who shaped your basic operating system. She taught you how to think, how to feel. She fed you chemicals to make you stronger - your mind and body. She said that you and I were her favorite children. Her art. That makes us brothers. Family. Riley steps forward.
Riley: No! I'm not like you.
Adam: That's pain isn't it? Why? Because your feeding schedule - the chemicals have been interupted? Or do you miss her? Tell me.
Riley: I'll kill you!
Adam: You won't. You haven't been programmed to.
Riley: I cannot be programmed! I'm a man!
Adam: It's here. {He holds a diskette up.}
Adam: The plan she had for us. What happens. How it ends.
Riley: No. Adam Do you want to hear?
Riley: No! Riley pulls his pistol and Adam disarms Riley. Buffy steps in and a punch downs her. Riley punches Adam's face and Adam responds with an uppercut sending Riley flying up in the air over a table. Xander runs in to push Adam and is pushed and thrown back into a wall. Buffy throws a kick to Adam's chest. Adam punches Buffy's face. Buffy punches Adam's stomach and Adam chops at her shoulder and she falls. Engelman starts to run. Adam's skewer comes out. Engelman passes Adam.
Adam: Doctor. Adam skewers Engelman in the middle of his chest and Engelman falls, dead. Riley grabs Adam around the throat from behind. Adam breaks the hold, turns and stabs Riley with his skewer on his left side, and Riley falls clutching his wound. Buffy kicks Adam in the back. Adam spins and Buffy dodges the skewer. Adam knock Buffy to the floor. Adam picks up Buffy who is holding the skewer and throws her about 3 yards or meters into a steel door. She doesn't rise. The commandos are pounding on the door. Adam looks around.
Adam: Thank you. This has been... very interesting. Adam walks up some stairs towards the platform he started from.
Unseen military guy: Back away from the door Adam reaches up towards a vent. Shots pierce the door. Buffy moves to Riley's side. The commandos break open the door.
Buffy: Riley. Are you ok?
Unseen military guy: Secure the {room.}
Xander: {We} got a demon in here. It escaped through that vent.
Buffy: It's not the Polgara - it looks sort of half man.
Forrest: Right and you just happened to be in the neighborhood.
Riley: She's telling the truth. I saw it. It killed Engelman. Go.. now.
Buffy: He needs to go to a hospital.
Forrest: We'll take it from here.
Buffy: I'm going with him.
Forrest: It's a military hospital.
Buffy: No.
Forrest {growls}: Back off. Forrest: We take care of our own around here, understand! Two commandos lower rifle weapons and aim them at Buffy. Two more are beside them.
Xander: Buffy. They stop aiming their weapons. Forest and Graham each take one of Riley's arms and help him up.
Forrest: "Escort them out." Riley turns his head slightly to look back.
Riley (weakly): Buffy.
Cut to alley. Smacking sounds. Spike rolls and falls on his back, his face is bloody, but not from feeding. A demon walks and looks down at a prone Spike.
Demon: What did you expect spike - a welcome party? Two other demons look on from the door.
Demon: Word's out - you've been making war on the demon world.
Spike: War?
Demon: With the slayer. You kill other demons and the rest of us don't hold with that. The two demons in a doorway who were watching turn around to go back inside.
Demon: Still, if I see you around again, I'll be inclined break that code. Do you understand? The demon leaves. Spike has still not moved since falling.
Cut to Campus, daylight. Buffy and Willow are walking.
Willow: No word from Riley?
Buffy: Nothing. The Initiative probably has him locked in some medical ward. {There's} no way I can get near him until I come up with a better plan than just storming in and getting us all shot.
Willow: Yeah, you might want to work the kinks out of that one.
Buffy: What am I going to do? He needs me and I can't get near him.
Willow: You'll find a way.
Buffy: It's not like I can spend all of my energy going after the Initiative. Not while Adam's out there.
Willow: He's really that big of a threat? They sit on a bench.
Buffy: I could barely fight him. It's like Maggie designed him to be the ultimate warrior. He's smart and fast. He gave the commando guys the slip with no problem.
Willow: There's gotta be a flaw.
Buffy: I think the part where he's pure evil and kills randomly was an oversight
Buffy: I never should have let them take Riley. I need to be with him.
Willow: I'm sure he's ok.
Buffy: There's no way he can be. Everything's he's ever believed in has been taken away. He's alone. He has nothing to hold on to.
Cut to Initiative hallway with three scientist and military types.
Cut to Room and a bed with Riley on it. He has bandages wrapped around his midsection. Riley raises his hand, which was in shadow and looks at Buffy's bandanna which he has wrapped around it and is clasping.
[SCENE_BREAK]
BTVS for whatever reason, to enjoy, as well as those who think transcripts are just cool, and as reference material for fanfic writers. Buffy and all copyrighted characters are the product of Joss Whedon and I have nothing but respect for him and those whose hard work is put into bringing us a great show. I did this of my own free time and will never make a dime from it. Now let me add. If you are looking at this transcript, save it, copy it, send it to your friends. Unlike other transcribers, who I have nothing but respect for, if you see any mistakes that might be in this transcript, feel free to correct them, or if you just want to personalize it to suit yourself, by all means. Hell I do it. ~~~~~~~~~~ Prologue ~~~~~~~~~~~ Fade-in. Giles' apartment. Just the way we left things from "The `I' in Team." Buffy is pacing, Giles is standing close by, Willow is sitting at his desk, Spike is sitting on the bottom steps of the stairs, and Anya and Xander are sitting on Giles' weapons trunk against the wall. Buffy is in the middle of telling them what just happened.
Buffy: So Maggie sends me down into the sewers with one of those Blasto-guns. And the next thing I know, it's raining monsters.
Xander: (without humor) Hallelujah.
Buffy: And then this gate slams down behind me and I try to use the gun but it goes "phitt!"
Giles: You're saying that Maggie Walsh set you up?
Buffy: That's exactly what I'm saying. She sent me on a way-one recon.
Spike: Gotta hand it to you, Goldilocks. You do have bleeding, tragic taste in men. I got a cousin married to a regurgitating Frovalox demon that's got better instincts than you.
Buffy: (glaring at him) What does my taste in men have to do with this?
Spike: Do you think Riley was out knitting booties for your future off-spring while Maggie was stringing you up? Buffy looks at everyone else's expressions. They don't say anything, but she can see from their faces . . .
Buffy: You guys think Riley had something to do with this?
Giles: Probably not. But, uh . . . we'd be remiss if we didn't think of all the possibilities.
Buffy: (softly) Right. "Remiss." She's turning away, then suddenly faces him again.
Buffy: No. No. Maggie made sure he was no where around when she sent me on this very special "make Buffy dead" assignment.
Willow: And plus, Riley? He seems like he wouldn't tell a little white lie, let alone a whole bunch of big, dirty ones.
Xander: That's why they call it the "secret forces," Will. 'Cause they kinda keep the whole lying thing to themselves.
Buffy: All I know is that Maggie has it in for me. Which means the Initiative has it in for me.
Xander: I'm guessing the mad scientist isn't too keen on the fact that the entire Scooby Gang knows that the Initiative is up to no good.
Buffy: Which brings us back to the "not safe for any of us" concept.
Giles: What could have happened to make Professor Walsh want to kill you?
Buffy: (at a loss) I don't know. Uh . . . She wasn't keen on the fact that I was asking a lot of questions, that's for sure.
Anya: So you were getting too close to something?
Giles: Clearly. Although, one can only imagine what she'd be so desperate to hide.
Cut to deep in the woods. All is quiet with the peaceful sounds of birds and other forest noises. Pan to a concrete access tunnel just visible from the side of the hill. It doesn't look as if it's been used for sometime as the metal doors screech as they are opened from the inside. Close up on a pair of army boots walking down the steps from the entrance. As the shot pans up we see legs clad in camouflage commando pants and the left leg is in a metal brace (jointed at the knee) from ankle to mid-thigh. He's not wearing a shirt, and his flesh is a jigsaw of different skin types and there is an electronic metal plate over the left side of his chest. His face is mostly green except for the patch of pale human flesh around his right blue eye and ear. His left eye is a demonic red color. His short hair is a normal brown, but there is a metal plating that frames the left green side of his face and wraps around to the back of his head. Outside for the first time, Adam looks at his surroundings. Wolf's wolf. Buffy theme and credits roll. ~~~~~~~~~~ Part One ~~~~~~~~~~ Fade in to Giles' apartment. Buffy has Giles' trunk opened and is taking out weapons.
Buffy: Okay, everybody grab a weapon. We gotta move. She hands Xander a battle ax and gives Anya a bat with a fisherman's hook attached to the head.
Xander: And storm the Initiative? (bravado) Yeah, let's take on those suckers!
Buffy: I was thinking more that we'd hide.
Xander: (relieved) Oh, thank God.
Giles: Buffy, I think perhaps we should talk about this.
Buffy: We need to relocate some place where we're less likely to be found. We need to come up with a plan.
Willow: We could go to my place. (she is holding a wicked looking flail = think spiked mace on a chain)
Buffy: The Initiative guys know how close we are. They'll automatically check the places you hang out. Xander, what about your basement. The guys haven't seen us together that much and there's enough room.
Willow: (smiles) Oh, plus: mirror ball.
Xander: Cool! Come on down and boogie at Xander's hideaway.
Anya: (not happy) Yes. Come boogie.
Giles: Absolutely not. I will not squat in that dank whole.
Spike: What? It was good enough for me but you're above it all?
Giles: Precisely. (sits down at his desk) Besides, I don't see why we can't stay right where we are. (chuckles) Because it's very unlikely those Initiative boys are gonna come around here looking for-- The front door opens and Riley steps inside.
Riley: Buffy! Everybody looks at him in surprise. Riley closes the door and rushes over to Buffy.
Riley: God, Buffy. Are you okay? What happened?
Buffy: (a beat) You know?
Riley: I know something went down. (pause) Tell me.
Buffy: Maggie tried to kill me. No one says anything for a moment.
Anya: (helpfully) It didn't work, but they're all upset anyway.
Riley: Okay, listen. I need you to go over everything. Step by step. There has-- has to be some kind of mistake.
Xander: There was no mistake! And how do you know something happened?
Riley: I was on a mission. But I came back and . . . I'm not sure. Look, let's just keep our heads and not jump to any-- He looks over his shoulder and sees Spike sitting on the stairs. Spike looks away. Riley takes a step back in surprise as he faces the vampire.
Buffy: What?
Riley: That's Hostile 17.
Spike: Uh, no! I'm (bad American accent) just a friend of Xanderrr's-- (sighs) Bugger it. I'm your guy.
Buffy: This is Spike. He's, uh . . . It's a really long story. But he's not bad anymore.
Spike: Hey! (stands) What I am, a bleeding broken record? I'm bad! It's just . . . I can't bite anymore. Thanks to you w*nk*rs.
Riley: (exasperated) We've been looking all over the place for him but you've known where he's been all along?
Buffy: It's not like that.
Riley: Then what is it like? What's he doing here?
Spike: Leaving you swabs to your dramatics. Thanks. He walks over to the door and grabs his leather duster.
Spike: (putting it on) I've got my stories on the telly for that. By the by, if you're trying to kill her . . . Spike gives Riley two very enthusiastic thumbs up. Buffy rolls her eyes. He turns and pulls his coat over his head. He opens the door and runs outside.
Riley: Buffy . . . what is this? You're hiding an HST?
Xander: Why don't you just back off and let her ask the questions, Jack? Your boss just tried to make monster food out of her. Riley sees everyone looking at him and calms down.
Riley: I-I didn't see much. I wasn't there. I . . . All I know is Professor Walsh told me you were dead. But then I saw you on the monitors . . . Look this isn't Professor Walsh-- There must be something making her act this way. Something I-- I don't know. Controlling her.
Giles: We think Buffy may have been becoming too in inquisitive. That she was getting close to something that Professor Walsh was trying to hide. Any idea what that might be?
Buffy: What about 314? Maybe that's it?
Riley: Maybe she was trying to test you. What if it was only a drill?
Buffy: Then why did she tell you I was dead? Riley, it wasn't a test.
Giles: See, I've heard rumors that the Initiative wasn't all that we've been told. That, uh, secretly they're working towards some darker purpose. Something that might harm us all--
Riley: No! That's . . . that's not what happens there.
Buffy: Riley.
Riley: I would know!
Buffy: Look, no one is sure of anything. Okay? We're just trying to sort it out.
Riley: I can't be here. I'll sort it out on my own. (heads for the door)
Buffy: (going after him) Riley.
Riley: No! Just-- I'm sorry. He opens the door and is gone.
Cut to the woods again. Close up of a small boy sitting next to his bike. He is playing with a cyborg, soldier action figure. On the rise behind him, the back of a house can be seen not far away but it appears as if he's the only one outside right now. Until Adam sees the him. Despite his size, the boy doesn't notice Adam until he is standing just a few feet away. The boy looks up and smiles with a "cool!" expression on his face.
ADAM: What am I?
Boy: (standing) You're a monster.
ADAM: (nodding) I thought so. What are you?
Boy: Me? I'm a boy.
ADAM: (curious) A boy. How do you work?
Boy: I don't know, I just do. The boy sees something and points.
Boy: What's that for? Adam looks down and raises his Polgara left arm where just the sharp tip of the bone skewer (sheathed inside the forearm) is visible under his wrist. Adam looks at the boy and a "let me show you" smile slowly spreads across his grotesque face.
Cut to UC Sunnydale at night. Riley is walking across campus without a clear destination. Probably the first real brooding he's done in his entire life. On that depressing note we--
Cut to the Initiative. Lab 314. Dr. Angleman opens the door to the dark lab and flips the light switch. The lights stay off and he flips it on and off a couple times, but they remain off.
Angleman: Dr. Walsh? (worried whisper) Adam? Slowly, he starts walking across the lab but his feet slip out from under him and he falls to the floor. He's pushing himself up when he notices something wet on his hands. He sees they're covered with blood, then notices the trail of blood leading to the body of Professor Walsh lying face down on the floor. Angleman freaks, scrambles to his feet, and runs out of the lab. We go to Xander's basement. It is morning. Close up of the disco mirror ball hanging from the ceiling. Cut to Giles lying on an inflated beach chair. He's waking up and squints his eyes against the dots of light the mirror ball is shining in his face. He rubs a hand on his forehead. Obviously a good night's sleep he didn't get. Sounds of the Road Runner can be heard as the camera pans the basement. There is an empty sleeping bag on the floor next to Giles. Two blankets hanging from the clothesline divides the basement in half. On the other half we see Willow, Anya, and Buffy (in that order) still under the covers in the fold-out bed watching TV, where the self-proclaimed "super genius" (AKA Wile E. Coyote) is killing himself again with another one of his shoddy Acme traps that backfires on him. Willow finds this funny.
Buffy: (unmoved) That would never happen.
Willow: Well, no, Buff. That's why they call them cartoons not documentaries. Giles steps through the draped blankets and shuts off the TV.
Giles: Must we have the noise? My head is splitting. He's returning to the other side of the basement.
Willow: (smiling) Well, look who's cranky bear in the morning.
Giles: Yes. I can't imagine why I didn't sleep well in my beach ball.
Anya: Every time you moved it made squeaky noises. It was irritating.
Giles: Really? I'm surprised you could hear it over your Wagnerian snoring.
Buffy: Okay, you guys, could we not, please. Everything's screwed up enough without you two doing scenes from my parents' marriage.
Anya: (a beat) Sorry.
Giles: Sorry.
Buffy: Thank you. Giles disappears through the blankets.
Willow: It'll be okay, Buffy. Riley's just confused, that's all.
Buffy: I don't know. It just seems like things can get heavier. His whole world's falling apart.
Anya: And after everything you've been through with Angel. You know, you really should get yourself a boring boyfriend. (smiles) Like Xander. (then) You can't have Xander.
Buffy: That was the idea. Riley was supposed to be Mr. Joe Guy. We were gonna do dumb things like hold hands through the daisies going "tra la la."
Willow: Poor Buffy. Your life resists all things average.
Anya: So dump him! (sternly) But you can't have Xander.
Buffy: I'll try and remember that. (pause) It's too late, anyway. I'm already at the "I hurt when he hurts. I smile when he smiles" stage.
Anya: (whispers) I hate that part.
Buffy: I'll just have to make it work. Xander hurries down the stairs into the basement, carrying a breakfast tray.
Xander: Turn on the TV. Now! Willow gets up to switch the TV back on. The news is on.
Newswoman: Sunnydale is still reeling from news of the crime. (Giles peeks out from the blankets brushing his teeth) A source in the coroner's office tells us that the boy was stabbed with what looks like some kind of large skewer. And his body was then mutilated. Police have not named a suspect and the killer is still at large. Realization fills Buffy's expression as she listens.
Buffy: The Polgara demon had a skewer in its arm. That's the one Maggie insisted we bring back alive.
Giles: (mouthful of toothpaste) She must have sent it after you.
Buffy: And it got distracted. (looks away) God.
Willow: Buffy, it's not your fault. How could you know?
Giles: She's right. You mustn't blame yourself.
Buffy: (a beat) I'm not going to. As she gets out of bed, cue "bad-ass" Chris Beck score. She faces them with a determined expression.
Buffy: I'm going to the crime scene to see what I can find out. You guys research the Polgara demon. I want to know where it is. When I find it, I am going to make him pay for taking that kid's life. I'll make him die in ways he can't even imagine. Bad-ass score dies and everyone just looks at her, seemingly, unmoved by her passionate speech. Buffy notices their looks and glances down at the weird pattern on her pajamas.
Buffy: That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas.
Cut to Lowell House. Riley has just walked in and is heading for his room. Forrest Gates spots him and catches up with him on the stairs.
Forrest: Hey! Where you been all night? Riley doesn't answer.
Forrest: (smiles) Well. Congratulations. I see you and Buffy have finally gotten past the shy phase. Forrest raises a fist for Riley to knuckle but Riley leaves him hanging. He's still in brooding mode.
Riley: I wasn't with Buffy. I needed to be alone. Think some things through.
Forrest: What things? In the hall now, Riley turns to face him. Then reconsiders and motions him to follow him into his room.
Forrest: (stepping inside) This is mighty ominous. What's up, man?
Riley: Professor Walsh tried to have Buffy killed.
Forrest: What? Did Buffy tell you that? I mean, do you have any proof?
Riley: I saw enough to know it's true.
Forrest: I don't get it. Why?
Riley: I don't know. (paces across the room) Buffy thinks that she's getting too close to something. That Professor Walsh has some secret.
Forrest: I wouldn't put it past Buffy to get on Professor Walsh's bad side. She tends to put her nose where it doesn't belong.
Riley: What?
Forrest: (angry) She's a pain. Always wanting to know "why this?" and "why that?"
Riley: (exasperated) And you're saying she should die because of that?
Forrest: I don't know. Maybe Professor Walsh found out that Buffy was up to something bad. That ever cross your mind?
Riley: Why does it bug you so much that I'm hanging with her? Is it because she's a better soldier than you?
Forrest: It bugs me that she's using you to infiltrate our operations.
Riley: (raising voice) So you're saying she's a spy? You're crazy!
(turns away)
Forrest: Riley, think about it. The professor is not stupid. If she tried to kill Buffy, maybe Buffy needed killing.
Behind Forrest, the door opens and Graham Miller steps inside.
Graham: Guys.
Riley: Not now, Graham. Graham's usually calm, stoic face seems a bit forced.
Forrest: What is it?
Graham: (deep breath) Professor Walsh is dead. Forrest takes this news and looks at Riley. Off Riley's shocked expression, we fade to commercial.
[SCENE_BREAK]
~~~~~~~~~~ Part Two ~~~~~~~~~~ Fade in on the Initiative. Riley rounds a corner quickly and pushes his way to the open door of lab 314. He sees Professor Walsh lying on the floor while two other scientists are looking over her body. Forrest steps up besides him and sees this and has to look away for a moment.
Forrest: (steely) Look at that wound. She's been staked, wouldn't you say, brother?
Riley: What?
Forrest: Only one person I can think of who could do something like that.
Riley: (warning tone) You better not be saying what I think you're saying. Riley steps out into the corridor. Forrest follows him and Riley faces him.
Riley: We-we don't know that a person did this. The Polgara demon has a skewer that comes right out of--
Forrest: (angrily) No way! That's your girlfriend's MO!
Riley: (grabs a fistful of Forrest's shirt) Hey, that's a serious accusation! You better be ready to deal with the consequences.
Forrest: (shoves Riley back) Then bring `em on! That supernatural freak has blinded you and I'm sick of it!
Riley: (advancing) That's enough! Angleman steps in between them.
Angleman: Stand back! Show some respect! Listen, everybody's upset. But arguing isn't going to help anything. And it's certainly not what Professor Walsh would want. Riley and Forrest keep "I'm gonna kick your ass" eye contact for a few more seconds then break off.
Riley: No, sir. (takes a couple of steps back)
Angleman: All right. Good. Now Washington is sending in a team to do an internal investigation. I've been told we have to wait for their word.
Riley: What do you mean "wait?" This has to be the work of the Polgara demon we captured last week!
Angleman: Probably. Looks like, last night, the Polgara escaped through tunnel seventy-two.
Riley: It's out loose somewhere?!
Angleman: I'm afraid so.
Riley: Then we have to go after it. Riley starts to walk off but Angleman stops him.
Angleman: My orders from Washington are for a total lock-down until they arrive. I'm sorry. Now, return to your quarters. There's nothing you can do here. Riley is silent then nods. Satisfied, Angleman walks off. When he disappears around the corner Riley turns to Graham and a few other commandos standing nearby.
Riley: Listen. Angleman can talk all he wants, but I'm still in charge until the brass gets here and tells me otherwise. I say we got a demon to hunt. (absently scratches the back of his right hand) Now suit up for armed patrol. And by that I mean loaded guns, man. Target practice is over. We're going for blood. They head off to follow their orders. Forrest looks at Riley but doesn't say anything as he walks past him to follow the others. Riley glances once more into the lab before following as well.
Cut to cemetery. Daylight. Two humvees pull up and commandos, fully armed, start storming the mausoleums. We see Forrest and Graham head toward a mausoleum.
Cut to interior of Spike's place. We don't see him inside and Forrest and Graham enter, rifles ready.
Forrest: Somebody's been staying here.
Graham: What do think, a homeless guy?
Forrest: (moving deeper into the chamber) Could be. Or a squatter of the demon variety.
Graham: But not the Polgara.
Forrest: (faces him) Who cares!? I see a demon, it dies. There is a TV set up on a stone bench. Graham puts a palm on top of it.
Graham: It's warm. Forrest glances at the sarcophagus and he and Graham move to either end, slinging their rifles. Together they raise the stone lid and lean it against the side. Inside they see an old decayed skeleton with its arms folded over its chest, covered in an old blanket. Unslinging there rifles they head for the door again.
Forrest: Damn. Forrest is passing the TV and he shatters the screen with the stock of his rifle.
Forrest: Animals. We hear them leave and we cut to a close up of inside the sarcophagus. The blanket is folded up and we see Spike's head poke out from between the skeleton's feet. He sits up, the skeleton's knees draping over his shoulders, and sighs in relief.
Cut to the dry hills on the outskirts of Sunnydale. Buffy is walking down a dirt road. Behind her, up the road, a police car is parked. Below and ahead of her, she sees the crime scene. Another police car is parked and a detective is talking with a uniformed cop as two coroner's people carry a gurney with a small zipped bodybag on it under the crime scene tape.
Riley: Buffy. She turns and sees Riley walking down the road towards her. He's in full commando attire. He's scratching the back of his right hand again.
Riley: Hey.
Buffy: Hey. Look, I'm sorry about earlier. I know everyone came on pretty strong. And the Spike thing isn't as tweaked as it looked. Okay, maybe it is. But there's an explanation that almost makes sense. (sees that he's looking off to the hills) Hello? I'm apologizing here. And I think that's pretty big of me, considering I'm the one who was almost made a demon sandwich. He doesn't say anything.
Buffy: This is the part where you throw me a bone.
Riley: Maggie's dead. Buffy absorbs this news. But before she can say anything--
Riley: Happy now?
Buffy: (eyes narrowing) How can you ask me that? Of course I'm not happy. What happened?
Riley: (coldly) That's classified.
Buffy: Classifi-- (realizes) The Polgara. It got her and escaped. Didn't it? Riley just nods.
Buffy: I'm gonna find it. I'm gonna find it and destroy it. (angry) And then you can stop asking me how happy all this death makes me! She steps around him and marches quickly back up the road. Riley turns as if to say something, but doesn't. Sighing, he faces the crime scene again.
Cut to someone knocking on a door. Tara walks up and opens it to see Willow in the hall.
Willow: (smiling) Howdy.
Tara: (smiles) I just got your message a minute ago. I was in class. But I was about to call you. She steps back to let Willow inside.
Willow: I had so much fun the other night. The spells.
Tara: Yeah, that was nice.
Willow: I hope you don't think that I just come over for the spells and everything. I mean, I really like just talking and hanging out with you and stuff.
Tara: I know that. (knowingly) But you want to do a spell.
Willow: Yeah. But only because it's really important. There's this--
Tara: No. You don't have to explain. I don't mind. Really. (smiles) I've been, um, thinking about that last spell we did all day.
Willow: (excited) You have? Well this one should be fun, too. We conjure the goddess Thespia to help us locate demonic energy in the area. It shouldn't be too tricky.
Tara: The goddess Thespia? Are you sure we're ready for that?
Willow: You and me? (gamely) This is beneath us.
Tara: (considers) . . . Okay. If you say so.
Cut to Willy's bar. Buffy makes her entrance by pushing aside the beaded string curtains and quickly spots Willy behind the bar. Willy sees her and doesn't bother to hide a "God must hate me" sigh. He motions her to the other end of the bar. Buffy follows and leans on the bar.
Willy: You're killing me here.
Buffy: Oh, I missed you, too. The joint's jumping.
Willy: Yeah. You know. (the vampire sitting nearby sees Buffy looking at him and takes his leave, forgetting his beer) Making some changes with my life. I'm getting away from my old image.
Buffy: You mean as a double-dealing snitch?
Willy: Uh-huh. I know you gonna think I'm blowing smoke, but after those apocalypse demons nearly did me in, I had an experience of the spiritual variety.
Buffy: (not caring) That's swell, really. But I need to know if you've heard anything about a Polgara demon doing some killings in the last few of days.
Willy: See, uh, that's the think. I don't talk behind people's backs no more. And I'm bringing some class to the joint. You know? It's "Willy's Place" now. See? (indicates neon sign on the wall) Brings in a better clientele. I got one of those deep friers. These demons just go crazy for chicken fingers. (off Buffy's expression) Look, if they see me dealing with you, then I'm just the same old Willy working both sides of the street.
Buffy: I'm gonna have to punch you, aren't I?
Willy: (not missing a beat) Just once and it don't have to hurt. Just make it look good. Buffy straightens and raises her fist. Willy instantly clutches his nose.
Willy: Oww! Oh!
Buffy: (whispering) Not yet, I haven't touched you!
Willy: Oh, sorry. Right. Right. G-go ahead. Wait. (louder voice) No. I can't talk to you--oww! Buffy straight-jabs him in the nose and now he's really hurting.
Willy: Ohhhh!
Buffy: What have you heard about the Polgara?
Willy: (still in pain) Heard there was one about a week or two back. Word was you got him. You and those army guys.
Buffy: And that was the last you heard?
Willy: Yeah. As far as I know, he's off the streets.
Buffy: What about those army guys? What do you know? You heard anything about 314? Riley walks through the stringed curtains. Looking the place over he realizes it's filled with demons. As he approaches Buffy we notice there is a thin sheen of sweat on his face. He doesn't look happy at what he's seeing.
Buffy: (faces him) What are you doing here? Following me?
Riley: (a tad pissed) You told me you were tracking the Polgara demon. I thought I'd help. But now I see you're not hunting demons, you're socializing with them. *Again.* I thought you were supposed to be killing these things not buying them drinks? By this point he's become the center of attention.
Buffy: (sarcastic) Oh, that's smooth, officer Riley. They teach you those undercover moves in special forces?
Riley: I'm serious, Buffy. What are you doing here?
Willy: Just cooling her dogs, like the rest of us. Why don't you sit down. Relax.
Riley: (ignores him) I want you to tell me. Who are you? (seething) Really? Buffy glares at him, becoming a little pissed herself.
Willy: No kidding. Why don't I get you some chicken fingers, on the house.
Riley: (to Willy) Hey, you think you can shut up?
Willy: Look, I'm just saying--
Riley: I said shut up! Or maybe you would like to go back to the lab with me. I'm sure the coats would love to classify a . . . whatever you are.
Buffy: Leave him alone, Riley. He's human.
Riley: So he's human. She looks at his arms.
Buffy: You're shaking.
Riley: (looking at Buffy) He just harbors demons. Which makes him a good guy like you? (grabs her roughly by the shoulders) The truth, Buffy. Now!
Buffy: You have the truth. You are just too screwed up because of what happened to Professor Walsh to see it. (raises voice) Now let go of me! (knocks his hands off her shoulders) A middle-age looking woman gets up from the bar and walks quickly towards the door. Riley spots her over his shoulder.
Riley: Hold it! You! She stops in her tracks as he draws his Barretta and aims it at her. The gun is trembling in his hand.
Riley: No leaving until I say so. Got it?
Willy: Hey. We got new rules here. No killing.
Riley: (looking over his shoulder) Right! Except the rules don't seem to apply much these days. Do they? The woman is now facing Riley and looks terrified. Riley's breathing is becoming heavier and his shaking is getting worse.
Riley: (to the woman) Like if I shot you right now, I don't know if I'd have a corpse on my hands or one pissed off vampire.
Buffy: Riley--
Riley: (to Buffy) I mean, who do you believe? First it sounds like lies. Then it sounds like truth. Looks at the woman. She's starting to whimper.
Buffy: Riley. . . He glances at Buffy and seems to realize what he's doing. He suddenly turns to the bar, sweeping his gun across the surface smashing several glasses. The woman flees. Buffy slowly approaches him. Concerned. He has his hands pressed to the bar as he leans against it, shaking uncontrollably.
Riley: What's happening to me? ~~~~~~~~~~ Part Three ~~~~~~~~~~ Fade in. Xander's basement. It seems to be night. Riley is sitting on the bed with his head in his hands. He's no longer wearing his commando vest, gunbelt, nor his boots. Buffy brings him a blanket and drapes it around his shoulders as she sits down next to him. He looks up and pushes the blanket off. He's still sweating and shaking. Buffy rubs a soothing hand on his back.
Buffy: (soft voice) Riley, why don't you lie down? You'll be more comfortable. She sees him furiously scratching the back of his right hand. He's broken the surface and there's a patch of red on his skin. She grabs his hands.
Buffy: Stop it.
Riley: (shaky voice) I can't. It's like . . . something's growing inside. He starts scratching and she takes his hand again.
Buffy: No. You're hurting yourself. C'mere. (she reaches up and pulls off the red scarf she had wrapped around her hair) Okay, shh. (gently wraps it around his hand)
Riley: I thought I knew . . . but I don't. I don't know anything.
Buffy: (soothingly) Shh. You're sick. Once you get some rest--
Riley: No. Buffy. I don't know . . . anything. I don't know which team I'm on. Who the bad guys are. (looks into her eyes) Maybe I'm the bad guy. Maybe I'm the thing you should kill.
Buffy: No. Don't you even think that. (puts a hand on his cheek) Okay, listen to me. You're sick. You just need to get some sleep. Please. Lie down for me. Come on. He pushes himself onto the bed and lays his head on the pillow. He curls his arms and legs in close as if cold and continues to shiver. Buffy walks around to the side and leans down to caress his cheek.
Buffy: (quietly) You're gonna be okay. His eyes are closed and he seems to calm down a little. Buffy turns and steps through the draped blankets to the other side of the basement. Giles, Xander, and Anya are there researching. Giles is bringing a box of old books they haven't looked through to the others.
Giles: How is he?
Buffy: This isn't just grief making him act this way. Something's effecting him physically and it's getting worse.
Anya: You think Professor Walsh did something to him?
Buffy: I don't know, but I'm ready to find out.
Xander: That's gonna be tough, what with Maggie's deadness and all.
Buffy: She must have kept records somewhere. A-about Riley, about 314, about all of it. And I'm sure she wasn't the only person that knew what she was up to.
Xander: So what's the plan?
Buffy: Giles, Anya, keep researching. Xander, you and I are going undercover.
Anya: Hey! (steps closer to Xander) Remember before? No Xander! Not in a "boyfriend" way or a "lead him to a certain death" way.
Buffy: He's the only one with military experience.
Anya: It's not like he was in the 'Nam. He was GI Joe for one night.
Xander: It's okay, Anya. I've backed up Buffy before.
Anya: (concerned) Can't you do something else to help them? Like Xerox handouts or something?
Xander: I'll be careful. (puts his hands on her shoulders) Promise. She concedes but is not happy about it and Xander goes to get ready. Giles stands up from the box of books he was going through and faces Buffy.
Giles: It's a minor point but how do you plan to get in to the Initiative? I'm sure their security system's almost impenetrable.
Buffy: I have my clearance. I'm hoping she didn't have time to revoke it.
Giles: Okay. Well as for the whereabouts of this Polgara demon, I'm afraid we've . . we've not turned up much. There've been no reports since its original capture.
Buffy: Then we'll just have to keep looking.
Cut to Tara's room. There is a bundle of string shaped into a square on the floor with four different color crystals weighing down each corner. Willow and Tara are sitting on either side of the square. Willow is grounding something in a small bowl.
Tara: So . . the square is Sunnydale?
Willow: Right. It's like a map. We both take different parts of the potion and when we do the incantation we both blow it onto the square at the exact same time.
Tara: But how does it work?
Willow: Well that's the cool part. When the potion mixes and Thespia's called it creates this mist over the parts where the demons are. I-It even makes different colors for different breeds.
Tara: Wow.
Willow: You ready? Tara nods. Willow pours some of the powdered contents of the bowl into Tara's palm, then pours some into her own hand from a second bowl.
Willow: Let's do it. She closes her eyes and Tara does the same.
Tara: Thespia, we walk in shadow. Walk in blindness. You are the protector of the night.
Willow: Thespia, goddess, ruler of all darkness, we implore you . . . open a window to the world of the underbeing. Willow blows the powder out of her hand over the square. Tara blows over her hand, not disturbing her powder, and leans toward her bed to dump the potion underneath it. Willow still has her eyes closed and did not see this.
Willow: With your knowledge may we go in safety. With your grace may we speak of your benevolence. Willow opens her eyes and looks down at the square, where nothing is happening. She frowns.
Willow: Or not. She looks at Tara. Tara gives her a disappointed look.
Cut to Lowell House. Buffy and Xander are quietly walking through the deserted lobby. Xander is wearing military garb similar to that of the Initiative commandos. He even has a gun belt with a sidearm in the holster (don't know if it's a real gun). Buffy is wearing a turtle-neck sweater, wire-rimmed glasses (got them from Giles?), and has her hair pulled back in a small bun. She is carrying a white lab coat wrapped around a clipboard.
Xander: Seems pretty quite.
Buffy: It usually is this time of-- A young man suddenly brushes past her but doesn't even act as if he notices them and continues on. Buffy and Xander continue into the central hallway of the building and Buffy pushes the hidden switch in the wall next to the floor to ceiling mirror and stands in front of it.
Xander: (stepping up next to her) Buff, maybe you should check the look later.
Buffy: Shh! (she shoves him away none too gently)
Xander: Oww! (surprised and a little hurt) What'd you do that for?
Buffy: Sorry. I'm the only one that can pass the retinal scan.
Xander: The re-- eww! I don't wanna see that.
Buffy: (glares) *Retinal* scan, Xander. (looks into the mirror again) Well, we'll know in a few seconds if my clearance is still good. A horizontal green light emits from the mirror and slides down over her body.
Xander: Or if we're about to die at the hands of fifty grief-filled military goons.
Female computer voice: Retinal scan recorded. Summers. Buffy. The mirror slides to the side and Buffy steps into the very white elevator. Xander follows her.
Xander: Why am I not entirely comforted by the arrival of the man-sized microwave?
Cut to Initiative. The elevator door slides open and Buffy is now wearing the lab coat and she and Xander step out onto the catwalk overlooking the huge hangar of the Initiative complex. His eyes widen as he gapes.
Xander: (awed) Holy moly!
Buffy: I know.
Xander: I totally get it now. Can I have s*x with Riley, too? Buffy glares at him but he's still staring and doesn't see it. She takes his arm and leads him towards the stairs. When they descend to the first landing they see a couple of commandos climbing the stairs towards them. Xander turns to Buffy and pulls her close to him.
Xander: (whispers) Quick pretend to make out with me!
Buffy: (whispers) What!? What are you talking about? (pushes away)
Xander: (whispers) Well, I, uh, you know, in the movies, the guy and the girl have to hide. They pretend to be looking at her clipboard as the commandos pass them and continue up the stairs.
Buffy: (whispers) Please! Could you possibly draw more attention to us? When the commandos are gone, they continue down to stairs.
Buffy: (whispers) This is the Initiative, Xander. Military guys and scientists do not make out with each other.
Xander: (whispers) Well maybe that's what's wrong with the world. Ever think about that? Back at Xander's basement. Riley is still in bed and is sleeping.
Cut to the other side of the basement. Willow is pacing. Anya is sitting in a large beanbag, looking through a book, and Giles is fixing tea on the washing machine.
Willow: It totally failed. It wasn't even like the spell went wrong. It just . . . wouldn't.
Giles: If it's any consolation, we haven't fared much better here.
Willow: Really. Is Riley okay?
Giles: Well, h-he's asleep. Finally. But he doesn't look good. (hands Anya a cup) And the, uh, research is troubling as well. I mean, this-this demon we're after seems highly atypical for a Polgara. This child that it killed . . was mutilated. There's no recorded cases of a Polgara ever having done such a thing.
Anya: (fidgeting with the string of her tea bag) Also the Polgara have to eat every two hours. Factor in the low IQ and you have a demon who's not exactly low profile.
Willow: So how has he been hiding out in Sunnydale for the last two days without anyone seeing him?
Giles: Exactly. Willow pushes aside the blanket to check on Riley. She finds him standing just a foot in front of her. His eyes look a little sunken.
Willow: (surprised) Riley.
Riley: (agitated) Where's Buffy?
Willow: She went out. Can-can I get you something? He sits on the bed to pull on his boots.
Riley: Just tell me where she is.
Giles: You're not well, Riley. Y-you need to rest.
Riley: Did she find the Polgara? (stands, rubbing his arm as if cold) Huh? Is that it?
Giles: Well, no, we're still looking. But--
Riley: But what?
Willow: She went to find out what's making you sick.
Riley: (sharply) I'm not sick! (more agitated) You're telling me she went to the Initiative?!
Willow: Riley, she's just trying to help you.
Riley: (crosses the basement to grab his gear) She doesn't belong there. Willow hurries to stand in front of the stairs to block his way.
Willow: Riley, listen--
Riley: Stand away from the stairs.
Willow: No! You're gonna get Buffy killed-- He shoves her hard to the ground.
Giles: Hey! He and Anya rush to Willow as Riley dashes up the stairs.
Giles: You all right? Willow is shakened but doesn't seemed to be hurt. As they help her we--
Cut to Initiative. Buffy and Xander are rounding a corner when they hear someone coming from down the corridor.
Angleman: How many of the men are still out? They return to the corner and try to look inconspicuous as Dr. Angleman enters the corridor with another scientist. They eavesdrop.
Angleman: The longer they go without their meds . . .
Scientist #1: Everyone's off their schedules because of the professor's death.
Angleman: It's dangerous. I don't want to think about the damage our guys could do under the stress of withdrawal. Especially since they won't understand what's happening to them. These guys don't know they've been getting meds in their food, so we better get them in here
STAT.
Scientist #1: We've located all but a few. The last ones were in pretty bad shape but we stabilized them.
Angleman: But Finn wasn't one of them, right?
Scientist #1: No.
Angleman: Find him. He's the one I care about. He's too important to the work to lose now.
Scientist #1: Indeed.
Cut to Willy's Place. Spike walks in through the beaded curtains and heads to the bar.
Spike: Double-shot of O-neg, 'keep. And make it the good stuff. I
don't want no freaking orangutan. (puts a few dollars on the bar)
Willy: Got ya. Willy grabs a shot glass and a bottle of thick, red liquid.
Spike: (as drink is being poured) Been a pisser of a day, isn't it? Those army blokes are on a tear. They ran me outta my place. And all over town. Willy moves on and before Spike can take a drink, a large demon hand falls on his shoulder.
Spike: Yeah, what's that? Spike turns his head to look at the demon. Spike's POV: the demon raises his other clawed hand in a closed fist and punches the camera out. (fade out) Back to the Initiative. Buffy and Xander are still eavesdropping on Angleman.
Angleman: Keep me posted. I'll be in records He walks away and the other scientist heads in the other direction. Buffy keeps her back turned as Angleman passes behind her to a door at the end of the hall. He slips a keycard through an electronic lock and steps through the door. It's swinging close behind him but Buffy shoves the clipboard inside before it can and walks in. She hands the clipboard to Xander and marches up behind Angleman who is unaware until she spins him around to face her and shoves him against a counter, getting a fistful of his shirt.
Buffy: (pissed) Now I don't generally like to kill humans, but I've learned that it pays to be flexible in life.
Angleman: I was wondering when you'd turn up.
Buffy: (mock disappointment) Oh darn! (takes off her glasses) So this isn't a surprise? Now you can tell me what you did to Riley and after that we can take a tour of room 314.
Angleman: Somebody's coming, you know? I'm sure they've already seen you on the security monitors.
Riley: (stepping from around a the corner) Monitors are non-functional at this time, sir. Went down about ten minutes ago.
Buffy: (looks to Xander) What? I didn't do that.
Xander: Thank god for small favors and we'll worry about details later, huh, Buff?
Angleman: Finn take this girl to the stockade immediately.
Buffy: Riley, he can tell us what we need to know. (to Angleman) Maggie wanted me dead, didn't she?
Angleman: (a beat) She did. (to Riley) But understand the Initiative has no interest in eliminating the Slayer. It was her own vendetta.
Buffy: Why? Spell it out for me. I feel an attack of "dumb blonde" coming on.
Angleman: I don't know.
Buffy: (jerks him closer) Well. Think. Harder.
Angleman: It was . . . the project.
Buffy: Project? 314.
Angleman: It . . . Glances at Riley who is paying close attention.
Angleman: (to Buffy) It escaped.
Riley: (stepping closer) That's enough! You're making her sound like some psychopath. She wasn't like that! She was a brilliant woman!
Angleman: She was. I--it's not--
Riley: (angry) All she was doing was trying to help people . . . and this is the way you want them to remember her?!
Buffy: (to Riley) Angleman said Walsh was feeding you drugs.
Riley: You're doing this to me, aren't you? He advances on her and Buffy lets go of Angleman to face him. Angleman starts slinking away towards a nearby door.
Riley: (glaring) This all started because of you!
Buffy: Look, if you will just listen to me, okay? I am trying to help you get to the truth.
Riley: You want truth? Then tell me . . . (grabs her arm) what did you do to her, Buffy?
Buffy: (breaks the hold) Stop it! I didn't do anything! Riley tries to grab her again and she has to push him back.
Buffy: Riley, stop! This isn't about us! Everything that we need to know is here. We just need to find out what was in 314. A commando's body suddenly drops to the floor behind them. They all turn and look up. On a catwalk Adam is looking down at them.
ADAM: Me. ~~~~~~~~~~ Part Four ~~~~~~~~~~~ Fade in. Exactly how we left everything. Adam starts to pace across the catwalk.
ADAM: I've been thinking about the world. I wanted to see it. Learn it. I saw the inside of that boy and it was beautiful. But it didn't tell me about the world. It just made me feel. So now . . . I want to learn about me. Why I feel? What I am? He stops pacing and turns to face them. He takes a step forward and drops to the floor, landing on his feet. He's looking at Riley.
ADAM: So I came home. He pulls out a computer disk from the cargo pocket of his camouflage pants. Its labeled "ADAM" and he slides it into the drive slot of the metal plate on his chest. The disk loads itself with a soft whirring.
ADAM: (pacing again) I'm a kinematically redundant, biomechanical demonoid. Designed by Maggie Walsh. She called me Adam and I called her mother.
Angleman: Adam. Maggie would want you to stand down.
ADAM: (looks at him) Yes. But I seem to have a design flaw. Angleman looks as if he's ready to bolt. Buffy has a "Oh, sh1t" look on her face.
ADAM: (pacing) In addition to organic material, I'm equipped with GP-2/D-11 Infrared Detectors. A Harmonic Decelerator, plus DC Servo.
Buffy: She pieced you together from parts of other demons. Adam looks down at his green Polgara arm, and his dark tan demon right arm, which is plated with metal on the forearm and shoulder.
ADAM: And man. And machine. Which tells me what I am . . but not who I am. Mother wrote things down. Hard data, but also her feelings. That's how I learned that I have a job here. And that she loved me.
Riley: She wasn't your mother! And she didn't love you!
Xander: (not taking eyes off Adam) Is that really the issue?
Riley: She made you because she was a scientist!
Xander: (warningly) Rileeey.
ADAM: Riley Finn. He pulls out another disk, this one labeled "FINN," and loads it into his chest.
Riley: Stop! Those files--
ADAM: Oh! Mother created you, too.
Riley: Maggie is not my mother! (to Buffy) I have a mother! A real--
ADAM: A birth mother. Yes. But after you met Maggie, she was the one who shaped your basic operating system. She taught you how to think. How to feel. She fed you chemicals to make you stronger. Your mind and body. She said that you and I were her favorite children. Her art. That makes us brothers. Family.
Riley: No! (taking a step forward) I'm not like you!
ADAM: That's pain, isn't it? Why? Because your feeding schedule --the chemicals-- have been interrupted? Or do you miss her? Tell me.
Riley: I'll kill you!
ADAM: (calmly) You won't. You haven't been programmed to.
Riley: I cannot be programmed! I'm a man!
ADAM: It's here. He's pulled out another disk and his holding it up for Riley to see.
ADAM: The plan she had for us. What happens. How it ends.
Riley: (quietly) No.
ADAM: Do you want to hear?
Riley: No! Riley draws his Barretta and aims it at Adam. Before he can pull the trigger, Adam grabs his arm and forces him to drop it. Buffy rushes forward and Adam backhands her in the face, sending her to the floor. Riley frees himself and punches Adam across the metal side of his face. Adam, unfazed, hits him with an uppercut that sends him flying high across the room over a middle work table. He hits the floor in a tumble, stunned. Xander rushes forward but Adam just shoves him back against the wall and he goes down. Buffy is on her feet and sends a powerful roundkick to Adam's chest. Adam just looks at her and smashes a fist across her face. She retaliates with a punch to his midsection. Adam responds by slamming the same fist down on her shoulder this time driving her to the floor. Angleman decides it's time to get the hell out of there and runs past Adam, heading for the door. Adam sees him and his Polgara skewer juts out of his arm.
ADAM: Doctor. Adam steps forward and plunges the skewer into Angleman's back. He gasps and shudders in pain for a few seconds then falls to the floor, sliding off the spear. Riley runs up behind Adam and jumps on his back, wrapping an arm around his neck. Adam just turns on him and stabs him in the left side of his abdomen. Riley falls back, hitting the metal railing of the stairs, and drops to the floor clutching his side. Buffy gets to her feet and slams a side kick into Adam's back, this time making him stumble. He quickly turns and she ducks a slash aimed at her head. He grabs her around the neck with his other hand and shoves her to the floor.
Cut to the door. Graham and Forrest can be seen through the small wired-glass window. They are pounding on the door, trying to get in. Adam grabs Buffy again, lifting her off the floor, and throws her against the wall. She hits hard and falls, unmoving. Adam just stands and looks down at his fallen opponents. There are now more commandos outside the door, trying to break through.
ADAM: Thank you. This has been . . . very interesting. He walks to the stairs and heads back up to the catwalk. Riley is lying against the wall, in pain and Buffy, nearby, is starting to move again.
Commando: (OS) Back away from the door! Finally, one of the commandos figured out that one of the very big guns their holding would be very helpful right now, and sends a circle of shots through the metal door around the handle. Adam walks under an airvent and reaches for the grated cover. Buffy moves to Riley's side.
Buffy: Riley. Are you okay? The door gives way and two commandos rush in, guns ready. Forrest and Graham are right behind them and another half dozen commandos follow. They see Angleman's body as they walk inside.
Commando: (OS) Secure the room! Go! Go!
Xander: (still on the floor) We got a demon in here. It escaped through that vent.
Buffy: It's not the Polgara. It looks sort of half man.
Forrest: Right! And you just happened to be in the neighborhood.
Riley: (painfilled) She's telling the truth. I saw it. It killed Angleman. Go. Now!
Commando: Yes, sir. Several commandos rush up the stairs to the vent. Forrest steps closer to Riley.
Buffy: He needs to go to a hospital.
Forrest: We'll take it from here.
Buffy: I'm going with him.
Forrest: It's a military hospital.
Buffy: No. Forrest kneels beside Riley.
Forrest: Back off! We take care of our own around here, understand? Two of the commandos standing next to Graham aim their rifles at Buffy. Xander, not liking where this is going, moves closer to her and reaches a hand down to her.
Xander: (concerned) Buffy. Forrest motions Graham forward and Buffy has to move as he and Forrest lift Riley to his feet.
Forrest: (to commandos) Escort them out. Riley looks back at Buffy.
Riley: (weakly) Buffy Buffy can only stand and watch them take him away and tears start to fill her eyes. And we cut to-- The door of Willy's Place swings open and Spike is ejected, tumbling into the alley in a broken, bloody mess. As he lies on his back, a large bad-ass demon walks out and stands over him.
Bad-ass Demon: What did you expect, Spike? A welcome party? Quick shot of two more mean looking demons standing in the doorway.
Bad-ass Demon: Word's out: you've been making war on the demon world.
Spike: (dazed) War?
Bad-ass Demon: With the Slayer! You kill other demons and the rest of us don't hold with that. The other two demons, growling, duck back inside where the jukebox can be heard playing loudly.
Bad-ass Demon: Still . . . if I see you around here again, *I'll* be inclined to break that code. Do you understand? Spike doesn't, or can't, say anything and the demon turns and walks back inside. Leaving Spike alone.
Cut to UC Sunnydale. Next day. Willow and Buffy are outside, walking across campus.
Willow: No word from Riley?
Buffy: Nothing. The Initiative probably has him locked in some medical ward. There's no way I can get near him until I come up with a better plan than just storming in and getting us all shot.
Willow: Yeah, you might want to work the kinks out of that one.
Buffy: What am I going to do? He needs me and I can't get near him.
Willow: You'll find a way.
Buffy: It's not like I can spend all of my energy going after the Initiative. Not while Adam's out there.
Willow: He's really that big of a threat? They move to the side of the walkway and sit down on a wooden bench.
Buffy: (sighs) I could barely fight him. I-it was like Maggie designed him to be the ultimate warrior. He's smart and fast. He gave the commando guys the slip with no problem.
Willow: There's gotta be a flaw.
Buffy: I think the part where he's pure evil and kills randomly was an oversight. She lets herself sit back as her thoughts return to Riley.
Buffy: I never should have let them take Riley. I need to be with him.
Willow: I'm sure he's okay.
Buffy: There's no way he can be. Everything he's ever believed in has been taken away or . . . He's alone. He has nothing to hold on to. Dissolve to the corridors of the Initiative. Commandos and Scientists are going about business as usual. One commando is standing guard at a closed door. Dissolve to interior and the camera pans across the medical room where we see Riley lying on a bed. his abdomen is wrapped heavily in bandages, a small red stain over his wound. He's still sweating a little but no longer seems agitated. He's staring at the wall. He lifts his right hand and looks at Buffy's scarf still wrapped around his hand.
Summary:
| Buffy discovers The Initiative's secret weapon; Riley becomes unstable due to the death of Professor Walsh and drug withdrawal; Adam ( George Hertzberg ) reveals some information about himself, while trying to learn about people by investigating their insides. | 95 | 91,610 | 91,612 | 91,612 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_The_Office_05x24 | fd_The_Office_05x24_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Michael: Hup! [throws cheese puff to Ryan who catches it in his mouth]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: Things are a little slow here. And there's only so much cold-calling you can do in a day. Turns out there's no limit to the number of cheese puffs you can throw at someone's face.
Michael: Hup! [throws cheese puff to Pam who catches it in her mouth]
Pam: We're getting pretty good at it.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Pam and Ryan throw cheese puffs to Michael, Ryan and Michael throw cheese puffs at each other, Michael throws a cheese puff over his shoulder to Ryan, all three throw cheese puffs to one another, give high-fives]
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Pam yawns, two cheese puffs thrown at her, one sticks in her hair]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: Andy put down a bunch of deposits on stuff for his wedding with Angela, but then she was sleeping with Dwight for... several years. Wait, no, that can't be right.
Pam: The timeline's messy.
Jim: Anyway, now we are going bargain hunting in the haunted graveyard of their love.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: This is my solo. [stereo plays Andy imitating bass guitar, a cappella starts singing 'You Can Call Me Al']
Pam: I'm confused. Am I walking down the aisle to 'You Can Call Me Al?'
Andy: Trust me. You will not be walking. You will be boogie-ing.
Jim: I am extremely interested. So, how much will all of this cost?
Andy: Well, 12 guys, airfare, three nights in a hotel, food per diem, table up front for merch... $9,000.
Pam: I don't know. It seems like a lot for an a cappella group from a college we never went to.
Andy: Did you even hear the music I just played for you?
Pam: Mm-hmm.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Phyllis: What's wrong with you?
Dwight: These sleeves are cutting off my circulation. Not enough blood getting to my hands.
Phyllis: I think you look nice.
Dwight: Doesn't Charles know he's compromising my attack readiness? It's not a dress code. It's a death sentence.
Charles: Looking good.
Dwight: 'Kay, thank you. It's a straight jacket! [knocks things off shelf with arms] Okay.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: When Michael was in charge, this place was like the Roman Empire. And the Wild West. And war-torn Poland. And Poland. There was just a lot going on, so what you wore to work was the least of anybody's worries. And in that chaos, I soared.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Hey.
Dwight: Hey. Ed's Tires is thinking of making a change.
Michael: [gestures to 'Bed & Breakfast' magazine] Is this good?
Dwight: They have some great kitchen ideas.
Michael: Oh. Okay. Ed's Tires, huh?
Dwight: It's small, I know.
Michael: I really appreciate it.
Dwight: Thanks, Michael. [Michael palms Dwight cash in their handshake] Wait, what is this?
Michael: It's for your trouble.
Dwight: Wh- I don't need $6 to help a friend.
Michael: No, no, listen, as a friend, I want you to have this.
Dwight: Michael, you know I can't take this.
Michael: Yes, I do.
Dwight: But don't forget you owe me $10.
Michael: That was four years ago. Why don't you let it go?
Dwight: Michael.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: What was up with Pam being all pushy and negative in there?
Jim: I think she just didn't want a crucifix cake.
Andy: It scares me to see you going down a road that I went down.
Jim: Am I going down a road?
Andy: When I see her bossing you around like that, it just makes me wonder if this thing really has the legs to go the distance.
Jim: It's so scary how right the things you're saying are. And you're coming at it with almost no knowledge, so of course I trust your opinion on this.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: I know a few things about love. Horrible, terrible, awful, awful things.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: I was going to use today to purge my inbox, but now something much more pressing has come up.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Ed's Tires. Why don't you tell them that we have fewer clients, so we can spend more time with each of them. Also, try to discuss it over Indian food, and try to mention how you distrust women.
Pam: I'm not gonna do that.
Michael: That is smart. That would not seem genuine. Ryan?
Ryan: I can get there.
Michael: Good, you take the lead on this one. Also, do not forget that he has just gone through a messy divorce.
Ryan: Oh, awesome.
Michael: Bring it in. Morning cheer. [clears throat]
Michael, Pam & Ryan: U-G-L-Y, you ain't got no alibi! You ugly, huh huh, you ugly! You mama says you ugly! Hey! Go Michael Scott Paper Company!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: I'm here. I'm a part of this now.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: You needed to speak to me?
Charles: Dwight, take a seat.
Dwight: I prefer to stand. Less blood clots.
Charles: Nah, that's weird. You're gonna sit. [Dwight sits] Great. You know, Dwight, it has been quite a transition for all of us. Are you happy with the way things have been runnin' lately?
Dwight: Do you mean compared to the ways things ran with other bosses? Comparisons are hard.
Charles: I've just been impressed with your performance and I wanted to make sure good work doesn't go unnoticed.
Dwight: Your concern is noted.
Charles: Yeah, I like your work ethic. You're so... focused.
Dwight: Like a wolf. Thank you.
Charles: And I wanna start givin' you more responsibility. What do you say you and I go out for a drink this week?
Dwight: Really?
Charles: Definitely.
Dwight: [sighs] It's firm.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [on phone] I need you to get me the prices that you're charging Ed's tires so I can undercut Dunder Mifflin.
Dwight: I don't know that I can do that now. You know, uh, something's come up.
Michael: Oh n- Is it Mose? Did you put the cover on that well?
Dwight: No, Mose is fine. I roped it off. It's not about Mose. Listen, things are changing here, Michael, they're changing fast.
Michael: I'm not following you.
Dwight: Imagine... Someone has a personal hero they really wanna help. But then there's this new guy. Very cool, very Will Smith-esque, who would not like it if he helped his hero.
Michael: Personal hero, cool new guy. Okay, I think I'm getting your drift.
Dwight: Good, do you see what I'm saying?
Michael: Crystal clear. So is this for a movie that you're writing?
Dwight: No.
Michael: Can I use it? [Pam holds up note saying "He's talking about you!"]
Dwight: No.
Michael: [Michael dismisses note, Ryan and Pam point to notepad] Dwight, are you talking about us?
Dwight: It is possible that I could be talking about us.
Michael: Someone could say that it is like the situation that we are in now?
Dwight: It is the situation that we are in now.
Michael: So I would say that the old boss has always been good to Dwight, and he was there first, so he has dibs. You respect dibs, don't you?
Dwight: I'm not a barbarian.
Michael: Good. Will you meet me in 20 minutes at the spot?
Dwight: I will.
Michael: Dwight?
Dwight: Yes?
Michael: Is the cool new guy Charles?
Dwight: I've said too much.
Michael: Is it Stanley?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: Hey, Andy. You know I've been thinkin about what you said-
Andy: 'Noishe.'
Jim: -I just don't know if I can do it.
Andy: That's interesting, because I hear what you're saying is that you want to do it, which means you can do it. Believe me, I broke up with Angela, and I'm like, the happiest guy ever. I mean, I'm so happy. I'm so happy. Like, total freedom, you know?
Jim: It's just that Pam gets me through the day, you know? I really rely on her. I'm pretty emotionally needy.
Andy: And you know what? I am here for you. Let me be your traveling pants. [imitates punching on Jim's fist] Ah, what'd you do that for?
Jim: [both laugh] You know that I was doin' this.
Andy: [fist pound each other] Totally.
Jim: Okay.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Hello, Dwight. What's with the shirt? Are you alright?
Dwight: I'm sorry, Michael
Charles: [Charles comes from around corner] Hi, Michael.
Michael: Oh my God! Run! Run! It's a setup. Setup!
Charles: No, Mich-Michael.
Michael: Dwight, run!
Charles: Michael, no, let's be cool, ok?
Michael: You be cool.
Charles: Yes.
Michael: Just-what's going on?
Charles: We need to talk about our two companies, and how we should behave. Dwight tells me you've been pestering him for company info.
Michael: Mm-do... Dwight would not-
Charles: He did.
Dwight: I did, Michael. I was upset about the shirt sleeves at first, but now I'm okay with it.
Charles: Michael, I want you to stop pestering my salesmen, and I want you to leave Dunder Mifflin alone. Do you understand?
Michael: I. Understand. Nothing.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [Michael storms into office] Wow.
Pam: Michael, are you alright?
Michael: It was a setup. Dwight told Charles. He told him.
Pam: Tell us what you're talking about.
Ryan: Yeah.
Michael: It's like, a girl says she'll make out with you, but then her boyfriend is waiting around the corner with a pee-filled balloon.
Pam: We can't help you if you don't just tell us what happened.
Michael: I got hit in the face with a pee-filled water balloon, Pam, ok? I don't know how they did it. They filled the balloon with pee. A funnel? I don't know. Is that clear enough for you?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Hey, Jim.
Jim: [Jim slams lunchbag on table] I just totally blew a sales call.
Andy: Bro, I do that all the time.
Jim: Yeah, well, with you it's different, okay? Cause I just- I just suck. I just- I suck!
Andy: Tuna, be nice to my friend Jim, ok?
Jim: Why? When I look in the mirror, I don't like the face that looks back.
Andy: Well, so what? Your body's a ten.
Jim: Forget it.
Andy: Jim.
Jim: I said forget it. [drop kicks lunch across room, stomps on it]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [on phone] Dwight Schrute.
Michael: Hello, traitor.
Dwight: I think you have the wrong number, Michael.
Michael: I want you to listen to me, friend, and I want you to listen to me good. I am going to come at you, and I am going to come at you hard. I am going to steal all of your clients, and then I am going to kill them in front of you.
Pam: Michael!
Michael: I'm just getting hardcore with him.
Ryan: Finally.
Michael: Yes, and hear me, Dwight, when I say I brought you into this world, and I can take you out. [hangs up] Bill Cosby.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [on phone] Mr. Schofield, please?
Secretary: He's in a meeting.
Dwight: Dammit! [hangs up]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [on phone] Is Mr. Schofield there?
Automated phone voice: If you'd like to reach an outside line, please dial nine first. [Michael sighs, hangs up phone]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Stanley: So, you think Michael's going after the whale, huh?
Dwight: I have a long term relationship with Harper Collins publishers and Mr. Schofield. I'm not worried.
Phyllis: You sound worried.
Dwight: And you have bad skin. Oh, look everyone, we're all making observations! [gibberish sounds]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [on phone] Well, if you could do me a big favor and tell Mr. Schofield that Michael Scott has tickets to the Wilkes-Barre Penguins game this weekend, and if he would like to join me... Hello, Daniel. How are you? Uh-huh. I sure do. Yes. [referencing rolodex card] Wanted to ask, did Kathy ever make JV?
Ryan: Look at that old dude and his rolodex go.
Pam: I spent a month putting that rolodex on his Blackberry, which he now uses as a nightlight.
Michael: Wow. High score?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: And no, I cannot lower my current prices. [phone rings] Hold on. Hello? Mr. Schofield, thank you so much for taking the time to talk. I wanted to discuss your contract with us- oh, you're considering him. I thought Michael Scott left the paper business after his nervous breakdown.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Michael has been talking to my biggest client. Master and apprentice pitted against one another for the fate of the greater Scranton area paper market. So it's not exactly like 'Highlander,' but still...
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Hello, Dwight, I've been expecting your call. What do you want?
Dwight: I would like to arrange a truce.
Michael: So you heard Schofield is considering a switch, and you want mercy?
Dwight: Meet me in our spot in four minutes.
Michael: No. No. You think I am going to fall for that? There's no-
Dwight: Michael.
Michael: Meet- Ok, go to the spot and then walk 100 feet.
Dwight: In which direction?
Michael: Toward the sun.
Dwight: At what time?
Michael: Noon.
Dwight: That-
Michael: You have two seconds. [Dwight starts running]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [looking at his watch] Michael. [Madge walks by] Sorry.
Michael: Dwight.
Dwight: Michael.
Michael: I hope you're not recording this conversation. [Dwight drops his pants and lifts up his shirt] Good. I cannot believe that you sided with Charles.
Dwight: You were making me do things that were not all right.
Michael: So you just rat me out? You could have said no.
Dwight: And not come through for you?
Michael: If you want a truce, I will give you a truce.
Dwight: I want a truce.
Michael: I do too.
Dwight: Let me take you and your whole company out for lunch at Alfredo's.
Michael: Cooper's.
Dwight: I had fish yesterday.
Michael: Damn it.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [Michael, Ryan and Pam sitting at restaurant, phone rings] Oh. Dwight-elicious. Where you at?
Dwight: Oh, hi, Michael. I'm so sorry I'm late. I got stuck in traffic.
Michael: Really? That's weird. We didn't see any.
Dwight: I hit a bear.
Michael: What?
Dwight: He's technically fine. I imagine the true horror will be when he wakes up in a zoo. [throws a fish into the vent at Michael's office] Hey, listen, will you do me a favor and order the meatball parm for me, with extra cheese?
Michael: Yeah, sure.
Dwight: Ok, I will see you very soon, alright? [takes all the items off Michael's desk and puts them into briefcase, including rolodex]
Michael: Okay, see you in a bit. Dwight hit a bear. He'll be here in a sec.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: [Pam, Ryan and Michael enter office] Sounds neat.
Ryan: We can spend a couple days there.
Pam: Oh my God, I think we've been robbed!
Michael: [Michael answers phone] Yeah.
Dwight: Did you enjoy your lunch?
Michael: Dwight, not now, we've been robbed.
Dwight: No, Michael, you were sabotaged.
Michael: No, Dwight, we were robbed. How would you even know? You're still stuck in traffic. [Pam holds up sign saying "Dwight did it!!"] You?
Dwight: Me.
Michael: What about our truce?
Dwight: I broke it.
Michael: On purpose?
Dwight: Yes.
Michael: Why?
Dwight: You think this is some kind of game? No, this is a war, and I will not stop, I will not rest. You have no idea what kind of enemy you've created. You have unleashed the wolf!
Michael: Be that as it may, I have your meatball parm sandwich here, and I am going to eat it.
Dwight: And I knew that you would do that. The meatball parm is their worst sandwich!
Michael: Oh. [bites into sandwich, looks disgusted] b*st*rd!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Hi there. Dwight Schrute here. I was just calling to see if Michael Scott Paper was meeting all of your paper needs, and how is [reading off rolodex card] Brenda, age four, ponytail, and Simon, age 7? Oh, you don't say.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [holding up rolodex card] Schrute comma Dwight. And on the back he wrote, "great salesman, better friend." [turns card over] "Tall" and "beets."
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: And say hello to Cheri, who is your black wife. [hangs up and answers cell phone] I see you're begging for mercy, huh? Well, you will find none here.
Michael: Dwight, do you mind if we talk?
Dwight: Sure. That'd be fine.
Michael: If you keep coming after us, the Michael Scott Paper Company cannot succeed.
Dwight: This is war and that is what happens.
Michael: Oh, one more thing. I'm going to have you listen while I steal your biggest client.
Dwight: Oh, no. No. No. No. No.
Michael: Oh, uh oh, I'm turning you down right now.
Dwight: Michael! Michael!
Michael: You can hear me, but I can't hear you.
Secretary: Mr. Schofield's ready to see you now, Mr. Scott.
Michael: Oh, great. Mr. Schofield's ready to see me. Thank you so much.
Dwight: Don't let him in! He's a traitor! Michael!
Michael: Walking in the door...
Mr. Schofield: Michael, good to see you.
Michael: Mr. Schofield, good to see you. And I'm closing the door. [Dwight runs out of the office]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [on speakerphone in Dwight's car] Now, when Dwight tells you that he will keep prices steady for a year, I think he is speaking out of turn.
Mr. Schofield: Really?
Michael: Yes. He does not have the authority to say that. I, on the other hand, am the president, the owner, and the founder. It is like you are buying software from Bill Gates.
Dwight: Are you saying you invented paper?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: [hugging a crying Jim] Okay, okay.
Jim: Oh, God.
Andy: Okay, Tuna.
Kelly: Hey, guys.
Jim: Hey.
Andy: Hello.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Excuse me, can I have your attention, everyone? Here's the deal, everybody, Jim Halpert is very upset and disturbed. I don't know if it was something you did, something you said, a look you gave him, maybe it was nothing at all, but here's the deal, ok? It stops now.
Kevin: I guess I could be nicer.
Phyllis: Andy, I think Jim is messing with you.
Andy: Oh, really?
Phyllis: Mm-hmm. [looks over to Jim smiling through windows to the kitchen]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: Okay.
Andy: Yeah, okay, what the heck is happennin' here?
Jim: Two things I need you to understand. One, Pam and I are very happy together.
Andy: Uh, that's not what was-
Jim: And two, that stuff that happened with you and Angela is a bummer, and I know you don't think you're ever gonna find someone else, but you will. I promise you, you will.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Oh man, he got me so good. I learned something about myself today. Yeah. I wish this was a sofa, cause I feel like I could sit here and talk for hours.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: What is that thing that Dwight always says? Paper is the soil in which the seeds of business grow?
Dwight: It's not the soil! It's the manure! Paper is the manure! On-time delivery is the soil! Aah! [runs into office]
Secretary: Uh, hello, Dwight.
Dwight: Spin move.
Secretary: Oh-
Dwight: Ha ha! April 13th, 2002.
Mr. Schofield: Dwight, I'm in a meeting.
Michael: That's very rude.
Dwight: I barge because I care. April 13th, 2002, that is the date when you tried to switch paper providers for an obscure sociology textbook, but were hung out to dry when the price of glossy stock increased.
Mr. Schofield: Maybe we should schedule a meeting on our-
Dwight: La la la! Continuing. Notice my persistence and recall. Continuing! You called Dunder Mifflin, and your order was filled within an hour!
Michael: I'm going to pull a date out of the air right now. April 13th, 2002. That is the last day that you evaluated your paper needs. Is it not? We all know that the economy is bad, and bloated companies like Dunder Mifflin...
Dwight: Come on.
Michael: Are going to fall by the wayside. Two of their branches have closed within the last year. The Michael Scott Paper Company, however, has opened a new branch this very month.
Dwight: What he's not telling you is that he will abandon you.
Mr. Schofield: Why don't you guys just e-mail me your best offers and we can finish it up that way?
Michael: That sounds like a fantastic idea. I will see you this weekend for the Penguins. Box seats as usual.
Mr. Schofield: Uh, ok, sure.
Michael: Good, good, good. I will see you.
Dwight: Thank you, Mr. Schofield, for your time. Much appreciated. Oh, and tell me, um, how's your gay son?
Mr. Schofield: Excuse me?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: I color code all my info. I wrote "gay son" in green. Green means go, so I know to go ahead and shut up about it. Orange means "Orange you glad you didn't bring it up?" Most colors mean "Don't say it."
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: How is Tom, the homosexual sophomore?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: I wanted to start a company, not a war. Because in a war, you always fight those you are closest to. And the great tragedy of the civil war is that brother fought against brother. For what? What purpose did that serve? Apart from abolishing slavery? In that case, war was the right choice. This doesn't feel as important though. That's just how the world works, I guess.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[muffled speech, Ryan, Michael, and Pam all have mouths stuffed with cheese puffs, Michael answers the phone and talks with mouth full]
Summary:
| Dwight, finding a new hero in Charles, clashes with Michael as each tries to steal the other's clients. After trying to sell Jim and Pam on his failed wedding plans, Andy tries to provide for all of Jim's emotional needs. Jim takes the opportunity to prank Andy, but also reassures him he will find love again. Michael ends up stealing Dwight's biggest client. | 95 | 20,077 | 20,079 | 20,079 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Angel_03x07 | fd_Angel_03x07_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[PREVIOUSLY_ON]
Wes: "The host reads their souls, senses their futures."
Cordy: "Yes, but he can only do it when they sing Karaoke."
Cordy: "Imagine what could have happened if you'd gone nuts and slept with Darla!" Angel throws Darla through the glass doors. Angel and Darla on the bed kissing and ripping each others clothes off
Angel: "You know I would never do that." Angel wakes beside Darla and jerks upright in bed.
Angel: "Get dressed and get out, because the next time I see you I will have to kill you."
Shaman: "I can not help you. No one can. This is not meant to be known."
Darla rubbing her pregnant belly: "Well, I guess there's only one thing left to do. Time to go visit daddy." Rome 1771 Some rats scurry along an underground sewer tunnel. Angelus runs by. He looks behind him and sees a group of monks carrying torches coming his way. Turns a corner, only to see other torch carrying groups of monks down a couple other branches. Angelus comes up on a sewer grate. He pulls the center grating loose, steps through, then wedges it back in place behind him. As he turns, he stumbles, tumbles down the slanting tunnel, crashes through another grate and lands on the floor of some underground chamber lit by torches. He is surrounded by monks with crossbows aimed at him. A pair of double doors swing open behind him, letting in bright sunlight. Angelus throws himself to the ground out of the direct light surrounded by a thin cloud of smoke. A rider brings his horse to a stop just inside the doors and dismounts. One of the monks leads the horse away as the rider makes his way over to a red robbed priest, while Angelus is picks himself up from the floor.
Holtz: "Mille grazie, Monsignore. Sono nel vostro debito."
Subtitles: "Thank you, Monsignor. I am in your debt."
Monsignor (st): "No, this animal murdered your family. (Points at Angelus) Hold the beast!" Chains wrap around Angelus upper arms and chest.
Holtz steps closer to Angelus: "Monsignor Rivalli, performed the ceremony when Caroline and I were wed. You remember Caroline?"
Angelus: "Pretty lass. Hearty screamer."
Holtz: "The good monsignor has since then been excommunicated. The order he founded, Inquisitore, adheres to the old beliefs. They're traditionalists and quite good at their work. Let's get started, shall we?" Holtz takes a sharp hook and some knives from one of the monks. We see the hook digging into the side of Angelus' neck, hear some cloth ripping.
Angelus: "Ah. Aah!" We see the sun rise and set while hearing Angelus' screams in the background. The monsignor is walking cross the room, reading a book. Holtz is sitting on a bench, drinking from a cup. We hear some monks recite in the background and Angelus gasping in pain.
Holtz: "You lost me in North Africa. I knew you'd come back to Europe, but *Rome* Angelus? (Gets up and walks around Angelus, suspended from the ceiling by chains around his wrists) Why in Gods name would you come to the seat of all that's holy?"
Angelus: "Darla - she loves the Sistine chapel."
Holtz: "Michelangelo?"
Angelus: "Not him. She's mad about Botticelli's frescos. (Groans) The Temptation of Christ is her favorite - probably because of the leper. (Sighs) What do you want, Holtz?" Holtz picks up a three-pronged claw and looks at it.
Holtz: "I don't want anything. My family is gone. I don't trust you to give me Darla, although I *will* find her, you know that. My only desire here - is to discover if a thing such as yourself can be made to pay for its sins. (Holtz digs the claw-thingy in somewhere below Angelus waist (off screen) and Angelus groans in pain) You're a demon. It is your nature to maim and kill. But you were also once a man. If we beat and burn the demon out of your living flesh, will there be anything left? (Holtz digs the claw in again and Angelus groans in pain) Anything at all? I doubt it. But I'm willing to spend the next fortnight of my life finding out. - In either event - you have no soul, you can not be saved." A flaming arrow streaks across the room and buries itself in one of the monks.
Darla: "Sorry it took me so long darling." Darla is standing in a tunnel opening, holding a crossbow loaded with another flaming arrow. There are other vampires with her.
Darla: "Kill them." Darla fires her flaming bolt, hitting Holtz in the shoulder. The vampires streak past her and attack the monks. Several vampires get staked by the monks during the fight, but that doesn't slow the rest of them down. Monsignor confronts Darla with a cross held in front of him.
Monsignor: "Vai' all inferno, demonio lordo! (caption) Go to hell foul demon!" Darla pushes the cross aside, then sends the Monsignor flying into a wall.
Darla: "No, grazie, padre." The double doors that Holtz rode in through is pulled down and a horse and carriage driven by a blanket shrouded vampire trot in. Darla unclips Angelus chains. Two other vampires catch him under the arms and drop him onto the back of the cart. Holtz tries to get up. Darla knocks him across the chin, then joins a groaning Angelus on the cart.
Angelus: "Darlin'?"
Darla: "What?"
Angelus: "Shouldn't we be killing Holtz?"
Darla: "I know, but it's just so much fun ruining his life. He's like family now." Angelus pulls Darla into a kiss as a vampire covers them with a tarp. The wagon heads out into the sunlight, with the blanket shrouded vamp at the reins. A public bus (Downtown LA - Hollywood) pulls over to the side of a dark and deserted street in LA.
Darla: "Right here is fine. (To bus driver) Thanks for the lift. That didn't take long at all. (Gets off the bus) And they say there is no public transportation in LA." The bus driver turns slowly and looks towards the back of the bus. Three passengers are slumped in their seats with twin puncture wounds visible on their necks. Four other people are huddled down in the back of the bus. Bus driver fumbles out his radio: "Help! We got a code twelve on the 5-8 line! We need help here now, for god's sake. Now!" Darla walks away across the street. Intro Cordy is arranging some flowers in a vase down in the basement of the Hyperion. Angel walks into the training area and sees that there are several vases of them scattered around the room.
Angel: "What's this?"
Cordy: "Oh, it's just so dark and lifeless down here, I thought I'd brighten it up a little for you. (Angel picks up one of the vases) You can't exactly go out and enjoy the sunny fields of nature, but that doesn't mean we can't bring a little bloom into your darkness."
Angel: "They're fake."
Cordy: "Yeah. You put something real in this hellhole and it die (snaps her fingers) like that." Angel puts the flowers down, looking at Cordy.
Cordy: "Thank you, Cordelia?"
Angel: "You know, I've been around a long time..."
