Input:
	FCC’s Data Overstate Broadband Access on Tribal Lands

In our September 2018 report on broadband access on tribal lands, we  found that FCC collects broadband availability data from broadband  providers, but its method for collecting the data does not accurately or  completely capture broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on  tribal lands. Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to  submit a list of census blocks where service is available on their Form  477 filings. In the Form 477 instructions, FCC defines “available” as  whether the provider does—or could, within a typical service interval or  without an extraordinary commitment of resources—provide service to at  least one end-user premises in a census block. Thus, in its annual  reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC considers an entire  block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or could offer, service  to at least one household in the census block. As shown in figure 1,  FCC’s definition of availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband  availability on tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as  served if only one location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to  report availability in blocks where they do not have any infrastructure  connecting homes to their networks if the providers determine they could  offer service to at least one household. FCC has noted that  overstatements of availability can be particularly problematic in rural  areas, where census blocks cover larger areas.
According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed  broadband availability where they could provide service to: (1) ensure that  it captures instances in which a provider has a network nearby but has  not installed the last connection to the homes, and (2) identify where  service is connected to homes, but homes have not subscribed. FCC  officials also told us that FCC measures availability at the census block  level because sub-census block data may be costly to collect. However,  FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where it could  provide service, it is not possible to tell whether the provider would be  unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers in a census block it  lists as served. In addition, when reporting on broadband access in  tribal lands, FCC uses the broadband availability data described above,  and does not collect information on factors that FCC and tribal  stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. These factors  include affordability, service quality, and service denials.
By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting  accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands,  FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal  areas that need it the most. We recommended FCC develop and  implement methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete  data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. FCC agreed with this  recommendation and stated that it is exploring methods to collect more  granular broadband deployment data.

	FCC Does Not Have a Formal Process to Obtain Tribal Input on its Broadband Data

As we reported in September 2018, FCC does not have a formal process  to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the data and tribal  stakeholders can face difficulties obtaining information from providers.  FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for the federal  government to improve the quality of data regarding broadband on tribal  lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to ensure that any  information collected is accurate and useful. Although the Plan also  noted that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review  mapping data and offer supplemental data or corrections, FCC lacks a  formal process to obtain tribal input on its broadband data. FCC officials  told us that they address questions and concerns regarding providers’  coverage claims submitted to FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy.  However, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to stated that  they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding maps, or  raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform tribes about  the data. Most of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed told us that FCC  should work more directly with tribes to obtain information from them to  improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband deployment data for tribal  lands. These stakeholders identified several ways in which FCC could  work with tribes on this issue, including onsite visits, increased outreach  and technical training, and opportunities for tribes to collect their own data  or submit feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data.
FCC’s National Broadband Plan also noted the importance of supporting  tribal efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues.  A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes have faced  difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband availability  data. For example, in 2013, all of the tribal entities that challenged FCC’s  data on mobile service availability were unsuccessful in increasing the  number of eligible areas. A few tribal stakeholders provided varying  reasons for this, one of which was the need for more technical expertise  to help the tribes meet FCC’s requirements regarding the information  needed to support a challenge. Because FCC lacks a formal process to  obtain tribal input on its broadband data, FCC is missing an important  source of information regarding areas in which the data may overstate  broadband service on tribal lands.
By establishing a process to obtain input from tribal governments on the  accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data as recommended in the  National Broadband Plan, FCC could help tribes develop and share  locally-specific information on broadband access and improve FCC’s data  for tribal lands. However, the success of such an effort may rely on the  tribes’ knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process.  Thus, we recommended FCC develop a formal process to obtain tribal  input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes  outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the  process. FCC agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will  work with stakeholders to explore options for implementing such a  process.
Finally, some tribes face challenges accessing data from providers. In  2011, FCC required that providers receiving funds to serve tribal lands  meaningfully engage with the tribes and discuss broadband deployment  planning. In 2012, FCC issued guidance on meeting this requirement  and stated that the guidance would evolve over time based on the  feedback of both tribal governments and broadband providers.  However, FCC has taken limited steps to obtain such feedback and has  not updated the guidance. About half of the tribal stakeholders we  interviewed raised concerns about difficulties accessing information from  providers regarding broadband deployment on their tribe’s lands (which  providers may consider proprietary), and some providers told us that they  attempt to engage with tribes, but the level of responsiveness they  receive from tribes varies. Thus, we recommended, and FCC agreed, that  FCC obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers to determine  whether it needs to clarify its tribal engagement guidance.

	Few Tribal Broadband Partnerships Exist

In our September 2018 report on tribal partnerships, we found that  partnership arrangements between tribes and other entities to increase  broadband deployment on tribal lands are not widespread. Because of  the greater costs associated with deploying broadband on unserved tribal  lands that are generally rural, with possibly rugged terrain, there may be  little to no private sector incentive to deploy broadband or enter into a  partnership arrangement to do so. The partnership examples we  identified were ones that obtained federal funding under past programs  funded by the Recovery Act. Among these examples, tribes partnered  with several different types of entities, including private providers, a  community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional  consortium, and tribally owned providers.

	Tribes Face Barriers to Obtain Federal Funding for Broadband Deployment

We also reported in September 2018 that FCC and RUS are the primary  sources of federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure in rural and  remote areas where the cost of providing service is high, including tribal  lands. Based on our review of the funding provided by four federal  programs targeted to increase deployment in unserved areas, very little  has gone directly to tribes or to tribally owned broadband providers.  Specifically, we found that from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of FCC  funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes and  tribally owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6  billion during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers  received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent.
FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan stated that tribes needed  substantially greater financial support than was available to them at the  time and that accelerating tribal broadband deployment would require  increased funding. Furthermore, the National Congress of American  Indians expressed concerns that the needs for federally funded  broadband projects are greater on tribal lands but tribes do not receive  the appropriate share of federal funding aimed at increasing broadband  deployment. Several of the tribes we visited told us they were trying to  deploy broadband infrastructure or offer service because the private  providers were not building out on their lands.
Through our analysis, we found that from 2010 to 2017, 14 tribal entities  received federal funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband  deployment (see fig. 2).
The tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned broadband  providers we interviewed cited several barriers that tribes may face when  seeking federal funding for broadband deployment. The two primary  barriers these interviewees cited were (1) the statutory requirement for  the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation and (2) grant  application requirements. Regarding the statutory requirement for ETC  designation, FCC officials told us there were 11 tribes that have providers  designated as ETCs and therefore would be eligible to receive support  from FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF)—the largest source of federal  funding for broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas.  Although FCC adopted rules in 2011 to create CAF and modernize the  program so that it could support broadband capable networks, FCC  officials told us that most ETCs are the telephone companies that were in  existence when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted into  law. According to FCC officials, FCC has explored whether it has  authority to allow non-ETC providers to receive CAF support payments  but determined that the statute is clear that only ETCs can receive  program support. Between 2012 and 2017, FCC officials said FCC  received nine ETC applications, four of which were from tribally owned  providers. Of those four, only one tribally owned provider was designated  as an ETC.
According to representatives from a tribal association we contacted, FCC  has provided ETCs with billions of dollars to deploy service to unserved  areas, but FCC’s efforts have not always been successful in the hardest  to reach areas, particularly tribal lands. The representatives stated that  FCC’s competitive market approach does not work where competition  cannot be supported and that there needs to be a different approach.  Similarly, tribal officials from Idaho told us that although the provider in  their area has received millions of dollars in CAF subsidies, it has not  deployed broadband on the tribal lands. Other tribal officials from Idaho  told us that although private providers received CAF subsidies to deploy  broadband service to their reservation, the private providers told the tribe  it would be years before they offer service on tribal lands.
Additionally, the tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned  broadband providers we interviewed said tribes may face barriers  completing federal grant applications to obtain funding for broadband  deployment. For example, they said tribes face regulatory barriers in  applying for RUS’s grant funding, including preparing existing and  proposed network design, demonstrating financial sustainability of the  broadband project within 5 years, and obtaining matching funds.
The National Broadband Plan recommended that federal agencies  facilitate tribal access to broadband funding opportunities. Furthermore,  recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband  deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council, established in March  2015, issued a memorandum stating that federal agencies should use all  available and appropriate authorities to identify and address regulatory  barriers that may unduly impede either broadband deployment or the  infrastructure to augment broadband deployment. However, according  to RUS officials, RUS has not taken steps to identify or address the  barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding due to limited  resources and multiple competing priorities for those resources. We  recommended that RUS identify any regulatory barriers that may unduly  impede efforts by tribes to obtain RUS grant funds for broadband  deployment on tribal lands and implement any steps necessary to  address the identified barriers. By doing so, RUS could help tribes obtain  funding to expand broadband deployment on tribal lands. RUS neither  agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation.
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee,  this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to  any questions that you may have.

	GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues at (202)  512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  are Rose Almoguera, Katherine Blair, Keith Cunningham, Crystal  Huggins, Sally Moino, and Tina Paek. Other staff who made contributions  to the reports cited in this testimony are identified in the source product.
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.

Output:
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony summarizes the information contained in two GAO reports: Broadband Internet: FCC’s Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands , ( GAO-18-630 ) and Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face ( GAO-18-682 ). Specifically, it addresses (1) the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband availability data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands, (2) the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the data, (3) partnerships tribes have formed with entities to deploy broadband infrastructure on tribal lands, and (4) barriers tribes face in obtaining federal funding. For these reports, GAO analyzed FCC and RUS data, and interviewed agency officials as well as a non-generalizable sample of stakeholders representing tribes and broadband providers.

What GAO Found

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approach to collecting data on broadband availability causes it to overstate broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. In FCC’s approach, broadband is considered to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access on tribal lands. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need it the most.
FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data. Most of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed stated FCC should work more directly with tribes to improve the accuracy of FCC’s data. Establishing a formal process to obtain input from tribal governments could help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for tribal lands.
Tribes have formed partnerships with different types of entities to deploy broadband infrastructure on tribal lands, but such partnerships are not widespread. The partnerships GAO identified included private providers, a community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional consortium, and tribally owned broadband providers.
GAO reviewed four federal programs to deploy broadband services and found that from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of funding has gone directly to tribes or tribally owned providers. The tribal entities GAO contacted cited barriers to obtaining funds from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) grant funding, such as preparing network design, demonstrating financial sustainability of the broadband project within 5 years, and obtaining matching funds required to apply for federal grants. However, according to RUS officials, RUS has not taken steps to identify or address the barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding due to limited resources and multiple competing priorities for those resources. By identifying and addressing regulatory barriers that may impede tribal entities’ access to RUS funding, RUS could help tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment on tribal lands.

What GAO Recommends

In GAO-18-630 , GAO made three recommendations to FCC, two of which related to improving its collection of broadband data. In GAO-18-682 , GAO made one recommendation to RUS to address regulatory barriers. FCC agreed and RUS neither agreed nor disagreed and both agencies described actions planned to address the recommendations.


Input:
	Background

According to NRC’s website, the higher the radiation dose, the sooner the  effects of radiation will appear, and the higher the probability of death.  Radiation doses such as those received by survivors of the atomic bombs  in Japan can cause cancers such as leukemia and colon cancer and, if  levels are high enough, acute radiation syndrome. The symptoms of this  syndrome range from nausea, fatigue, and vomiting to death within days  or weeks. In contrast, the effects of low-dose radiation are more difficult to  detect. In particular, below about 100 millisieverts (mSv) (10 rem)—the  level below which the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and  Medicine’s (National Academies) 2006 report on radiation and human  health considered radiation to be low dose—data do not definitively  establish the dose-response relationship between cancer and radiation  exposure.