Cordy: "Which reminds me. Next birthday, you think we could skip the two-hundred and fifty odd candles on the cake and the inevitable fire marshal and just go and just go with a little song?"
Angel: "And I've never known anyone like you."
Cordy: "Well, duh! Times a wasting, big guy. Can we do it? (Takes on a stance) Hi-yeah!"
Angel chuckling: "Okay. Last time we were working on not pulling your punches and your kicks. Right? Don't worry about me. (Cordy hits him and he deflects the punch with his arm) That's good. (Cordy swipes at him again) Good! Where is your weight? (Angel looks down) Balls of your feet?" Cordy swings and hits him across the face full force.
Cordy: "Oops! Oh god, you said that... (Angel straightens back up, smiling) Are you okay?"
Angel: "I'm a vampire. You can't hurt me. Good." Angel turns away from her and makes a face, gingerly feeling his nose.
Cordy: "You're off your game. It's because of the prophecy Wes and Gunn are trying to get their hands on. You think the end is coming." Angel turns back to face her: "The end is not coming. Someone is always uncovering some ancient scroll, and they're always saying the same thing: that something terrible is coming. Do you know how many of these things I've seen in my very long life?"
Cordy: "Four?"
Angel: "Three. But there's nothing to worry about."
Cordy: "Then way are Gunn and Wesley breaking and entering right now?"
Angel: "Breaking and entering is such a negative term. They are simply retrieving some missing pieces from the Nyazian Scroll. Just to make sure..."
Cordy: "That the end is coming. - Well, all we can do is live each moment to the fullest and be grateful that we didn't throw too much money at the NASDAQ." Angel blinking his eyes and lifting a hand towards his face: "Am I swelling?" Camera sweeps over some big houses, surrounded by big gardens on a sunny plateau with some mountains in the background. Pans past some old oil paintings and statuary to show Wes, dressed in black, sneaking up on the window and look into the window from outside. Wes motions and Gunn walks up beside him.
Wes: "Step one: Dobermans are happily gnawing on the steak. Alarm and vid lines are disabled (pulls out a scanner and looks at its display) no infrared. Caught a break there. Step two: we cut a hole in the glass, snake in the mini-cam and scan the interior." Gunn walks over to look in the glass door while Wes pulls glasscutter with a suction cup out of his duffel bag and attaches it to the window.
Wes: "If it's all clear, we disable the locks and bolts on the side door thus completing... (Gunn tries the door and it swings open) ...step three." Wes closes up his duffel and moves over to follow Gunn inside, then hurries back to detach the suction cup from the window and stow it in his bag while Gunn waits for him inside. Wes hurries in and motions for Gunn to close the patio door. They open the doors into an adjacent room, in which all sorts of things are on display. Gunn looks around and whistles.
Wes: "Can you believe this?"
Gunn looking around: "Some guys collect old cars, some guys collect..." Gunn flinches back as he spots a misshapen, one-eyed demon head in a glass case. Then he and Wes lean in for a closer look.
Gunn: "It's like - the eye follows you wherever you go." Wes walks over to a bottle sitting on a pedestal, pulls out the stopper and takes a sniff before closing it again.
Wes: "Alright. If you were the priceless remnants of the lost Nyazian Scroll, where would you be?"
Gunn: "If I was priceless - I'd be in the vault."
Wes: "The vault? Your snitch never said anything about a vault!"
Gunn: "I got a bad feeling about this."
Wes: "We figure something out. It's just a - vault."
Gunn: "Actually my bad feeling is more about the man standing behind you with the large revolver." Wes turns to see a guy standing in the door aiming a gun at them.
Man: "Move and I'll kill you. The man edges into the room and reaches for the telephone with one hand while still aiming the gun at them with the other.
Wes: "I hope you're calling the police."
Man: "You bet I am."
Wes: "Good. You can explain to them why you keep so much GHB on hand. (Wes walks over to the bottle on the pedestal) You know, Rohypnol, the date rape drug."
Man: "What?"
Wes indicates the bottle: "Muslok Trancing Amalgam. Under the microscope it's virtually indistinguishable from GHB." The man slowly puts the receiver back down.
Man: "Alright. I won't call the police."
Wes: "I'm glad we understand each other."
Man: "Until after I kill you."
Wes: "Oh." Gunn picks up four red glass balls out of a bowl on another stand.
Gunn: "Hey, these worth a lot?"
Man: "Yes. They're Cyopian conjuring spheres."
Gunn: "How much? Four figures each? Five? (Starts to juggle two of the balls with one hand) More?"
Man: "Stop that!"
Gunn: "Put the weapon down." When the man hesitates, Gunn lets one of the balls drop and it shatters with a liquid splash as it hits the floor.
Gunn: "Kind of delicate. (Juggles the remaining three with both hands) Look, we're not thieves, we're investigators. Now, we need to look at your Nyazian Scrolls. Put the weapon down, because - I'm getting kind of tired here."
Man: "Alright!" Man puts the revolver down on a glass case and Wes retrieves it. Gunn drops another ball (the owner lets out a fearful gasp) only to bounce it off his foot and catch it again.
Gunn: "I always wanna give them a big finish. Fred comes down the basement stairs of the Hyperion.
Cordy: "Ow. That doesn't feel right."
Angel: "Just relax. You have to bend."
Cordy: "I don't bend there. - Okay. Now that's downright unnatural."
Angel: "I know it feels strange, but if an attacker comes at you from behind, you wanna be able to shift all your weight immediately to your other foot so you can spin and kick. Here, you try it." Cordy spins and kicks up against Angel's chest. Angel catches her, one arm around her leg another around her waist to keep her from falling.
Angel: "Whoa! Easy. Alright. That's alright. (Lowers her leg and lets go of her) That's better. We'll keep - working on it. Okay. That's probably enough for today."
Cordy: "Yeah, well, we could do more of it, but then I'd have to ice every bone in my body. See you." Cordy walks towards the stairs, one hand pressed against the small of her back.
Cordy: "Hey, Fred."
Fred: "Hey! - Kye-rumption."
Cordy walking up the stairs: "Well - back at you."
Angel: "What did you say?"
Fred: "Kye-rumption. It's the one nice word I remember from the Pylean hell dimension."
Angel: "What's it mean?"
Fred: "It's when two great heroes meet on the field of battle and recognize their mutual fate. It's also a kind of grog made out of the ox dung but that's archaic."
Angel: "Oh, ah, that's interesting."
Fred: "When I see you and Cordelia sparring Kye-rumption always comes to mind."
Angel after a beat: "Me and Cordelia."
Fred: "I know. She's such a hero, with the visions and the courage. It's only natural that you and she would be drawn to one another. - Oh! Plastic flowers! (Hurries over to one of the vases) My favorite! They never fade, you know."
Angel: "Oh, whoa, wait a minute. There's nothing going on between me and Cordelia."
Fred: "Nothing but Moira."
Angel: "Who's Moira?"
Fred: "Moira is the gut physical attraction between two larger than life souls."
Angel: "Ha. No, there is no attraction. Cordelia is a friend. Someone I work with. That's all."
Fred grinning: "See? You're being chivalrous. Because you 're a hero, just like her. You got Kye-rumption!"
Angel: "Stop using that word!"
Wes: "What's going on down here?"
Angel: "Nothing."
Wes: "I believe Fred's been through enough recently without people shouting at her."
Fred: "He didn't mean anything by it." Wes just stands there, looking at the floor.
Angel: "Is there something you wanted?"
Wes: "Yes. (Looks at Fred) Gunn and I were hoping you could give us a hand with the Nyazian Prohecies. We need someone who can do the math."
Fred: "Sure!" Fred starts up the stairs.
Wes looks around: "Who gave you all the flowers?"
Angel: "Nobody." Gunn is throwing darts at a board in the office at the Hyperion. Wes is sitting at the desk, writing. Fred is sitting beside him, working on the laptop. Cordy is at her own desk.
Gunn: "So, how are you doing there, Fred?"
Fred: "Oh, it's a simple equation, really. The ancient Roman calendar has fourteen hundred and sixty-four days in a four-year cycle. The Etruscan, Sumerian, and Druidian each have their own cycles. You work forward from the presumed day of the prophecy under each calendar, factoring in our own three hundred and sixty-five day calendar and accounting for a three day discrepancy for every four years and..." Angel walks into the lobby, he sees Cordy sitting at her desk and stops before anyone notices he's there.
Fred: "Oh. - That can't be right. - Unless the world ended last March."
Gunn: "So, are we talking Armageddon - or bad house number? (Sits down in the chair in front of Wes desk) Is it a bad event - or a bad guy?"
Wes: "It's not clear on that. It predicts the arrival or arising of the Tro-clan, the person or being that brings about the ruination of mankind."
Gunn: "So it's a two for one. Isn't that nice."
Wes: "And I'm not sure on the translation. Ruination may in fact mean purification."
Gunn: "Purification? So this Tro-clan is a good thing?"
Wes: "I doubt that. But it's purification in Aramaic, ruination in ancient Greek and in the lost Ga-shundi language it means both."
Cordy: "And you don't want to make the same mistake twice." Cordy looks up from her desk at Wes, who looks down at his papers.
Wes: "No."
Fred: "What mistake?"
Wes: "There was another prophecy a while back. It seemed to be about Angel and contained the word 'Shanshu' which I thought meant to die and I - sort of told Angel..."
Cordy: "...that we was going to die."
Fred: "Oh, no."
Wes: "Then I found out it also meant to live. It meant to die and to live."
Fred: "So - which is it?"
Wes: "Both. In his case it meant that some day the vampire in him might die, but the human in him might live." Angel is standing at a corner in the lobby, listening.
Fred: "That he would be like a normal man?" Angel slowly lifts his head and looks at Cordy working at her desk.
Wes: "Yes."
Fred: "Wow. What would we do if that happened?"
Cordy: "I'd buy him some plaid shirts and take him to the beach. The boy needs some color." Fred goes back to typing on the laptop.
Fred: "There. That came out better. - Oh. No it didn't. It's still very preliminary, but - if these calculations are correct, this bad thing should already be here. (Looks around) Well, I-I guess not right here, but - here in LA." Angel walks into the reception area and sits down.
Fred: "Let me run these numbers again."
Cordy: "Hey."
Angel: "Hey."
Cordy after a while: "Why are you looking at me like that?"
Angel: "Ah, no reason." After a moment Cordy gets up and walks past Angel to pour a cup of coffee.
Cordy: "Okay. It's getting creepy now."
Angel: "I was just thinking about things. - People. You know. How they relate. Take you and me for instance. We're very different. *Very* different. Obviously (points at Cordy) human (points at himself) vampire. (points a Cordy) Woman (points at himself) man...pire."
Cordy: "Has someone been putting vodka in your blood?"
Angel laughs: "See? You're funny! And I, well I get off a good one every once in a while, but you..."
Cordy, sipping her coffee: "Angel, are you trying to say you love me?"
Angel: "What?"
Cordy: "I love you too."
Angel: "You do? When did this..." Cordy yells towards Wes open office door: "Angel loves me. I love him."
Angel: "Oh, my god!"
Cordy: "You guys love us and we love you."
Fred, Wes and Gunn chorus: "We love you Angel."
Cordy: "They were all saying it earlier. Just in case this prophecy comes true and we all die. - You're not gonna wanna hug, are you?" Angel clears his throat and sits back shaking his head: "No." Cordy goes back to her desk: "God knows we've been through a lot together."
Angel: "That's really all I was trying to say, that we've been through so much together, you and me, as *friends.* You've seen the - good, - and the not so good."
Cordy: "Just like you have in me. And for the record: the good I've seen far outweighs the bad."
Angel after a beat: "Thanks. You, too."
Cordy: "Hey, what are friends for?"
Darla: "If you ask me, they're for knocking you up and leaving you high and dry." Angel spins around to see a very pregnant Darla standing on the top landing leading down into the lobby from outside.
Darla: "Hello, lover. Long time no see." Break
Angel: "Darla."
Cordy: "Darla?"
Wes: "Darla!"
Fred: "Who's Darla?"
Gunn: "Angel's old flame from way back."
Fred: "Not the one that died?"
Gunn: "Yeah. No, not that one. The other one that died and came back to life. She's a vampire."
Fred: "Y'all have a chart or something?"
Gunn: "In the files. I'll get it for you later."
Angel: "Well, when did this happen?"
Darla comes down the steps: "You know *exactly* when it happened."
Cordy: "Angel - did - you and Darla...?"
Angel: "Uh..." Cordy turns to look at him.
Angel: "This is impossible."
Darla: "Tell me about it - daddy!"
Cordy: "You slept with her?"
Angel: "Vampires can't have children. Wesley?"
Wes: "Ah, no, he's right. It's not possible."
Cordy: "That's not what I asked."
Darla: "You know we can't. I know we can't. But - we did."
Fred: "I wonder if this might not be that bad thing we were expecting."
Darla: "What did you do to me?" She hits Angel across the face and he stumbles back against the weapons cabinet behind him. Cordy steps between Angel and Darla: "Stop that!"
Angel: "It's okay. It's alright. I'm okay."
Cordy: "You'll hurt her! Haven't you done enough? (Turns to Darla) Here, sit down. You should get off your feet." Cordy leads Darla over to the round settee, then looks back at the others.
Cordy: "Can we get her some water?" Fred turns to go get it.
Angel: "Cordy that's *Darla.* Maybe you don't want to..."
Cordy: "Did you or did you not look me in the eye and say that you would *never* do a thing like this with her?"
Darla: "Oh, he lied? What a surprise." Fred carrying a glass of water: "Hi. I'm Fred. Is water okay, or did you want some blood?" Darla takes the water as Wes gently pulls Fred back away from Darla.
Angel: "Cordy. I'm sorry - I lied. It was just - it was a very dark time."
Cordy: "Oh! You used her to make *you* feel better during *your* dark time. Well, that makes it *all* heroic."
Angel: "It wasn't like that. It just - happened. It wasn't like I went *evil* or anything, I just..."
Cordy: "You just went male. (brushes the hair out of Darla's face) Have you been to a doctor."
Darla gives her a look: "No. But I have been to every shaman and seer in the Western Hemisphere."
Wes: "And what did they say?"
Darla: "They don't know what it is. They don't know what it means. Nothing like this has ever happened."
Angel: "Maybe it's an hysterical pregnancy."
Darla: "You wanna feel it kick?"
Cordy: "Does it kick a lot?"
Darla: "Like crazy."
Angel: "well, now wouldn't that be the first sign of... (Cordy gives him a look) ...hysteria?"
Cordy: "What can we do for you?"
Darla: "Well, you can get you little gang of supernatural detectives to find out what the hell is happening to me and how to stop it."
Cordy looking at Darla: "Are you gonna take some responsibility here? (Looks up at Angel) Angel?"
Angel: "Oh, me? - Of course I am. - Wes, lets get on this right now."
Wes: "What do you suggest?"
Angel: "I suggest you use your books and find out what's going on. What, do I have to think of everything?" Wes picks up a book from the counter and opens it.
Wes: "Oh, here it is." Darla straightens up in her seat and Angel walks over to Wes.
Wes: "It says 'I have absolutely no idea what's going on.' (Closes the book) We should talk to the host."
Lorne: "Oh, this is all wrong." The camera pulls back and we see that he is looking at two people holding up a modern painting.
Lorne: "Try it on the back wall. Far away from where folks might be eating."
Muses: "Violence abounds, violence restrain, this space a sanctuary was and shall be again."
Lorne: "That's great girls. - Hey, Arnie, why 're you charging me twelve hundred over the estimate here?"
Arnie: "Had to run a separate two twelve to the security box. Double insulation everywhere in the building. Plus, we had a run on Kek bile and Bin-der glands. And you know what you said: 'This club's my baby. I want top drawer through out."
Angel: "Lorne! You here? - You got to help me. We got (looks back at the others filing in behind him) kind of a situation on our hands."
Muses: "Mmm, Angel."
Cordy: "And here we have three more of Angel's chippies. You girls are on the pill I hope."
Muses: "Mmm." Angel smiles and waves at them then walks over to lean in close to Lorne.
Angel: "What are they doing here?"
Lorne: "They're here to help recast the sanctuary spell to prevent violence in the club. And this time I'm covering demons *and* humans. I'm opening the club again. I know I was blue for a pretty long time. If it'd gone on much longer I would have turned aquamarine. (Lorne is the only one laughing) And now that the ice is broken (turns to Darla) what happened here?"
Darla: "What's it look like?"
Cordy: "Angel boned her."
Angel: "Just once. Just the one night. Ah, just the two or three one times that one night..."
Fred: "Is Angel gonna sing?"
Gunn: "Oh!"
Wes: "I suppose he has to."
Cordy: "She's carrying the baby!" Darla grabs Lorne by the lapels, pulls herself in close and starts to sing: "Oh, Danny boy... What the hell's inside me?"
Lorne: "Oh, no, no, no. We're way past singing, mes enfants. This is a brand new day here. (To the club at large) Alright every body, that's a wrap! (People and demons start filing out) We'll finish the spell tomorrow. We got a little crisis brewing. Thanks for coming! Check's in the mail! Get the hell out."
Muses, speaking in turn: "Bye Angel, come see us soon. Mmm..."
Cordy: "Men!"
Lorne: "This is way beyond my ken - and my Barbie and *all* my action figures. If it's alive..."
Darla: "Oh, it's alive! And kicking!"
Lorne: "It could be anything. A child born to two vampires..."
Gunn: "Maybe it's some kind of 'ueber'- vamp."
Wes: "The Nyazian prophecies mention a Tro-clan."
Fred: "That's supposed to be here about now."
Lorne: "Born out of darkness to bring darkness."
Angel: "Great. So, we're saying that my child is - the scourge of mankind?" Darla moans.
Cordy: "You guys are upsetting her! (To Lorne) I think she needs to lie down."
Lorne: "Yeah, of course. She can have my bedroom." Lorne and Cordy help Darla up and start to lead her towards the back of the club. When Angel starts to follow Cordy stops him.
Cordy: "We can handle it." Cordy and Lorne lead Darla into Lorne's bedroom.
Cordy: "I think we should call a doctor."
Darla: "It'll pass. I just have to - let it." Darla lets herself drop onto the bed and Cordy sits down on the edge of it beside her.
Cordy: "I'll stay with her."
Lorne: "If you need anything, just holler."
Cordy: "Okay." Lorne leaves the room.
Angel: "I don't accept this. These stupid prophecies, you can always interpret them a hundred ways from Sunday. How do we even know your calculations are correct?"
Fred: "I don't. I'm still working on them."
Gunn: "Well, we do know that Darla is pregnant with something!"
Angel: "That's biologically impossible."
Lorne: "And mystically unfair. You've fought long and hard for good. If your destiny is to spawn something evil..."
Angel: "I don't see how anything spawned by Darla and me could be good."
Wes: "You know the first prophecy that said that the vampire with a soul would be pivotal in the battle between good and evil?"
Gunn: "That Shanshu one?"
Wes: "Maybe it's not you. Maybe your child is a pivotal figure. Maybe your destiny is simply to help bring to the world."
Angel after a beat: "Or to stop it."
Fred: "Can I say something about destiny?- Screw destiny! If this evil thing comes we'll fight it, and we'll keep fighting it until we whoop it. 'cause destiny is just another word for inevitable and nothing's inevitable as long as you stand up, look it in the eye, and say 'your evitable!' - Well, you- you catch my drift."
Lorne: "Wow. I like her so much!"
Angel: "I wanna see these prophecies myself, and your calculations, Fred, and anything else we got on this."
Fred: "Why don't I go back to the hotel and get everything?"
Wes: "Good idea. We put our heads together and figure out a way to fight this thing." Fred leaves and Angel turns to Lorne.
Angel: "How's she doing?"
Lorne: "Well, she's weary. The poor thing looks like she's about eighteen months pregnant. Hope they're not twins."
Angel: "Not her. Cordelia."
Lorne: "Oh, ah, I sense that she's - hurt and *pissed* what with the lying and deception and ecetera. You should probably stay out of her way for a while, huh?"
Cordy: "How're you feeling?"
Darla: "Just crazy."
Cordy: "What?"
Darla: "Why would anyone bring something into this world?"
Cordy: "I was pregnant once. (Laughs and holds out a hand) I was out to here - overnight! Mystical thing. I didn't go to term, but while it lasted, hooh! Talk about uncomfortable! Your back and legs hurt all the time and first you're sick to your stomach and you can't eat anything and then your ravenous! Are you able to eat or do you just..."
Darla levers herself up: "What? Drink?"
Cordy: "Well, it's - really none of my business, is it? - You should rest (Cordy gets up) and I should (starts to walk towards the door) I'll just be real close by. If there is anything that you need... (Darla morphs into vampface) Anything at all..." Cordy is about to open the door, but Darla is suddenly there, holding the door shut.
Darla: "I'm hungry all the time. It's weird."
Cordy: "Sure. You're eating for two now. It's only natural."
Darla: "No, what's weird is - no matter how much I feed - I can't seem to get full." Cordy punches Darla hard across the face. Follows it up with a second punch, then pulls out a cross to ward Darla off.
Cordy: "Pregnant or not, you're *going* to keep your distance." Darla bats the cross aside, grabs Cordy and throws her across the room against a table. Then she clamps a hand over Cordy's mouth to prevent her from screaming and sinks her teeth into the side of Cordy's neck. Break
[SCENE_BREAK]
As Darla bites her, Cordy gets hit by a vision. Darla backs away from her for a moment while we see flashes of some arcade, then lunges back in - only to get pulled back away by Angel.
Angel: "Get away from her!" Angel picks Cordy up and carries over to the bed.
Angel: "You're gonna be alright. You're gonna be alright." Cordy holding the side of her neck: "Ouch!" Angel presses a cloth over the neck wound.
Angel: "Cordy, you're gonna be all right. I'll kill her for this."
Cordy panting: "You're gonna have to find her first." Angel looks around. Darla is gone. Out in the club the others are just picking themselves back up, when Angel comes out, carrying Cordy in his arms.
Angel: "She bit Cordy."
Lorne: "Oh, sweetie, are you alright?"
Angel: "No. Where is she?"
Wes: "She got away."
Gunn: "We tried to stop her by hitting her fists and feet with our faces, but..."
Angel: "We'll take Cordy to a safe place and we'll take care of Darla." Hyperion, night, Cordy is lying on a bed with Angel sitting beside her.
Angel: "Are you feeling any better?"
Cordy: "Yeah. You don't have to stay with me."
Angel: "Gunn's gonna be right here." Cordy lifts her head to look at Gunn: "Thanks."
Angel: "I'm not gonna keep telling you how sorry I am. I'm gonna tell you - that she'll never do it again."
Cordy: "It was my fault, Angel. I felt sorry for her. She looked so helpless - like a mother. - I forgot what she really was. - I'm starting to feel the pills." Angel gets up and backs away from the bed as Cordy's eyes drift closed.
Angel quietly to Gunn: "You see Darla anywhere in range..."
Gunn: "I'll take care of it." Angel turns to go.
Cordy sits up: "Wait! - When she bit me I had a vision. I almost forgot." Angel comes back and sits back down on the edge of the bed.
Angel: "What did you see?"
Cordy: "It was like no vision I ever had before. - She's so hungry. - She doesn't know how to make the hunger stop. - I think I know where she's headed." Angel is arming himself from the weapons cabinet.
Wes: "I'm not speaking to you as the boss, because I know you wouldn't listen, but you shouldn't do this alone."
Angel: "I *have* to do this alone."
Wes: "Angel, a normal vampire is strong, and Darla wasn't normal before this. She took down the host, Gunn, and me without even breaking stride. She's stronger than all of us right now, including you, because of what's in her."
Angel: "I know. I put it there." Angel turns away and hurries out.
Wes: "Why does he think he has to do everything alone?"
Fred: "I think he just can't bear to have us see him do it."
Wes: "Kill Darla? She did try to kill Cordy - and she's a vampire."
Fred: "Who is carrying his child. The one thing he can never have, even if he lives forever." A busy arcade, there are kids and noise everywhere. A little blond boy stands in the middle of the confusion, looking around.
Boy: "Mommy? - Mommy? - Mommy?"
Darla: "What's wrong, honey? Lost your mommy? (Boy nods) Let's go find her together, hm?" The boy nods and takes her hand. Darla turns to lead him away.
Woman: "You're a brave woman! (Darla stops and looks over her shoulder) About to have one, taking another one out to play."
Darla: "Oh. I love children. I could just - eat them up." Darla and the woman smile at each other and go their separate ways. Break Cordy is sleeping on the bed, dreaming of Darla biting her and getting the vision. She jerks awake with a gasp. Gunn comes over and sits down on the edge of the bed.
Gunn: "Hey, hey! It's alright. It's just a dream, okay? I'm right here. She can't hurt you."
Cordy: "I have to talk to Wes." Cordy is pacing in Wes' office.
Cordy: "It was a dream, but - it was more like a vision."
Wes: "About what?"
Cordy: "About what's inside Darla. (Sits down) This Tro-clan thing - the prophecies say that it will be born - or it will arise?"
Wes: "It says both. The middle English eyrizan and the Gothic urreisan, both mean to appear, to spring up."
Fred: "Angel's not answering his phone. Should I leave a message on his voice mail?"
Cordy: "He doesn't know how to use his voice mail. Just try his pager."
Wes: "There is also a reference to the Tro-clan being boren, which is pretty plain middle English for being born, to bear." We hear a pager go off. Gunn checks his belt, then gets up and walks over and pulls Angel's pager out of the pocket of the coat hanging in the corner of Wes' office.
Gunn: "Well, we found Angel's beeper."
Wes: "What is it, Cordy? What is the vision trying to tell you?"
Cordy: "I think they're trying to tell me *why* Darla is craving younger victims." Darla is crouched in front of the little boy in a deserted corner of the arcade.
Boy: "Ma'am, I don't think my mom is back here."
Darla: "Are you sure? Did you look?" The boy looks around.
Boy: "I don't see anybody." He turns back to see that Darla has morphed and lets out a scream. Angel runs across some of the arcade games and tackles Darla against the wall and slams the stake in his hand towards her heart. Darla puts up a hand to ward it off the stake pierces her hand until it comes out on the other side. The boy runs away screaming, straight into his mother's arms out in the crowd.
Mother: "There you are! (Catches him up in her arms and hugs him close) Where have you been? How many times have I told you not to wander off!" Darla tosses Angel out from the deserted section. The mother's eyes widen as Angel lands on top of some tables, over turning them. People in the crowd see Darla follow him out, still wearing her vampface and turn to run away, screaming. Darla pulls the stake out of her right palm and lets it drop as she walks towards Angel.
Darla: "You *so* want to play the good guy, don't you? Yeah. You're the good guy who did *this* to me." Hauls back and knocks Angel across the face, slamming him against one of the games.
Darla: "You may have the face, but you don't know the hunger! It pounds! You can't make it go away! You can't stop it!"
Angel: "I'll stop it!" He hauls back and hits Darla. The two of them fight. In the end Angel manages to grab Darla by the throat and push her up against the wall.
Darla: "How could you put this in me? I *hate* you!" Darla hits him again, but Angel refuses to let go of her throat.
Darla: "They breathe. They breathe and pound. I don't breathe, you idiot! You can't strangle me!" Darla laughs.
Angel: "I'm not gonna strangle you." Angel pulls her away and slams her back up against the wall, pulling out another stake.
Darla: "Come on! Do it! (Angel hesitates) Do it!" Angel slowly lowers the stake and looks down at Darla's belly. We hear a heartbeat. Angel slowly steps back from Darla. Darla lunges, grabs a hold of Angel's jacket and shakes him.
Darla: "Do it! Do it! Make it stop!" Angel gently restrains her, wrapping her tightly in his arms and pulling her up against his chest.
Angel: "No it won't, Darla. Darla, listen to me."
Darla: "Make it stop! Make it stop."
Angel: "The child. The child has a heartbeat. It has a soul."
Darla flailing wildly: "No! Not my child! No!"
Angel: "Our child. Ourchild. Our child. That's why you've been craving purer and purer blood. That's why it's been driving you out of your mind. It has a soul." Darla collapses against Angel's chest, sobbing: "No, it doesn't."
Angel holding her: "It does."
Darla: "It can't."
Angel quietly: "Yes, it does. It does." Angel helps Darla to lay back down on a bed in the Hyperion and hands her a mug.
Angel: "Here, drink this." Darla takes a gulp then makes face.
Darla: "Pig's blood?"
Angel: "You need to keep yourself nourished. You'll get used..." Darla throws the pug against the wall, shattering it and splashing the wall with blood.
Angel: "You're not alone in this anymore. We'll deal with this together."
Darla: "Gosh. I'm the luckiest vampire girl in the whole world. - Get away from me."
Angel gets up: "Try and get some sleep."
Darla: "How's Cordy? She wanna come up and visit?" Laughs. Angel walks up to Gunn, standing in the door holding a loaded crossbow.
Angel: "She goes near Cordy, or Fred..."
Gunn lifting the bow: "I know."
Angel: "Don't underestimate her. The woman is stronger than all of us right now." Angel walks down into the lobby and sees Cordy and Wes leaning over an open book on the reception counter together.
Angel: "You're not to go near Darla for any reason without me, Gunn, and a lot of crossbows standing between you. You understand?"
Cordy: "Oh, yeah. And if I forget (indicates the bandage on the side of her neck) I have a nice little reminder."
Angel: "That goes for you, too, Fred." Fred looks up from the laptop: "Gotcha." Angel goes to sit down on the settee in the middle of the lobby and Cordy walks over to him.
Cordy: "So, I guess you're gonna be a father."
Angel after a beat: "Guess I am."
Cordy: "I felt it in my dream. The same thing you did - when you found her. (Sits down beside him) It has a soul."
Wes: "Well, Angel has a soul. It makes sense. As much as any of this does." Angel looks down at his folded hands.
Wes: "Angel, even with a soul, she could give birth to what's spoken of in the prophecies."
Angel looks at Wes: "The thing that's coming to kill and burn us all? - I know that. - I also know the child is mine."
Wes: "Right."
Cordy: "Well! Another big fun day at Angel Investigations. (Gets up) What do you say we pour ourselves a good stiff..."
Fred: "Uh-oh."
Cordy: "A good, stiff uh-oh?"
Fred: "Remember before when I said I thought that maybe, possibly, perhaps I might have been off in my earlier calculations? And you asked Wes if he thought if the Tro-clan was prophesied to arise or be born and he said it could be both? And we all know that the Latin for arrive is arripare, to come to land or possibly in this instance simply to come to, as from a deep sleep?"
Angel, Wes: "Fred!"
Fred: "Right. I believe that whatever this thing is, it's arriving right about (looks down at a watch) three, two, now." A busy section of LA, night, people are walking past, talking. The camera sinks through the ground down into a round chamber, lit by fires in the alcoves along the wall. The ceiling is supported by a circle of pillars. A stone statue and two bowls holding more flames are set up, forming an equal triangle inside the circle of pillars. A demon walks in and stops in front of the statue.
Sahjhan: "The weight of time is heavy on the world. And all men born must die. But there are worlds unknown, where dreamers dream and sleepers sleep, and patiently await. As pledged in Caladan by Cod-she, (Sahjhan steps back and throws some powder at the statue) One shall awaken in the first year of the final century. That one, who lived before and joined Cod-she in the great sleep. Arise, as was promised and foretold. Arise. - Arise!" Nothing happens. The demon turns away and walks over to one of the fires and lights himself a cigarette. Turns back to watch the statue, puffing. Checks his watch. Takes another drag. Suddenly the room begins to shake and blue lighting flashes. The eyes of the statue suddenly turn into two open, human looking eyes. The statue cracks then crumbles to the ground in a cloud of dust. The demon puts out his cigarette and walks over to the figure huddled in the middle of what's left of the statue.
Sahjhan: "Welcome to the twenty first century. (Crouches down and puts a hand on the back of the figure) Angelus is here. You'll see him soon. - You haven't used your muscles in a very long time. It will be a while before you're strong enough to..." The figure suddenly straightens up. It's Holtz.
Holtz: "Just tell me where he is."
Summary:
| Darla comes back to LA, bringing Angel news of their baby. As Team Angel tries to find out how a vampire pregnancy is even possible, Angel must deal with his growing feelings for Cordy and his new fears about what sort of "child" Darla might be carrying. Meanwhile, one of Angel's old enemies arrives in LA looking for vengeance. | 95 | 40,738 | 40,740 | 40,740 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_The_Office_03x20 | fd_The_Office_03x20_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Andy: Good morning, Pam.
Pam: Oh, welcome back, Andy.
Andy: Drew. I'm Drew now.
Pam: Oh. Drew. Sorry.
Andy: Apology not... accepted. Because it wasn't even necessary in the first place. [laughs]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Several weeks ago, Andy Bernard had an incident. [cut to shot of Andy punching a hole in the wall] But after five weeks in Anger Management, I'm back. And I've got a new attitude. And a new name. And... a bunch of new techniques for dealing with the grumpies.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Mornin' Jim.
Jim: Hey, Andy. How are you, man?
Andy: Good. Drew.
Jim: What's that?
Andy: Dr--- You can call me Drew.
Jim: No, I'm not gonna call you that.
Andy: Cool. I can't control what you do. I can only control what I do.
Jim: Andy.
Andy: Drew. [walks to Dwight] Dwight. How's it goin' man?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Yes, I have decided to shun Andy Bernard for the next three years. Which I'm looking forward to. It's an Amish technique. It's like slapping someone with silence. I was shunned from the age of four until my sixth birthday... for not saving the excess oil from a can of tuna.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Jim, could you please inform Andy Bernard that he is being shunned.
Jim: Andy, Dwight says welcome back, and he could use a hug.
Dwight: Ok, tell him that's not true.
Jim: Dwight says that he actually doesn't know one single fact about bear attacks.
Andy: You guys...
Dwight: Ok, no. Jim, tell him that bears can climb faster than they can run. Jim! Tell him!
Jim: [half-heartedly] Andy! Nah, that's too far.
Dwight: Damn you.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Today is Safety Training Day. Toby is leading ours upstairs. Yeauck. But, I am giving everyone a little bit of a treat. We are going to listen in on Darryl's presentation to the warehouse. And if I know Darryl, it gonna be zoppity.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Darryl: Now, this is the forklift. You need--- [Michael rattles it] You need a license to operate this machine. That means the upstairs office workers can't drive it. ... Quiz! Mike.
Michael: Hmm.
Darryl: Should you drive the forklift?
Michael: I can, and I have.
Darryl: No! No no no no no! I said should you. You should not drive it. You should not drive the forklift, you understand?
Lonny: You're not allowed to drive the forklift.
Darryl: It's not safe, you don't have a license.
Michael: Guys, I'm not the only one who's driven the forklift. [points] Pudge has driven the forklift.
Madge: Madge.
Michael: I thought your name was Pudge?
Madge: No, it's always been Madge.
Michael: Okay. Um, her.
Darryl: Her. Yes, "her" is qualified to work a dangerous machine. You are not. Okay?
Michael: Ah, fine.
Darryl: Do you understand that?
Michael: Yeeesh.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Darryl: We do safety training every year, or after an accident. ... We've never made it a full year. This particular time, I was reaching for a supply box on the top shelf, when one office worker, who shall remain nameless, kicked the ladder out from under me and yelled...
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: [barely keeping his composure] "Hey Darryl, how's it hangin'?!" [laughs]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Darryl: And I fell and busted my ankle. I'm legitimately scared for my workers.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Darryl: The baler can flatten a car engine. It can cut off your arm and crush your entire body without skipping a beat.
Dwight: Yeah!
Andy: It's on!
Darryl: How many people a year do you think get their arms cut off in a baler?
Michael: Bail'er? I hardly know her.
Lonny: Dammit, Michael. Pay attention, man.
Darryl: Anybody wanna take a guess? Anybody?
Kevin: Five bucks says it's over 50.
Jim: You really wanna bet?
Darryl: Anybody?
Kevin: Ever since March Madness ended, I am so bored.
Guy: How many?
Jim: Ok, you're on.
Darryl: Ten people, Michael. Ten people. Would you like to be one of them?
Kevin: [mouths] Damn...
Darryl: [in background] You have to be alert, and calm. And always careful...
Jim: No, don't worry about it. We'll just got double or nothin'.
Kevin: On what?
Jim: I don't know, we'll figure somethin' out.
Kevin: Nice.
Oscar: What are you guys talkin' about?
Darryl: These are very dangerous machines down here, and the upstairs workers, Michael, should not go anywhere near them.
Michael: Yes, yes. But it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world... if somebody...
Darry: It would be the worst thing in the world! It would! Very much so.
Lonny: What the hell is wrong with this man?
Michael: It's a big red trash compactor!
Lonny: What are you---
Darryl: It's not a trash compactor! It's a baler!
Lonny: Don't disrespect the baler!
Michael: Okay, okay! I got it. I got it. ... Only on the rarest of occasions...
Darryl: No do not touch it!
Michael: ...would I go near---
Darryl: There is no occasion for you to go near this stuff, okay?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Toby now has the floor... and he is going to try not to screw this up, like everything else in his life. Let me rephrase that. I believe that you can do safety training and make it sound just as good as Darryl. Here we go!
Toby: Ok, um, one thing that you're gonna want to look out for is carpal tunnel syndrome. It's recommended that you take a ten minute break from typing every hour. For your circulation, you're gonna want to get up out of your chairs and uh, and move around about ten minutes every hour.
Michael: Yes, good. Fine. Like stretching and...
Toby: Um, yeah. You're computer screen can be a big strain on your eyes, so uh, it's also recommended that you step away for about... about ten minutes every hour.
Michael: Wow, that is... that time really adds up. That's like... a half an hour, every hour?
Darryl: Take them at the same time.
Michael: Ok, you know what? You're making it sound kind of lame. So, skip ahead to the really dangerous stuff. Like sometimes computers can explode, can they not?
Toby: No, no. Um, you always want to keep a sweater or cardigan of some sort, in case it gets drafty.
Ryan: What about a long sleeve T?
Toby: Well, that'll work.
Kevin: Long johns? A shaw?
Toby: You know, anything that warms you.
Michael: Ok, you know what? I think that everybody is going to vomit due to boredom. [to warehouse guys] Sorry, he is very lame. [takes book from Toby] Um, let's see. "Seasonal affective disorder! A depression that includes weight gain, fatigue, irritability, brought on by the low light of winter."
Darryl: Thank God we only had a baler to deal with.
Lonny: Yeah, that dim light is a bitch, ain't it?
Michael: Ok guys, you know what? I didn't--- I didn't interrupt when you were having your presentation.
Darryl: Actually, you did.
Michael: Yes. Okay, let's do another one. This is a good one. "A particular concern for office workers is a sedimentary life style, which can contribute---"
Toby: Sedentary.
Michael: Yes. "Which can contribute to heart disease." Heart disease kills more people that balers.
Lonny: That's called having a fat butt, Michael.
Michael: Mmmm, no, no, it's... sedentary...
Lonny: Yeah, yeah. That's, that's fat butt disease. That's what you suffer from?
Michael: No.
Lonny: Fat butt disease, Michael?
Kelly: Excuse me, sea monster, you weigh like a thousand pounds.
Lonny: Yeah? I bet you'd like to swim with this sea monster, wouldn't you?
Kelly: Ryan?
Lonny: Dude, tell your girl to shut up.
Kelly: What?!
Ryan: Kelly, you insulted the gentleman. Please apologize.
Kelly: Are you kidding me?
Darryl: Alright, we outta here.
Michael: Darryl, I did not walk out in the middle of yours. So, I---
Lonny: Yeah, but ours was real, Michael.
Darryl: That's what I've been trying to tell you, Mike. It's serious down there. We do dangerous stuff, man. This is shenanigans, foolishness, Nerf-ball. You live a sweet, little, Nerf-y life. Sittin' on your biscuit. Never havin' to risk it.
Michael: Okay. ... What, Nerf isn't cool anymore?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Darryl thinks he is such a man because he works in a warehouse. I worked in a warehouse. Men's Warehouse. I was a greeter. I'd like to see Darryl greet people. Probably make 'em feel like wimps. Not me, I... "Hello, I'm Michael. Welcome to Men's Warehouse. We have a special on khaki pants today." ... This is one example.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Kevin: [Pam is holding a jar of jellybeans] Ten.
Oscar: Really, ten? That's your guess? You're a professional accountant.
Jim: There's like ten green ones.
Oscar: Forty-two.
Jim: I'm gonna say fifty.
Karen: Fifty-one.
Jim: Oh, don't be that person.
Kevin: That is lame.
Karen: It's a strategy!
Pam: It's called being smart.
Karen: Thank you.
Kevin: Oh, geeze.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: I don't know how the whole betting thing started, but it's fun.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: Ten...
Jim: Kev's out.
Kevin: Damn it.
Pam: 47, 48, 49! Jim wins!
Everyone: Oooh! [Jim claps]
Kevin: That is not fair. He has spent hours up here at reception with you. Hours and hours.
Jim: Okay, okay.
Kevin: No, constantly. Like, for years.
Jim: Okay.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: Pam, depression is as scary as a baler, right?
Pam: I don't understand the question.
Michael: Working in an office can lead to depression. Which can lead to suicide. I mean this is really serious stuff.
Pam: Yeah...
Michael: I--- I--- Nobody commits suicide because they work with a baler, and yet those guys are makin' fun of me, calling me a Nerf, that...
Pam: It's really hard to demonstrate depression. Their safety training had visuals.
Michael: Yeah... you are... ah, so right. They had visual aids. And all we had were the facts. You don't go to the science museum and get handed a pamphlet on electricity. You go to the science museum and you put your hand on a metal ball, your hair sticks up straight... and you know science.
Pam: So, you're okay?
Michael: Indubitably.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: They use props. They use visual aids, and they just made us look like dopes.
Dwight: Idiots! God, what are we gonna do!?
Michael: I don't know, I don't know. Because you know what our killer is? Depression---
Dwight: Wolves.
Michael: Nn--- Depression.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Visual aids.
Michael: Yes.
Dwight: A quilt. Depression quilt?
Micheal: No time to sew a quilt. ... I got it. Give me the number for the Giant Big Box Toy Store.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: You may be asking yourself, "What am I doing on a trampoline?" Well, I thought I'd bounce here for a while, relieve some stress, and then move on with my day. Not! Here's the plan. Dwight, is going to gather all of the office workers and all of the warehouse guys, we're going to have another safety seminar. Only this time, where's Michael? Oh my God! He is on the roof! Now I have got their attention. I... tell them, about the cold hard facts of depression. And then I say, "Hey! You ever seen a suicide?" And I jump. And they freak out. And they get to see... the dangers of depression with their own eyes. Nice side note[/b]: They might think "Hey, I should have been nicer to Michael." But that's... not why I'm doing this... Then, I land on the trampoline, take a couple extra bounces for fun. I climb off, walk around the corner... Ta-freakin'-da! [Dwight nods]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Kelly: So then the next movie moves to the top of the queue. So number five becomes number four, number six becomes number five, [Ryan checks his watch]number three becomes number two, etc, etc. And let's just say that I just sent back Love Actually, which was awesome. [Karen lays money down on the desk next to Ryan] And they sent me Uptown Girls, which is also awesome. But guess what, now I want to see love actually again, [Phyllis throws her money down] but it's at the bottom of the que! Oh no, what do I do!? [Creed throws his money down] What I do, is this. I go online, I go click, click, click. And I change the order of the que, so that I can see Love Actually [Pam throws her money down] as soon as I want to. It's so easy, Ryan. Do you really not know how Netflix works? [Jim throws his money down]
Ryan: I guess I forgot. [kisses Kelly, gathers up all the money]
Kelly: You're such a ditz.
Kevin: Ryan, well done. Two minutes, forty-two seconds. Additionally, Pam, you win ten because she said "awesome" 12 times, and Jim, you win five because she mentioned six romantic comedies.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [on the roof] Okay, let's do this thing! I'll go summon the troops!
Michael: Maybe we should test it first. Letterman-style. Throw a TV over, or...
Dwight: We measured it once...
Michael: Go buy some watermelons.
Dwight: Seedless?
Michael: Just...
[SCENE_BREAK]
Toby: [Creed takes a bite of an apple] Creed is eating an apple. I found a potato.
Pam: Hey Creed.
Creed: Hey!
Pam: Hey.
Creed: Hello. [Jim replaces Creed's apple with a potato][Creed takes a bite of the potato]
Pam: Yes!
Kevin: Here you go. [hands money]
Toby: Nice.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Karen: I don't know this place as well as I thought I did. I'm getting cleaned out.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Ready?
Michael: Let's do it! Drop that sucker.
Dwight: [drops watermelon, watermelon bounces off trampoline, onto a car, bursts, car alarm sounds]
Michael: BINGO! WHOA WHOA WHOA! Oh... crap. Deactivate the car alarm. Clean up the mess.
Dwight: Okay.
Michael: Find out whose car that is. If it's Stanley's, call the offices of James P. Albini, see if he handles hate crimes.
Dwight: Got it.
Michael: Also, take apart the trampoline, stick it in the baler.
Dwight: We're not allowed to use the baler.
Michael: Have Pa--adge do it, or... the sea monster.
Dwight: I'm on it!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: I'm temporarily lifting the shun.
Andy: Thank you.
Dwight: It means nothing. I need you to do something for me.
Andy: Anything.
Dwight: Okay, calm down. I need you to acquire an inflatable house, and/or castle.
Andy: You mean a moon bounce.
Dwight: What do you think? You've got an hour.
Andy: I'm gonna need... I'm gonna need petty cash.
Dwight: Shunning resumed.
Andy: Do you, do you want a drawbridge?
Dwight: Un-shun. Yeah that sounds good. Re-shun.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Oh yeah, this is much better. Safer. Excellent decision.
Michael: Yes, thank you for seeing that.
Dwight: When you land, try and land like an eight year-old. These bouncy castles are not designed for adults.
Michael: I don't know if I wanna do this.
Dwight: Do you wanna do another test? I got plenty of watermelons in my trunk!
Michael: No. No more. The tests are going terrible. If we keep doing it, we're not gonna want to jump. This is about doing, not thinking.
Dwight: That's right! Doing! Totally doing! It's rock n' roll!
Michael: Rock n' roll!
Dwight: Yeah!
Michael: That's right! I am not thinking.
Dwight: [imitating the sound and playing an air guitar] Near near near near near!
Michael: Yes! Yeah!
Dwight: [singing] Michael is awesome! Jumpin' off the roof!
Michael: Woo!
Dwight: [singing] Bouncin' on the bouncy bounce! Show 'em who's boss!
Michael: Woo!
Dwight: [singing] Rip a hole in the suuuuuuun!
Michael: I am ready to do this! I am ready to make a point! [Dwight continues air guitar]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [out of breath] Guys! Listen up! Michael is up on the roof, and acting strange!
Andy: Whoa! What's the situation?
Dwight: [hesitates] Un-shun. I think he's suffering from depression. Re-shun.
Andy: Ok, when's the shunning thing gonna end?
Dwight: Un-shun. Never. Re-shun. I think he wants you all to come out to the parking lot and watch him die!
Stanley: Is it nice outside?
Dwight: It's gorgeous. Let's go!
Stanley: Do I need my jacket?
Dwight: No really, it's, it's very nice. Come on!
Ryan: Will I be too warm in a long sleeve T?
Dwight: Everybody's gonna be fine in exactly what they're wearing, let's go! Let's go!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [outside] Come on, hurry up you guys!
Michael: [on the roof] My life! Oh, my life...
Dwight: [on megaphone] Michael, what's wrong?!
Michael: Everything's wrong. The stress of my modern office, has caused me to go into a depression.
Dwight: Depression? Isn't that just a fancy word for feeling bummed out?
Michael: Dwight, you ignorant slut. Depression is a very serious illness. Over 32 thousand people commit suicide every year! According to a 2004 study!
Dwight: Is that the last year the data was available?
Michael: Yes! My head is in such pain! And turmoil!
Dwight: Don't do anything rash!
Michael: Wait, where are the warehouse guys?
Dwight: I didn't... [Dwight runs up to the side of the building] I didn't think you needed them for this part.
Michael: Okay... that's...
Dwight: you said to just...
Michael: That's the whole point, dummy.
Dwight: Okay, I'm on it!
Michael: Okay.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Attention blue collar workers!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: What are the odds that this is in any way real?
Jim: I'd say like... 10,000 to 1?
Kevin: Okay, I'd like ten bucks on those odds.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Kevin: If someone gives you 10,000 to 1 on anything, you take it. If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Michael's up on the roof and he's acting strange!
Michael: Oooooh, my life!
Dwight: Michael! What's wrong?
Michael: Everything is wrong, Dwight. The stress of my modern office, has made me depressed.
Dwight: Depressed? Isn't that just a fancy word for feeling bummed out?
Michael: Dwight, you ignorant slut.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: Well, you know, the first performance was a little off. But I really think they hit their stride, in the second show. Um, might even bring my parents tomorrow, to the matinee.
Michael: And that is why, I am going to jump off this roof!
Jim: Oh, excuse me. It's my... favorite part.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Angela: This is just offensive.
Ryan: At least we're outside.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Creed: [zipping up his pants] Hey, check it out, there's a... there's a castle over there.
Jim: Oh my God, there is a castle.
Dwight: No, there's nothing to see over there, people! There's nothing to see. ...They found the castle, Michael.
Michael: Damn it.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: Oh... God. Oh my God, he's gonna jump.
Jim: Oh. He's going to kill himself, pretending to kill himself.
Pam: Yeah...
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: Hey uh, Michael. Don't jump on the bouncy castle. You can't do that, because you're going to get horribly, horribly injured.
Pam: Hey Michael! I have a present for you, but you have to come down and get it.
Michael: What is it?
Pam: Come down and... open it and you'll see.
Michael: Dwight, find out what the present is.
Dwight: Okay, uh... I don't see anything. She might be bluffing.
Jim: Dwight...
Pam: Dwight, what are you---
Dwight: Oh... It's uh, a Repliee Q1 Expo female robot, they're only available in Japan.
Michael: Dwight, you are such a liar. Pam, really, what is it?
Darryl: Mike, this is the opposite of safety. You jump, you're gonna serious hurt yourself.
Michael: You told me, that I lead a... cushy, wimpy, Nerf life.
Darryl: Yeah, but I never said you had nothing to live for.
Michael: What do I have to live for?
Darryl: A lot... of things. Uh, you, uh... What about Jan? Lovely, lovely, lovely Jan, man. It's goin' good, right?
Michael: It's complicated with Jan. And I don't know where I stand, or what I want. The s*x isn't nearly as good as it used to be.
Darryl: Mike, you're a very brave man. I mean, it takes courage just to be you. To get out of bed every single day, knowing full well, you gotta be you.
Michael: Do you really mean that?
Darryl: I couldn't do it. I--- I ain't that strong. And I ain't that brave.
Michael: I'm braver than you?
Darryl: Way braver! You Braveheart, man.
Michael: I Braveheart. I am.
Darryl: Come down, okay?
Michael: Okay. Pam, I'm coming down to get my present.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Michael: An office... is as safe as the people in it. And sometimes those people can drive you to do crazy things to show the dangers of the office. That's the danger I found myself in today. I saved a life. My own. Am I a hero? I really can't say. But, yes.
Summary:
| Michael feels ashamed when, during a safety training course, the warehouse employees make fun of him for having a safer work environment. Determined to show that office life can be dangerous, he decides to demonstrate depression effects by faking a suicide attempt. His plan to jump off of the roof and onto a bouncy castle go awry when the employees discover what he is doing and are forced to talk him down. Meanwhile, Andy attempts to endear himself to Dwight after returning from anger management. | 95 | 19,755 | 19,757 | 19,757 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Doctor_Who_1963_14x21 | fd_Doctor_Who_1963_14x21_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
THE TALONS OF WENG-CHIANG
BY: ROBERT HOLMES
Part One
Running time: 24:44
[SCENE_BREAK]
JAGO: Mister Chang. Wonderful, wonderful. Words fail me, sir. Words quite fail me.
CHANG: You are most generous.
JAGO: Have I ever, in my thirty years in the halls, seen such a dazzling display of lustrous legerdemain? So many feats of superlative, supernatural skill? The answer must be never, sir. Never.
SIN: Honourable master is kind to bestow praise on humble Chang's miserable, unworthy head.
JAGO: Dashed clever, the way you work the little fellow. Wires in the sleeves, I dare say. But I'll not pry, Mister Chang. The secrets of the artistes are sacrosanct.
BULLER (OOV.): Hey, you!
JAGO: What the deuce?
BULLER: Where's my Emma? What have you done with her?
JAGO: You've got no right to burst in here.
BULLER: Out of my way! It's him I want.
CHANG: Your Emma?
BULLER: She come in here last night and nobody ain't seen her since.
JAGO: I'll have the fellow ejected.
BULLER: Now I'm asking you, mister, what's happened to her?
JAGO: Call the stage hands, Freddy.
CHANG: It's all right, Mister Jago. Please, come with me.
JAGO: Courteous coves, these Chinese. I'd have propelled him onto the pavement with a punt up the posterior.
[SCENE_BREAK]
CHANG: Your wife?
BULLER: Emma Buller. And don't deny she was here, cos I saw her with my own eyes.
CHANG: Many ladies come to theatre. Why should you think
BULLER: Not round the side door, they don't. Now, look. I was passing in my cab and I saw her plain, and I know it was you she was calling on. She's been acting queer ever since you put the 'fluence on her last week, so don't try coming the innocent, Mister. I want to know where she is or I'm calling the law. Clear?
CHANG: Your wife came on stage?
BULLER: Last week. Levitated her, you did. She's not been the same since. It's done something to her reason, I shouldn't wonder. And she was here last night.
CHANG: Not to see me.
BULLER: Don't come the cod. She's disappeared. Nobody's seen her, not since she come here last night, so what about it, eh?
CHANG: In my country we have saying. Man who goes too quickly may step in bear trap.
BULLER: Right, I'm getting the Peelers.
[SCENE_BREAK]
LEELA: These clothes are ridiculous. Why must I wear them?
DOCTOR (OOV.): Because you can't go walking around Victorian London in skins. You'll frighten the horses.
DOCTOR: Anyway, we don't want to be conspicuous, do we?
LEELA: A swamp creature. That was it's attack cry.
DOCTOR: Oh no, it was a ship on the river. Excellent. It means we can't be far away.
LEELA: From where?
DOCTOR: From where we're going.
LEELA: Doctor, you make me wear strange clothes, you tell me nothing. You are trying to annoy me.
DOCTOR: I'm trying to teach you, Leela. Surely you'd like to see how your ancestors enjoyed themselves? Splendid. That's why I'm taking you to the theatre. Li H'sen Chang. Hmm, pity. I'd rather hoped we'd catch Little Tich. Never mind. If we hurry we'll just catch the second house.
[SCENE_BREAK]
JAGO: You'd better get your tail pinned on. Linens up in five minutes. Casey, have you got the oopizootics coming on?
CASEY: Mister Jago, I've seen it. I've seen it again!
JAGO: Be quiet. I told you before.
CASEY: Horrible, horrible it was, Mister Jago. A great skull coming at me out of the dark.
JAGO: Damme, you don't want to bankrupt me, Casey. Keep your voice down. Threadbare in Carey Street I'll be if people get the notion there's anything wrong with this theatre.
CASEY: Chains clanking, nine foot tall.
JAGO: You've been drinking.
CASEY: Not a drop, sir.
JAGO: Well, it's time you started.
JAGO: Now pull yourself together, man.
CASEY: I ain't never going down that cellar again. There I was, fixing the trap, when this apparition rose out of the ground in front of me. Hideous, it was. Hideous.
JAGO: That's enough.
JAGO: It's your imagination.
CASEY: Never.
JAGO: A cat or something must be trapped down there making noises. Tell you what I'll do, Casey. I'll come down with you this evening, as soon as the house is clear, and we'll have a good look round. Now how's that?
CASEY: It was no cat, Mister Jago. I seen it!
JAGO: Please, Casey, remember, mum's the word.
[SCENE_BREAK]
LEELA: This is a big village.
DOCTOR: Yes.
LEELA: What's the name of the tribe here?
DOCTOR: Cockneys.
LEELA: The sound of death!
DOCTOR: You stay here.
DOCTOR: Excuse me, can I help you?
QUICK (OOV.): Hold you there.
QUICK: Now then, what's all this?
LEELA: Touch me and I'll break your arm.
QUICK: Now don't be foolish, miss.
DOCTOR: Good evening.
LEELA: Keep back, Doctor. Blue guards!
DOCTOR: Good evening, Constable.
QUICK: Good evening, sir. You know this young female, sir?
DOCTOR: Oh yes, yes. We were attacked by this little man and four other little men.
QUICK: When I got here, sir, he was being strangled with his own pigtail, sir.
DOCTOR: Really? Girlish enthusiasm, officer?
QUICK: You might call it that, sir. I call it making an affray. I must ask you to come down the station with me.
[SCENE_BREAK]
CHANG: Please to see, ladies and gentlemen, subject now in state of deep hypnosis.
AUDIENCE: Oh!
SIN: She asleep.
CHANG: She not asleep, Mister Sin.
SIN: She been slugging type of toddy.
CHANG: I will prove young lady not asleep.
SIN: She's lying on metal bar.
CHANG: Not lying on metal bar.
SIN: I've seen it done before.
CHANG: I will prove young lady not lying on metal bar.
SIN: She's held up by wires.
CHANG: Enough.
SIN: You can't fool me.
CHANG: Silence!
SIN: Don't touch me! Help! Police! Murder!
CHANG: You see? No wires, Mister Sin. I will now demonstrate art of levitation raising most beautiful lady high above own topknot.
[SCENE_BREAK]
KYLE: Name, sir?
DOCTOR: Doctor. Leela.
KYLE: Place of residence, sir?
LEELA: We've only just arrived here.
DOCTOR: We're on our way to the theatre, do you see.
KYLE: Your home address will do for the moment, sir. You do have a permanent address, sir?
DOCTOR: No, Sergeant. We're travellers.
KYLE: I see. Persons of no fixed abode.
DOCTOR: No, no, no, no. We do have an abode. It's called a TARDIS.
KYLE: A TARDIS.
DOCTOR: But it's not fixed.
KYLE: I can give you and the young lady a fixed abode, sir. Quite easily.
DOCTOR: Flat footed imbecile.
KYLE: What was that, sir?
DOCTOR: It was nothing complementary. Get on with it, Sergeant.
KYLE: Now look, sir. We've got our hands full here, all these girls going missing in the manor, so if you'd just oblige us by answering any questions we'll get on a lot better. And a lot quicker.
DOCTOR: Sergeant, all this is irrelevant. I've come here to lay evidence.
KYLE: We'll come to that in good time.
DOCTOR: We'll come to that now, Sergeant. We've just prevented a kidnapping, a robbery or even a murder. My friend here caught one of the attackers. Let's come to it now, shall we?
KYLE: We've only your word as to what he did, Doctor.
DOCTOR: Tell him. Tell him.
LEELA: The man they were carrying was dead. He had been stabbed through the heart!
KYLE: Really, Miss. And how can you be sure of that?
LEELA: I am a warrior of the Sevateem. I know the different sounds of death. Now put our prisoner to the torture!
KYLE: Well, if that don't take the biscuit. Torture, eh? This isn't the Dark Ages, you know.
LEELA: Make him talk.
KYLE: He's a Chinese, if you hadn't noticed. We get a lot of those in here, Limehouse being so close. Him jaw-jaw plenty by and by, eh, Johnny? I've sent for an interpreter.
DOCTOR: That won't be necessary. I speak Mandarin, Cantonese, all the dialects.
KYLE: Oh yes?
DOCTOR: Yes. Ne how ma? Ni chi mao cora (and so on)
KYLE: Yeah, very remarkable, I'm sure, Doctor, but since you're a party to the case, it isn't proper.
KYLE: Now what? That come from the river.
[SCENE_BREAK]
WOMAN: Look, there it is, guv. See? Look.
QUICK: Hurry with that boat hook.
WOMAN: It's a floater, all right. You've got it, guv.
WOMAN: On my oath, you wouldn't want that served with onions. Never seen anything like it in all my puff. Oh, make an 'orse sick, that would.
[SCENE_BREAK]
KYLE: Good of you to come so prompt, sir.
CHANG: Not at all, Sergeant. I'm always happy to be of service to the police. What can I do for you this time?
KYLE: A complaint against this man, sir. The lady and gentleman here swear they saw him, in concert with others not in custody, carrying what appeared to be a body, sir.
CHANG: Indeed.
KYLE: A European body as I understand them, sir.
CHANG: What happened to the others?
LEELA: They got away. I caught this one.
CHANG: You caught him? Remarkable.
DOCTOR: Don't I know you?
CHANG: I think not.
DOCTOR: Yes, I've seen you somewhere before.
CHANG: I understand we all look the same.
DOCTOR: Are you Chinese? Yes, that's it. We must have. No, I haven't been in China for four hundred years.
CHANG: Are you taking this matter seriously, Sergeant?
KYLE: We are, sir. Will you question the man, sir?
CHANG: Very well.
CHANG: Can I have paper and pencil, please, Sergeant?
KYLE: Certainly, sir.
DOCTOR: Got it! Li H'sen Chang.
CHANG: What?
DOCTOR: The Master of Magic and Mesmerism. Show us a trick.
DOCTOR: Very good. Very good.
KYLE: I think he's dead, sir.
DOCTOR: How did you do it?
CHANG: I did nothing. What are you suggesting.
DOCTOR: Scorpion venom.
KYLE: Scorpion venom?
DOCTOR: Highly concentrated scorpion venom. It killed him almost instantly.
DOCTOR: The Tong of the Black Scorpion.
KYLE: Don't know that one, sir.
DOCTOR: One of the most dangerous politico-criminal organisations in the world. Wouldn't you agree, Li H'sen Chang?
CHANG: You seem remarkably well-informed, Doctor. Alas, I know nothing of these matters. Most regrettable incident. Goodnight, Sergeant.
KYLE: Thank you, sir.
CHANG: I'm sure we shall meet again.
LEELA: Yes.
CHANG: Perhaps under more pleasant circumstances.
KYLE: Well, I don't know what to do about this lot.
DOCTOR: Then I'll tell you what to do, Sergeant. Organise a post-mortem. I want an analysis of the organs.
KYLE: You want what, sir?
DOCTOR: Well naturally I'm going to help. If the Tong of the Black Scorpion's here in London, you're going to need all the help you can get. Now cut along and do as I say. Now!
KYLE: Yes, sir.
[SCENE_BREAK]
CHANG: Faster, man, faster.
[SCENE_BREAK]
JAGO: Twinkle, twinkle, out in front.
CASEY: Eh?
JAGO: Gallery lights still burning.
CASEY: I'll just go and see to them now, Mister Jago.
JAGO: Everyone gone?
CASEY: Aye, just locked up, sir.
JAGO: I hope those girls go straight home to their digs.
CASEY: Oh, that they will, sir, with all this in the papers. Nine are missing now, you know.
JAGO: Nine. There was some fellow in here earlier blaming Chang of all people for some girl's disappearance.
CASEY: Just vanished off the streets, they have. Mostly in this area, too. What do you think's happened to them, Mister Jago?
JAGO: Nothing good, Casey, nothing good. That's a stone certainty.
CASEY: Oh, it says in the paper how it could be jolly Jack at work again.
JAGO: Jolly Jack?
CASEY: The Ripper, Mister Jago.
JAGO: The horrendous hyperbole of Grub Street, Casey.
CASEY: Eh?
JAGO: Newspaper gossip. They're probably just stony and scarpered. Cut along now. I'll wait for you here.
[SCENE_BREAK]
JAGO: I was right. It was blood. Blood all over the hand and wrist. How did that get there?
CASEY: Ready, Mister Jago.
JAGO: Oh, Casey. Don't ever do that to me again. If the celestial Chang caught me trying to pinch his tricks. I had an idea that his dummy was a midget dressed up, but it's just an ordinary vent's doll.
CASEY: Are we going to look down the cellar, Mister Jago?
JAGO: Of course, Casey. Of course. When I promise to do something. Determination, character. After you.
[SCENE_BREAK]
DOCTOR: They're what's known as a very dangerous bunch. Fanatical followers of an ancient Chinese god called Weng-Chiang.
LEELA: The Tong of the Black Scorpion?
DOCTOR: Yes. His followers believe that one day he'll come back and rule the world.
LEELA: So what's he like, this Weng-Chiang?
DOCTOR: Oh, very pleasant company. They say he blew poisonous fumes from his mouth and that he killed men with a white light that shone from his eyes.
LEELA: Magic!
DOCTOR: Superstitious rubbish. Here we are.
QUICK (OOV.): They're in there now, sir.
[SCENE_BREAK]
QUICK: Taken from the river not half an hour ago. Professor Litefoot's conducting his examination now, sir.
DOCTOR: Yes, well, our case is much more urgent.
QUICK: I wouldn't go in there if I was you, sir.
DOCTOR: Don't you worry about it. Don't you worry.
[SCENE_BREAK]
LITEFOOT: Thank you.
LITEFOOT: Who the devil are you, sir.
DOCTOR: I'm the Doctor, come to help you.
LITEFOOT: When I need anyone's help in pathology, I'll ask for it.
DOCTOR: The constable suggested a drowning case.
LITEFOOT: Fished from the river, but he wasn't drowned.
DOCTOR: By the look of those marks, an animal.
LITEFOOT: Exactly what I think, but what kind of animal leaves mutilations like those?
DOCTOR: Chisel-like incisors. A rodent?
LITEFOOT: Yes, but that's impossible. Look at the size of them.
DOCTOR: Hmm. Have you established the cause of death?
LITEFOOT: Yes, that's another curious thing. All this happened after death.
DOCTOR: Really?
LITEFOOT: He was killed by a knife blow to the heart.
DOCTOR: Are those his clothes?
QUICK: Yes, sir. I'm just taking them for examination.
DOCTOR: Hold that.
LITEFOOT: He was carrying no personal documents, but this indicates he was a licensed cab driver.)
LITEFOOT: Easy enough to identify the poor chap by his number.
LEELA: Doctor, those are the clothes the man we saw was wearing.
DOCTOR: What I'd like to know is, what do you think of these?
LITEFOOT: Some sort of hair.
DOCTOR: Yes. I think they're rat hairs.
LITEFOOT: Rat hairs? Do you know what you're saying, man?
DOCTOR: Yes, of course I know what I'm saying.
LITEFOOT: But they're nearly three inches long. Hairs on a rat can't be more than what, quarter of an inch?
DOCTOR: Interesting, isn't it, because I've just remembered something else about Weng-Chiang.
LEELA: What?
DOCTOR: He was the god of abundance. Yes, he made things grow. Can I borrow that?
DOCTOR: Thank you.
LEELA: Where are we going?
DOCTOR: Stay there, Leela.
[SCENE_BREAK]
DOCTOR: Were you trying to attract my attention?
DOCTOR: What's this?
LEELA: A Janis thorn.
DOCTOR: Yes. I thought I told you not to carry
LEELA: He was trying to kill you.
DOCTOR: Oh. Oh, well, in that case you'd better come along.
LEELA: What is it?
DOCTOR: The entrance to the sewers.
LEELA: Blood. Is this where they took the body?
DOCTOR: Yes.
LEELA: Where's it go?
DOCTOR: Into the Thames eventually. All the sewers are connected.
[SCENE_BREAK]
LEELA: What are those creatures?
DOCTOR: Rats.
LEELA: They don't look very dangerous.
DOCTOR: No, they're not. They're very cunning though. They're probably more afraid of us.
Summary:
| The Doctor and Leela land in Victorian London, and find themselves in the middle of missing girls, mutilated bodies, and vicious Chinese gangs. The Palace theater, presenting hypnotist Li H'sen Chang seems to be at the center of it all. | 95 | 14,828 | 14,830 | 14,830 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Frasier_07x04 | fd_Frasier_07x04_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Act One.
Scene One - Radio Station. Frasier is signing off for the show. Roz is in her booth.
Frasier: Till tomorrow then, this is Dr. Frasier Crane wishing you...
Roz knocks on the booth. Frasier looks around a sees a grumpy old man looking in through the screen.
Frasier: Oh, yes. Be sure to tune in later for the final broadcast of KACL's loveable curmudgeon, Chester Ludgate. You know, most of us here at the station were surprised to hear that he was retiring. I for one thought he'd never leave. [presses button]
Roz: [enters] So, should we order a pizza?
Frasier: Sorry?
Roz: Those PSA's you promised you'd help me with are due tomorrow.
Frasier: Oh gosh, Roz, I really am sorry. You know, it seems Mrs. Delafield's daughter is coming here to join us as an intern. I promised Kenny I'd show her around and take her to dinner.
Roz: So, while I'm working late, eating my vending-machine dinner, you'll be out having a gourmet meal with some cute rich girl.
Frasier: Oh, you can make anything sound unfair.
Roz exits to her booth as Kenny and the cute rich girl, Poppy, enter the booth. Poppy is like a character out of "Clueless": Long blond hair, dressed totally in a red "girly" outfit with red high heels and red hand bag. She speaks with an annoying, ditzy accent.
Kenny: Hey, Doc.
Frasier: Kenny, and who have we here?
Kenny: Dr. Frasier Crane, I'd like you to meet Miss Poppy Delafield. Well, gotta run. [swiftly exits]
Frasier: Poppy, what a pleasure to meet the daughter of our beloved station owner. So, what brings you to KACL?
Frasier cannot get a word in throughout the following.
Poppy: Well, I was in Paris last month - or was it Madrid? - No, Paris, and I said to myself, "that's enough gallivanting for you, young lady, it's time to get a job." So I flew home and asked my mother, Minnie, if I could nose around and see if some job, you know, spoke to me at one of her radio stations, or TV stations or newspapers. But not her brewery, thank you very much! So, here I am. Sleeves rolled up, ready to learn. Is this where you do your show? Of course it is, there's your mike right in front of me. Earth to Poppy!
She laughs; Gil walks past the booth in the corridor.
Poppy: There's Gil, I met him earlier. Hi, Gil!
She waves, Gil runs away. Frasier also waves and then wonders what he is doing and looks back at Poppy, who carries on.
Poppy: Nice man. I think it's marvelous what you do. To really help people. Unlike the psychiatrists I've been to, both of whom had some sort of, I don't know, narcolepsy. I sympathize, but if you can't stay awake, don't be a psychiatrist!
Behind her back, Frasier removes his cell phone, dials a number, and then hides it in his pocket.
Poppy: To do what you do, to face that microphone day after day and know that for the next three hours you're going to have to talk and talk and talk? I could not do it! I would freeze! Literally freeze!
She laughs giddily. Then the phone on the console rings, stopping her.
Frasier: Excuse me. [grabs the phone] Hello? Yes, Dad. All right, calm down, calm down. Was there much blood?
Poppy: Oh my gosh!
Frasier: All right, Dad, I'll be there as soon as I can, hang on a second. [puts phone to chest, to Poppy] I'm terrible sorry, there's been a small emergency at home. I'm gonna have to pass on today, may I take a rain check?
Poppy: Oh, and we were having such a nice chat.
Roz enters.
Frasier: This is Roz, my producer. You know Roz, I'll gladly do those promos if you would be so kind as to take Poppy to dinner and answer her questions.
Roz: Sure, if you don't get bored listening to me drone on about radio.
Frasier: Oh, I don't think there's much chance of that!
Poppy whizzes Roz out of the booth, chatting to her on the way.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Scene Two - Frasier's Apartment. Frasier and Daphne are sitting at the dining table. Martin enters and hurries Eddie into the apartment, checking the hallway for people.
Frasier: What the hell is happening?
Martin: Well, remember last week when Eddie killed his first rat? And how proud I was? I told you that story, right?
Frasier: Yes, Dad, you told us. If you had a guitar you would have written a ballad.
Martin: Well, we were just down in the basement and I saw another rat. I said, "go get him, boy!" So just as he picked him up, had him in his teeth, shaking the life out of him, and I hear this little bell, ting-a-ling. And I thought, "that's funny - rats don't wear bells!"
Daphne: Oh, little Robbie Greenberg's missing hamster!
Frasier: Yes, I read that flyer. He was offering a ten dollar reward.
Martin: Well, the most we can claim at this point is about six-fifty.
Frasier: You know Dad, this is actually your fault. You know if you hadn't encouraged him after he killed his first rat he wouldn't have moved on to murdering hamsters!
Martin: Well, what are you talking about? We don't know it was Eddie who killed him. He might have had a heart attack, or some kind of seizure when he bounced off the boiler!
The doorbell sounds. Frasier crosses the room and opens the door to Niles. He is carrying a magazine and two tickets. A smile is beaming across his face.
Frasier: Niles!
Niles: Prepare to whoop like a sweepstakes winner. Cancel our dinner! I've scored us two seats, front row for the event of the season.
Frasier: You mean...?
Niles: Yes.
Frasier: But...?
Niles: I know! [proudly holds up the tickets]
Frasier: Niles!
Martin: [aside to Daphne] I love it when they do it this way, I can pretend it's a Seahawks game.
He sits in his chair as Frasier eagerly takes the tickets and scans them.
Frasier: My God, it's for the Cecilia Bartoli concert! My God, they've been sold out for months. How on earth did you score these tickets?
Niles: I simply phoned the box office and said this is Niles Crane, the new arts critic for "The Monocle."
Frasier takes in a gasp of half delight for his brother and half jealousy as Niles slaps the magazine on the table.
Daphne: "The Monocle." Isn't that that magazine they hand out to rich people in all the snootiest apartment buildings?
Niles: And the snootiest hotels.
Frasier: How could this happen, Niles?
Niles: I was at a party thrown by the publisher, Olga Suerbread. The pretentious fop who had the job before me was there too, spouting sheer drivel about Leonard Bernstein. Being polite I kept my tongue sheathed. Until he referred to Bernstein's conducting as "overrated."
Frasier: [indignant] I assume you pounced?
Niles: [dignified] Like a ninja! By the time I had finished with him, Olga could see I was a far better critic than that arrogant poseur.
Daphne: She fired him right there?
Niles: Well, he was leaving anyway for his junior year abroad.
Frasier: Well, it's a post. Congratulations are in order. You know, who would have thought my little brother a professional music critic?
Niles: Oh, oh, and not just music. I can review anything I want. Theater, dance, art exhibits.
Frasier: You don't say?
Niles: Yes, from now on, wherever we go, I'll be armed with my trusty pad and penlight.
Frasier: Wherever we go? What fun.
Niles: [takes some opera glasses from his pocket] I'll have to take a damp cloth to these opera glasses, although I don't know what will we use them for, sitting in the front row? Unless it's to scan the faces of the jealous people behind us.
Niles exits to the powder room.
Martin: So, are you sure you're okay with Niles getting this critic job?
Frasier: Why wouldn't I be, Dad?
Martin: Oh, come on, I know what it's like with you two when one of you gets something the other one doesn't have. It's like when you were kids. Niles got a telescope, so you had to have a telescope. You got that funny little guitar, Niles...
Frasier: Dad, it was called a lute!
Martin: Oh yeah, whatever.
Frasier: Dad, believe me, I do not envy Niles his critic's job. As kids we would aggravate the situation by flaunting our toys in each other's faces. We're much more mature than that now, all right?
Niles enters from the powder room.
Frasier: Niles, you know, it's about time we got going. We don't want to be late for the curtain.
Niles: [flaunting] Don't be silly, I'm press now. They'll hold it.
Niles walks out with great esteem, his chin pointed up. Frasier grovels behind him, ignoring Martin's smug look.
[SCENE_BREAK]
HOW A POPPY BECOMES HEROIN
Scene Three - Café Nervosa. Front stage, Frasier and Roz are having a coffee and a chat together. Meanwhile upstage, Poppy is telling a weary crowd around her (including Gil and Kenny) about her life.
Poppy: So, that's how it ends: B minus average, ten extra pounds and still no boyfriend.
Front stage, Frasier and Roz watch on.
Roz: I see Poppy's having a little party.
Frasier: That's not a party, that's a hostage situation.
Roz: Thank God today is her last day. You know, this morning she cornered me by the coffee machine and told me her whole life story. I just wanted to grab her by the throat and say, "What am I, your biographer? Shut up!"
Frasier laughs. Gil finally gets out of the "party" and arrives at Frasier's table.
Gil: Dear God! I thought I'd never break free. I feel like a mongoose at the mercy of a chatty cobra.
Gil exits as Niles enters with a newspaper.
Niles: Hello, all. I see you all ready have the "Times." I'm quoted there today.
Frasier: In the "Times?"
Niles: Yes, here, [shows Roz the bit] it's in an ad for "St. Joan": "'Incandescent,' Niles Crane, 'The Monocle.'"
Roz: [stands] Wow! Excuse me while I go and tell all my friends I know you!
Roz goes off to the counter as Niles takes her seat.
Niles: [yawns] Forgive me. Olga and I were up till all hours at a party for the "Royal Shakespeare Company." I'm rubbing pretty impressive shoulders these days. And to think it's all because I have a small column.
Frasier: [keeping his eyes on his newspaper] That would certainly be the Freudian interpretation!
Niles: If I were to review that attitude I would say it was a chilling portrait of malice and envy.
Frasier: Oh Niles, I'm not the least bit envious that you get to spout off in that glorified cat-box liner.
Niles: You just can't stand it that my opinion means more than yours. That the arts community looks to me for my insight, my approval, my thumbs-up.