	Selected Agencies Generally Used Advice from Scientific Advisory Bodies to Develop and Apply Radiation-Protection Requirements and Guidance

In developing and applying radiation protection requirements and  guidance for workers and the public—specifically, limits on dose or  increased health risk and guidance levels on exposure—EPA, NRC,  DOE, and FDA have generally taken the advice of scientific advisory  bodies. In particular, they have relied on the advice of the International  Commission on Radiological Protection, the National Council on  Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the National Academies’  Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board. This advice includes the use of  the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that the risk of cancer  increases with every incremental increase in radiation exposure. For  example, the National Academies published a report in 2006 stating that  the balance of evidence from various types of studies tends to favor a  simple proportionate relationship between radiation at low doses and  cancer risk. According to the National Academies, the availability of new  and more extensive data since the publication of its previous report in  1990 strengthened confidence in the 2006 report’s estimates of cancer  risk.
The advisory bodies have recognized challenges in accurately estimating  cancer risks from very low doses of radiation exposure when using the  linear no-threshold model. For example, much of the data on health  effects of radiation exposure come from non-U.S. populations, such as  Japanese atomic bomb survivors. These individuals received a large  exposure to radiation over a short period of time (an acute exposure), and  there is uncertainty about the extent to which the health effects for these  populations can be extrapolated to a U.S. population that is regularly  (chronically) exposed to low-dose radiation.
Nevertheless, NRC officials told us that, in the absence of convincing  evidence that there is a dose threshold below which low levels of  radiation are beneficial or not harmful, NRC will continue to follow the  recommendations of scientific advisory bodies to use the linear no- threshold model. Similarly, officials from EPA told us that they would  consider changing the use of the linear no-threshold model as the basis  of their requirements and guidance only if there were a strong  recommendation from scientific advisory bodies on radiation protection as  well as an endorsement of the change by the National Academies.
Under this model, federal regulations set dose limits for radiation  exposure that are below the level in the National Academies’ 2006 report  on radiation and human health for defining low-dose radiation. For  example, NRC’s annual dose limit for members of the public (excluding  natural, or background, sources of radiation) from operation of nuclear  power plants is a hundredth of the level the National Academies  considers low dose. NRC based the dose limit on an advisory body  recommendation that the cancer risk to the general public from exposure  to radiation should be comparable to the public’s risk from everyday  activities, such as taking public transportation.
The low-dose radiation limits and guidance that federal agencies have  developed and applied vary depending on the settings in which exposure  can occur. For example, NRC has established limits on occupational dose  that apply to nuclear power-plant workers; these limits are higher than  NRC’s annual dose limit for members of the public but are still below the  level the National Academies considers low dose. In keeping with  advisory body recommendations, NRC also applies the principle that  doses should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). NRC  defines ALARA to mean making every reasonable effort to maintain  exposures to radiation as far below dose limits as is practical. At a  nuclear power plant we visited as part of our work, representatives told us  that under their ALARA plan, the plant set its own dose limit for workers at  40 percent of the NRC’s regulatory limit. Moreover, officials at the plant  told us that they have been able to keep exposures below the plant’s own  limit by continuously seeking opportunities to reduce unnecessary worker  exposure to radiation, such as using robots to perform maintenance work  in radiation areas.
In contrast to radiation exposure received from nuclear power plants, FDA  officials stated that the agency regulates the maximum radiation output of  medical equipment, instead of setting limits on the total amount of  radiation exposure to patients. According to FDA officials, FDA does not  generally have the authority to regulate the total amount of radiation  exposure a patient receives from medical imaging equipment. However,  in keeping with the principle that radiation exposure should be kept as low  as reasonably achievable, FDA encourages voluntary measures by health  care providers, such as to investigate and determine whether it is  possible to reduce radiation exposure to patients from the use of medical- imaging equipment.

	Seven Agencies Have Funded Research on the Health Effects of Low-Dose Radiation but Have Not Collaborated on Overall Research Priorities