Frasier: I think we both know what your thumb's up these days!
Niles's temper flares, and he gets up.
Niles: That's a good one, Frasier. Perhaps you should use it in your column. Oh, that's right - you don't HAVE one!
He exits and Roz joins Frasier with their coffees.
Frasier: That smug jackass!
Roz: Frasier, you have a radio show. If you wanted to say what you thought of a play, what's stopping you?
Frasier: It's not the same thing as being a real critic, Roz. You don't get free tickets... you don't get quoted... forget hobnobbing.
Roz: My God, this competition between you and your brother is sick. Your obsessive one-upmanship. You're both going to end up bitter old cranks like Chester Ludgate.
Frasier: You know, you do raise a good point, Roz.
Roz: Thank you.
Frasier: Chester's time slot is free, I could do my own arts show.
Kenny passes, trying to hide from Poppy.
Frasier: Kenny? Listen, Roz just had a wonderful idea.
Kenny: Yeah, doc?
Frasier: What do you say about yours truly hosting a bouncy little show about the arts in Seattle?
Kenny: Culture? Wow! That's a great idea, let me chew on that and I'll get back to you.
Kenny exits.
Frasier: Great! You see, Roz, he loved your idea
Roz: That was not my idea.
Frasier: It was too your idea.
Roz: It was not...
Kenny enters again.
Kenny: Look, Doc, honestly, I feel kinda bad about what I just did. I let you think there was a chance that I might you let you do this culture show and... there's not.
Frasier: No chance at all?
Kenny: No. I mean, come on Doc. You, culture, opera. Who's listening? Not me! [laughs]
Kenny exits.
Frasier: Damn! I think my show's a good idea.
Roz: Well, Kenny's the station manager and he doesn't.
Frasier: You know what, frankly, I don't like his attitude. He acts as if he owns the station but he doesn't. Someone else does.
Roz: Poppy!
Frasier: The next best thing, her mother!
Roz: No, Poppy.
Roz points to Poppy who is coming over. Roz quickly picks up her bag and exits.
Poppy: Hi, Frasier.
Frasier: Hello, Poppy. Gosh, would you care to join?
Poppy: I can't. Mummy's taking me shopping. She spoils me something horrible, I guess it's an "only child" thing. Anything I want, I just have to ask.
Frasier: [getting an idea] Anything you want? Well, that's interesting. You know, Poppy, we could join each other for lunch after your shopping spree.
Poppy: Oh, I'd love it.
Frasier: Would you really? You know, it just seems a shame you leaving the station and us never really getting to know one another.
Poppy: Oh, it hasn't been easy. I mean, with you having those dental appointments everyday.
Frasier: [guilty] Yes. Let me walk you out. [stands up]
Poppy: You know, I should get the name of your dentist. I can't find one I like. They're always giving me Novocaine when I don't need it and then it's hours before I can talk again.
Frasier: Oh yes, well, I can give you his number, although I'm not sure he'd be any different.
Frasier and Poppy exit. End of Act One. Act Two.
Scene One - Frasier's Apartment. Daphne is sat, irritated, on Martin's chair. Frasier and Poppy are sat on the sofa with wine and paté on the table. The last chords of a Beethoven piece is being played on the stero. Frasier is air- conducting as Poppy is laid back listening.
Frasier: Divine Beethoven. Extraordinary, isn't it?
Poppy: Oh, yeah. And do you know what makes it more amazing?
Frasier: What?
Poppy: [declares] He was deaf!
Frasier reacts to this. Daphne just stares at her as if she's mad.
Frasier: Daphne, more paté please.
Daphne picks up the paté dish still staring at Poppy before she exits to the kitchen.
Frasier: Poppy, I can't tell you how wonderful it is to meet someone who shares my passion for the arts. It's a rare thing to find in Seattle, believe me.
Poppy: Is it?
Frasier: Oh yes, sadly. If only more people were better informed about our city's rich cultural treasures. [hinting] But what can we as mere radio folk do?
Poppy: Well... [delayed reaction] What about a radio show all about the arts in Seattle?
Frasier: Oh my God, Poppy, that's a wonderful idea. How do you do it, you just pull these things out of the air! Good Heavens, of course we'll have to find ourselves a proper host, but who?
Poppy: Well someone very smart.
Frasier: Oh, indeed.
Poppy: And cultured.
Frasier: [French] Bien Sur!
Poppy: And with a lovely speaking voice.
Frasier: [articulated] Oh, I don't think we need to look too far.
Daphne enters with the paté.
Daphne: Here you go. It's very rich, so don't spread it on too thick!
Poppy: Frasier, I'm so glad you're on board with this.
Frasier: You know, my only concern is will Kenny go for it? You see, he's a bit of a Philistine. It might be better if the suggestion came not actually from us but from... [no response] someone else.
Poppy: Who?
Frasier: Well, someone with more authority, power, influence... [no response] Someone older... [no response] A woman perhaps...
[no response]
Daphne: [fed up] Your mother! He means your mother!
Poppy: Oh, what a great idea. I'll call her. [stands]
Frasier: Here, use mine.
Poppy: Thank you.
Frasier hands Poppy his mobile, she sits and dials.
Poppy: Hello, mummy. I'm with Frasier Crane and we think there should be an arts show on KACL. But I really like this idea! So, you'll call Kenny and tell him you want this, okay? Love you too, okay, bye. [hangs up]
Frasier smiles at Daphne, Daphne gives a sarcastic smile back.
Poppy: And the first show should be?
Frasier: Why don't we start tomorrow? But we'll need something to review.
Poppy: That revival of "A Streetcar Names Desire" opens tonight.
Frasier: Brilliant, let's go together. I'll see you at the theater.
Poppy gets up to the door and is greeted by Martin who enters with Eddie.
Martin: Oh, Poppy.
Poppy: [to Eddie, loudly as if he is a baby] Hewwo, wittle Eddie, did you have a good walk? [Eddie runs off]
Martin: Actually, we've just been to the vets.
Poppy: [standing in door way] I had the cutest little dog when I was young, named Mr. Poops, every time we took him to the vets he...
Martin slams the door on her, drowning out her ramblings.
Daphne: You took Eddie to the vet, is he sick?
Martin: No, it turns out the building security camera caught Eddie taking out Robbie Greenberg's hamster. So this Greenberg kid's trying to make Eddie out to be some kind of pit bull, he's organizing some petition to get him banned from the building.
Frasier: [repressing glee] Oh Dad, that's terrible.
Martin: Yeah, it is. I don't know, I just wanted everyone to see what a nice, calm, friendly dog Eddie was.
Frasier: Why did you take him to the vet?
Martin: Tranquilizers. They don't even work anyway. I gave Eddie one of those pills on the ride home, they didn't do a thing to him. I don't know, I think maybe he needs something else.
Daphne: Uh, Mr. Crane?
Daphne points to Eddie laid, seemingly unconscious, on the upstage floor. Martin looks.
Frasier: Looks like all he needs is a lava lamp and some sitar music.
The doorbell sounds. Frasier crosses to the door and opens it to Niles.
Frasier: Niles!
Niles: Well, I'm glad to see you're in a better mood. I was hoping you'd lend me your Tennessee Williams biography. I have to review that revival of "Streetcar" tonight and I wanted to throw in some background stuff.
Frasier: Well, I'm sorry Niles, you know, normally I would have lent it, but I'll be needing it myself for my own review.
Niles: Oh. Well, in that case I'll... [realizes] What?
Frasier: Oh, that's right, you wouldn't have heard. You see, starting tomorrow I'll be doing my own little arts show on KACL, twice weekly.
Niles: You envious reptile!
Frasier: [picks up plate] Paté?
Niles: I achieve one thing, one tiny distinction you don't have, and what do you do? You run whining to Kenny for extra airtime.
Frasier: I did no such thing!
Daphne: No, he went to that Poppy woman instead.
Niles: Poppy?!
Frasier: [to Daphne] Is this a panel discussion?
Niles: You loathe Poppy!
Frasier: I do not, I think she's delightful, [to Daphne] isn't she?
Daphne: She's an idiot!
Niles: You conniving copy-cat! You have to have whatever I have.
Frasier: I don't have what you have. My audience is twice as large as yours is!
Niles: Well, at least my audience can read!
Frasier: How dare you review my audience!
Niles: I'll review anything I want to!
Niles and Frasier, bickering, exit to the kitchen. Martin is laid back in his chair listening to them as Daphne watches Eddie.
Daphne: [referring to Eddie] I've never seen him like this. Eyes bulging, tongue lolling out...
Martin: Oh, he always gets that way when he fights with Niles!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Scene Two - Radio Station. Roz is in her booth getting ready for the show as Frasier enters.
Frasier: Good morning, Roz.
Roz: Hi.
Frasier: Are you ready for our debut? I'm thinking of calling the show, "Frasier Crane's 'I'll Say'." But with the "I'll" spelt like a theatre aisle.
Roz: [sarcastic] That should work real well on radio! You better watch out for Kenny, I heard he's pretty mad at you for going over his head.
Frasier: He can't be mad at me, the whole thing was Poppy's idea. [Poppy runs by outside] Oh, here she is now, come to wish me luck.
Frasier and Roz enter the main booth where Poppy also enters.
Poppy: I was afraid I wouldn't get here in time.
Frasier: Oh, here, here. [sits her down in his chair] We've got a few minutes to go before the show starts. Take a seat, catch your breath. Oh gosh, I'm really glad you made it. You know, it wouldn't be a proper debut without you.
Poppy: Wow! All these buttons, how do you do it?
Frasier: Oh, it's not that complicated, really. You know, I turn on the mike here, these are my call buttons. Oh, and I push this button here if I want to cough. [shows her]
Poppy: How does it make you cough?
Roz and Frasier share a glance.
Frasier: You know, Poppy, I hate to rush you, but we've just a couple of minutes before the show so...
Poppy: [screams and stands up, only to sit back down again taking a script out of her handbag] I better get a move on. [reads her script]
Frasier: Poppy, what are you doing?
Poppy: Getting ready for my show.
Roz: [confused] One minute!
Frasier: Your show?
Poppy: Well, okay, our show. After all, it was your idea for me to do it. [shouts] Everybody, everybody come in here, please.
Everybody from the corridors comes to the doorway to listen to her. Even Kenny and Gil stand by.
Poppy: Before I begin my new show I just want to say a few words. Yesterday, I was ready to leave KACL. To run away like I have from so many other challenges. It was the support of one man, Frasier Crane, [Frasier looks horrified at what he's done] that helped me overcome this shyness many people may have observed in me, and to follow my dreams. [crying] Oh my God, I want to cry.
Gil: We all do.
Roz: [angry] Ten seconds!
Poppy gives a little shriek of excitement. Everyone exits apart from Poppy, who puts on the headphones. Roz to her booth. Kenny, Gil and Frasier to the corridor.
Gil: How could you do this to us?
Frasier: I had no idea she intended to stay.
Kenny: That's not what her mother told me!
Gil: And I thought I'd seen some cruel pranks in the army.
Frasier: I assure you, she is way out of her depth here. Any moment she'll realize she's in over her head, she'll be begging me to go in there and take over for her.
Meanwhile, Poppy's show begins.
Poppy: [slow, excruciating voice obviously reading from a script] "A Streetcar Named Desire" is a very powerful Broadway play. It was made into a movie starring Marlon Brando. This gave the play a very personal relevance to me, as I once sat next to Mr. Brando on the Concord and we had a very lovely chat until a sudden cramp forced him to change seats."
As Poppy's show continues, Frasier slowly collapses into a heap against the booth door in the corridor, almost crying at what he has done.
Poppy: "Streetcar" tells the tragic tale of [Southern accent] Blanche DuBois, who's a very gentile, very proper Southern lady. [as if it is a horror movie] Or is she?!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Scene Three - Café Nervosa. Frasier enters the café to find Kenny, Gil and Roz chatting at a table. They all turn away from him and stop talking. Roz puts her purse on the free seat, forcing Frasier to sit with his brother. Rather than looking smug, however, Niles looks strangely sympathetic.
Frasier: Go ahead, Niles, I know you were listening.
Niles: Well, I wish you'd lent her your Tennessee Williams's biography. She wouldn't have kept forgetting his name and calling him "Indiana Jones."
Frasier nods painfully.
Niles: If it's any consolation, I got fired from "The Monocle."
Frasier: [stops the smile creeping to his face] Niles, I'm sorry.
Niles: I panned a wretched musical, not realizing the lead was the person who does Olga's hair.
Frasier: She fired you just to placate her hairdresser?
Niles: Electrolysist. And if you'd ever seen her in a sundress, you'd forgive her as I have.
Frasier: Oh, I am sorry, Niles. Gosh, it's a shame, really. You know, I know how much you loved that job, and to lose it in such an unceremonious fashion.
Niles: Well, you know... I was thinking of quitting that job anyway.
Frasier: Oh?
Niles: I thought I was spreading myself too thin. Getting distracted from my real work.
Frasier: I had the exact same thought. Even as I was preparing my show, I thought, "Am I being fair to my regular listeners?"
Niles: They do depend on you.
Frasier: As do your patients.
Niles: Thank you.
Frasier: God, is it any wonder we find ourselves ex-critics?
Niles: We were meant to lose those jobs.
Frasier: It's as if the Gods of psychiatry, jealous of our dallyings, have quietly stepped in and put things right.
Niles: Well put!
Frasier: Thank you. You know, Niles, if you're feeling a bit hungry, we could catch an early dinner and then...
Niles: Oh, oh, and then catch the new Stoppard play.
Frasier: You know, it's just a shame my listeners never got to hear my review of "Streetcar."
Niles: Insightful?
Frasier: Groundbreaking!
Niles: As was mine.
Frasier: Yes well, it takes a psychiatrist to interpret that play.
Niles: Indeed.
Frasier: All right, you go first.
Niles: All right.
Frasier: Go.
Frasier and Niles cross to the door as Niles recites.
Niles: "A descent into madness, and it was well worth the trip in this incandescent revival of 'A Streetcar Named Desire'...."
Frasier: Just a moment Niles, "incandescent," isn't that the word they quoted you on in "The Times?"
Niles: Well, yes.
Frasier: You use that all the time.
Frasier and Niles continue bickering as they exit. End of Act Two.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Radio Station - Poppy exits the studio after her first show and eagerly looks around for someone to share the moment, but the hallways are empty. Puzzled, she leaves, and the station staff emerge from doorways and stairwells all over the station.
Summary:
| The owner of KACL has sent her daughter, Poppy Delafield , to start an internship at the station. Everyone finds her unbearable because she can never stop talking, though they are all too polite to say so. Meanwhile, Niles has been appointed art critic of a posh magazine, The Monocle , and is now attending performances for free and socializing with the elite of Seattle. Jealous of Niles's position, Frasier approaches Poppy to propose that he host a new arts show on KACL, but she misunderstands and becomes the host of the new show herself. | 95 | 25,073 | 25,075 | 25,075 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Frasier_10x16 | fd_Frasier_10x16_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Act 1 Scene 1 - KACL
[Fade in. Frasier is on the air.]
Frasier: Gosh, it's been such fun talking about psycho-pharmacological solutions to maladaptive personality traits that I can't believe the three hours is almost gone. Up next is the news followed by...
[Roz raps on the window and holds up a note that reads 'BIKE-A-THON".]
Frasier: Oh, but Roz is reminding me that next Saturday is the first annual KACL AIDS Bike-A-Thon. It's bound to be an afternoon of family, fun, and lots of surprises, so dust off your velocipedes and I'll see you there.
[He disconnects and stands up as Kenny comes in.]
Kenny: Great pitch, Doc. So, uh, what are the surprises?
Frasier: Well, first and foremost: I am not going.
Roz: But you just told them you'd see them there.
Frasier: Yes, Roz, I'm merely getting the rubes into the tent. I will gladly give my money, but spending the afternoon riding bicycles with a bunch of hooligans is not my idea of fun.
Kenny: It's just kids and families.
Frasier: Yes, well so was the KACL family picnic at the zoo, until those urchins jostled me into the orangutan grove. Let me
tell you: orangutans are not the playful gentlemen of the trees the nature shows claim.
[Julia walks in.]
Julia: Hello.
Kenny: Hey, Julia.
Frasier: Julia.
Kenny: You're goin' to the Bike-A-Thon, right?
Roz: Oh, don't embarrass her, Kenny. I mean, it's gotta be tough, finding a comfortable bike seat when you're such a tight-ass.
Julia: This from a woman who "peddles" her ass all over town.
[Roz starts for her.]
Roz: Okay, lady...
[Frasier grabs Roz and pulls her back.]
Frasier: All right, stalemate. Well done, well done. Keep moving, come on.
[He ushers her back to her booth.]
Kenny: So, Bike-A-Thon, you're in, right?
Julia: Nah, I can't be bothered, I'll just send a check.
Kenny: Oh, cheese and rice, what's wrong with you people?
Julia: Relax, Kenny, I'm just pulling your leg. How can I not go? This is funding AIDS research, for God's sake. I know you think I'm heartless and self centered, but at least give me credit for being human.
Kenny: Well, Frasier's not goin'.
[Frasier lets out a forced, fake laugh.]
Frasier: What? Kenny, come on! I was pulling your leg too! I tell you what, we should have a fund raiser for your sense of humor. All right, I'll see you there.
[He claps Kenny on the back, then crosses through Roz's side of the booth.]
Roz: You're pathetic.
Frasier: I know.
[He exits. Fade out.]
Scene 2 - Frasier's Apartment Building
[Fade in. Martin is hurrying to catch the elevator.]
Martin: Hold it!
[He hurries and presses the button so the doors open again. He steps inside, then notices the other person. It is Cora Winston, the mother of Frasier's upstairs neighbor, last seen in [9.24] "The Love You Fake."
Martin: Cora. Hi.
Cora: Marty.
[The doors close and the elevator starts up. Martin looks nervous, Cora looks firmly ahead.]
Martin: Visiting your son?
Cora: Yes.
Martin: Cora, I'm sorry, but I gotta ask you. What happened? I thought we had a pretty nice thing, but then you stopped returning my calls.
Cora: Why don't you ask your other girlfriend?
Martin: What other girlfriend?
Cora: That bizarre English lady who told me to leave you alone. Because she was in the British Secret Service and had a license to kill.
[The doors open.]
Cora: Here's your stop.
Martin: Oh, geez, that was Daphne's mother. She had a thing for me, but it was never mutual.
[The doors close and the elevator continues.]
Martin: Did she show you a badge? Always ask to see a badge.
Cora: I knew she wasn't a secret agent. But she was pretty convincing about the two of you.
Martin: Oh, Cora, I'm so sorry. It's not true.
[The doors open again and they step out into the foyer on Cam's floor.]
Cora: I'm sorry too. I should have asked about her.
Martin: Well, hey, it's cleared up now. Maybe we could pick up where we left off. Or skip ahead, your choice.
Cora: That would've been nice, but I've been seeing someone lately.
Martin: Oh, sure, of course you have. Stupid of me.
Cora: But I'm very glad to see you again. Please give Eddie my love.
Martin: Oh, yeah. He'll be sorry he missed you. He liked your ankles.
[She goes into Cam's apartment. When the door closes, Martin smacks his cane against the floor in frustration, then turns and mashes the button for the elevator, furious. Fade out.]
Scene 3 - Frasier's Apartment
[Fade in. Gertrude and Daphne are on the couch. Niles is leaning against the table behind it. Frasier hurries in.]
Frasier: Oh, sorry for the hold up, guys. Ah, listen, I think it's best if we take separate cars to the flower show. See, later I have to go buy a bicycle.
[Daphne gets up and heads to the kitchen.]
Niles: For whom?
Frasier: Well, for me. I've been dragooned into riding for the KACL AIDS Bike-A-Thon.
Niles: Poor devil, spending the day on a bike. I don't envy you.
[He starts seriously, but a malicious grin breaks through. Daphne sticks her head out of the kitchen.]
Daphne: Niles, why don't we enter the Bike-A-Thon?
[She ducks back into the kitchen, leaving Niles stunned and nervous. He looks to Frasier, who is grinning.]
Frasier: You had to see that coming.
[Daphne comes out of the kitchen.]
Daphne: We can all go to the shop together, after the flower show.
Niles: Sure, why not.
Gertrude: Oh, you two would look so cute on matching bicycles.
Niles: I guess it would be a kick, eh Frasier?
Gertrude: Not you two, ya nit! You and Daphne.
[Martin comes in, slams the door and points at Gertrude.]
Martin: You!
Gertrude: Hello.
Martin: I just had a very interesting discussion with Cora Winston. Seems someone claiming to be my girlfriend scared her off.
Gertrude: Oh dear. Is she the woman from the bookstore?
Martin: No. The bookstore?!
Daphne: Mum, is this true?
Gertrude: Well, I'm sure I don't know what Marty's talking about, but it was probably back when we were an item.
Martin: We were NEVER an item! Now I would like for you to leave.
Frasier: Now Dad, calm down. I'm sure you can talk this over with Cora and have a good laugh afterwards.
Martin: Ha ha! Very funny. Now that she's practically married to this guy.
Gertrude: [rising] Oh, Martin, I'm sorry. I guess didn't realize...
Martin: Apology not accepted. You went too far, we are no longer speaking.
Gertrude: Marty...
Niles: No, no, Mrs. Moon. Mrs. Moon...shut up.
[He ushers her out the door.]
Frasier: Uh, Dad, we're leaving now. We're going over to the flower show and after that we're going to a sporting goods store to buy a couple of bikes.
Martin: Nice try, Fras, but I'm too mad to laugh.
[Frasier, nonplussed, just closes the door behind him. Fade out.]
Scene 4 - The Sporting Goods Store
[Fade in. Frasier and Niles are with a salesman, looking over a selection of bikes.]
Niles: This one has good lines. You have any without this bar here?
Salesman: You mean girl's bikes. Sure.
Niles: Good. 'Cause my wife's a girl and she'll need one of those.
Salesman: Nice. Maybe I'll go see how she's doing.
[He walks off. Niles covers his face.]
Frasier: Niles, we can't stall much longer. I mean, one seems as good as the next, is there anything else we need?
Niles: Hmm, let me see. Oh, yes, I know. We need to know HOW TO
RIDE THEM!
Frasier: Shh! We will learn.
Niles: Oh, as easy as that? Look at these machines, Frasier. These are BICYCLES! There is nothing between you and the ground but the ground itself.
Frasier: Yes! And if a child of FOUR can ride one, then so can we.
Niles: That's what we said when we were six! If Daphne finds out, she'll probably...
[He breaks off as a man in biking gear comes over to look at the bikes they're standing at.]
Frasier: Metal spokes. I like that.
Niles: I should buy the horn separately.
Frasier: Uh-huh.
[The man walks away.]
Niles: That was close.
Frasier: Niles, I am not going to look like an idiot at that Bike-A-Thon. Tonight, I am going to a parking lot and come hell or high water, I am going to master cycling. You're welcome to join me.
Niles: I guess I could sneak out. Perhaps it's time to slay the dragon.
Frasier: That's the stuff, brother.
[The customer comes over by them again.]
Niles: Call me crazy, but I like a bouncy tire.
Frasier: Two bouncy tires and a...taut chain. That's good ridin'.
[They smile bravely until the customer heads off again.]
Niles: Where did you learn all that? That was really good.
Frasier: Just a matter of confidence, Niles.
[SMASH CUT TO - Frasier's apartment, later that night. Frasier comes in the front, struggling with his new bike and muttering. Niles is behind him.]
Niles: All a matter of confidence, he says.
[Frasier turns the lights on to reveal that they are covered with scratches and bruises.]
Frasier: Yes, well perhaps two people who don't know how to ride bikes shouldn't try to teach each other.
Niles: A good teacher doesn't yell at his student.
Frasier: Nor does a good teacher throw a stick at his student!
[Niles clutches his knee.]
Niles: I thought it would make you try harder.
Frasier: Oh, you're going to make a hell of a dad!
Niles: Oh, what are we going to do?
Frasier: Let's not panic. We still have two days before the Bike-A-Thon. Surely the library has shelves devoted to this topic.
Niles: I don't have time for that! Daphne wants to go biking tomorrow afternoon.
Frasier: Well, then you're just going to have to tell her that you don't know how to ride.
Niles: I can't! It's too late! If I was going to do that, I should have done it at the bike store. But NOOO! You, YOU said we could teach ourselves! You said no one would be the wiser!
[As he continues to shout, Frasier makes calming gestures.]
Frasier: Niles...
Niles: "Two bouncy tires and a taut chain" you said!
Frasier: Niles...
Niles: And now look! My spokes are bent, my pants are stuck, and there's blood on the headlight, and blood everywhere...
[He breaks down as Frasier tries to comfort him.]
Frasier: Niles, that wasn't your fault. That jogger should have been wearing a reflective vest. Come on. Come and sit down. I'm going to get you a nice sherry.
[He heads for the sherry. Niles tries to move, but his pants are still stuck in the chain so he carries the bike with him. Fade out.]
Act 2 Scene 1 - Cafe Nervosa
[Fade in. Niles is sitting at a table, Frasier is getting coffee at the counter. Roz comes up behind him.]
Roz: Hi, Frasier.
Frasier: Oh, hi Roz. You're welcome to join me and Niles.
Roz: Oh, I can't. I'm on my way to meet Alice and her sitter. Alice wants to practice riding her bicycle for Saturday.
Frasier: Really?
Roz: Mm-hm, she loves it. I mean, she had that bike one day before she made me take her training wheels off.
Frasier: Tell me, does she ever find that she feels as though her feet are frozen to the pedals? Stuck in a confused, arrhythmic battle between forward and reverse, until finally, with no locomotive momentum whatsoever, she keels over like a felled tree?
Roz: I don't think so.
Frasier: Well good, good. Because... that's a real thing that happens to some kids.
[He sits down with Niles as Roz steps to the counter. Daphne and Gertrude come in.]
Daphne: Hey, Frasier.
Frasier: Oh, hello Daphne, Mrs. Moon.
[They all say hello to each other as the ladies sit.]
Daphne: I'm afraid I have some bad news.
Niles: What is it?
Daphne: Someone stole our new bikes.
Niles: My God, are you sure? [to waiter] Can I get a refill? That's terrible.
Frasier: You know, that's curious. Niles, didn't that salesman say nothing could break those titanium locks?
Niles: You're right. I must not have locked them properly. Foolish Niles.
Gertrude: You know, I spotted a couple of bikes in the storage room, behind the furnace. Perhaps you could borrow those.
Niles: No, I don't think so. The theft has soured me on the whole bike experience and what were you doing behind the furnace anyway?
Gertrude: Drinking.
[Martin walks up to the table.]
Martin: Hello Daphne, Niles, Frasier.
Gertrude: Hello, Martin.
Martin: How are the three of you doin'? Mind if I join you?
Niles: Sure.
[Martin pulls another chair up to the table.]
Gertrude: Oh, you're not still angry at me, are you?
Martin: Coffee please.
[Roz stops on her way out.]
Roz: Hi.
Niles: Hey, Roz.
Roz: Wow, everybody's here today.
Martin: Yeah, grab a seat, I'd love to have a lady sit next to me.
[Gertrude looks very put out.]
Roz: Thanks, I can't. I'm on my way to the park. I just got a call from the babysitter. Alice did a wheelie!
[The others all sound happy at this.]
Roz: Well, I'll see you guys later.
Frasier: That's great, Roz. Bye-bye.
[She leaves.]
Frasier: Well, someone's raising a real little showoff.
Martin: Now, now, not everyone was meant to ride a bike.
Daphne: What does that mean?
Martin: Well, I'm just saying my boys are good at other things. Indoor things.
[Daphne casts a suspicious look at Frasier.]
Daphne: Oh, no. You don't mean...
Niles: Yes, Daphne. Frasier doesn't know how to ride a bike.
Frasier: Well, neither do you!
Niles: Frasier!
Frasier: Well, she was bound to find out! [to Daphne] We never learned.
Martin: I tried teachin' 'em, but I had to take them to the hospital so many times, social services started sniffin' around.
Niles: All these years, it's been our secret shame.
Frasier: Yes, and it hasn't been easy concealing it, either. People are always saying in conversation "It's just like riding a bike." I can smile, and nod. But I only understand it in theory.
Niles: We tried to teach ourselves last night.
Frasier: Oh, can you imagine a sadder tableaux: two grown men trying to gain mastery over a child's toy and failing miserably.
Niles: Even more pathetic: a grown man faking the theft of his and his wife's bicycles. I disgust myself. I'm so sorry, Daphne.
Daphne: Niles, you've no need to apologize. Lots of people don't know how to ride.
Niles: Really?
Gertrude: No.
Daphne: It doesn't matter. I can take you to the park and teach you. I'll teach you both.
Frasier: Really, Daphne?
Daphne: Yes.
Niles: Daphne, I adore you.
[He kisses her.]
Gertrude: No, seriously. Who?
Frasier: Thank you, Daphne.
Niles: You know, I'm afraid my bike may be too damaged to ride.
Daphne: So we'll borrow one from someone in the building. I promise you, you two are going to learn how to ride bikes.
Martin: You're a good wife, Daphne. And I'll bet you were a good daughter when your mother was alive.
[Gertrude crosses her arms and glares at him while everyone else tries to not be involved. Fade out.]
Scene 2 - The Park
[SCENE_BREAK]
CYCOLOGY
[Fade in. Frasier is there with his bike, Niles is on a grade-school bike with high handlebars and a banana seat. Daphne is standing just off the path.]
Frasier: Helmet.
Niles: Check.
Frasier: Pads.
Niles: Check.
Frasier: Cup.
[Frasier adjusts his athletic supporter, but Niles touches the sport bottle on the handlebars.]
Niles: Check.
Daphne: All right. Now remember: keep your eyes open and pedal quickly. I just want to get an idea of your individual skill levels. All right, everyone ready? And...go!
[The boys lift their feet up to the pedals, but don't push off or pedal. They twitch for an instant, then fall against each other, propped up. Being on the shorter bike, Niles is about elbow high with Frasier.]
Daphne: Okay, good start. Now, let's try again, but this time further apart.
[Frasier pulls his bike away from Niles'.]
Frasier: Okay. I think this is going to be all right.
Niles: Yes, this isn't so bad.
Daphne: All right. And...go!
[The boys bring their feet up, then put them right back down for balance. After a couple of false starts, they start moving forward, terrified looks on their faces. Daphne watches them, smiling.]
Daphne: Yes, very good.
[Her expression quickly becomes worried as there are sounds of crashing and pain. She starts forward, darting from side to side, unsure which of them needs help more.
Music from "The Barber of Seville" begins playing as we see a montage of Niles and Frasier trying desperately.]
[N.B. This theme was also used in the 1979 Oscar-winning film "Breaking Away" about an American small-town teenager who becomes so obsessed with a team of Italian bike race champions that he creates an Italian persona for himself, including listening to Rossini's operas.]
[Frasier seems to be getting along, until he sees a tree. Focusing on it with a horrified look, he crashes into it and falls down.
Daphne is running alongside Niles on his small bike. They pass behind a hedge and only Daphne and the bike emerge. Daphne stops and looks around for her husband.
Frasier again crashes into the tree and falls over.
Niles is exhausted and reaches for the sports bottle. However, he is unable to get it loose. Later, he unwraps a power bar to eat. But he pulls the wrapper all the way down and his snack falls to the ground while Frasier watches. He opens the spout on the sports bottle and picks the bike upright so he can drink from it.
Niles and Daphne are at the "killer tree", urging Frasier to the side. He makes the turn and avoids the tree, looking happy. Niles and Daphne cheer him on, then watch him circle around until they have to quickly move aside before Frasier once more strikes the tree head on and ends up on the ground.
Daphne again runs alongside Niles. They disappear behind the hedge, the music reaches its finale... and this time Niles emerges alone on the bike, smiling triumphantly. Daphne jumps up and down and claps her hands, proud and happy. The music ends.
Now that Niles has learned, they focus on Frasier.]
Frasier: It's that damned sycamore! It's got a magnetic hold on me.
Daphne: That's because you keep focusing on it. Whatever you do, put it out of your mind. The more you think about it, the worse it gets.
Niles: You're a cloud, scudding across a clear blue sky.
Frasier: I'm a cloud.
[He takes off again.]
Niles: You're a cloud. A cloud...
[Frasier looks worried for a moment, but manages to swerve away from the tree.]
Frasier: I AM a cloud! I'm flying! Look, I'm riding a bike.
[He's ecstatic, but is soon passed by a young girl on a bike with training wheels, then a pregnant woman jogging, then a gray-haired man on a razor scooter. Nonetheless, he seems happy at his accomplishment. The finale of the music repeats. Fade out.]
Scene 3 - Frasier's Apartment
[Fade in. The doorbell rings and Martin hurries to answer as it rings again.]
Martin: I heard ya. I'm comin'.
[He opens the door to reveal Gertrude, holding some flowers and a sandwich.]
Gertrude: Hello.
[Martin slams the door in her face and starts walking away. She pounds on the door and he goes back again.]
Martin: Oh, geez!
[He opens the door and speaks before she can.]
Martin: Look. I'm sorry. I'm still ticked. I'm not proud of it, but I have to do the right thing and that means hold this grudge.
Gertrude: Ah! You're talking to me. I knew you would.
[He slams the door in her face again. Cut to - the entryway as she turns around. Cora is just coming off the elevator.]
Gertrude: Oh, you're here to see Marty?
Cora: Actually, I think not.
[She turns away.]
Gertrude: Look, no. This isn't what it looks like. I'm here to apologize. But since he's not talking to me, I guess I can say me piece to you. Now, first of all, don't be scared. I'm not a secret agent and I don't have a license to kill. Back when I said all that to you, I wasn't really in me right mind, anyway. I mean, I'd just separated from me husband and...well, maybe I hoped Marty would be some kind of...knight in shining armor. But we were never a couple, though.
Cora: It was a pretty rotten thing you did.
Gertrude: Yes, I know, dear, just awful. In me defense, I've done much worse. And besides, between you and the girl at the bookstore, I liked you better.
[Cora looks a little confused at this. Cut to - inside the apartment. Martin is relaxing in his chair when the doorbell rings. Rolling his eyes, he gets up.]
Martin: Sonovabitch!
[He goes to the door and opens it to reveal Cora holding the flowers and sandwich, a big smile on her face.]
Martin: Cora! Hi, come on in.
[She enters and hands him the things and he sets them on the table behind the couch.]
Cora: Hi. I ran into a friend of yours.
Martin: Oh, she's no friend of mine.
Cora: Well, she had some nice things to say about you. Maybe we could talk about it at dinner tomorrow.
Martin: I thought you were seeing someone.
Cora: I don't see him here.
Martin: I guess not. Pick you up at seven?
Cora: Seven it is. So...who's this girl from the bookstore?
Martin: See you tomorrow.
[He ushers her out the door and shakes his fist in a victory gesture. Fade out.]
Scene 4 - The Bike-A-Thon
[Fade in. Lots of people are lined up under a banner marked Start and Finish. Frasier and Niles are at the front, Niles still with his borrowed bicycle.]
Martin: Never thought I'd see the day. This is really somethin'.
Frasier: Thanks Dad.
Daphne: That's right. You faced your fears and you bested them.
Niles: Yeah, thanks to you.
[He gives her a kiss.]
Niles: And who knows? Maybe this is just be the beginning. There are still mountains to conquer. The diving board, for instance.
Frasier: Or cartwheels.
Martin: Be careful out there, Son.
Frasier: I will, Dad. Thanks. I guess I better go take my place, huh?
Martin: Okay.
[Frasier wheels his bike over to where Kenny and Julia are waiting.]
Frasier: Kenny, Julia.
Kenny: Hey, Doc.
Julia: Hi.
Frasier: So, have a good ride.
Kenny: Not gonna happen. These shorts are already bunchin' me somethin' fierce. Excuse me.
[He gets off his bike to get more comfortable.]
Frasier: Pretty exciting.
Julia: Thrilling. You don't mind if we don't ride together, do you? I like to go at my own pace.
Frasier: No, not at all. You don't have to feel like you have to keep up.
[She laughs at this.]
Julia: Right. Well, what do you say we make it interesting?
Frasier: What did you have in mind?
Julia: Last one across the finish line doubles the other's pledges.
Frasier: You're on. And I look forward to watching you write that big fat check.
Niles: Frasier! Remember: keep your eye on the road and don't fixate on anything you can crash into.
Frasier: Right!
Niles: Good luck!
[Frasier gives Niles a thumbs up as the starter pistol goes off. The crowd cheers as the cyclists start off.]
Julia: Boy, I hope I can steer around that big mailbox right there. Ciao!
[She speeds off. Frasier starts out, but, cursed by her suggestion, focuses on the mailbox and rides straight into it. As he falls to the sidewalk, Roz and Alice come riding up.]
Roz: Frasier?
Alice: Are you okay?
Frasier: I'll be all right. Why don't you guys go ahead. I'll catch up to you.
Roz: Okay.
[She and Alice ride off. Frasier gets back on his bike and gets going.]
Frasier: Oh, lord. Pardon me. Beep beep! Oh, gosh, no. Oh, dear God!
[Frasier doesn't get very far, circling back and crashing into the mailbox once more. This time he manages to keep to his feet as the bike falls to the ground. Fade out.]
[SCENE_BREAK]
It is late and dark. An exhausted Frasier comes around the last corner and manages, finally, to finish the course. He throws up his hands in victory. He wheels the bike over to a trash barrel, picks it up and throws it on top, only to scurry back as it falls towards him. He finally just flees from the whole scene.
Summary:
| When a bike-a-thon for charity is organized by KACL, Frasier and Niles must come to terms with the fact that neither can ride a bicycle . So the job falls on Daphne to teach them. Meanwhile, Martin runs into Cora Winston again and learns that Daphne's mother is responsible for the demise of their brief relationship. | 95 | 23,227 | 23,229 | 23,229 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Justified_06x12 | fd_Justified_06x12_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[PREVIOUSLY_ON]
Mike: [grunting]
Wynn: Aah!
[gunshot]
Mike: Aah!
Wynn: Mikey! [crack]
Katherine: [gasps]
Raylan: Your ladyfriend is dead. Went pretty badly, as I understand it, in the confines of a motor coach belonging to Wynn Duffy.
Boyd: Baby?
[grunts]
What disappoints you, Raylan Givens? The fact that you weren't the one who got to shoot me? Where is she goin'?
Boyd: Well, you wheel me outta here, I'll take you straight to her. [chuckles] That's funny.
Boyd: Sooner or later, one way or the other, I'm gonna get out of here, and when I do, I'm gonna go get that money.
Zachariah: Now, this Grubes guy we're going to see ... you sure he knows his way around?
Ava: He knows the trails blindfolded. Boyd knows Grubes.
Zachariah: Ah.
Ava: If he's alive ...
Zachariah: If he's alive, the marshals got him, and if he ain't, the more, the better. Grubes?
[yelling] Ava: Nooo!
Carl: How we gonna get you out past the nurses' stand without anybody noticing?
Boyd: [sighs] It shouldn't be too hard with all the chaos.
Carl: What chaos?
[gunshot]
Art: You got 48 hours, Raylan.
Raylan: 48 hours, bullshit.
Who you got coming after me? Everybody?
Art: Everybody's out looking for Boyd.
I'll be the one coming after you.
[car door chiming]
[chiming stops]
Boyd: Evening, sir. Where you headed tonight?
Hagan: Headed home.
Boyd: You got any kin waiting on you?
Hagan: No, sir, I don't.
Boyd: That won't be necessary.
Hagan: Well... What can I do for you, officer?
[gun cocks]
Boyd: You can give me a ride.
[music]
[chiming]
[chiming stops]
Art: This the shitbag?
Tim: It is.
Art: Hello, shitbag.
Tim: Him there's the good news.
Art: I don't want to hear the bad news.
Tim: No, sir, you do not.
Art: Jesus Christ, Raylan.
Raylan: [sighs]
Cope: Don't suppose you remember my name.
Raylan: I remember you had aim to throw me down a mine shaft.
You're a long way from home, are you not?
Cope: I am. Slurry pond fouled the spring. No water on the other side of the mountain. No water ... nothing to hunt. Well, I reckon it was hard to move on.
Cope: Was. They'll take the mountaintop year's end, I heard. I'd have had to move on regardless. Wouldn't mind if you sat a spell.
Raylan: I got urgent matters. My advice ... keep moving on. There's a fugitive at large hereabouts. Give my best to Cousin Mary if you see her.
Cope: Unh-unh. She passed.
Raylan: Condolences. Stand up. Tell 'em to come out, guns pointed at the ground.
Cope: [whistles]
Raylan: [sighs] If that ain't all of 'em, you're the first one who gets shot.
Cope: That's all of 'em.
Raylan: Lay your guns down. Every second I spend on your bullshit, the man I'm hunting gets further away. Now, tell 'em to do it before I lose my temper. Now, walk down that hill, and keep walking ... about an hour. He'll catch up with you soon if he don't do something stupid.
Ava: No sign.
[panting]
[clinking]
I bet they ran off after Grubes died. And I bet they starved to death.
Zachariah: We got no guide, and you're worried about the horses?
Ava: That's one bad omen on top of another.
Zachariah: I ain't superstitious.
Ava: Well, it doesn't take a damn ouija board to see that our plan is as dead as the man that used to live in that house.
You'd notice if you weren't playing in the dirt!
Zachariah: I'm digging a grave.
Ava: For us? Huh?
Uncle Zachariah, we gotta get out of here. Oh, is that the way it is? Leave the dead to bury their own? That's something you learned from Boyd, huh?
Ava: You don't know me. You ... You want to be all high and mighty? Let's see how that saves your ass.
Zachariah: I know you don't want to hear me preach, but I'm gonna tell you right now, there's six months' worth of food in that cabin, plenty of water, and a lot of firewood for the cold. Wait a minute. If that's your idea of a plan... Oh no, little girl. I like your idea... we just roam around these goddamn mountains not knowing what the hell we're doing, lost, hauling 300, 400, 500 pounds of money? Oh, you're real smart, girl.
Ava: I can't keep this up.
Zachariah: Yes, you can, and you will. 'Cause that's who we are, born in these godforsaken hollers in this goddamn broken-down world. We're survivors.
Ava: Okay, you want to stay? We can stay. But we're gonna fight.
Zachariah: Won't have to fight. After two weeks, they'll think we're somewhere over in Virginia. They'll just move that search on over there.
Ava: I'm talking about Boyd. He knows this place. He will come.
Zachariah: Boyd is dead. And if he ain't dead, he's in jail. We'll be safe here for a while. Grab that shovel and help me get this man in the ground.
Cope: I don't see any badge.
Are you still a federal? This guy you're chasing... he personal business?
Raylan: You met him. You put me in a box with him. He's now a federal fugitive.
Cope: So you should've let me kill him at the time, then, huh?
Raylan: Thought has crossed my mind.
Cope: So I'm right. Gotta be you, the one that does him. Had a coyote like that. Ate near 10 of my chickens... one every night. Dogs couldn't catch her, avoided the traps like she'd set 'em herself. You know, what I decided to do was ...
Raylan: I don't care what you did. I need you to shut your mouth and get up that hill.
Cope: You know, after we tangled, Cousin Mary told us all about you. Turns out, I remember your daddy. He's a son of a bitch.
Raylan: You'll get no argument there.
Cope: You know what he did?
Raylan: Historically or on a specific day?
Cope: He used us. Used our blood ties to your Mama to have us move his drugs up and down our mountain ... the way you're moving me right now. The way I see it, that makes you a son of a bitch, too.
Raylan: Guilty as char...
Cope: [grunts]
Raylan: I let you go, you gonna get your people, come back after me?
Cope: Got any good reason why I shouldn't?
Raylan: With what purpose in mind?
Cope: You saw 'em. They got nothing. They'll kill you for your boots.
Raylan: Give me that. In a couple days, you're gonna come to Arlo Givens' place, he's in the book. I'm signing it over to you.
Cope: Y-You're giving me your house?
Raylan: He did you people dirt. This is payback.
Been using that place as a bullshit excuse.
I don't need the money from selling it. I need to find Boyd and get to Florida.
Cope: [grunts] What's this?
Raylan: A note... bequeathing the property to you... ...case I don't make it down.
[music]
[title music]
♪ On this lonely road, trying to make it home ♪ ♪ doing it by my lonesome, pissed off, who wants some? ♪ ♪ I'm fighting for my soul, god, get at your boy ♪ ♪ you try to bogard, fall back, I go hard ♪ ♪ on this lonely road, trying to make it home ♪ ♪ doing it by my lonesome, pissed off, who wants some? ♪ ♪ I see them long, hard times to come ♪
Markham: I always scoffed at people talking to... loved ones who'd moved on. Seemed impractical to me. Can't hear you. They're gone. And I'm a practical man. Except when it comes to you, it seems. Revenge, Katherine. What did you in? Damn it, I told you I would get Duffy! Why didn't you trust me? For once, why couldn't you just do what you were told to do? I'll always love you, Katherine, but you need to know. I may be talking to a ghost, but I am still a practical man. I'd love to gut Wynn Duffy from nose to tail, but I have got to go and get my goddamn money. Wynn Duffy. Hey, you've got a damn good lawyer, Wynn, And I ought to know, because I'm a damn good lawyer.
Wynn: I'll pass along the adulation. Are these the personal items from my motor coach?
Vasquez: Yeah, I had to call in a lot of favors to get you transferred to federal custody. And now ... well, it seems now I got to let you go. Billie Jean King.
Wynn: A pioneer.
Vasquez: We took the liberty to freeze your bank accounts...
Wynn: It's prescription. I have... sensitive gums.
Vasquez: ...pending the results of the investigation. You're fully cleared, [i]should be able to get most of your assets off ice. Oh, look at this. You are an eagle scout.
Wynn: It belonged to a dear friend.
Vasquez: Mm. 'Course, KSP's gonna want to keep your winnebago a bit longer, but if you want that, you can stick around for another week or two.
Wynn: That they can have.
Vasquez: Bad memories?
Wynn: Raylan Givens, Boyd Crowder, and Avery Markham are soon to converge, Mr. Vasquez. Like the aligning of the planets if those planets carried guns and hated my guts. I don't ever plan on returning to Kentucky. May I?
Vasquez: I just have one last question.
You know, for me. Off the record.
Wynn: Sounds sexy.
Vasquez: You know, I have a-a stack of files this tall. Sits on my desk. It's got all kinds of witness interrogation and, um, surveillance records and info from snitches about who killed Simon Poole 14 years ago. And it all adds up to... jack sh1t. So I just want to know, between you and me, who really did it? Who killed my boss?
Wynn: Between you and me, Mr. Vasquez, I really and truly don't know.
Woman: Air unit East to Evarts.
Possible fugitive sighting. Please confirm. Over.
Man: Copy. Which fugitive? Over.
Woman: Uh, Boyd Crowder ... possibly in police uniform. Considered armed. Stolen police vehicle recovered. Possible hostage situation.
Zachariah: God damn.
[Ava chuckles nervously]
Oh, god... Of course. Of course!
[laughing]
Zachariah: What the hell you laughing about?
Ava: It's a joke. Don't you get it? We're dead!
Zachariah: No, we got to do something.
Ava: We're gonna run. Hell yeah! Let's run!
You know your way around this goddamn mountain, little girl? 'Cause I sure as hell don't.
Ava: Forget about the mountain. We got to go back down! We got to ... we got to ... I don't know ... find one of them abandoned houses and ... and hide out.
Zachariah: Federals kicking in every goddamn door, dogs running around, sniffing around, they'd find us in no time.
Ava: You got a better idea? Else we're dead.
Zachariah: Yeah, I got an idea. We're gonna sit right here, we're gonna wait. And when he shows up, we're gonna kill him. The end.
Ava: That's not gonna be our end. 'Cause staying here is suicide.
Boyd: I'm gonna need you for a little while longer. I'd rather take your time than take your truck.
Hagan: You can have her.
Boyd: Yeah, well, I don't want her. I'm just looking to get from point "A" to point "B." Look, Mr. Crowder, I done helped you out. I gave you my son's clothes.
Boyd: You know my name. You know what I done. God damn right I know your name. And which time you talking about? Well, I do have a rather long résumé.
Hagan: Yes, sir. They put out your greatest hits, it'd be a double album.
Boyd: sh1t. Double live, man, from Japan.
Hagan: Hell yeah. All killer, no filler.
Boyd: [laughs]
Hagan: Konnichiwa, bitches. sh1t.
You nearest thing we got to Billy the Kid around here.
Boyd: Well, I don't know about all that.
Hagan: sh1t, son, you're smart. Articulate, strong. The way you look, the way you talk, ain't nobody expect nothing from you. Then you unleash, and they cannot deny. [clicks tongue] It ain't too much to call you a hero. Well, if you insist.
Hagan: Go on. Be proud to give the outlaw Boyd Crowder my truck.
[keys jingle]
Boyd: Thing is, they're looking for me. They ain't looking for you.
So I'm gonna need you to drive.
Derrick: Man, this sucks.
Loretta: I ain't paying you to whine.
Derrick: Yeah? And I didn't come for the money. Well [chuckles]... not just the money.
Loretta: Look, I got people maybe out to kill me, Derrick. You came just to get back together, you're a damn fool.
Derrick: Loretta... [clank] ...why you got to be talking ...
[man groans]
Got him.
Loretta: Hold up. I can't see.
Derrick: Here, let me look. [door opens]
Boon: Hey, Loretta. I been looking everywhere for you.
You know, one way in and out of this place ...
I snap one of your traps, and you both take your eyes off the door? You're a smart girl, but I got a thing or two to teach you yet. I reckon I could see you both better if you stepped out this way.
Yes, you, son. Come on, now. Giddyup.
[clicks tongue]
Now, how about you put down them toys? I'm not here to start a ruckus. Who the hell are you?
Derrick: Just her boyfriend.
Boon: Oh, yeah? You want to save your girlfriend?
Loretta: He ain't my boyfriend.
Boon: Loretta, girl, a boy doesn't become a man until he can make his own decisions.
You want to raise up that gun, try and shoot me?
Or you afraid I'm too fast?
[gun cocks]
I am, by the way.
[gun clicks]
Good news ... Jenny here, you got to leave her firing chamber empty, avoid an accidental discharge. Bad news ... her chamber's full of promise now. How about we try that again, huh? You not having to clear that holster, boy, that fast approaches a fair...
[gunshot] [thud]
Derrick: [groaning and panting]
Boon: Aw, sh1t. He's still kicking.
Derrick: [coughs]
Boon: That's the risk you run going for a head shot, Loretta.
Derrick: [crying]
Boon: Well, I figure... you never know when one of these pussies are wearing kevlar, right?
Always go for the brain. Best bet.
Derrick: [panting]
[coughing]
[groaning]
Boon: Don't worry. I'll forgive you.
Vasquez: Where is she? Where's Art?
Who's running this sh1t show? Where is everybody?
Nelson: Gee, I don't know. The manhunts? Plural?
Vasquez: And they left you to what? Do your nails?
Nelson: Well, if it's any of your business, Vasquez, I'm coordinating.
Vasquez: Oh, well, that's fantastic. Maybe you can coordinate an explanation for this bullshit bulletin.
Nelson: Chief called it in. Looks pretty serious.
Vasquez: You were saying?
Nelson: Having a bad day, David?
Vasquez: Yeah.
Nelson: Hey, Tim, maybe you can help out ...
Tim: Dude, I just came in.
Nelson: He's asking about the bulletin.
Tim: [sighs] Well... when a marshal's life is in danger, we put out a bulletin saying so. Hoping a fellow L.E.O. will bring him into protective custody.
Vasquez: You think I don't know that Givens has gone rogue and that you're closing ranks to avoid a P.R. nightmare? You and everybody in this office is gonna be writing thank-you notes to Art Mullen from the federal penitentiary.
Tim: Your attitude is not helpful.
Vasquez: Open your ears!
Tim: So negative. We're not talking about a write-up. Everybody in here is an accessory to ... to a $10 million heist! Aiding and abetting a fugitive!
Vasquez: Never mind. There's no point.
[dialing]
Vasquez: Get me S.A.C., uh, Les Levay at the FBI.
Art: Mullen.
Tim: Oh, hey, Art. What's up?
Art: Hold on. You're breaking up.
See if I can get a signal. Uh, say that again.
Tim: Oh, hey, Art. What's up?
Art: Oh, you know, scouring the countryside for a dumbass. You?
Tim: Well, I just had Vasquez pissing in my ear about the bulletin. So, it looks like we can't keep the whole "Raylan Givens gone rogue" thing in-house.
Art: Well, he sniffed that out sooner than I'd thought.
I think he just trashed Nelson's desk, too.
Art: Well, how'd you leave it?
Tim: Well, he's on the phone now.
Vasquez: Yeah, I'm gonna need a bolo issued for Raylan Givens.
Tim: Fact, I just heard him tell the FBI ballsack to issue a bolo.
Art: Well, sh1t!
Tim: Wait one.
Vasquez: The plan is as soon as I get him, I'm gonna indict him.
Tim: I just heard him say he wants Raylan indicted.
Art: Double sh1t.
Bob: Raylan, if you get this, just letting you know I heard the FBI bolo for you on the scanner. I know you're in trouble, and I'm ... I'm on my way.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[garage door squeaking]
[gasps]
Raylan, d-d-did you steal my Crown Vic? D... sh1t!
[sighs]
[music]
[grunts]
All right, where are you? Aw, there you are. I'm coming for you, Raylan.
[music]
Raylan: You ain't Boyd.
Zachariah: Neither are you.
Appreciate you not shooting me.
Raylan: Likewise.
Zachariah: Seen the crown of your hat through the window. Boyd don't wear no hat.
Raylan: Where's Ava?
Ava: [panting] If you get this, call this number. [panting] You better make it fast, though. I'm running out of time.
[panting]
Wynn: I need a vehicle, a gun, and two passports.
I want the vehicle to have a compartment, well-hidden, and I mean top-shelf hidden, not some 20-year-old Astro with a false bottom.
Lorna: How much space you need?
Wynn: Enough room for two or three very large duffel bags.
Lorna: Your guy coming, too?
Wynn: No, Mikey's not gonna make it. You know what'd be great? One of those dog-grooming vans. Mobile dog groomers use them.
Lorna: We can paint one up like that, sure.
Wynn: No. A used one.
Lorna: It's not easy. [sighs]
Wynn: By tomorrow. Triple what you paid last time.
Wynn: Fine.
Lorna: Up front.
Wynn: [sighs] Keep the change.
Lorna: Anything else?
Wynn: Yeah, actually... a topographical map of Harlan County would be great.
Raylan: Do you not see how we want the same thing?
Zachariah: That may be true. But if Boyd ain't been here yet, why you going off looking for Ava? Why don't you just stay here, and we'll take that son of a bitch together?
Raylan: We don't know for sure if he's coming. He's only coming if he thinks she's here!
Zachariah: And he does think she's here!
Raylan: But if he don't, if he somehow gets wind of her... before I get to him. I hear what you're saying, but I'm sticking here for the fight.
Raylan: Well, I'm taking the fight to him. Now, where is she?
Zachariah: I don't know. Maybe she slipped through cranks gap by now. She might be halfway to Jonesville ... maybe Ewing. I don't know. Who she knows in Virginia? Did you set her up? I don't know nobody in Virginia. I don't know where she is, and she didn't tell me. So I can't spill my guts in case you plan on roughing me up again.
Raylan: You're a waste of space. You're of no help.
Zachariah: Let me tell you something, you son of a bitch! You ain't no better than Boyd! God damn you! The way the two you just scrambled that poor girl's brains! Pull her this way and that way. You used her, god damn you! Ain't no wonder why she burnt the two of you and lit out on her own.
Raylan: I'm trying to protect her.
Zachariah: Yeah, that may be part of the story, but I bet that ain't the whole goddamn story.
Raylan: Yeah, you're goddamn right. Where's the money?
Zachariah: [scoffs]
Raylan: Where is it? It ain't here. It had to weigh a ton. No way she drug it up and over. She went down.
Zachariah: She's gone.
Raylan: Not as long as I'm looking.
Ava: [panting]
[grunts]
Oh, god.
Bob: Ava Crowder...
Ava: Aah!
Bob: Step away from the car.
Ava: [panting]
Bob: Step away from my Crown Vic.
Take that backpack off. Slow.
Ava: [breathing heavily]
Bob: And, hey, don't reach in.
No, put it on the ground! On the ground! Ava, don't test me. All right, now get down on your knees. On your knees. [sighs] Sorry if that ... that sounds untoward. Holy sh1t! Holy sh1t. Where ... Where's Raylan?
Ava: I don't know.
Bob: Did you kill him?
Ava: What? No!
Bob: Ava, you're a fugitive from the law. I know you shot your fiancé and I know that Raylan took my Crown Vic. And I tracked it up here. Now, for the last time ...
Ava: The answer to the question is "no!" I ain't even seen him.
Bob: I hope for your sake, and for the sake of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that you are telling the truth. Now... lace your fingers behind your head. Behind your head! Okay. Let's get up slowly. Come on. There you go. Walk this way with me. And I'm quick with this gun, case you're getting squirrely. You got that?
Ava: Bob, you know there's a lot more money where that came from, don't you? I mean ...
Bob: I'm gonna take mercy on you.
I'm not gonna "attempting to bribe an officer of the law" to your long list of offenses.
And before you try to seduce me, just know it's been tried before. All right, now, get yourself in the Gremlin there. Open the door. Open the door. All right. Sit yourself down. And when Raylan comes back with my keys, we're gonna make the change, and it's nice in there. I got an air freshener smells like a mocha latte.
[engine shuts off]
Ava: You hear that?
Bob: Uh, no, I di... Yes, I did.
Ava: It's Boyd.
Bob: Ava, that could be anybody, okay?
I want you to calm down, all right? Just calm down. Just sit down for a sec.
Ava: Listen to me. Please. He's gonna kill us!
Hagan: Cold out here. Can feel it.
Boyd: Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing.
[exhales slowly]
Hagan: I appreciate the lie, Mr. Crowder.
But we both know what you was thinking. Loose end and all.
Boyd: You know my mind? Now, maybe I was gonna take your keys, let you walk.
Hagan: [scoffs] So you could shoot me in the back? You're gonna have to look me in the eye, you pull that trigger.
Nah, I knew the minute you stepped in my cab
I was gonna be staring down the black hole of your gun ... cut me down like the plague you are.
Boyd: Well, I got to say, you did do a pretty good job ... all that smoke you were blowing up my ass.
Hagan: Ain't no smoke. But I will say this. Stories of outlaw legends, they ain't passed down by the families of the murdered. Well, I don't give a sh1t about "the Ballad of Boyd Crowder." I'll be dead and gone when that song gets sung.
[exhales slowly]
Hagan: Old boy by the name of Hut McKean mean anything to you?
Boyd: Let me guess ... I killed him, my men killed him, my dope killed him, or my daddy killed him?
Next thing that comes out of your mouth is, "how do you sleep at night, Boyd Crowder?"
Well, do you know how?
'Cause I know who I am. Do you? You're a slave, disenfranchised ... don't even know it. You drive your shitty truck to your shitty house, live out your shitty life. You think you're better than me 'cause you play by the rules? Whose rules? My life is my own.
Hagan: You ain't even heard a word I said.
Boyd: I don't give a sh1t about what you said. I'm an outlaw.
[gunshots]
Bob: Stay here. Don't make any noise.
Ava: No! No, no!
Bob! Bob! You can't leave me here like this!
[sighs]
[gunshots]
[gasps]
[grunting]
[grunts]
[breathing heavily]
[music]
Raylan: [panting]
[gunshot]
Boyd: Ah. Aah.
God damn, Raylan!
How you know I wasn't some boy scout looking for his tent?!
Raylan: Your teeth glow in the dark.
Boyd: You shot unprovoked.
How am I supposed to take that?
Raylan: As me aiming to kill you.
Boyd: [breathing heavily]
Well, it's only getting colder.
So what say the next time the moon peeks out from behind those clouds, we show it down?
Raylan: Now you're talking.
Boyd: Only problem is, Raylan, I don't know where you are.
Raylan: I don't know where I'm either.
Boyd: Why you want to kill me so bad, Raylan?
You don't even know why. "Boyd Crowder must die!"
That's just the lie you tell yourself, wanting to win.
Raylan: You are the world-conquering emperor of lies, the biggest reserved for yourself.
Boyd: Just say it, Raylan. "I want to win!"
Raylan: [chuckles] How about, "I want the money"?
sh1t. You want to kill her, Boyd.
You want to kill the woman who stole your money, shot you, and left you for dead.
Boyd: You don't know what's in my heart.
Raylan: What heart?
Boyd: You don't know what's in your own heart. You've given up everything you are so that you could murder me.
Raylan: I cross the line with my eyes wide open.
Boyd: [grunts] Well, whose eyes you gonna see when you kill me, Raylan? Your daddy's?
Raylan: Not anymore.
Boyd: Your baby girl's?
Imagine the look on her face the day she realizes,
"my daddy spent his whole life trying to walk the line and failed."
Raylan: She'll live her life the way everybody does ... on her own.
Boyd: Are you sure you don't want me to kill you, Raylan, keep you a hero? That makes for a hell of a bedtime story.
[grunts]
Raylan: This is the only story here tonight.
[shout in distance] Help!
Boyd: You don't think that's Bob, do you?
Raylan: Why would that be Bob?
Boyd: Well, I shot him a couple times down at the trail head.
I think he might still be alive. You ought to go run down there and see if you can't help him.
Raylan: Bob can take care of himself.
Boyd: Well, hell, Raylan.
Then I have already won.
[siren wailing]
[tires screech]
Crosley: Stop! [gunshot]
Ava: Aah!
[breathing shakily]
Crosley: Get down on the ground.
Ava: All right, all right, all right!
Crosley: Get on the ground!
Birch: Holy sh1t! There's a shitload of money in here.
Ava: You take me in, you're gonna have to hand that over.
You let me go, you can have it.
Crosley: [chuckles] I do not know what Mr. Markham has got planned for you...
Ava: Wait. ...but I don't want him to do it to me.
Ava: Markham? You're taking me to see Markham?
Crosley: Get up.
[grunts]
Get up, you pussy.
[car door closes]
[car alarm chirps]
Markham: What the hell is this?
Boon: Yeah, he tried to pull on me.
Markham: You just gonna let him lay there and bleed?
Boon: Was I supposed to take him to the hospital?
Markham: Hope he wasn't someone dear to you.
Loretta: Just someone I paid to watch my back.
Markham: Money not well spent, I'd say.
Loretta: Well, slim pickings, way you're running roughshod over this county.
Markham: Trying to flatter me, girl?
Loretta: Just wondering what you want from me is all.
Reason I had Boon come looking for you is Ava Crowder stole my money.
Stole it from the man who stole it from me.
That man being your new business partner Boyd.
Loretta: This is the first I'm hearing of it.
Markham: I was thinking the two of you being so close, you might have some idea where Ava ran off to.
Even entered my mind that maybe you two ladies conspired together.
Loretta: Like I said, first I'm hearing about it.
Markham: I believe you. Couple of deputies I became friends with called me on the way over. They picked up Ava Crowder. Bringing her to me directly.
Loretta: Suppose you won't be needing me anymore, then.
Markham: If that's the case, I'll just kill you right now. But I'm gonna give you 30 seconds to change my mind. Tell me why I shouldn't kill you, Loretta McCready.
Loretta: You can kill me. Go right ahead. Buy all this land I've acquired at auction like you have with others. But bear in mind the time that may take and the unexpected costs it may incur. What I can offer you at this juncture is a partnership. Immediate access not only to my land, but also my growing expertise. Sure, you've got boys like Boon over here know plenty about watching over land, but none of them were raised around these buds like I was. Add to that my ties to Harlan County. Say weed don't get legalized like we think. Well... I can tell you who among those criminal elements you can trust. A partnership with me will tell those same folks that they can trust you.
Markham: First time I saw you, I liked you. Didn't much care for what you did at the Pizza Portal, but I saw something in you reminded me of Katherine little bit. More than that, reminded me of Mags Bennett. I could use a Harlan girl in my fold. Besides, I think old Boon here is sweet on you.
Raylan: Bob? Oh, jeez...
Bob: Raylan. Raylan. [muttering]
[grunts]
Raylan: Jesus Christ, Bob. [grunts]
Bob: Just keep applying pressure, Raylan.
Keep ...
Raylan: I know, Bob. ... to the point of impact to stanch the flow of blood.
Raylan: Hey, just keep that pad pressed up against your gut, Bob.
Bob: I am, okay? I just... [stammers] Just ask me anything ... trivia. "W-What ... What was Indiana Jones' archenemy?" Just ask me. Ask me.
Raylan: Bob, just breathe, buddy. Just breathe. Bob. Bob!
Raylan: sh1t.
[cellphone beeps, ringing]
I got an officer shot. At least two in him... gut and shoulder.
Bob: The monkey's dead. Don't eat the ...
Raylan: Hang in there, Bob.
Bob: They call him Belosh.
Raylan: A-A-And link up to U.S. Marshals' task force. Tell 'em I know where Boyd Crowder is.
[insects chirping]
[leaves rustle]
[footsteps approaching]
[gunshot]
Zachariah: [grunts]
Son of a bitch! You goddamn ...
Boyd: Where is she?
Zachariah: She ain't here!
Boyd: Ava? [laughs] Ava?!
Zachariah: Boyd Crowder.[/i] Bo Crowder. Bowman Crowder. Y'all part of the same big, old pile of sh1t!
Like to beat on the weak ones, don't you, you son of a bitch?
[grunts]
Boyd: I know you think you're protecting her, but you ain't.
Now, you want to protect her? You need to get me to that money before I get to her.
Zachariah: I'd sooner die than give you anything you want. But I do got something for you you don't want.
Go to hell, Crowder.
Boyd: [grunts]
[grunts]
[panting]
[tires screech]
[engine shuts off]
[music]
[police radio chatter]
Raylan: Come on. Let's go.
Bob: [grunts]
Raylan: [grunts] Okay.
Lappicola: Raylan Givens?
Raylan: I don't suppose you'd believe me if I said "no."
Summary:
| Raylan leaves his badge behind as he heads up into the hills, happening upon a camp of hill folk forced off their land by mining pollution. Learning that there's bad blood over Arlo using them to move drugs up and down the mountain, Raylan signs over the deed to Arlo's place to them as restitution and to be rid of his last tie to Harlan, and continues on his way to Grubes' cabin. Zachariah digs a grave for Grubes, thinking the wisest thing is to lay low with six months' of supplies in the cabin. When they hear on a police scanner that Boyd has escaped custody, Zachariah wants to ambush him but Ava is terrified and runs with $1M, placing a call for help when she gets a signal. Wynn Duffy, released from custody, arranges for purchase of two passports, a gun, and a dog-grooming van with a large well-hidden compartment, suggesting that he's preparing to leave with Ava and the money; he pays with Katherine's shoplifted diamond tennis bracelet and large engagement ring. Vasquez becomes irate with the Marshals who have merely issued a bulletin saying Raylan's life has been threatened, and puts in a call to the FBI. Constable Bob Sweeney hears the FBI BOLO for Raylan and calls offering his help but discovers he has already given it as Raylan borrowed his Crown Vic. Bob uses a tracker to find the car and catches Ava trying to get into it with a backpack of money. He zip-cuffs her in his Gremlin when they hear a gunshot nearby, and Bob investigates. It was Boyd, killing the local he'd used to drive him around the backroads, and soon additional shots are heard. Ava desperately breaks free and is once again on the run. Coming down the hill, Raylan encounters Boyd on his way up. They exchange gunfire and words in the dark, but Boyd slips away and Raylan continues down to aid a gunshot Bob Sweeney, rushing him to hospital where Raylan is taken into custody by state troopers. Ava is captured on the road by cops on Avery's payroll. And Boyd survives Zachariah's ambush at the cabin but nearly buys it when gunshot Zachariah blows himself up with dynamite. Boon has found Loretta hiding in the old Bennett weed-drying barn and shoots her ex-boyfriend Derrek who tries to defend her, Avery finishing the job when he arrives. Avery is concerned that Loretta might be conspiring with Ava, but believes her when she denies it. Threatened with death, Loretta offers to partner with Avery, avoiding him costly delays and providing know-how and local ties; he seems inclined to accept. | 95 | 28,275 | 28,277 | 28,277 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Charmed_06x13 | fd_Charmed_06x13_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[Scene: Manor. Dining room. Phoebe, Paige, Jason and Richard are there. They have just finished dinner.]
Paige: Okay, this has been really fun, guys, but Phoebe actually brought us here tonight to say something, didn't you, Pheebs?
Phoebe: No, no, I-I-I just think that we don't get to see enough of each other, that's all.
(She laughs nervously.)
Jason: Might be a little longer too, seeing as we're off to Paris in the morning.
Paige: Yeah, about that French merger...
Phoebe: Oh, Hong Kong, Rome, gay Pa-Ree, it's enough to send a girl's head spinning, you know.
Paige: But wasn't there something you really wanted to say about...
Richard: Ah, you must have great business karma.
Jason: Oh, karma? I don't believe in that stuff.
Richard: Not at all?
Jason: Well, I mean, you know, if somebody cuts me off on the road, I'd like to think that they're gonna get what's coming to them, if that's what you mean.
Richard: That's karma, the great cosmic justice system. You reap what you sow.
Paige: Great, fabulous, anyway, Phoebe.
(Paige kicks Phoebe under the table.)
Phoebe: Ah! Uh, okay, alright. Uh, Jason, there is something that I want to share with you right now, and, uh, that would be... a toast. A toast to your new merger.
Paige: Pheebs, could you help me with the cobbler.
(Phoebe and Paige leave the room.)
Jason: Am I missing something?
[Cut to the kitchen. Phoebe and Paige walk in.]
Paige: Okay, that was a three course meal, not including the fruit and cheese plate, I gave you a million openings. What do you want? A drum roll?
Phoebe: Actually, that's not a bad idea.
Paige: You are going with him to France tomorrow. You've been putting this off for too long, you have to tell him you're a witch.
Phoebe: I'm just thinking maybe we should wait until we get there to tell him, you know. And then if there's an emergency you can orb us back, okay?
Paige: You've probably been caught almost like a million times. You can't keep taking that risk.
Phoebe: I know. You know, maybe I should wait until tomorrow until after the big banquet so I don't upset his big day.
Paige: I think that you have a big problem with avoiding conflict and one day, missy, it is gonna come back and bite you in the ass.
(Richard walks in.)
Richard: Hey, he's getting a little antsy in there.
Paige: And you, what is it with this whole karma thing? You're supposed to be making it easier for her.
(Leo orbs in.)
Leo: Piper's under attack, she needs your help fast.
Phoebe: Saved by the orb. Great. Keep Jason occupied.
(Phoebe and Paige orb out.)
[Cut to dining room. Leo walks in holding a pot of coffee and a dish of dessert. Richard walks in behind him.]
Jason: Leo? What are you doing here?
Leo: Uh, just bringing dessert. You want some?
Richard: The girls are just tidying up.
[Cut to a tunnel. Piper is there. She blows up a demon and another one appears.]
Piper: Crap.
(The demon throws a fireball at Piper and she dives out of the way. Phoebe and Paige orb in.)
Phoebe: Piper.
Piper: About time.
(They help her up and Piper blows up the demon.)
Phoebe: It wasn't easy to find you in these catacombs.
Paige: You were supposed to wait until after dinner so I could help.
Piper: Well, I thought I could handle it. Except I must have missed something in the book.
Phoebe: I guess so.
Piper: Look, every time I hit one, two more show up.
(Piper looks around the corner and sees two more demons. She tries to blow them up but they duck and she misses. They throw two fireballs.)
Phoebe: Okay, back up. (Phoebe walks around the corner.) Hey, boys!
(They throw a fireball each at Phoebe and she channels them straight back at them, vanquishing them. Four more shimmer in. Piper and Paige pull Phoebe back behind the wall.)
Piper: Okay, new plan. Blast and then bail.
Phoebe: Okay.
[Cut to the manor. Kitchen. Jason walks in with Leo and Richard following.]
Jason: Hey, Phoebe, what's taking you so long? Wh-Where'd they go?
Richard: Uh, must be an emergency or something.
Jason: It's always some emergency or some phone call or some marathon pee-break. What's going on?
(Piper, Phoebe and Paige orb in, in front of Jason. He faints.)
Piper: Oh.
Opening Credits
[Scene: Manor. Foyer. Phoebe watches Jason drive away in his car. She closes the door and walks into the living room where Leo is healing Piper's wound on her forehead.]
Leo: I'd better go check on Wyatt.
(Leo leaves the room.)
Phoebe: I've never seen him like that. He looked at me like he had no idea who I was.
Paige: He doesn't know you. Not the witch you, anyway.
Piper: He's just gonna need some time.
Phoebe: Why didn't I just tell him? And no I told you so's.
Paige: We all make little mistakes, honey.
Phoebe: This was a very big mistake. I can't imagine how he's feeling right now, what he's going through.
Paige: The good news is it's out in the open now and, uh, you know, you guys have no more secrets.
(Richard walks in.)
Richard: Food's away, table's cleared, anything else I can do?
Paige: No, thank you.
Richard: Hey, I feel awful. I'm sorry about what happened.
Phoebe: It's not your fault.
Richard: Well, actually, it is.
Piper: Why? Did you shove Jason into the kitchen?
Richard: No, but my karma did. I'm serious, I'm convinced I'm carrying around the burden of my family's karma. We did so much bad with magic, now magic's doing bad to me, and those I care about.
Paige: Now that is completely ridiculous.
Richard: The feud has lasted for decades in my family, and so many people were hurt in the crossfire. Somebody's gotta inherit that bad karma, right?
Piper: Not really how karma works.
Phoebe: You live a double life with your boyfriend, and you pay the price. If anyone's karma made this happen it's mine.
Paige: That's true. You had the chance to clean this up tonight and you didn't.
Phoebe: See, there's that 'I told you so', huh?
Paige: Only to make a point.
Phoebe: No, you're right. I've been avoiding conflict my whole life.
Richard: And it just happened the night I was here? It's all I'm saying.
Piper: Hey, you guys, this mea culpa game is real fun and all but we're not gonna solve anything. Um, there's multiplying swarm demons on the other hand.
Paige: That's right, we riled them up, didn't we?
Piper: Yeah, and if they attack right now we won't know how to deal with them. So why don't you two hit the book and I'll catch up after I check on Wyatt.
Phoebe: Uh, would you guys mind if I sat this one out? I kind of feel like I need to go see Jason.
Piper: Well, maybe after we...
Paige: No, we can handle it.
[Cut to Wyatt's room. Leo lays Wyatt down in his crib. He covers him with a red blanket. Piper walks in.]
Piper: Leo, no, no, no.
Leo: What? What? What? What is it?
(Piper pulls off the red blanket.)
Piper: This, this.
Leo: What, my grandmother's quilt.
Piper: Her red quilt. The colour of anger and violence and all things bad.
Leo: Bad? I used that quilt.
Piper: Well, you can have it back. Wyatt is now using the powder blue baby blanket. Did you turn off the serenity Mozart CD? Look, we need to bathe Wyatt in goodness and nurture peace and serenity. Happy things.
(She plays the Mozart CD on the CD player.)
Leo: Piper, don't you think you're overreacting a little bit?
Piper: Leo, there's no such thing as overreacting when it comes to the future of our child.
Leo: Okay, but aren't the swarm demons the last on the list of threats?
Piper: Yes, but...
Leo: Okay, and when they're gone, are you gonna stop worrying a little bit, right?
Piper: No, because I've sent Chris to suss out if there's any new threats.
Leo: Okay, not to press a point but didn't you just have an epiphany about not focusing all your energy on Wyatt?
Piper: Yes, well, that was before Chris informed us that our child is going to grow up to be the future of all evil. Besides, it's not all I do. I have the club, I have friends.
Leo: Wow.
Piper: Look, it's just that Wyatt still comes first. Which is why you're going to take him up the Elders so he's safe while we figure out how to deal with the swarm demons. And while you're there, can you ask them if there's anything they can do to ensure goodness in Wyatt, you know, pull a few strings.
Leo: Piper, we don't need any strings pulled. We can protect our son ourselves.
Piper: Well, in the future apparently we don't. Okay, so look, there are blue booties in the bag in case it gets cold, so don't be afraid to use them, okay?
(Piper leaves the room. Leo picks up Wyatt.)
Leo: Don't ask me, she's your mother.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Manor. Attic. Paige and Richard are there.]
Richard: Look, you and I both know in order to make this work you can't repress yourself.
Paige: I'm not. Look, practising magic.
Richard: Yeah, but you don't want me to.
Paige: Every relationship is gonna have its challenges, right? Look at Phoebe and Jason.
Richard: I'm telling you, that was me.
Paige: No, that was them not being truthful with each other, and as long as we are, we're gonna be fine.
Richard: Fine would be if I could start over with a clean slate.
Paige: You just be the wonderful person that you are and it's gonna make up for all the bad things your family ever did.
Richard: Not in this life time. I wanna start over.
Paige: It's not possible. If it were, everybody would do it.
Richard: Okay, everybody's not a powerful witch.
Paige: Look, karma is the DNA of the universe. It's what balances everything out. You start screwing with that, you could mess up the entire cosmic order of things.
Richard: Maybe you can help me cast a spell.