From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, seven federal agencies  obligated $209.6 million for research on the health effects of low-dose  radiation, but they did not use a collaborative mechanism to address  overall research priorities in this area. DOE and NIH accounted for most  of the funding, with DOE obligating $116.3 million and NIH obligating  $88.6 million, or about 56 percent and 42 percent of the total,  respectively. The five other agencies—NRC, NASA, DOD, EPA, and  CDC—obligated the remaining $4.7 million, or about 2 percent of the  total.
DOE has two offices that have funded research on the health effects of  low-dose radiation—the Office of Science and the Office of Environment,  Health, Safety and Security—according to funding information DOE  provided. The Office of Science established the Low Dose Radiation  Research Program in 1998 and funded it through fiscal year 2016. A  primary focus of this program was radiobiological research, which  examines molecular and cellular responses to radiation exposure.  According to DOE’s website for the program, the program provided data  and information about the low-dose range of exposure, producing 737  peer-reviewed publications as of March 2012. The Office of Environment,  Health, Safety and Security provided funding for epidemiological studies,  including studies involving Japanese atomic bomb survivors.
NIH has funded and conducted both epidemiological and radiobiological  studies on low-dose radiation, according to NIH officials. The officials  stated that the studies are conducted through the National Cancer  Institute’s internal research program for radiation epidemiology, as well as  through NIH’s research programs for external funding of investigator- initiated research. Other institutes of NIH, including the National Institute  of Environmental Health Sciences, also fund research related to the  health effects of radiation exposure as part of NIH’s overall mission to  fund medical research.
Among the other agencies that provided some funding to low-dose  radiation studies, several provided funding to the Epidemiological Study  of One Million U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans (Million Person  Study)—an ongoing study headed by the National Council on Radiation  Protection and Measurements. DOE also provided funding for this study.
In fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the seven agencies who provided  funding for research on health effects of low-dose radiation collectively  decreased their annual funding obligations in this area by 48 percent,  from $57.9 million in fiscal year 2012 to $30.4 million in fiscal year 2016.  DOE accounted for a large portion of this overall decrease in annual  funding. Specifically, over this 5-year period, DOE reduced its annual  funding obligations for this area of research by 45 percent—from $32.6  million in fiscal year 2012 to $18.0 million in fiscal year 2016. According to  DOE, the decrease was primarily due to DOE’s reduction in funding for its  Low Dose Radiation Research Program. According to DOE officials,  decreases in funding for the program reflected a shift toward bioenergy  and environmental research. Similarly, over the 5-year period, NIH’s  funding for low-dose radiation research decreased by 48 percent—from  $23.1 million in fiscal year 2012 to $12.0 million in fiscal year 2016. NIH  officials explained that funding levels for a particular disease or research  area can fluctuate depending on several factors, including the number  and quality of research proposals submitted and the outcome of NIH’s  peer reviews of the proposals, as well as the overall research budget.
The seven agencies that funded research on health effects of low-dose  radiation for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 collaborated on particular  research projects through various mechanisms, including joint funding of  individual projects, but they did not use a collaborative mechanism to  address overall research priorities. As previously noted, the 2016 report  of DOE’s Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee  provided information about research needs in low-dose radiation and  found that further research could decrease uncertainty in predicting  cancer risk from low-dose radiation. The report stated that other  agencies—including NRC, NIH, EPA, DOD, and NASA—could benefit  from the reduction in uncertainty that could be obtained by this research.
In our September 2017 report, we recommended that the Secretary of  Energy lead the development of a mechanism for interagency  collaboration to determine roles and responsibilities for addressing  priorities related to research on the health effects of low-dose radiation.  We made this recommendation because our previous work has shown  that collaborative mechanisms can serve multiple purposes, such as  leading interagency efforts to develop and coordinate sound science and  technology policies across the federal government. Although collaborative  mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain  key features, such as leadership.
We directed this recommendation to DOE for several reasons. In the  past, DOE took a leading role in advocating for greater communication  and coordination between the fields of radiation biology and  epidemiology. In addition, DOE is the federal agency that currently has  primary responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for research  related to the protection of health during activities that can result in  exposure to radiation. DOE is well positioned to lead an effort to ensure  that federal agencies have a mechanism for interagency collaboration to  address overall research priorities related to low-dose radiation health  effects because of the agency’s past experience as a leader in this area  of research. Such an effort could help DOE and the collaborating  agencies determine roles and responsibilities, including leadership when  addressing shared research priorities.
DOE did not agree with our recommendation. In particular, DOE stated  that EPA and NRC also have legal mandates to research low-dose  radiation exposure and that these agencies establish their research  priorities in accordance with their respective budget authorities and  recommendations from independent advisory bodies. DOE stated that as  a result, it would not be appropriate for DOE to lead the development of a  mechanism for interagency collaboration.
We believe that DOE’s concerns stem from a misinterpretation of our  recommendation, and we made several changes to our report and our  recommendation to clarify DOE’s role. We noted that we did not  recommend that a mechanism for interagency collaboration serve as a  replacement for agencies’ legal mandates, budget authorities, and  recommendations from independent advisory bodies. Instead, this  mechanism would help agencies address shared research priorities. In  making our recommendation, we did not specify the coordinating  mechanism that agencies should use and instead left it to DOE to lead  the development of an appropriate mechanism. We continue to believe  that an interagency coordination mechanism for low-dose research is  needed and that DOE is in the best position to lead agencies in  developing the most appropriate mechanism.
Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

	GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please  contact John Neumann at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. In  addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and  Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals  who made key contributions to the report on which this testimony is based  include Allen Chan, Kendall Childers, Joseph Cook, Richard Johnson,  Cynthia Norris, Josie Ostrander, Amber Sinclair, and Jack Wang.
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.

Output:
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's September 2017 report, entitled Low-Dose Radiation: Interagency Collaboration on Planning Research Could Improve Information on Health Effects ( GAO-17-546 ).

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration generally used the advice of scientific advisory bodies to develop and apply radiation protection requirements and guidance for workers and the public in the radiation exposure settings that GAO reviewed. These settings were: (1) the operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants; (2) the cleanup of sites with radiological contamination; (3) the use of medical equipment that produces radiation; and (4) accidental or terrorism-related exposure to radiation. Specifically, the agencies relied on the advice of three scientific advisory bodies that supported the use of a model that assumes the risk of cancer increases with every incremental radiation exposure. Accordingly, the agencies have set regulatory dose limits and issued guidance to confine exposure to levels that reduce the risk of cancer, while recognizing that scientific uncertainties occur in estimating cancer risks from low-dose radiation. For example, NRC requires nuclear power plants to consider measures for limiting workers' exposure below NRC's regulatory dose limit, such as by using robots for maintenance work in radiation areas.
GAO identified seven federal agencies that funded research on low-dose radiation's health effects. In fiscal years 2012 to 2016, DOE, NRC, EPA, and four other federal agencies obligated about $210 million for such research . Although the agencies have collaborated on individual projects on radiation's health effects, they have not established a collaborative mechanism to set research priorities. GAO's previous work has shown that federal agencies can use such mechanisms to implement interagency collaboration to develop and coordinate sound science policies. In the past, DOE took a leading role in this area because DOE provided stable funding and advocated for greater coordination on research on low-dose radiation's health effects. However, since fiscal year 2012, DOE has phased out funding for one of its main research programs in this area. This has created a void in coordination efforts among federal agencies, and no other agency has stepped forward to fill this void. Because of DOE's prior experience as a leader in this area of research and its research responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it could play an important role in helping federal agencies establish a coordinating mechanism for low-dose radiation research.
Dollars are in millions and have not been adjusted for inflation
Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO-17-546


Input:
	Introduction

FY2019 is the fourth year in a row that Congress has enacted a special provision to allow for the issuance of H-2B visas beyond the annual statutory cap of 66,000 in response to high levels of demand for the visa. For FY2016, Congress exempted certain H-2B workers from the statutory cap. For the three past fiscal years, Congress has authorized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make additional H-2B visas available subject to certain conditions. For FY2017 and FY2018, DHS used this authority to make an additional 15,000 H-2B visas available each year. For FY2019, DHS is making an additional 30,000 H-2B visas available.

	H-2B Nonagricultural Worker Visa

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as amended, enumerates categories of aliens, known as nonimmigrants, who are admitted to the United States for a temporary period of time and a specific purpose. Nonimmigrant visa categories are identified by letters and numbers, based on the sections of the INA that established them. Among the major nonimmigrant visa categories is the "H" category for temporary workers. Included in this category is the H-2B visa for temporary nonagricultural workers.
The H-2B program allows for the temporary admission of foreign workers to the United States to perform nonagricultural labor or services of a temporary nature if unemployed U.S. workers are not available. H-2B workers perform a wide variety of jobs. Top H-2B occupations in recent years have included landscape laborer, groundskeeper, forest worker, housekeeper, and amusement park worker. By regulation, participation in the H-2B program is limited to designated countries, and DHS publishes a list of eligible countries each year.
Bringing workers into the United States under the H-2B program is a multiagency process involving the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), DHS, and the Department of State (DOS). The program itself is administered by DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA). DOL's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) also has certain concurrent enforcement responsibilities. The H-2B program currently operates under regulations issued by DHS in 2008 on H-2B requirements, DHS and DOL jointly in 2015 on H-2B employment, and DHS and DOL jointly in 2015 on H-2B wages.
For work to qualify as temporary under the H-2B visa, the employer's need for the duties to be performed by the worker must "end in the near, definable future" and must be a one-time occurrence, a seasonal need, a peak load need, or an intermittent need. The employer's need for workers generally must be for a period of one year or less, but in the case of a one-time occurrence, can be for up to three years.
In order to bring H-2B workers into the United States, an employer must first receive labor certification from DOL. An interim final rule on H-2B employment that was issued jointly by DHS and DOL in April 2015 establishes a new registration requirement as a preliminary step in the labor certification process; once it is implemented, prospective H-2B employers would demonstrate their temporary need to DOL through this registration process before submitting a labor certification application. (As of the date of this report, however, DOL continues to make determinations about temporary need during the processing of labor certification applications.)
At the same time that the employer submits the labor certification application to DOL, the employer must submit a job order to the state workforce agency (SWA) serving the area of intended employment. The job order is used to recruit U.S. workers. The employer also must conduct its own recruitment.
In order to grant labor certification to an employer, DOL must determine that (1) there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are qualified and available to perform the work, and (2) the employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. To prevent an adverse effect on U.S. workers, H-2B employers must offer and provide required wages and benefits to H-2B workers and workers in "corresponding employment." H-2B employers must pay their workers the highest of the prevailing wage rate or the federal, state, or local minimum wage. They must provide a "three-fourths guarantee"; that is, they must guarantee to offer workers employment for at least three-fourths of the contract period. H-2B employers also must pay worker visa fees and certain worker transportation costs. H-2B employers are not required to provide health insurance coverage.
After receiving labor certification, a prospective H-2B employer can submit an application, known as a petition, to DHS to bring in foreign workers. If the foreign workers are already in the United States, the employer can request a change of status to H-2B status on the petition. In the typical case, however, the workers are abroad. If the petition is approved, they can visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for H-2B nonimmigrant visas from DOS. If the visa applications are approved, the workers are issued visas that they can use to apply for admission to the United States at a port of entry. H-2B workers can be accompanied by eligible spouses and children, who are issued H-4 visas.
An alien's total period of stay as an H-2B worker may not exceed three consecutive years. An H-2B alien who has spent three years in the United States may not seek an extension of stay or be readmitted to the United States as an H-2B worker until he or she has been outside the country for at least three months.
The INA grants enforcement authority with respect to the H-2B program to DHS, but allows for the delegation of that authority to DOL. DHS has delegated that authority to DOL, and now DOL's WHD has responsibility for enforcing compliance with the conditions of an H‐2B petition and temporary labor certification.

		Seafood Industry Staggered Entry Provision

As part of the labor certification process, prospective H-2B employers must accurately indicate the starting and ending dates of their period of need for H-2B workers. According to the supplementary information to the 2015 DHS-DOL interim final rule on H-2B employment: "An application with an accurate date of need will be more likely to attract qualified U.S. workers to fill those open positions, especially when the employer conducts recruitment closer to the actual date of need." If within a season an employer has more than one date of need for workers to perform the same job, the employer must file a separate labor certification application for each date of need. The employer is not allowed to stagger the entry of H-2B workers based on one date of need.
There is an exception to this prohibition on the staggered entry of H-2B workers, however, that applies to employers in the seafood industry. First enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and subsequently incorporated into the 2015 DHS-DOL interim final rule on H-2B employment, this provision permits an employer with an approved H-2B petition to bring in the H-2B workers under that petition any time during the 120 days beginning on the employer's starting date of need. In order to bring in the workers between day 90 and day 120, though, the employer must conduct additional U.S. worker recruitment. This provision has been reenacted in DOL appropriations acts for each year from FY2015 through FY2019.

	Numerical Limitations

The H-2B program is subject to an annual statutory numerical limit. Under the INA, as amended by the Immigration Act of 1990, the total number of aliens who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise provided with H-2B nonimmigrant status in any fiscal year may not exceed 66,000. Also, since FY2006 there has been a cap of 33,000 on the number of aliens subject to H-2B numerical limits who may enter the United States on an H-2B visa or be granted H-2B status during the first six months of a fiscal year. This INA amendment, enacted as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005, effectively divided the annual H-2B cap of 66,000 into two semiannual caps of 33,000, respectively covering work in the first and second halves of the fiscal year.
Certain categories of H-2B workers are exempt from the cap, including the following:
current H-2B workers seeking an extension of stay, change of employer, or change in the terms of employment; H-2B workers previously counted toward the cap in the same fiscal year; fish roe processors, fish roe technicians, and/or supervisors of fish roe processing; and H-2B workers performing labor in the U.S. territories of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and/or Guam until December 31, 2029.
As noted, spouses and children who are accompanying H-2B workers are issued H-4 visas and, as such, are not counted against the H-2B cap.