Paige: What part of no shortcuts are you not you getting? There's an aura cleanse, a chakra cleanse, but no karma cleanse. If it were possible to be cleansed, it would be in there. But there's no spell, it can't be done.
(Piper walks in.)
Piper: Got anything?
Paige: Yeah, let's see. (Piper and Paige look at the open book.) They are distant relatives of kazis and vampires, which means they come from a hive. Did you even read this?
Piper: I skimmed it. So they were drones that we were killing. Well, no wonder they just kept coming back. It says you have to kill the king to kill the hive which requires a power of three spell. I'll call Phoebe.
(She heads for the door.)
Paige: Hey, just slow down there, okay? Take it easy.
Piper: Okay, you orb out and get Phoebe and I'll start on the potion.
Paige: Why don't we just track the leader down. You and I. That way Phoebe and Jason can have a little bit of time alone, yeah?
Piper: Well, what if the swarm attacks before... (Paige gives her a look.) Okay, fine. We'll locate the ruler first.
Paige: Brilliant idea. (to Richard) Hey, can I orb you anywhere?
Richard: No, it's okay. I drove my car here.
Paige: Okay. I'll see you soon.
(Piper and Paige orb out. Richard walks over to the Book of Shadows and starts flipping through it.)
[Scene: The Bay Mirror. Jason's office. Jason is there. Phoebe walks in.]
Jason: You stay away.
Phoebe: We need to talk.
Jason: No, no, I don't wanna talk. You're, this is your... this-this is-is-is so beyond, this is so far beyond my reality, you know. I-I-I I'm just still trying to figure out how-how you could... fifteen months I didn't know.
Phoebe: I wanted to tell you. I really did, but I couldn't. And you know now, so can we talk about this please?
Jason: Oh, okay, fine, let's talk. Alright, what was this, huh? The Godiva girls. Was that magic?
Phoebe: Yeah.
Jason: Okay, what about that-that funny looking little cousin of yours, cousin Shamus. What the hell was he? One of the seven dwarves?
Phoebe: Uh, no actually, he was a leprechaun. And not really my cousin. Look, Jason, I know how you feel.
Jason: How do I feel, Phoebe? Huh? Tell me because I don't know. But you, you always seem to know. So tell me, how's it gonna feel when I crash? 'Cause I-I-I see one coming. Is it gonna feel like when you said 'I love you too'? Because that, that was magic, wasn't it?
Phoebe: But I do love you.
Jason: I-I-I don't have time for this.
Phoebe: I didn't want you to find out like this, believe me.
Jason: I, uh, I have to concentrate. I'm speaking in front of a hundred share holders celebrating the, uh, second biggest French media merger of the decade, okay? So, I need to, I need to focus.
[Scene: Tunnel. Piper and Phoebe are walking around.]
Piper: Hey, you're the one that wanted to look for the swarm king in the first place, remember?
Paige: Yeah, that's when I thought it was a hive, not so much a maze. Oh, no. (She spots some footprints.) Is this starting to look familiar? Are we...?
Piper: Going around in circles?
Paige: Let's just orb home.
Piper: Why are you in such a rush to go home all of a sudden?
Paige: It's Richard. Anytime he's alone for too long bad things start to happen. (They hear footsteps. Piper gets ready to blow up whoever's about to walk around the corner.) No. (Paige takes her around the corner out of sight.) It only attracts them more, remember? (A dozen swarm demons walk past.) Should we follow them?
Piper: Good idea. (They start to follow the swarm demons but more appear behind them.) Now?
Paige: Yeah.
(Piper blows them up.)
[Cut to the manor. Attic. Richard has the Aura Cleanse spell open in the Book of Shadows. He is writing down a spell on a piece of paper. He picks up the paper and grabs a pinch of sand and walks over to some lit candles. He sprinkles the sand on the floor.]
Richard: "I call to thee, pure witch's fire, through vortex flow the heavenly mire, cleanse brackish karma of debris, from dark to light sweep history."
(A bright light circles Richard.)
[Cut to downstairs. Phoebe walks in through the front door.]
Phoebe: Hello? Anybody home? (She hangs up her coat. The light disappears from Richard and reappears downstairs, hitting Phoebe. She gets a vision of French soldiers firing at a target. Phoebe is thrown backwards.) Qu'est-ce que c'est?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Manor. Foyer. Piper and Paige orb in. They look tired and sore.]
Piper: How many did we get? Fifteen or sixteen?
(Paige yawns.)
Paige: I don't know. I stopped counting at dawn. I'm gonna go crash. Actually, I'm gonna go check on Richard and then go crash.
Piper: But wait, we know where the king is now. So we gotta get Phoebe so we can go back and get him.
Paige: No. I am taking a hot bath and curling into a nice warm bed.
Piper: You know, living at Richard's mansion has made you soft.
Paige: Oh, shush.
Piper: I'm serious. What if this is the demon that gets to Wyatt?
Paige: Well, then it's all the more reason for us to be well-rested, right?
(Piper sees a broken vase on the floor.)
Piper: What happened here?
(Phoebe comes down the stairs wearing very little.)
Phoebe: Bonjour! Bonjour!
Paige: Bonjour?
Piper: What the heck are you wearing?
Phoebe: Oh, just a little something to help me win my boyfriend back. Showing a little skin never hurt.
Paige: Oh, I'll file that away.
Piper: I guess it didn't go so good with Jason last night?
Phoebe: No, unfortunately. Je ne sais pas pourquoi.
Paige: Since when do you speak freedom fry?
Phoebe: I don't know actually, it's kind of weird considering I hate the French.
Piper: No you don't. You love everything about France.
Phoebe: I do? Oh, then maybe I just hate being dumped. All the more reason to go get him.
Piper: Uh, just there's one thing. See, we kind of need the power of three for a vanquish, you know, to save your nephews future and all.
Phoebe: Yeah, sorry, I can't. (She heads for the door.) Au revoir.
(She leaves.)
Piper: Please tell me she didn't...
Paige: Cast a spell on herself? I think she did.
[Scene: Tunnels. The swarm king and dozens of swarm demons are there.]
Swarm King: I can feel their pain. This is where they fought and died. Correct me if I'm wrong but this was your division.
Swarm Demon #1: I'm afraid it was.
Swarm King: Remember, this is going to hurt me much more than it hurts you. (He vanquishes Swarm Demon #1.) It is time to bring the fight to them! Let the Charmed Ones feel our pain!
[Scene: Manor. Attic. Piper and Paige are there looking at the page the Book of Shadows is open to.]
Piper: I'm confused. How does cleansing her aura get Jason back?
Paige: No, Phoebe didn't cast the spell, Richard did.
Piper: Richard wants Jason back?
Paige: No, Richard wants to cleanse his karma. Oh my god, that's what he used the book for. Damn it, I shouldn't have left him alone.
Piper: Wait a second, what does this have to do with Phoebe?
Paige: Karma is not something you mess with. Especially not magically. Whatever Richard did could have gone wonky and affected her somehow. I mean, there's all this unfinished karma just floating around out there waiting to complete its cycle.
Piper: What the hell are you talking about?
Paige: I'm talking about Richard screwing with the karma wheel and Phoebe getting smacked down by it. She said it herself, she's been lying to Jason, living a double life, if that doesn't attract bad karma, I don't know what does.
Piper: Someone's unfinished bad karma?
Paige: Exactly. Except who's?
Piper: Well, I'd guess a French hooker by the way she's been acting.
Paige: Or worse. Okay, you go get Phoebe, I'll go get Richard.
Piper: But what if he's infected too?
Paige:Well, I'll save him and then I'll kill him.
(Paige leaves the room.)
[Scene: Richard's house. Study. Richard is there. Paige storms in.]
Paige: Cast any spells lately?
Richard: No. Alright, yeah, one. It didn't work though.
Paige: How do you know?
Richard: Because... Alright, I was cleansing my soul...
Paige: Yeah, yeah, skip down to the bottom. What happened when you said the spell, exactly.
Richard: Energy and light came down from the ceiling, it surrounded me...
Paige: And hit Phoebe.
Richard: No, I was there alone.
Paige: Oh, yeah, you were alone. Okay, then how do you explain my sister suddenly walking around like she's in the nudie version of La Miz.
Richard: I don't know. I don't know why it affected her and not me.
Paige: Maybe because your family is surrounded by so much bad karma that there's no room for anybody else's. What were you thinking?
Richard: I was thinking about us.
Paige: Us?
Richard: Yeah. I don't want my past to hurt you.
Paige: Richard, I know that you mean well, I really do. And I get that it must be so hard to not practise magic when you can, but you can't...
Richard: How can you be with a guy that's got a problem with the very thing you're all about? I have an idea. I have a potion that'll help Phoebe.
(He heads for the door.)
Paige: Richard.
Richard: What?
Paige: Stop.
Richard: I can't. I did this. I need to fix it.
Paige: No, hey. Please. Just no more magic.
[Scene: Office. Steve's there. Richard walks in.]
Richard: Hey, bro.
Steve: Richard. Man, how the hell have you been?
(They hug.)
Richard: Good, good, you know. Wow, you look good, and you got your hair cut.
Steve: Yeah, for court. I'm doing pro bono now.
Richard: A do-gooder. Wow, you.
Steve: Yeah, I needed a change in my life. So, mum's been worried. No one's heard from you. Staying out of trouble I hope.
Richard: Yeah, more or less.
Steve: So, uh, you still seeing Paige?
Richard: Absolutely. I can't imagine life without her.
Steve: It sounds serious.
Richard: I hope so.
Steve: Well, here, man, take a seat.
Richard: Actually, I can't, I gotta go. Listen, I've been going through some of the old potion books just for the hell of it, and I can't find that one dad used to use to banish spirits. Do you know where it is?
Steve: I thought be both agreed not to mess with that stuff anymore.
Richard: I'm not. Not really. It's hard to explain. Do you know where it is?
Steve: Richard.
Richard: Look, save the speech. Can you help me or not?
Steve: Why? What'd you do?
Richard: Nothing.
Steve: Are people hurt? Do you need...
Richard: Damn it, Steve! Can you help me or not? Please.
[Scene: Outside a building. Phoebe is waiting on the sidewalk. Jason pulls up in a limo. He gets out.]
Jason: What are you doing here? And what are you wearing?
Phoebe: I'm looking for you. (She pulls him closer.) Mon petit choux.
Jason: Look, I don't have time for this. (He pulls away.) This is crazy.
(She grabs him.)
Phoebe: You have every right to be very upset with me, I know I've been a very, very bad girl. Please let me make it up to you.
Jason: I don't think so.
Phoebe: What do you mean you don't think so?
Jason: Hey, take it easy, Phoebe, we'll talk about it later, okay? Right now I'm running late.
Phoebe: There's always time for l'amour.
(She tries to kiss him.)
Jason: Whoa. Uh, listen, this is, I, this merger is very important to me, okay? I need to keep a clear head if that's at all possible.
Phoebe: Are you saying you don't want me?
Jason: Not right now.
Phoebe: Cochon. You pig. Quel est ton probleme? Fils de pute!.
Jason: You're crazy.
(He walks towards the building.)
Phoebe: You think you can just walk away from me? You think I'm crazy? You think this is crazy? Just wait.
[Cut to inside. Jason is standing up on a stage talking to a room full of people in suits. There is a table full of food in the centre of the room.]
Jason: In the climate of this world economy, diversity is essential. And that is why this merger is essential if we want to grow as a company. Combing resources will allow us to tap into markets that would have otherwise remained beyond our reach. (They applause.) And so today we celebrate a new Franco-American business community, in which bilateral trade is not only encouraged... (The microphone makes a high-pitched noise. The people split in two groups to make a clear path down to the stage. Phoebe is standing near the back and walks down the clearing the people have made. She walks up onto the stage.) What the hell are you doing?
Phoebe: You turned on me, you rejected me, and I'd say you'll live to regret it but you won't.
Jason: This isn't a game.
Phoebe: Viola!
Jason: Phoebe, you can't do this.
(He takes off his coat and wraps it around Phoebe.)
Phoebe: Oh, no? Pourquoi pas?. Watch me. (She pulls away from him and his coat.) Curses on this merger.
(The champagne bottles pop and squirt champagne everywhere. The food turns into snails and toads and pigeons. The people scream and run around the room.)
Jason: Phoebe, stop this.
(He grabs her.)
Phoebe: You let go of me!
(She pushes him onto the floor.)
Jason: Are you trying to ruin me?
Phoebe: Oh, that's just the hors d'oeuvre. Wait until you see the entree. It's to die for.
(Suddenly everything freezes including Phoebe. Piper walks through the people.)
Piper: Leo! (She walks onto the stage.) Leo! Leo!
(Leo orbs in.)
Leo: Whoa.
Piper: Yeah.
Leo: Wh-Why is Phoebe frozen?
Piper: That's not Phoebe.
Leo: What do you mean?
Piper: Long story. Let's get out of here.
Leo: What about all this?
Piper: Later, later.
(Leo orbs out with Piper and Phoebe. The room unfreezes.)
Jason: Phoebe?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Manor. Conservatory. Piper, Phoebe, Paige and Leo are there. Paige is reading a book. Phoebe sits on a chair.]
Piper: Sit down and put this on.
(She throws her a blanket.)
Phoebe: I'm not finished with my revenge.
Piper: Sit or I will freeze. We need to figure out who's karma you got.
Phoebe: I'll never tell. Je ne fait pas ca.
Paige: Okay, she's French. Bad karma... Napoleon?
Piper: Probably not.
Leo: Phoebe's not our only problem, that entire auditorium saw her use magic.
Piper: Well, we fix Phoebe first and then we take care of the swarm king and if we're still alive after that, we'll worry about it then. (Phoebe sighs.) Maybe you should go check on Wyatt and make sure he's okay.
Leo: He's fine. Okay, I'll go check.
(Leo orbs out. Piper walks over to the Book of Shadows.)
Piper: See if I can piece together a spell to de-karma Phoebe.
Paige: Okay, what about, uh, Marie Antoinette, Queen Isabella, the she-wolf of France?
Phoebe: Oh, now you insult me. I can't stand France.
Piper: Vital clue there?
Paige: Okay, let's see. Speaks French, hates the country, more than willing to strip in public... Oh my god, I saw something in here. Famous female spies... Mata Hari.
Piper: Wasn't she one of the Bond girls?
Paige: No. Look, an exotic stripper in Paris, Dutch born, double agent for Germany during World War I. Says here Mata Hari was convicted by French officials and executed by a firing squad.
Piper: Well, no wonder she hates the French.
Phoebe: Not half as much as I hate you for keeping me here. I need my freedom, I need my revenge.
Piper: What does her karma have to do with Phoebe?
Paige: Well, duplicitous, living a double life... Ring any bells?
Phoebe: Enough!
(Phoebe gets up.)
Piper: Where are you going?
Phoebe: Au revoir.
(She goes in the other room. Piper freezes her. Piper and Paige walk over to Phoebe and unfreeze her.)
Piper: Hi. Look, it's two against one and you are not going anywhere. (Two swarm demons appear and throw fireballs at them. Phoebe and Paige dive behind the couch. One of the fireballs hits Piper on her arm. She blows them up.) Why am I always the one getting hit?
(Three more swarm demons shimmer in but are facing the wrong way.)
Phoebe: Behind you!
(The swarm demons turn around and Piper blows up one. Another one shimmers in and throws a fireball, hitting Paige on the arm.)
Swarm Demon: Take her!
(He points to Phoebe. One of them grabs Phoebe and shimmers out with her. The other two shimmer out.)
Paige: Am I crazy or was she trying to save them from us?
[Scene: Swarm Demon hive. Two Swarm Demons are holding onto Phoebe.]
Swarm King: I didn't tell you to bring her here, I ordered you to kill them.
Swarm Demon: The Charmed Ones were all together. We were lucky to grab one and get away.
Phoebe: Oh, luck had nothing to do with it, I saved your butts back there. Excuse me, are you in charge here?
Swarm King: I am.
(Phoebe pulls away from the two Swarm Demons.)
Phoebe: Good, because I'd like to get in bed with you. Not literally. Although, there may be time for that later. What I'm saying is, if you'll help me, I'll help you.
Swarm King: You think I'm a fool? Saving my drones to gain my favour? I'm not one to fall for tricks.
Phoebe: This isn't a trick. Hands off me. The witches have double crossed me. They wanna keep me against my will.
Swarm King: So do I.
Phoebe: Yeah, let me guess. To lure them here so you can kill all of us? Yeah, see you're not the first demon to try that and fail. They've got good karma. Centuries of it. It's what protects them, us.
Swarm King: And what is it that you suggest?
Phoebe: Well, I was hoping that you would help me create some bad karma for them by, oh, I don't know, maybe killing an innocent.
Swarm King: Who did you have in mind?
[Scene: The Bay Mirror. Jason's office. Jason is there. Richard walks in.]
Richard: Jason.
Jason: What are you doing here?
Richard: I'm looking for Phoebe. Have you seen her?
Jason: Not since she destroyed my career, no. Listen, uh, I've gotta give a press conference, try to salvage what's left of my reputation.
Richard: Don't go, alright? I know how you feel.
Jason: Oh, you know how I feel? You know how it feels to have the woman you love lie to you? To turn your one shining moment into chaos, and to strip in front of a packed auditorium.
Richard: No. Look, it's not her fault. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I cast a spell that...
Jason: Hold on, you too?
Richard: Yeah. Look, there's no time to explain. (He pulls out a potion.) Just, just take this, please. The moment you see Phoebe, throw this at her, she'll be back to normal, I promise.
Jason: Wait a second, what is that?
Richard: It's a potion.
Jason: Get out of here.
Richard: Look, I screwed up big time, alright? The only way to fix this is to use this on Phoebe. (He puts the potion in Jason's shirt pocket.) If you love her you'll do it.
[Scene: Manor. Conservatory. Piper and Paige are there dabbing each other's wounds.]
Paige: Ow!
Piper: Well, if you would just hold still.
Paige: Fine. There. Done.
Piper: Ow.
Paige: You know, we wouldn't even be in this mess if it weren't for Phoebe not being able to deal with conflict.
Piper: Actually, we wouldn't be in this mess if your boyfriend could handle his magic.
(Piper pushes on a band-aid on Paige's wound.)
Paige: Ow! You did that on purpose.
Piper: Yes, I did.
Paige: Maybe we should just focus on how to save Phoebe.
Piper: Well, we could storm the hive but then again, she'd probably just help them stop us.
Paige: Well, that's just Mata Hari coming through, using whoever she can to exact her revenge.
Piper: But against who? The men who put her to death are long gone. And besides, doesn't her real karma eventually lead to her own self destruction anyway?
Paige: Well, I think that's why we need to figure out why she's using Phoebe before it's too late, right?
Piper: Which brings us back to Mata Hari's revenge.
Paige: Okay, she's spent her life pleasing men, only to be betrayed by them at the end...
Piper: Oh, no.
Paige: What?
Piper: What if she wants to return the favour?
[Cut to outside The Bay Mirror. Piper and Paige orb in behind a truck. Jason goes over to the limo with reporters chasing him.]
Jason: Listen up, folks. I'll answer everything at the press conference. Please, do me a favour and hold your questions until then.
(Jason gets in the limo and Phoebe's waiting there.)
Phoebe: Hello, Jason.
Jason: Phoebe, I've had enough.
Phoebe: Shh. (Two swarm demons shimmer in beside him.) I always get my man.
Jason: Wait. Hang on a second.
(They shimmer out with Jason. Piper and Paige walk over to the limo and look inside.)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Swarm Demon tunnels. Piper and Paige are there.]
Paige: I swear this is where we found the king last time.
Piper: Well, maybe your orbing was off.
Paige: My orbing was not off. They've just moved.
Piper: Well, we should be hearing the swarms, so why don't we?
Paige: I don't know, 'cause there's like a jillion miles in this stupid maze. They could be anywhere.
Piper: We don't even know if Phoebe is here.
Paige: Well, it's our best bet. I swear, if she is hurt, I am never going to forgive Richard.
Piper: I think Jason's the one we need to worry about right now.
[Cut to a cave. Phoebe, Jason and the swarm demons are there.]
Phoebe: Such a sweet man, such a horrible way to die. I almost want to cry. Almost.
Jason: What are you doing? Please stop this game.
Phoebe: Life is a game. The last one standing wins. And that would be me.
Jason: I get it, you're trying to teach me a lesson, I get it.
Phoebe: No lesson, I just don't like being betrayed.
Jason: Well, what about him? Won't he betray you?
Phoebe: Goodbye, mon amour.
Jason: Phoebe, please, I'm begging you.
Phoebe: Oh, don't beg. I stared at my killer right in the eye. So much more dignified way to die.
Jason: Richard was right.
Phoebe: Who?
Swarm King: Enough! Can we please get on with this?
Phoebe: Ready? (The swarm demons create fireballs.) Aim. (Jason reaches in his pocket and pulls out a potion. He throws it at Phoebe. Mata Hari leaves her body.) No!
(Piper and Paige walk around the corner.)
Swarm King: Fire!
(Phoebe faces the swarm demons and they throw the fireballs. She channels the fireballs back to them and vanquishes some. The rest dive behind rocks and throws more fireballs. Phoebe and Jason run around the corner.)
Phoebe: Oh, thank god, I'm so happy to see you guys.
Paige: You're you.
Phoebe: Yeah.
Piper: Reunion later, slay now.
Swarm King: Fire at her!
Piper, Phoebe, Paige: "Demon swarm that serves as one, vanquish him from which they come."
(The Swarm King is vanquished along with the rest of the swarm demons.)
Phoebe: Jason. I'm so sorry. I'm so, so sorry.
Jason: Me too.
Piper: I hate to break this up, I really do, but we've gotta go.
Paige: How did you get rid of Mata Hari's karma?
Jason: Who?
Piper: Don't ask.
Phoebe: Where'd you get the potion from?
Jason: I got it from Richard. He said it would be the only thing that might save you.
Paige: Richard.
[Scene: Richard's house. Richard opens a door to a room full of potions and ingredients. He walks in and closes the door.]
[Scene: Manor. Wyatt's room. Piper, Leo and Wyatt are there. Piper puts Wyatt in his playpen.]
Leo: Are you okay?
Piper: Oh, yeah, you know, considering I'm the mother of the future leader of all evil.
Leo: No you're not. Okay, maybe he won't be now that you took care of the last threat on him.
Piper: You know as well as I do that was not the last threat. There'll be others.
Leo: And you'll take care of them too. Especially now that we know what can happen. After all, well aware is half there.
Piper: Did Phoebe give you that psycho babble? I just don't understand how someone so sweet could possibly turn so bad.
Leo: I don't believe he will, despite what Chris says. Or maybe because of it we won't let it. You know, Piper, all parents worry about their kids, it's part of their job description. We just have to have faith.
Piper: Yeah, but Wyatt isn't just any kid.
Leo: And we're not just any parents either.
Piper: Well, at least we know he'll inherit all of our family's good karma, and that should help.
Leo: I hope it helps Phoebe too. She still has what happened to Jason's banquet to worry about.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Scene: Outside a Hotel. It's raining. Jason gets out of a limo and the doorman holds an umbrella above him. They walk to the door, under cover. Phoebe runs across the road.]
Phoebe: Jason! Jason!
Jason: Phoebe?
Phoebe: I wanna talk to the press. I wanna tell them everything.
Jason: Right. What are you gonna do? Tell them you're a witch? That'll make the headlines.
Phoebe: Uh, actually, I didn't think about what I was gonna say them. I just know that I can't let you take the fall for this. I am so sorry about everything. The lies and...
Jason: Hey, don't. Remember you saved me.
Phoebe: Yeah, but that was after I tried to kill you.
Jason: Well, there was that.
Phoebe: If I could do it all again, I would tell you the truth.
Jason: Give me a break, Phoebe, what are you gonna do? What are you gonna tell me? And besides, I was so wrapped up in my career and dragging you around the world, I never gave you a chance.
Phoebe: So, um, what do we do now?
Jason: I don't know. Maybe we should just both take some time. They're waiting for me.
Phoebe: I wish you'd let me talk to them.
Jason: No, no, what you and your sisters do, what I saw you do, it, uh, put some perspective on my work. I wanna protect that.
Phoebe: You might lose the merger.
Jason: I've lost worst.
(They kiss and Phoebe walks away.)
Summary:
| Piper, Phoebe, and Paige inadvertently expose themselves as witches in front of Jason, causing him to leave Phoebe. Richard casts a spell to free himself of his family's negative karma , but accidentally channels the spirit of Mata Hari , a double agent against Germany for France during WWI , into Phoebe. Phoebe decides to get revenge on Jason by arranging for a demonic firing squad to kill him. Meanwhile, Piper and Paige try to vanquish a group of Swarm Demons, the last on Chris' list of the most significant threats to Wyatt. | 95 | 34,393 | 34,395 | 34,395 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Pretty_Little_Liars_01x03 | fd_Pretty_Little_Liars_01x03_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[What happened in the previous episode.]
[PREVIOUSLY_ON]
Aria: It's too hard to sit in this room every day and call you Mr. Fitz. Okay, I can't pretend like I don't know you.
Hanna: I'm really sorry, mom.
Ashley: For what?
Hanna: The cop.
Spencer: We're meeting Melissa's fiancé.
Wren: Does she have to know everything?
Spencer: Stop, stop. We can't.
Wilden: This is no longer a missing person's investigation. It's a murder.
Hanna: Is this waiting thing something you really want, or is it because of your dad?
Sean: No, it's me. It's... It's my choice.
Maya: So, I'm corrupting you.
Ben: What are you so weirded out about?
Emily: I think there's something wrong with me.
Pam: You lost a dear friend. You need to find a way to say good-bye.
[In the woods]
Hanna: Whose idea was this, again?
Spencer: Emily's mom.
Emily: The shed was me. My mom just said we should do something for us.
Hanna: Well, couldn't we do something without mosquitoes?
Aria: They're not mosquitoes, they're gnats.
Hanna: Whatever! They're small and annoying, and they're flying up my nose.
Spencer: Well, they're attracted to your perfume. And your hair product. And your lip gloss.
Hanna: So, what are you saying, I attract flies?
Aria: Gnats.
Emily: Why do I feel like this is the wrong way?
Spencer: No, this is it. I remember that tree. It's the halfway point. There's 136 steps left to the shed.
Emily: Have you been out here since... Alison?
Spencer: Me? No. No way.
Aria: But you remember that tree.
Hanna: You guys, it's not that weird. I mean, we came out here in eighth grade like, every day... even after.
Spencer: I think this is totally the wrong place to do this. Whatever you call it.. shrine.
Emily: It's not a shrine. It's just a place to remember Alison. What's wrong with that?
Spencer: Doing it way out here makes it look like we have something to hide.
Emily: You're worried what other people think?
Spencer: Well, aren't you? Do you really want to give that creepy Detective more reasons to question us?
Emily: Hanna, why are you so quiet?
Hanna: I'm trying to keep the bugs in my nose and out of my mouth.
Emily: You're allowed to have an opinion on this.
Hanna: You want my opinion? I say we hold off and not remember her 'til we know for sure she's not still here.
Everybody: What?
Aria: What are you talking about?
Emily: You think she's still alive?
Spencer: Hanna, they found her body.
Aria: Stop. I'm officially scared. Can we just not...
Hanna: You know, you asked for my opinion. I don't believe she's really gone.
Spencer: We went to her funeral!
Ashley: Yeah, and when we left we all got a text from her.
Emily: It wasn't her. Someone is messing with us.
Hanna: How do you know? And what about all those nasty messages? I mean, how does this "A"person know stuff only Ali knew?
Aria: Okay, this conversation is giving me a hive.
Hanna: That's a bite. Mosquito.
Emily: Spencer, have you gotten any more messages?
Spencer: Haven't you?
Branches rustling
Emily: What was that? Did you hear that?
Aria: Yes, I heard that. I'm standing right next to you.
Hanna: Hello? Is anybody out there?
Spencer: It's probably a rabbit.
Hanna: Hello?
Spencer: It's a rabbit, Hanna. It's not gonna answer you.
Emily: Can we just get to the shed?
More branches rustling
Hanna: Okay, that is definitely not a rabbit. Someone's out there.
Emily: Let's turn around.
The girls' cellphones ring
[Opening credits]
[In Hanna's kitchen]
Wilden: Morning.
Hanna: Where's my mother?
Wilden: I guess she ran upstairs for somethin'. I'm trying to figure out what makes this stuff spreadable. You want a waffle or somethin'?
Hanna: No. Thanks.
Wilden: There she is. It's canola oil!
Ashley: Darren, why don't you get dressed? I'll take care of breakfast.
Wilden: Yeah.
Hanna: So what, he lives here now?
Ashley: Take out the milk.
Hanna: Is this a permanent thing?
Ashley: Would you keep your voice down, please?
Hanna: God, it was one pair of sunglasses, and they were last season's.
Ashley: Hand me the waffles.
Hanna: Mom, you don't have to do this.
Ashley: Do what?
Hanna: Squeeze his grapefruit.
Ashley: We will talk after breakfast.
Hanna: I don't eat breakfast, and neither do you.
Ashley: Look. Until he gets the store to drop the charges for your shopping spree, we're not kicking anyone to the curb. The last thing we want is an enemy on the police force.
Hanna: I get it, okay? But I didn't count on having to buy him a father's day card, either.
Ashley: Hanna! The situation is delicate. By the way, if you're buying anyone a card, it should be me.
[At a restaurant]
Byron: Well, you're pretty far into it.
Aria: Yeah, I've got, like, 60-some pages left, and I don't want it to end.
Byron: You should read her biography next.
Ella: The father-worship thing becomes a lot clearer.
Aria: Well, I would worship both of you a lot more... if you got me another one of these.
Ella: Uh, the poppy seed? We'll split it. Make sure your father doesn't drink all my coffee, please.
Byron: Do you like your teacher?
Aria: What?
Byron: Your English teacher. Do you like him?
Aria: Oh! Yeah. Uh, he's okay.
Byron: What's his name again?
Aria: Mr. Fitz. Hey, maybe I'll... I'll check out that biography at school. What's it called?
Byron: I've got a copy of it in my office. I'll bring it home. It might inspire you.
Aria: To what, write a novel?
Byron: You've got it in you.
Meredith: Byron?
Byron: Hey! Hi. How you doing?
Meredith: Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.
Byron: No, no, no, that's okay.
[Flashback in the street where Aria sees his father kissing Meredith]
[Back at the table]
Byron: Uh... Um, Aria this is, uh, Meredith Sorenson. She also teaches in the department, uh, my department, and this is Aria, my daughter.
Meredith: Oh, Aria! Hi. Of course you are. Did you get my message?
Byron: Yes I did, and I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to call you back.
Meredith: That's okay, they just need he referral by Monday, and...
Byron: I'll get to it as soon as I get back to campus. Is there an e-mail, or...
Meredith: Here. So, how does it feel to be home? This town must seem a little dull after spending a whole year overseas.
Aria: Not really.
Byron: Okay, well, I'll, uh... I'll send that before lunch.
Meredith: Thanks. I'm so glad I ran into you. Nice to meet you. Welcome home.
Meredith leaves
Aria: Why can't she graduate?
Byron: She has. I told you. She's now a teaching assistant. Not mine, but her office is across the hall. I can't pretend like she doesn't exist, Aria. It's a small college.
Aria: Mm, not small enough.
[In the Hastings' kitchen]
Veronica: You can't avoid seeing people, sweetie. It is what it is.
Melissa: And what's that... Sad? Humiliating? Pathetic? All of the above? Just... take someone else. I don't want to have to explain a wedding that's never gonna happen to every last club member.
Spencer: Morning.
Veronica: Hey.
Melissa: Excuse me.
Melissa throws wedding magazines in the trash
Spencer: Where's Dad?
Veronica: He left for the office.
Spencer: Already? So he ran without me? Why didn't he just knock on my door?
Veronica: He was busy. He was helping Melissa dispose of some things that... Wren left behind.
Melisssa: Unfortunately, you weren't one of them.
Spencer: How many times am I going to have to say it?
Veronica: Oh, girls, please! I can't arbitrate on one cup of coffee.
Melissa: Who's calling the paper to pull the announcement? It was hard enough changing my status on Facebook!
Veronica: I'll take care of the newspaper.
Melissa: What about the engagement dinner? Do I have to make that call?
Veronica: No, honey, of course not. Just look up the number and I'll leave a message. To Spencer Where are you going?
Spencer: I'll eat in my bedroom.
Veronica: Oh, no, you won't. I just dry-cleaned your bedspread. Sit at the table.
Spencer: I don't think I'm welcome.
Melissa: That's never stopped you before.
Spencer: I did not invite your fiancé to kiss me Melissa. For the last time, he made the move on me!
Veronica: Spencer, please.
Melissa: Right, you just sat there like a throw pillow with your tongue down his throat!
Spencer: Look, I get it! You're upset and I feel for you, but don't dump it all on me. Maybe you should be asking yourself why Wren felt the need to... I'm sorry. Okay? I'm not perfect, but I don't want to be accused of something that I didn't do!
Veronica: Oh, stop please. Both of you! Go get dressed for school. You can take your muffin to go.
[In the street]
Mona: Ah! Totally love this color. We should've stocked up on a few more tubes.
Hanna: Well, I only have two hands. Keep it.
Mona: Why, is your mom asking to see receipts?
Sean: It's hilarious.
Hanna: Sean! What's so funny?
Sean: Nothin'. Noel's just out of control. Mm, you smell good.
Noel: Save something for tomorrow night.
Mona: What's tomorrow night?
Sean: Noel's parents are leaving town.
Noel: It means the party of the year is officially on. Think big, think wild, think parental units in a different time zone.
Sean: I gotta get to practice. Save that smell.
Noel and Sean leave
Mona: So, the pressure's on.
Hanna: What do you mean?
Mona: Not all of us have a Sean to wear to that party, and I'm not gonna spend the night guarding the bushes so you can jump each other's bones.
Hanna: Okay, we're not gonna be doing it in the bushes.
Mona: Whatever. Have you guys even done it yet?
Hanna: It's not a race, Mona.
Mona: Okay mom, seriously. No one's pushing you to be natty ho, but you guys have been going out for months. If you're not together in that way, how do you know you're together-together? How long can you wait before you lose him?
[Near Hanna and Mona were]
Maya: I was going to offer you a ride, but your bike's faster than my car.
Emily: I passed you? I didn't even see you.
Maya: I saw you. You took that corner on one wheel.
Ben: Got ya!
Emily: Ben, stop.
Ben: Fine. I can wait one more day. Well, you guys heard, right? Noel's doing his cabin party tomorrow night.
Maya: Is this one of Rosewood's pagan rituals?
Ben: Kinda. There was definitely some howling last year.
Emily: Why don't you come with us? Please, come. It'll be fun.
[In the corridors of the high school]
Ezra: Good morning.
Aria: Hi.
Ezra enters his classroom
Aria: Russian history?
Spencer: Yeah.
Aria: How many AP classes does it take until your brain explodes?
Spencer: I'm already drowning in there.
Aria: Why, what's drowning for you, B+?
Spencer: First paper's due Monday, and I've written two words. My name.
Aria: Well, what's going on? Hey, you're not still freaked out about what happened in the woods yesterday, are you? Look, we do not have to do this thing for Ali until we figure...
Spencer: No, it's not just that. It's... It's everything. Is there any chance your family wants to adopt me?
Toby & Jenna walk in front of them
Emily has a flashback - Toby's carrying Jenna.
Maya: Who is that?
Emily: Toby Cavanaugh.
Maya: Who's he?
Emily: He's, uh, an older kid who used to go here and got sent away to a reform school or something.
Maya: Why?
Emily: He had a... He set fire to a garage, and his stepsister... she was in it.
Maya: Should I be scared?
Emily: What? No.
Maya: See you later.
Emily: Bye.
Aria: He's back, too? When did that happen?
Hanna: Maybe she needs help sending radioactive e-mails.
Spencer: Yeah, or he may be sending a few of his own.
Wilden: Hanna.
Aria: Cops on campus too.
Wilden: I just spoke with your principal, asked him if we could have a chat.
Hanna: No, I have to get to class.
Wilden: Don't worry. You've been excused. Let's go.
Hanna & Wilden leave
Aria: What is going on? Why just her?
Emily: Probably thinks she's the easiest to crack.
Spencer: She is.
Jenna: Whisper, whisper, whisper. Almost feels like Alison's still here.
Flashback in which we see the barn burning and the girls running
[In Wilden's office]
Wilden: I keep coming back to this ninth grade shaft, of you and Alison on the steps.
Hanna: What about it?
Wilden: Well, you made a lot of changes between ninth and tenth grade. Lost some weight, started styling your hair like Alison's.
Hanna: Is that a crime?
Wilden: No, just an observation.
Hanna: No, she helped me make those changes.
Wilden: Did she, really? Did she ever regret it? Start seeing you as her competition?
Hanna: Nobody competed with Alison. You'd be stupid to even try.
Wilden: Why?
[Flashback at the restaurant of the high school probably]
Ali: Ask him. You'll never know unless you ask. Now.
Hanna: Um, Sean? Did you hear about the party at Noel kahn's?
Sean: I heard.
Hanna: I don't know. I was thinking about going, so I'm just wondering if you want to go too, with me.
Ali: Everybody's going. She's going, I'm going. Why aren't you?
Sean: Oh, yeah, no, I guess I am.
[Back in the office]
Wilden: What about this guy ? Did she ever talk about him?
Hanna: What?
Wilden: Stay with me, Hanna. It's important.
Hanna: Why? What's the point?
Wilden: The point is I'm trying to flesh out the details of that summer.
Hanna: So you can ask me how much weight I lost? By making it look like hefty Hanna wanted Alison dead so I could replace her?
Wilden: I'm not questioning you as a suspect, Hanna. We're just having a chat. Besides, one can't underestimate how much the past informs the present.
Hanna: Really. So, you're still that same party boy you were in the class of '96? Did you call me down here to do keg stands?
Wilden: Wow, looks like somebody's been doing their own homework.
Hanna: I like to know who's joining us for breakfast. And, by the way, my tenth-grade picture isn't even in that yearbook. I had mono and missed the deadline. Now, my makeup picture is in my living room, which you must've seen while you were wearing a towel. Is that how the police build their cases these days?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[In the corridors of the high school]
Spencer: What are you doing? Is that a new phone?
Aria: Yeah, I'm checking my Kin. I'll just write on Hanna's wall from here.
Emily: If she's not answering texts, what makes you think she's checking Facebook?
Aria: It's worth a try.
Hanna: What's going on?
Aria: We've been trying to get ahold of you. What happened in there?
Hanna: Nothing, just the same old stupid questions.
Spencer: You were in there for an hour, Hanna. What else did he ask?
Hanna: Nothing. He just took a couple calls, and I just sat there, waiting for him to shut up.
Aria: Well, is he gonna question all of us alone now?
Hanna: Who knows? Look, let's do this at lunch, okay? I have to hit the ladies' before my next class.
Spencer: Is she being weird?
Emily: She's being weird. I'll see you guys at lunch.
Spencer: Bye.
[In Ezra's classroom]
Aria: Hey.
Ezra: Hey. Are you here to ask about the homework assignment?
Aria: Do you have plans this weekend?
Ezra: I'm thinking we should talk about the homework assignment.
Aria: So you do have plans.
Ezra: I don't.
Aria: Okay, well, there's... This opening at the gallery where my mom works, and I promised I'd help out, so if you're free...
Ezra: Do you think that's wise, hanging with you and your folks, a parent-teacher conference over free wine?
Aria: Okay, fine. It's a bad idea. What... if we met up afterwards? I could tell them I'm going to Noel kahn's party.
Ezra: Maybe you should. Go to the party.
Aria: Why... would I want to do that?
Ezra: So your classmates don't suspect you've lost interest in your peers.
Aria: Too late. Ezra, I want... Oh.
A woman enters
Mrs Welch: Ezra.. Oh, Sorry. Excuse me.
Ezra: No, it's fine. Come in, Mrs. Welch. Um. So, are we clear about the homework assignment?
Aria: Yes, totally. If I have any questions, I'll reach out to you.
Ezra: Great.
Aria: Thank you, Mr. Fitz.
[In front of Wren's "squat"]
Wren: Did your sister send you here?
Spencer: God, no. She has no idea I even called you. Things were never great between us, but... now it's like the hurt locker. It just gets worse every day.
Wren: I'm sorry to hear that.
Spencer: So, you're living here now?
Wren: Squatting. It's not exactly the Hastings manor, but I have a whole sofa to myself.
Spencer: Wren, I need your help.
Wren: We only have the one sofa. Can you sleep on a ping-pong table?
Spencer: Look, I need you to tell them what really happened.
Wren: I tried. They won't return my phone calls.
Spencer: I know I'm not completely innocent in all of this. I've done a lot of stuff that I'm not proud of, but... not that night. I never wanted you guys to break up.
Wren: I don't think it would matter what I said. Once your parents decide how they're gonna think of someone, it's royal decree. You're brilliant, you're rubbish. There's very little in between.
Spencer: Could you at least try my dad again?
Wren: Spencer, put your efforts elsewhere. My guess is that your jail sentence will be commuted the moment you score a winning point or ace a test.
Spencer: This might not be that simple.
Wren: Give it time. Look, I know I made a bloody mess of it, and I'm sorry for putting you in the middle of it. But perhaps my real mistake was falling for the wrong sister.
Spencer: Um, I should go. It's just the 4:00 train, and I have this huge paper to write that's due Monday.
Wren: You gotta get back to that wretched place called home, right.
[In the girls' locker room of the high school]
Emily: Hello? Hello? Anybody here? Hello?
Ben appears
Oh, God!
Ben: Damn! You're jumpy.
Emily: How did you get in here?
Ben: Walked.
Emily: Yeah, well, if somebody catches you...
Ben: I'll take my chances. Besides, we need some alone time.
Emily: I... need to get dressed.
Ben: Don't bother.
Emily: I can't do this now. My mom's expecting me.
Ben: What's up, Em? Last week you were all over me in my car. This week I'm some marching band geek with funyun breath. What's going on?
Emily: Nothing. I've just... got a lot on my mind, okay?
Ben: All right. Maybe you need to relax.
Emily: Ben, I can't do this right now.
Ben: What?
Emily: Seriously, stop it. Hey, you're acting strange. Ben, get off me! Get off! Stop it!
Toby comes in, and fights with Ben
That's enough! Okay? Stop.
Ben: Is this creep a friend of yours? Is he the reason you're acting like this?
Emily: Ben, get over yourself, okay?
Ben: Get over myself?
Emily: It's done. We're over.
[Ella's office]
Ella: The owner refuses to use a computer, which is only mildly irritating, because half of these contacts died during the Reagan administration. That was fast. This is my daughter, Aria. Also known as my savior, because when I got here, there were about three cups. Thank you, my dear. Uh, this is Meredith. She works with your dad.
Meredith: We've met, actually. Nice to see you.
Ella: Meredith just wandered in. She's looking for somebody who shows alternative art.
Meredith: And your mother's been very helpful. Thank you so much, Ella.
Ella: Oh, you're welcome. So, we'll see you tonight?
Meredith: Mm-hmm.
Ella: Okay.
Aria: Tonight?
Ella: Yeah, I invited her to the opening, which may be a success now that we don't have to eat Cobb salad with our fingers. Thank you. I'll see you later.
Meredith: For Sure. Bye-bye.
Aria: You can't come tonight.
Meredith: Why not?
Aria: You know why not, and so do I... But my mom doesn't.
Meredith: I don't know what you're talking about.
Aria: Look, I saw the way you were looking at my dad yesterday. I have eyes, so just find someone who's available. My dad isn't.
[The Marins' kitchen]
Ashley: How are you getting home? If there's any drinking, I will pick you up.
Wilden: Or I could take you, if you don't mind riding in the squad car. I wouldn't use the cuffs.
Hanna: I'll be fine, thanks.
Hanna leaves
Wilden: What? It was a joke.
Ashley: So, have you heard from the store? Are they prosecuting or... or not?
Wilden: No, I haven't heard, but I have a call into them, so...
Wilden takes a bracelet in Hanna's bag
Ashley: What are you doing?
Wilden: Where have I seen this before? It's nice. Is that from you?
Ashley: Alison gave it to her.
Wilden: That's right. She mentioned that at school today.
Ashley: Why were you at her school?
Wilden: I was interviewing Hanna again. That's my day job.
Ashley: Why was my kid being questioned a second time?
Wilden: Because she's close to the victim, and because kids keep secrets.
Ashley: Not mine. And if you're thinking she knows more than she's letting on, you're out of line. Sticky fingers is a long way off from what you're talking about.
Wilden: Okay, easy mama bear. It's just a routine investigation.
Ashley: Well, then you're gonna need a search warrant to go through her purse.
Wilden: So, can I help with dinner?
Ashley: Yeah.
She gives him the pizza
Have it someplace else. Breakfast, too.
[At Noel's]
Maya: Come on, lighten up.
Emily: I should've stayed home.
Maya: Why, 'cause you broke up with somebody? What are you supposed to do, spend the rest of the school year hiding under your bed?
Emily: There he is.
Maya: Did you do that to his face? Damn. It's a good color on him.
Hanna: Hey, Em.
Sean: Yo, what just happened?
Ben: So, you decided to come after all.
Emily: Yeah, I did. Just not with you.
[In the Hastings' kitchen]
Spencer transfers Melissa's homework on her laptop and puts her name where Melissa's one was written.
Veronica enters, Melissa follows
Spencer: Hey. Hi, how was the club?
Veronica: Chilly. Nobody who works there can figure out a thermostat. Did you eat?
Spencer: Yeah, I made some pasta if you're hungry.
Melissa: I'm not eating pasta. I don't need to be depressed and fat.
Veronica: Good point. I'll make a salad. Let me get out of these clothes.
She leaves
Melissa: Wren called. He told me you went into the city yesterday to meet him. It was strange. At first I wasn't sure why he was telling me this,
but then I realized he's still trying to cover his tracks and yours. Like I'm supposed to believe you took a train down there just to clear your name? You two deserve each other. I thought I was pathetic.
[Noel's party]
Sean: Ooh! Damn. Did you see that?
Hanna: Awesome. Look, can this be your last game?
Mona: Whatever. Have you guys...? Seriously.
Hanna: I'll be right back.
[Outside]
Aria: He tackled Ben? What was Toby even doing in the girls' locker room?
Spencer: Why are you shocked? Toby's a perv. We caught him peeping through the windows, watching us undress.
Emily: Alison's the one who saw him do that. We never did.
Hanna: What's up?
Aria: Toby Cavanaugh got into a fight with Ben over Emily.
Emily: It wasn't over me. God. Look, he just... saved me.
Spencer: For what, himself?
Hanna: Ew.
Aria: If we hadn't asked you about Ben, would you have told us about this?
Spencer: Toby is not a good guy, Emily. He could be seriously dangerous.
Emily: If he's such a bad guy, why'd he take the fall for us?
Aria: Is this another secret? Do you know something that we don't?
Hanna: Guys, why don't we just, like chill, and talk about this somewhere else? When we're alone.
Aria: I... don't even know what "just us" means anymore.
Hanna: Yeah, uh... Let's talk about it tomorrow, okay? Are we still meeting up at the shed?
She leaves
Aria: Yeah. Yeah, sure. Why not?
Emily: Where are you going?
Aria: The gallery. I promised my mom.
She leaves and Maya comes to Emily & Spencer
Maya: Have you checked out the photobooth they've got in there?
Emily: No. Show me the booth.
[Flashback, in front of Toby's -probably-]
Ali (to Toby): I'll make sure everybody knows! (To Spencer) Didn't I tell you to stay over there, and let me take care of this? What did you hear?
Spencer: Nothing. Nothing.
Emily: What's going on? What happened to Jenna?
Ali: It's done. We were never here. Let's go.
Hanna: But...
Ali: But what?
Hanna: What if we said it was an accident?
Ali: No, we're not telling anybody anything. Damn it, Hanna. Don't make me sorry I ever included you in the first place. I have gone out of my way to bring your big, wannabe butt into this group. You better keep your mouth shut, unless you want to go back to spending your weekends alone, dance dance revolution and a jumbo bag of chips.
Aria: Ali, stop it! Just leave her alone.
Ali: I'm sorry, Hanna. I didn't mean that. I'm just freaked out, guys. This is bad. Really bad. I never would've done it if I thought someone was in there. I just... I don't know what's gonna happen... to us. Can we just go? Come on.
[Back at the party]
Sean: What made you come up here?
Hanna: I had some time to kill while you were foosballing.
Sean: Hey, I was on a roll!
Hanna: I thought you liked contact sports.
[In the photobooth]
Emily: Ready?
Maya: Wait. I gotta prepare. If this comes out decent, I'm gonna cut mine out and replace the one on my driver's license.
Emily: Yeah, they're always scary.
Maya: No, I skipped scary. I went straight to snooki.
Emily: Can I see it? Come on, I'll show you mine. It's probably worse.
Maya: No way. What could be wrong with yours? You're crazy beautiful.
Emily: Uh, which button is it again? Um, this one.
She presses the button
Okay.
Photos are taken, they kiss, another photo is taken, they leave the photobooth
Maya: Think there's any pizza left?
Emily: Where are the pictures?
Maya: Damn, I told you I break cameras.
Emily: No, seriously, where are they?
Maya: Probably just ran out of paper. Come on. Let's eat something.
[Somewhere near Noel's house]
Sean: What are you looking for?
Hanna: What do you think?
Sean: Hanna, please stop.
Hanna: You're kidding, right? I mean, you said you wanted it to be special. This is pretty special, if you're not afraid of spiders.
Sean: Oh, it's... I don't wanna do this right now.
Hanna: Well, then, where do you want to go? We can't exactly afford a weekend at a five-star hotel.
Sean: It's not about where.
Hanna: Then what is it about? Is this about me? Tell me. Tell me why this is not happening, and don't start quoting scripture.
Sean: Why are you acting like this?
Hanna: Like what?
Sean: Like you've got something to prove.
Hanna: Because maybe I do! Maybe you still think of me as that dumpy junior high girl who laughed at all your jokes and gave you cuts in line and followed you around like some groupie.
Sean: No, I... I liked that girl. But... but this one seems... desperate.
Hanna: Any guy at this party would be happy to be with me. Why aren't you?
Sean: We already talked about this, okay? Take this. It's cold up here.
Hanna: Leave me alone. I don't want your stupid jacket.
[At the gallery]
Byron: Well, you are.
Ella: He's just saying this because he has to.
Byron: No, I..
Meredith comes in
Aria: What are you doing here? Did you forget what we talked about?
Meredith: You talked. I listened.
Aria: What didn't you understand? You need to leave now.
Meredith: Listen, sweetie, I'm not in high school. You don't have any say in this.
[Outside Noel's]
Mona: Hanna! Hanna, what's up? Hanna! Wait, why are you taking Sean's car? Hanna!
[Ezra's apartment]
Ezra: Hey. I thought you were helping out at the gallery.
Aria: I was. Can I come in?
Ezra: I'm not sure if that's a good idea.
Aria: I'm s... I'm sorry. This was... a mistake. I shouldn't have come here. I just didn't know where else to go. I'll see you on Monday.
Ezra: No, wait. Are you... are you okay? Do you need me to drive you home?
Aria: That's the last place I want to be.
Ezra: Why? What happened?
Aria: Can... can we just... be here for a minute?
[In front of Emily's]
Emily: Good night Maya.
Maya: Godd night Emily. See you.
Emily walks to Toby's
Emily: Hi. I... I never got a chance to... I just wanted to thank you. I mean... I'm not sure why you... Well, it doesn't matter. Again, thanks.
She leaves
Jenna: Why is she thanking you? Why is she thanking you?
Toby: It's not what you think.
[In the woods]
Spencer: Alison wanted us across the streetso she could have it out with Toby. Ali had something on him.
Hanna: Besides being a total perv who peeped in our windows?
Spencer: Yeah, something way bigger, and she was threatening to tell everybody. That's why he took the fall for us.
Aria: Why are you waiting until now to tell us?
Spencer: I don't know. Ali made me promise, and... I guess I was scared. I thought if we never talked about that night again, it would just go away.
Hanna: Well, it's not going away. Not unless we toss our phones and join the Navy.
Emily: Look, there's four of usand one freak sending messages. If we just talk to each other like this, I feel like it makes it easier to deal with everything.
Aria: I think Emily's right. There's way too many secrets. We shouldn't do this in the middle of nowhere. We should do it where we can see it every day.
Hanna: You mean, like, somewhere in school?
Aria: No. In town. We should ask if we can put a bench somewhere. Wait, and you know what? Whoever did this to her, if they're still in rosewood, we should make them look at it every day, too.
Spencer: What, you hate the idea?
Hanna: No. No, I just... I had a rough night.
Branches rustle, the girls run
Hanna: Look.
Spencer: Is that yours?
Aria: Alison's.
Summary:
| The girls try to pay tribute to Alison's memory, but they are still faced with unresolved issues. Toby, Jenna's stepbrother, has come back to school. Aria has an unpleasant encounter with her father's former mistress. Spencer faces a vengeful Melissa after her kiss with Wren. Hanna tries to get Sean to forget the 'old Hanna'. Toby and Ben (Emily's boyfriend) have a fight and Emily breaks up with him. Emily and Maya get closer, since Ben is no longer in the picture and Spencer copies her sister's essay and claims it as her own. The girls realize that leaving the past behind is much harder than they first thought. ' A' ending: 'A' listens to jazz music as they print copies of the pictures of Emily and Maya in the Photo Booth. | 95 | 28,862 | 28,864 | 28,864 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_06x14 | fd_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_06x14_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
•I do not own the characters or situations of BTVS, and I claim no credit for the content of this episode. I have merely transcribed what appeared on my screen, with help from the closed captions. •I prefer that you link to this transcript on the Psyche site rather than post it on your site, but you can post it on your site if you want, as long as you keep my name and email address on it. Please also keep my disclaimers intact. •You can use my transcripts in your fanfiction stories; you don't have to ask my permission. (However, if you use large portions of episode dialogue in your fanfic, I recommend you give credit to the person who wrote the episode.) •I apologize in advance for my lame transcription of the fight scenes. I don't know the names of different punches and kicks. Use your imagination.
[SCENE_BREAK]
GILES VOICEOVER: Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer...
Dawn stealing a coin from the magic shop. Buffy and Dawn in Dawn's bedroom.
DAWN: You're never here. You can't even stand to be around me.
BUFFY: That is not true.
DAWN: You didn't want to come back. I know that. You want to go away again. The demon poker game.
SPIKE: I'm in.
LOOSE-SKINNED DEMON: Ante up. Kittens mewing.
BUFFY: You're gonna play cards?! Halfrek appearing in the living room.
HALFREK: I have been called, and vengeance shall I wreak. Anya gasping.
HALFREK: Hello.
ANYA: Halfrek!
HALFREK: Anyanka? Anya and Halfrek squealing and hugging.
ANYA: How are you?
XANDER: You two, you know each other?
ANYA: Funny, Halfrek, I didn't summon you to kill Xander, I called to invite you to our wedding. Willow and Tara outside the magic shop.
WILLOW: Tara. What are you doing here? Uh, it's okay for you to be here if you have things that ... you have to be here for. I'm doing better. No spells for 32 days. Tara and Buffy in the living room.
TARA: Buffy, I promise, there's nothing wrong with you.
BUFFY: There has to be. Why do I feel like this? Why do I let Spike do those things to me? Buffy and Spike kissing.
TARA: Oh!
BUFFY: Don't tell anyone, please.
TARA: I won't.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Teaser
[SCENE_BREAK]
Open on a small table with several stakes and daggers on it. Reveal Buffy who begins putting the weapons into a bag. We're in the Summers living room. Dawn stands behind Buffy.
BUFFY: (sighs) I'm sorry.
DAWN: It's okay.
BUFFY: No, we're gonna sit down and have a real dinner. Someday. I hate having to run out in the middle, it's just, you know, there's this thing out there. Definitely non-vampire.
DAWN: (smiling) I understand. Buffy picks up the bag, goes toward the door.
DAWN: Well, maybe when you get back we can set up for your party tomorrow.
BUFFY: Yeah. Uh, this could take a while though, I-I wouldn't wait up. (putting on her coat) Besides, Willow promised to be on birthday patrol, so there's nothing left for us to do. (smiling)
DAWN: Right.
BUFFY: Okay, so, finish dinner, homework, and don't stay up too late, all right?
DAWN: Okay.
BUFFY: Okay. Buffy turns to go. Dawn watches with a smile. As soon as the door closes behind Buffy, Dawn stops smiling. Stands there, alone, looking unhappy.
Cut to graveyard, night. Buffy walks along holding a large axe with a metal handle. Suddenly a large demon with red skin and a spiny crest on its head leaps out behind her. Buffy whirls around. The demon swings a large sword at her. She ducks, then blocks with her axe. The demon's sword bends the axe handle, then pulls it out of Buffy's hand. It flies off and lands in the ground. The demon swings at Buffy again and she gets hold of his sword arm, twists it around behind his back. Suddenly the demon shimmers and disappears. Buffy looks around in confusion. The demon reappears behind her. She kicks him in the face, punches him, kicks again. He falls back. His sword goes flying up into the air. Buffy catches the sword on its way down. The demon charges her. She stabs him right in the stomach. Blue light flashes out in a circle from the wound. The demon roars and grabs his stomach. Buffy pulls the sword out and falls back onto the ground. The sword lands point-down in the ground. The demon falls to his knees, still roaring. He shimmers and turns into a bolt of silver light that shoots over to the sword and into it. We can see his face reflected in the sword's blade. Buffy is still on the ground, facing the other way.
BUFFY: Run off, huh? Afraid to face a true warrior? She gets up and sees the sword.
BUFFY: Ooh, shiny. She smiles, pulls the sword out of the ground and twirls it around. Walks off, holding it. Wolf howl, opening credits. Guest starring Kali Rocha, Ryan Browning, and Amber Benson as Tara. Written by Drew Z. Greenberg, directed by Michael Gershman.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Act I
[SCENE_BREAK]
Open in the magic shop. Anya stands by the shelves dusting statues.
ANYA: Do you think we should set up lots of candles for Buffy's party tomorrow? Pan over to reveal Xander and Willow sitting at a small round table doing paperwork.
XANDER: Not if they're that horrible slug kind you keep trying to unload.
ANYA: (walking past) I don't know why people get so turned off by slug.
XANDER: Honey, slugs get turned off by slug. (to Willow) Oh, actually, I wanted to talk to you about that.
WILLOW: Slugs?
XANDER: No, the party. Or, Tara ... at the party.
WILLOW: Oh.
XANDER: It's just ... Buffy really wants her there. It seems important to her, so I told her I'd ask you.
WILLOW: (smiling) Oh ... yeah, of course, she should totally be there. It'll be great. Dawn enters. She wears a red t-shirt with a beige sweater over it, and has a red coat over her arm.
DAWN: (smiling) Hey!
WILLOW: Hey, Dawnie. Buffy, uh, out patrolling already? (Dawn nods)
XANDER: So, uh, anything new about Warren and the Nerd Herd?
DAWN: No, just a big monster hunt.
XANDER: Man, a nerd goes into hiding, he really goes into hiding.
DAWN: Does anybody want to come to the mall with me for birthday presents?
WILLOW: Oh, I would, honey, but ... I've got my group. You know, the whole Spellcasters Anonymous thing? We're still looking for a better name.
DAWN: Oh. Well, yeah, uh, no, that-that's good. You should ... do that. (beat) So what about you guys?
ANYA: Stuck in doing-the-books-ville.
XANDER: Aw, I'd love to go with you, but I gotta finish this new shift schedule for the crew by tomorrow morning. Dawn looks disappointed.
WILLOW: Sorry, it just looks like one of those nights. You know?
DAWN: Yeah.
WILLOW: You okay going on your own?
DAWN: Yeah. Somehow I'll, uh, manage to pull it off. Willow gives her a little smile. Dawn grimaces, turns to leave.
Cut to: overhead shot of Sunnydale, night.
Cut to: exterior shot of the Summers house.
Cut to inside. Dawn enters the front door, cautiously, looking around. She is wearing the red coat. Pan across the foyer into the empty dining room.
DAWN: Buffy? Dawn starts up the stairs.
Cut to Dawn's bedroom. Overhead shot of Dawn as she enters, closes the door behind her, turns on the light. She puts her purse on the bed and reaches into her coat pockets.
Cut to a closer shot as she pulls a handful of jewelry from the pockets, still with the price tags attached. She looks at the handful for a moment, puts it on the bed, takes out another handful of jewelry and puts that on the bed too. She takes off her red coat, revealing a tight shiny leather jacket that she wears over the red t-shirt. She goes over to the closet, opens the door revealing a full-length mirror. She checks out the jacket in the mirror. We can see the price tag still hanging from the sleeve. She pulls the jacket tightly around her.
Cut to: high school classroom, next day. Pan across bored students.
TEACHER: ...if we can come up with things Jim lost during his years in Shanghai, and things he gained. (Shot of Dawn doodling)
STUDENT: Excuse me.
TEACHER: Who wants to- A student comes in and gives the teacher a piece of paper.
TEACHER: Dawn. Dawn looks up, alarmed.
TEACHER: They need you in the guidance office. Dawn continues looking alarmed as she gathers up her stuff.
Cut to: long shot of Dawn walking down an empty hall lined with lockers.
GUIDANCE COUNSELOR VOICEOVER: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scare you.
Cut to the outside of the office. Through opened venetian blinds we can see Dawn sitting across the desk from the guidance counselor woman.
GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: Just a follow-up after your ... your loss. And since I'm new here, I thought it would give us a chance to know each other.
Cut to inside the office. The guidance counselor is a fairly young woman wearing a small blue pendant around her neck.
DAWN: Great.
GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: So, I've been looking through your file (shuffling papers on her desk) and, um ... your grades have slipped a little.
DAWN: I have really hard classes this quarter.
GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: Yeah, still. Teachers say that you seem a little distracted lately.
DAWN: I'm not. I-I'm fine.
GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: Okay. It's just, you know, I know it must seem weird, (small laugh) talking to a stranger about stuff, but, um ... I want you to know that if something's going on, something's up, my job ... the most important part of my job ... is looking out for you. She smiles. Dawn looks surprised, returns a very small smile of her own.
DAWN: I'm really okay. The counselor nods slowly, sits back.
GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: I know there's been ... a lot of loss. Dawn looks down.
DAWN: (quietly) Yeah. Kinda. (looks up) I-I mean, yes. People keep ... people have a tendency to go away ... and, I miss them. And sometimes ... I wish I could just make them stop. Going away. The counselor smiles. Dawn pauses, waves her hands dismissively.
DAWN: But seriously, it's, it's no big deal. I'm fine.
Cut to: close shot on a table laden with several trays of hors d'oeuvres.
XANDER: (OS) We're feeding an army!
BUFFY: (OS) No, they couldn't make it. Pan out to reveal that it's the island in Buffy's kitchen. Anya is preparing the food while Buffy sits opposite. Xander stands beside Anya.
XANDER: So, who's coming, you invite anyone else?
BUFFY: Just you guys. Willow, Tara. The gang. Oh, and Sophie from work. Xander and Anya look at her, exchange a look.
BUFFY: What? Like I'm one of those losers who can't make friends outside her tight little circle? No. I'm friendly. We bonded instantly. Peas in a pod. Bonded peas.
ANYA: Really? Um, what's Sophie's last name? Buffy thinks for a moment, frowns.
BUFFY: (pouting) Okay, shut up.
XANDER: Don't worry about it, we're all over the new friend thing. (Anya smiling)
BUFFY: What ... new friend thing?
ANYA: (smiling) Well, well ... we invited someone for you. Buffy looks horrified.
ANYA: (whispers) A guy.
DAWN: (entering) For Buffy? Really? (smiling)
XANDER: Ahh, don't worry, it's not a setup.
ANYA: (grinning) Right. No. Just an attractive single man, with whom we hope you find much in common. (Buffy looking annoyed) And if you happen to form-
XANDER: Ahn-
ANYA: -a romantic relationship leading to babies-
XANDER: Ahn-
ANYA: -and many double dates with us so we have someone else to talk to, yay! Xander looks uncomfortable.
BUFFY: I assume this was an act of kindness? (Xander looking embarrassed) That'll help with the not throttling. Buffy gives Xander a meaningful look. He gives a fake laugh.
XANDER: Hey, I'm just gonna get this stuff out there, people should be here soon. He picks up some of the food.
Cut to the foyer, later. Buffy opens the door to reveal Tara, holding a small gift box.
BUFFY: Hey! You made it! They smile and hug.
TARA: Of course, sweetie. (pulls back) So, how're you doing?
BUFFY: Oh, you know. Better. Mostly. (Tara looking sympathetic) Sometimes.
TARA: So, is, um... (looks around) Spike coming?
BUFFY: No. He may be a chip-head, but ... he still doesn't play too well with others. Tara smiles, turns to put down the gift and hang up her coat.
BUFFY: Besides, I'm definitely not ready to, to...
TARA: (turns back) Come out.
BUFFY: (smiles) Yeah. I'm all ... stay-inny. Tara smiles and nods.
Cut to upstairs. Willow is standing in front of a mirror, very nervously adjusting her clothing. Cut back to downstairs.
BUFFY: How are you doing?
TARA: (anxious) The word "gulp" comes to mind.
BUFFY: (sympathetic) Just remember, we're all here...to... Willow appears at the top of the stairs, coming down. Tara looks nervous.
BUFFY: ...I have to, with the thing that I, uh... Coming! Buffy exits ungracefully. Tara and Willow face each other nervously.
WILLOW: Hey.
TARA: Hey.
WILLOW: Hey. (pause) How are you?
TARA: Fine, thanks, I'm ... I'm fine. I, how are you?
WILLOW: (smiling) Great! I mean... (stops smiling) Fine. I'm, I'm ... finey McFine. Fine.
TARA: Y-you look...
WILLOW: (smiles) Thanks. (stops smiling, looks embarrassed)
TARA: I mean ... great.
WILLOW: (embarrassed) Thanks. You do too. Is that a new-
TARA: Oh, yeah. (glancing nervously at her dress)
WILLOW: It's nice.
TARA: Thanks. Very awkward silence.
TARA: I-I'm gonna get something to drink.
WILLOW: Oh, yeah, great. You should. Tara exits toward the kitchen.
WILLOW: (muttering to herself) You don't wanna get thirsty.
Cut to the kitchen. Buffy is filling paper cups from a large pitcher. Tara enters.
BUFFY: Hey, how did it-
TARA: Yes please. Tara takes a cup from Buffy's hand and drinks. Buffy looks surprised. Knocking at the back door. Buffy stands up. Spike enters, holding a 6-pack of beer under one arm. Someone else enters behind him but we can't see who it is.
BUFFY: (surprised) Spike.
SPIKE: Yeah. Willow mentioned the shindig ... figured we're all part of the team. We see that Spike still has a large bruise over one eye from being beaten by Buffy in "Dead Things." Buffy gives Tara a nervous look.
SPIKE: Thought I'd, uh, swing by. Reveal the other person behind Spike. It's the loose-skinned demon from the poker game in "Life Serial." Buffy frowns.
BUFFY: Wait, what kind of team is this?
DEMON: Hi. We met once before.
BUFFY: Yes, yes we did.
SPIKE: You know, more, merrier, that whole thing.
DEMON: (to Tara) Hi, I'm Clement. Clem.
TARA: Tara. Xander enters with a young hunky blond man wearing a red shirt (Star Trek fans, take note).
XANDER: Buffy, Richard.
BUFFY: (smiling) Hey.
XANDER: He was wondering where the best place was to park his car.
BUFFY: Oh, that's easy, just-(pointing)
XANDER: Buffy will show ya. Xander shoves Richard toward Buffy. They look at each other nervously.
BUFFY: Okay, uh... (to Tara) I'll be right back. Over Richard's shoulder, Buffy looks at Spike. He raises one eyebrow. Buffy takes Richard's arm and leads him toward the front. Richard pauses in the doorway.
RICHARD: (whispers) Uh ... the guy with the...
BUFFY: Skin condition. He doesn't like to talk about it. Buffy leads Richard away.
SPIKE: Stupid git! (closing the back door)
TARA: I don't know. He seemed ... cute. W-was he cute? I mean, I'm not a very good judge, but... Spike scowls.
TARA: (grinning) I think he seemed cute.
CLEM: (agreeably) I think he seemed cute, yeah. Spike gives them both a look of outrage.
Cut to the living room. Xander sits on the sofa; Dawn and Anya stand nearby.
DAWN: If we get Buffy, can, can she start on opening the presents? It's been enough time, hasn't it?
ANYA: Not yet, sweetie.
XANDER: I think Buffy's busy right now.
ANYA: (as if talking to a small child) Buffy's making a new friend. A grown-up friend.
DAWN: What, you mean the guy you invited to set her up with?
ANYA: Nothing.
DAWN: It's not like I don't understand why you invited him. I was there, remember? I can hear you when I'm in the room, you know? (Anya just nodding) I do understand these things.
ANYA: (patronizing) Yes you do! (patting Dawn on the head)
DAWN: You know I'm in high school, right?
ANYA: Yes you are! Dawn stares at Anya in disbelief.
Cut to Buffy coming down from upstairs. Spike intercepts her in the foyer and backs her into a corner.
SPIKE: You wanna slip away for a minute, luv?
BUFFY: What?
SPIKE: I'll let you blow out my candles.
BUFFY: Here. Now? I don't think so.
SPIKE: Oh, what, you worried about Richard? You don't wanna make your new boyfriend jealous, huh?
BUFFY: (grinning) Shut up. He's ... sweet.
SPIKE: (teasing) "Oh, shut up, he's sweet."
BUFFY: Maybe he's not the jealous one. Spike looks surprised. Buffy moves past him and away.
SPIKE: You think he'll take you out on his ten-speed, pet? (to himself) Maybe he'll let you ride in that little basket in the front. (scoffs) Jealous my ass. He sighs, looks around in frustration.
Cut to later. Buffy sits on the sofa, looking skeptically at a device with a large head with two round knobs on it.
BUFFY: Uh... We see Willow sitting on Buffy's right. Dawn sits on Buffy's left, fidgeting very obviously.
WILLOW: See? i-it's a battery-operated back massager. And it's portable so you can take it with you on patrol.
BUFFY: (dubious) Wow.
WILLOW: (smiling) It's like, instant gratification for all your little acheys. Buffy looks over at Spike leaning in the doorway. Spike raises his eyebrow and gives his best suggestive smirk.
BUFFY: (quickly) Great! Thanks! (puts the massager aside) Uh, what's next?
DAWN: (excited) Here, do mine. Dawn turns to pick up a large flat box behind her, gives it to Buffy. Buffy begins unwrapping it. Shot of Spike watching, glancing over at Clem. Shot of Clem and Tara watching. Buffy removes the paper to reveal a plain white box. She opens it and looks inside.
BUFFY: (surprised) Dawn. Close shot on the box, containing the black leather jacket that Dawn was wearing earlier.
DAWN: (smiling) Do you like it?
BUFFY: (lifting it out of the box) It's ... gorgeous.
DAWN: I was so nervous. I was afraid you wouldn't like it. Buffy looks at the jacket, frowns. Close shot on the sleeve which has the security tag attached.
BUFFY: I-it still has the security tag on it. Dawn looks alarmed, covers quickly.
DAWN: Huh. That's so weird. I can't believe they didn't take that off. Buffy stares at her.
XANDER: (OS) Happy birthday, Buffy! Everyone turns to see Xander and Anya wheeling in a large wooden chest.
BUFFY: Oh my god! Xander and Anya place the chest in the middle of the room and gesture proudly.
BUFFY: Did you guys make that? Buffy gets up, thrusting the box with the jacket into Dawn's lap. Dawn looks dismayed.
ANYA: Uh, well, uh, Xander did the building. (Dawn still looking upset) I offered helpful suggestions while observing from a safe distance. Buffy kneels down to open the chest. Xander holds the lid open and leans over to speak softly so Richard won't hear.
XANDER: Holds basic weapons, (Buffy smiling) plus a few non-basic ones too. (loudly) Plus, there's a handsome CD holder. Shot of Dawn looking disgusted, folding the jacket back into the box.
ANYA: (OS) We wanted you to have something no one else would have.
BUFFY: (OS) A Xander Harris original. Sound of the doorbell ringing.
BUFFY: I love it. Thanks, you guys! Buffy leans across the chest to kiss Xander on the cheek. In background we see Tara opening the front door.
TARA: Buffy? Buffy hugs Anya, turns around.
BUFFY: Oh! Sophie! We see a nervous-looking young woman standing in the doorway.
BUFFY: Welcome! (Sophie exchanging smiles with Tara) Uh, we're somewhere between, uh, presents and cake. (to Anya) There is gonna be cake eventually, right? (Anya nodding)
SOPHIE: (walking into the living room) Hey. Uh, my mom told me to say thank you right away, 'cause, otherwise I usually forget. So, thank you. Buffy and Anya listen to this politely. We see Spike in the background watching.
SOPHIE: And, also, um, I can't have any, any chocolate, or, or peanuts or egg yolks.
ANYA: (whispers to Buffy) Is this the friend you brought from work?
BUFFY: Yes.
SOPHIE: A-and sometimes dairy.
BUFFY: No problem. Sophie looks around at the others. Clem gives her a friendly smile and wave. Tara smiles too.
ANYA: (whispers to Buffy) Our friend is better. Dawn gets up and moves toward the foyer as Sophie moves farther inside. Spike remains leaning against the door frame.
BUFFY: (OS) Uh, we can do official introductions now that everyone's officially here. Dawnie, you mind getting the door? Dawn goes past Spike and Tara to the open door.
BUFFY: (OS) Sophie, this is Anya ... and Willow... Shot from on the porch looking in. Dawn stands in the doorway, looks unhappily back at the party, then outside. Slowly, she closes the door. Pan across the outside of the door to the porch. Dawn's guidance counselor walks out of the shadows, on the porch. She walks over to the front door, smiling slightly. She stops walking and her face morphs into demon-face -- she is Halfrek. She speaks in her deep resonant demon voice (see episode "Doublemeat Palace").
HALFREK: Wish granted. Blackout.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Act II
[SCENE_BREAK]
Open on the party. Loud rock music is playing. Pan across Sophie and Clem dancing together. Pan across Willow sitting in a chair with Xander sitting on its arm, both talking and moving to the beat. Pan to the sofa where Anya sits waving her hand to the beat. Dawn sits beside her, looking bored. Zoom in on Dawn. She looks like she's trying to pretend she's enjoying herself. She experiments with a couple of different smiles.
Cut to the foyer. Buffy comes out of the dining room and encounters Richard in the hall.
RICHARD: Hey.
BUFFY: Hi.
RICHARD: Great party. Everyone's havin' fun.
BUFFY: (smiling) I hope so.
RICHARD: I mean, look what time it is and no one's even thinking about leaving. I, uh ... can't tear myself away.
BUFFY: (smiling uncertainly) Yeah?
RICHARD: Yeah. Can I get you a drink? Behind Richard we see Spike appear in the living-room doorway, observing.
BUFFY: Uh ... I'm good, thank you.
RICARD: Okay.
BUFFY: (awkward) I think I'll just ... head back in.
RICHARD: Well ... I'll look for you.
BUFFY: (smiling) Okay. Richard smiles, goes past her and into the dining room.
SPIKE: Ooh, Buffy. (Buffy rolling her eyes) Can I get you a soda pop? I think I'm in looove. Spike walks up to her, smirking. He tries to take her hands but she pulls them away. But she is smiling too.
BUFFY: Stop it. Someone's gonna see. She walks toward the kitchen. Spike follows, stops her at the doorway, putting one hand on the wall beside her head to block her way.
SPIKE: Mm-hmm. He puts his other hand on her shoulder, runs it down her arm, takes her hand and pulls it onto his thigh. Someone appears at the other end of the hall. Buffy quickly pulls her hand back as both she and Spike look over. It's Tara, looking a bit taken aback. Buffy glances at Spike, pushes past him and exits toward the kitchen. Spike looks at Tara with a slightly nervous smile. Tara looks innocent.
SPIKE: I had ... a ... muscle cramp. Buffy was, uh, helping.
TARA: (small grin) A muscle cramp? In your ... (looks down at him, then away) pants?
SPIKE: What, it's a thing.
TARA: (grinning) Right. She walks off. Spike looks disgruntled.
ANYA VOICEOVER: No, you go.
Cut to the dining room. Xander sits in a chair with Anya on his lap, both nuzzling each other in disgusting coupley fashion. Sophie and Willow sit opposite.
XANDER: (teasing, nuzzling) No, you go.
ANYA: (teasing, nuzzling) No, you go.
WILLOW: Okay! Xander and Anya stop, look over at Willow.
WILLOW: It's just a beer run, I'll go.
SOPHIE: Oh, well, I can't really drink beer, 'cause you know, barley. But I'll go with you to get some.
WILLOW: Perfect. Here we go. The beer-gettin'. They all continue to sit there, not moving. After a moment Willow leans over and puts her head on the table. Xander and Anya resume nuzzling.
Cut to the living room. Dawn, Buffy, Richard, and Anya are playing Monopoly on the coffee-table.
BUFFY: This sucks. I'm out. (giving money to Anya)
RICHARD: No way. I think you're doing fine. Pan over to the other table where Clem, Xander, Spike, and Tara are playing cards.
XANDER: (to Buffy) You wanna try poker?
CLEM: Still say it's weird without the kittens.
BUFFY: No kittens. (Richard giving her a funny look) He's quirky.
RICHARD: Look, we've already been playing for like three hours, it's, you know, it's like two-something in the morning. You can't bail now.
ANYA: Yeah, come on, Buffy, stay. I wanna bankrupt somebody. (Buffy giving her a sour look)
DAWN: Oh! We should totally have a slumber party.
BUFFY: (uncertain) Oh, I don't know... (looking around) I guess, as long as everyone's staying up anyway.
SPIKE: Must be some late-night activities to keep us busy till morning. (giving Buffy a suggestive look) (Buffy glaring at him)
TARA: How's that cramp, Spike? Still bothering you?
SPIKE: What? Oh. Yeah.
TARA: Maybe you, uh, wanna put some ice on it. Tara gives an innocent little smile. Spike looks confused, frowns, looks at his cards. Shot of the foursome playing Monopoly. Close shot of Dawn looking around and smiling hugely.
Cut to later. Sunlight coming in the windows. Willow and Sophie are asleep on the sofa. Xander, Dawn, and Clem sit on the floor watching cartoons on TV. The Monopoly game, food, beverages, presents, etc. are scattered everywhere. Pan across the room to Buffy and Spike sitting on the floor beside the new weapons chest. Buffy is shuffling the deck of cards. Richard enters from the kitchen.
RICHARD: Hey Xander, we gotta be at work in a few minutes. Close shot of the three watching TV.
XANDER: (staring at TV) Okay. Shot of the cartoons playing on the TV.
RICHARD: I can't be late today.
SPIKE: You should definitely go. Let's find your coat and get you on your merry way.
BUFFY: Spike.
RICHARD: (confused) I don't know why I'm not leaving.
SPIKE: Me either. Besides, Richie, you can't skip breakfast. Growing boy like you. (Buffy glaring at him) Me, I used to love breakfast. In the old days, I probably would have eaten by now. (looks menacingly at Richard)
BUFFY: Of course, with that new diet of yours, you wanna be careful what you try puttin' in your mouth now, Spikey. (giving him a meaningful look)
SPIKE: Yeah? I don't know. Tummy's making all kinds of gurglies. Maybe I oughta just feed on whatever's around... (Buffy looking at Richard. Richard looking bemused) even if it doesn't go down well. (to Richard) You, uh, work out?
BUFFY: Okey-dokey. Buffy quickly gets up, grabs Spike by his sleeve, hauls him to his feet and toward the door.
BUFFY: (to Richard) 'Scuse us. Buffy hauls Spike into the foyer.
BUFFY: Hey, Mister Passive-Aggressive Guy. Seriously, you wanna take it down a notch or two in there?
SPIKE: What, poor dainty Richard can't take a joke?
BUFFY: (firmly) We do not joke about eating people in this house!
SPIKE: (angrily) What are you gonna do, beat me up again?
BUFFY: I should have thrown you out the second you got here. (Spike rolling his eyes) I was insane to ever think you could just hang out with my friends.
SPIKE: And *I* was insane to think... (pauses) No, wait. You were right. *You're* insane.
Cut to the kitchen. Tara is pouring milk into a bowl of cereal.
WILLOW: (OS) Oh, hi.
TARA: (looks up) Hey. Willow walks over, stands by the island across from Tara.
TARA: Breakfast. Didn't really plan for a sleep-over.
WILLOW: I know, me either. It's weird, I ... I have class, and I know I should go, but...(sits)
TARA: I know, i-it's like, I wanna leave, but I don't want to.
WILLOW: (smiles) Exactly. Tara smiles back. Cut back to the foyer. Buffy and Spike continue arguing.
BUFFY: (angrily) I think it's time for you to go.
SPIKE: Yeah, well, can't. (gesturing) Daylight.
BUFFY: Okay. I'll go.
SPIKE: I'll get the door.
BUFFY: Fine!
SPIKE: Fine!
BUFFY: I'm actually trying to move right now.
SPIKE: (quieter) Me too. They both stand there, not moving. Buffy sighs, frowns.
BUFFY: Well ... this can't be good. Spike shakes his head, agreeing.
Cut to the living room. The entire party is gathered. They all sit or stand around, staring at each other.
BUFFY: There's something keeping us in this house.
XANDER: Or someone.
TARA: Has everyone tried to get out?
WILLOW: What if we just, like, as a group, got up and, and threw ourselves at the door?
XANDER: All right. Count of three. (everyone preparing) One ... two ... three! No one moves.
XANDER: Here we go! Still nothing. Buffy looks around. Shot of Dawn sitting off to the side, looking sullen.
BUFFY: Hence the problem.
RICHARD: I really need to go. I mean, I have a job to get to.
ANYA: I have to open the Magic Box.
SOPHIE: I have a shift at the DoubleMeat. (thinks) Actually, I'm okay here.
CLEM: Yeah, I'm, I'm fine.
XANDER: Willow and Tara have class, I gotta be at the site.
BUFFY: I know, I know, we all have places that we'd rather be. Shot of Dawn looking up at that, looking upset.
SPIKE: (softly) Things we'd rather be doing.
BUFFY: I think the first priority has to be to find a way out.
DAWN: Sure. Of course you all wanna leave. (Buffy looking at her) 'Cause being stuck in here with me, that would really suck, right? Buffy frowns slightly.
WILLOW: No, Dawnie! It's just, we have more important things to do.
DAWN: (disgusted) Yeah, I know. Important. (gets up) Whatever that means, right? Dawn storms past them and up the stairs. They all watch her go. Everyone looks at Buffy.
Cut to Dawn's bedroom. Dawn runs in, flops down on her stomach on the bed. Buffy enters, followed by Tara, Willow, Xander, and Spike.
BUFFY: Dawn?
DAWN: What?
BUFFY: Did you do something?
DAWN: (exasperated) Me?
TARA: Do you know something? 'Cause we want you to feel like you can tell us. Dawn sits up, turns to face them.
DAWN: (angrily) What would I know?
WILLOW: Look, we're not accusing you of anything, it's just ... you were kind of taking it personal down there.
DAWN: Oh. Okay. So you've all just decided that somehow I'm responsible. (sourly) Great. Here's me baskin' in the love.
XANDER: No, it's just, you know, you're upset 'cause we all wanna leave. And now we can't leave. Only thing missing is a cornfield. There ... there isn't a cornfield, is there?
BUFFY: Dawnie, it's okay. You know, we're not gonna be mad.
DAWN: Yeah, only I didn't do anything!
WILLOW: You sure?
DAWN: You want me to ask my other self?
BUFFY: Dawn, we're just trying to figure out what's going on.
DAWN: (angrily) Figure it out yourself. I'm done being talked to like a kid.
XANDER: Well, 'cause you know, sometimes we do something that seems like a good idea at the time, like, say, invoke the power of a musical amulet? And it turns out, you know, not so much.
DAWN: God! I didn't do anything! I wish I had. (Buffy frowning) I'm glad you're trapped. (very angrily) How else can I get anybody to spend any time with me?
BUFFY: Dawn. If you want us to spend time with you-
DAWN: I don't. Get out. Buffy stares at her.
DAWN: (shrieking) Get out, get out, get out! The others exit, leaving only Buffy and Dawn. Dawn turns away angrily, lies down on her stomach on the bed again. Buffy stares at her for a moment, then leaves.
ANYA VOICEOVER: I think she's possessed.
Cut to downstairs. Anya and Xander sit side-by-side on the sofa.
XANDER: She's a teenager. We see Buffy, Willow, and Spike sitting around too. Tara comes in from the dining room.
TARA: Phones are all out, we're totally cut off. They all sigh and groan.
BUFFY: (quietly) She's just so angry.
TARA: It happens. We all went through it.
BUFFY: I know. I just can't figure out why she didn't come to me.
XANDER: Well, you have been a little busy lately. Xander and Anya look at Buffy. She looks grim.
SPIKE: Hey, I don't wanna keep you all from the touchy-feelies, but maybe the encounter group can meet later. Say, when we're not trapped in a house.
TARA: Even if Dawn does know something, she's obviously not gonna help us right now. We need another way.
BUFFY: I think magic's gonna be our best bet. (Willow looking alarmed) Something general, you know? Cast a wide net. (Tara nodding)
XANDER: But ... Willow. (gesturing toward Willow with his head)
TARA: No, I'll do it. (Willow fidgeting nervously) It's just, o-obviously I didn't bring any supplies. Willow looks guilty.
BUFFY: (OS) Well, we don't have any in the house. We got rid of everything.
WILLOW: Actually ... not everything. (guilty) I, uh... might have ... kept one or, or two things. Sort of. Tara and Buffy look shocked.
WILLOW: ...just in case.
XANDER: That's great! Beat. Anya, Tara, and Buffy look somber.
XANDER: ...in a very bad way. (shaking finger at Willow) Tara sighs, stands up.
TARA: (to Willow) Just ... bring me what you have. (firmly) But I'm doing this alone. You need to stay away from it. Tara exits, leaving the others to sit around looking grim.
Cut to: exterior shot of the house, day.
Cut to the kitchen. Buffy and Xander watch as Tara mixes ingredients, using kitchen implements and bowls. She scoops a damp mixture of herbs from one bowl into another and mashes it down.
Cut to the foyer. Willow, Spike, and Anya stand in a row in front of the front door.
ANYA: So we're supposed to just wait?
WILLOW: It won't take long. Sophie, Richard, and Clem appear in the dining-room doorway.
RICHARD: All right, somebody wanna tell me what's, what's going on here? We're trapped in a house by ... by what, some unseen force or something. (gesturing at the door) Who knows what she's doing in there. (pointing to the kitchen) And I have to tell you... (looks back at Clem scratching his head with clawed fingers) I don't think that's a skin condition. Cut back to the kitchen. Tara uses a match to set her mixture on fire, then blows out the match. Red smoke billows up out of the bowl. Shot of the smoke curling in a wavy line through the door toward the living room.
TARA: Release. The smoke curls over to where the demon sword is sitting, leaning against a china cabinet. The smoke swirls around the sword.
TARA: (calls) Try the door! Spike steels himself. Close shot of his hand curling into a fist. Close shot of his feet trying to move. Shot of the sword as the last of the magic swirls into it and a silvery puddle begins to swirl out of it onto the floor. Close shot on Spike's face as he grits his teeth and concentrates on the door. Close shot on the closed door. Willow and Anya both look at Spike. Close shot on Spike's fist uncurling.
SPIKE: (annoyed) No. Can't. They all look disappointed. Richard, Sophie, and Clem walk out into the foyer to join the other three. They all stare at the door. Spike rubs his forehead. Close shot on the still-closed door. Cut back to the living room. The fully re-formed demon picks up his sword. He growls. Sunlight glints off the sword blade. Blackout.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Act III
[SCENE_BREAK]
Open on the foyer. Clem, Sophie, Willow, Spike, Anya, and Richard stand staring at the closed door. The demon attacks them from the living room, growling. Everyone scatters, some of them screaming. The demon enters the foyer and swings his sword, slashing Richard across the stomach. On the back-swing, his sword arm hits Spike, who grabs the arm and struggles with the demon. Buffy, Xander, and Tara enter from the kitchen. Buffy tackles the demon, both landing on the living-room floor. Spike follows them in. The demon melts into the floor and disappears. Buffy sits up, frowning, then stands up. She and Spike exchange a confused look. Xander, Tara, and Anya bend over the injured Richard. The demon reappears behind Buffy, lifting his sword in both hands. Buffy grabs his hands. He shoves her back. She flies into Spike, and both of them go down. The demon disappears again. Buffy gets to her feet again.
SPIKE: What the bloody hell was that?
BUFFY: That's the demon I killed two nights ago.
SPIKE: The demon you thought you killed.
XANDER: It looks pretty bad. Buffy looks over in horror at Richard.
ANYA: Oh god. Oh, god. They roll Richard over onto his back, revealing a bloody gash that goes all the way across his stomach.
TARA: Let's get him upstairs. (to Buffy) We need to get him to a doctor soon.
BUFFY: (addressing everyone) Hey, i-it's gonna be okay. Spike looks annoyed, gets up off the floor.
BUFFY: Just trust me, I promise we'll be out of here soon.
Cut to: exterior shot of the house, night.
Cut to inside. Sophie stands holding a curtain aside, looking out at the darkness.
SOPHIE: Oh god. Oh god. Pull back to reveal the living room. Spike stands a little ways behind Sophie, arms folded. Buffy walks into the shot between them.
BUFFY: Okay, so maybe 'soon' was a bit of an overstatement.
SPIKE: So, you ever think about *not* celebrating a birthday? Just to try it, I mean.
BUFFY: I'm gonna go check upstairs. Keep an eye on things down here? Spike nods. Buffy turns to go.
BUFFY: You stay here, okay? We see that Buffy was addressing Dawn, who sits on the sofa looking sullen. Close shot on Dawn as Buffy exits. Weird creaking noises. Dawn looks around in alarm. Spike looks around too.
DAWN: What's that noise? It's in the walls, isn't it? Spike leans close to the wall, listening. Creaking noises continue. Spike moves slowly along the wall, listening.
Cut to Willow's bedroom. Richard lies on the bed trembling and breathing shallowly. Tara sits beside him, tending to his wound. Willow stands nearby. Creaking noises continue. Willow and Tara look around nervously. Tara resumes cleaning Richard's wound with a piece of gauze and a bottle of antiseptic. Richard looks around nervously. The noises continue.
Cut to the hallway. Buffy walks along slowly, holding a dagger, looking around. Looking the other way, she comes upon Clem and they both gasp in alarm.
CLEM: (nervously) Sorry. Buffy sighs.
Cut to another part of the house. Anya and Xander sit on the floor. Anya is panting and fiddling with the lapels of her white blouse, which is partly unbuttoned. She wears a black tank-top underneath it.
ANYA: Why is it so hot in here?
XANDER: You're just a little freaked out, that's all. It'll pass.
ANYA: He's gonna die. He's gonna die, and we're gonna watch.
XANDER: Ahn...
ANYA: And we're just sitting here. Why are we just sitting here? Why aren't we doing something?
XANDER: We are. We will. We've been through worse.
ANYA: (panting, rubbing her chest) Not like this. Not trapped like animals. Seriously, did someone turn on the heat? (unbuttoning her blouse) I can't breathe, I just ... oh, I just can't breathe ... I can't breathe...
XANDER: (grabbing her hands) Ahn, stop. Stop, Ahn, stop! He manages to stop her, and she turns to look at him.
XANDER: Listen to me. You're just freaking out, okay? It's normal. You're just ... you're just scared. We all are. We'll come up with a plan ... and we'll get through it, all right? (Anya nodding, creaking noises continue) We'll do something.
ANYA: What?
XANDER: I don't know. (brushing hair out of her face) Lemme get you some water, okay? (Anya nodding) It'll cool you down. I'll be back in a second, okay? Stay here, don't move. He gets up and leaves. Anya sits there panting.
Cut to the foyer. Xander comes down the stairs. Creaking noises continue. He looks around nervously. He reaches the bottom, turns toward the kitchen. Suddenly the demon emerges from the wall behind Xander and grabs him from behind. Shot of Anya sitting in the dark by herself as we hear Xander scream. Shot of Xander being held around the middle, arms pinned to his sides, with the sword at his throat. Shot of Spike hearing, running toward the noise.
ANYA: Xander? Xander struggles with the demon. Spike rushes in, grabs the demon's sword arm and tries to pull it away. But he can't, so instead he knuckle-punches the demon in the ribs. The demon growls and hits Spike with his elbow. Spike goes down. The demon throws Xander aside. He hits the wall and crouches there. Buffy rushes in, still holding the dagger. The demon turns to attack her. She ducks a sword-thrust. The demon kicks her dagger hand, and the dagger goes flying. The demon whirls around with the sword, slicing Xander's arm. Then turns back to Buffy.
BUFFY: Grab the sword! She kicks the demon and ducks another swing as Spike gets up and grabs the demon's sleeve, punches it in the face. The demon flings Spike back and he goes down yet again. Buffy grabs the demon's arms and kicks him in the stomach. He reels back and melts into the wall again. Spike gets up on his elbows and both he and Buffy watch the demon disappear.
BUFFY: Are you hurt? Shot of Xander on the floor, groaning in pain.
BUFFY: Here, let me see. Buffy takes a step forward but doesn't actually go to either of the men.
ANYA: (OS) Xander. Xander looks up. Anya stands at the foot of the stairs staring at him. Xander gets painfully to his feet and goes to Anya.
XANDER: It's okay. I'm okay, see? Shh. He strokes her face gently and leans his forehead against hers.
XANDER: (whispers) It's all right. I'm okay. Shot of Buffy watching this wistfully.
Fade to later. Buffy comes around a corner from the dining room to the foyer, and finds Dawn standing against a wall. Creaking noises continue.
BUFFY: It's getting kinda scary. You okay?
DAWN: (sullen, not looking at Buffy) Do you care?
BUFFY: (exasperated) Fine. Stay with Spike. Buffy walks off.
Cut to upstairs. Buffy walks into her bedroom. Dawn comes in behind her.
DAWN: It's not like I meant for this to happen.
BUFFY: I never said that you did.
DAWN: I didn't want this. Buffy turns to face her.
BUFFY: What did you want?
DAWN: (softly) Nothing.
BUFFY: Dawn, come on.
DAWN: No. You don't know! You have this thing you do. You have all these friends. (softly) You have no idea what it's like.
BUFFY: What are you talking about? I don't know what, what-
DAWN: Being alone!
BUFFY: You're not alone!
DAWN: Then why do I feel like this?
Cut to the dining room. Tara and Spike standing next to each other.
TARA: I just think we haven't thought of the right way out yet, that's all. Reveal Xander and Willow standing nearby, and Anya sitting at the dining-room table.
SPIKE: Well, we can't just stay put like cattle, waiting for that thing to pop out every time it gets peckish.
TARA: I'd say we do another spell, but I, I think we've tried everything.
ANYA: Well ... that's not completely true, is it? (Tara frowning) I mean, not everything. (looks at Willow) Not exactly. (Willow looking nervous) We're sitting here with an incredibly powerful witch ... much more powerful than you, Tara, I'm sorry ... only no one seems willing to say it.
WILLOW: I can't.
ANYA: No, see, that's not exactly true either. (angrily) Not can't, won't.
WILLOW: You don't know how much I hate this. I don't know if there's even ... anything I could do.
ANYA: Yes ... and a good way to find out is to sit around and try nothing. That was sarcasm, by the way.
SPIKE: Look-
WILLOW: It's dangerous.
ANYA: And so is all of us dying!
XANDER: Will ... look, I don't wanna gang up on you ... but Anya kinda has a point. (Willow looking anxious) We brought you back from it once. We're all here, it's just one little spell, (Spike shaking his head) whatever happens, we can bring you back again.
WILLOW: (firmly) No. I can't. (to Anya) If I start, I ... I might not be able to stop.
ANYA: And whose fault is that? (stands up, walks toward Willow) You know, if you hadn't gotten so much of this in your system in the first place-
TARA: Hey! You're gonna back off! Tara gets in between Willow and Anya, faces Anya down.
TARA: She said no, and that's it. You're not gonna make her do something that she doesn't want to. And if you try... (folds arms across her chest) You're gonna have to go through me first. Understood? Anya glares at her.
ANYA: Fine. If you all aren't willing to get us out of this, then I will do it myself. Anya walks past the witches and goes up the stairs. Shot of Sophie and Clem sitting on the sofa, watching Anya. Then exchanging a look.
Cut to Buffy's bedroom. Buffy and Dawn sit on the bed side-by-side.
BUFFY: I wish you would have told me.
DAWN: You haven't really been...
BUFFY: What? I haven't been what?
DAWN: Around.
BUFFY: Dawn ... the most important job that I have ... is looking out for you.
DAWN: (small smile) You sound like my guidance counselor. She give you a handbook or something? 'Talkin' to the Troubled Teen'?
BUFFY: (frowning) Counselor?
DAWN: It wasn't my idea. I didn't even know we had guidance counselors. She called me out of class like I was a total J.D.
BUFFY: And you'd ... never met her before?
DAWN: No, not until yesterday.
BUFFY: And ... she got you to start talking about things that bothered you at home?
DAWN: (uncertain) Uh ... yeah?
BUFFY: You didn't, by any chance, happen to ... express like a, a wish, or-or something, to her?
DAWN: (nervous) Um ... maybe just a little. Sound of thumping and crashing. Dawn and Buffy look up, both jump up.
Cut to Dawn's room. Anya is pulling books and stuff off the shelves.
XANDER: Honey, come on, this isn't the way, calm down.
ANYA: (still searching) She knows something. She knows something, we have to find out what it is. Anya begins looking through the drawers of Dawn's desk. Dawn and Buffy enter.
DAWN: Hey!
XANDER: Ahn, just stop for a second.
ANYA: There's gotta be a clue in here somewhere.
DAWN: Stop it! Dawn starts forward, but Buffy stops her.
BUFFY: Anya, it wasn't her fault. Anya picks up a small red box from the desk.
DAWN: No! Anya opens the box and Dawn's stash of stolen jewelry falls out onto the floor. Anya stares in shock, bends down to look. Xander, Buffy, and Dawn stare in varying degrees of surprise and dismay.
ANYA: Half this stuff is from the Magic Box. Anya picks up a few things, then picks up the entire handful, straightens up and glares at Dawn.
ANYA: How could you do this? Buffy looks at Dawn, who looks upset and goes running out of the room. Anya follows, then Buffy and Xander.
Cut to downstairs. Dawn comes running down the stairs with the others in pursuit.
ANYA: I work hard at that store, and I helped you! (grabs Dawn's arm, turns her around) I took care of you. This is how you say 'thank you'? Buffy comes up beside Anya.
BUFFY: Anya, hold on, okay? (to Dawn) Tell her you didn't do this. Tell her it's a mistake. Suddenly Buffy spots something over by the sofa. She looks shocked, walks that way.
DAWN: (anguished) No! Buffy walks over, stares down at the box holding the black leather jacket that Dawn gave her.
BUFFY: Oh. (looking at Dawn)
DAWN: (upset) Buffy...
ANYA: How are we supposed to trust you, Dawn? I mean, you ... you say you didn't put us here, but look at this stuff! How are we supposed to believe you? Shot of all the others gathering around.
BUFFY: Look, I-I don't think she- I don't think it's all her fault, okay? She ... there was a guidance counselor, or someone pretending to be a guidance counselor, she, she made Dawn make a wish.
ANYA: Guidance counselor? You made a wish to someone you've never seen before?
DAWN: (nervous) Yeah?
ANYA: Did she wear a pendant with a, with a dark blue stone?
DAWN: And little red flecks?
ANYA: Uhh, for crying out loud. (yells) Halfrek! (to Dawn) It's Halfrek, a vengeance demon. You made a wish to a vengeance demon.
DAWN: I didn't know.
ANYA: Only a vengeance demon can break her own vengeance spell. Nothing else will work. She's the only one who can get us out of here. (yells) Hallie, get your ass down here! Halfrek materializes just behind Anya, in a puff of smoke.
HALFREK: (deep resonant voice) You rang? Anya turns toward her. Suddenly Halfrek gasps and looks down. Close shot of Halfrek's stomach with the end of a sword protruding out of it. Close on Halfrek's face as she collapses to the floor, revealing the demon standing behind her. Close on Buffy staring in horror. Blackout.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Act IV
[SCENE_BREAK]
Open on the same scene. The demon attacks Buffy who grabs his hands and then punches him. Anya punches him from behind as well, distracting him.
ANYA: (punching) I hope you die, you stupid jerkface! The last punch sends him reeling back. He swings his sword and Anya leaps on him from behind, struggling with his sword arm while Buffy kicks him in the stomach. Spike leaps into the fray too, grabbing the demon from behind. The demon flings Anya off, she lands on the sofa. He flings Spike off too and swings the sword around randomly. Buffy ducks, watching for an opening.
XANDER: Anya! Xander ducks under the sword swings and runs over to the sofa. The demon hits Buffy in the face and she reels back. Spike attacks again, distracting the demon so Buffy can kick him. The demon falls to the floor and melts into it, disappearing. The demon immediately reappears behind Spike, who grabs his sword arm. The demon drops the sword. Spike continues holding his arm and kicking him.
SPIKE: The sword! Buffy picks the sword up off the floor as Spike continues struggling with the demon. Spike gives him a kick in the stomach and he reels backward as Buffy attacks with the sword. The demon turns and runs into the wall, disappearing into it. Buffy thrusts the sword into the wall where he went. The same blue light appears, suffusing everything as the others watch. The demon roars angrily. Close on the sword as the blue light fades and the hole in the wall closes up, the demon once again trapped in the sword. Buffy pulls the sword out of the wall and breaks it in two over her knee, causing one last flare of blue light. She throws the two halves down. Buffy looks over at Halfrek, who lies on the floor not moving.
ANYA: Her pendant! Get her pendant! Anya and Buffy rush toward Halfrek. But before they reach her she sits up and puts out her hand toward Anya, who goes flying backward onto the sofa again. Buffy stares.
HALFREK: (normal voice) There will be no touching of the pendant. Halfrek gets to her feet and brushes herself off, as everyone stares at her in surprise.
HALFREK: What? (laughs) Did you think I'd be stopped by a sword in the chest? She looks down at her chest, pulls at her blouse so we can see the rip in it.
HALFREK: Flesh wound. (Anya getting up) Honestly, Anyanka, you used to know better.
ANYA: (coming closer) How could you? Why would you do this?
HALFREK: I told you I was going to take care of some business while I was here in town.
ANYA: Yeah, but cursing us? Some of them are in the wedding party.
HALFREK: I just go where I'm- Halfrek pauses, looking to her right as Spike walks up.
HALFREK: (shocked whisper) William?
SPIKE: (frowning) Hey, wait a minute.
BUFFY: You guys know each other? Shot of Willow, Clem, Sophie, and Tara getting up and approaching slowly. Halfrek still staring at Spike, but now she snaps out of it.
HALFREK: (quickly) Uh, no. (laughs) No. She fiddles with her hair nervously.
SPIKE: (still frowning) Not really. Shot of Buffy looking confused.
TARA: I thought vengeance demons only punished men who wronged women.
HALFREK: Oh, that was Anya's little raison d'être. Most of us try to be a little more well-rounded. And actually, we prefer 'justice demon.' Okay? FYI.
ANYA: Well-rounded, huh? Is that how you explain your thing for bad parents?
HALFREK: Oh, it's not a thing. The children need me.
ANYA: Hmm! (coughing)Daddy issues(coughing)
HALFREK: Sling all the little barbs at me that you want, Anyanka, it doesn't change the fact that this girl was in pain, (pointing at Dawn) and none of you could hear it. (Dawn looks down) I could hear her crying out everywhere I went in this town. (Anya looking guilty) It was unbearable. And none of you knew. Halfrek looks at Buffy, shaking her head. Buffy looks upset.
HALFREK: You people deserve to be cursed. (shot of the others listening) Enjoy your time together. From now on ... all you have is time. (to Anya) Time ... and each other. Good luck! Shot of Spike frowning. Shot of Buffy looking upset. Shot of the others watching. Dramatic music swells. Halfrek makes a dramatic motion with both arms, but does not disappear. She looks surprised.
HALFREK: Wait ... (nervous laugh) Wait. Shot of Buffy looking surprised. Shot of Spike raising his eyebrows.
HALFREK: (muttering to herself) Time, and each other. Dramatic music. Dramatic arm gesture. Halfrek again fails to disappear. She looks annoyed.
ANYA: (rolling her eyes) It's the curse, Hallie.
HALFREK: Oh, for crying out loud. Fine, the curse is lifted! We can all leave now! ... Damn it. She snaps her fingers and disappears. Everyone else looks relieved and excited. Spike looks over at Buffy, who just looks pensive.
Cut to the kitchen. Tara is packing remnants of herbs into plastic baggies while Willow watches.
WILLOW: Thanks ... for before. And, and for taking this stuff with you.
TARA: (nodding) No problem.
WILLOW: Just so you know, I-I was never ... gonna use it. I mean, not really, I ... I just kept it like a safety net. 'Cause ... there was always this ... thing in the back of my head. This, you know, voice, saying, like, 'what if things get bad, I mean really bad? And what if you can't handle it?' A-and it made me panic, so ... that's why I kept a couple of things. I ... kept them so I-I didn't have to think about it, so I could focus on ... on getting better.
TARA: I get it. I-I really do. But it's time to work without the net, Will. (Willow looking anxious) You know, I don't know if you noticed, but it actually did get bad in there. Really bad, and ... and you still said no. Tara smiles, goes back to her task. Willow slowly begins to smile too.
Cut to the foyer. Anya and Xander come down the stairs, supporting Richard between them. Richard grimaces in pain. The others all gather around.
RICHARD: You have some weird friends.
XANDER: News from the file marked 'duh.' (to Buffy) We're gonna get him to the E.R. (Buffy nodding)
ANYA: And then we're gonna talk about payment. And Dawnie, there are two words I want you to get used to... Shot of Dawn looking nervous.
ANYA: (OS) Punitive damages.
BUFFY: (to Spike) Think it's worn off?
SPIKE: Just one thing to do. Spike walks toward the door. Everyone watches him anxiously. He takes hold of the doorknob, looks around at the others, opens the door with a flourish. Xander smiles happily. He and Anya begin carrying/helping Richard out. Willow, Tara, Sophie, and Clem follow excitedly.
Cut to outside. Xander and Anya, with Richard supported between them, emerge onto the porch. The others are close behind.
ANYA: Okay, who's pushing? They all start down the stairs.
TARA: Wow, look at the stars!
CLEM: (turning back to give Buffy a thumbs-up) Good party! Buffy remains in the foyer, giving a wry smile at Clem's remark.
XANDER: (OS) I just wanna run barefoot on the grass so I can feel the dew-drops between my... God, look at the stars! Spike gives Buffy a similar wry smile, then turns and walks out as well. Shot from inside, pointing out the front door at the group as they walk down the path to the street. Shot from outside, pointing in the front door as only Dawn and Buffy are left. Buffy walks forward, goes over to the doorway. Dawn turns and follows, stands a little ways behind Buffy, watching her sadly. Buffy looks at Dawn. Shot from outside. Buffy takes hold of the door and closes it. Dawn's face slowly breaks into a smile as the closing door hides them from our view. Blackout.
Summary:
| Dawn, feeling that nobody wants to spend time with her, makes a wish in front of a vengeance demon that everyone would stay with her. Fulfilling her wish, the demon causes everyone at Buffy's birthday party to be unable to leave. | 95 | 54,803 | 54,805 | 54,805 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Justified_04x01 | fd_Justified_04x01_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Кога? After breakfast. The lights down so much you can do it yourself. I put `em up there. You have got to learn to mutter quieter, 'cause I heard that. That was the point! What the heck? Dear lord. Sherman? Call the police! What is that? Well, sure as sh1t it ain't Santa Claus. Phone's ringin´ Raylan. Thank you, Donny. Donny? It's from Lebowski Netflix it, you can be one of the cool kids. Givens. Deputy Givens, this is Sharon Evans. I do bail bonds in Knoxville. Okay. We met at a law enforcement expo in Miami a few years ago. Want another one? Not of that. Oh, I'm sorry, I remember you. We, uh, had a drink. Several. From my mini-bar. I believe I also remember you polishing off a $20 tin of macadamia nuts. Yes, the most overrated of the nuts. Is that why you're calling? You want me to pay my fair share? No, I like it better you owing me. But this isn't a personal call, Raylan. I saw you're with the eastern district of Kentucky now. I need a hand up there. You interested?
Raylan: I haven't hung up. Jody Adair, 41, charged with double homicide, out on a quarter-million bail, skipped town two days ago. He's got an ex-wife in Lexington. You put eyes on him, I get Lexington P.D. To haul him in, and I'll make it worth your while.
Raylan: Chuckles. Meaning? How about three grand?
Raylan: Send me the address and a photograph. All right.
[ Cellphones beep ]
Raylan: You think you can manage the phones?
I'm gonna go out for a bit.
Rachel: Where you going?
Raylan: Oh, I got a thing.
Rachel: Don't get caught, dude. Anything I should know?
Raylan: No. No. Just a major prison break, the countryside's been overrun with fugitives. I got it.
[ Knock at the door ]
You show up before dawn with a bag of hamburgers? They get the toys that way. Come on *** let me in. Heck no. Why not, you've let me in every other time I've come by. No.
Raylan: Hey, Sharon. It's Raylan. Yeah, he's here. Listen... Hold up. You dropped something. Pick it up if you want. Asshole.
Raylan: Huh? No, not you. Won't let me in? Oh yeah I think you gonna let me in.
Raylan: [ Taps window ] You can have the burgers if you want. sh1t! Let's go, out. Mine's bigger than yours. Big enough to throw a bullet through this door, and you as well. Before I put one through your ear? You think this is the first time I've had a gun pointed at me? No. Could be your last though. I'm guessin' you know who I am. I can guess who you are, at least which team you play for. All this indicates you're not gonna shoot me. No. *** There you go. Sharon. How much I just bring him in?
♪ On this lonely road ♪ ♪ trying to make it home ♪ ♪ doing it by my lonesome ♪ ♪ pissed off, who wants some? ♪ ♪ I'm fighting for my soul ♪ ♪ God get at your boy ♪ ♪ you try to bogart ♪ ♪ fall back, I go hard ♪ ♪ on this lonely road ♪ ♪ trying to make it home ♪ ♪ doing it by my lonesome ♪ ♪ pissed off, who wants some? ♪ ♪ I see them long, hard times to come ♪
Boyd: So, you really have been saved. By the Lord Almighty and the word of his forgiveness.
Boyd: So, what happened? You sit down and start reading the good book? Or was there a human component involved in this soul saving? I got to be honest now, Boyd. A lot of times, the way you say things, I can't make hide nor hair.
Boyd: Well, were you saved on your own or in a church, hiram? Church. Last Chance Holiness.
Boyd: Well, that's new to me. I don't believe I've ever heard of that collection plate. It's new to Harlan. Well, right now it's just a tent in the woods. But preacher Billy... he's the real deal, Boyd... old-school. Been healing lots of the afflicted... Addicts. That's why your Oxy sales have dropped off a cliff, 'cause people getting off drugs, getting hooked on Jesus.
Boyd: Well, Hiram, receiving the Lord into your heart is a wonderful thing. But I do have to ask... when did your salvation occur? Last week.
Boyd: Well, then, there you go. What we have is a problem of arithmetics, 'cause you received a shipment of Oxy from us three weeks ago. Now, that gives you two solid weeks of selling before you saw the light. Now, by my count, Hiram, you got at least $10,000 of my money. I don't. I stopped selling before then.
Boyd: Well, then give me my Oxy back. Can't. I flushed that poison down the shitter.
Boyd: Poison? Why, you don't know your scripture. "He makes wine that gladdens the" "hearts of man"... psalms 104. And what are our goods but modern-day wine, albeit in a pill form? That's just you twisting the word of God for your own dark purposes. Where you going?
Boyd: I'm getting away from the window.
[ Screams ]
Boyd: Now, hiram, saved or not, you don't have my money by the time tomorrow night rolls around, the next firecracker's gonna go off in here.
[ Crickets chirping ]
Hey! Shut that off before anyone sees the light. What are you doing? Might as well pull some wire while we're at it. Got to love these old places. $20 copper right here. What is that? Well, let's pull and find out.
[ Siren wailing ]
sh1t! What do we do? We run, you dumb sh1t. Hey! I got dogs here! They're gonna rip your face off! Trained them to do it! God damn it!
[ Sighs ]
[ Floorboards creaking ]
Can't be local, or you'd have identified yourself as such.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Maybe you're federal. No bounty hunters allowed in the state of Kentucky.
Raylan: If you're gonna keep talking, I'm gonna put you in the trunk. Can I ask you something?
Raylan: What's that? It mean anything to you that I ain't never had no priors?
Raylan: Nope. That ain't none of my business. I just came to see my kids. She wouldn't let me see them. Can you fathom that?
Raylan: You got kids? Yeah.
Raylan: Do you get visitation? Huh?
Raylan: Visitation. Sure, just Sundays, and supervised, on account of I ain't have a place suitable for children. One of the reasons I moved on down to Knoxville. I ain't gonna see them. Why stick around?
[ Cellphone rings ]
Raylan: Hold on.
Only reason I'm in this jackpot was trying to get money for my kids.
Raylan: Okay, I need you to be quiet now.
[ Cellphone beeps ]
Hello? Hey, uh, Raylan. Yeah, look, it's Bob. Constable Bob sweeney down in Harlan, yeah. Look, uh, I'm at your daddy's house.
Raylan: Well, is it on fire? Only reason I can imagine you calling before dawn. Oh, sh1t. I think my arm's falling asleep.
Raylan: Stop talking. Uh, I'm headed up that way. Come on, I'm not gonna stop talking.
Raylan: I can stop by there. Hey, look, you gonna have to turn me in unharmed, or you gonna catch some sh1t.
Raylan: You don't need to do that. Okay, then.
[ Tires screech ]
Ow! sh1t! Ow!
Raylan: See you there. You know what your problem is? You got no self-awareness. You think trying to do right by your children excuses everything, even killing men. They were heroin dealers. If they'd just give up their money, none of this would have happened.
Raylan: Any problem, that's someone else's fault. You ever hear of the saying, "you run into an asshole in the" morning, you ran into an asshole. You run into assholes all day, you're the asshole"?
[ Car beeps ]
What?
Raylan: This could be a little uncomfortable. Just be cool and go with it. I get out of these, I'll tear you to pieces small enough to flush.
[ Rooster crows ]
[ Knock on door ]
Morning, sunshine. Look what I got for my girl. What is it? Well, open it and find out. You do that? With the paper? Watched a video on YouTube. Here. Wait, is it Oxy? No. Better. Not meth. I can't do any more of that. It's not meth. It's mellow. Oh, my God. Is this real? What? No, honey, there ain't no such thing as a million dollar bill. Are you sure? It's from a church. Got some religious screed on the other side. Some kids were handing them out by the stop 'n go. I thought it was funny, using it as I did.
[ Laughs ]
Now, I got another surprise for you, but you're gonna have to keep your eyes shut for that one. I can't wait.
[ Both laugh ]
[ Snorts ]
Keep them closed. They're closed. All right, now... open!
[ Growls ]
[ Screaming ]
[ Groans ]
Look at that... they busted the hinges. Still broke the lock. Would have been cheaper to break a window. You should put a sign up... "You thinking of breaking in," please break a window. "Thank you. The management."
Raylan: You just happened to be driving by, huh? No, I put a motion detector in. Sends me a text every time it goes off.
Raylan: How much is that costing me? It's in your bill. I'm not hiding it.
Raylan: Well, I ain't gonna cover that up with the smell of baking cookies.
[ Chuckles ]
I'll tell you what, though... Those wire-strippers are lucky. If I'd caught them, would have opened a Costco-sized can of whup-ass on them.
Raylan: Mm-hmm. I guess I can fix the door. Can you hire someone to handle this? I can. You know, Raylan...
Raylan: Hmm? I've been thinking. I'm gonna tell you something I haven't told a whole lot of people.
Raylan: About that time you were in high school, living in Florida? How... how'd you know that?
Raylan: Kid on the football team came at you at shop class. You took him out with a hammer. Ollie kemp. I tell you this before?
Raylan: Once during senior year when we were down at the lake. Was I drunk?
Raylan: I think we all were. Then again two months ago when I hired to watch this house.
[ Clears throat ]
What's that?
Raylan: I have not a clue. Ollie kemp... that was the guy. Size of a portable toilet. He come at me, and I just went berserker red on him. Put him in a coma. He's still in it, as far as I know.
Raylan: That's why your family moved to Evarts, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, what is that?
Raylan: It's a driver's license. Waldo truth. Yeah, I know it's a joke.
Raylan: What's that? Being a constable. You got to run for it. You only get $2,400 a year if you win, so nobody runs for it. Got to have your own car. Got to have your own everything. [ Scoffs ] I had to pay for these lights myself.
Raylan: $2,400 enough to live on? Well, I get $50 apiece for serving papers. State police got to charge $80, so everyone comes to me. You know, let them keep thinking I'm a joke. That's what I say. [ Chuckles ] They underestimate me at their peril.
Raylan: Just ask Ollie kemp. [ Scoffs ] If he could respond.
Raylan: Hmm. Let me tell you something, Raylan. If sh1t gets serious, you give me a call, and I'll grab my go bag and be ready to jump.
Raylan: Will do, Bob. You stay frosty.
[ Car alarm chirps ]
Raylan: All right.
Here's the deal. I got to do one more thing. Stay quiet, I'll let you back up front.
Ava: It was a costume. I know that now. See, Arnold's a furry. Usually he dresses up in, like, a bunny suit? But this one scared me. Plus I was on drugs, and it was a good costume. He gonna press charges?
Ava: He's the judge/executive. What's he gonna do? Tell everyone he was shot in a whorehouse wearing a bear costume?
[ Laughs ]
Ava: What the hell were you you doing with a gun?
Everybody's got a gun.
Ava: Why do you have a gun at work? I been hit.
Ava: One of these men beats you, you come to me, and I'll take care of it, you hear me? It's not just clients who hit.
Ava: Oh, you still griping about that? Case you forget, I also saved your life. Yeah, I killed a man for you. I punched you once. You think that's something, you ain't never been beaten. Look, I know that, Ava. I ain't... I-I ain't forget. It's just sometimes I get real scared... Jittery and... When I'm low, I just... [ Sighs ] I just feel so low, Ava.
Ava: That's why I told you to get off the meth. Yeah.
Ava: No coke, either. You can't do the jittery stuff, Ellen may. The comedown off that's worse than anything. Yeah.
Ava: What was it Arnold gave you? He wouldn't say. Just that it wasn't... It wasn't Oxy.
Ava: [ Sighs ] Well, you know there's gonna be consequences. What kind?
Ava: I don't know. I'll talk to Boyd, and we'll figure it out. What is this? It's what Arnold had his drugs in. It's not real.
Ava: "Last chance holiness" "church."
[ Sighs ]
Whatever me and Boyd decide, you can't have a gun at work. I know that, Ava. I'm sorry. How's Arlo getting along? If you don't mind my asking.
Raylan: He's in prison. I know. I was wondering about his mental state.
Raylan: Well, like I said, Mike, he's in prison. Raylan, the last time he came in here, he stood over there by the paints for five minutes. Did not move, just staring. Unnerved the hell out of me.
Raylan: Hmm. You know, you see your old man, you say, uh... oh, hell. I have absolutely no idea what you should say to him.
Raylan: Well, that's okay, Mike. I don't plan on seeing him. That's a good plan.
[ Screws clatter ]
You know, I've been told I got a screw loose, but this is just crazy.
[SCENE_BREAK]
You want one?
Raylan: Want one what? A screw. [ Chuckles ]
Raylan: How old are you? Old enough.
Raylan: I think I got everything I came for. Thank you. Mike, you need a cleanup on aisle whatever. Hey, hold up a sec. I need your opinion. How are these? See, I'm a late bloomer. I didn't get them till just last year.
Raylan: Patience is a virtue. Miss, you can't go out this way. Well... [ laughs ]
Raylan: Mike, where'd that little girl go? She just flashed me her titties then scooted out the back. Why?
Raylan: My car's gone. Oh.
Johnny: Well, maybe what hiram told you is true.
Ava: Our drug business is being squeezed by some backwoods preacher? [ Chuckles ] I don't buy it.
Johnny: Maybe it's because the fda, they went and changed the formula for Oxy... makes it harder to get high.
Boyd: Our supply's from before the change.
Johnny: And they went down and changed the laws in Florida. That hasn't helped much.
Ava: You been watching CNN.
Johnny: I tell you what I haven't been doing, and that's allowing one of my whores to shoot a customer.
Boyd: I'll discuss Ava's failings when it's her turn in the barrel. Right now it's cousin Johnny's time. Now, all your talk of the fda and Florida laws didn't explain why my Oxy sales have dropped off in my voting district. And frankly, I'm nonplussed by your lack of motivation, Johnny, 'cause it ain't just my bottom line being affected.
Johnny: All right. I'll check it out.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Ava: I got failings?
Boyd: Well, clearly outweighed by your attributes.
Ava: Mm.
Boyd: How'd you handle Ellen may?
Ava: As much as told her wait till daddy got home.
Boyd: All right, well, we'll figure something out.
Ava: Mm.
Boyd: Confined to quarters, bread and water.
[ Both laugh ]
Who was the John?
Ava: Arnold.
Boyd: Well, he ain't gonna say nothing to nobody.
Ava: Mnh-mnh.
Boyd: [ Groans ] No one ever said running a criminal enterprise was gonna be this hard, huh?
Ava: They left that part out on career day.
Boyd: [ Sighs ]
Ava: You want a dr pepper?
Boyd: Well, is it 10:00, 2:00, or 4:00?
Ava: It is 9:21.
Boyd: Never too early for a dr pepper.
Ava: All right. One dr pepper.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Thank y. Mm-hmm. Is Boyd in? Who? Boyd crowder. He in? Don't know anybody by that name.
[ Pool balls clacking ]
Johnny: Where you from, friend?
Little town in Maryland. Bel air. It's the birthplace of John wilkes booth.
Johnny: Well, what brings you to Harlan county? Boyd crowder.
Johnny: Never heard of him. I knew this guy. He used to work with the military police, and he swore, if you ever ask someone a question like, "where are you" "hiding those drugs?" You just watch the eyes. More often than not, they'll point to the right direction. Yours, they stayed on the beam. But scooter over here... he just couldn't help himself.
Johnny: I, uh... I think your time in this establishment has come to an end. [ Chuckles ] I hear you.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Johnny: Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!
Ava: You need to leave now!
Aah! Christ in heaven, you're a beautiful woman.
Ava: Jimmy! Boyd! Boyd!
Boyd: No! No!
[ Laughs ]
Ava, Johnny, Jim, let me introduce to you, all the way from desert storm, by way of the Iraq and Afghan wars, first sergeant... no. Got knocked down.
Boyd: Sergeant Colton rhodes, military police. Now, how many times did you jail my ass in Kuwait? I say five. Am I low? Boyd, honestly, I lost count.
[ Siren wails ]
You call the police?
Raylan: I called you. Wait, wait, you... you said "they" took your car?
Raylan: Girl flashed me her titties. I assume it's not a coincidence. I know that scam. The female acts as a distraction. Her colleague steals the vehicle. It's happening a lot these days.
Raylan: [ Sighs ] Pull on me.
Raylan: Pull on you? Yeah, make like you're going for your gun. Pull on me.
Raylan: Bob, I really do need to... Raylan, just pull on me, man.
Raylan: [ Sighs ]
[ Exhaling sharply ]
Beef stew.
Raylan: Wow. Yeah. And I can do it with both hands, too... Still deadly. I apply to the state police next year, they gonna take me. That bag back there?
Raylan: That's your...? My go bag. Got everything in there in case I need to go.
Raylan: Like toilet paper? God damn it, Raylan, not like toilet paper! I got a ak-47 with a folding stock, I got body armor I bought off a police auction, I got MREs, I got bottled water. If this sh1t goes road warrior, man, I'm ready. You're gonna come to me.
Raylan: [ Chuckles ] All right, let's check out the scrapyard first.
Raylan: Scrapyard? Why? These metal thieves these days, man, they sell the cars for scrap... crush them, send them off...
Raylan: They crush them? Yeah, it's 500 bucks a car.
Raylan: Let's go, Bob, right now. All right.
[ Engine turns over ]
You know, it wouldn't...
Raylan: I got sh1t in the car I don't want to be crushed. All right, well, you know, I can use my lights. I mean, legally, they don't have any...
Raylan: Use them. Lights going on!
[ Tires squeal ]
[ Siren wailing ]
Hey! Crusher man! Crusher man! Stop that! Stop the thing! Crusher man! Can I help you? That better not be a late-model Lincoln town car you're crushing.
Raylan: It's not. It's not?
Raylan: That's mine right there.
[ Car alarm chirps ]
Can I help you? Oh. Where are they? Who? The punks who brought this in. I was running the crusher. I didn't see anyone. The car belong to you, you can take it. I don't mind.
Raylan: It's not the car so much as what was inside the trunk I'm concerned about. I don't know anything about that. Are you really gonna play it that way? We all know you scrap stolen cars. What? Don't stonewall me, asshole. Everyone in the county knows. I know you? No, and it's not me you got to worry about, you sorry sack. That right over there is a genuine U.S. marshal.
Raylan: Bob. You're a marshal?
Raylan: Look, I ain't here on marshals' business. I just want to know about the man in the trunk. Or he can make it federal if you want to. Hell, he'll have a helicopter come down here and hover for an hour, freak your sh1t out, son. There ain't nothing federal about scrapping cars. If you are crushing stolen cars, you are destroying vin numbers, and that makes it federal. You had a guy in your trunk? I'm not required to ascer... Ohh! [ Chuckling ] That looks federal.
Raylan: Where are they? Don't let him see you. You think you're up to killing him if it comes to it? You are? Yeah. You killed a man before? I killed two men. How's that? Oh, yeah? We killed 12 men just yesterday.
[ Chuckles ]
Week before last I killed two heroin dealers in Knoxville, Tennessee. Now, you get that angle grinder over there, cut my chain, I'll handle this. Why'd you kill them? Because I had to. We are running out of time here, children. What, are you a junkie? No. I spot junkies, follow them to their dealers, and rob them. Now, either aim that peashooter at that door and pull the trigger on whoever comes through, or cut my chain. What'll it be? How you spot junkies? I spot bicycle thieves, most bicycle thieves being heroin addicts. It's a fact. Try to avoid flesh. How you spot bicycle thieves?
[ Tool grinding ]
One day, me and my friend Kenneth, we saw a skinny guy go up to an expensive bike... Specialized, giant... got a bag across his chest like he's a messenger, no one giving him a second look. He pulls out a Makita angle grinder, just like the one in your boyfriend's hands there. 20 seconds later, he's through that lock and on his way. Now we just watch the good bikes. Wherever there are rich kids, there are good bikes, junkies looking to grab them, and we follow them. sh1t! That really heats up the steel. Now give me that gun.
[ Door opens ]
Raylan: Am I interrupting something?
I was wondering when you'd walk in.
Raylan: Well, you can stop wondering. I'm here now. Shoot him.
Raylan: Jesus, girl, you just showed me your tits 45 minutes ago. Oh, he thinks he's funny. Don't listen to him. Shoot him.
Raylan: Miss, I am a deputy U.S. marshal with a one-time offer... do as I say, you and your friend get a free pass for stealing my car. He's lying.
Raylan: He's just saying that 'cause he's the one I'm after. I want you, son, up here, on your belly, hands in front. Miss, you're gonna hand me that gun, pistol grip first, right now. Let's go. I'm sorry, Raylan. You should see the sh1t in this bag.
Raylan: God damn it, Bob. I asked you to do one thing... Watch him. What the hell happened? He asked me to pull on him. I punched him in the nose. He did it wrong!
Raylan: Unh-unh-unh! Okay. I'm gonna make you a similar offer I made these two... Do as I say, and I'll let you skate on the vin numbers. Ain't as good as his offer.
Raylan: What'd he offer?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Raylan: Jody, you got $10,000 stuck up your ass?
Hey, we ain't stupid. It's hidden up in Lexington.
Raylan: He's just... you know... All right. Doesn't matter. I'm gonna sweeten the deal. The three of you go free, plus I'll give you whatever I got in my wallet. There's got to be at least $500 in there. Henry, check his wallet. He could be lying about that $500. Give me your wallet. 12 bucks, piggly wiggly card. Ohh! Give me that gun, girl!
[ Groans ]
Unh-unh-unh-unh-unh! Careful, careful. You might hit her.
Raylan: I suppose I should care, her age and all, but she did steal my car. Go ahead and shoot, then. Now, thank you for the ride. I appreciate your company. But I think I need some alone time. Goodbye, marshal. Aah! [ Groaning ]
Raylan: Look out. Move away from that gun. Get up. Put your hands on the table, nice and slow... slow. You okay, Bob? [ Grunting ] All right, God damn it. Any chance we can take you up on that offer? Yeah, that's funny.
Raylan: Yeah, tell me the truth. You weren't at Arlo's for the copper wire and you didn't want my car. It was just that bag. How come?
Raylan: You sure you don't mind holding on to this stuff for me till we can really fix that door? It's just a bunch of photographs. I don't know why anyone would want to steal it, but you never know. Yeah, sure thing, Mr. Givens.
[ Chuckles ]
What are you, his personal assistant? I'm not the one handcuffed in the back of a car, asshole.
Raylan: [ Sighs ] So, uh, listen, Bob. If it's cool with you, I'd just, uh... Let's just keep this between us, huh? Yeah, you think? Look, Raylan, I know why you called me. You couldn't call the cops, 'cause if they found the stolen car with a Tennessee bail jumper in the back, what are you gonna say? You're out of the marshals service, right? So you called up constable Bob.
Raylan: Listen, Bob, I'm sorry. I just... I got a kid on the way. I was trying to make a little extra bank on the side, all right? You got a kid on the way?
Raylan: Yeah. But, hey, you stepped up. I stepped up. Stepped up. I stabbed a teenage girl in the foot.
Raylan: And because of that, I'm alive, and you're alive, and we live to see another day.
[ Sighs ]
[ Engine turns over ]
Not a word. Not a problem. Raylan.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Boyd: So, how did you lose your rank?
That was at Bagram, about six months ago. I got into a thing with an XO. From another company at a baseball game. He slides in high into second base during a charity game.
Boyd: Ohh! Showing restraint, I kneed him in the nuts. I didn't think twice about it. It's a game. Things happen. And then I heard the asshole reported it.
Boyd: Mm! That cost me the rank. But what got me my discharge was me walking into his billet and shooting him in the bicep.
[ Both laugh ]
I could have got leavenworth. But everyone knew what a prick he was, so they suggested my service was complete. The guy used to curl 80 pounds. Now I heard he can hardly lift a phone, so...
[ Clicks tongue ]
What can I do for you, Boyd?
Boyd: I'm a criminal. I know that.
Boyd: I got a problem. I need a little outside help, someone I can trust. I wanted to see how you might feel about crossing the line. That depends where the line is. Do you kill people?
Boyd: People have been killed. I-I don't have a pen or a piece of paper, but what would you say are your greatest strengths and weaknesses, Colton rhodes? This is a job interview now?
Boyd: It's a job. Tell you what, I got to go see a fella... Owes me some money. Why don't you come along? Dry run. Let's just see how it goes.
[ Buzzer ]
Arlo: You sell my home?
Raylan: Not yet.
Arlo: You set the asking price too high.
Raylan: I lowered it to $170,000.
Arlo: It hasn't sold.
It's too high.
Raylan: You want me to just give it away?
Arlo: You want to get half of nothing?
Raylan: Maybe I'm listing it wrong. "Two-story, three-bedroom" country fixer-upper. Holes in the wall. "Missing a door."
Arlo: Mm-hmm. You're funny.
Raylan: Don't give me any sh1t, Arlo. I brought you what you wanted.
Arlo: What's that?
Raylan: You don't know? Seems to me like you went to a lot of trouble to get it out of your house... hiring two wire-stripping teenagers to get it for you.
Arlo: I did what now?
Raylan: You honestly don't know what this is?
Arlo: On your mother's grave.
Raylan: It had something in the bag.
Arlo: Can't read without my glasses.
Raylan: Kentucky driver's license. Issued September 7, 1979. First name... Waldo. Last name... truth.
Arlo: That's a strange last name.
Raylan: Doesn't ring a bell?
Arlo: No. I'd think, a boy on the way, you'd have more pressing concerns.
Raylan: Don't know if it's a boy. Kind of hoping it was a girl, end the family line right here.
Arlo: You think that'll do it? You think you get all your turmoil from me? Your mother was frances, not Saint frances. My advice? Just put that bag back in the wall and forget about it.
Raylan: I didn't say it was in the wall.
Arlo: Guard!
Boyd: Where's my money, hiram? There's your money right there.
Boyd: That's very funny. You wouldn't think a man with a stick of dynamite in his lap would go for funny. "Last chance holiness church." That's the place, huh? The place of my salvation.
Boyd: Well, you tell me where my money is, hiram, and you can go on repenting all you want. I don't have it! I told you!
Boyd: I don't believe you. Truth always sounds like lies to a sinner.
Boyd: Huh. Let's go, colt. Where are you going?
Boyd: Outside. I don't want to die. And I'd say you got about eight seconds left, so I'd make sure your conversion was in earnest. It's under the lawnmower! Oh, I'm ready, God! I'm ready!
[ Whimpering ]
Boyd: Open your eyes, hiram, for you have been saved twice.
"I expect death to be" "nothingness." That ain't in the Bible.
Boyd: No, it is not. It's a science-fiction writer... Isaac Asimov, God rest his soul, except he did not believe in God. Why'd you hold out so long? I wanted to give it to the church, make up for all the evil I'd done.
Boyd: You really think this church is behind my falloff in Oxy? Oh, I know it is. Preacher Billy's saving 'em one sinner at a time. You should try it, Boyd.
Boyd: I've already tried it. Well, then, long run, you'll be finished.
Boyd: "Well, in the long run", "we'll all be dead." You know who said that? John maynard keynes. Now, for the record, this money doesn't exist. Ava asks, anyone does, it wasn't here. Are we clear? Yeah.
Boyd: Take care of him.
[ Gunshot ]
Aah!
Boyd: What in the hell did you do that for?! You said to take care of him.
Boyd: I-I-I meant cut him loose! Oh. sh1t.
Boyd: Well, I guess I'll have to be more careful with my words.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Raylan: [ Sighs ]
Lindsey? Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Sorry, I... had barbecue for dinner, and I did not want to use that downstairs bathroom to floss.
Raylan: Eh, it's okay. How'd it go?
Raylan: Wasn't without its difficulty, but I got him there. To this super-hot bail bondswoman you were talking about?
Raylan: I don't recall saying "super." I was just trying to be accurate. How much you get?
Raylan: 10. Good for you.
Raylan: [ Sighs ] I better get back downstairs.
Raylan: Why? Well, if I don't get down there soon Ken'll get pissy. Saw how busy it is? I did. It's come and get f'ed up Friday. How do you define soon? Loosely.
[ Rhythmic clapping ]
Whoo!
[ Cheering ]
Praise the lord! Yeah! Glory to God! Praise Jesus!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Praise God! Praise be the lord! Oh, God almighty!
Salamatha morolakamata!
Save me, lord! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
[ Speaking gibberish ]
Aah! Aah! Aah! [ Cries ] You will be saved by our lord! Hallelujah! We will all be saved by our lord! Praise the lord! Amen! Praise the lord! Now, I see a lot of new faces here today. To you newcomers, we here are signs followers. Now, that comes from the gospel of mark. "And these signs shall follow" "them that believe." Oh, hallelujah! But what you want to know... Is do I get bit? Well, am I right? Right. Yes, I do. Now, only twice so far... Hallelujah. By this one right here I call Mabel. Now, once, I took her out of her crate too rough... I deserved it. The other time, well, the lord only knows. Both times I survived the venom. It was the lord who saw fit to have me continue my ministry. Now, of course, not all survive. Our daddy and his before died from the serpent's bite, their place in heaven guaranteed, there being no greater sign of obedience to the lord than to be taken home in such a manner. So, that's why we're here. Why are you here, newcomers? You all come to watch the hillbilly with the snakes? Or did you come to be saved?! Savior! Hallelujah! Now, what about it? How about you? Yes, you.
[ Cell door opens ]
Arlo: I didn't ask for a book.
That your son the marshal came to see you?
Arlo: Why? Saw him bring in some bag.
Arlo: You got your nose in everyone's business, don't you, trustee?
[ Chuckles ]
Where'd he find that bag?
Arlo: I don't know, and I didn't ask. And why do you want to know? Because I heard about a bag like that once before. It could be worth some money, old man, we play our cards right.
Arlo: These are our cards now? He showed you something else, looked like an identification.
Arlo: You got an eagle eye. What was it?
Arlo: Somebody's driver's license. Name?
Arlo: Marlon Brando. I don't know. You tell anybody about this?
Arlo: Why would I tell anyone? Well, don't. Like I said, it's worth some money. I'll make a call and find out how much.
Arlo: Hold on. Give me a book while you're here. You don't read.
Arlo: I can. Just don't choose to usually. What do you want?
Arlo: Anything. I don't care. I forgot how slow the clock moves inside. You like spy stories? I been hearing a lot of good things about this Alan Furst fellow.
Arlo: Fine. Aah! Aah! Why?! Why?!
[ Thud ]
[ Alarm buzzing ]
Looks like a trustee down. Trustee down, open that door.
Arlo: [ Sighs ]
Summary:
| The season opens on January 21, 1983, when a man wearing a defective parachute slams into a residential street. His body is surrounded by bags full of cocaine and an ID for a "Drew Thompson". Shifting to the present, Raylan Givens receives a phone call from a former acquaintance/romantic partner, Sharon Edmonds, who is now a bail bondswoman in Knoxville, TN. She enlists Raylan's help in finding a fugitive named Jody Adair, who is hiding out in Lexington and wanted by the Knoxville PD. Raylan finds Jody, and takes him into custody after a standoff in which Raylan subdues Jody by shooting the airbag in his Jeep, making it blow up in Jody's face. In Harlan, two teenage burglars invade Arlo Givens' old house and start breaking into a wall. They see the bag with an ID for a "Waldo Truth" in the wall, and are about to take it when they see a car with police lights approaching. They run out of the house without the bag. In the car is Constable Bob Sweeney, a local lawman who is tasked with keeping an eye on the old Givens house. Bob alerts Raylan, who shows up at the house with Jody in the trunk of his car. He and Bob find the bag, and Raylan stashes it in his trunk along with Jody. Raylan goes to a hardware store to inquire about Arlo's work on the house, and while there his car is stolen by the teenagers. Raylan, with Bob's help, tracks them to a scrapyard, where they were headed to dispose of the car. Bob provokes a scrapyard worker who gets the upper hand on him while Raylan is gone to check on the whereabouts of Jody and the teens. When both situations come to a head, and Jody puts a gun to one of the teens' head, Bob stabs the hostage in the foot and Raylan is able to get his gun and the bag back. After delivering Jody, Raylan visits his father Arlo in prison to ask Arlo about the bag in the wall. Raylan realizes the bag is a big deal after Arlo kills an inmate who saw the bag and heard Raylan asking about it. | 95 | 31,100 | 31,102 | 31,102 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Doctor_Who_01x02 | fd_Doctor_Who_01x02_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
INT. TARDIS
Picking up where the last episode left off - Rose runs into the TARDIS and joins the Doctor.
THE DOCTOR: Right then, Rose Tyler, you tell me, where do you want to go? Backwards or forwards in time. What's it going to be?
ROSE: Forwards.
The Doctor presses a few buttons.
THE DOCTOR: How far?
ROSE (picking random number): One hundred years.
He pulls a lever and turns a knob. The engines lurch and then stop after a few seconds.
THE DOCTOR: There you go, step outside those doors, it's the twenty-second century.
ROSE: You're kidding.
THE DOCTOR: That's a bit boring though, do you want to go further?
ROSE: Fine by me!
The Doctor starts up the engines again. When they stop, he looks at her.
THE DOCTOR: Ten thousand years in the future. Step outside, it's the year 12005, the New Roman Empire.
ROSE (teasingly): You think you're so impressive.
THE DOCTOR: I AM so impressive!
ROSE: You wish!
THE DOCTOR: Right then, you asked for it. I know exactly where to go. (Revs up the engine, pumps a lever furiously). Hold on!
The TARDIS hurtles through the time vortex. With a pinging noise, the TARDIS stops.
ROSE: Where are we?
The Doctor gestures towards the doors. Rose smiles excitedly.
ROSE (CONT'D): What's out there?
The Doctor gestures again. Rose steps outside the doors.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose finds herself in some kind of wooden room. The Doctor follows her and with his sonic screwdriver, opens the shutters of an enormous window. They go down the stairs and find themselves looking down on the planet Earth.
THE DOCTOR: You lot. You spend all your time thinking about dying. Like you're going to get killed by eggs or beef or global warming or asteroids. But you never take time to imagine the impossible. Maybe you survive. This is the year 5.5/apple/26. Five billion years in your future. This is the day... hold on... (Looks at his watch). This is the day the sun expands. Welcome to the end of the world.
OPENING CREDITS
EXT. PLATFORM ONE
Two space shuttles zoom towards Platform One, essentially a huge space station.
COMPUTER VOICE: Shuttles 5 and 6 now docking. Guests are reminded that platform 1 forbids the use of weapons, teleportation and religion. Earth Death is scheduled for 15:39, followed by drinks in the Manchester Suite.
INT. PLATFORM ONE, CORRIDOR
Rose and the Doctor are walking down a corridor.
ROSE: So, when it says 'guests' does that mean people?
THE DOCTOR: Depends what you mean by people.
ROSE: I mean people. What do you mean?
THE DOCTOR: Aliens.
ROSE: What are they doing on board this spaceship? What's it all for?
The Doctor starts to open a door with his sonic screwdriver.
THE DOCTOR: It's not really a spaceship. More like an observation deck. The great and the good are gathering to watch the planet burn.
ROSE: What for?
THE DOCTOR: Fun.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
They enter a large observation gallery.
THE DOCTOR: Mind you, when I said the great and the good, what I mean is, the rich.
ROSE: But, hold on, they did this once on "Newsround Extra", the sun expanding, that takes hundreds of years.
THE DOCTOR: Millions. But the planet's now property of the National Trust. They've been keeping it preserved. See down there? (Points out of the window at tiny glints of light orbiting the Earth). Gravity satellite. That's holding back the sun.
ROSE (peering out of the window at Earth). The planet looks the same as ever. I thought the continents shifted and things.
THE DOCTOR: They did. And the trust shifted them back. That's a classic Earth. But now the money's run out, nature takes over!
ROSE: How long has it got?
The Doctor looks at his watch.
THE DOCTOR: About half an hour. And the planet gets roasted.
ROSE: Is that why we're here? I mean, is that what you do? Jump in at the last minute and save the Earth?
THE DOCTOR: I'm not saving it. Time's up.
ROSE: But what about the people?
THE DOCTOR: It's empty! They're all gone. All left.
Rose looks back to the window, realization spreading across her face.
ROSE: Just me then.
The Steward hurries towards them.
STEWARD: Who the hell are you?
THE DOCTOR: Oh! That's nice, thanks.
STEWARD: But how did you get in? This is a maximum hospitality zone. The guests have disembarked! They're on their way any second now!
THE DOCTOR: That's me, I'm a guest, look! I've got an invitation! (Flashes a small leather wallet at the Steward). Look, there you see? It's fine, see? The Doctor plus one. I'm the Doctor, this is Rose Tyler. She's my plus one. That all right?
STEWARD: Well... obviously. (Doctor grins). Apologies, et cetera. If you're on-board, we'd better start. Enjoy.
The Doctor nods at him. After the steward walks off, the Doctor shows Rose the card he had flashed at the steward. It is completely blank.
THE DOCTOR: The paper's slightly psychic. Shows them whatever I want them to see. Saves a lot of time.
ROSE: He's blue.
THE DOCTOR: Yeah.
ROSE: Okay...
The steward is now speaking through a microphone at the other end of the suite.
STEWARD: We have in attendance, the Doctor and Rose Tyler. Thank you! All staff to their positions.
He claps his hands and a lot of little blue people (the staff) start scurrying around.
STEWARD (CONT'D): Hurry now! Thank you, as quick as we can! Come along, come along! And now, might I introduce the next honoured guest, representing the forest of Cheem, we have Trees. Namely, Jabe, Lute and Coffa.
Jabe, Lute and Coffa walk through the doors.
STEWARD (CONT'D): There will be an exchange of gifts representing peace. If you can keep the room circulating, thank you. Next, from the solicitors Jolco and Jolco, the Moxx of Balhoon.
The Doctor smiles cheerily, as Rose looks on bewildered.
STEWARD (CONT'D): And next, from Financial Family Seven, we have the Adherents of the Repeated Meme.
The Doctor chuckles at the look on Rose's face.
STEWARD (CONT'D): The inventors of hyposlip travel systems, the brothers Hop Pyleen. Thank you!
Enter new aliens.
STEWARD (CONT'D): Cal 'Spark Plug'.
Enter new aliens.
STEWARD (CONT'D): Mr. and Mrs. Pakoo.
Enter new aliens.
STEWARD (CONT'D): The Ambassadors from the City State of Binding Light.
Jabe approaches the Doctor. Either side of her, her companions are holding plant trays with little shoots in them.
JABE: The Gift of Peace. (Takes a cutting, hands it to the Doctor). I bring you a cutting of my Grandfather.
THE DOCTOR: Thank you! (Gives it to Rose). Yes, gifts... erm...
He clears his throat and starts feeling his jacket for something, finding nothing, he says :
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): I give you in return, air from my lungs.
He blows gently onto Jabe's face, who closes her eyes briefly.
JABE: How... intimate.
THE DOCTOR (flirtatiously): There's more where that came from.
JABE: I bet there is...
Rose has the sort of look on her face that is to be expected of someone who has just witnessed their companion flirting with a tree.
STEWARD: Sponsor of the main event, please welcome the Face of Boe.
A huge head in an equally huge jar is wheeled through the doors. The Moxx of Balhoon approaches the Doctor and Rose.
THE DOCTOR: The Moxx of Balhoon.
MOXX OF BALHOON: My felicitations on this historical happenstance. I give you the gift of bodily saliva.
He spits accurately into Rose's left eye.
THE DOCTOR (laughs): Thank you very much.
Rose rubs the spit out of her eye. Next, the Adherents of the Repeated Meme approach them.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): Ah! The Adherents of the Repeated Meme. I bring you air from my lungs.
He breathes heavily over them all.
ADHERENT: A gift of peace in all good faith.
He holds out a large silver egg, which the Doctor takes, throws up into the air, catches, and hands to Rose.
STEWARD: And last but not least, our very special guest. Ladies and Gentlemen, and Trees and Multiforms. Consider the Earth below. In memory of this dying world, we call forth The Last Human.
The Doctor looks at Rose to see her reaction. The sliding doors open and what looks like a vertical trampoline made of human skin is wheeled through. It has eyes and a mouth, and wears lipstick.
STEWARD: The Lady Cassandra O'Brien Dot Delta Seventeen.
CASSANDRA: Oh, now, don't stare. I know, I know it's shocking, isn't it? I've had my chin completely taken away and look at the difference! Look how thin I am.
The Doctor laughs silently but heartily and looks at Rose, who looks shocked.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): Thin and dainty! I don't look a day over two thousand. Moisturize me, moisturize me.
One of the two men in white body suits who wheeled her in is holding a canister, which he sprays onto Cassandra.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): Truly, I am The Last Human.
Rose creeps closer for a better look.
CASSANDRA: My father was a Texan. My mother was from the Arctic Desert. They were born on the Earth and were the last to be buried in the soil.
Rose has been walking around to the other side of Cassandra, to get a good view of her from all angels. She is completely flat.
CASSANDRA: I have come to honour them and... (Sniffs)...say goodbye. Oh, no tears. (Bodyguard wipes her eyes). No tears. I'm sorry. But behold! I bring gifts. From Earth itself, the last remaining ostrich egg.
One of the staff comes in and displays the egg to the room.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): Legend says it had a wingspan of 50 feet and blew fire from its nostrils.
Rose looks mildly confused.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): Or was that my third husband?
Rose rolls her eyes but the Doctor laughs.
CASSANDRA: Who knows! Oh don't laugh. I'll get laughter lines!
She laughs and mumbles to herself for a few seconds. Behind her, a large jukebox is wheeled into the room.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): And here, another rarity. According to the archives, this was called an iPod. It stores classical music from humanity's greatest composers.
Rose looks amazed.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): Play on!
One of the staff presses a button and a record falls into place. The 'iPod' starts playing Tainted Love by Soft Cell. The Doctor bops around appreciatively.
STEWARD: Refreshments will now be served. Earth Death in 30 minutes.
Rose has a lost, overwhelmed expression on her face. Everywhere she looks there are aliens, but no other humans. She rushes from the gallery. Concerned, the Doctor starts to follow her, but is stopped by Jabe.
JABE: Doctor? (She snaps a photo of him when he pauses). Thank you.
The Doctor proceeds on. Jabe walks in the opposite direction. The Adherents of the Repeated Meme are offering the Steward a silver egg.
ADHERENT: A gift of peace in all good faith.
STEWARD: No, you're very kind, but I'm just the Steward.
The Adherents of the Repeated Meme holds the egg out more persistently.
ADHERENT: A gift of peace in all good faith.
STEWARD: Oh, yes. Thank you. Of course.
He takes the egg. Meanwhile, Jabe is trying to get her computer to identify the Doctor's species.
JABE: Identify species. Please identify species.
The computer makes a small whistling noise.
JABE (CONT'D): Now, stop it. Identify his race. Where's he from? (After a moment, stares at the computer in disbelief, hushed). It's impossible.
In a nearby glass cabinet, a metal robotic spider climbs out of one of the metal eggs that the Adherents of the Repeated Meme had been handing out.
INT. PLATFORM ONE ROOM, SHAFT
Rose, in another part of the ship, looks out of a window at the raging sun. She jumps when another one of the staff comes into the room, this one female. Her name is Raffalo.
ROSE: Sorry, am I allowed to be in here?
The employee looks around uneasily.
RAFFALO: You have to give us permission to talk.
She looks at Rose expectantly. Rose looks unsure.
ROSE: Uh... you... have permission...?
RAFFALO: Thank you! And, no. You're not in the way. Guests are allowed anywhere.
ROSE: 'Kay.
Raffalo goes to a panel in the wall and enters a code. Rose watches her.
ROSE: What's your name?
RAFFALO: Raffalo.
ROSE: Raffalo?
RAFFALO: Yes, Miss. I won't be long, I've just got to carry out some maintenance.
She kneels before an air vent.
RAFFALO (CONT'D): There's a tiny little glitch in the Face of Boe suite. There must be something blocking the system - he's not getting any hot water.
ROSE: So, you're a plumber?
RAFFALO: That's right, Miss.
ROSE: They still have plumbers?
RAFFALO: I hope so! Else I'm out of a job!
Rose laughs.
ROSE: Where are you from?
RAFFALO: Crespallion.
ROSE: That's a planet, is it?
RAFFALO: No, Crespallion's part of the Jaggit Brocade, affiliated to the Scarlet Junction, Convex 56. And where are you from, Miss? (Seems to remember herself). If you don't mind me asking.
ROSE: No! Not at all. Erm... I dunno, a long way away... I just sort of, hitched a lift with this man. (Only just realising the risk she's taken herself). I didn't even think about it... I don't even know who he is... he's a complete stranger...
Raffalo looks slightly worried. Rose snaps herself out of it.
ROSE (CONT'D): Anyway, don't let me keep you. Good luck with it!
She begins to walk away.
RAFFALO: Thank you, Miss. And... (Rose turns). Thank you for the permission. Not many people are that considerate.
ROSE (smiles): 'Kay. See you later.
Roffalo nods and smiles. When Rose has gone, she takes the cover off the air vent.
RAFFALO: Now then.
She peers into the vent and then speaks into a small microphone attached to her collar..
RAFFALO (CONT'D): Control, I'm at Junction 19 and I think the problem's coming from in here. I'll go inside and have a look. (Hears small tapping). What's that? Is there something in there?
The metal spider we saw breaking out of the egg earlier appears at the end of the shaft.
RAFFALO (CONT'D): Oh! Who are you, then?
The spider scurries away as if frightened.
RAFFALO (CONT'D): Hold on! I... if you're an upgrade I just need to register you, that's all. Oh, come back!
A red beam of light falling on Raffalo's face tells us the spider has come back.
RAFFALO (CONT'D): Ah, there you are. Now, I just need to register your ident.
Another spider joins the first.
RAFFALO (CONT'D): Oh, there's two of you! Got yourself a little mate! (Giggles). I think I'd better report this to control. How many of you are there? (A third spider appears, and then a fourth). What are you? Oh, no. No. Nooooo!
She is dragged head first into the air vent.
INT. STEWARD'S OFFICE
The steward enters and puts his egg on a nearby table and sits down. He listens to Control speaking.
STEWARD: What's that? Well, how should I know? (Activates loudspeaker).Would the owner of the blue box in private gallery 15 please report to the steward's office immediately. Guests are reminded that use of all teleportation devices is strictly forbidden under Peace Treaty 5.4/cup/16. Thank you.
While he is talking, a spider has broken out of his egg and run up the opposite wall.
EXT. PLATFORM ONE
We are shown another shot of the burning sun and the satellite over the Earth.
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 25 minutes. Earth Death in 25 minutes.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose sits on the steps, throwing the egg up in the air and catching it again when she hears this announcement.
ROSE: Oh, thanks.
She puts the egg down and turns her attention to the cutting of Jabe's grandfather. She picks it up.
ROSE (CONT'D): Hello! My name's Rose. That's a sort of plant. We might be related...
She suddenly realizes what she is doing and hurriedly puts the plant down.
ROSE (CONT'D): I'm talking to a twig.
Behind her, the spider breaks out of the egg.
INT. PLATFORM ONE, CORRIDOR
The TARDIS is being dragged away by some of the staff.
THE DOCTOR: Oi, now, careful with that. Park it properly. No scratches.