		Special H-2B Cap-Related Provisions

Legislation has been regularly introduced in Congress concerning the H-2B cap. Several measures have been enacted since 2005 to provide for the issuance of H-2B visas, or the granting of H-2B status, beyond the statutory cap. The enacted provisions have been of two main types.

			Returning Worker Exemption

The INA was amended during the 109 th Congress to add a provision establishing a temporary exemption from the H-2B statutory cap for certain H-2B returning workers. The provision, initially in effect for FY2005 and FY2006, exempted from the cap H-2B returning workers who had been counted against the cap in any one of the three prior fiscal years. This H-2B returning worker provision was subsequently extended for FY2007, and expired at the end of that fiscal year. An H-2B returning worker exemption of the same type was reinstated for FY2016. It provided that an H-2B returning worker who had been counted against the statutory cap in FY2013, FY2014, or FY2015 would not be counted again in FY2016. Multiple bills were introduced in the 115 th Congress to enact temporary or permanent H-2B returning worker exemptions from the statutory cap. At least one H-2B returning worker bill has been introduced in the 116 th Congress as of the date of this report.

			Provision Authorizing Additional H-2B Visas

For FY2017 and FY2018, a different type of H-2B cap-related provision was enacted by the 115 th Congress. For each of these years, provisions in year-end omnibus appropriations laws authorized DHS to make additional H-2B visas available beyond the statutory cap after consultation with DOL and "upon the determination that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied" with available U.S. workers. Under these provisions, the number of additional aliens who could receive H-2B visas each year was limited to "not more than the highest number of H–2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H–2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from such numerical limitation."
The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a provision of the same type for FY2019. Using the same language as the FY2017 and FY2018 provisions, the FY2019 provision authorizes DHS, after consultation with DOL and "upon the determination that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied" with available U.S. workers, to make additional H-2B visas available for FY2019 up to a maximum of "the highest number of H–2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H–2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from such numerical limitation." As discussed below, the DHS-DOL rule implementing this provision limits the additional visas to H-2B returning workers.

				FY2017 Provision

In July 2017, DHS and DOL jointly published a final rule to implement the FY2017 provision. The rule temporarily amended DHS regulations on the H-2B visa to state that for FY2017, DHS "has authorized up to an additional 15,000 aliens who may receive H–2B nonimmigrant visas." In the supplementary information to the rule, DHS explained that the statutory provision applied only to H-2B workers entering the United States on visas and not to aliens in the United States who were seeking a change of status to H-2B status.
The statutory definition of the maximum authorized number (i.e., "the highest number of H–2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H–2B returning worker program in any fiscal year") can be interpreted in different ways, as DHS acknowledged in the supplementary information to the rule. However, the agency determined that 64,716 was the most appropriate maximum number of additional H-2B visas authorized under the special FY2017 provision, this being "the number of beneficiaries covered by H–2B returning worker petitions that were approved for FY 2007."
The supplementary information to the rule included the following explanation for limiting the FY2017 numerical increase to 15,000:
Most recently, in FY 2016, 18,090 returning workers were approved for H–2B petitions, despite Congress having reauthorized the returning worker program with more than three-quarters of the fiscal year remaining. Of those 18,090 workers authorized for admission, 13,382 were admitted into the United States or otherwise acquired H–2B status.... [T]he Secretary, in consideration of the statute's reference to returning workers, determined that it would be appropriate to use these recent figures as a basis for the maximum numerical limitation under section 543. This rule therefore authorizes up to 15,000 additional H–2B visas (rounded up from 13,382) for FY 2017.
In addition, in implementing the statutory provision, DHS decided to limit eligibility for the additional H-2B workers to certain U.S. businesses. Under the FY2017 rule, the prospective H-2B employer must submit to DHS, along with the H-2B petition, a new attestation form
evidencing that without the ability to employ all of the H–2B workers requested on the petition ... its business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss).

				FY2018 Provision

In May 2018, DHS and DOL jointly published a final rule to implement the FY2018 H-2B cap-related provision. The FY2018 rule, which is similar to the FY2017 rule, temporarily amended DHS H-2B regulations to state that for FY2018, DHS had authorized the issuance of up to 15,000 additional H–2B visas. In supplementary information to the FY2018 rule, DHS explained its decision to authorize up to 15,000 additional visas despite the fact that all 15,000 additional visas authorized in FY2017 were not used.
Out of a maximum of 15,000 supplemental H–2B visas for FY 2017, a total of 12,294 beneficiaries were approved for H–2B classification.... [T]he Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to authorize 15,000 additional visas again, as employers will have a longer period in which to submit their petitions due to the earlier publication date of this rule, thereby allowing for the possibility of more petitions being filed this fiscal year than in FY 2017.
The FY2018 rule also included the same language as the FY2017 rule requiring an employer petitioning for supplemental visas to submit an attestation along with the H-2B petition evidencing that without the ability to employ all the requested H–2B workers the employer's business would likely suffer irreparable harm.