One of them walks up to the Doctor, squeaks at him, hands him a card and walks away again. The Doctor reads it - it says 'Have a nice day'. The Doctor looks at the retreating staff's back as if he or she is completely off his or her rocker, and walks off. A few of the metal spiders scurry up the wall behind him. A few more are running along the air vent.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
The spider that came out of Rose's egg appears to be scanning her hand, but Rose is completely oblivious. It jumps and runs to the air vent when the Doctor's voice floats through the door.
THE DOCTOR: Rose? Are you in there?
The spider scrambles through the vent just in time, before the Doctor comes through the door.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): Aye aye! (Sits on other side of stairs). What do you think, then?
ROSE: Great! Yeah... fine. Once you get past the slightly psychic paper...
The Doctor laughs. There is a short pause.
ROSE (CONT'D): They're just, so alien. (Doctor looks at her questioningly). The aliens. Are so alien. You look at 'em... and they're alien.
THE DOCTOR: Good thing I didn't take you to the Deep South.
ROSE (as if looking at him properly for the first time): Where are you from?
THE DOCTOR: All over the place.
ROSE: They all speak English.
THE DOCTOR: No, you just hear English. It's a gift of the TARDIS. Telepathic field, gets inside your brain, translates.
ROSE: It's inside my brain?
THE DOCTOR: Well, in a good way. ROSE (colder, starting to sound angry): Your machine gets inside my head. It gets inside and it changes my mind, and you didn't even ask?
THE DOCTOR (thrown): I didn't think about it like that.
ROSE (angrily): No! You were too busy thinking up cheap shots about the Deep South! Who are you then, Doctor? What are you called? What sort of alien are you?
The Doctor sits up and looks away from her.
THE DOCTOR: I'm just The Doctor.
ROSE: From what planet?
THE DOCTOR: Well, it's not as if you'll know where it is!
ROSE: Where are you from?!
THE DOCTOR: What does it matter?
ROSE: Tell me who you are!
THE DOCTOR (suddenly angry): This is who I am, right here, right now, alright? All that counts is here and now, and this is me!
ROSE: Yeah, and I'm here too because you brought me here, so just tell me!
The Doctor gets up and walks down the steps away from her.
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 20 minutes. Earth Death in 20 minutes.
After a few moments, Rose gets up and follows the Doctor down the steps.
ROSE: Alright... as my mate Shareen says... don't argue with the designated driver...
The Doctor, with his back turned to her, smiles at that. Rose gets her mobile out of her pocket.
ROSE (CONT'D): Can't exactly call for a taxi... there's no signal. We're out of range. Just a bit!
THE DOCTOR: Tell you what...
He takes the phone from her.
THE DOCTOR: With a little bit of jiggery pokery...
He takes the back off the phone.
ROSE: Is that a technical term, "jiggery pokery"?
THE DOCTOR: Yeah, I came first in jiggery pokery, what about you?
ROSE: Nah, failed hullabaloo.
THE DOCTOR: Oooh. (Fits in a new battery, hands phone back to Rose). There you go.
Rose takes it and looks at him uncertainly. He nods. Rose gets her mum's number onto the screen and puts the phone to her ear. It rings.
INT. TYLER'S KITCHEN
We find ourselves in the Jackie's kitchen, 2005.
JACKIE: Hello?
ROSE: Mum?
Jackie, at home, is putting some washing into the machine.
JACKIE: Oh, what is it? What's wrong? What have I done now? Oh, this red top's falling to bits! You should get your money back. Go on! There must be something, you never phone in the middle of the day!
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose laughs.
INT. TYLER'S KITCHEN
JACKIE: What's so funny?
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: Nothing! You all right, though?
INT. TYLER'S KITCHEN
JACKIE: Yeah! Why wouldn't I be?
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: What day is it?
INT. TYLER'S KITCHEN
JACKIE: Wednesday. All day. You got a hangover? Oh, I tell you what, put a quid in that lottery syndicate, I'll pay you back later.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: Yeah, um, I was just calling 'cause I might be late home.
INT. TYLER'S KITCHEN
JACKIE: Is there something wrong?
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: No! I'm fine! Top of the world!
The Doctor laughs.
INT. TYLER'S KITCHEN
Jackie puts the phone down.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose lowers the mobile, stunned.
THE DOCTOR: Think that's amazing, you want to see the bill.
ROSE: That was 5 billion years ago. So... she's dead now. Five billion years later, my mum's dead.
THE DOCTOR: Bundle of laughs, you are.
The ship shudders.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D) (rather pleased and curious): That's not supposed to happen...
INT. STEWARD'S OFFICE
STEWARD (to control): Well, what was it? I'm just getting green lights at this end. (Activates loudspeaker). Honoured guests may be reassured that gravity pockets may cause slight turbulence, thanking you.
As soon as it is switched off again, he speaks angrily to control again.
STEWARD (CONT'D): The whole place shook! I felt it! I've hosted all sorts of events on platforms 1, 3, 6 and 15 and I've never felt the slightest tremor. I warn you, if this lot decide to sue... I'm going to scan the infrastructure. (Presses a few buttons). What's that?
A spider scurries down the wall behind him.
STEWARD (CONT'D): Control, I don't want to worry you, but I'm picking up readings... (Computer beeps). I have no idea! Well, they're small, and the scan says they're metal... (Computer beeps, frustrated). I don't know what they look like!
Suddenly, he spots the spider, which is now pottering around on his desk next to his mug.
STEWARD (CONT'D): Although, I imagine they might look rather like that... you're not on the guest list... how did you get on board...?
The spider looks at him almost mockingly and presses a yellow button on the control panel. The computerized woman's voice booms out again.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter deactivated.
STEWARD: No. No!
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter descending.
The sunfilter does indeed, descend.
STEWARD (frantic): No! Sunfilter, up! No, no, no!
He fumbles frantically with the buttons on the control panels, but too late.
STEWARD (CONT'D): Sunfilter up! Sunfilter up!
Blinding light engulfs the steward.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter descending.
The Steward screams. Outside the room, the spider escapes through an air vent.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
The guests are completely oblivious to the commotion, chatting to each other. The Moxx of Balhoon is talking to the Face of Boe.
MOXX OF BALHOON: ...this is the Bad Wolf scenario...
The Doctor and Rose enter.
THE DOCTOR: That wasn't a gravity pocket. I know gravity pockets and they don't feel like that.
He is fiddling with a control panel next to the door. Jabe approaches them.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): What do you think, Jabe? Listened to the engines, they pitched up about 30 hertz, is that dodgy or what?
JABE: It's the sound of metal, it doesn't make any sense to me.
THE DOCTOR: Where's the engine room?
JABE: I don't know... but the maintenance duct is just behind our guest's suite, I could show you. And... (Gestures Rose) ...your wife.
THE DOCTOR: She's not my wife.
JABE: Partner?
THE DOCTOR: No.
JABE: Concubine?
THE DOCTOR: Nope.
Jabe looks at Rose.
JABE: Prostitute...
ROSE (insulted): Whatever I am, it must be invisible, do you mind? Tell you what, you two go and pollinate, I'm going to catch up with family. Quick word with Michael Jackson.
She makes her way over to Cassandra.
THE DOCTOR: Don't start a fight. (Proffers arm to Jabe). I'm all yours.
ROSE (watching them leave): And I want you home by midnight!
The Doctor grins back at her.
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 15 minutes. Earth Death in 15 minutes.
[SCENE_BREAK]
INT. MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
Before the Doctor and Jabe enter, several spiders scurry out of view.
THE DOCTOR: Who's in charge of Platform One? Is there a captain or what?
JABE: There's just the steward and the staff. All the rest is controlled by the metal man.
THE DOCTOR: You mean the computer? But who controls that?
JABE: The Corporation. They move Platform One from one artistic event to another.
The Doctor is silent for a moment.
THE DOCTOR: But there's no one from the corporation on board.
JABE: They're not needed. This facility is purely automatic. It's the height of the alpha class. Nothing can go wrong.
THE DOCTOR: Unsinkable?
JABE: If you like. The nautical metaphor is appropriate.
THE DOCTOR: You're telling me. I was on board another ship once. They said that was unsinkable... I ended up clinging to an iceberg, it wasn't half cold. (Stops a moment). So, what you're saying is, if we get in trouble there's no one to help us out?
JABE: I'm afraid not.
THE DOCTOR (grinning): Fantastic.
He starts walking again.
JABE: I don't understand. In what way is THAT fantastic?
Behind them, a spider creeps out of its hiding place.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
Rose is talking to Cassandra. They are looking out of a window at the sun and down at the Earth.
CASSANDRA: Soon, the sun will blossom into a red giant, and my home will die. That's where I used to live, when I was a little boy. Down there. Mummy and Daddy had a little house built into the side of the Los Angeles Crevice. (Sighs). I had such fun.
ROSE: What happened to everyone else? The Human Race, where did it go?
CASSANDRA: They say Mankind has touched every star in the sky.
ROSE: So, you're NOT the last human.
CASSANDRA: I am the last PURE human. The others... mingled. (Disgusted). Oh, they call themselves "New Humans" and "Proto-humans" and "Digi-humans" even "Human-ish" but you know what I call them? (Lowers her voice to a whisper). Mongrels.
ROSE: Right. And you stayed behind.
CASSANDRA: I kept myself pure.
ROSE: How many operations have you had?
CASSANDRA: 708. Next week, it's 709, I'm having my blood bleached. Is that why you wanted a word? You could be flatter, Rose. You've got a little bit of a chin poking out.
ROSE: I'd rather die.
CASSANDRA: Honestly, it doesn't hurt...
ROSE: No, I mean it. I'd rather die. It's better to die than live like you, a bitchy trampoline.
CASSANDRA: Oh well. What do you know.
ROSE: I was born on that planet. And so was my mum, and so was my dad and that makes me officially the last human being in this room, 'cause you're not human. You've had it all nipped and tucked and flattened till there's nothing left. Anything human got chucked in the bin. You're just skin, Cassandra. Lipstick and skin. Nice talking.
She walks off. The Adherents of the Repeated Meme watch her leave through the sliding doors.
INT. MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
The Doctor and Jabe are still making their way down the corridor, the low ceiling forcing them to stoop slightly.
THE DOCTOR: So, tell me, Jabe. What's a tree like you doing in a place like this?
JABE: Respect for the Earth.
THE DOCTOR: Oh, come on. Everyone on this platform's worth zillions.
JABE: Well... perhaps it's a case of having to be seen at the right occasions.
THE DOCTOR: In case your share prices drop? I know you lot. You've got massive forests everywhere, roots everywhere, and there's always money in land.
JABE: All the same. You respect the Earth as family. So many species evolved from that planet. Mankind is only one. I'm another. My ancestors were transplanted from the planet down below. And I'm a direct descendant of the tropical rainforest.
The Doctor looks impressed. He then points to a control panel.
THE DOCTOR: Excuse me.
He gets out his sonic screwdriver and starts poking the screen with it.
JABE: And what about your ancestry, Doctor? Perhaps you could tell a story or two... perhaps a man only enjoys trouble when there's nothing else left... (No answer). I scanned you earlier. The metal machine had trouble identifying your species, refused to admit your existence.
The Doctor pretends to be concentrating on the scan, but a flicker of emotion passes across his face.
JABE (CONT'D): And even when it named you, I wouldn't believe it. But it was right.
The Doctor stops scanning. Deep sadness is reflected in his eyes. Jabe's tone is hushed, awed.
JABE (CONT'D): I know where you're from. Forgive me for intruding, but it's remarkable that you even exist. I just want to say... how sorry I am.
Jabe puts a comforting hand on his arm. The Doctor's eyes are filled with tears. He places his hand over hers, and a tear falls down his cheek. He quickly finishes the scan and he and Jabe go through a door.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
The Doctor and Jabe find themselves in the ventillation chamber. There are huge fans circulating in there. The Doctor looks down at Jabe.
THE DOCTOR: Is it me, or is it a bit nippy?
INT. PLATFORM ONE, CORRIDOR
Rose walks alone down a corridor. The Adherents of the Repeated Meme are coming from the other end. She smiles at them, but the front one strikes her to the ground where she lies unconscious as they drag her from view.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
THE DOCTOR: Fair do's, though, that's a great bit of air conditioning. Sort of, nice and old fashioned. Bet they call it "retro". (Scans another control panel with his sonic screwdriver). Gotcha.
The panel falls off and a spider scuttles out and scurries across the floor and up the wall. The Doctor and Jabe watch it.
THE DOCTOR: What the hell's that?
JABE: Is it part of the "retro"?
THE DOCTOR: I don't think so. Hold on.
He points the screwdriver at the spider. However, Jabe fires something up at the spider, disabling it. It comes falling into the Doctor's hand.
THE DOCTOR: Hey! Nice liana!
JABE: Thank you! We're not supposed to show them in public.
THE DOCTOR: Don't worry, I won't tell anybody. (Turns his attention to the spider). Now then. Who's been bringing the pets on board?
JABE: What does it do?
THE DOCTOR: Sabotage.
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 10 minutes.
THE DOCTOR: And the temperature's about to rocket. Come on.
They hurry from the chamber.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
The aliens mill about.
CASSANDRA: The planet's end. Come gather! Come gather! Bid farewell to the cradle of civilization. Let us mourn her with a traditional ballad.
Britney Spears' Toxic suddenly blasts out of the enormous iPod.
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE STEWARD'S OFFICE
The Doctor and Jabe hurry along, the corridor is filled with smoke and the staff are coughing squeaky little coughs.
THE DOCTOR: Come on! Get back!
He moves his sonic screwdriver over another control panel.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter rising. Sunfilter rising.
JABE (concerned): Was the Steward in there?!
THE DOCTOR: You can smell him. Hold on, there's another sun filter program to descend.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
'Toxic' plays loudly as Rose wakes up, rubbing her head.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter descending. Sunfilter descending.
Rose sits up in alarm as the Sunfilter descends. She runs to the door and knocks on it frantically.
ROSE: Let me out!
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter descending.
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
The Doctor runs along the corridor.
ROSE: Let me out! Let me out!
The Doctor arrives outside the door to attempt to make the Sunfilter rise again.
THE DOCTOR: Anyone in there?
ROSE (frantically): Let me out!
THE DOCTOR: Oh, well, it would be you.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: Open the door!
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
THE DOCTOR: Hold on! Give us two ticks!
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
The whole room is smoking.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter descending. Sunfilter descending.
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
The display on the control panel says 'Sunfilter Rising'. The Doctor looks up expectantly.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter rising. Sunfilter rising.
The Doctor looks pleased with himself.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose sighs with relief.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter rising... Sunfilter descending.
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
THE DOCTOR: This is just what we need. The computer's getting clever.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: Will you stop mucking about!
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
THE DOCTOR: I'm not mucking about, it's fighting back!
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
ROSE: Open the door!
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
THE DOCTOR: Hang on!
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose runs down the stairs and flattens herself to the floor.
ROSE: The locks melted!
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter descending. Sunfilter descending.
INT. CORRIDOR OUTSIDE VIEWING GALLERY
The Doctor jabs his sonic screwdriver right inside the wires.
COMPUTER VOICE: Sunfilter rising. Sunfilter rising.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Panting, Rose runs back to the door. The Doctor cannot open it.
THE DOCTOR: The whole thing's jammed. I can't open the doors. Stay there! Don't move!
ROSE (terrified sort of sarcasm): Where're am I gonna go?! Ipswich?!
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 5 minutes.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
JABE (looking at her computer): The metal machine confirms. The spider devices have infiltrated the whole of platform one.
CASSANDRA: How's that possible? Our private rooms are protected by a code wall. Moisturize me, moisturize me.
The Doctor takes the destabilized spider out of Jabe's hand.
MOXX OF BALHOON: Summon the Steward!
JABE: I'm afraid the Steward is dead.
There is a general gasp of shock.
MOXX OF BALHOON: Who killed him?
CASSANDRA: This whole event was sponsored by the Face of Boe! He invited us! (Face of Boe shakes his head). Talk to the face! Talk to the face!
THE DOCTOR: Easy way of finding out. Someone bought a little pet on board. (Shows them the spider). Let's send him back to Master.
He places the spider down on the floor. The spider scuttles along to Cassandra and looks up at her. Cassandra looks shifty for a moment, but the spider moves on to the feet of the Adherents of the Repeated Meme.
CASSANDRA: The Adherents of the Repeated Meme. J'accuse!
THE DOCTOR: That's all very well, and really kind of obvious, but if you stop and think about it...
The Adherents of the Repeated Meme tries to strike him, but he catches its arm and rips it off.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): A Repeated Meme is just an idea. And that's all they are. An idea.
He rips a wire out of the arm and all of the Adherents of the Repeated Meme crumple into a bundle of black cloaks. Everyone gasps. Cassandra rolls her eyes.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): Remote controlled Droids. Nice little cover for the real troublemaker. Go on, Jimbo! (Nudges spider with his foot). Go home!
The spider ambles back over to Cassandra.
CASSANDRA: I bet you were the school swot and never got kissed.
The Doctor raises his eyebrows.
CASSANDRA (CONT'D): At arms!
The two bodyguards with canisters on either side of her raise their canisters.
THE DOCTOR (mockingly): What are you going to do, moisturize me?
CASSANDRA: With acid. Oh, too late anyway. My spiders have control of the mainframe. Oh, you all carried them as gifts, tax free, past every code wall. I'm not just as pretty face.
THE DOCTOR: Sabotaging a ship while you're still inside it? How stupid's that?
CASSANDRA: I'd hoped to manufacture a hostage situation with myself as one of the victims. The compensation would have been enormous.
THE DOCTOR: Five billion years and it still comes down to money.
CASSANDRA: Do you think it's cheap, looking like this? Flatness costs a fortune. I am The Last Human, Doctor. Me. Not that freaky little kid of yours.
MOXX OF BALHOON: Arrest her!
CASSANDRA: Oh, shut it, pixie. I've still got my final option.
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 3 minutes.
CASSANDRA: And here it comes. You're just as useful dead, all of you. I have shares in your rival companies and they'll triple in price as soon as you're dead. My spiders are primed and ready to destroy the safety systems. How did that old Earth song go? "Burn, baby, burn."
JABE: Then you'll burn with us.
CASSANDRA: Oh, I'm so sorry. I know the use of teleportation is strictly forbidden, but... I'm such a naughty thing. Spiders, activate.
There are a series of explosions around the ship.
CASSANDRA: Force fields gone with the planet about to explode. At least it'll be quick. Just like my fifth husband. (Giggles). Oh, shame on me. Buh-bye, darlings! Buh-bye, my darlings...
She and her bodyguards teleport out.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels rising.
MOXX OF BALHOON: Reset the computer!
JABE: Only the Steward would know how.
THE DOCTOR: No. We can do it by hand. There must be a system restore switch. Jabe, come on.
They leave the room. He calls back the crowd over his shoulder.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): You lot - just chill!
EXT. PLATFORM ONE
COMPUTER VOICE: Earth Death in 2 minutes. Earth Death in 2 minutes.
INT. MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
Jabe and the Doctor are running back through the maintenance corridor.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels, critical. Heat levels, critical.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER.
The Doctor and Jabe reach the ventilation chamber.
THE DOCTOR: Oh. And guess where the switch is.
The switch is located at the other side of the enormous fans.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels - rising. Heat levels, rising.
The Doctor pulls a lever down and the fans slow down.
COMPUTER VOICE (CONT'D): External temperature, 5 thousand degrees.
As soon as the Doctor lets go of the lever, the fans start to speed up again. As the Doctor looks hopelessly at the fans, Jabe pulls the lever down again and holds it there.
THE DOCTOR: You can't. The heat's going to vent through this place.
JABE: I know.
THE DOCTOR: Jabe, you're made of wood.
JABE: Then stop wasting time. Time Lord.
He grins at her and runs back to the fans.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels, rising. Heat levels, rising.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
The glass begins to crack.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels, hazardous.
MOXX OF BALHOON: We're going to die!
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels, hazardous.
The Doctor dodges the first fan and runs underneath it. He looks anxiously up at the next one.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
The glass begins to crack. Rose cowers against the wall.
COMPUTER VOICE: Shields malfunctioning. Shields malfunctioning.
Rays of sun blast in through the cracks, burning holes in the parts of the metal wall they hit. Rose screams.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
The Doctor is still standing before the second fan. He looks back at Jabe who is sweating and breathing heavily.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels, critical. Heat levels, critical.
The Doctor dodges under the second fan.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
The glass cracks further, engulfing the Moxx of Balhoon in light. He cries out.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
The sunrays hit the wall either side of Rose.
COMPUTER VOICE: Heat levels, rising. Heat levels, rising.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
As the Doctor stands before the third fan. Jabe starts shaking violently. Suddenly, she gasps as one of her hands catches fire. She screams. The Doctor looks back, shocked. Now there is no one to hold the lever down, the fans circulate so fast that they can hardly be seen, in order to cool the ship down. It is impossible for the Doctor to get through.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
The walls around Rose are rapidly burning.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
COMPUTER VOICE: Planet explodes in 10... 9...
The Doctor closes his eyes. All grows quiet.
COMPUTER VOICE (CONT'D): 8... 7... 6... 5... 4...
The Doctor, still with his eyes closed, steps calmly though the fan. When at the other side, he opens his eyes and dashes to the switch, pulling it down.
THE DOCTOR: Raise shields!
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
Rose has her eyes closed and is shaking.
COMPUTER VOICE: ...1
EXT. PLATFORM ONE
The force fields around the ships are reset just as the planet is engulfed in fire. It explodes, leaving the ship completely unharmed.
INT. VIEWING GALLERY
COMPUTER VOICE: Exoglass repair. Exoglass repair.
The glass is automatically repaired. Rose opens her eyes, panting heavily.
INT. VENTILATION CHAMBER
The Doctor walks back through the fans. He pauses for a moment to look sadly at the charred and smoking remains of Jabe.
INT. THE MANCHESTER SUITE
Rose walks back into the observation gallery, where all the aliens are sitting around, wounded or dead. The Doctor walks briskly in a few moments later. He glances at Rose but does not pause to talk to her. Instead he goes straight to Jabe's companions, mutters a few words to them and then places his hands on their shoulders, leaving them to grieve. He then walks back near Rose.
ROSE: You all right?
THE DOCTOR: Yeah, I'm fine. I'm full of ideas, I'm bristling with them. Idea number one, teleportation through five thousand degrees needs some kind of feed. Idea number two, this feed must be hidden nearby.
He strides over to the ostrich egg, breaks it open and the teleportation feed falls out. He picks it up.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): Idea number three, if you're as clever as me, then a teleportation feed can be reversed.
He twists the feed. Cassandra appears before them, apparently in the middle of gloating.
CASSANDRA: Ah, you should have seen their little alien faces. (Notices her new surroundings). Oh.
THE DOCTOR: The Last Human.
CASSANDRA (flustered): So. You passed my little test. Bravo. This makes you eligible to join the er... the human club.
THE DOCTOR: People have died, Cassandra. You murdered them.
CASSANDRA: That depends on your definition of 'people'. And that's enough of a technicality to keep your lawyers dizzy for centuries. Take me to court then, Doctor! And watch me smile, and cry, and flutter...
THE DOCTOR: And creak?
CASSANDRA: And what?
THE DOCTOR: Creak! You're creaking.
Cassandra's skin is tightening. Her eyes are becoming bloodshot and she is getting whiter and whiter.
CASSANDRA (panicking): What? Ah! Ah! I'm drying out! Oh, sweet heavens! Moisturize me! Moisturize me! Where are my surgeons? My lovely boys! It's too hot!
She's covered in red blotches.
THE DOCTOR: You raised the temperature.
CASSANDRA (terrified, pathetic): Have pity! Moisturize me! Oh, Doctor!
ROSE (shaken): Help her.
THE DOCTOR: Everything has its time and everything dies.
CASSANDRA (shrivelling up): I'm... too... young!
She explodes. The Doctor looks completely cold and not remotely fazed. He leaves the room.
EXT. PLATFORM ONE
COMPUTER VOICE: Shuttles 4 and 6 departing. This unit now closing down for maintenance.
INT. MANCHESTER SUITE
The Manchester Sute is now completely empty apart from Rose, who is standing at the window watching the Earth burn with a very vulnerable and sad look on her face, oblivious to the Doctor watching her from the doorway. Rocks fly past the window. She turns around when she hears the Doctor's footsteps as he comes to stand beside her.
ROSE (teafully): The end of the Earth. It's gone. And we were too busy saving ourselves, no one saw it go. (The Doctor looks down at her). All those years... all that history and no one was even looking. It's just...
THE DOCTOR (holds his hand out to her). Come with me.
Rose takes his hand and they walk away together.
EXT. PICCADILLY CIRCUS
Back in 2005, Rose steps out of the TARDIS. She looks around at the crowds, seeing them in a new light. The Doctor stands beside her.
BIG ISSUE SELLER: Big issue!
THE DOCTOR: You think it'll last forever. People, and cars and concrete. But it won't. One day, it's all gone. Even the sky. (They both look at the sky. After a moment). My planet's gone.
Rose turns to look at him. This is the first time he's mentioned his home.
THE DOCTOR (CONT'D): It's dead. It burned like the Earth. It's just rocks and dust. Before it's time.
ROSE: What happened?
THE DOCTOR: There was a war. And we lost.
ROSE: A war with who?
He doesn't answer, seemingly lost in thought.
ROSE (CONT'D): What about your people?
THE DOCTOR: I'm a Time Lord. I'm the last of the Time Lords. They're all gone. I'm the only survivor. I'm left travelling on my own because there's no one else.
ROSE: There's me...
She smiles at him.
THE DOCTOR: You've seen how dangerous it is. Do you want to go home?
Rose looks at him for a few seconds.
ROSE: I don't know. I want... (Sniffs the air). Oh! Can you smell chips?
THE DOCTOR (laughs): Yeah. Yeah!
ROSE: I want chips.
THE DOCTOR (smiling): Me too.
ROSE: Right then, before you get me back in that box, chips it is, and you can pay.
THE DOCTOR: No money.
ROSE: What sort of date are you? Come on then, tightwad, chips are on me.
He smiles at her, delighted.
ROSE (CONT'D): We've only got five billion years before the shops close...
They walk down the street together laughing, Rose nuzzling her head against his shoulder.
Summary:
| The Doctor takes Rose to the year five billion, where they land on a space station orbiting the Earth named Platform One. Among the elite alien guests assembled to watch the Earth be destroyed by the expanding Sun is Lady Cassandra , who takes pride in being the last pure human, though she has received many operations that have altered her image. It is discovered that Cassandra, to receive money for her many operations, plans to let the guests die and then profit from the stock increases of their competitors. She releases discreet robotic spiders all over Platform One, and they start interfering with the systems. She departs via teleportation and the spiders bring down the shields, causing harmful direct solar radiation to penetrate the station. The Doctor manages to reactivate the system and save Rose, after which he brings Cassandra back and she ruptures from the intense solar heat. | 95 | 43,636 | 43,638 | 43,638 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_The_Office_08x23 | fd_The_Office_08x23_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Gabe: Ugh, man. My delts are blasted. I wish they had a chart for how much protein powder to scoop for a 180 pound man with no fat.
Dwight: Protein powder, huh? You cut it with water? Why don't you just take estrogen? [swallows powder] [coughs] There you go boys. See how papa takes care of you? [kisses bicep] Mwah.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Gabe: I remember when people thought biceps were all that. They'd flex them all night at the discotheque.
Dwight: Oh, I bet you think it's all about core, huh?
Gabe: Yeah.
Dwight: Oh, please.
Gabe: Core's critical. There are four tenets of pilates that I live my life by. One - lengthen. Two - elongate.
Jim: Listen, guys, I think we all want to know the same thing, right? Who's the strongest? Well, there's only one way to solve that - flat curl contest.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: All right, here we go everybody. May the manliest man win. Go.
Dwight: Feast on this, Lewis.
Gabe: I love the burn. The burn is where I live.
Jim: Come on, Gabe, you can't handle his hamstrings. You're getting hypno-thigh-zed.
Gabe: Speed set. One. Two.
Jim: Here, this is for your elbows, for your elbows.
Dwight: Oh, thank you.
Jim: You're welcome.
Gabe: Five. Six.
Jim: Quick phone call from you guys, keep going,
All: Eight, nine, ten.
Gabe: We got it?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Very funny Jim.
Gabe: Yeah, Jim. Way to mock us for perfecting our bodies.
Robert: Everyone, conference room, now. [Dwight and Gabe stand up, falling over]
Jim: All right, easy there, grandpa.
Dwight: I don't need your help.
Jim: Okay. You don't need my help?
Dwight: Here, here... Just...
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Morning.
Erin: Hey.
Andy: Somebody left in such a hurry this morning that she forgot... these.
Erin: Oh.
Andy: You know the only thing more delicious than your feet is the feast that I am going to prepare for everyone.
Erin: Andy, if you're gonna hang out for a while, uh...
Andy: What's this?
Erin: This dumb rule Robert made, he just wants visitors to sign in.
Andy: Is this Robert's attempt to embarrass me?
Erin: No, of course not. It's just - I think it's like if we make an exception for you, then we have to make an exception for the water guy, and then, it's like, where does it end? So just... [puts visitors tag on Andy]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Why is it when other people spend all their time at the office, they're rewarded for it, and when I do it, I am told it's a little much? ...Is it because I am not an employee anymore, because that's what it feels like.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: All right, well, enjoy the alumni game.
Dwight: Good, we have a deal?
Jim: Thanks Janet.
Dwight: Thanks so much Earl.
Jim: Wow, simultaneous sale.
Dwight: And they said it couldn't be done. Boom!
Jim: Screw 'em.
Andy: Lot going on guys. What's happening?
Jim: Binghamton branch closed last night and their clients are up for grabs.
Andy: That was a fine branch. Things are really bad under Robert California, I guess. It's like a festival of poo.
Jim: Hey, hey, come on, language.
Dwight: Yeah, and we're not interested in your sour grapes, okay? Jim, tell him where he can stick his grapes.
Jim: In the fridge.
Dwight: No, Jim, the butt, in his butt.
Jim: Sorry, man, I can't focus on zingers. There's too many potential clients.
Stanley: You two better watch yourselves.
Phyllis: Yeah, the Syracuse branch can't be happy you're taking New York clients.
Robert: Shh... shh... [vomits in trash can]
Jim: Robert?
Oscar: Why did Binghamton close?
Robert: Can everyone just, please... I had a one-man saturnalia last night, in celebration of the finalization of my divorce. I got into a case of Australian reds, and - how should I say this - Columbian whites. What - what is this about, uh, Binghamton?
Kevin: The branch closed. Forever.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Robert: Closing the Binghamton branch never occurred to me before today. Or, I guess, last night. But, in vino veritas as they say, I'm not gonna start doubting my drunken self now.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Nellie: I got your voicemail. From - from last night.
Robert: Wonderful.
Nellie: And the answer... is yes, yes, yes, yes, and never. [leaves]
Robert: Pam, when's the last time you lived so intensely that your brain literally couldn't hold the memories in?
Pam: Oh, it was this summer -
Robert: Apparently, I left a phone message for Nellie last night, and I need you to find out what I said.
Pam: Um, I am a little busy.
Robert: Yes, 'course. Why don't you list the things that would keep you from helping me.
Pam: Yeah, I can make you a list.
Robert: Let's do it now. What's number one?
Pam: Why don't I help you now?
Robert: There we go.
Pam: Okay.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[Andy cooking food by reception, Harry walks in]
Harry: Who the hell are Jim Halpert and Dwight Schrute?
Erin: Jim, Dwight, what are your last names?
Dwight: And you are...
Harry: Harry Jannerone, Dunder Mifflin Syracuse.
[shocked look from Jim]
Harry: What the hell's all this?
Andy: Uh, cherries jubilee over homemade gelato.
Harry: You live well down here in P.A. I want to talk to you guys right now. Oh, and Lloyd Gross too. Which one's that guy?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Jim: The salesmen have a commission cap, but we figured out a way around it.
Dwight: Lloyd Gross is a fictional salesman we invented to - how do I put this - steal from the company. Embezzle. To commit fraud.
Jim: Okay, it sounds sketchy, but it helps us get more money.
Dwight: Yes.
Jim: Pam made a drawing of Lloyd. He is a blend of all the salesman. [shows sketch]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [pointing at Toby] There he is. That's Lloyd.
Toby: Me?
Creed: Yeah, you.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Harry: Where do you get off crossing state lines?
Toby: Now, we're actually a lot closer to Binghamton than you are. Kimosabe.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Toby: I like to think Lloyd Gross is a no-nonsense guy who doesn't back down from anybody. And he calls people "Kimosabe".
[SCENE_BREAK]
Harry: They're New York. We're New York. Sate line is the dividing line. That's the way it's always been.
Jim: There's actually not a rule that says that.
Dwight: That's true.
Toby: That's true. There's no rule. You can check the employee handbook. Oh, can I check the employee handbook Lloyd? Well, does it say anything about me choking a man with my bare hands?
Toby: No.
Dwight: Wait, no? Are you kidding me? You told me there was a rule. I could've choked so many people by now.
Harry: Stay out of my state. It's in your best interest to stay out of my state.
Toby: I've seen guys like you. Big guys who like to push the little guys around. Lloyd Gross eats bullies like you for breakfast.
Harry: Just stay out of New York, Lloyd.
Toby: Hey, text from the old wife. Gonna take that. [runs outside]
Jim: How about this? How about we just ask Robert? Can we all agree that maybe the C.E.O should decide this?
Harry: Robert's here. Look at us. Bickering like schoolgirls, looking around the room for things to hit each other with. I don't think we were doing that.
Dwight: Chair, lamp, plant, table leg, Jim's leg.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Robert: Where's the Advil, Jim? I think I've hit my limit on the Tylenol - Oh.
Andy: [Doing dishes] Sorry, not Jim.
Robert: Andrew, what do we have to do to get rid of you? Hire you back and send Erin back to Florida?
Andy: Message received loud and clear. Just have to get the caramelized sugar off the pan before it dries.
Robert: Oh, for god -
Harry: Robert California. What a surprise you're here in Scranton.
Robert: Harry...
Harry: So why would you close Binghamton down without a transition plan in place?
Robert: How do you mean?
Andy: I forgot, a... a pan, uh -
Harry: No, no, no, no, no, kid, stay there, do your dishes, go ahead.
Robert: Harry there is a time for every decision, predetermined many years ago. There's no benefit in questioning why this particular decision seems... so poorly timed.
Dwight: Okay, what are you deciding? We get a say.
Harry: Listen, Robert, I don't have time. There's a big client in play. Prestige direct mail solutions -
Dwight: Don't listen to him.
Harry: Used to be Binghamton's -
Dwight: Nope.
Harry: I want it, it's mine.
Dwight: Prestige is ours. Okay, they're responsible for half of the junk mail on the eastern seaboard. We get them. We already put a call into them, Robert.
Harry: We need you to make a decision.
Dwight: Make a decision.
Robert: I have decided. Neither of you are to have any contact with either Prestige or any other Binghamton client until I have figured out how to divide things up. As Solomon once said... [Andy walks out]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Some bizarre energy in this place today. Robert is going off the rails, making some funky decisions. Like why is nobody gonna call on Prestige? That is a huge client. [walking to car] I mean, they could give their business to the first person to walk in the door. Could be any idiot. Any idiot at all.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Robert: Shaping a company is, in a sense, similar to training a geisha. You have to mold not merely the physical form, but also the character. The two must harmonize. Are they still there? [camera pans to right, Harry, Dwight, and Jim watching Robert in conference room] They want a decision who gets the big client. Well, they can wait. I'll still be talking about geishas long past their bedtime. You know, I trained as one.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Harry: Is it just me or is our boss a freakin' weirdo? [stands up, walks outside] I'm gonna get some air.
Dwight: Jim, you know what would be really dastardly? If we snuck out of here and got to the client first.
Jim: [Gets up and looks out Nellie's office window] He's running!
Dwight: Damn it!
Jim: Damn it.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Wha - what is this supposed to be?
Jim: It's a monkey.
Dwight: Jim, great real. This is not a monkey. It's got a hula skirt and a blue nose.
Jim: Hold on, hold on. Is this him?
Dwight: What?
Jim: Is that him?
Dwight: It's him! Do something! Get out!
Jim: What? What am I gonna do? I don't -
Dwight: Go slash his tires! Go dent his hood. [Jim opens passenger door] That's it? Oh, that's great. That's like a five second delay.
Jim: Dwight!
Dwight: Come on, let's go! Does this thing have turbo? Nitrous? Hit the nos.
Jim: Nos? You mean like in fast and furious?
Dwight: Yeah.
Jim: Oh, yeah, definitely have nos.
Dwight: Hit the nos.
Jim: Are you sure?
Dwight: Yes.
Jim: Brace yourself. 3... 2...
Dwight: Got it. Go.
Jim: 1. Here we go! [turns on wipers]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Hello. Andy Bernard to see the C.E.O.
Receptionist: Oh, do you have an appointment?
Andy: No, I do not.
Receptionist: Okay, I think I can squeeze you in.
Andy: Seriously? 'Cause I could just be anyone. I mean, I thought I was gonna have to convince you.
Receptionist: He's really not that busy.
Mr. Ramish: Is there someone here to see me?
Receptionist: Yes, this man.
Mr. Ramish: Come on in. [Andy walks in]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: So...what do you make of this Robert California guy? I mean, what does a guy like that do on an average weeknight?
Nellie: Oh. Oh, I'll tell you what he does.
Angela:: [walks in] Hello! Hello, my clucking hens. Got room for another in the roost? Huh? Don't worry, I won't lay an egg.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Angela:: Robert sent me to take over if Pam fails. If? [laughs]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Angela:: I have been crunching numbers all day. Math is for boys. I need girl talk.
Gabe: Did someone say girl talk?
[SCENE_BREAK]
Gabe: Sometimes I wonder if I have ovaries in my scrotum, because I am great at girl talk.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Gabe: Have you guys been watching any good Korean soap operas? I'm pretty deep into Hee-Jungcinderella girl. Although, I definitely fast-forward through the young-Tae storylines.
Nellie: Do you think I'd like that, or is it important to have an Asian fetish?
Gabe: Uh, I think you're gonna need to have an Asian fetish. Yeah. [chuckles] It'll be upsetting if you don't.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: I'm a former paper executive. I know the product. I know the margins. I can save you 25% on your costs.
Mr. Ramish: Why haven't I heard of you? You got any references?
Andy: No. I'm a rogue.
Mr. Ramish: Uh-huh.
Andy: Which is the best part. That means you will be my first customer and your business will get 100% of my attention. Now... [pulls out business card] I have written down my personal phone number. You call this anytime.
Mr. Ramish: Every salesman I've ever met has given me his personal phone number.
Andy: Of course they have. Which is why I'm giving you a key to my house. [gives key to C.E.O] Whatever you need - anytime, night or day - you just stop on by.
Mr. Ramish: You want me to drive to your house if I need paper.
Andy: Maybe you just want someone to talk to. Maybe... you need a place to crash for a couple of days. My wireless password is eat pray love. Easy to remember.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: Ready? Go! Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go. [takes off belt, ties doors together]
Dwight: [Running] Ahhh! [Slides into elevator]
Jim: You all right?
Dwight: Yeah. [Doors about to close, hand stops them] Oh.
Jim: Ah! [Harry walks in]
Jim: [Dwight pushes button for floor two] Dwight, what are you doing?
Dwight: Go, go! Take the stairs! Now!
Jim: What are you talking about?
Dwight: Just run! Take the stairs!
Jim: I don't even know where the stairs are!
Dwight: I'll stall him. Go!
Jim: God!
Harry: [Dwight jumping] What are you doing?
Dwight: I'm gonna activate the seismic failsafe. We'll be stuck between floors for hours. [pants fall down] Oh. [Jim runs in] My pants fell down.
Jim: What?
Dwight: My pants fell down! I don't have a belt!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Dwight: [walks into lobby] Hello, sir. Good day. Dwight K. Schrute. Dunder Mifflin, Scranton. Forgive my pants, they fell down. An appointment with Mr. Ramish, please. Right now is fine. No, no, no, I was here first. Dwight K. Schrute. Dunder Mifflin, Scranton.
Mr. Ramish: What's going on?
Dwight: Well -
Harry: Mr. Ramish, Harry Jannerone. Dunder Mifflin, Syracuse -
Dwight: I was here first.
Mr. Ramish: Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, okay.
Dwight: I already made an appointment... with your secretary.
Mr. Ramish: Let me stop you all right here. I've already picked a new paper supplier.
Dwight: Wait, it's not D.M Utica, is it?
Mr. Ramish: No, no, it's not Dunder Mifflin at all actually. It's... Big Red Paper Company.
Jim: Big Red Paper Company?
Mr. Ramish: Mm-hmm.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Andy: Yes, yes, yes!
[SCENE_BREAK]
Harry: Give me a cup of coffee.
Dwight: Me too. Or do you also have a monopoly on thirst?
Jim: All right, guys. It didn't work out for any of us, so... we're still on the same team. Let me get these.
Dwight: No. Let him get his own. It's Syracuse money.
Harry: You know, your partner's got a lotta attitude. But I like that. How long you guys been dating?
Dwight: Jim couldn't land me in a thousand years.
Jim: But you're saying there's a chance.
Dwight: Shut up.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: [Walks into conference room] Hey.
Robert: Hmm.
Pam: I stole Nellie's phone.
Robert: Excellent. Excellent. Though troubling that your first instinct is thievery.
Pam: What do you want from me?
Robert: Now we get to the bottom of Nellie's "yes, yes, yes, yes, never."
Phone: Hi, Nell, it's mom. Do keep your chin up. It can't be as bad as you described.
Robert: Oh yes it can.
Phone: This is MasterCard. You are over the limit. Send the minimum payment of $448 by Monday, or we will be forced to send it to collections.
Robert: Shopaholic.
Pam: Sounds like it.
Robert: Yeah.
Phone: Hi, sis. Is your boss still hitting on you?
Robert: Ah.
Phone: This is Annie from second nests. I'm sorry, but the Romanian orphanage felt more comfortable with a two-person nuclear family than a single mother, so, we're gonna hold out for that.
Pam: Okay, that's enough. [grabs phone]
Robert: Pam, we need to get to the bottom of this.
Pam: No, no, no!
Robert: No, come on.
Pam: Robert! Okay, oops! I deleted them all. They're all deleted.
Robert: Pam, Pam, you've completely bungled this!
Pam: Ah. Ahh. [walks out]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Pam: Hey.
Nellie: Can I do it, Pam? Can I put off a gold Arabian sandal?
Pam: Um... yes. Definitely. With your hair -
Nellie: Oh!
Pam: Certainly. Um... you dropped your cell phone.
Nellie: Oh, gosh.
Pam: Yep.
Nellie: Thank you. I'm... so stupid.
Pam: No. My goodness. You have a lot going on. With Robert and everything.
Nellie: Oh, god, Pam. Don't get me started.
Pam: No, I will not.
Nellie: You've just got me started. Robert... is... a filthy beast. I mean, don't you get the feeling, he's just thinking of fifteen different ways to do you?
Pam: Well -
Nellie: I mean, the man talks of nothing but s*x.
Pam: But sometimes he talks about flesh... and bacchanals.
Nellie: I cannot even tell you what he left on my phone last night.
Pam: No... don't. Just put it out of your mind.
Nellie: Pam, what is your address? I'm gonna send you a pair of these gold harem shoes. Oh, no. You don't -
Nellie: Oh yes. Come on, a little gold Arabian slipper.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Nellie: Things are looking up. I might be a mother soon. I have MasterCard right where I want them. And... I have a new friend. A friend. At work.
[SCENE_BREAK]
Robert: [Erin opens door] Erin.
Erin: There's a call for you on line one.
Robert: Who is it?
Erin: He says salvation. No last name.
Robert: Yeah, hello?
Andy: [in car] You once put me on a list of the losers in the office. Well, this loser just got your biggest client to give him all their business. So hire me back, that business is yours. Don't, and I will find another buyer.
Robert: You're blackmailing me.
Andy: It's just business.
Robert: Ah, well, I will not be blackmailed by some ineffectual, privileged, effete, soft-penised debutante. You wanna start a street fight with me, bring it on. You're gonna be surprised by how ugly it gets. You don't even know my real name. I'm the *bleep* lizard king. [disconnects]
Andy: Whoa. Well I gave him a chance. [gets out of car, walks to house]
David: [opens door] Andy Bernard.
Andy: You got a minute?
David: Um... I'm in the middle of a piano lesson.
Andy: I wanted to see if I could interest you in an investment. Dunder Mifflin.
David: Dunder Mifflin. [closes door] Now... why would I want that? It's worth half of what it was three years ago.
Andy: Exactly. And you know better than anyone that with the right management it could be worth twice what you would pay for it today.
David: Why don't you come in? [Andy walks in, closes door]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Harry: So what would you do if you weren't selling paper?
Jim: Oh, man, I'd have to sell beets. Probably submit them for competitions.
Dwight: What?
Jim: Yeah! I know it sounds stupid, but nationals has always kinda been a dream of mine.
Dwight: How have we never talked about this before? Wait. You don't even care about nationals.
Harry: Nothing?
Jim: I don't know. I've always wanted to own a bike shop, but what about you?
Harry: I'd like to sell one big thing, you know? Like... a plane. One sale, I'm out.
Jim: That sounds lovely.
Harry: Anyway, Robert's gonna run this company into the ground, so... We won't be doing this in six months.
Summary:
| While drunk, Robert shuts down Dunder Mifflin's Binghamton branch. Andy prepares to make his comeback by temporarily forming his own rival paper company. Jim and Dwight work together to defeat a rival Dunder Mifflin salesman ( Chris Bauer ) who wants the Binghamton branch's clients. | 95 | 19,016 | 19,018 | 19,018 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Justified_06x11 | fd_Justified_06x11_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[PREVIOUSLY_ON]
Zachariah: What about Boyd?
Boyd ain't nothing like Bowman.
Zachariah: Yeah, he's a Crowder. That's awful strange talk seeing as you're here working for him.
Ava: My uncle ... you sure he couldn't have made it out of that mine?
Carl: Even if he survived the blast, the rockfall cut him off from the entrance.
Probably got turned around in the dark.
Ava: Zachariah got turned around?
Art: You want some advice? Bring Raylan in. See if you can confirm what your gut is telling you.
Rachel: Is that what you'd do? You'd let it go. Wouldn't risk the case just to save your own ass.
Mike: When I asked you how long you'd been snitching to the marshals, you said, "this time." The other time was about Grady Hale, right?
Duffy: You just figured that out all by yourself, Mikey?
[laughs]
Duffy: Aah!
[handcuffs click]
Mike: Ms. Hale, please call me as soon as you get this.
Boyd: Ripping you off ... that was her idea of payback for you murdering her husband.
I just thought you'd wanna know. Baby?
[gunshot]
[grunts]
Raylan: What did you do?
Ava: I gave you what you always wanted, Raylan ...
Boyd Crowder bleeding at your feet. I'm gonna come after you.
Ava: I know.
Rachel: I know your deputies just got back to Atlanta, but we need as many as you can spare. We've got a new number one. Ava Crowder. Jerry, I'm gonna have to call you back.
Art: [exhales sharply]
[indistinct conversations]
Rachel: How bad is it?
Art: Well... I shaved.
The director called. Tried to tell her that I was the shot caller on this from my sickbed, that I just couldn't let it go, but apparently you'd already talked to her.
Rachel: I'm the one who approved Ava as a C.I. and Raylan as her handler. It's only right I take the hit.
Art: I wish you'd called me first.
Rachel: Am I suspended?
Art: Hell, no. Not gonna sideline one of my best manhunters in the middle of a manhunt. What the hell's the status with Crowder?
Rachel: Nelson's sitting on him at Harlan regional medical until they get the bullet out and we can move him.
Art: Well, you do realize you accomplished something that I was never able to do all these years.
Rachel: Let an untrustworthy C.I. get away with $10 million?
Art: You got Boyd Crowder.
Boyd: Aah! Aah, aah, aah.
Doctor: Irrespective of you being shot, you are what doctors call one lucky son of a bitch.
Yeah, well, I don't feel so lucky at the moment. [groans]
Doctor: Slug splintered on your collarbone. Hair South, your lungs'd be torn to shreds. We got in there, tied things up. It could be worse.
Raylan: You give us a minute, doc?
Doctor: You're not the one shot him, are you?
Raylan: No, I'm the one who got him here.
Boyd: [exhaling deeply] Ain't exactly true, is it? What you told him about bringing me here. Well, I called it in, made sure they knew you were emergent.
Boyd: You handcuffed me to a bumper, you left me there without so much as a fare-thee-well.
Raylan: You could hear the sirens on their way. Must have given you some solace.
Boyd: I don't suppose you've come to tell me you've found her.
Raylan: I found her truck some down the road, abandoned. No sign beyond. Gotta suck, be that close to the prize, have it shot out of your hand. I kinda know how you feel.
Boyd: No, you don't. I don't believe in a world where you know how I feel.
Raylan: I didn't realize disappointment was a domain exclusive unto Boyd Crowder. Well, Raylan, if we're gonna play it that simple, then let's talk about your disappointments. What disappoints you, Raylan Givens? The fact that you weren't the one who got to shoot me? Where is she goin'?
Boyd: Well, you wheel me outta here, I'll take you straight to her. [chuckles] That's funny.
Boyd: Oh, well, it doesn't have to be funny. Come on, Raylan. Me and you, one more ride together. See if we can't find a reasonable solution to our problem. But which is our problem, exactly? The money or Ava?
Boyd: Well, ain't they the same problem, Raylan?
Raylan: Are they to you?
Boyd: I'm gonna get outta here, Raylan.
Raylan: Mm-hmm.
Boyd: Sooner or later, one way or another, I'm gonna get outta here, and when I do, I'm gonna go get that money.
Raylan: Which sets me to thinking, How long you think she's got? Long enough for you to execute your great escape? Get to her before Markham and his boys do? Then I got to wonderin' further what they're gonna do to her if they get there first.
Boyd: Well, maybe she has whatever that is coming.
Raylan: Oh. I see. And you're cool with that? Them dishing out retribution however they see fit?
Boyd: Are you?
Raylan: My, my.
Boyd: You know, Raylan...
Zachariah Randolph.
Raylan: Come again?
Boyd: It's her uncle. I think that's the man you're looking for.
[monitor beeping steadily]
You think he's helping her?
Boyd: Well, if he ain't died down one of those shafts, Raylan, then... I don't believe he has. That'd be my first stop.
Raylan: See you at the arraignment.
Tim: You get anything?
Raylan: Maybe a place to start.
Nelson: Heard she pulled Boyd's gun on you.
Raylan: She did.
Nelson: Man, I did not see that coming.
Raylan: Anything changes here, drop me a line. You ever been down in a mine?
Tim: I've been to Mordor, but not through the mines.
Raylan: Is that a yes or a no?
Tim: No.
[music]
[birds calling]
Zachariah: [grunts]
Ava: Is that it? Way up there?
Zachariah: Yeah!
Ava: I thought you said it was close.
Zachariah: [grunts]
[birds crying and chirping]
Ava: How long's this place been closed?
Zachariah: Oh, eight, nine years. They used it a... a supply station.
Rescue would get the supplies in, trap miners as fast as possible. Regulations being so damn lax, they didn't build this thing till after the '83 collapse.
[both sigh]
You think having closer supplies would have saved my daddy?
Zachariah: God himself couldn't save your daddy on that day. That's why I stopped praying.
Zachariah: [grunting] Yeah, yeah.
[scraping and thudding]
Ava: [coughs]
Zachariah: Get some heat in here.
And I got... this here radio for backup. We'll know they're coming before they do. Give us some time to hightail it outta here, which is exactly what we should be doing, so I'm gonna go over, see if I can get one of those old A.T.V.s running. Pack up these bags, and we be outta here by sundown! Now you do know those old moonshine trails up there, they just roll through those mountains like a...
Ava: Maze?
Zachariah: Yeah, maze. Now this Grubes guy we're going to see ... you sure he knows his way around?
Ava: He knows the trails blindfolded.
But I was thinkin'... Boyd knows Grubes.
Zachariah: Ah.
Ava: If he's alive ...
Zachariah: If he's alive, the marshals got him, and if he ain't... [claps hands] the more, the better.
[title music]
♪ On this lonely road, trying to make it home ♪ ♪ doing it by my lonesome, pissed off, who wants some? ♪ ♪ I'm fighting for my soul, god, get at your boy ♪ ♪ you try to bogard, fall back, I go hard ♪ ♪ on this lonely road, trying to make it home ♪ ♪ doing it by my lonesome, pissed off, who wants some? ♪ ♪ I see them long, hard times to come ♪
Katherine: Where are you? Damn, I can't hear you.
Mike: I'm in Richmond, close to E.K.U.
Duffy: Give me the phone, Mikey. Let me talk to her.
Katherine: I'll call when I get close. Keep Duffy there.
I just need to get my purse.
[cell phone beeps]
Markham: You know, I can usually smell a rotten bud before it blooms. But your scent, my dear, has always been presidential kush.
... your questions. And all that on my. [sighs]
Markham: Got yourself a new purse.
Katherine: Yeah, before we go down a whole road, I think you might be interested in the phone call I just had, wherein I learned that Wynn Duffy killed Grady.
Markham: I didn't know that little cockroach was still alive.
Katherine: Yeah. Well, I'm just going to change, then.
Markham: How do you know this?
Katherine: His bodyguard called me. Wynn Duffy was a rat 14 years ago, and he's a rat today.
Markham: You know, I knew you'd never leave your home state.
That's why I came back. Nothing else mattered.
You were the prize. But now I wonder if I wasn't just a mark, someone for you to screw.
Katherine: At first, yes, but... seeing you... being with you, - everything came flying back.
Markham: Oh, don't tell me. Love?
Katherine: Well, was it not the same for you?
Markham: Well, I've always loved you, Katherine. I just don't trust you.
Katherine: Well, I accepted your proposal, Avery. Would it be so bad for the two of us to... live together, not trusting each other, just like everybody else in the whole wide world?
Markham: You know, I understand your drive to avenge Grady's death, even when you thought it was me. And I hope when I'm your husband... you'd do the same for me.
Katherine: [sighs] I'm gonna go shower. You wanna join me?
Markham: Nothing I'd love more.
But there's work to be done.
Katherine: Goin' after your 10 million?
Markham: Our 10 million.
You know, I'm gonna make sure Boyd Crowder doesn't see another day.
Katherine: Well, I'm gonna do the same to Wynn Duffy.
Markham: Let me handle Duffy. I'll bring you his head for a wedding present.
Katherine: Goddamn, Avery Markham. I love you.
Markham: Love you, too.
[classical music playing on radio]
Duffy: I never knew you liked classical, Mikey.
Mike: You'd know if you let me pick the music every once in a while.
Duffy: That can change.
A lot can change. You want me to drive sometimes?
You wanna be in charge of the TV? Mikey?
What do you want, Mikey?
Okay, point taken.
You got a code. You're billy jack. I get it, okay?
Can we end this? Mikey? I'll forget what happened and we'll go back to the way things were.
[radio volume increases]
[loudly] Okay, Mikey?! Hey!
Take these goddamn cuffs off, or I'm gonna take that code, and I will shove it up your ass!
[whack]
Uhh!
Mike: This isn't just about some code. You were as close to family as I ever had. I believed in you, Wynn. End of the day, you're a rat. And rats get exterminated, period. And I hate being called "Mikey."
[door squeaks]
[bag thuds]
Loretta: [sighs]
Boon: Seat buckle.
I'm just looking to keep my girl safe.
[squeaks]
Boon: Are you looking for this? [chuckles] Come on.
When I was a kid... can't tell you how many falls your daddy and I had, angry pricks, one and all. Lay three hots and a cot with a side of ass whupping.
I come to rely solely on my own wherewithal at a tender age, not unlike yourself.
I'm hearing tales about all this money you supposedly got, no doubt giving you a sense of confidence. But I can tell you what. Markham's got a lot more.
Loretta: What's your point?
Boon: Do you ever watch the History Channel?
Days of yore, marriages weren't about love... or romance. Those sentiments didn't even factor in. They were about alliances to end wars, making each side stronger against enemies they had in common. You understand?
Loretta: Man, I got no idea what in the hell you're talking about.
Boon: I'm saying, if I'd had a Mr. Markham by my side back then, I'd have jumped on it as fast as a bullet. I wanna offer you an opportunity, tuck in with us. You say yes, we'll always be watching your back.
Loretta: I don't need anybody watching my back ... least of all, you.
Boon: Got fire in your belly. What I adore most, girl. Be careful... lest it burn your brain, so you can't hear good reason.
[music]
[indistinct conversations]
Raylan: You got an escort down the mine shaft?
Willits: He's on the way out now.
Had to roust the owner out of the bed. He ... he was grumpy about it.
Raylan: Well, you can tell him he can give me the what-for as soon as he gets us on a coal cart.
Willits: You think she could have got down that mine shaft on her own?
Tim: We think Ms. Crowder has an accomplice worked his mine most of his life.
Raylan: What's that up there? So I've got the claim more said, Earl's on A.K. we got that armored truck dead on our side.
Earl: Next thing we know, cherries, man, everywhere.
Carl: I'm telling it, Earl. All right? Sorry.
Man: How'd the cops know?
Carl: Figure we got set up.
Earl: By who?
Carl: That Katherine chick and Duffy ... one or both of 'em. It's like that old saying, you know?
Earl: "Crime doesn't pay"?
Carl: God damn it, Earl. No. "Ain't no honor among thieves." Crime does pay. As long as the criminals you're working for don't screw you over all the time.
Birch: Let's go, girls! You're moving to a new cell!
Come on off your fannies!
[cell door clanks]
Not you two. You got a visitor.
Carl: Who?
Birch: [whistles]
Earl: Oh, no.
Oh, hey! Hey, we can't be in here with them! Come on now! This sh1t ain't legal!
Markham: Those cops aren't gonna help you, son. They're new friends of mine.
Carl: I'm gonna tell y'all upfront right now, we ain't going down without a fight.
Boon: Jenny here says you would.
[bars rattle]
And she's had the last word in many such a disagreement.
Markham: Boon. I know Boyd is the brain behind your attempt to rob me.
You and your brother were just pawns.
Carl: We were soldiers.
Markham: No, you were pawns.
He sent you out to attack that armored car while he executed his real plan ... kidnap my fiancée, extort the $10 million that way. He screwed you both.
Earl: You're lying. Boyd wouldn't do that to us. Would he, Carl?
Markham: Ever hear of Judge Zeke Baron?
Earl: I know of Baron's pawn shop. That's Judge Zeke. He owns it. He got an office out back. Buy enough of his junk for double what it cost, he's amenable to signing a release, get you R.O.R.'d.
Earl: What does that have to do with us? It means we're gettin' out of here. Means you're gettin' out of here. What about Earl?
Earl: Yeah. Drop our ... is one man affort, Carl.
Carl: Well, why me? Why not the hat kid? Boyd knows you. Ask him where my money is.
If he knows, put a bullet between his eyes.
If he doesn't know... put a bullet between his eyes anyway.
Carl: What if I tell you Boyd's been good to me, huh? And I don't want your damn job.
Markham: If you refuse, if you fail... or if you run off when you get into the outside world, then... Jenny will blow Earl a kiss.
[taps]
Carl: [sighs]
[music]
[animal chitters in distance]
[birds crying and cawing]
[door creaks]
Tim: Clear.
Willits: Clear.
Tim: Somebody's been here.
Willits: I imagine this place has been put to all sorts of use.
Kids stealing, coming in here to hook up.
Raylan: It's warm in here. You notice that? Like someone had a space heater.
Tim: Drag marks right here by the doorway. $10 million is a lot of weight.
Willits: Maybe spied us, left in a hurry. If so, they ain't far, and they're not moving fast. We need to shift choppers and dogs to this ridge, set the perimenter around this point as ground zero. You got any guys you can spare?
Willits: I can ask. Uh, if so, you wanna ride on one of the helicopters? One of them's got F.L.I.R. Maybe get you a seat if you want.
Raylan: Definitely.
Vasquez: It's beyond bad, chief.
It's career-ending ... mine... and yours.
You were the one that told me to put Raylan in the lead.
Rachel: Why did you call us in here, Vasquez?
Vasquez: Where is he?
Rachel: Where's who?
Art: He's working the fugitive. As the closest deputy to the case, he is the most likely to find her.
Vasquez: Oh, Jesus, Art. Seriously? I mean, really, seriously?
God damn it, what ... what did he, promise you a cut?!
Art: I'm gonna do you the goddamn common courtesy of pretending I didn't hear that sh1t come out of your mouth. He was banging her in the past. He's almost certainly banging her now! His banging her in the past wrecked the criminal case back then! And then here we are again now! History repeating itself. Then he lets her shoot his, uh, whatever-the-hell-you-want- to-call-Boyd. That's convenient. And this marshal, whom we've defended on countless questionable shootings, well, he decides this time, he's gonna holster his piece, and he's just gonna wave goodbye as she drives away.
Art: [sighs]
Vasquez: You take umbrage with me all you want, Chief Deputy Mullen. You give me that look like you wanna choke me right now. But eventually, the both of you are gonna have to come to grips with the reality.
Rachel: And in your version of reality?
Vasquez: Your marshal and his girlfriend have stolen $10 million right out from under our noses.
[sighs]
[telephone ringing in distance]
[helicopter approches]
[cellphone buzzing]
Raylan: [loudly] Givens. I'm about to get on a helicopter.
Art: [sighs]
I need you back in Lexington now.
Raylan: What? What? Hey, I ain't kidding about the helicopter. It's hovering above my head. Why I'm talking so loud.
Art: Let the helicopter go. Let somebody else take a ride. I need you in the office.
Raylan: What'd I do?
Art: That's a long list.
Raylan: I know that tone, Art. I know it too well, as a matter of fact. Just tell me.
Art: Vasquez has voiced a concern.
Raylan: Raised a concern or leveled an accusation?
Art: Look, you know where this is going. You tell me.
Raylan: He thinks I conspired with Ava.
Oh, tell me you ain't entertaining the notion that that is anything other than utter horseshit. [sighs] All I'm saying is you're not giving me a leg to stand on here. I'm having trouble enough defending your actions even absent your and Ava's history.
Raylan: Just let me get on the helicopter, take one pass, see if I can spot 'em. They're close, Art. I'm telling you, I can feel it. They're close.
[helicopter whirring]
Art: All right. You know me so well.
I'm sure you can understand my tone when I say to you let the goddamn helicopter go and get your ass back to Lexington right now.
[whirring continues]
[cell phone beeps]
[starts engine]
[under breath] God damn it.
[music]
[whirring]
Ava: Okay...
[panting]
[SCENE_BREAK]
Stiles: Are you Deputy Dunlop?
Nelson: That's me.
Stiles: They say they got a deputy who wants to meet you outside. Givens, I think?
Nelson: I could use a coffee anyway. Keep an eye on him for me for a minute?
Stiles: Oh, yeah, you bet.
Nelson: Thanks. [telephone rings]
Stiles: [whispers] Let's go.
Stiles: All right, now you're gonna have to make this look good, all right?
[door closes]
Stiles: How about you hit me?
Boyd: Carl?
[whack]
Carl. Carl?
Carl: [grunting]
[panting]
That look good enough to you, you son of a bitch?
Boyd: Wha...
Carl: Where's the money, Boyd?
Boyd: Why are you pointing a gun at me? I'm infirm.
Carl: I trusted you. You sold Earl and I out. You set the cops on us.
Boyd: Who sold you that wooden nickel? Son, I had every intention of meeting you ...
Carl: Don't... lie to me, Boyd! Now where's the goddamn money?
Boyd: Carl, I'm sorry. I-I made a bad decision. Trust me, son. And if I had to do it all over again, I'd do it different.
[click]
Carl: Last chance.
Boyd: Hey, hey.
Carl: Where is the money?
Boyd: God damn it, I saved your life down in that mine.
Carl: [breathing heavily]
He's got my brother, Boyd. I ain't got no choice in this.
Boyd: Who's got your brother? Markham?
Carl: [breathes heavily]
Boyd: Well, damn, son, get me outta here.
Let's go get that money. We'll get your brother.
We'll kill that son of a bitch. I'll give you half of everything that I put my hands on. Carl... Carl, I know that we have had a bad run of luck lately, but we can change it right now, god damn it. Contrary to everything that's happened, I care deeply about you and your brother.
$5 million?
[exhales deeply]
Now go get that key, son. Come on. [exhales deeply]
Carl: Yeah.
[siren whoops]
[reverse alert beeping]
[brakes squeal]
[radio chatter]
[clatter]
Give me that jacket.
Boyd: Where's he now?
Carl: Earl is in the jail under guard. Markam bought a couple dirty cops. Do anything for him.
Boyd: Let's go kill that skinny son of a bitch.
Carl: Question is now, how we gonna get you out past the nurses' stand without anybody noticing?
Boyd: [sighs] It shouldn't be too hard with all the chaos.
Carl: What chaos?
[gunshot]
[alarm sounding]
Boyd: We got a shooter on the floor! Everybody clear out!
Woman: Get outta here!
Man: He said shooter! Come on!
[alarm continues sounding, people shouting indistinctly]
[police radio chatter]
Raylan: Where's Nelson?
Tim: Somewhere wishing he wasn't Nelson.
Why didn't he get any backup?
Tim: Everyone's out looking for Ava.
Raylan: Oh, my god.
Tim: The word I got is you're supposed to be headed back to Lexington, face this Vasquez reckoning.
Raylan: Yeah, I was headed back to Lexington. Then I got word Crowder escaped marshals' custody and reframed my priorities somewhat.
Tim: And creepy how excited you seem right now, not that I am questioning your priorities.
Raylan: My priorities are straight.
Tim: Uh-huh. So you're gonna keep cool when I tell you you need to follow Art's orders and head back to Lexington.
Raylan: Give me something here. Point me in the direction, couple hours.
Tim: Oh, so the joke here is that I give you directions back to Lexington, but since you know where that is ...
Raylan: Who is this peckerwood here? Is this Carl?
Jesus Christ, man. Carl.
Tim: I know. It's weird, isn't it? Maybe you should ask him about that when you get back to the office. Raylan; Tim, can we stop pretending there's any version of this conversation that ends with me going to the office?
Tim: If I help you out, you gonna cut me in on that $10 million?
Raylan: [sighs]
[telephone ringing in distance]
Man: # I wanna go back, #
♪ I wanna go up and down ♪ ♪ over all the little trees and passes ♪ ♪ that make up our hometown ♪
Boon: Got word from the hospital.
Markham: What?
♪ it all came crashing down ♪
Boon: Carl's dead. And ...
Markham: And Boyd escaped.
Markham: I told Carl what would happen if he failed in his job.
A deal's a deal. Call our friends at the jail. Get little brother out.
♪ we held each other close so tight ♪ ♪ I wanna go back ♪
[footsteps approach]
Man: Help ya?
Raylan: Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens.
Looking for Earl Lennon. May have him back there awaiting marshal's transfer back to Lexington.
Man: Oh, yeah, sure.
Raylan: Great. Whatever paperwork you, uh...
Man: Just need to, uh...
Raylan: Sure.
[door opens]
Crosley: Can I help you?
Raylan: Hey.
Look at that. Got him all ready for me. Nah, this prisoner's been entrusted to my offices' charge. I mean, what might you think, you can just walk on out of here with him?
Raylan: Uh, this. Not to get all federal on you, but... kinda is what it is.
Crosley: Yeah, well, I'm gonna have to make a call.
Raylan: See? There it is.
Crosley: There what is?
Raylan: You know, it don't bother me much running into a cop from this town that's bent to sh1t.
I grew up around here. Kinda expect it now and then.
What irritates me is when you call 'em on it, and they give you this look like, "how dare you insinuate I'm a piece of sh1t tarnishing my badge?" I see you doing the math, whether you're gonna tolerate the insult. But you should know, one of your co-workers is in the hospital with brain bleed, and this boy's brother's dead, so you might wanna factor them items into the equation before you decide what you're gonna do next.
Crosley: Number one ... I don't like your tone. Number two ... that badge don't mean sh1t. And number three ... this boy's been bonded out fair and square. Matter of fact, I was just about to call the judge.
Raylan: The marshal service have spent a lot of time and effort apprehending a fugitive that's now out on the run, and lives are in danger because of it, so every time you open your mealy mouth to lie, I think of that, and I start picturing how you'd look without any of your goddamn teeth.
Earl: Wait. Did you say my brother's dead?
Raylan: Earl... step away from the dirty cop and come with me, nice and slow. Thank you.
[Pachelbel's "Canon in D" playing]
Katherine: Hello, Michael.
Mike: Hello, Ms. Hale.
Katherine: Michael, would you mind giving me a gun until this unfortunate mess is over? You can retreave it later.
How does that sound?
[whispers] Thank you.
[handcuffs clanking]
[sighs]
Wynn... Avery wanted to give me your murderous rat head as a wedding present, but I thought, no, I should do something nice for him, get our marriage started out on the right foot. The things we do for love. [chuckles]
Duffy: You gonna put it in a big, blue Tiffany box like that ring on your finger?
Katherine: You're being awfully flip for someone who's about to die.
Duffy: What do you want me to say, Katherine?
Yes, I ratted out Grady to Simon Poole and, yes, I killed Simon Poole because Simon Poole was gonna rat me out to Grady. The life we chose, huh?
Katherine: Why kill Grady?
Duffy: What do you care? You were schtupping Markham. You think about it, I did you a favor.
Katherine: Yeah. Yeah, maybe you did. But, Wynn... Grady was my husband. He was my partner. And here's how it works. You protect your partner, and you avenge them against people who do them wrong. That is something I strongly believe.
[sighs]
[sniffles]
Front of the head? [click] Or back? Suit yourself.
Mike: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We don't have to kill him.
Katherine: Michael.
Mike: Just put the word out he's a rat. Let him fend for himself out there.
Katherine: Move aside.
Mike: Look, I don't like what Duffy did, but he's my boss, and I'd have to avenge him, anybody did him wrong. That's what you just said, right?
Katherine: Oh, for god's sake.
Mike: I mean, I think he's ...
[gunshot]
Aah! [grunting]
Wynn: Michael!
[gunshot]
Jesus Christ!
[gunshot]
Jesus!
[grunting]
Duffy: Aah!
Mike: [grunting]
Katherine: [grunting]
[gunshot]
Mike: Aah!
Duffy: Mikey!
Mike: [grunting] Ohh!
Duffy: Mikey!
[crack]
Katherine: [gasps]
Mike: [panting]
Katherine: [gasps]
Mike: [grunting]
[thud]
Mike: [exhales deeply]
Duffy: [panting]
Mike: [grunting and gasping]
[handcuffs rattle]
Mike: [continues grunting]
Duffy: [gasps]
Mike: [groaning]
Duffy: Mikey. Mikey.
Mike: Will you hold me?
Duffy: Yeah. [crying]
Duffy: [grunting]
[continues grunting]
It's okay. Shh. Shh! [groaning]
Duffy: Shh!
Mike: [gurgling]
Duffy: [exhales deeply]
Duffy: [grunting]
[gasping]
[cell phone beeps]
[dialing cell phone, beep]
[gasps]
[exhales deeply]
[line rings]
[breathing heavily]
[line connects]
Woman: 9-1-1. What is your emergency?
Duffy: [breathing heavily]
I'm not sure where to start. [exhales deeply]
[door creaks]
[music]
Raylan: [clicks tongue]
Nice hat. You take that off that dude at the diner?
Boon: That one didn't appeal to me. Smelled like patchouli and scared hipster.
No. I had this one made custom.
And it cost me a pretty penny. Say you like it, though?
Raylan: I do. It may be the only thing I like about you right about now.
Now, get out of my way.
I didn't come here to talk about hats.
Boon: [inhales sharply] This is my favorite part.
Don't you just love this part?
Can hear a goddamn pin drop.
Markham: Boon, let him back.
Boon: Check my balls right now. Be purple, they're so blue.
Raylan: You stay where I can see you.
Markham: [laughs]
Raylan: I'll be brief.
I got a kid in my car who's nervous being this close to the Portal.
Markham: I got no idea what you're talking about.
Raylan: It's all right. Time comes, you and Earl both can tell it to the judge. The song he's singing about how his brother got dead ... enough to put you away for a good stretch. So, to that end, you are gonna leave off chasing after that money ... you, your shit-heel cop army, anybody else you got involved, and you are definitely gonna abandon any thoughts you got of causing harm to the lady stole it.
Markham: You misread my intentions, deputy. I got no cause to engage in that kind of behavior, poison my own well when I'm just starting to feel like I'm... home at last, setting down roots with my lady friend.
Raylan: Your lady friend? She and I have long ... for this county, son. County we grew up in. Screwed your only back then.
Raylan: You don't know.
Markham: Don't know what?
Raylan: Mr. Markham, your lady friend is dead as of a half-hour ago.
Went pretty badly, as I understand it, in the confines of a motor coach belonging to Wynn Duffy.
All this... is on you. As you undertake your grieving, may that guide you, as you contemplate your next move. Gentlemen.
[door opens, closes]
Raylan: Hey, what you doing back there? You fall asleep?
You trying to get me shot?
Raylan: You think they're gonna shoot you? sh1t, maybe I should stand away.
Earl: [huffs] I-I ... Do we have to do this right here?
Raylan: I could haul him in for his threat to you. You know that, right?
Earl: Well, then I got to testify against him?
Raylan: That is how the justice system works, yes.
Earl: Well, the hell with that. That old prick killed my brother. I ain't about to be snitchin' from no witness stand when I could just as easily put a goddamn gun in his mouth later.
Raylan: Hey, dumb-ass.
Earl: What?
Raylan: Talking that way, now I can take you in for the same sh1t.
Earl: Well, so do it then. You're just about a stiff-neck little son of a bitch, ain't you?
Earl: [sniffs] Yeah, I guess so.
Raylan: Yeah. Yeah.
[breathes sharply]
Earl: So what now?
What now? I drop you someplace, call you in as a pick-up for the locals, hope you don't end up in the same jail cell as you were before.
Earl: No, no, wait, wait, now, sh1t. Or I could drop you off similarly, only call in the marshal service, put you in P.C., make sure he don't get anywhere near you. How's testifying sound to you now? Hmm?
[sighs]
He was my brother. He was my only brother.
Raylan: I understand. Take your time.
[inhales]
[sighs]
Earl: You know, you asked me earlier if I ever heard anything about what the plan was?
Raylan: Mm-hmm.
Earl: You know, after, with Boyd and Ava and the money.
Raylan: And?
Earl: Well, I never heard anything about that, but when they were trying to smuggle that Walker dude out, they ... they mentioned two things ... pig sh1t trucks, and Grubes. Somebody named Grubes.
[knock on door]
[music]
Ava: [softly] Come on.
[knock on door]
[sighs, chuckles]
Guess we wait till he comes back.
Zachariah: In this cold? [chuckles] Come on in!
Ava: [sighs]
[door closes]
Zachariah: Damn, what's that stink?
Ava: Oh... [coughs, sighs]
Zachariah: Grubes?
Ava: Oh, no, no, no. No...
[yelling] Nooo!
[music]
[cell phone vibrates, beeps]
Raylan: Givens.
Art: Tell me you're on your way in.
Raylan: Yeah.
You got a locator on the car. You'll find a kid in it I picked up. Used to work for Boyd. Just put him in P.C. and give him some good charges on Markham, we pull his head out of the dead long enough to do it.
Art: Or you could honor the responsibility that comes with wearing that badge and bring him when you come back here right now like you were ordered.
Raylan: No, I'm coming back when I get Boyd or Ava and the money, or all three.
Art: [sighs] Are you sure you want to do this?
Raylan: [sighs] I don't see as I got a choice. Do you? Art, you see where I got a choice?
Art: You got 48 hours, Raylan. That's all I can give you.
Raylan: 48 hours, bullshit. Who you got coming after me? Everybody?
Art: You got too high an opinion of yourself. Of course, you always have. Everybody's out looking for Boyd.
I'll be the one coming after you.
[cell phone beeps]
Summary:
| Art comes back from leave to take over Marshal operations in Kentucky. Vasquez questions Raylan and his relationship with Ava, whom he allowed to escape with the money, suggesting they are in cahoots. Later, after Raylan fails to heed instructions to return to Lexington, Art says he'll be coming to bring Raylan in himself. Boyd has been patched up and Raylan offers him opportunity to give up Ava before Avery and Katherine find her, but Boyd is intent on finding her himself. Boyd does suggest that Ava may be getting help from Zachariah, who helps Ava drag the money up to an abandoned mining rescue supply station in the hills. They've already left when the Marshals arrive, hiking to meet Grubes who can lead them across the mountains. However, they arrive to find the hermit long dead. Katherine responds to Mikey's call, but as she talks to Wynn about protecting and avenging ones partner, Mikey realizes there are other codes to follow and has a change of heart. Mikey takes five bullets but still manages to kill Katherine with his bare hands, passing Wynn the handcuff keys and asking Wynn to hold him as he collapses and dies. Avery pays-off the jail guards to visit Carl and Earl, arranging Carl's release on a mission to kill Boyd under threat of Earl's life. One of Avery's crooked cops gets Carl into Boyd's hospital room where Carl interrogates Boyd with a gun to his head, but becomes convinced Boyd is his best chance of saving his brother and getting out clear. After getting uncuffed from his hospital bed and into the lawman's uniform, Boyd shoots Carl dead to cause a diversion and escape. Learning that Carl failed, Avery gets Earl released as well but Raylan arrives in time to thwart the crooked cops. Raylan drives Earl to the Pizza Portal and threatens Avery's testimony in Carl's death for Avery to abandon any further efforts to reclaim the money or harm Ava, while also encouraging Earl to agree to testify that he might benefit from protective custody. Earl tells Raylan about Grubes, and Raylan heads into the hills leaving the Marshals to pick up Earl. Boon continues to threaten and intimidate Loretta. | 95 | 30,968 | 30,970 | 30,970 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_CSI__Crime_Scene_Investigation_06x02 | fd_CSI__Crime_Scene_Investigation_06x02_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
FLASH IN.