				FY2019 Provision

In May 2019, DHS and DOL jointly published a final rule to implement the FY2019 provision. The FY2019 rule temporarily amends DHS H-2B regulations to state that for FY2019, DHS has authorized the issuance of up to 30,000 additional H–2B visas. As it did in the supplementary information to the FY2017 and FY2018 rules, DHS clarifies in the supplementary information to the FY2019 rule that the FY2019 provision only authorizes DHS to increase the number of H-2B visas; it does not cover individuals in the United States who change to H-2B status. As a result, DHS states that the supplemental cap is limited to workers who obtain visas abroad and then seek admission to the United States.
The supplementary information to the FY2019 rule, consistent with the supplementary information to the FY2017 and FY2018 rules, indicates that the most appropriate maximum number of additional H-2B visas authorized under the statutory provision is 64,716. DHS explains its decision to allow 30,000 supplemental visas as follows:
In setting the number of additional H–2B visas to be made available during FY 2019, DHS considered this number [i.e., 64,716], overall indications of increased need, and the time remaining in FY 2019, and determined that it would be appropriate to limit the supplemental cap to approximately half of the highest number for returning workers, or up to 30,000.
Like its FY2017 and FY2018 predecessors, the FY2019 rule requires an employer petitioning for supplemental visas to submit an attestation along with the H-2B petition evidencing that without the ability to employ all the requested H–2B workers the employer's business would likely suffer irreparable harm.
In addition, the FY2019 rule imposes a limitation not applicable under the FY2017 and FY2018 rules. Under the FY2019 rule, an employer may request supplemental visas only for H-2B workers "who have been issued an H–2B visa or otherwise granted H–2B status in Fiscal Years 2016, 2017, or 2018." DHS offers the following rationale for limiting the additional visas to H-2B returning workers:
Such workers (i.e., those who recently participated in the H–2B program) have previously obtained H– 2B visas and therefore been vetted by DOS, would have departed the United States after their authorized period of stay as generally required by the terms of their nonimmigrant admission, and therefore may obtain their new visas through DOS and begin work more expeditiously.
The supplementary information to the rule highlights the importance, in particular, of returning workers' proven "willingness to return home after they have completed their temporary labor or services or their period of authorized stay." It states:
The returning workers condition therefore provides a basis to believe that H–2B workers under this cap increase will likely return home again after another temporary stay in the United States. That same basis does not exist for non-returning workers, not all of whom have a track record of returning home. Although the returning worker requirement limits the flexibility of employers, the requirement provides an important safeguard, which DHS deems paramount.

		Implementation of H-2B Numerical Limits

USCIS is responsible for implementing numerical limits on temporary worker visas (including the H-2B visa), which it does at the petition receipt stage. Under DHS regulations:
When calculating the numerical limitations ... USCIS will make numbers available to petitions in the order in which the petitions are filed. USCIS will make projections of the number of petitions necessary to achieve the numerical limit of approvals, taking into account historical data related to approvals, denials, revocations, and other relevant factors. USCIS will monitor the number of petitions (including the number of beneficiaries requested when necessary) received and will notify the public of the date that USCIS has received the necessary number of petitions (the "final receipt date").... If the final receipt date is any of the first five business days on which petitions subject to the applicable numerical limit may be received (i.e., if the numerical limit is reached on any one of the first five business days that filings can be made), USCIS will randomly apply all of the numbers among the petitions received on any of those five business days.
In one recent fiscal year, the final receipt date announced by USCIS ended up being too early. For FY2015, USCIS announced on April 2, 2015, that March 26, 2015, was the final receipt date for new H-2B petitions. The agency had accepted about 3,900 H-2B petitions for FY2015 through March 26, 2015, which it believed was sufficient to reach the annual 66,000 cap. In early June 2015, however, USCIS announced that it would reopen the H-2B cap for the second half of FY2015 and accept additional petitions for new H-2B workers. It offered the following public explanation:
USCIS continues to work in collaboration with DOS to monitor the issuance of H-2B visas and has determined that as of June 5, 2015, DOS received fewer than the expected number of requests for H-2B visas. A recent analysis of DOS H-2B visa issuance and USCIS petition data reveals that the number of actual H-2B visas issued by DOS is substantially less than the number of H-2B beneficiaries seeking consular notification listed on cap-subject H-2B petitions approved by USCIS. In light of this new information, USCIS has determined that there are still available H-2B visa numbers remaining for the second half of the FY15 cap.
Following a brief reopening, USCIS announced that June 11, 2015, was the final receipt date for new H-2B worker petitions for FY2015.

			FY2018

Until FY2018, the final receipt date for H-2B petitions had never fallen within the first five days of filing and, thus, the random selection process (lottery) described in the regulatory provision in the preceding section had never been required. As described below, that changed with petition filings by employers seeking to hire H-2B workers for the second half of FY2018, which began on April 1, 2018. DOL was also impacted by the high level of employer demand for H-2B workers for the second half of FY2018 since an employer must receive labor certification from DOL before filing an H-2B petition.

				DOL Labor Certification Applications

In accordance with H-2B regulations, January 1, 2018, was the first date that employers could submit H-2B temporary labor certifications to DOL requesting a work start date of April 1, 2018. On January 1, 2018, DOL received about 4,498 applications requesting an April 1, 2018, start date; those applications covered 81,008 workers. In response, DOL announced a process change. It indicated in a Federal Register notice that it would not begin releasing certified H–2B applications, which employers need in order to petition USCIS for H-2B workers (see " H-2B Nonagricultural Worker Visa "), until February 20, 2018, and on that date, it would issue such certified applications in order of receipt. DOL offered the following explanation for adopting this procedure:
This process change will allow employers who filed promptly on January 1, 2018, sufficient time to meet regulatory requirements, including the recruitment and hiring of qualified and available U.S. workers, thus preserving the sequential order of filing that took place on January 1, 2018, to the extent possible.

				DHS Petitions

On March 1, 2018, USCIS announced that in the first five business days of accepting H-2B petitions for the second half of FY2018, it had received petitions requesting about 47,000 H-2B workers subject to the statutory cap. It further reported that it had conducted a lottery on February 28, 2018, to randomly select a sufficient number of these petitions to meet the statutory cap.
As discussed, on May 31, 2018, USCIS published a final rule authorizing the issuance of up to 15,000 additional H–2B visas for FY2018. In the first five business days of accepting petitions under this supplemental cap, USCIS received petitions for more beneficiaries than the number of H-2B visas available. As a result, it conducted a second FY2018 H-2B lottery on June 7, 2018, to randomly select a sufficient number of petitions to meet the supplemental cap.

			FY2019

Employer demand for H-2B visas and associated temporary labor certifications for the second half of FY2019 reached new heights.