[VARIOUS EXT. LAST VEGAS CITY LIGHTS (STOCK) - NIGHT]
CUE SONG: "Mad World", Gary Jules
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CLUB -- NIGHT]
(Men and women drink. One man smiles as he's flanked by two women - one woman busy kissing his neck.)
(Across the room, a blonde-haired woman stares worriedly at her cell phone.)
[EXT. STRIP - NIGHT]
(Outside, a limo passes by. In the back seat of a car, a young Vietnamese man sits and watches the limo pass by. His face is bruised and there are tears staining his cheeks.)
(The cab he's sitting in drives away.)
[INT. TAXI POV]
(The young man looks out the windows as the taxicab drives around the strip. The bright lights from passing motels and other establishments reflect back through the rolled-up window.)
(The taxi driver's sweating.)
(The young man in the back seat glances over at the taxi driver.)
[START: SPLIT SCREEN]
(Top half: [INT. CASINO] The man from the bar leaves with two women.)
(Bottom half: [TAXI CAB] The taxi stops and parks. The driver engages the brakes and sees the young man leave.)
Taxi Driver: Hey! Where's my money?
(The young man turns around and yells back to the taxi driver.)
Young Man: You wait here!
(Top half: Cameras flash as photographers snap photos of the man walking through the casino; several women follow him.)
(A young woman in red snaps a picture of the man walking by. He notices her and turns back to look at her as he passes.)
Man: You want to come with us?
(A man standing in the back glares at the man walking by.)
(Bottom half: The taxi driver waits. The fare changes from 7.20 to 7.40. The taxi driver continues to wait.)
(Top half: The blonde-girl in red turns to her friend standing next to her.)
Tally Jordan (woman in red): Oh, my God. Come on.
(The two head out, following the man.)
(Bottom half: The taxi driver takes out his log and writes in it: 270 7888
OAKEY ST.)
(Top half: The party has moved outside to the pool.)
(Bottom half: The taxi driver continues to wait. The fare changes from 8.00 to
(Top half: The blonde-haired woman in red and her friend are now sitting on either side of the famous dark-haired man. He pays her special attention.
(Bottom half: The taxi driver continues to wait. The fare changes form 8.20 to
FLASH CUT TO WHITE: END OF SPLIT SCREEN
Cue Sound: GUNSHOT
FADE IN FROM WHITE
[EXT. 7888 OAKEY STREET - NIGHT]
(Police cars with their flashing lights are at the site. Officers mill about the area.)
(Camera moves into the car and we notice the fare is now at 24.00. The taxi driver is slumped forward against the driver's wheel, his eyes closed. We note the blood coating the shirt covering his right shoulder.)
(Sara turns on her flashlight and looks at the driver's wound.)
Sara: Gunshot wound to the neck. No visible GSR.
(She looks up and notices the visor. She flips it down and sees the money.)
Sara: Money on the visor. It wasn't a robbery.
(Grissom is looking in the back of the cab.)
Grissom: Dirt clods on the floor mat look undisturbed. Could be from the last fare. I don't see any shell casings, though.
Sara: Partition's closed. Bullet-proof glass. He was not shot from inside.
(Grissom walks around the cab as Sara snaps photos of the dead body.)
(He sees the bullet holes in the passenger door.)
Grissom: Well, I got two bullet holes in the passenger door.
Sara: That's a weird side of the car for a drive-by.
Grissom: Maybe he wasn't shot here. Maybe he just ended up here.
(Grissom looks around the area. He sees the detective talking with someone in uniform. Grissom calls out to him.)
Grissom: Excuse me?
(The man from the Transit Board looks up.)
Grissom: Are you with the Transit Board?
MTB Rep: Yeah.
Grissom: Do you have the dispatch log?
(He hands the log to Grissom. From what we can see, the log shows:
270 2549 LAS VEGAS ---
270 465 LEXINGTON 10:01
270 3900 LAS VEGAS 10:45 1040
270 2112 WESTERN BL. 11:01 420
270 4500 W. TROPICANA 11:30 780
270 20 FREMONT 12:10 980
270 7888 OAKEY ST. 12:55. {BLANK} )
(Grissom hands the log back.)
Grissom: Thanks.
(Grissom turns and leaves.)
MTB Rep: Why's he leaving?
(Sara takes a photo, then puts her camera down to answer the man's question.)
Sara: Well, that's kind of what he does.
(Sara leans forward into the cab and notices the camera.)
Sara: Is this camera always on?
MTB Rep: Only on HBO. It takes stills for ten seconds when the door opens, and then for the first ten seconds of the fare.
Sara: We're gonna need the pictures.
(Grissom is walking away from the site and dialing his cell phone.)
Catherine: (from phone) This is Catherine.
Grissom: (to phone) It's Gil. How you doing?
Catherine: (from phone) I'm busy. Checking up on me?
Grissom: (to phone) Why would I need to do that?
Catherine: (from phone) You tell me.
Grissom: (to phone) Look, I know you tend to get a little territorial about your crime scenes, and I don't want there to be any tension between us, so I'm giving you fair warning.
(Grissom stops when he sees the tire treadmarks on the asphalt.)
Catherine: (from phone) Fair warning for what?
(cc) You're at 7888 Oakey Street. Am I right?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. PARKING LOT - NIGHT]
(Catherine is kneeling down next to a dead body in the parking lot.)
Grissom: (from phone) Hi.
(She looks up and sees Grissom. He smiles and waves his cell phone at her.)
(Jaw dropped open, Catherine closes her cell phone.)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. -- NIGHT]
(Julian Harper's dead body rests against the cushions as Robbins takes his liver temperature. Warrick snaps photos of the body.)
Robbins: Julian Harper. If it weren't for the cyanosis, I'd say he was doing a photo shoot for GQ.
Warrick: Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't ready for this photo shoot.
Robbins: Body temp's 95.
(Warrick snaps more photos. Robbins glances at his watch.)
Robbins: That would make TOD approximately 3:00 A.M.
(Warrick snaps photos of the bedside table with a couple of champagne bottles, a hotel room VIP card key, a rolled-up bill and some white powder on the black tabletop.)
Warrick: Well, there's plenty of drugs around here. You think he OD'd?
(Robbins checks the victim's mouth and eyes.)
Robbins: Yeah, no edema. Some petechia. Could be suffocation or strangulation. But no ligature marks or bruising. However ...
(Camera zooms in for an extreme close-up of black fibers on the victim's neck.)
Robbins: ... some fibers under the chin.
(Robbins puts the sample in a bindle. Warrick continues snapping photos.)
(Robbins takes a digital camera out.)
Warrick: What are you doing?
Robbins: It's for my scrapbook. I've got a perfect spot for him -- a place of honor between Tupac and Entwhistle.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. MOTEL PARKING LOT -- NIGHT]
(Close-up of the victim, his head in a pool of blood. Grissom and Catherine kneel down next to the body. Catherine snaps photos of the victim.)
Grissom: The taxi's last drop-off was this address. This guy's got dirt on his shoes and pants. There was dirt in the cab. He's got to be the last fare.
Catherine: So, somebody killed them both. And if it's about money, doesn't look like this guy has much.
Grissom: Well, I guess it's relative.
START: SPLIT SCREEN
(Top screen: Robbins raises the digital camera to snap a photo of Julian Harper.)
(Bottom screen: Catherine raises her camera to snap a photo of the victim.)
Grissom: It depends on who you are.
WHITE CAMERA FLASH TO: END OF TEASER ROLL TITLE CREDITS
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. MOTEL PARKING LOT -- NIGHT]
(Catherine checks out the victim's identification.)
Willows: Samay ... Samay Thao. 15527 East Charleston Road. That's a long way from here.
(Grissom notes the wounds on the victim's chest.)
Grissom: I count six shots in his chest. There were two in the cab, one in the cabbie. If the math is correct, that's nine.
Catherine: Suggests semi-automatic, but I don't see any shell casings here.
Grissom: Yeah, there were none in the taxi, either.
Catherine: Killer could have picked them up.
Grissom: To shoot a guy six times in the torso, you either have to be very close, or a hell of a shot.
David Phillips: It's okay if I roll him?
Grissom: Yeah.
(David rolls the body onto its side and pushes up the shirt as Catherine snaps more photos of the victim's wounds.)
David Phillips: Well, no through-and-throughs. We should be able to recover some bullets from the body.
Grissom: Hang on. (points) What do you make of that?
(He points to the markings on the victim's bloodstained shirt.)
David Phillips: Looks like he rubbed up against something.
(Catherine looks around.)
Catherine: Could be transfer from that railing. There's some paint flaked off of that railing.
(Grissom turns and looks at the railing on the second floor.)
(Quick flash of: Samay Thao is on the second floor. Someone uses a semi-automatic weapon and shoots Samay Thao. The impact form the bullets pushes him up and over the railing.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
(Grissom and Catherine make their way down the second floor hallway. Grissom checks the concrete floor along the way and finds a lot of blood spatter.)
Grissom: We got blood drops.
(Catherine looks over at the metal gate. Grissom looks down over the railing at the body below.)
(Catherine sees metal cut.)
Catherine: Gil. This looks fresh.
Grissom: Hey, Brass?
SHORT CUT TO:
(An officer kicks the door in and rushes into the apartment. A second officer and Brass follow. A man sitting on the floor starts shouting in Laotian.)
Brass: Las Vegas Police! Put the gun down!
Keo Vipraxay: (shouting in Laotian)
Brass: (firmly) Put the gun down! (softer) Put it down.
(The man puts the gun down. Immediately, officers push him to the floor and handcuff his hands behind his back.)
Keo Vipraxay: (shouting in Laotian) (then, in English) I shoot ... burglar!
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. LAS VEGAS CITY (STOCK) - NIGHT]
[INT. PALMS HOTEL - HOTEL ROOM - NIGHT]
(Nick and Warrick stand at the base of the bed looking down at the body as they both put on a pair of gloves.)
Nick: Julian Harper.
(Warrick nods.)
Nick: Wasn't he supposed to be like, uh ... (very quietly) the next Brad Pitt or something?
Warrick: Yeah. Now he's the next River Phoenix.
(Warrick turns as he looks around and walks into the next room where Sofia Curtis is interviewing Gerald, also known as "Blinky". He stops and stands next to her.)
Sofia Curtis: All right, Gerald.
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Uh, they call me Blinky.
Sofia Curtis: And what was your relation to Julian Harper?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Best friends since kindergarten. Now I work for him.
Sofia Curtis: What did you do for him?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Pretty much everything. You know, bought his stuff, hooked him up. Drove him to meetings.
Warrick: Did you find the body?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): I ordered room service. I wanted to see if he was hungry. Boom, there he was.
Warrick: Did you touch or move the body in any way?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Uh, no way. No. I watch those murder shows, you know? I know to just keep my hands to myself, and, uh, call the cops.
Sofia Curtis: What is with the robe?
(Warrick looks at the officer standing nearby.)
Warrick: Did you pat him down?
Officer: He's packing a small, friendly weapon.
Warrick: Would you mind standing up for us, sir?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Nah, bro, I-I-I ... kind of got the angle of the dangle going. The boing, boing, boing.
Sofia Curtis: Stand up.
(Uncomfortable and awkward, Blinky stands up.)
Blinky (Gerald Allison): I, uh, took a Prevalis on the plane over. I been pitching a tent for, like, eight hours. Yeah, I-I think I need to consult a physician.
Sofia Curtis: It's called a priapism. Just in case you were wondering.
Warrick: What else are you on, man?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Oh, uh, nothing. I mean, uh, I smoked a little herb at the club, but that's it.
Warrick: What about Julian?
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Oh, Jules? Oh, no, he, uh ... he won't even take aspirin. You know, he's organic. You know, treats his body like a temple.
Sofia Curtis: Well, we're gonna need a list of everyone who was here worshipping the temple.
(She hands him her notebook and pen.)
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Can I sit down?
Sofia Curtis: Yeah.
(In the background, we hear the shower water running.)
Warrick: Did someone turn a shower on or something?
Sofia Curtis: You cleared that room, right?
(The officer takes out his gun and heads for the bathroom.)
(Warrick and Sofia both follow. They both draw their weapons as they head into the bathroom.)
(In the shower, a young woman in her underwear is on the floor in a fetal position.)
Warrick: Hey! Are you okay?
(Warrick tries to help her sit up. She immediately throws up.)
Sofia Curtis: (calls out) Hey! We need a medic!
(The young woman continues throwing up.)
Warrick: And a bag for stomach contents.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. MOTEL - HALLWAY OUTSIDE APARTMENT -- NIGHT]
(The officer escorts Keo Vipraxay out of the room. They head downstairs past Catherine and Grissom. Brass steps out of the room.)
Brass: His name is Keo Vipraxay. He barely speaks English. He's south Asian, I think. Anyway, it's all clear.
Catherine: Thanks, Jim.
(Grissom and Catherine enter the room.)
SHORT TIME CUT TO:
[EXT. MOTEL - APARTMENT -- NIGHT]
(Catherine looks at the end of the shot.)
Catherine: Double *** buck. Standard shot is nine pellets.
Grissom: That would account for all the hits.
Catherine: So you're saying that a single shotgun blast, through a security door, took out two separate victims in two separate locations?
Grissom: Weird, huh?
(Quick flash of: [NIGHT] The cab pulls up.)
Grissom: (V.O.) The cab drops Samay Thao in front of this building.
(Cut to: The cab door slams shut and Samay Thao heads toward the building.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
(Grissom stands in front of the door as Catherine turns the laser on through the small hole cut in the wire door. A red dot appears on Grissom's chest.)
Grissom: And the position of the blood drops gives us a pretty good idea of where Samay was standing when he was shot. He was a little shorter than me.
(Catherine adjusts the laser light.)
Catherine: Shots were centered on his chest, about there.
(Quick CGI visual image: A blue light visualization of Samay Thao stands outside the door near the railing. He's shot and the image vanishes, leaving just the red laser pointing in the direction of the shot.)
Grissom: My guess is, the cab was parked down there.
(Grissom points behind him.)
(Quick CGI visual image: A blue light visualization of the taxicab down on the parking lot. A gunshot fires and the taxi takes off.)
Grissom: The driver peeled out when he got shot.
(End of CGI visual image. Resume to present.)
(Catherine takes out a measuring device and places it on the laser.)
Catherine: Vertical deflection down to the cab is roughly 60 degrees. Standard shot won't spread that far.
Grissom: The pellets must have come through the screen.
(Quick flash of: Keo Vipraxay raises the gun and fires. The pellets go through the screen, then hit Samay Thao in the chest. Some of the pellets miss him and go on to hit the taxi driver.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
Grissom: The old billiard ball effect.
Catherine: The cab driver was collateral damage.
Catherine: Okay, but the man with the shotgun said he shot a burglar. What's here to steal?
[START: SPLIT SCREEN]
(Bottom half: Grissom looks around the room and notes the various items in the sparsely furnished room.)
(Top half)
[INT. PALMS HOTEL - HOTEL ROOM - DAY]
(Nick puts on his protective eye gear and turns on the ALS.)
Nick: Semen on the bed sheets, as well as every other flat surface in here.
Warrick: (chuckles) Yeah. I've got vodka, champagne, cocaine ...
Nick: Hey, hey. Pantyhose.
[END: SPLIT SCREEN]
(Nick picks up the pantyhose. Warrick pushes the curtains aside and lets the light into the room.)
(He looks at the glass windows.)
Warrick: I've got some smudges over here.
(Nick steps up to the window and looks at it. Warrick kneels down to look at the floor.)
Warrick: I've got some footprints.
(Warrick looks at the footprints and visualizes a body standing in front of the window. End visualization.)
Warrick: I think someone was standing right there.
Nick: Was this guy just doing it all over the hotel room?
(Quick flash of: Julian Harper presses a woman flush up against the window glass as he kisses her neck. They're both laughing. End of flash.)
Warrick: If those are his footprints ... where are hers?
Nick: Or her feet were up ... in the air. You tell me -- you just had your honeymoon.
Warrick: You want to swab this?
(Warrick hands Nick a swab.)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. BAR -- DAY]
(Sofia Curtis interviews Eva, Julian's ex-wife, as she nurses her drink at the bar.)
Eva: I just don't understand. I mean, who would want to kill Julian? I mean, he'd had some weird fan mail, but I don't think any of those kinds of people would be able to get in his suite.
Sofia Curtis: Were you in his suite?
Eva: The ex-wife isn't exactly the best person to have around when you're looking to get laid.
Sofia Curtis: Was that your choice or his?
Eva: It was mutual. I'm strictly his manager now.
Sofia Curtis: So if you weren't in his suite, where did you go?
Eva: I was taking care of business. Checked the boys in, made sure the suite was copasetic, had a drink at Skin, and played Pai Gow until hotel security came to get me.
Sofia Curtis: So how did you get to be his manager?
Eva: When I was with him, he was broke. Then after the divorce, I still ... did his laundry, paid his bills, read his scripts. After a while, I wanted to get paid. Now I get ten percent of everything. Look ... I need to make some calls. Julian's parents, the studio ... can we talk about this later?
Sofia Curtis: Sure. But I need your prints and your DNA now.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - FORENSIC AUTOPSY -- DAY]
(Robbins reports his findings to Warrick.)
Robbins: Tox shows low levels of cocaine, alcohol and Prevalis. Rules out overdose.
Warrick: Really? I guess he was just acting about the clean-living part. COD?
Robbins: Asphyxia.
Warrick: Asphyxiated how?
Robbins: I don't know. No broken hyoid. That and the absence of ligature marks or bruises makes strangulation unlikely.
Warrick: Did you find any fibers in his nose or mouth?
Robbins: Nope.
Warrick: That doesn't rule out suffocation. Killer could have used something that didn't shed fibers.
Robbins: Or maybe they came from whoever he was rolling around with in bed. Found, uh, lubricant on his genitals, probably from a condom, and minor abrasions on his pen1s, indicative of vigorous, prolonged activity.
Warrick: s*x, drugs and movies: the American Dream.
Robbins: Mm-hmm.
[SCENE_BREAK]
(COMMERICAL SET)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[CGI EFFECTS: STOMACH CONTENTS DRAINED]
[INT. HOSPITAL ROOM -- DAY]
(Warrick and Sofia Curtis interview Kate, the young woman found in Julian Harper's bathroom shower.)
Warrick: Your stomach contents contain alcohol and traces of Triazolam.
Katie: Try-as-a-what?
Warrick: It's a sleeping pill, has you reading the inside of your eyelids for a week.
Katie: I didn't take any pills.
Warrick: We also found cocaine in your bloodstream. I guess you didn't take that, either?
(She shrugs and rolls her eyes.)
Katie: So I did a couple of lines, but I didn't take any pills. If I was gonna take a pill, I would've popped e or a perc.
Sofia Curtis: Miss Villa, we found you in Julian Harper's suite. Were you ever in his bedroom?
Katie: (shrugs) Who knows? I don't even know how I ended up in Blinky's room. (groans) Oh, my ... I swear, if that guy slipped me something ...
Sofia Curtis: Tell us what you do remember.
Katie: Um ... me and my girls were at Skin, and, uh ... Blinky came over and said he was partying with Julian Harper.
(Quick flash of: Julian Harper and the woman in red are in the pimpy booth kissing.)
Katie: (V.O.) And he said they had this pimpy booth, so we went over. It didn't turn out the way I hoped.
(Kate turns around and sees them. Blinky is sitting next to her and offers her a drink. She reaches for the drink.)
(End of flash.)
Katie: And the next thing I know, Blinky's on top of me.
Sofia Curtis: We could assist you in reporting a date rape.
(She shakes her head.)
Katie: Thanks, but no.
Warrick: It's not an offer, it's our job.
Katie: There's this Stuff Magazine party at Ghost Bar tonight. I'm not gonna make it harder for me to get in because I tattled on Julian Harper's best friend. I mean, if I run into them tonight ...
Warrick: Julian Harper will not be there.
Katie: Trust me, he will.
Warrick: The coroner finished the autopsy early this morning.
Katie: He's dead?
Sofia Curtis: Yeah.
Katie: I was in Julian Harper's suite when he died? You're kidding me, right?
Sofia Curtis: And being in his suite makes you a suspect.
Katie: I am?
Warrick: Yes. So we're going to need to take a sample of your DNA.
Katie: Oh, man.
(She thinks about it and starts to smile.)
Katie: I am so getting into that party tonight for sure.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. LAS VEGAS CITY (STOCK) - DAY]
[INT. - DAY]
(Sara interviews a convenience store owner.)
Store Owner: Yeah, I remember that guy. He's, like, Chinese or something, real spun out.
Sara: He was on meth?
Store Owner: Well, he was on something. He was acting all shady. Downed a bottle of soda before he even paid for it.
Sara: And that's how you knew he was on something?
Store Owner: There ain't nothin' out here. People here act messed up because they are messed up.
Sara: The Metro Transit Board said that he caught a Sunstar taxi from this address.
Store Owner: I called it for him. Anything to get that tweaker out of here.
Sara: Any idea how he got here in the first place?
Store Owner: All I saw him do was walk through the door.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - FORENSIC AUTOPSY - DAY]
(Robbins shares his findings with Catherine.)
Robbins: Samay Thao. I don't even need to open him up to guess COD.
(Robbins checks the victim's eyes.)
Robbins: Ocular inflammation. Laceration of the sclera. Hurts like hell when you get a grain of sand in your eye. Imagine this.
(He takes a piece of glass out from the victim's eye.)
Robbins: Bad night for Laotians.
Catherine: What other Laotians are having a bad night?
(Cut to: Robbins pulls out one of the tables from the morgue.)
Robbins: Solo traffic collision on Mount Charleston. Came in early this morning. Noy Vipraxay.
Catherine: Vipraxay? Well, that's a hell of a coincidence.
Robbins: Does it mean something to you?
Catherine: Yeah, he's got the same last name as the guy who shot him. In fact, Grissom said that our vic over there caught a cab at a gas station near Mount Charleston. I'll have Auto Detail bring in his car.
Robbins: Sounds like your double's becoming a triple.
Catherine: Unless you got any more in your drawers?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - A/V LAB - DAY]
(Nick walks into the lab; Archie is standing in front of the computer.)
Nick: Hey, Archie. See if you can help me out. There was a smear on the window at the hotel. It came back saliva. So I ran it through CODIS, got a hit--felony battery on this guy, Willie Angel.
(Nick hands Archie a photo of Willie Angel.)
Nick: Now, he's a Las Vegas resident, but he wasn't a registered guest at the hotel. He has no affiliation with Julian's little entourage whatsoever.
Archie: I think I scoped this guy earlier.
Nick: Really?
Archie: Yeah.
Nick: Do it up.
(On the monitor in front of Archie, we see that he has the security video from the hotel elevator cued up. He goes through the video and finds Willie Angel.)
Archie: Yeah, there he is.
Nick: Mm-hmm.
Archie: (chuckles) Looking dapper. All right.
(He runs the tape and notes the time when Willie Angel steps off the elevator.)
Archie: 12:31 A.M. Gets off on the high-roller floor.
(He runs the tape and notes the time on ELEVATOR 3 CAM when Willie Angel steps back into the elevator - this time carrying a shopping bag with him.)
Archie: Hey, 2:45 A.M.
Nick: Shopping bags? There's no mall on that floor. He was shopping at Julian Harper's.
Archie: Enough time to shop and kill.
Nick: (sighs) The Palms issued two card keys -- one to Julian, and one to his boy Blinky. But the database shows ... one, two ... three keys were used to access the suite?
Archie: Well, assuming the third card was Willie's. You can't just walk up to the front desk and pull the "I lost my key" scam on a VIP suite.
Nick: So ... how'd Willie get it?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - DNA LAB - DAY]
(Catherine walks into the lab and finds Hodges yawning.)
Catherine: Hi.
Hodges: (yawning) Sorry. I just started seeing someone. Had a bit of a late night. Let me ask you something. How do you know when it's gone from just friends to more than?
Catherine: Well, if you have to ask, it's just friends.
Hodges: She is making dinner for me this weekend.
Catherine: Are you the only guest?
Hodges: Do her roommates count?
(Catherine doesn't say anything, but he catches her look. He turns reports.)
Hodges: The splinter from your vic's eye has four distinct layers: polycarbonate plastic, aluminum, acrylic and dye. Being an audiophile, I prefer the sound of vinyl.
Catherine: It's from a compact disc? Well, how did it end up in Samay Thao's eye?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - GARAGE]
(Catherine walks into the garage. Grissom is already there with a smashed-up car.)
Catherine: Noy Vipraxay's car.
Grissom: Easy for you to say.
(Catherine reaches for a coat and puts it on.)
Catherine: Find anything?
Grissom: Take a look at this. Gravitational pooling directly under the steering wheel.
(Inside the car, there's a large amount of blood on the steering wheel and a big pool of blood on the floor.)
(Quick flash to: The car is at the bottom of the hill.)
Catherine: (V.O.) The car was found at the bottom of a steep incline.
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
Catherine: So he was leaning over it when he bled out.
Grissom: Except he wasn't. Take a look. See this?
(He shines the flashlight on the crime scene photo he has out on the roof of the car. It shows Samay leaning against the driver's window.)
Grissom: (cc) These were taken at the crash site. (audio) If he'd have bled out in the position he was found, there'd be blood on the door, not under the steering wheel.
(He points to the door in the photo. Catherine turns and looks at the bloodless car door behind her.)
Catherine: So someone moved the body?
Grissom: There was plenty of mud at the scene, and Samay had mud on his pants. Now, maybe we can match soil samples.
(Catherine looks at the CD player in the car.)
Catherine: Hang on.
(In the CD player is a broken CD. Catherine reaches in and removes the disk.)
Catherine: Trace came back on the splinter that was in Samay's eye. It was a CD fragment. Samay was in this car.
Sara: (o.s.) Hey, guys.
(Sara walks into the garage. She's reading an open file folder.)
Sara: I got work card hits off prints from the two dead Laotians and the shooter.
Grissom: We already know their IDs.
Sara: Well, did you already know that they all worked together?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[VARIOUS CUTS OF WORKERS AT A LAUNDRY BUSINESS]
[INT. LAUNDRY BUSINESS -- DAY]
(Brass interviews Joe Cavanaugh, the owner of the laundry business.)
Brass: So Samay Thao worked for you?
Joe Cavanaugh: Yeah, runs the dryers.
Brass: When was the last time you saw him?
Joe Cavanaugh: He's been off a couple days now.
Brass: Did you know, uh, Noy or Keo Vipraxay?
Joe Cavanaugh: Sure. They work here, too.
Brass: They brothers or cousins, or what?
Joe Cavanaugh: Brothers. Keo's older. I hear they got six more back in Laos. They work swing -- they're on at 4:00.
Brass: Were they friends of Samay's?
Joe Cavanaugh: No! No way. Keo and Noy are Lao Loum. They're lowlanders. Samay's Hmong; he's in the hills. They're born to hate each other. Some tribal crap. What kind of trouble are they in?
Brass: The kind where you stop breathing. Noy's dead -- car accident. Samay's dead, too -- Keo shot him.
(Joe Cavanaugh turns and sees one of the workers lighting a cigarette. He starts shouting to him in Lao.)
Joe Cavanaugh: (shouts) (untranslated Lao)
(The worker turns and quickly puts the cigarette out.)
Joe Cavanaugh: (shouts) (untranslated Lao)
(The worker goes back to work.)
Brass: You speak Lao?
Joe Cavanaugh: And Thai, Vietnamese, Tagalog. I pulled a stint straight out of high school. I got southeast Asia; lucky me.
Brass: Yeah, I know how you feel.
Joe Cavanaugh: Did Keo tell you what happened? I mean, his English isn't very good.
(Brass looks at his watch.)
Brass: No, we're, uh, we're still waiting on an interpreter.
Joe Cavanaugh: If you need any help, you let me know.
Brass: Yeah, maybe ... maybe I'll take you up on that.
(The owner turns and walks away.)
Joe Cavanaugh: (shouts) (untranslated Lao)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. HOTEL - KITCHENS / CASINO]
(On one floor, the kitchen workers are busy cleaning the dishes. Camera continues upward. On the next floor, the chefs are busy preparing meals. Camera continues upward. On the floor above that is the casino main floor.)
(Sofia Curtis walks up to Willie Angel, who is playing a slot machine. Nick and a couple of officers follow her.)
Sofia Curtis: Willie Angel?
(He doesn't answer her.)
Sofia Curtis: You can't fool the eye in the sky, Willie. There's a lot of people looking for you.
Willie Angel: Okay, you got me. What do you want?
(She motions to the officer and they step closer to Willie, who stands up.)
Willie Angel: Hey, what are you doing?
(They start to search his pockets.)
Willie Angel: Hey, you can't do that.
(She holds out the warrant.)
Sofia Curtis: Oh, this here says we can.
(The officer finds in one pocket that Willie has a card reader. He hands it to Nick.)
Nick: Ho-ho-ho! Slick Willie. Look out now.
(Sofia reaches into Willie's other pocket and takes out a handful of cards.)
Sofia Curtis: You collect card keys, Willie?
Willie Angel: I won at those places.
Sofia Curtis: Really?
Willie Angel: I hang on to them for good luck.
Nick: Well, I bet you're real lucky with this cheap magnetic stripe reader and palm top, huh? (to Sofia) You know you can get into most hotel rooms in the city with this thing?
(Quick flash to: Willie stands in the casino behind one of the large machines and punches the information into the stripe reader. He swipes the card.)
Nick: (V.O.) You take the old card key, you input the room number, a little magnetic encoding ...
(Quick CGI POV: The machine puts the information on the new card.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
Nick: ... and Bob's your uncle.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[FLASHBACK]
(Willie swipes the card into the security lock. He opens the room door.)
Nick: (V.O.) You used the card to open the door. You get into his suite and hide.
(Willie hides behind the curtain, against the window.)
Nick: (V.O.) Julian comes back - (cc) drops his wallet and takes off his watch - (audio) he falls asleep.
(Willie steps out from his hiding place and starts picking up the things off the bedside table.)
Nick: (V.O.) You rob him blind.
(Julian Harper stirs.)
Nick: (V.O.) But he wakes up. So it's kill him or go back to jail.
(Julian Harper sits up in bed and sees Willie Angel.)
Julian Harper: What the ... ? Who the hell are you?
(End of flashback. Resume to present.)
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTERVIEW ROOM -- DAY]
(With a hand to his forehead, Willie's eyes are closed.)
Willie Angel: Stop, okay? Just stop.
(He looks at Nick and Sofia sitting across the table from him.)
Willie Angel: I was in his suite. And, yeah, I'm a thief. But I didn't kill anybody.
Nick: You were in his suite for over two hours, man. That's more than enough time to snag a couple shopping bags.
Willie Angel: 'Cause that sick, rich freak wasn't going to sleep. He was banging some blonde for, like, two hours.
(Quick flash of: Willie is stuck in his hiding place while Julian and the blonde-haired woman are on the bed. He shakes his head. End of flash.)
Willie Angel: Talk to her.
Sofia Curtis: We're talking to you.
Willie Angel: (sighs) I don't know what the hell they were doing, but when she left, he wasn't moving. I thought he was asleep. Then I saw the news this morning. If it's a killer you're looking for, talk to the girl in the red dress.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. LAS VEGAS CITY (STOCK) - DAY]
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTERVIEW ROOM -- DAY]
(Brass interviews Keo Vipraxay.)
Brass: We believe that Samay Thao killed your brother and tried to make it look like an accident.
(He looks across the table at Joe Cavanaugh and nods. He starts translating.)
Joe Cavanaugh: (in Lao) (untranslated)
(When he's finished, he turns and looks at Brass.)
Brass: Did you know about it?
Joe Cavanaugh: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Keo Vipraxay: (in Lao) (untranslated)
(Brass watches Joe Cavanaugh translate.)
Joe Cavanaugh: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Keo Vipraxay: (in Lao) (untranslated)
(He looks at Brass.)
Keo Vipraxay: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Joe Cavanaugh: He says he thought Samay was there to rob him. That's why he shot him.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[ELEVATOR 3 CAM]
(At 12:56, Julian Harper is holding the woman in the red dress. Also in the elevator is Blinky with two other women. The elevator stops and everyone gets off the elevator)
[INT. CSI - A/V LAB]
(Camera pans out and we find Archie, Nick and Warrick going over the security camera footage.)
Archie Johnson: The girl in the red dress gets off with Julian's entourage at
(He shows footage of the girl in the red dress entering the elevator.)
Archie Johnson: Then gets back on at 2:33.
Nick: Certainly looks like she's been through something rough.
(Archie sees something and smiles.)
Archie Johnson: She forgot her pantyhose.
(He enhances the focus on the girl's legs.)
Nick: Good eyes.
Archie Johnson: Great legs.
Warrick: Been a while, Arch?
Nick: Can you follow her out?
Archie Johnson: Yeah. I just got this footage ...
(Archie goes to work as Greg walks into the lab.)
Greg: Hey, I heard you guys are having trouble with the Julian Harper case.
Warrick: Who'd you hear that from?
Greg: Ecklie. He's putting me on it.
Nick: Man, you gotta quit kissing his ass.
(Warrick chuckles.)
Archie Johnson: All right, fellas, check this out.
(Archie finds the footage of the casino floor and they watch as the girl in the red dress steps out of the elevator.)
(Eva runs out of the elevator and catches up with the girl in the red dress.)
Warrick: Okay, that's Julian's manager.
(They watch as Eva puts some money in the girl's hand. Eva leaves.)
Archie Johnson: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on.
(Archie rewinds the footage. They watch as Eva takes some money out of her back pocket and gives it to the girl in the red dress.)
(Archie enhances their hands.)
Nick: That's got to be at least a few G's.
Greg: She a hooker?
Warrick: I don't know. I think she could be the killer.
Nick: Solicitation murder? Manager pays to have her client whacked.
(Archie follows the cameras and they watch as the girl in the red dress goes to the bag shop.)
Archie Johnson: She went shopping.
Warrick: Wait a minute. What kind of hired killer takes their payoff and goes to the mall?
Archie Johnson: I don't know.
(Archie fast-forwards, freezes and enhances the girl in the red dress as she fills out the form.)
Archie Johnson: This one put herself on a mailing list. (reads) Tally Jordan. There's the phone number.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - INTERVIEW ROOM 1]
(Warrick interviews Tally Jordan.)
Tally Jordan: You call my cell, I answer, and we talk. And then you guys show up and arrest me at the pool, in front of my friends. Is that fair?
Warrick: You left Julian Harper's room at 2:33. A couple of minutes later, you're taking money from his manager.
Tally Jordan: I'm not a prostitute.
Warrick: Couple hours later, Julian's dead.
Tally Jordan: Okay, this is crazy. I would never even think of killing Julian Harper. I've been a fan of his since he was doing cereal commercials.
Warrick: Oh, so you stalked him? Is that it? And then you killed him?
Tally Jordan: I'm in Vegas for a speech tournament - (off their skeptical look) -- Okay, a school-supervised trip. Does that mean that my school is stalking him, too?
Warrick: Is the club Skin on your school schedule?
Tally Jordan: When I found out that Julian was going to be in Vegas at the same time I was, I freaked. Okay, I wanted a look, an autograph, or a picture at most. And what I got was incredible.
(Quick flash of: Tally turns and looks at the blonde-haired woman next to her.)
Blonde Woman: Go for it. You're the one he wants.
(Tally turns and kisses Julian Harper.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
Tally Jordan: It was like I was in one of his movies. Until he kicked me out of bed and ... and then I get off the elevator, and there's his manager handing me a wad of money.
(Camera swings over to the next interview room.)
[INT. CSI - INTERVIEW ROOM 2]
(Sofia interviews Eva.)
Eva: I tip all the girls Julian's with.
Sofia Curtis: So you're his pimp?
Eva: It keeps them from running their mouths. It protects Julian's image. It's just a part of managing his career.
[INT. CSI - INTERVIEW ROOM 1]
Tally Jordan: I had s*x with Julian because I wanted to.
Warrick: But you took the money, and you bought a purse with it.
(Warrick indicates the purse on the table in front of her.)
[INT. CSI - INTERVIEW ROOM 2]
Sofia Curtis: I had a conversation with Julian's lawyer. And he said you weren't only his ex-wife, you were about to be his ex-manager. That piss you off?
Eva: His lawyers and his agents don't like me. They pressured him to drop me. But Julian and I are family. That wasn't going to happen.
[INT. CSI - INTERVIEW ROOM 1]
Tally Jordan: Eva said if anyone asked, Julian was a gentleman. Later he took me out and got me a Katherine Baumann purse. It's a much better story to tell my friends.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[CRIME SCENE PHOTOS]
(Various photos of the two crime scenes.)
Grissom: (o.s.) Samay and Noy go for a drive after work.
(Quick flash to: [NIGHT] The car is parked.)
Grissom: (V.O.) They stop at Mount Charleston.
(The two men are talking in the car when Samay grabs Noy and smashes his head hard against the steering wheel several times.)
Grissom: (V.O.) Samay kills Noy ...
(Noy struggles and smashes the CD; a piece of it gets into Samay's eye. He groans with pain.)
(He turns, grabs Noy and continues to smash his head against the steering wheel.)
Grissom: (V.O.) ... and makes it look like an accident.
(Cut to: [NIGHT] The car is off the steep hill.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
[INT. CSI - LAB]
(Grissom, Catherine and Sara are looking at the photos from the various crime scenes.)
Grissom: And then he goes to Keo's apartment and Keo shoots him, claiming self-defense.
Catherine: I don't buy it. Keo shot him from the other side of a locked door. He was waiting to blow the guy away.
Grissom: Which indicates that Keo knew Samay was coming.
Sara: Maybe he hired Samay to kill his brother, and then he decided to cut him out of the deal. Noy had a life insurance policy issued through his union, worth ten grand.
Catherine: Life's getting cheaper. Who's the beneficiary?
Sara: Keo was the primary, but check this out. Half the payout goes to Joe Cavanaugh.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - BRASS' OFFICE]
(Brass, Grissom and the interpreter review the tape of Joe Cavanaugh "interpreting" for Keo.)
Joe Cavanaugh: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Brass: He's not a court-approved translator. That's why I taped it. I just didn't tell him.
Interpeter: So far, he's saying what you asked him.
(The time/date stamp on the recording is:
5:33 PM
(The interpreter translates.)
Interpeter: "You must help me. That's why I'm here. Just tell them what they want to know." This is the part that's different.
Keo Vipraxay: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Interpeter: "There are many things I can tell him about you, so you tell him this: "Samay came to my home. I was afraid. I thought he was there to rob me or kill me. So I shot him."
Brass: So our interpreter is hiding something.
Grissom: Well, that's not lost in translation.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. LAUNDRY BUSINESS]
(The workers are busy. Brass walks through with a couple of officers. He heads for Joe Cavanaugh's office.)
Brass: Mr. Cavanaugh, can you come out here, please?
(Joe Cavanaugh stands up and steps out of the office.)
Brass: We're going to have a private chat. Let's go.
(One of the officers takes Cavanaugh by his arm and leads him back out the way they came.)
(As he walks by, one of the workers takes out a cigarette and lights it.)
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. LAUNDRY BUSINESS - BASEMENT]
(Brass talks with Joe Cavanaugh.)
Brass: In the interview, remember Keo said, "There are many things I can tell them about you"? You didn't tell me that. You left that part out. Why?
Joe Cavanaugh: I told you what he said. You're not arresting me because I screwed up my translation?
Brass: You're a co-beneficiary of Noy Vipraxay's life insurance, right?
Joe Cavanaugh: So what? I help my guys try to get a little security for their families. I help them in a lot of ways. Driver's licenses, green cards ...
Brass: Oh, what, what? Out of the goodness of your heart? Come on, they have to come to you.
Joe Cavanaugh: Without me, they're back in a rice paddy making three cents a day. Look, some of these guys put me on their policy. It's their way of saying "thank you."
Brass: So when one of your guys kills another one of your guys, you make money out of it? We both know that insurance companies don't even investigate claims under ten grand. So you get a free pass.
Joe Cavanaugh: You don't really think I'd have somebody killed for five grand?
Brass: I've seen it done for a lot less.
Joe Cavanaugh: That don't mean I did it. There's new casinos that open all the time. They all got laundries. I bring home 15 G's a month on the side. So I am not going to bend over a dollar to pick up a dime.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI -- DNA LAB]
(Warrick and Nick walk into the DNA lab and up to Hodges who is looking through a scope.)
Warrick: Hodges, do you have the results on the fibers that we dropped off to ... ?
(Warrick stops as he gets a good look at Hodges, who is sleeping.)
Warrick: Hodges?
(Hodges doesn't move. Warrick looks at Nick.)
Warrick: Dude. He's asleep.
(Warrick and Nick both laugh.)
Nick: (loudly) Let me guess! ...
(Hodges is startled awake and sits up abruptly.)
Nick: (normal voice) ... the fibers are wool. Are you bagging Z's right now, man?
Hodges: I was just having the greatest dream.
Warrick: You were out.
Hodges: It was the '80s and I had this Don Johnson beard, you know, the Miami Vice stubble. It just gave me this air of danger. My lady loved it. (Warrick nods.) Um, I found two types of fibers on your guy's chin: cotton and a polyester-Lycra blend. Both dyed black.
(He gets up and lets Nick have a seat at the scope for a look.)
Warrick: Dyed black? The bedding might have been cotton, but it wasn't black.
(Nick looks through the scope.)
[SCOPE VIEW: BLACK FIBERS]
(Warrick continues.)
Warrick: The comforter and draperies may have been poly, but they weren't black, either.
Nick: I bagged some black socks and some black pantyhose.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI -- LAB]
(Warrick is looking at the socks under a lit magnifying lamp.)
Warrick: This could be the source of the fibers. He wasn't suffocated with his crew sock.
(He drops the sock and picks up the pantyhose.)
Warrick: (to Nick) Did you notice the burn mark on the knot in these pantyhose at the crime scene?
Nick: No. No, they were all balled up. I just bagged them and tagged them.
(Nick looks at the burned pantyhose under the magnifying lamp.)
Nick: Oh, yeah. Yeah, we've got to get this to DNA.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. LAS VEGAS CITY (STOCK) - NIGHT]
[INT. CSI - DNA LAB -- NIGHT]
(Greg is back in the lab. Warrick and Nick are walking up to him from behind, both talking loud enough for him to hear.)
Nick: I thought Greg was in the field. Is he back in the lab?
Warrick: I don't know.
Nick: We've got to clear this up. It's like he's confused. Lab, field, field, lab. We have a lab on wheels.
Greg: How about you guys just shut up, all right? I'm doing this as a favor for Ecklie. It's a one-time thing. He's still interviewing lab techs.
Warrick: You making overtime?
Greg: I'm taking one for the team.
Warrick: Mm-hmm. NICK: Mm-hmm.
Warrick: Tell me about these pantyhose.
Greg: Well, I found Tally's epithelials on the inside, which is no surprise, since she was wearing them.
(Warrick looks through the scope.)
[SCOPE VIEW]
(Warrick sees skin cells on the pantyhose fibers.)
(Greg continues.)
Greg: I also found black cotton fibers on the outside -- highest concentration near the crotch. Insert joke here.
Nick: The vic had a pair of black cotton socks.
Warrick: Well, I did find black cotton fibers under his chin.
Nick: Okay, transfer from the sock to the pantyhose, to the neck. So the sock was in between the pantyhose and the neck?
Greg: Padding. BCP, breath control play.
(Warrick nods.)
Greg: Couples increase their partner's pleasure through strangulation. And if you're not careful, it leaves marks.
Warrick: Yeah, this guy Julian Harper's an actor, so I'm sure he didn't want bruises on his neck to be showing on camera.
Nick: There were only two girls in the suite. Which one of them killed him?
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. PALMS HOTEL -- BEDROOM]
(Warrick and Nick are standing in the bedroom looking around.)
Nick: Burnt pantyhose. Okay, evidence of s*x games gone wrong.
Warrick: I don't see how we could have missed anything. There's no fireplace here. I haven't seen any lighters.
Nick: Well, something singed the hose.
(Warrick looks around as Nick puts his kit down. Warrick finds something black on one of the wall lamps.)
(Zoom in for camera close-up of the burnt black substance.)
Warrick: Hey.
Nick: Hmm?
Warrick: There's some burnt residue on this lamp.
(Warrick puts the residue in a bindle.)
Warrick: You know what I think? I think someone tied him up, and they couldn't get the knot undone, because it melted. So they panicked. And they pulled the hose down.
(Nick nods.)
Warrick: I'll print the light.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTERVIEW ROOM]
(Sofia Curtis and Warrick interview Blinky.)
Warrick: I guess even having an unlimited supply of hot women is not enough, huh? Bondage s*x with your best friend?
Sofia Curtis: It's cool, you guys were on the down low.
Blinky (Gerald Allison): I don't understand.
Warrick: Well, we found both your prints and Julian's prints on a light fixture above the bed.
(He tosses the LAS VEGAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AFIS REPORT toward Blinky. It has a single print on the center with his name on the bottom:
ALLISON, GERALD
ALIASES: BLINKY
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We were not down like that.
(Quick flashback to: The bedroom door opens and Blinky walks in, calling out to Julian Harper.)
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Rise and shine, buddy! Room service.
(His eyes widen with horror as he sees his friend on the bed, the black hose still around his beck and tied to the lamp.)
Blinky (Gerald Allison): Dude, Julian?
(He goes over to his friend and removes the hose from around his neck. Julian falls face down on the bed.)
Blinky (Gerald Allison): (V.O.) He did it to himself. He did it to himself. So, I took the pantyhose, and I took them off the light.
(The hose starts to melt on the hot lamp.)
(End of flash. Resume to present.)
Blinky (Gerald Allison): And then I put his boxers back on. I wasn't going to let his mom open up US magazine and see her boy like that. Jules, he always did me right. Now I just wanted to do him the same.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. CSI - HALLWAY]
(Catherine and Grissom walk through the hallway.)
Catherine: I got the serial number rundown from Keo's shotgun. He bought it last week, two days before he shot Samay.
Grissom: The guy's barely scraping by, and he spends $250 on a brand-new Mossberg?
Catherine: There's a word for that. "Premeditation."
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. POLICE DEPARTMENT - INTERVIEW ROOM]
(Brass interviews Keo Vipraxay with his lawyer and an interpreter sitting next to him.)
Brass: Your brother gets killed. You killed the guy who did it with a shotgun you just bought. And end up $5,000 ahead.
(Keo turns and looks at the interpreter.)
Interpeter: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Brass: In Nevada, that's murder one. Twenty years to life. Unless you get the death sentence.
Interpeter: (in Lao) (untranslated)
Lawyer: What are my client's options?
Brass: A full confession. We make a recommendation to the DA; maybe he gets murder two.
Interpeter: (in Lao) (untranslated)
(He shakes his head. The interpreter stops. Keo turns and looks at Brass.)
Keo Vipraxay: (in English) I brought Noy here to help me.
Brass: What?
Keo Vipraxay: To work hard and save. To bring our family here. Our parent. Our sister. My wife. Instead he waste the money--on the DVD, gambling, clothes.
Keo Vipraxay: Noy's life was worthless. His death is not.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[EXT. LAS VEGAS CITY (STOCK) - NIGHT]
[INT. CSI - GRISSOM'S OFFICE -- NIGHT]
(Grissom is in his office. Warrick knocks on the door. He looks up.)
Warrick: Griss, we closed that actor case.
Grissom: And?
Warrick: Accidental death as a result of auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Grissom: Strangled himself to death to enhance his own pleasure.
(Warrick nods.)
Grissom: It was in the days of public hangings that people first noticed that men would get erections and sometimes even ejaculate. They called it "The Killer Orgasm."
Warrick: It's a waste. Guy had everything -- money, fame ...
Grissom: Yeah, look where he ended up.
CUE SONG: "Mad World", Gary Jules
[SCENE_BREAK]
[INT. MORGUE]
Lyric: All around me are familiar faces, worn-out places, worn-out faces
(The gurney carrying a body is wheeled down the hall. The identification tag around the body's big toe reads:
N. VIPRAXAY
A. ROBBINS
C. WILLOWS
(The gurney table stops next to a second body with the tag that reads:
HARPER, JULIAN
DR. ROBBINS
W. BROWN
Lyric: Bright and early for the daily races going nowhere, going nowhere
(TOP VIEW DOWN: The two dead bodies are side-by-side.)
(Someone pulls a sheet over the first body over his face.)
Lyric: ... Mad World ...
(Camera rises to show the face of the second body. Someone pulls the sheet over the second body to cover his face.)
Lyric: ... Mad World ...
Summary:
| Nick and Warrick investigate the suspicious murder of a young movie star who is found dead after a night of partying in his hotel suite. Meanwhile, Grissom, Catherine, and Sara uncover two murders among the immigrant laundry workers from the same hotel. | 95 | 50,069 | 50,071 | 50,071 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_Alias_01x04 | fd_Alias_01x04_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
(Continuing from last week. Sydney and Ana kneel in front of the case, staring at its contents. It starts to beep. Acid starts bubbling up through two tubes at either side of a piece of paper which is centered inside. It has binary digits written on it -- 0s and 1s. Ana and Sydney start memorizing it, saying out loud. The acid starts covering the piece of paper. The sheet disintegrates. They stand.)
SYDNEY: Did you get it?
ANA: Did you?
(They take off, running in opposite directions.)
SYDNEY: Dixon, I'm ending transmission!
(Inside the SD-6 van, an agent sits with Dixon.)
AGENT: She turned off her mic, I've lost her signal.
(Sydney runs through the alley of the field.)
SYDNEY: 0-0-1-0. Did you get that?
(Vaughn is still in L.A.)
VAUGHN: Got it.
SYDNEY: I'm giving SD-6 the wrong number!
VAUGHN: What? No, no, no, no, you give them exactly what--
SYDNEY: I'm not giving them the right sequence! There is no way, forget it!
VAUGHN: Sydney, listen to me! This is critical! Sydney, you give them the number. That's an order.
SYDNEY: An order?
VAUGHN: Yes.
SYDNEY: We have to have a long talk when I get back to Los Angeles!
(Sydney runs up to the SD-6 van and crawls in.)
SYDNEY: Dixon, I've got the code! 0-1-0-0-0-1-1-0-0--
(In the K-Directorate van, Ana tells the code to her agents.)
ANA: Null, adin, null, adin--
(Sydney and the agents in the van, Dixon takes it down.)
SYDNEY: 1-0-0-0-1-1-0-0-1-1-1. Just two ones. Then--
(In the K-Directorate van.)
ANA: Null, adin, null, adin, null, null, adin, null--
(SD-6 van.)
SYDNEY: 1-1-0-1. That's it. 1-1-0-1.
DIXON: You did good.
(In Los Angeles, inside a yellow parked van. Sydney, Vaughn and Weiss.)
SYDNEY: You do NOT give me orders!
VAUGHN: Maybe I do--
SYDNEY: I could have easily misled SD-6--
VAUGHN: You're not thinking this through!
SYDNEY: ...That's what I'm here for!
VAUGHN: Just stop talking for a second! If you'd given SD-6 a bogus code, what would have happened when Ana gave K-Directorate the correct sequence?
SYDNEY: Who cares? They would have thought I made a mistake!
VAUGHN: Oh, and what, that Ana didn't? She would've given them the correct code, they would have seen the code indicate at Athens, K-Directorate would head there, SD-6 would have nothing. They would suspect you. Sydney, we have to be very careful here. We have to be wildly, crazy careful. If SD-6 suspects you in the least, it's over.
SYDNEY: Ana's been the enemy for three years. In Berlin I realized she wants SD-6 to burn almost as much as I do.
VAUGHN: As far as the C.I.A.'s concerned, the only thing worse than SD-6 getting its hands on critical information is if K-Directorate gets it first. Ana is still your enemy.
(Credit Dauphine. Sloane and Russett walk together.)
SLOANE: You're not into mysticism, are you?
RUSSETT: Mysticism.
SLOANE: Neither am I. But keep an open mind, it'll help. The code was written in 1489. The guy who wrote it was some sort of Nostradamus. His name was Milo Rambaldi.
RUSSETT: This binary was witten by a fifteenth century fortuneteller. How come I've never heard of him?
SLOANE: His designs were so advanced, they just assumed he was insane. On some of his drawings, he made lists of part numbers. I.D. numbers of actual technology not manufactured until now. This year. It's real, it's a hunt. This man spent the last ten years of his life working on one project. We don't know whether it's a weapon, a fuel source, a transportation system. Based on the little we do know, its technology is beyond anything we have ever seen. How's your wife? I forgot to ask.
RUSSETT: Uh, good. Yours?
SLOANE: Actually, Emily's a bit under the weather. Thanks for asking. Come on.
(They enter the board room where Marshall and Sydney sit.)
SLOANE: Did you read the report?
SYDNEY: They found nothing.
SLOANE: This is Anthony Russett, he's transferring here from Jennings. He's working on the UCO file. You've already met Marshall. This is Sydney Bristow.
RUSSETT: I know your father.
SLOANE: We read the code you recovered. Accordingly, we sent a team to Athens. So, I just got a phone call from SD-3, he said there was no evidence to anything pertaining to Rambaldi. And we were there first. Turns out, we made a giant mistake. But so did K-Directorate.
MARSHALL: In our rush to decipher the Rambaldi enigma, we misinterpreted the code. It left us with two series of digits. We assumed longitude and latitude. But he was using a compression scheme. I should have seen that. Instead of sending a team to Athens, we should have been headed to Malaga, Spain.
SLOANE: Which is where you're going. There's a five-hundred-year-old church sitting on the exact site of Rambaldi's coordinates.
SYDNEY: What am I looking for?
SLOANE: We don't know. The only clue we have, if it is indeed a clue, are two words that were part of a code: Sol d'oro.
RUSSETT: Golden sun.
(Malaga, Spain. Sydney shines a flashlight in the church, she looks over the pews for the clue. She looks around, turns to see the painted glass window at the back of the church. In the center is a golden sun. Sydney takes a desk and stands on top if it. She touches the golden sun and unscrews its center. The golden circle is the clue. She looks at it in her hands, and jumps down. Ana, from behind her, takes her by the throat and snatches the golden sun away from her.)
ANA: I was hoping you'd come.
(Sydney kicks Ana and Ana's gun goes sliding down the floor. Sydney punches her, roundhouse kicks. Ana drops the sun. Sydney flips Ana and dives behind a pew while Ana fires her gun at the pews, destroying many of them. Sydney flinches while on the floor, covering her head. She sees the sun lying nearby. Ana slinks closer with her gun in hand. She sees the sun, bends down and gets it. Sydney comes up from behind and hits her on the head with a wooden post with religious markings on it. The gun flies. Ana grabs a long candle stick holder and slaps Sydney in the head with it. Sydney lands on her back on a table. Sydney grabs Ana's hand and holds it above all the candles that are lit. Ana snatches her hand away, yelping in pain. Sydney quickly moves and handcuffs Ana's hand to the table post. She struggles like a caged animal. Sydney takes the sun, and walks out.)
(In Sydney's house, Sydney and Francie sit on the sofa eating Chinese food. Sydney holds the matchbook, looking at it.)
SYDNEY: You haven't said anything to Charlie?
FRANCIE: I needed to talk to you first.
SYDNEY: It's just a matchbook with someone's number.
FRANCIE: Yeah, someone named Rachel who "truly loved tonight."
SYDNEY: You have to ask Charlie about it.
FRANCIE: Yeah.
SYDNEY: I mean, what else are you going to do?
FRANCIE: Have you ever spied on anyone? Okay, I know it's totally beneath me, but Charlie has been so distant lately, and every time I ask him what's wrong, he's like, "Nothing, baby. Everything's cool. It's all fine."
SYDNEY: You don't believe him.
FRANCIE: He has law review in an hour.
SYDNEY: You want to follow hm.
FRANCIE: So much, I cannot even tell you.
SYDNEY: I think spying on your boyfriend generally sets a bad relationship precedent.
FRANCIE: What if he's cheating on me?
(Across the street from Francie and Charlie's house, Sydney and Francie sit in Sydney's vehicle. Francie eats some candy.)
FRANCIE: You're a really good friend, you know that?
SYDNEY: Yes, I do. (smiles) So, this thing happened with Will the other night.
FRANCIE: What, did he come on to you?
SYDNEY: No, no. I kissed him.
FRANCIE: What? You kissed Will Tippin? Are you kidding me?
SYDNEY: I know. Stop it. We were in the apartment by ourselves after you and Charlie left and we had all those drinks...
FRANCIE: I don't believe it. You must have been really drunk. Hey, there he is. Start the car, start the car.
SYDNEY: No, you wait 'til he's a block away.
FRANCIE: Look at you getting all into it.
SYDNEY: Everyone knows you wait.
FRANCIE: I don't know you wait.
SYDNEY: You wait.
FRANCIE: What's he doing?
(A car pulls up beside Charlie, its horn honking. Charlie walks over to the driver's side. A blonde woman gets out, and hugs him. They kiss briefly. Sydney looks at Francie. Charlie puts his duffel bag in the girl's trunk. Francie looks devastated.)
FRANCIE: Okay. I guess he's not going to law review.
(Will's office. He's on the phone, sitting at his desk. Jenny stands nearby.)
WILL: H-E-C-H-T. You're certain? Okay. Thank you. I promise, I won't call again. (hangs up) Danny was supposed to be registered at a medical conference in Singapore.
JENNY: You already told me. Litvack wants the baptist church copy.
WILL: But I checked all the conferences twice. He's not registered at any of them.
JENNY: I know...
(His phone rings.)
WILL: Will Tippin.
(Sydney's at her house, watering plants.)
SYDNEY: Hey, it's me.
WILL: Hey. Hi. Uh, how'd your trip go?
SYDNEY: Okay. How are you?
WILL: Good. Uh, uh, busy. Listen, you don't feel weird about what happened, right?
SYDNEY: A little.
WILL: Me too. What is that?
SYDNEY: We'll talk about that later. Listen, Francie and I saw Charlie last night with another woman.
WILL: What? You're kidding.
SYDNEY: Yeah. She spent the night at my place. She's here now, she's sort of a mess.
WILL: Oh, God...
SYDNEY: And the bank called. Uh, I might have another trip.
WILL: You take an insane amount of trips.
SYDNEY: Would you mind dropping by later? Just check on her and make sure she's okay.
WILL: No, yeah, yeah, yeah, of course.
SYDNEY: Thank you. I should go.
WILL: Okay. Go. I'll talk to you later. Bye.
(He hangs up. Jenny stands there, watching.)
JENNY: That was Sydney. You're different when you talk to Sydney.
WILL: Don't analyze me. Go. Can you get me the number of, uh, the guy who works for the airport? What's his name? Luis Scourza? What?
JENNY: If you want me to do something for you, you say please.
WILL: Please. Scourza, okay? You know, "please" is implicit, Jenny!
(Credit Dauphine. Sydney is at her desk, filing something. She sees her dad walking through. She gets up.)
SYDNEY: Dad. You have a meeting with Sloane?
MR. BRISTOW: McCullough.
SYDNEY: Psych evaluation?
MR. BRISTOW: Routine. It's nothing I'm not used to, nothing I look forward to, but, uh, such is the nature of the job.
SYDNEY: So, Berlin. It worked out. My meeting with K-Directorate. We got the code. That was smart.
MR. BRISTOW: Well, I should go. I'll see you later.
SYDNEY: Dad... could we have dinner? How about Thursday, do you have plans?
MR. BRISTOW: No. Thursday. Dinner. That'll be fine.
(Board meeting. Sloane, Russett, Dixon, Sydney, Marshall.)
SLOANE: Analysis is working full-time on the piece you brought back from Spain. This is not glass. They know that. It's a synthetic polymer. They believe it was made at least five hundred years ago.
DIXON: Before there were synthetic polymers.
SLOANE: And so the mystery continues. Meanwhile, we have another situation. This is last year's United Commerce Organization. Administerial conference. A number of groups led planned attacks against the proceedings. Zero defense among them. Word is they're planning to attend the conference this year in Sao Paulo.
RUSSETT: Luc Jacqnoud should be landing in Morocco within the next forty-eight hours.
SYDNEY: I thought he was in Le Sante for stabbing a police officer.
RUSSETT: Released twenty-six months early. He's obviously got ties to French justice. Intel reports he'll be in Morocco to meet a client.
DIXON: I.D. on the client?
SLOANE: None. That's your job. You're Kate Jones, and Justin Bernell. You're traveling with Mindspring Learning Tours. You arrive on Wednesday. Your objective is to monitor the meeting, I.D. the client, and make sure whatever Jacqnoud is up to, doesn't happen.
SYDNEY: Is Mochtar the contact?
SLOANE: He's meeting you at the airport. (to Russett) This is an Egyptian commando. We recruited him two years ago. Marshall.
MARSHALL: (standing) Okay. Ahem. How is, uh, everyone? Hi, or -- right. Okay. You're going in with the usual tech -- camera, comm gear, and sat relay, but this-this is new. (holds up a purse) Now, this looks just like a normal purse that you would wear out with going out with your lady friends. Put your feminine things in there, but, a parabolic microphone. (points to center of the design) Has a laser transmitter that works in a three hundred yard radius, and oh, and I also added a low frequency tantalum wind filter that will eliminate any unwanted sounds below a hundred and fifty hertz. Not that you're going to be in any wind. I mean, you're probably not going to be in any wind, but let's say that you were in some wind, you know, like a light breeze, like a (whistles). Or even a strong wind, like, a gust, like a (blowing air). This? Nothing. Silent. Wind filter. (sits)
(Inside psych evaluation room. Mr. Bristow has pads over his face for monitoring purposes. Machines beep around him. McCullough sits nearby.)
MCCULLOUGH: You feel light, thin air, and as you continue moving downward, you feel more and more relaxed. The escalator continues down and the closer you get to the light, the more relaxed you feel.
(We see inside Jack's mind. An escalator.)
MCCULLOUGH: (voice over) The escalator seems to continue forever, and you feel safe and relaxed.
(White light. In Jack's mind, we're transported to a baby's room. A crib sits in the corner with a stuffed teddy bear.)
MCCULLOUGH: (V.O.) Still listening to my voice, you keep going and the farther you go, the more comfortable you feel.
(A woman is holding a baby gently in her arms. We're assuming it's Jack's wife, Sydney's mom. Suddenly, the woman turns and it's... Sydney. Holding the baby.)
SYDNEY: It's only a matter of time before I find out the truth.
(In the evaluation room, Mr. Bristow snaps to attention, looking terrified.)
MCCULLOUGH: Jack?
MR. BRISTOW: Just give me a minute, will you?
(He pulls the pads off his face and exits. Outside the room, he desperately tries to control himself. He calmly buttons his jacket.)
(Car wash. Sydney is inside the waiting area while her car gets a washing. Vaughn approaches, looking disheveled. Well, more than usual.)
VAUGHN: Sorry I'm late.
SYDNEY: That's all right. You okay?
VAUGHN: Yeah. Turns out we knew Jacqnoud was traveling, but we thought he was going to Bahrain. But what we don't know is why SD-6 is so interested in the U.C.O.
SYDNEY: You sure you're okay?
VAUGHN: Yeah. I just, uh--
SYDNEY: Did you have a fight with your wife?
VAUGHN: My what?
SYDNEY: Your wife.
VAUGHN: What wife? I have no wife.
SYDNEY: No, there was a picture in your office. You and that woman. I thought you were married.
VAUGHN: No. She and I are not remotely m-- You thought I was married this whole time?
SYDNEY: I guess so. What's the big deal?
VAUGHN: Nothing. So when you get an idea on who he's meeting and/or details of that meeting, just call the usual number. Hit the eight key. We'll dead-drop in the trash can. Why did you ask me if I had a fight with my girlfriend?
SYDNEY: I don't know. Did you?
VAUGHN: Huge. Good luck in Morocco.
SYDNEY: Thanks.
(He leaves, looking more stressed than before.)
(Morocco. At the airport, Sydney and Dixon walk to the curb. They see a man, Mochtar, who waves to them. They approach.)
MOCHTAR: Look at you!
SYDNEY: It's been a while!
(She kisses him on both cheeks.)
MOCHTAR: Ah, hello!
DIXON: How have you been?
MOCHTAR: Lately, too busy. Too many people with dangerous toys.
SYDNEY: Any news on Jacqnoud?
M0CHTAR: Yes. A friend tells me he's meeting a client today in the local marketplace. I've got a good spot for us.
DIXON: Any word on the client?
MOCHTAR: Big mystery. We still don't know. Come, I'm parked right over there.
(Sydney's house. Francie talks on the phone to Sydney.)
FRANCIE: Charlie has called my cell phone six times.
SYDNEY: You still haven't seen him?
FRANCIE: No. I want him to suffer. I'm not even going to tell him where I am. How is Chicago, did you get there okay?
(Cut to Sydney, in Morocco, putting on her disguise.)
SYDNEY: Yeah. Chicago's fine. Look, let me just sy one thing, just so someone's saying it. There might be an explanation.
FRANCIE: He got into a car with a woman I have never met.
SYDNEY: Just talk to him. Tell Charlie what you saw. You owe him that.
FRANCIE: Maybe after he calls me a few more times.
SYDNEY: Call me if you need me, okay? Love you.
FRANCIE: Love you.
[SCENE_BREAK]
(Sydney, complete in her disguise, goes out to the balcony to see Mochtar and Dixon setting up video cameras and cameras for the op.)
SYDNEY: How's the view? (takes purse) You want to give this a test run? Can you hear me?
DIXON: Loud and clear.
MOCHTAR: Jacqnoud just walked in.
DIXON: Who's he with?
M0CHTAR: Uh, looks like he's solo.
DIXON: (to Sydney) You're ready.
SYDNEY: I'm going shoppin'!
DIXON: Bring us back something, would you?
SYDNEY: That's the plan!
(She leaves and walks down to the market, looking around. She gets closer. Jacqnoud sits alone.)
SYDNEY: Are you picking this up?
DIXON: Yeah. The mic's hot.
SYDNEY: He's still alone.
(A man tries to sell her something.)
SYDNEY: No, no, no, I don't understand. Don't understand. Sorry.
(Jacqnoud greets a man at his table.)
SYDNEY: The meet just got here.
(In the balcony, Mochtar and Dixon looks. Dixon takes pictures.)
DIXON: Got him! Mochtar, you know this guy?
MOCHTAR: No, but I'm going to try and get an I.D. right now.
(Mochtar runs to another set up around the hallway. The laptop connects, scanning the picture for identification of the man meeting with Jacqnoud.)
(Downstairs, the men meet.)
SUARI: Nice to finally meet you in person. Everything worked getting here?
JACQNOUD: Yes, thank you. Merci beaucoup.
SUARI: So, how are we doing?
JACQNOUD: You mean phase three?
SUARI: What were the results?
JACQNOUD: You will be very happy. If Patel's going to be our delivery man, I'll need the piece by tomorrow.
SUARI: As long as the financial arrangements can be made, that shouldn't be a problem.
JACQNOUD: Bon. Salut.
(The bodyguard stares at Sydney. She looks away.)
SYDNEY: Dammit! The litle guy's bodyguard. I know him.
DIXON: What?
SYDNEY: From Corisca, two years ago. The son of a bitch broke my arm.
(She starts walking away. The bodyguard looks up, and sees the camera lens in the balcony.)
DIXON: Mochtar, pack up! We've got to get out of here!
(The bodyguard sees shadows scurrying along up on the balcony.)
SYDNEY: (walking) We have somebody.
(Sydney tries to leave.)
DIXON: Syd, get out of there!
(The bodyguard stops her.)
BODYGUARD: You. I know you.
SYDNEY: I'm sorry. You're talking to me?
BODYGUARD: I think you remember me, too.
(He throws her in a small part of the market, she falls to the ground behind the curtain. He advances.)
SYDNEY: I'm sorry. I don't know who you are.
BODYGUARD: Tell me why you're here, or this time I do more than just break you arm.
(Sydney kicks a table in the air, catches it, throws it at him, smashes his head in twice. He pushes her up against the wall, she flips off of it. Kicks him in the back. Hits him with an empty pot three times. He falls. The curtain opens, and an elderly couple -- tourists -- walk in, shocked.)
SYDNEY: He wanted to charge me fifty dollars. That's too much.
(Upstairs, Dixon frantically packs up. Gunshots are heard. Dixon freezes. Sydney runs up the stairs.)
SYDNEY: Dixon! Dixon! Dixon, do you copy!
(Sydney stops running when she sees Mochtar's lifeless body. She takes off her glasses. Down the hall, punches are being thrown as more bodyguards try beating up Dixon and Sydney. She fights one of the men. Another guy manages to pin Dixon down on a table, but he jumps up, kicking the man.)
DIXON: Are you okay?
SYDNEY: I'm fine!
(Helicopter whirring overhead. Sydney gets some of the gear and stops at Mochtar. Touches his head. When she takes her hand away, she sees his blood on her palm. Dixon stops behind her.)
DIXON: We have to go.
(Sydney stares at Mochtar, and leaves.)
(At Sydney's house, she arrives home from her trip. She puts her bag down.)
FRANCIE: Hey.
SYDNEY: Hi.
FRANCIE: How was your trip?
SYDNEY: It was awful.
FRANCIE: Syd, I'm sorry.
SYDNEY: What's going on with Charlie?
FRANCIE: I'm meeting him for coffee. He knows something's up. If he doesn't have an explanation, if he can't exactly explain why he was kissing some whore instead of going to law review, I'm going to kill him.
SYDNEY: Don't say that.
(Will appears behind them.)
WILL: She's on a rampage. She wasn't even going to go out with him, I had to force her to go out with him. (smiles sweetly at Sydney) Hi.
SYDNEY: Hi.
FRANCIE: Let me ask you something. You think it's going to go all right?
SYDNEY: I do.
(The girls hug. Only this time, Sydney hugs a little longer, needing that comfort after the day she's had.)
FRANCIE: Love you.
SYDNEY: Love you.
FRANCIE: See you, Will!
WILL: Good luck. Let me get that for you.
(He gestures to Sydney's luggage. Francie leaves.)
SYDNEY: Thanks.
WILL: You look exhausted.
SYDNEY: Pretty good assessment.
(Inside Sydney's bedroom, Will sits down on her bed with the luggage at his feet.)
WILL: So, hey, I was thinking about what happened. You know, that, uh, you know, that kiss. Yeah. And, uh, I think I've figured out why it was so weird.
SYDNEY: Why?
WILL: Well, because, how often do you, you know, do you kiss someone that you're that close to? I mean, never.
(He flips the luggage tag that reads "Kate Jones" in his hand as a nervous habit, not realizing the name that's written there.)
WILL: Anyway, I, uh, I know that it's awkward between us now, but...
(Sydney sits beside him, seeing what he's doing, and takes the luggage from him.)
WILL: I think that I've figured out a way for it to not be so awkward anymore.
SYDNEY: What?
(Will kisses her, holding her face gently. Their eyes slowly open. It's awkward. He pulls away.)
WILL: Okay. That didn't work, did it?
SYDNEY: I have to go have dinner with my father.
WILL: Ooooh, now I feel like an idiot.
SYDNEY: No, don't, don't.
WILL: (embarrassed) Oh, my God. I have that feeling. Oh, my God.
(Restaurant. Sydney sits alone.)
WAITER: Would you like to order, ma'am?
SYDNEY: I'll wait, thanks. I'm meeting someone.
(Sydney looks at her watch.)
(Different restaurant. Francie and Charlie.)
CHARLIE: (to waiter) Thank you. (sighs) So, you gonna tell me what's up? Do I have to start guessing?
FRANCIE: I saw you.
CHARLIE: Saw me what?
FRANCIE: I saw you outside our house with a woman.
CHARLIE: What are you doing watching me?
FRANCIE: I don't have to answer that question, you do! What were you doing?
CHARLIE: She's a friend.
FRANCIE: A friend you went out with instead of going to a law review. Her name's Rachel, right?
CHARLIE: (to waiter) No, thanks. (to Francie) You know I trust you.
FRANCIE: I give you reason to! I am not going to let you lie to me, Charlie! Now, explain yourself.
CHARLIE: Francie, I love you, and I'm not playing around. We're just hanging out, that's all.
FRANCIE: All right. Hang out. Hang out with Rachel.
(She leaves.)
(Sydney waits at the restaurant. Looks around. Looks at the menu, puts it down. Still waiting. She's getting more worried. She looks at her watch. Her cell phone rings.)
SYDNEY: Hello?
MR. BRISTOW: Sydney. Sorry to call so late.
SYDNEY: No, it's all right.
MR. BRISTOW: Uh, look, uh, I won't be able to make dinner. Work is, uh, just, um, I can't get away. You understand.
SYDNEY: Of course. Don't worry about it.
(We see that Mr. Bristow is actually in his car, at the restaurant, watching Sydney.)
SYDNEY: I'll just see you at... I'll just see you.
MR. BRISTOW: Okay. Bye. (hangs up)
(Sydney hangs up, choking down tears. She covers her mouth. She then picks up her phone, and dials.)
(Pier, night. Sydney and Vaughn.)
SYDNEY: (sobbing) I'm sorry to call you, I just didn't know who else to call. My father and I were supposed to have dinner tonight. The first time since I was a kid. I can't even remember the last time. (sobs) He just didn't show. He said he had work. He didn't have work. This isn't just about my dad. When I was in Morocco, the man who died... he was a friend of mine. He was a good man, who thought he was fighting for the right side, that he was working for the C.I.A.! He was lied to, and now he's dead. I had his blood on my hands!
VAUGHN: Sydney...
SYDNEY: I feel like I'm losing my mind! Like I don't even know who I am anymore, or what I'm doing, or why I'm doing it!
(Her pager suddenly beeps. Sydney grabs it, and throws it in the water below them. It splashes.)
VAUGHN: You just threw your beeper in the Pacific.
SYDNEY: (laughs through tears) I know...
VAUGHN: Okay, listen to me. There's something you need to know. When you first walked into my office with that stupid Bozo hair, I thought you were crazy. I thought you might actually be a crazy person. But I watched you, and I read your statement, and I've seen... I've seen how you think, I've seen how you work, I've seen how you are in this job. In this job, you see darkness. You see the worst in people and though the jobs are different and the missions change, and the enemies have a thousand names, the one crucial thing, the one real responsibility you have is to not let your rage, and your resentment, and your disgust, darken you. When you're at your absolute lowest, at your most depressed, just remember that you can always... you know. You got my number.
(A few seconds pass. Sydney grabs Vaughn's hand, and holds on tight.)
(Credit Dauphine, the next day.)
SLOANE: I put the recording you made through voice print. The man that Jacqnoud is meeting with is Malik Suari. He specializes in industrial demolition. This is his latest innovation. It's called the Blu-250. Commissioned by a Swiss corporation to blow out mountain ranges for the production of high speed trains. There's a third piece. You will be very happy.
(They play the recording Sydney took.)
SLOANE: Now, of course, the man they're referring to is Dhiren Patel.
DIXON: You think the winner of the Edgar Peace Prize is working with Luc Jacqnoud?
SLOANE: Dhiren Patel is India's delegate to the U.N., he's a former president of the southern hemisphere. Human rights commission. There's no way in the world he's working with Jacqnoud.
SYDNEY: So, then, what's the connection?
SLOANE: Irony. Jacqnoud is using Mr. Patel without his knowledge to send a message to the U.C.O.
DIXON: Which is what?
SLOANE: To abolish the organization. We've traced at least a half a dozen threats to Jacqnoud. This has it that this last act will be his most violent.
SYDNEY: You think Jacqnoud is going to plant an explosive on Patel?
SLOANE: Yes, I do. And I want you two to stop it. That's why you're leaving for Sao Paulo tonight. The job is to find Patel, recover the weapon, and safeguard the U.C.O. Any questions?
(Sao Paulo. At a party, Dixon looks around, wearing a tux.)
DIXON: Any luck?
(Pan over to Sydney, dressed in disguise.)
SYDNEY: I don't see Patel anywhere.
(At Will's office, he's on the phone. Jenny stands nearby.)
WILL: Oh, and that's unusual, buying an international flight with cash. Uh-huh. But he was traveling alone, right? Excuse me? Daniel Hecht was not traveling alone?
(Sydney mingles, looks around. Patel enters.)
SYDNEY: I have a twenty on Patel.
DIXON: Let's get him out of here.
(Patel wipes sweat from his head, motions to his bodyguards that he's suddenly ill.)
SYDNEY: Wait. Something's wrong. He looks sick.
DIXON: Sick?
(Patel collapses.)
SYDNEY: He just went down.
DIXON: Does he have a drink?
SYDNEY: Yes.