				DOL Labor Certification Applications

January 1, 2019, was the first day that employers could file H-2B labor certification applications for the second half of FY2019. On January 2, 2019, DOL announced that due to high demand its iCERT online application filing system had "experienced a system disruption" on January 1, 2019, that prevented some employers from submitting their H-2B certification applications: "Within the first five minutes of opening the semi-annual H-2B certification process on January 1, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor iCERT system had an unprecedented demand for H-2B certifications with more than 97,800 workers requested in pending applications for the 33,000 available visas." When the system re-opened on January 7, 2019, it "handled the submission of approximately 4,749 H-2B applications covering more than 87,900 workers positions for an April 1, 2019, start date of work within the first one hour of operation." This experience led DOL to announce additional process changes for FY2020, as described below.

				DHS Petitions

On February 19, 2019, the first day of accepting H-2B petitions for the second half of FY2019, USCIS announced that it had received petitions for more H-2B workers than there were remaining H-2B numbers under the FY2019 cap. On February 21, 2019, USCIS conducted a lottery to randomly select a sufficient number of petitions to meet the cap.

			FY2020

In February 2019, in light of its experience with H-2B submissions in January 2019 and the unanticipated "burdens" placed on "its electronic filing system, network infrastructure, and staff resources," DOL announced new H-2B temporary labor certification application processing changes for FY2020. It indicated that beginning with H-2B certification applications for the first half of FY2020, it would randomly order and assign for processing all applications submitted within designated groups. The first group would consist of applications requesting the earliest start date of work (e.g., October 1, 2019, for the first half of FY2020) and filed during the first three calendar days of the filing period (which begins on July 3, 2019, for the first half of FY2020). DOL maintains that this new process "balances employers' interest in utilizing the H-2B program with OFLC's [DOL's Office of Foreign Labor Certification's] interest in ensuring that access to its filing system is equitable and occurs with no user disruption." DOL is seeking comments on these changes and plans for the new procedures to take effect on July 3, 2019.

		Numbers Granted H-2B Status

In any year, most, but not all, foreign nationals who obtain H-2B status acquire that status through admission to the United States on H-2B visas. Those who obtain H-2B status but are not issued visas include H-2B workers who are admitted to the United States without visas (mostly Canadians) and individuals who change to H-2B status while in the United States. USCIS data are available on the latter group. These data show that between FY2009 and FY2017, the number of individuals who were approved for a change of status to H-2B status ranged from about 110 (in FY2017) to about 470 (in FY2010).

			H-2B Visa Issuances

 Figure 1 provides data on H-2B visa issuances from FY1992 through FY2018. These data offer one way to measure the growth of the H-2B program over the years. As explained above, the visa application and issuance process occurs after DOL has granted labor certification and DHS has approved the visa petition.
As illustrated in Figure 1 , the number of H-2B visas issued generally increased from FY1992 until FY2007, when H-2B visa issuances reached a highpoint of 129,547 (see the Appendix for yearly visa issuance data). H-2B visa issuances fell after FY2007 with the start of the economic recession, but, as shown in Figure 1 , they have generally been increasing since FY2009.
In FY2005-FY2007 and FY2016-FY2018, as discussed, temporary provisions established exceptions to the statutory annual cap of 66,000. In some other years in which visa issuances surpassed 66,000, it seems reasonable to assume that the H-2B cap was exceeded given the magnitude of the numbers.

	Conclusion

With employer demand for H-2B visas exceeding supply, H-2B admissions and the statutory cap are once again receiving attention from policymakers. While previous Congresses considered broad immigration reform bills that included proposals for new temporary worker programs to address any perceived shortfalls in the supply of foreign workers, any legislative efforts to address the numerical limitations on nonagricultural guest workers in the near term seem likely to be focused on the existing H-2B program.

		Appendix. H-2B Visa Issuances

Output:
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as amended, enumerates categories of foreign nationals, known as nonimmigrants, who are admitted to the United States for a temporary period of time and a specific purpose. One of these nonimmigrant visa categories—known as the H-2B visa—is for temporary nonagricultural workers.
The H-2B visa allows for the temporary admission of foreign workers to the United States to perform nonagricultural labor or services of a temporary nature if unemployed U.S. workers are not available. Common H-2B occupations include landscape laborer, housekeeper, and amusement park worker.
The H-2B program is administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration. DOL's Wage and Hour Division also has certain concurrent enforcement responsibilities. The H-2B program currently operates under regulations issued by DHS in 2008 on H-2B requirements, by DHS and DOL jointly in 2015 on H-2B employment, and by DHS and DOL jointly in 2015 on H-2B wages.
Bringing workers into the United States under the H-2B program is a multiagency process involving DOL, DHS, and the Department of State (DOS). A prospective H-2B employer must apply to DOL for labor certification. Approval of a labor certification application reflects a finding by DOL that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are qualified and available to perform the work and that the employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed.
If granted labor certification, an employer can file a petition with DHS to bring in the approved number of H-2B workers. If the petition is approved, a foreign worker overseas who the employer wants to employ can go to a U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for an H-2B nonimmigrant visa from DOS. If the visa application is approved, the worker is issued a visa that he or she can use to apply for admission to the United States at a port of entry. H-2B workers can be accompanied by eligible spouses and children.
By law, the H-2B visa is subject to an annual numerical cap. Under the INA, the total number of individuals who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise provided with H-2B nonimmigrant status in any fiscal year may not exceed 66,000. USCIS is responsible for implementing the H-2B cap, which it does at the petition receipt stage. Spouses and children accompanying H-2B workers are not counted against the H-2B cap. In addition, certain categories of H-2B workers are exempt from the cap. Among these categories are current H-2B workers who are seeking an extension of stay, change of employer, or change in the terms of their employment.
Employer demand for H-2B workers has varied over the years. In recent years, demand has exceeded supply, and special provisions have been enacted to make additional H-2B visas available. For FY2016, a temporary statutory provision exempted certain H-2B workers from the cap. It applied to H-2B workers who had been counted against the cap in any one of the three prior fiscal years and would be returning as H-2B workers in FY2016. For FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019, a different type of H-2B cap-related provision authorized DHS to issue additional H-2B visas (above the cap) subject to specified conditions.