DIXON: Get the glass.
(Sydney walks over to where Patel has collapsed. Some people surround him, checking if he's okay. She crouches down near Patel's fallen hand, where he's holding his drink.)
SYDNEY: Is he okay? Did somebody call a doctor?
(She takes the glass, stands, and drops it into Dixon's hand, who walks by.)
MAN: Excuse me, I'm a doctor. Can I help?
(The man kneels down. Suari stands in the background, takes a drink, watching with interest.)
SYDNEY: Guess who's here?
(Dixon exits the party, and goes into the stairwell, still holding Patel's drink.)
DIXON: Suari.
(He puts something in the drink, shakes the glass a little.)
DIXON: I'm telling you, if they're bombing this place, it's going to be tomorrow. Opening ceremonies.
(Dixon holds the glass up to the light. Patel's drink turns blue.)
DIXON: They fed Patel some kind of powdered sedative compound. Looks like a designer drug.
(Out at the party near the curb, people stand around, watching Patel enter an ambulance.)
DIXON: Keep an eye on Suari.
(The ambulance drives away. Sydney sees a brand new motorcycle parked.)
SYDNEY: I'm following Patel.
(Will's office, continuing.)
WILL: Just confirm something for me. The person traveling with Daniel Hecht, the name was Sydney Bristow, right? No? Are you sure? Okay, man, you gotta tell me who it was. Just give me the name. Oh, come on, what about you owe me one? All right. Hey, you remember my assistant Jenny? No, no, no, no, the other one.
JENNY: What are you doing? What are you doing?
WILL: Yes, yes, yes. You give me the name, and she'll go out with you.
JENNY: No, she won't!
WILL: Yeah, she's psyched to go out with you, man.
(Will presses a button on the phone and gives the receiver to Jenny.)
JENNY: I'm not going to talk to him!
WILL: (whispering) You don't ahve to go out with him, just say that you are. Please?
JENNY: Fine! (picks it up) Hi. Yeah. Okay. I'd love to go out with you. Uh-huh.
(She gives Will a dirty look and hangs up. He takes over on his headset.)
WILL: Okay, so, give me the name of the person who was traveling with Daniel Hecht. Yeah, I know.
(Will types "Kate Jones" on his computer, frowning.)
WILL: Kate Jones. Kate Jones.
(He types "Kate Jones?".)
(In Sao Paulo, the ambulance races down the street. Sydney rides behind it with the motorcycle she eyed. The ambulance pulls up to a building, enters a gate. She comes up behind. The ambulance enters the building. She stops and takes off her helmet, wtaching. She spots a way to get into the building. Inside, the ambulance driver takes off his tuxedo coat. Talks to Suari. They're getting Patel out of the ambulance. To the side, is a marked off area with hospital gear set out.)
AMBULANCE DRIVER: There was any problems?
SUARI: No problem. He's ready to go.
(Sydney runs and climbs up a stairwell outside. Inside, a few doctors gather around Patel.)
DOCTOR: Scalpel.
(Patel lays, unconscious. Sydney breaks a cage outside and climbs inside. At the operation, a doctor makes an incision on Patel's chest. Someone else wipes the blood away. Sydney, climbing above where the operation is taking place, moves through an entryway and gasps as her legs dangle below through a giant hole in the walkway. She pulls herself up, grunting. On her hands and knees, she looks down. Coming up to another hole in the ceiling above where the doctors are currently cutting Patel open, she gets a better look with a small telescope that is about the size of a pencil. She seees Suari below, observing the operation. And Jacqnoud. She gets a better look. She sees Patel's face. They're making the incision deeper. One of the doctors holdds a small metal casing that is formed into a half moon.)
SUARI: Uh, careful with that. That's the equivalent to three hundred pounds of TNT.
JACQNOUD: Yes. Don't kill him.
(Sydney watches in horror as the doctors put the bomb inside Patel's chest.)
Summary:
| Sydney and Dixon go on a dangerous case in Morocco involving the safety of the United Commerce Organization and an agent friend of Sydney's dies of a gunshot. In the meantime, Francie (a close friend of Sydney's who shares her apartment) confronts Charlie, her boyfriend, about a secret date with another woman. The circle of Sydney's friends, consisting of Francie, Charlie and Will, begins to suffer from her little white lies about her job in a bank and the many sudden trips she has to make. Will continues his investigation to find the truth about the murder of Daniel Hecht and unravels more of the mystery. Coming back from Morocco, Sydney tries to get to know her father better by inviting him to dinner. However, he doesn't dare turn up, which makes her miserable. | 95 | 31,345 | 31,347 | 31,347 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_The_Vampire_Diaries_01x11 | fd_The_Vampire_Diaries_01x11_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
[Elena's car.]
STEFAN (PHONE): Elena. It's Stefan. I know that picture must have confused you. But I can explain. I need to explain. Please, when you get this, call me.
Elena has an accident. She collided a man. Her car is back to front but Elena has nothing. She sees the man getting up.
ELENA: Aah! Aah! Aah! The man disappears.
DAMON: How ya doing in there?
ELENA: Damon?
DAMON: You look stuck.
ELENA: My seat lt.
DAMON: Let me get you out of there. I want you to put your hands on the roof. Just like that. You ready? ...2, 3. I got you. Are you ok? Can you stand? Anything broken?
ELENA: Uh-uh.
DAMON: Whoa, you're fading fast, Elena. Elena, look at me. Focus. Look at me. Ok.
ELENA: I look like her.
DAMON: What? Upsy-daisy. Damon leaves with Elena in his arms.
[Alaric's House.]
ALARIC: I found one. After years of reseah and study, there it was right in front of me. I was terrified. As I stared it in the eyes, I drove a stake through its heart. I was right about Mystic Falls. There is evil here. I can sense it. Feel it. It's everywhere.
He is watching a photography of a youg woman, probably his girlfirend.
[Flashback.]
ALARIC'S GIRLFRIEND: Mmm. It's not even 7:00 yet.
ALARIC: Which means you shouldn't be awake for at least 6 hours.
ALARIC'S GIRLFRIEND: I hate morning people.
ALARIC: I'm going to be home te tonight.
ALARIC'S GIRLFRIEND: Mm love you.
ALARIC: And I love you too.
[Damon's car. Elena wakes up]
DAMON: Morning.
ELENA: Where are we?
DAMON: Georgia.
ELENA: Georgia? No, no. No, we're not. Seriously, Damon. Where are we?
DAMON: Seriously, we're-- we're in Georgia. How ya feeling?
ELENA: I--I--
DAMON: There's broken bones. I checked.
ELENA: But my car. There was a man. I hit a man. But then he got up and--who was that?
DAMON: That's what I would like to know.
ELENA: Where is my phone? Ok. We really need to go back. Nobody knows where I am. Pull over. I mean it, damon. Pull over! Stop the car!
DAMON: Oh you were so much more fun when you were asleep.
He stops the car.
DAMON: Hey.
ELENA: I'm fine. We have to go back.
DAMON: Oh come on. Look. We've already come this far.
ELENA: Why are you doing this? I can't be in Georgia. I wrecked my car. I have to go home. This is kidnapping.
DAMON: That's a little melodramatic, don'you think?
ELENA: You're not funny. You can't do this. I'm not going to Georgia.
DAMON: You're in georgia. Without your magical necklace I might add. I can very easily make you...Agreeable.
ELENA: What are you trying to prove?
[Elena's cell phone rings.]
ELENA: That's my phone.
DAMON: Mmm. It's your boyfriend. I'll take it. Elena's phone.
STEFAN: Where is she? Why do you have her phone? Is she ok?
DAMON: Elena? She's right here. And, yes, she's fine.
STEFAN: Where are you? Let me speak to her.
DAMON: He wants to talk to you.
ELENA: Uh-uh.
DAMON: Yeah. I don't-- I don't think she wants to talk to you right now.
STEFAN: Damon, I swear to god, if you touch her--
DAMON: You have a good day. Mm-hmm. Bye-now.
STEFAN: Argh!
ELENA: Look. No one knows where I am. Can we please just go back?
DAMON: We're almost there.
ELENA: Where is there?!
DAMON: A little place right outside of Atlanta. Oh, come on, Elena. You don't wanna go back right now. Do you? What's the rush? Time-out. Trust me. Your problems are still going to be there when you get home. Look. Step away from your life for 5 minutes.
ELENA: 5 minutes. Am I going to be safe with you?
DAMON: Yes.
ELENA: Will you promise not to do that mind control thing with me?
DAMON: Yes.
ELENA: Can I trust you?
DAMON: Get in the car. Come on.
[Jeremy and Alaric.]
JEREMY: Hey, Mr. Saltzman.
ALARIC: Hey, Jeremy. I, uh--can't find my ring. I took it off for the gym and thought I put it-- there it is.
JEREMY: Losing family heirlooms-- bad.
ALARIC: How's your extra credit coming? You pick a topic yet?
JEREMY: Mystic Falls, the cil war era.
ALARIC: What's the angle?
JEREMY: My family-- I found a journal of an anstor who lived in the 1800s. And the Gilberts were one of the original founding families of Mystic Falls. So...
ALARIC: That sounds good.
[Stefan and Bonnie.]
STEFAN: Bonnie.
BONNIE: Stefan
STEFAN: Hey.
BONNIE: Hi.
STEFAN: I haven't seen you lately. How are you doing with everything?
BONNIE: I'm fine. It's all fine.
STEFAN: Good. Yeah
BONNIE: Are you back in school?
STEFAN: No. Actually I came here to find you. I s hoping you could help me with something. A spell.
BONNIE: Stefan, look, I know Elena's ok with all of this, and I appreciate what you did to help me. But I'm not really ready to dive into it with you just yet.
STEFAN: I understand. But I need your help. It's Elena. She's with Damon. I have Elena's necklace. I was just hoping you could use this to make some sort of a connection. I just need to know that she's ok.
BONNIE: How do you know I can do this?
STEFAN: Because I've known a few witches over the years. I've seen what they can do.
BONNIE: I'm still new at it.
STEFAN: It's ok. Give it a shot.
BONNIE: Ok. All right.
She tries to feel something with the necklace.
BONNIE: There's nothing. Nothing's happening. Usually there's an image or... Tell me if anyone's looking.
STEFAN: Ok.
BONNIE: All right. She takes a leaf and tries to fly it.
STEFAN: What is it?
BONNIE: Something's wrong.
STEFAN: With Elena?
BONNIE: With me. There's something wrong with me. I have to go. I'm sorry, Stefan. I can't help you.
[Damon's car.]
ELENA: So, where's my car?
DAMON: I pulled it off on the side of the road. I don't think anyone will bother it.
ELENA: At about that man in the road? Was he a...?
DAMON: From what I could tell. Yeah.
ELENA: You don't know him?
DAMON: If I've never met him, I wouldn't know him. I mean, it's not like we all hang out together at the vamp bar and grill.
He stops the car in front of a bar.
ELENA: You brought me to a bar? Damon, I'm not old enough. They're not going to let me in.
DAMON: Sure they will.
WOMAN: No. No, it can't be. Damon. My honey pie. She kisses Damon.
WOMAN: Listen up everybody! Here's to the man that broke my heart, crushed my soul, destroyed my life, and ruined any and all chances of happiness! Drink up! Ahh. Whoo!
WOMAN: So, how'd he rope you in?
ELENA: I'm not roped in. Actually, I'm dating his--
WOMAN: Honey, if you're not roped, you're whipped. Either way, just enjoy the ride.
ELENA: Ok. So, how did you two meet?
WOMAN: College.
ELENA: You went to college?
DAMON: I've been on a college campus, yes.
WOMAN: About 20 years ago, when I was just a sweet, young freshman I met this butiful man, and fell in love. And then he told me about his littleecret, made me love him more. Because, you see, I had a little secret of my own that I was dying to share with somebody.
DAMON: She's a witch.
WOMAN: Changed my world.
DAMON: I rocked your world.
WOMAN: He is good in the sack, isn't he? But mostly he's just a walkawayoe. So, what is it that you want?
[Jeremy in a library.]
He looks at books when some books fall him above. A girl arrives.
GIRL: Oh my god. I am so sorry. There was this one book wedged between the other. And I pulled and then kaplunk, kaboom. Are you ok?
JEREMY: Yeah, I'm fine.
GIRL: Ohh! I'm Anna.
JEREMY: I'm Jeremy.
[Grams' house.]
BONNIE: Thank god you're back.
GRAMS: And hello to you, too. What's the matter?
BONNIE: Powers are gone, Grams. I can't do anything, even when I concentrate. And there's nothing in in any of these books that can tell me how to get them back.
GRAMS: Hang on, now. Just calm down. Tell me what happened.
BONNIE: I can't.
GRAMS: We keeping secrets now?
BONNIE: I have to. I'm sorry. I promised. Please help me.
GRAMS: Well, first of all, there's nothing in any of these that's gonna help you. If you're blocked, it's in here. You gotta clear it out, then you're back in business.
BONNIE: Clear what out?
GRAMS: Whatever's got you so scared.
[Elena phones.]
ELENA: Hi, Jenna. I'm so sorry.
JENNA: Where are you? Why didn't you call?
ELENA: I was so tired last night. I fell asleep at Bonnie's. And then this morning, I just wanted to get to school.
JENNA: Are you ok?
ELENA: You know, Stefan and stuff.
DAMON: Come on, there's gotta be another way.
WOMAN: After all these years, it's still only Katherine. How do you even know she's still alive?
DAMON: Well, you help me get into that tomb and we'll find out.
WOMAN: I already did. 20 years ago. Remember? 3 easy steps-- Comet. Crystal. Spell.
DAMON: There's a little problem with number 2. I don't have the crystal.
WOMAN: That's it, damon. There is no other way. It's Emily's spell.
DAMON: What about a new spell with a new crystal that overrides Emily's spell?
WOMAN: It doesn't work that way, baby. Emily's spell is absolute. You can't get into that tomb.
[Bonnie in the wood.]
BONNIE: Hello? Anybody here?! Aah!
Bonnie falls.
[Front of the bar. Elena's cellphone ringing.]
STEFAN: Elena, is th you?
ELENA: I'm here.
STEFAN: Where are you?
ELENA: You lied.
STEFAN: Not until I explain, please.
ELENA: So, you didn't lie?
STEFAN: Just tell me where you are. So that I can comeet you.
ELENA: How am I connected to Katherine, stefan?
STEFAN: I honestly don't know.
ELENA: And I'm supposed to believe that?
STEFAN: It's the truth. I-- Listen--
She hangs up. Damon is behind her.
DAMON: You ok?
ELENA: Don't pretend to care. I know you're gloating inside. Damon's friend phones.
WOMAN: Hey, it's Bree. You'll never gonna guess who walked into my bar.
[Bonnie, in the tomb.]
BONNIE: Oww. Hello?! Anybody?! Ahh!
[Grams' house. Stefan is knocking.]
STEFAN: Hi.
GRAMS: Can I help you?
STEFAN: I'm Stefan. I'm a friend of Bonnie's. Her dad told me that she might be here.
GRAMS: She was. Not anymore.
STEFAN: Do you know where she went?
GRAMS: No. But you do.
STEFAN: I'm sorry?
GRAMS: I told her to face down her fear. And I'm sensing now that you know exactly why she was scared. You know what I am. And yet you offered me your hand, which means you wanted me to see that I can trust you.
STEFAN: Can you?
GRAMS: I just you'll keep her safe. You'd better be on your way, then. I'm not going to invite you in. I'm sure you understand why.
[SCENE_BREAK]
[At the library.]
ANNA: This aisle is local and state history. And civil war is one over. What do you need?
JEREMY: Local. 1860s. Do you work here?
ANNA: Nope. You want reference. This way. Uh, home-schooled. I study here for a moc school environment. Ah, here we go. Original settlers, town archives, founders stuff. It's all here. So, what's your topic ?
JEREMY: The town's fear and hysteria surrounding the war and how it influenced certain writers of the time.
ANNA: You might want to focus that.
JEREMY: The origin of local folklore and myths.
ANNA: You mean the vampires?
[At the bar.]
ELENA: Let's just say that I'm descended from Katherine-- Does that make me part vampire?
DAMON: Vampires can't procreate. But we love to try. No. If you are related, it would mean Katherine had a child before she was turned.
ELENA: Did Stefan think that he could use me to replace her?
DAMON: Kinda creepy if you ask me. Come on, what? You don't like pickl? What's wrong with you?
ELENA: How can you even eat? If technically you're supposed to be...
DAMON: Dead. It's not such a bad word. As long as I keep a healthy diet of blood in my system, our body functions pretty normally.
ELENA: This nice act. Is any of it real?
BREE: Here you go, honey.
DAMON: Thank you.
ELENA: I'll have one too.
DAMON: Hmm?
ELENA: Time out, remember? For 5 minutes? Yeah, well that 5 minutes is going to need a beer.
BREE: There you go.
[In the library.]
JEREMY: You're kidding me, right? There's no such thing as vampires.
ANNA: Well, there's not a lot of documentation but the stories have been told since the civil war. My granddad used to tell me all these creepy stories when I was little. And he said that his granddad told them to him.
JEREMY: Yeah. That would be folklore. Vampires are a metaphor for the demons of the day.
ANNA: Which are?
JEREMY: The union soldiers. I've read the stories myself. They talk about the enemy, the demons that attack night.
ANNA: That sounds like vampires to me.
JEREMY: Allegorical vampires. Which is what it is. Creative expression during a very volatile time. I mean, a couny at war doesn't want realism. They want fantasy. Thus, vampire fiction.
ANNA: Man, you're smart. I gotta give it to you. When I first saw you, I missed it.
JEREMY: Yeah. I've had a rough go of it lately. But I'm just now getting back to my old self.
ANNA: Well, good luck on the paper. I gotta get home. You know, my great grandfather actually showed me a journal once of an ancestor and he had written all of this creepy stuff about vampires. It was actually really believable.
JEREMY: Wait. A journal?
ANNA: Yeah? Why?
JEREMY: Are you sure you have to go?
[In the Tomb.]
Bonnie tries to phone.
BONNIE: Come on, phone! Great! Great. Someone arrives behind her.
STEFAN: Bonnie!
BONNIE: Get away from me!
STEFAN: It's me. It's stefan.
BONNIE: Stefan. The ground gave way and I fell.
STEFAN: It's ok. It's ok. Calm down. Come on, let's get you out of here.
BONNIE: How?
STEFAN: Just close your eyes. Trust . He jumps.
STEFAN: You can open your eyes now.
BONNIE: Whoa.
STEFAN: I didn't want to scare you.
BONNIE: How did you know where I was?
STEFAN: Well, your grandmother told me what you were doing. I guessed the where.
BONNIE: I heard them. Down there. Behind the door. Are they in pain?
STEFAN: In the beginning--yes. But not anymore. They've been starved to the point of dessication.
BONNIE: But if they have blood--
STEFAN: That's not going to happen, Bonnie. They can't get out. Emily saw to that when she had you destroy the crystal. You're safe.
[In the bar.]
DAMON: Ready...
BREE: Go!
They drink.
ELENA: That's 3. Do you need a bib?
DAMON: Sorry I can't unhinge my jaw like a snake to consume alcohol.
ELENA: Whatever. All right. Who's next? Another round, Bree.
GIRL: Honey, you should be on the floor.
ELENA: I am not even drunk. My tolerance is, like, way up here.
BREE: All right. Here you go.
[At Mystic Grill.]
JEREMY: So, you have no idea where the journal is?
ANNA: Nope. Gramps died. And all the kids split his stuff. I can ask.
JEREMY: I just find it weird that our ancestors kept the same kind of journal. It's crazy.
ANNA: Maybe it's based in some partial reality.
JEREMY: No. It's gotta be a metaphorical. My ancestor wrote short stories.
ANNA: So, that's why you're hung up on the fiction of it all.
JEREMY: No, I'm hung up on fiction of it all because I've seen "the lost boys" and "near dark," like, 50 times.
ANNA: Are those movies? Hey. I've never seen them. Maybe we can have a fright night and rent a whole bunch of vampire movies.
JEREMY: Uh, yeah, sure.
ANNA: Why does that sound like a no way in hell? Sorry, I'm blunt.
JEREMY: No, it's--I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I just recently got out of something. It's a little too soon, you know?
ANNA: Oh please, sure. No worries. I meant as friends. Yeah. Look, I really gotta go. Nice meeting you, Jeremy.
[In the bar.]
[Elena's cell phone ringing]
ELENA: Hello?
JENNA: Elena ?
ELENA: Jenna? Hold on, it's loud in here.
JENNA: Elena, where are you ? Are you ok ?
ELENA: Huh? Yeah. No, I'm good. Eveything's fine. Hold on. I can't hear you.
Elena falls.
ELENA: Hello ? Someone arrives behind her and kidnaps her.
BREE: Hey, where's your girl?
DAMON: Hmm.
BREE: She was right back there. Damon goes out of the bar. He finds Elena's cellphone on the ground. He goes behind sheds.
ELENA: Damon, no. A man attack him.
DAMON: What the hell?!
ELENA: No! He beats Damon.
DAMON: Who are you?
MAN: That's perfect. You have no idea.
ELENA: What are you talking about? What did he do?
MAN: He killed my girlfriend. What did she do to you, huh? What did she do to you?! Nothing.
ELENA: I don't understand.
MAN: My girlfriend went to visit Stefan, and Damon killed her. Got it? He beats Damon.
DAMON: Ugh!
ELENA: Lexi? Lexi was your girlfriend? She told me about you. She said you were human.
MAN: I was.
ELENA: Lexi turned you?
MAN: If you want to be with someone forever, you have to live forever.
ELENA: She loved you. She said, "when it's real, you can't walk away."
MAN: Well, that's a choice you're not going to have to make.
ELENA: Don't. Don't, please, don't hurt him--
MAN: I'm doing you a favor.
ELENA: Lexi loved you. And she was good. That means you're good too. Be better than him. Don't do this. I'm begging you! Please. Lexi's boyfriend stop to beat Damon.
ELENA: Thank you.
MAN: It wasn't for you.
[Gram's house.]
GRAMS: Well, now, look who's returned from battle. Can I talk to your friend for minute? BONNIE: Thank you.
GRAMS: I appreciate your help, Stefan.
STEFAN: You're welcome, Sheila.
GRAMS: I wasn't sure you remembered.
STEFAN: October 1969.
GRAMS: I was barely a teenager.
STEFAN: And you were leading what was probably the only anti-war sit-in within miles of Mystic Falls.
GRAMS: Hmm.
STEFAN: You know when you spoke, people were mesmerized. I know I was.
GRAMS: Until the cops showed up. You took a big risk coming to see me earlier. Letting me read you, realize who you were. It could have gone a completely different way.
STEFAN: Your family has a very long history of keeping my secret. I knew that I could trust you if you believed I waworthy of your trust.
GRAMS: Bonnie knows, doesn't she?
STEFAN: Yes.
GRAMS: Please understand, our loyalty can only extend so far. This town won't be easy on any of us if they figure it out. And I'll protect my own before anybody else.
STEFAN: I know that.
GRAMS: As long as we're clear, goodnight, then.
STEFAN: Goodnight, Sheila.
[In the bar.]
DAMON: We were just leaving, and I wanted to sagood bye.
BREE: Good to see you again, Damon.
DAMON: No kiss?
BREE: I'm full of vervain. I put it in everything I drink.
DAMON: And you're telling me this why?
BREE: Lexi was my friend. How could you? The tomb can be opened.
DAMON: You're lying!
BREE: Emily's grimoire, her spellbook. If you know how she closed the tomb the reversal process will be in her book. You can open that tomb.
DAMON: Where is this book?
BREE: I--I--
DAMON: You have no idea.
BREE: No. I'm telling you the truth.
DAMON: And I believe you. My dear, sweet Bree. That's why I'm almost sorry.
BREE: Ugh!
He kills her.
[In Damon's car.]
ELENA: So, why did you bring me with you?
DAMON: Well you're not the worst company in the world, Elena. You could give yourself more credit.
ELENA: Seriously?
DAMON: You were there in the road. All damsel in distress-like. And I knew it would piss off Stefan. And... U're not the worst company in the world, Elena.
ELENA: I used to be more fun.
DAMON: You did ok.
ELENA: I saved your life.
DAMON: I know.
ELENA: And don't you forget it.
[Salvatore's House.]
ELENA: Hi.
STEFAN: Hi.
ELENA: You could have told me.
STEFAN: I wanted to tell you.
ELENA: You said no more lies. Only the truth. I can handle the truth, Stefan. As crazy as it is, I can handle the fact that you are a vampire. And you have a vampire brother. And that my best friend is a witch. I can accept the fact that the world is much more mysterious place than I ever thought possible. But this--this lie, I can't take. What am I to you? Who am I to you?
STEFAN: You are not Katherine. You are the opposite everything that she was.
ELENA: And when did you figure that out? Before you kissed me? Before we slept together?
STEFAN: Before I met you.
ELENA: What?
STEFAN: The first day of school. We when met. It wasn't for the first time, Elena.
ELENA: Then when was it?
STEFAN: May 23, 2009.
ELENA: But that was--
STEFAN: That was the day your parents' car went off the bridge.
ELENA: You were the?
STEFAN: Every couple of years that I come back here to see Zach and see my home. Last spring, I was out in the woods, by old wickery bridge. And I heard the accident. All of it. I was fast getting there, but not fast enough. The car was already submerged. Your dad was still- he was still conscious. I was able to get to him, but he wouldn't let me help him, until I helped you.
ELENA: Oh my god. When I woke up in the hospital, nobody could figure out how I got out of the car. They said it was a miracle.
STEFAN: I went back for them. But it was too late. I couldn't-- I couldn't save them. When I pulled you out, I looked at your face. You looked like Katherine. I couldn't believe the resemblance. After that, I spent months making sure th you weren't her. I watched you. I learned everythi that I could about you. And I saw that you were nothing like Katherine. And I wanted to leave town, but, Elena, I couldn't. I couldn't leave without knowing you. I'm so sorry that I didn't tell you. I wanted to. But you were so sad.
ELENA: Why do I look like her?
STEFAN: Elena, you've been through so much.
ELENA: Why do I look like her, Stefan? What are you not telling me?
STEFAN: It didn't make any sense to me. You were a Gilbert. She was a Pierce. But the resemblance was too similar. And then I learned the truth. You were adopted, Elena.
[In the library.]
ANNA: There you are.
JEREMY: Hey.
ANNA: Hi. Ok, look. I know I don't know you, so don't ask me why I did this. I just, sometimes-- mostly all the time- I have this need to be right. So I googled and...
JEREMY: What is it?
ANNA: Proof. Sort of.
JEREMY: What does this mean?
ANNA: Well, I only went as far back as 1942, and found that there's been a string of animal attacks periodically in and around this town for the past 75 years. It's consistent. In '62, 5 boes found. In '53, 4 people killed. In '74, 3 people dead. And there's been 5 this year. All attacked. All suffered major blood loss, as in drained of blood.
[Stefan's bedroom.]
ELENA: How do you know that?
STEFAN: Your birth certificate from the city records. It says Elena Gilbert. Mystic falls general. But there's no record of your mother ever being admitted.There's no record of her ever being pregnant.
ELENA: What else do you know?
STEFAN: For me to go any further, I would've had to look into the Pierce family, and I couldn't do that. It's too much of a risk. If someone found out I was asking about Katherine-- Listen to me, it doesn't matter. You are the woman that I love. I love you.
Elena kiss him.
[Elena's house.]
JENNA: I don't set a lot of rules, Elena. Not with you. I trust you to tell me the truth. Where were you? Why would you lie to me about it? I thought that we were closer than that.
ELENA: Now is not the time you want to talk to me about lies.
JENNA: Don't do that. Don't turn this back on me. I didn't do anything.
ELENA: Ok, question-- am I adopted? I trust you to tell me the truth too, Jenna. How could you not tell me? I thought we were closer than that.
JENNA: Elena, didn't-- they asked me not to.
ELENA: I don't want to hear it!
[At Mystic Grill. Alaric sees Damon.]
[Flashback.]
ALARIC'S GIRLFRIEND: I love you.
ALARIC: I'm going to be late tonight.
Later. Alaric returns at home. He sees Damon drink the blood of his girlfriend.
[Reality.]
Alaric understands Damon is the vampire which killed her girlfriend.
Summary:
| Damon's arrival causes the mysterious stranger to flee, and Damon frees Elena from her overturned car. Damon brings Elena with him to Georgia to see Bree, a witch and an old flame of Damon's, hoping she can help open the tomb to free Katherine. Bree calls Lee, Lexi's boyfriend (as Lexi was her friend), who wants revenge on Damon for killing Lexi. Elena saves Damon, and he kills Bree after she tells him to find Emily's spellbook. Back in Mystic Falls, Stefan opens up to Bonnie's grandmother in an attempt to help Bonnie come to terms with her new powers and make her aware that she has the power to become a Bennet witch. Meanwhile, Jeremy meets Anna, a young woman who knows the true past of Mystic Falls. When Elena and Damon return, Stefan reveals that he saved Elena from the crash that killed her parents. Stefan also tells Elena that her parents adopted her, but knows nothing more about her parentage. He claims his love to Elena and she forgives him. Also, Alaric sits at the Mystic Grill bar and recognizes Damon as the vampire who killed his wife. | 95 | 23,007 | 23,009 | 23,009 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
fd_The_O.C._03x01 | fd_The_O.C._03x01_0 | You are given a script of a TV episode. Summarize the episode in a paragraph.
Episode Script:
Opening scene - Hospital - the first thing we see is a black screen with the sound of a siren, and what sounds like a dispatch message. I cannot make out the actual words sorry. we see the hospital doors open and paramedics rushing a stretcher inside, there is a bright light so its difficult to see everything - all the talking in this scene is very echoey, and distant. it's very reflective of the situation. there are also a few voiceovers from 224, which I think were done great!)
Paramedic: I got a gun shot wound exited the right clavicle, punctured an artery
(we see a close up of Trey, and the other paramedic is holding a breathing thing over his mouth. a doctor comes down the corridor, putting a gown on)
Dr: he still alive
Paramedic: not for long
V.O Ryan: how could you man...I would'a done anything for you
(we see Trey kind of moving his head a little, then we see the ceiling of the hospital as if we are seeing what Trey is seeing. we then see Ryan & Marissa coming in through the hospital doors, they both look worried and scared)
V.O Trey: look man, it was messed up, I was stoned
(an officer comes into the shot and walks over to Ryan and Marissa as they are coming in)
Officer: we've still got some more questions for you
(Ryan walks passed the officer and over towards Trey)
Ryan: I've jus gotta see if he's gonna be ok
(we see Trey, still with the breathing thing over his mouth, being pushed away. there is another voice over here but its at the same time as the next line so I cant tell what it is, its possibly a scream/cry from Marissa)
Marissa: (worried, to a nurse) he's not gonna die, right
(behind Marissa we see Seth and Summer enter, they both look worried as well, and they are looking in the direction of Marissa/Ryan/Trey. behind them we can see the ambulance Trey came out of)
V.O Ryan: it wasn't my idea Trey, I didn't wanna steal that car
(we see another shot of Trey, which is a close up of his bloody face, and a little of his chest. here we see a bit of the hospital roof and light, but also blended into it is the scene where Trey pulled the gun on Ryan at his apartment in 224. its been done similar to how we saw the Ryan/Marissa 'who are you' scene during the Ryan/Lindsay car conversation of 208 . its a blink and you'll miss it deal :))
V.O Trey: hey man I went away for it an uh you got the good life
V.O Ryan: so you had to destroy it, you had to hurt her, huh
(the last thing we see is Trey pointing the gun at Ryan, then we see the hospital light again and Trey being rushed down the corridor. Ryan comes around the corner, behind Trey, the doctor and the paramedics)
Ryan: hey, he's my brother, is he gonna be ok
Dr: he'd be better if someone hadn't shot him
(the Dr and paramedics move the stretcher closer to the bed, nurses are also there)
Dr: he's lost alot of blood so (turns around and sees Ryan) Jesus what the hell happened'a you
Ryan: (looks at Dr) nothing I'm fine
Dr: (yells) could someone look at this kid
(Ryan turns away from the Dr and everything goes blurry)
Officer: just as soon as we're done talking to him
(we see a close up of Ryan, and he has a noticeable bruise, and bloody nose, he also looks out of it. he looks away from the officer and back at Trey. we see Trey being moved over to the bed, then someone squeezing the breathing thing over his mouth. we then see Marissa and Summer standing together near the hospital doors, an officer is with them)
Marissa: (yells) Ryan
(Ryan turns to face Marissa, she puts her hand out to Ryan helplessly)
Officer: (holding the gun) did you discharge this weapon man
Marissa: (looks at officer, frustrated) yes I already t-
Ryan: (yells urgently) don't answer him, don't say anything
(the officer near Ryan looks over towards Marissa, shocked. Marissa looks at Ryan and shrugs. the background goes out of focus, Seth comes into the shot clearly on the right hand side)
Seth: you ok (Ryan looks at him)
Dr: we're losing him
(Ryan turns towards where they are working on Trey. we see a very quick flashback of Trey and Ryan, then we see them still working on Trey, squeezing the breathing thing. Ryan looks away from Trey and back towards Seth, dazed. we see how Ryan is seeing, which is Seth as wavy, then squashed/ stretched)
Seth: you alright
(Ryan looks at Seth, blinking and breathing heavily. his vision is now bordering on blurry. we can see Marissa out of focus in the background still. Sandy comes through the hospital doors)
Sandy: Ryan (Ryan looks at him, still blinking and dazed) Seth...you ok
(Ryan is now seeing Sandy as short/fat, and wavy. we see Ryan looking at Sandy & Seth, growing more and more disoriented till he falls and passes out on the floor. we see what he is seeing as he falls, then we hear the thud and see Ryan on his stomach next to Treys bed. - we then abruptly cut to the pool house where Ryan has jolted himself awake. he blinks and slightly lifts his head, we can see a bit of sun on his cheek. he looks freaked out. he then lifts his head more and opens his eyes wider. he rubs his hand down his face, and sniffs. we then see Ryan sitting up on his elbow in bed, we can also see a silhouette at his door, and then we hear a knock. Seth opens the door and walks in, in true Seth style, lol)
Seth: hey man, I jus wanted you ta know that uh (stops and looks at Ryan worried) you ok
Ryan: (looks at Seth, then looks away and sighs) I just had the worst nightmare (raises eyebrows)
Seth: yeah, I got some...bad news
Ryan: it wasn't a dream (closes eyes) yeah, yeah I know (opens eyes)
Seth: well that lawyer guys on his way over so...
Ryan: (softly) thankyou
(Seth turns and leaves. we see a close up of Ryan who looks worried)
Cooper-Nichol veranda - we see an aerial shot of the pool, and Marissa and Summer sun-baking beside it. think 201. it then changes to a front on shot of them, but it's as if it's on top of the pool water, half way through Summers line it changes to a close up of them. Marissa has her head back, with sunglasses on
Summer: you know Coop, if you had of asked what we'd be doing the weekend before senior year (thinks) I probably would've said a road trip to Rosarito or rush week at SU with college boys
Marissa: an waiting to get charged with manslaughter
Summer: (shakes head) wouldnt'a made the list (looks at Marissa) mm-mm...(reassuringly) your gonna get through this Coop (looks at Marissa with one eye open, one closed from the sun) your innocent you were saving Ryan's life
Marissa: (lifts head) try explaining that to Ryan
Summer: he understands why you did it he's not mad (shakes head)
Marissa: its jus like this... weird horrible thing (lays head back) hanging over us...like the elephant in the room...or an intensive care unit
Summer: (frowns) before Trey I never actually knew anyone in a coma (shakes head) well I mean on the valley there's someone in a coma (Marissa frowns) like every week but I think they only do that so that when the person wakes up another actor can play the part (nods, confidently)
Marissa: (raises eyebrows) unfortunately if Trey wakes up he's still gonna be Trey...if he wakes up (looks down)
Summer: you've got'to admit Coop (Marissa looks at her) whatever happens, Ryan facing off with Trey to avenge your honour, god that is SO-FREAKING-HOT (Marissa doesn't say anything) ...in a mythic, biblical, Samurai Western kind of way
Marissa: I really wish that helped me sleep at night Summer (puts head back)
Summer: (frowns, concerned) you're still not sleeping
Marissa: I shot someone Sum (Summer looks at her, then away) an even if he lives, which...is a big if, I'm still gonna have'to live with that for the rest of my life
Summer: (nods) oh (puts head back & closes eyes) senior year
Marissa: (scoffs) should be all time (half smiles)
(we see the backs of the pool chairs and a shot of the house)
CUT TO: Cohen kitchen - Sandy pours a whole pot of coffee into a tall mug
DDA: thaaanks a bunch, Sandy
Sandy: if a pot'n a half isn't enough to get you through the morning (holds out mug) I can make some more
DDA: that'd be great (drinks)
(Sandy looks at the DA and then picks up the pot to refill it)
Sandy: sorry for the mess, its ben a little hectic (looks over) Seth'll be right down
DDA: (frowns) and Mr. Atwood
Sandy: he's gettin' dressed, well the kids've ben through alot this summer with all this hangin over them, and now school is starting
DDA: which is why the DA wants to get moving, we waited as long as we could for the other Mr. Atwood to wake up but I'm getting alotta calls from parents...DA's under alotta pressure ta prosecute (drinks)
Sandy: except there's nothin ta prosecute, Marissa's protected under the defense of others (looks at DDA) of course your boss may not find that very sexy
DDA: quite true...(looks at Sandy) DA's not lookin to go after Marissa
Sandy: (looks at DDA, annoyed) Ryan's innocent...you got his statement at the scene an hers
DDA: look at the record Ryan's got, his history of violence...an Caleb Nichols daughters the one blowin away ex cons with a forty five
Sandy: (looks at DDA) she saved Ryan's life
DDA: what was he doin over at Treys in the first place, his brother tried to rape his girlfriend (Sandy pours more coffee) we've got cause
Sandy: yeah, an ya got witnesses
DDA: well the only people who saw the gun go off were Mr. Atwood Miss Cooper an the other Mr. Atwood, who (raises eyebrows) may or may not wake up
Sandy: (turns to face DDA) if you go after Ryan even if he's brought in on charges...social services could take him away from us
DDA: which explains Miss Coopers motivation to cover for him (nods confidently) Mr. Atwood's got alot more to lose
(Sandy glares at the DDA then turns back to the coffee)
DDA: where is your wife anyway
Sandy: (sighs) she's outta town
CUT TO: Suriak Treatment Centre garden - we see a close up of Kirsten, as the scene goes on we see that she is in a group therapy session and Dr Woodruff is there leading it
Kirsten: my name is Kirsten an I'm an alcoholic
Group: hi Kirsten
(we can now see they are all seated on chairs around the fountain)
Dr W: Kirsten your progress here at Suriak has ben...truly wonderful to watch (nods) your a model patient for...everyone here
(everyone looks towards Kirsten, however one patient near Kirsten looks more interested than the rest. a woman who is one person away from Kirsten, we find out later her name is Charlotte)
Kirsten: (shy) well I don't know about that...I mean Shelley is definitely better at poker (Shelley looks worried) she's cleaned me out
(everyone laughs)
Kirsten: (smiles, looks down) but...being here has given me the clarity to understand...why I turned to alcohol in the first place
Dr W: an...do you feel comfortable sharing with the group uh why that was
Kirsten: uh sure...I mean we're all in this together...I uh (thinks) I guess it begins and ends with my dad (nods, frowns) he was (shakes head, closes eyes) an amazing man (shrugs) but controlling...and...I realised that I was living his life not mine (Dr W listens) after my mother died I did everything (Charlotte is listening intently) I could to please him (sighs) but I realised that no matter how hard I worked or how hard I tried-
Charlotte: it was never enough (Kirsten looks at her) ...I'm sorry
Kirsten: (suprised) uh, no (looks at Charlotte) no its true it was never enough, became my mantra (smiles) ...I was never a good enough wife or a mom (raises eyebrows) because I wasn't a good enough daughter
Dr W: (points at Kirsten) the power that comes with that kind of difficult realisation, will be invaluable after you leave us
Kirsten: are you trying'to get rid'a me (smiles)
(everyone laughs)
Dr W: well, it sounds to me like uh Suriak's work is done (Kirsten smiles, then looks unsure) you'll need ta get a sponsor...an attend meetings...but there's no reason you can't do that from your home
(Charlotte looks at Kirsten, as if she knows Kirsten isn't ready yet)
Kirsten: great (forces a smile)
CUT TO: Cohen dining room - Ryan is sitting on one side of the table with his hands clasped together in front of him, and the DDA is sitting opposite him. Sandy is standing at the end of the table, close by. this scene changes between Ryan and Seth, kind of a blend of their 2 depositions so you'll know who's it was depending on who is talking, Ryan or Seth
DDA: Mr. Atwood (Ryan looks away) do you swear to tell the truth an nothing but the truth so help you god-
Ryan: (fed up) I do (sighs)
DDA: well then you won't mind if I record this deposition (slides recorder across the table)
Seth: sure, record it, release it on ITunes, I hope it's a really big hit
Sandy: (not amused) just answer the questions
Ryan: (looks at Sandy) I've already answered all of these questions (looks at DDA) I have nothing new'to say (looks down)
DDA: well your previous statement came at the hospital...it was traumatic its ben a couple'a months maybe you remember things differently now
Seth: I remember everything exactly as I told you
DDA: well then you can tell me again
Ryan: ...I (leans forward) confronted Trey about what had happened and that's when he pulled the gun on me
Seth: then we called Marissa to see if maybe she could stop Ryan
Ryan: an that's when Marissa saved my life
DDA: you mean, that's when Marissa shot Trey (Seth nods) an you witnessed the shooting
Seth: well it was clear w- when we got there what had happened
DDA: just answer the question
Ryan: (yells, fed up) no I did not (calmer) I didn't- (raises eyebrows) an-an an I didn't shoot him (Sandy looks at DDA)
DDA: young fingerprints are on the gun
Ryan: yeah because I put the safety back on to make sure it didn't go off again
(we see a close up of the recorder)
Ryan: we-we (agitated, sighs) ...we weren't exactly thinking at the time
DDA: so one final question, what were you afraid (frowns) was going to happen between Ryan an his brother...why were you trying to stop him
(Seth doesn't say anything, Sandy looks down)
DDA: you went to Treys that night to kill your brother (Ryan looks at him) didn't you Mr. Atwood
(Ryan swallows and doesn't say anything. we see a close up of the recorder just as it stops recording)
CUT TO: Cooper-Nichol veranda - Jimmy is setting the table and Julie is in front of him looking at herself in the reflection of a window
Jimmy: (puts plate down) so what kind'a food d'you think prosecutors like
Julie: (fixes hair) cause that's what's important here Jimmy (sighs, turns around) ok so (holds out hands) does this look like the outfit the mother of an innocent girl would wear
Jimmy: yeah well at least somebody has their priorities in order...
Julie: (sighs) I just hope Marissa listens to me, and our attorney, the last thing we need is her admitting ta the DA that she shot someone
Jimmy: Jules (looks at Julie, confused) she already admitted it
Julie: she wasn't in a right frame of mind when she spoke to the police...its not like she's a trained assassin
Jimmy: uh-huh so-so (frowns) what's our story, Trey shot himself...in the back
Julie: no, Jimmy, be reasonable
Jimmy: she's not gonna lie an say Ryan did it, they already have her statement
Julie: nobody believes her, they all think she's protecting him
Jimmy: (looks at Julie) so you want Ryan to go away for this
Julie: ...all I know is that before he moved to Newport our lives were alot more normal, stable
Jimmy: (nods) uh-huh so it's his fault that I went bankrupt an nearly went to jail, an you married Caleb Nichol (raises eyebrows) only to watch him drown in a pool annnn Trey got shot (moves closer to Julie)
Julie: (not amused) Jimmy, not everything I say is meant literally, I'm venting (faces Jimmy) look I wish none'a this ever happened but it did, an we have a chance to be a family again...I don't wanna lose that (Jimmy puts his hand on her shoulder) l w- put out some crudités' an the guda ill go see if Marissa's out of the shower
(Julie goes inside and Jimmy turns around, looking worried)
CUT TO: Pool House - Ryan comes out of the bathroom with a towel over his shoulder and Seth comes to the open doors from outside
Seth: (calls out) hey, you decent (Ryan shuts the bathroom door) thought maybe you could...use a post-depo-dip
Ryan: (holds up the towel) I just showered
Seth: mmm a fair point, then we'll stay away from aquatic activity something land locked maybe
Ryan: (thinks) I'm gonna visit Trey
Seth: I was gonna go with a movie, this bein the time when Hollywood dumps their crappy would be blockbusters which we could mock (touches his chest) an thus feel better about ourselves
Ryan: (ignoring Seth, stands) you got the keys (raises eyebrows)
Seth: but (puts up finger) visiting your comatose brother in the I.C.U that's...also an excellent way ta relax an blow off steam so ill drive
Ryan: awesome
(Seth turns around and goes out the doors. Ryan is behind him)
CUT TO: Cooper-Nichol veranda - Jimmy, Julie, the DDA from earlier and Mr. Esbenshade are standing together near the table
Julie: (holding jug) Mr. Caldwell, would you like some more lemonade (smiles) Mr. Esbenshade
(Mr. Esbenshade shakes his head and mouths 'no thanks' at Julie)
Julie: oh come on its ok for a prosecutor an defense attorney to have a glass of lemonade together (Mr. Esbenshade smiles) we're all human beings here
Jimmy: (frowns) I'm not so sure about these guys
(Julie turns around and looks at Jimmy. Marissa and Summer come out the door)
DDA: Miss Cooper
(Marissa and Summer reluctantly walk over, they both look unsure)
DDA: I'm Deputy District Attorney Chris Caldwell ill be conducting this deposition
Marissa: hi (looks down) uh where do you want us ta sit
DDA: actually (looks at Summer) Miss Roberts cant be present (Marissa frowns) we wouldn't want you influencing her testimony
Marissa: (confused) she (points) knows what you know which is the truth, which is what I already told you people
DDA: Miss Roberts (raises eyebrows) if you could please wait inside
(Summer doesn't know what to do. Marissa and Summer look at each other)
Julie: Summer, we have HBO on demand, every season of s*x and The City, knock yourself out
(Summer looks at Julie. Marissa looks down, sadly. the mean DDA guy from earlier takes out the recorder and puts it on the table)
Summer: Mariss you'll be ok, I'm jus gonna wait inside
Marissa: (to Julie & Jimmy) look I already told everybody everything, I don't wanna have'to go through this again (Jimmy looks down) talk about all of it in front of these strangers (points)
Esbenshade: Marissa I need to remind you this deposition is binding, your testimony in court can't waver from what is said here
Marissa: (frustrated) I already told the truth so what's the problem
DDA: the problem, Miss Cooper, is that your testimony lacks credibility
(Summer Marissa and Esbenshade look at him, Marissa looks down. Julie looks at Jimmy)
DDA: Miss Roberts please wait inside
(DDA, Marissa & Mr. Esbenshade go to sit at the table)
Jimmy: come on Summer
(Jimmy puts his hand on Summers back and leads her inside)
DDA: now Miss Cooper, I'm going to have'to swear you in
(Marissa turns to look at Summer, we see a close up of her face and she looks vulnerable. Summer looks at Marissa helplessly before going inside - i just have to say that you can really see how much Marissa/Summer need each other in this scene)
Julie: it'll be ok Marissa
(Marissa glances at Julie before looking down, upset)
CUT TO: The I.C.U - as the camera pans across we see through the blinds that Ryan is sitting next to Treys bed, we can also hear some hospital announcements faintly. the shot changes and we can now see that Seth is also in the room, leaning against the door frame. Trey is still in a coma and Ryan is leaning forward staring at him
Seth: I kinda like him this way he's a better listener (Ryan blinks and looks down) ...sorry, I get talkative around coma patients it's a (frowns) compensation thing, ill give you guys a minute
Ryan: wait just uh
(Ryan turns to Seth then back to Trey, he stands and leaves the room. the camera zooms in on Treys hand and after a few seconds his pinky finger very noticeably moves - out in the corridor Ryan and Seth are walking together)
Ryan: sorry man (raises eyebrows) I don't even know why I came here (Seth listens) that night I wanted to kill him now id do anything to take it back
Seth: well you can't blame yourself an you can't change what happened
Ryan: yeah but I mean Trey could'a tried to make it work, living in town I mean I had my brother here
(Ryan and Seth are now outside near the ambulance bay)
Ryan: now everything's screwed up an he's the only family I got left
Seth: (looks at Ryan) well that's not exactly true
(Ryan realises and half smiles then looks down. back in Treys room we see the monitor that he's hooked up to, that goes out of focus and Treys head comes into focus, his eyes suddenly open and look around)
CUT TO: Cohen living room - on the TV we see a video game of baseball being played. half way through Seth's lines we see that Ryan and Seth are sitting on the couch together
Seth: ok I jus have'to say that I still support the recent decision (Ryan looks at him) (swallows) in the wake of all the violence we've experienced to ban any games with ninjas or guns (frowns)
Ryan: yeah, but?
Seth: weeell it's just I don't understand any of the rules to this..."baseball" they call it
Ryan: (looks at Seth) you mean America's pastime
Seth: (looks at Ryan, unsure) eah, feels like more of a fad to me buddy I don't really see it catchin on
Ryan: (nods) sure (frowns) hey you called Marissa an Summer right
(phone rings. Seth gets up to answer it)
Seth: they're with the dark lords son or whatever the DA's name is, did that guy blink once during your deposition...he didn't even have eyelids (answers phone) hello...oh I'm sorry he's not in right now can I take a message...ok thankyou (hangs up)
(Seth looks over at Ryan, Ryan looks at Seth)
Seth: that was the hospital Trey woke up
(Ryan looks at Seth, stunned)
CUT TO: Suriak T.C - Kirsten is sitting out the front by herself. Charlotte goes over to her
Charlotte: Kirsten, right (holds hand out) hi I'm Charlotte Morgan, I'm so sorry about interrupting you in group
Kirsten: (shakes hand) oooh no no that's ok (smiles)
Charlotte: (sits next to Kirsten) when I heard you talking it was like you were describing my life...the rich dominating father the high pressure...nothing was (raises eyebrows) ever good enough
Kirsten: eah I'm jus glad I didn't bore you (laughs)
Charlotte: no it was amazing, I mean to hear someone on the same journey as me...well, obviously your a little further along (smiles) I couldnt've ever admitted all that (Kirsten raises her eyebrows then looks down) your so brave an honest
Kirsten: I don't know about that but thankyou (smiles, nods)
Charlotte: d'you wanna maybe get coffee sometime, we can...talk trash about our dads
Kirsten: (suprised) sure id love to (smiles)
(we hear the sound of a car horn)
Charlotte: ok (smiles)
(we see Sandy pull up in a gorgeous black Lexus)
Kirsten: ahh, that's my husband
(Sandy has a huge smile on his face, Kirsten looks just as excited as he does! aww)
Charlotte: oh well, I don't wanna take up anymore of your time (smiles) goodbye
Kirsten: bye
(Charlotte walks off as Sandy gets out of the car. Kirsten goes over to him. Sandy has a HUGE smile on his face, and giggles)
Kirsten: (touches Sandy shoulders) look at you
(Sandy puts his hands on Kirsten's back, gently holding her. they look at each other then kiss! we see Charlotte watching them with a weird look on her face. we then see Kirsten and Sandy again, they are now in an adorable hug. Sandy has his head buried in Kirsten's neck then they pull apart. Charlotte is still watching, after a few seconds she leaves. the next thing we see is Sandy and Kirsten walking together near the fountain. Sandy is holding Kirsten's hand in his, and has his other hand on top. Kirsten puts her head on his shoulder. awww)
Kirsten: (trying not to laugh) so it exploded all over the kitchen
Sandy: ahh the microwave mostly
Kirsten: an entire jar of peanut butter
Sandy: oh we were tryin'a make peanut butter cookies as a suprise for you (Kirsten smiles) (frowns) it seemed like such a good idea at the time
Kirsten: well it's a well known science factoid that metal plus heat equals...
Sandy: peanut butter everywhere (Kirsten smiles) these are just a few'a the lessons we three struggling handsome bachelors are learnin every week (laughs)
Kirsten: oh, sounds like you have a reality series here (smiles adoringly)
Sandy: no, I hope it's not a reality for too long (looks at Kirsten adoringly)
(Kirsten doesn't say anything)
Sandy: (looks down) so...you should be comin home any day now right (Kirsten looks at Sandy) just give me a heads up so I can make sure the house is liveable (nods)
Kirsten: (thrown) yeah I-I just have'to sit down with (shrugs) Dr Woodruff soon an-an see what's going on (nods) see if I'm eligible (raises eyebrows)
(Sandy looks at Kirsten. his cell phone rings)
Sandy: (looks at phone) oh (answers) hey Seth, I'm here with mom (Kirsten smiles) huh...well thanks for calling...ill see you when I get back at the house (hangs up)
Kirsten: is everything ok
Sandy: yeah, he says hi, that he misses you
Kirsten: mm-hmm
Sandy: I better get going (Kirsten nods) get back ta work
(Sandy kisses Kirsten hard on the mouth, and holds her face in his hands. aww. they smile at each other)
Sandy: jus let me know what the doctor says
Kirsten: (nods, softly) ok
Sandy: alright
(Sandy takes Kirsten's hands in his and then let's go as he starts to leave. Kirsten watches him go. she sighs heavily and looks worried)
CUT TO: The Beach - we see Marissa sitting by herself staring out towards the water. we then see a car pull up. Marissa looks over and we see Ryan get out. Marissa stands, and Ryan walks over to her
Marissa: hey, so what's going on
Ryan: ...Treys awake
Marissa: oh my god (Ryan moves closer and looks down) when did he...
Ryan: couldnt've ben to long I just saw him
Marissa: (suprised, raises eyebrows) you saw him
Ryan: yeah I...ben up there a couple times, y'know
Marissa: (shrugs) I didn't know, hey I would've gone with you
Ryan: no, no you shouldn't have'to see him ever again, I don't have the same choice
Marissa: (slightly nods) ...well I mean I guess now that he's awake he can tell the lawyers what really happened (frowns) I mean Trey got us inta this mess hopefully he can get us out
Ryan: yeah, our futures in Treys hands (Marissa doesn't say anything) come on (motions) Seth an Summer are at the diner
(Ryan walks back over to the car and Marissa follows him. they both get in)
CUT TO: Newport Group - Julie, Jimmy, and alot of other people sorting through things are in there, including Jeff Frankel
Julie: (impatient) what'do you mean it's gonna take two months, Caleb wrote a will just read it already
Jeff: (puts hand up) it's much more difficult than that Mrs. Cooper-Nichol a-as you can see (Jimmy looks around) there's uh alotta paperwork uh a number of different offshore accounts we haven't yet found
Julie: ok, well you just take your sweet time Mr. Frankel but understand this, we are paying a very high price defense attorney to protect our daughter an right now the metres running
Jeff: I wish I could help
Julie: (sits next to Jeff) I'm a grieving widow
(Jeff looks at Jimmy, unconvinced, lol)
Jeff: clearly
Julie: you've seen the will haven't you Jeff (sexy smile) why don't you just...tell us what's in it annn it'll be our little secret
Jeff: I can't do that
Jimmy: (to Julie) it's our attorney Julie (answers phone)
Julie: lets play hot/cold (raises eyebrows) hm (Jeff looks at her) two million...seven million...I have at least three million coming from my pre-nup (Jeff blinks) you blinked! does one blink mean yes (points)
Jimmy: (to Julie) Julie, the hospital called
Julie: (looks at Jimmy) what, what'did they say
CUT TO: The Diner - we see a plate of food being set down in front of someone. the camera pans and we see that Summer, Seth, Marissa and Ryan are near by in a booth. Ryan looks at Marissa, Marissa looks at him and then at Seth and Summer, almost sadly. Summer and Seth are watching both of them across the table
Summer: ok (claps hands) I have an idea
Seth: (looks at Summer) are you gonna save Chrismukkah again cause I really enjoyed that last time
(Summer glares at Seth, not amused. Seth closes his mouth tightly)
Summer: we need to have some fun (raises eyebrows)
Marissa: (looks at Summer unenthusiastically) fun (raises eyebrows)
(Ryan looks at Summer)
Summer: yeah, look we cant control the future right so how do we deal (Seth frowns) I mean we could do what my step-mother does an take lots of pain killers to numb ourselves from the reality that life is (frowns) well random, unfair an ultimately meaningless
Seth: (looks at Summer) there's another option right
Summer: or we can accept the fact that we cant worry about what we cant control an just enjoy the time that we have, Treys awake an...school is starting soon (Marissa looks at Ryan) who knows what's ta come, right...so this might be our last chance to have fun
Seth: I like...plan B
(Marissa smiles)
Ryan: so what'do we do
Marissa: ...well I have an idea (raises eyebrows) but id have'to ask my dad first
(Summer and Seth look at Marissa, curious)
CUT TO: The Ocean - we see a beautiful shot of the water and in the distance is a sail boat, as the camera zooms in closer and changes angles we can see Marissa and Ryan are sitting near the front talking/laughing. the shot goes across the front of Ryan and Marissa and then we can see that Seth and Summer are sitting together near the steering wheel. the shot changes again and we see the boat from above. then we see Ryan and Marissa again, still sitting together laughing/talking. they look so cute! we see Seth and Summer again, and we can also see a row boat sitting on the back. we can now see that its Jimmy's sail boat 'Slow Dance'
[SCENE_BREAK]
CUT TO: A Secluded Beach - we see the sail boat in the distance out in the water. the row boat is sitting on the sand and further off to the left is Seth and Summer
Summer: Mr. Coopers got a nice boat huh
Seth: yeah (picks up sticks) its amazing what laundered money can buy
Summer: you know Cohen, with your two hands on the wheel an the wind blowing through your hair (looks at Seth, nods) you actually looked kinda hot
Seth: let me guess Summer you have a (shrugs, amused) weakness for seamen (smiles)
Summer: (screws up her face) ewww Cohen, an then there's that (walks away)
Seth: nah, aww (follows Summer)
(Marissa is sitting on some rocks by herself, looking out towards the ocean. Ryan goes over to her)
Ryan: hey
Marissa: (looks) hey
(Ryan sits down next to Marissa)
Ryan: ah...how ya doin, you ok
Marissa: (looks at Ryan) yeah I guess...I mean I-I don't know to be honest (unsure) are we ok
Ryan: yeah sure (shrugs) why wouldn't we be
Marissa: cause since that night we haven't really talked about it
(Ryan doesn't say anything. Seth and Summer walk over to them)
Seth: hey, knock it off, listen, we gotta get our mind off everything...who wants to go fishing
Summer: (laughs) yeah you guys do the hunting, we'll do the gathering
Ryan: (stands) I like that idea but weeee-dont-have-any-bait
Seth: ooh...hey wait no we have Summer (touches Summers arm) this little sardine
Summer: nooo, you guys that's-
(Marissa smiles, Ryan points at Summer mischieviously)
Seth: I'm gonna throw a sardine, who wants to go fishing, come on
(Summer squeals and runs down the beach. Seth goes after her, Ryan runs after them)
Summer: no guys
(the next bit is a montage with laughing & screaming. we see Ryan with Summer in his arms, and Seth and Marissa are either side of Ryan. then we see Summer kicking her legs, Seth holding onto them and Marissa touching Ryan's back, and they are near the water. the next thing we see is Marissa over Ryan's shoulder, and they are in the water ankle deep. Summer and Seth are standing near them. then we see them moving away from the tide. Seth has Summer over his shoulder and Ryan goes to pick Marissa up. then we see Ryan holding Marissa in his arms, Seth holding Summer over his shoulder and they are at the edge of the water. SO CUTE! next we see Ryan holding Seth long ways. he has one hand over both his legs and the other under his waist. Summer claps and they are laughing and having a good time! the next thing we see is a lifeguard tower. Marissa is leaning up against it and Ryan is standing in front of her, smiling. he slowly leans toward her and they kiss! awww Marissa has her hands on Ryan's shoulders. the shot changes and we see them still kissing, and the back of Ryan. we then see them all playing near the water again, it looks as though the sun is starting to go down. Ryan has both hands in the air like a monster and he goes after the girls. they both squeal and run away. the next thing we see is Seth holding a football, he throws it and Ryan goes to catch it but drops it in the water. then we see Summer and Seth sitting together by a fire in the sand. the sun is almost gone. they look so cute! we then see that they are roasting marshmallows on sticks together! Seth kisses Summer on the cheek and Summer smiles all cutesy. we then see Ryan and Marissa close up, kissing at the lifeguard tower like before. their heads slowly disappear out the bottom of the shot and all we see is the water. the next thing we see is the sun setting, with the lifeguard tower in the background. then we see the two couples sitting together near the fire. Marissa and Summer both have blankets over their shoulders)
Marissa: well, if this is as good as it gets for a while
Ryan: (smiles) eah, feels pretty good
Summer: yeah (sarcastic) thanks for almost getting my bathing suit wet Cohen
Seth: my pleasure
Ryan: (mocking Summer, very nasally tone) Cohen, I can't believe that you did that Cohen (smirks)
(Marissa and Summer laugh. we see a shot of the backs of them. Ryan puts his arm around Marissa and their heads are touching. Summer rests her head on Seth's shoulder. awww, could they get more adorable!)
CUT TO: The I.C.U - through the blinds we can see Trey in bed. the camera moves across to show a nurse in the nursing station. the nurse hears a noise and looks up. all we see is a dark corridor. the nurse looks down. we then see bright pink high heels walking towards the camera. we then see the shadow of a head in the bottom right hand corner, and the nurse still with her head down
Julie: I'm looking for Trey Atwood
Nurse: (stands) I'm sorry, visiting hours ended a while ago
Julie: oh did I forget to introduce myself, I'm Julie Cooper-Nichol as in the Nichol wing of this hospital which we're both standing in
Nurse: ...oh hello Mrs. Cooper-Nichol
Julie: (smiles) my husband was very philanthropic, hospitals were his favourite charity, especially making sure nurses an orderlies were compensated for their hard work (looks at Nurse) I would hate ta see his passion fall by the wayside
(the Nurse looks at Julie, Julie looks at the nurse. the next thing we see is Treys room. Trey opens his eyes and reels back, we then see what he is reacting to. Julie is standing beside his bed)
Julie: hello Trey (smiles) I've ben wanting to talk to you (Trey looks at her) oh no no, no pleasantries...look at you...lying there all helpless (closes the blinds) unable to stop me from (picks up a pillow) doing whatever I wanted to (Trey looks at her) kind of like the night you tried to rape my daughter
Trey: ...I'm sorry
Julie: (clenches teeth) oh you should be you son of a bitch...which is why your gonna help me (Trey looks at her) in exchange I'm prepared to compensate you, how does twenty thousand dollars sound
Trey: (laughs) what d- what...do you want
Julie: three simple words, repeat after me Trey...Ryan-shot-me (Trey looks at her, reluctant) Trey (raises the pillow)
Trey: (swallows) ...Ryan...shot...
CUT TO: Cohen living room - the first thing we see is the TV, on the screen is the movie Teen Wolf. Seth is sitting on the couch in his PJ's with his feet on the coffee table. Ryan sits down next to him with a breakfast bowl
Seth: ok so, I know Teen Wolf is not a realistic movie (puts hand on his mouth, thinking)
Ryan: really goin out on a limb there but yeah (puts feet on the coffee table)
Seth: well (frowns) I mean how does bein a werewolf make you a better basketball player
Ryan: can't argue with that one
(Sandy comes in)
Sandy: hey fellas (Ryan & Seth look at him) you mind shuttin off the TV (points)
(Seth turns the TV off and Ryan puts his bowl down)
Sandy: Trey talked to the police this morning...an he confirmed their suspicion that it was you who shot him (Ryan looks at him, stunned)
Seth: well that's a total lie
(Ryan looks away)
Sandy: now the DA's office gave me a heads up...there gonna be issuing a warrant for your arrest in a few hours, now we're gonna figure this thing out (Ryan looks down) but I need to know that you are telling me everything that happened
(Ryan looks up at Sandy, Sandy looks at him)
Ryan: (stands, tied of it all) what difference does it make
(Ryan leaves the room upset. Sandy watches him)
Seth: your gonna fix this right (looks at Sandy, hopeful)
(Sandy watches Ryan go into the pool house and slam the door behind him)
CUT TO: Cooper-Nichol veranda - Julie is carrying a bucket with champagne in it, Jimmy is with her
Jimmy: a little early for champagne don't you think
Julie: I'm making mimosa's, there breakfast appropriate besides we should celebrate
Jimmy: (frowns) celebrate the fact that Marissa's boyfriend is...getting arrested
Julie: no the fact that Marissa isn't (smiles & pours)
Jimmy: you know Julie its just a little too convenient, Trey wakes up an immediately points the finger at Ryan
Julie: well, sometimes, Jimmy, and I know you don't have that much experience with this but...things work out
Jimmy: you know...even if Marissa was accused sh-she wouldn't go to jail
Julie: she also wouldn't be going to college, forget what the law says about just cause an defense of others, how's it gonna look on her college application under extra curriculars, shoots blue collar thugs
Jimmy: look I don't want Marissa to suffer either but Ryan-
Julie: Ryan's (puts finger up) dye was cast long before he moved inta the Cohen pool house look (closes eyes) Jimmy lets just puts this to bed (Marissa comes out) we'll collect on Caleb's will an we'll go back to being a normal, happy, family!
Marissa: hey what's for breakfast (sleepy)
Jimmy: hey kiddo what're you doin up
Marissa: I can't sleep
Julie: oh, well, I have news (smiles) (Marissa looks at her) it's very good for us
Jimmy: ...but just...not so good forrr Ryan
(Marissa looks worried)
CUT TO: Cohen house - we see a shot of the pool house. all the blinds are shut and you can't see in. we then see that Seth and Summer are standing inside at the glass doors looking out
Seth: well we know he wants to be left alone
Summer: we have'to do something, should we bring him a snack (looks at Seth) what'does Ryan eat
Seth: dry cereal from the box an black coffee
Summer: (nods) huh, well maybe we could like get him something like a gift
Seth: sure moneys no object
Summer: ok (nods) what'does Ryan like
Seth: (frowns) hmm
Summer: (looks at Seth) any favourite movies (Seth is thinking) hobbies...Cohen he's your best friend
Seth: heeeey you've known him as long as me I don't hear you throwin out any gems (looks at Summer)
(we see the pool house again)
Summer: well we can't just leave him alone out there this is terrible
Seth: I know...but nobody even knows what to say to him he's never ben arrested before (Summer looks at him) for attempted murder
(sound of the door bell. Summer and Seth both look in the direction of the door. the next thing we see is Seth walking towards the door, Summer is following behind him, with her hands holding onto the waist of his jeans, aww. Seth opens the door and Marissa is standing there)
Marissa: where is he (anxious)
Seth: ahh he's not really seeing visitors right now (shuts the door)
Summer: we're kinda giving him space
(Marissa sighs and looks at them both like 'please' then heads out to the pool house)
Seth: this should go well
Summer: right behind you Coop
CUT TO: The Pool House - the first thing we see is a green knapsack, and Ryan's hands putting stuff inside it. then we see Marissa, Seth and Summer in the doorway
Marissa: hey
(Ryan continues packing the knapsack which is sitting on his bed)
Ryan: hey
Seth: hoodie, wife-beater, leather jacket...that's the Ryan Atwood escapist ensemble
Ryan: that's right, doesn't matter what I say no ones gonna believe me not anymore
Seth: dude your not running away
Ryan: yeah (looks at Seth, raises eyebrows) yeah I am
Marissa: no (moves closer to Ryan) no your not (Ryan looks at her) your sailing (shrugs, matter of factly) an we're coming with you
Seth: yes since apparently there's boats involved (Ryan frowns) which is my forte' (touches his chest)
Summer: totally, we all go down together
(Ryan looks at Marissa, Marissa looks at him and shrugs)
Ryan: (raises eyebrows) thanks (zips up his knapsack)
CUT TO: Suriak T.C garden - Kirsten and Charlotte are standing together making coffees
Charlotte: oh so how was your visit with your husband (Kirsten looks at her, suprised) he excited your coming home
Kirsten: yes he is
Charlotte: didn't tell him your not ready yet huh (Kirsten looks at her) (raises eyebrows) ben there
Kirsten: well...Dr Woodruff says I'm ready I must be ready (smiles)
Charlotte: (scoffs) yeah except Dr Woodruff aint gonna be in your kitchen at three am when your rootin around the spice rack for anything with alcohol an start pounding vanilla extract
(Kirsten looks stunned)
Charlotte: (notices) oh god I'm-I'm (closes her eyes) I'm sorry
Kirsten: is that what happened to you
Charlotte: ...it was cough syrup (raises eyebrows)
Kirsten: that's my biggest fear...that I'm not ready, an I'm not going back to my husband an my boys until I know...that ill never let them down again
Charlotte: look can I give you some advice...it's not a race...take all the time you need
(Kirsten walks away and Charlotte watches her)
CUT TO: The Pool House - Sandy knocks on the door, when there's no answer he opens the door and goes in
Sandy: hello...I'm back
(Sandy stares at the empty pool house then turns around and faces the door, he looks around worried. we hear the sound of the door bell. we then see the front door, through the glass we can see a man. Sandy opens the door and we see that it is an officer with the warrant for Ryan's arrest in his hand. another office is behind him talking on a walkie talkie, and we can see their police car)
Officer: we're lookin for Ryan Atwood (holds out the warrant)
Sandy: your a little late I'm afraid
CUT TO: Marissa's bedroom - Julie walks in and looks around, she then puts the phone up to her ear
Julie: nope, she's not here either an she left for your house hours ago Sandy, you don't think they'd try anything do you (worried)
(Jimmy comes to the doorway)
Jimmy: what's goin on
Julie: (hangs up) the cops are at Sandy's house the kids are gone we don't know where they went
(Julie leaves the room and Jimmy looks as though he's thinking)
CUT TO: The docks - it's dark but we can see Jimmy's boat and Ryan, Marissa, Seth & Summer climb on board
Summer: you don't think your dad'll miss the boat
Marissa: well he of all people'll understand...but we gotta hurry
Seth: let's go
Ryan: hey man how long is it to Catalina
Seth: about four hours then from there we can go wherever you want, Mexico, Hawaii
Ryan: hey look guys I gotta say, you can get in alotta trouble for this so you know if you wanna back out
(Marissa turns on a light)
Seth: are you kidding, this is a great excuse to skip school
Marissa: uh its not forever it's just until we can get Trey to change his story
(we hear the sound of sirens, and see about a half dozen police cars pull up and surround them. one of the cars shines a light on the boat and we see them looking at all the police cars. Marissa and Summer are both shielding their eyes from the bright light. we see a close up of Ryan's face, just staring into the light)
CUT TO: The Police Station - we see Ryan being led by an officer. he is wearing that familiar blue jumpsuit :(. Sandy is waiting for him in a room, and the officer leads him in. Ryan looks at Sandy. Sandy stands up
Sandy: glad to see the jumpsuit still fits
(Sandy motions for Ryan to sit down)
Sandy: well kid, for someone who's innocent you done a hell of a job to look guilty
Ryan: glad to see you're here to make me feel better (smiles sarcastically, then looks down)
Sandy: no I'm here to tell you the truth...as your lawyer an your guardian (Ryan looks at him) the only person who runs is somebody whose got somethin'a hide
Ryan: or who has no choice (raises eyebrows) I see how these cops an lawyers look at me...my record, my family (Sandy looks at him) an you know I'm right
Sandy: this isn't over...the arraignments set for tomorrow, we're gonna fight this (Ryan half laughs then looks down) Trey could still change his mind
Ryan: yeah...how's that gonna happen
(Ryan looks at Sandy vulnerably, he almost looks like he's going to cry! :( )
CUT TO: The Hospital - the camera pans up to show Marissa and Summer in the good old candy striper outfits. Seth is in between them pushing a cart down the corridor
Marissa: I haven't worn this candy stripers outfit since, like the tenth grade (folds her arms)
Summer: well maybe we should start volunteering again, it's good for charity
Seth: not that I'm against you guys wearing these uniforms, cause I'm not but...doesn't this plan seem a little light hearted given the...nature of the predicament
Summer: Cohen, your not even part of the plan, we're jus letting you push a cart
Marissa: ok Sum you're on
(Marissa, Summer and Seth walk around the corner to a nurse's station)
Summer: (smiles) hey Denise, how are you
Denise: Summer Roberts, I haven't seen you in years, where you ben
Summer: oh I love helping sick people its just they kept making me sick (screws up face) so I've ben reassigned to gun shot victims because you cant catch one'a those (shakes her head)
(Marissa and Seth smile, impressed)
Denise: (laughs) well glad to have you back, who do you wanna see
(the next thing we see is Trey in bed. staring ahead. there's a knock on the door)
Trey: I don't wanna speak to anyone else
(Marissa opens the door and goes in)
Trey: hey, did you hear what I- (realises its Marissa)
(Marissa looks at Trey and closes the door behind her. she seems cautious, almost scared. Trey scoffs. Marissa is still just standing there)
Trey: did you uh (raises eyebrows) come'to finish the job
Marissa: so you do remember it was me who shot you
Trey: (looks away, swallows) I... I'm trying to protect you
Marissa: protect me (moves closer) by blaming Ryan
Trey: (looks at Marissa) I'm sorry Marissa...for...for everything...I (swallows) I jus didn't know how ta make it right (Marissa looks at him, sadly) an she offered me a way out
Marissa: (confused) w- who did
Trey: (looks at Marissa, frowns) ...your mom
(Marissa looks stunned and rubs her head)
Marissa: look...Trey (moves closer) ...if you wanna make it right (raises eyebrows) then there's only one thing for you to do
(Trey and Marissa look at each other. Trey looks away)
CUT TO: Newport Bay Yacht Club - Sandy's Lexus pulls up out the front. then we see him open the door and go inside. he stops and looks over to the bar. Jimmy is sitting at the bar by himself. Sandy walks over
Sandy: hey Jimmy
Jimmy: hey
Sandy: thanks for meetin me (sits down)
Jimmy: sure, sorry to hear about Ryan (Sandy sighs) just when you thought things couldn't get any worse
Sandy: well that's what I wanted to talk to you about...I've ben tryin'a figure out why Trey would try to frame Ryan (looks at Jimmy) y'know I know the kids not gonna be sainted any time soon but (laughs) still...the only thing I can figure (looks at Jimmy) somebody paid him (Jimmy looks away) ...but who would sink that low (Jimmy sighs) ...only one name came to mind (Jimmy looks at him) ...an you didn't try to stop her
Jimmy: look I f-I found out about it too late there's nothin-there's nothin I could do
Sandy: c'mon Jimmy at some point you gotta do the right thing
Jimmy: well you gotta understand what I'm dealing with, put yourself in my shoes
Sandy: (looks at Jimmy) in your shoes (angry) I got a wife in rehab who doesn't wanna come home an a kid who's ben locked up for somethin he didn't do, I think your shoes are lookin pretty good right now
Jimmy: look I- I get it I get it...I'm tryin'a protect my family too (raises eyebrows)
Sandy: (nods) right, because family means so much to ya
Jimmy: (frowns) what's that supposed'to mean
Sandy: that means what're you doin back at Newport...Caleb dies boom suddenly you show up
(Jimmy looks at Sandy, Sandy's cell phone rings and he takes it out and looks at it)
Sandy: (answers) grand central station, hello...oookkkk (nods) thankyou (hangs up) wait'till Julie hears this (smiles)
CUT TO: Marissa's bedroom - there is a basket of washing and Julie pulls out a piece of clothing from it that resembles Marissa's attempt at doing her and Alex's washing, lol Marissa walks in, she doesn't look happy
Julie: hi sweetie...uh I'm still learning how to do the wash so whatever no longer fits we'll just send it to your sister (smiles)
Marissa: I know what you did
Julie: (looks at Marissa, clueless) what'do you mean
(Marissa scoffs and takes an envelope out of her bag, she holds it out to Julie)
Julie: (takes the piece of paper) what's this
Marissa: a copy of Treys confession (Julie looks at her, stunned) saying that if I didn't shoot him he would've killed his brother...police have one too
(Julie reads the confession)
Julie: d'you know what you've done
Marissa: (reassuringly) ...I'm not going to jail
Julie: but where are you gonna go Marissa huh (Marissa looks at her) you know how small this town is, this will get out
Marissa: what (shrugs) that I saved my boyfriends life
Julie: (pointed) that you shot someone (Marissa looks at her) when there's a scandal no one cares about the details
Marissa: all you care about is what people in Newport think of us (Julie looks at her) of you (moves closer) you know I don't need you to protect me (means it) I need you to stay outta my life
(Marissa leaves the room. Julie just stands there)
CUT TO: The police station - a man hands a clipboard thingo to Ryan to sign. he's back in his own clothes and his knapsack is sitting on the table next to the clipboard. he signs the piece of paper then walks over to the door, a man opens it for him. Sand
Summary:
| The Cohen, Atwood and Cooper family deal with Trey's shooting. Julie is determined to protect Marissa's future, even if it means destroying Ryan's. Kirsten meets another recovering alcoholic, while Sandy, Seth and Ryan deal with her absence at home. | 95 | 50,767 | 50,769 | 50,769 | ... [The rest of the episode script is omitted]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.